Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: pro nitrousADRL on April 26, 2012, 08:55:23 AM
-
SANFORD, Florida (Reuters) - A pit bull named Big Boi began menacing George and Shellie Zimmerman in the fall of 2009.
The first time the dog ran free and cornered Shellie in their gated community in Sanford, Florida, George called the owner to complain. The second time, Big Boi frightened his mother-in-law's dog. Zimmerman called Seminole County Animal Services and bought pepper spray. The third time he saw the dog on the loose, he called again. An officer came to the house, county records show.
"Don't use pepper spray," he told the Zimmermans, according to a friend. "It'll take two or three seconds to take effect, but a quarter second for the dog to jump you," he said.
"Get a gun."
That November, the Zimmermans completed firearms training at a local lodge and received concealed-weapons gun permits. In early December, another source close to them told Reuters, the couple bought a pair of guns. George picked a Kel-Tec PF-9 9mm handgun, a popular, lightweight weapon.
By June 2011, Zimmerman's attention had shifted from a loose pit bull to a wave of robberies that rattled the community, called the Retreat at Twin Lakes. The homeowners association asked him to launch a neighborhood watch, and Zimmerman would begin to carry the Kel-Tec on his regular, dog-walking patrol - a violation of neighborhood watch guidelines but not a crime.
Few of his closest neighbors knew he carried a gun - until two months ago.
On February 26, George Zimmerman shot and killed unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin in what Zimmerman says was self-defense. The furor that ensued has consumed the country and prompted a re-examination of guns, race and self-defense laws enacted in nearly half the United States.
During the time Zimmerman was in hiding, his detractors defined him as a vigilante who had decided Martin was suspicious merely because he was black. After Zimmerman was finally arrested on a charge of second-degree murder more than six weeks after the shooting, prosecutors portrayed him as a violent and angry man who disregarded authority by pursuing the 17-year-old.
But a more nuanced portrait of Zimmerman has emerged from a Reuters investigation into Zimmerman's past and a series of incidents in the community in the months preceding the Martin shooting.
Based on extensive interviews with relatives, friends, neighbors, schoolmates and co-workers of Zimmerman in two states, law enforcement officials, and reviews of court documents and police reports, the story sheds new light on the man at the center of one of the most controversial homicide cases in America.
The 28-year-old insurance-fraud investigator comes from a deeply Catholic background and was taught in his early years to do right by those less fortunate. He was raised in a racially integrated household and himself has black roots through an Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather - the father of the maternal grandmother who helped raise him.
A criminal justice student who aspired to become a judge, Zimmerman also concerned himself with the safety of his neighbors after a series of break-ins committed by young African-American men.
Though civil rights demonstrators have argued Zimmerman should not have prejudged Martin, one black neighbor of the Zimmermans said recent history should be taken into account.
"Let's talk about the elephant in the room. I'm black, OK?" the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. "There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said. "That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin."
"MIXED" HOUSEHOLD
George Michael Zimmerman was born in 1983 to Robert and Gladys Zimmerman, the third of four children. Robert Zimmerman Sr. was a U.S. Army veteran who served in Vietnam in 1970, and was stationed at Fort Myer in Arlington, Virginia, in 1975 with Gladys Mesa's brother George. Zimmerman Sr. also served two tours in Korea, and spent the final 10 years of his 22-year military career in the Pentagon, working for the Department of Defense, a family member said.
In his final years in Virginia before retiring to Florida, Robert Zimmerman served as a magistrate in Fairfax County's 19th Judicial District.
Robert and Gladys met in January 1975, when George Mesa brought along his army buddy to his sister's birthday party. She was visiting from Peru, on vacation from her job there as a physical education teacher. Robert was a Baptist, Gladys was Catholic. They soon married, in a Catholic ceremony in Alexandria, and moved to nearby Manassas.
Gladys came to lead a small but growing Catholic Hispanic enclave within the All Saints Catholic Church parish in the late 1970s, where she was involved in the church's outreach programs. Gladys would bring young George along with her on "home visits" to poor families, said a family friend, Teresa Post.
"It was part of their upbringing to know that there are people in need, people more in need than themselves," said Post, a Peruvian immigrant who lived with the Zimmermans for a time.
Post recalls evening prayers before dinner in the ethnically diverse Zimmerman household, which included siblings Robert Jr., Grace, and Dawn. "It wasn't only white or only Hispanic or only black - it was mixed," she said.
Zimmerman's maternal grandmother, Cristina, who had lived with the Zimmermans since 1978, worked as a babysitter for years during Zimmerman's childhood. For several years she cared for two African-American girls who ate their meals at the Zimmerman house and went back and forth to school each day with the Zimmerman children.
"They were part of the household for years, until they were old enough to be on their own," Post said.
Zimmerman served as an altar boy at All Saints from age 7 to 17, church members said.
"He wasn't the type where, you know, 'I'm being forced to do this,' and a dragging-his-feet Catholic," said Sandra Vega, who went to high school with George and his siblings. "He was an altar boy for years, and then worked in the rectory too. He has a really good heart."
George grew up bilingual, and by age 10 he was often called to the Haydon Elementary School principal's office to act as a translator between administrators and immigrant parents. At 14 he became obsessed with becoming a Marine, a relative said, joining the after-school ROTC program at Grace E. Metz Middle School and polishing his boots by night. At 15, he worked three part-time jobs - in a Mexican restaurant, for the rectory, and washing cars - on nights and weekends, to save up for a car.
After graduating from Osbourn High School in 2001, Zimmerman moved to Lake Mary, Florida, a town neighboring Sanford. His parents purchased a retirement home there in 2002, in part to bring Cristina, who suffers from arthritis, to a warmer climate.
YOUNG INSURANCE AGENT
On his own at 18, George got a job at an insurance agency and began to take classes at night to earn a license to sell insurance. He grew friendly with a real estate agent named Lee Ann Benjamin, who shared office space in the building, and later her husband, John Donnelly, a Sanford attorney.
"George impressed me right off the bat as just a real go-getter," Donnelly said. "He was working days and taking all these classes at night, passing all the insurance classes, not just for home insurance, but auto insurance and everything. He wanted to open his own office - and he did."
In 2004, Zimmerman partnered with an African-American friend and opened up an Allstate insurance satellite office, Donnelly said.
Then came 2005, and a series of troubles. Zimmerman's business failed, he was arrested, and he broke off an engagement with a woman who filed a restraining order against him.
That July, Zimmerman was charged with resisting arrest, violence, and battery of an officer after shoving an undercover alcohol-control agent who was arresting an under-age friend of Zimmerman's at a bar. He avoided conviction by agreeing to participate in a pre-trial diversion program that included anger-management classes.
In August, Zimmerman's fiancee at the time, Veronica Zuazo, filed a civil motion for a restraining order alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman reciprocated with his own order on the same grounds, and both orders were granted. The relationship ended.
In 2007 he married Shellie Dean, a licensed cosmetologist, and in 2009 the couple rented a townhouse in the Retreat at Twin Lakes. Zimmerman had bounced from job to job for a couple of years, working at a car dealership and a mortgage company. At times, according to testimony from Shellie at a bond hearing for Zimmerman last week, the couple filed for unemployment benefits.
Zimmerman enrolled in Seminole State College in 2009, and in December 2011 he was permitted to participate in a school graduation ceremony, despite being a course credit shy of his associate's degree in criminal justice. Zimmerman was completing that course credit when the shooting occurred.
On March 22, nearly a month after the shooting and with the controversy by then swirling nationwide, the school issued a press release saying it was taking the "unusual, but necessary" step of withdrawing Zimmerman's enrollment, citing "the safety of our students on campus as well as for Mr. Zimmerman."
A NEIGHBORHOOD IN FEAR
By the summer of 2011, Twin Lakes was experiencing a rash of burglaries and break-ins. Previously a family-friendly, first-time homeowner community, it was devastated by the recession that hit the Florida housing market, and transient renters began to occupy some of the 263 town houses in the complex. Vandalism and occasional drug activity were reported, and home values plunged. One resident who bought his home in 2006 for $250,000 said it was worth $80,000 today.
At least eight burglaries were reported within Twin Lakes in the 14 months prior to the Trayvon Martin shooting, according to the Sanford Police Department. Yet in a series of interviews, Twin Lakes residents said dozens of reports of attempted break-ins and would-be burglars casing homes had created an atmosphere of growing fear in the neighborhood.
In several of the incidents, witnesses identified the suspects to police as young black men. Twin Lakes is about 50 percent white, with an African-American and Hispanic population of about 20 percent each, roughly similar to the surrounding city of Sanford, according to U.S. Census data.
One morning in July 2011, a black teenager walked up to Zimmerman's front porch and stole a bicycle, neighbors told Reuters. A police report was taken, though the bicycle was not recovered.
But it was the August incursion into the home of Olivia Bertalan that really troubled the neighborhood, particularly Zimmerman. Shellie was home most days, taking online courses towards certification as a registered nurse.
On August 3, Bertalan was at home with her infant son while her husband, Michael, was at work. She watched from a downstairs window, she said, as two black men repeatedly rang her doorbell and then entered through a sliding door at the back of the house. She ran upstairs, locked herself inside the boy's bedroom, and called a police dispatcher, whispering frantically.
"I said, 'What am I supposed to do? I hear them coming up the stairs!'" she told Reuters. Bertalan tried to coo her crying child into silence and armed herself with a pair of rusty scissors.
Police arrived just as the burglars - who had been trying to disconnect the couple's television - fled out a back door. Shellie Zimmerman saw a black male teen running through her backyard and reported it to police.
After police left Bertalan, George Zimmerman arrived at the front door in a shirt and tie, she said. He gave her his contact numbers on an index card and invited her to visit his wife if she ever felt unsafe. He returned later and gave her a stronger lock to bolster the sliding door that had been forced open.
"He was so mellow and calm, very helpful and very, very sweet," she said last week. "We didn't really know George at first, but after the break-in we talked to him on a daily basis. People were freaked out. It wasn't just George calling police ... we were calling police at least once a week."
In September, a group of neighbors including Zimmerman approached the homeowners association with their concerns, she said. Zimmerman was asked to head up a new neighborhood watch. He agreed.
"PLEASE CONTACT OUR CAPTAIN"
Police had advised Bertalan to get a dog. She and her husband decided to move out instead, and left two days before the shooting. Zimmerman took the advice.
"He'd already had a mutt that he walked around the neighborhood every night - man, he loved that dog - but after that home invasion he also got a Rottweiler," said Jorge Rodriguez, a friend and neighbor of the Zimmermans.
Around the same time, Zimmerman also gave Rodriguez and his wife, Audria, his contact information, so they could reach him day or night. Rodriguez showed the index card to Reuters. In neat cursive was a list of George and Shellie's home number and cell phones, as well as their emails.
Less than two weeks later, another Twin Lakes home was burglarized, police reports show. Two weeks after that, a home under construction was vandalized.
The Retreat at Twin Lakes e-newsletter for February 2012 noted: "The Sanford PD has announced an increased patrol within our neighborhood ... during peak crime hours.
"If you've been a victim of a crime in the community, after calling police, please contact our captain, George Zimmerman."
EMMANUEL BURGESS - SETTING THE STAGE
On February 2, 2012, Zimmerman placed a call to Sanford police after spotting a young black man he recognized peering into the windows of a neighbor's empty home, according to several friends and neighbors.
"I don't know what he's doing. I don't want to approach him, personally," Zimmerman said in the call, which was recorded. The dispatcher advised him that a patrol car was on the way. By the time police arrived, according to the dispatch report, the suspect had fled.
On February 6, the home of another Twin Lakes resident, Tatiana Demeacis, was burglarized. Two roofers working directly across the street said they saw two African-American men lingering in the yard at the time of the break-in. A new laptop and some gold jewelry were stolen. One of the roofers called police the next day after spotting one of the suspects among a group of male teenagers, three black and one white, on bicycles.
Police found Demeacis's laptop in the backpack of 18-year-old Emmanuel Burgess, police reports show, and charged him with dealing in stolen property. Burgess was the same man Zimmerman had spotted on February 2.
Burgess had committed a series of burglaries on the other side of town in 2008 and 2009, pleaded guilty to several, and spent all of 2010 incarcerated in a juvenile facility, his attorney said. He is now in jail on parole violations.
Three days after Burgess was arrested, Zimmerman's grandmother was hospitalized for an infection, and the following week his father was also admitted for a heart condition. Zimmerman spent a number of those nights on a hospital room couch.
Ten days after his father was hospitalized, Zimmerman noticed another young man in the neighborhood, acting in a way he found familiar, so he made another call to police.
"We've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy," Zimmerman said, as Trayvon Martin returned home from the store.
The last time Zimmerman had called police, to report Burgess, he followed protocol and waited for police to arrive. They were too late, and Burgess got away.
This time, Zimmerman was not so patient, and he disregarded police advice against pursuing Martin.
"These assholes," he muttered in an aside, "they always get away."
After the phone call ended, several minutes passed when the movements of Zimmerman and Martin remain a mystery.
Moments later, Martin lay dead with a bullet in his chest.
-
Flood the internet with this shit. Ppl need to get their head out of their ass.
-
cliff notes??
-
cliff notes??
delusional bitch who thinks he can help a community. secretly wants to be/blow batman. murdered innocent black kid because he was getting his ass kicked after confronting him for no good reason.
-
;D
(http://i.imgur.com/ip6MT.jpg)
(http://i.somethingawful.com/u/bobservo/zims/Zimmerman.jpg)
-
delusional bitch who thinks he can help a community. secretly wants to be/blow batman. murdered innocent black kid because he was getting his ass kicked after confronting him for no good reason.
lol at innocent
-
Was the young black kid who was killed dating a white woman?
-
lol at innocent
well, as innocent as any black male can be. At the time of the murder, he wasn't doing anything to break the law. Now, he might have been in the process of becoming a thug like most of them...but at the time, he was not breaking any law(s)...other than being black in a white-ish area.
-
its crazy how much weight this piece of shit lost , murder diet
(https://motherjones.com/files/images/erljw.st_.56.preview.jpg)
(http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/2012/04/george_zimmerman_bond_hearing.jpg)
-
Zimmerman stopped a burglar-prospect and afficionado of all things KFC, the way it should be.
-
yes me and zimmer man hung out at the church when we were kids discussing alternative possible origins of the universes great times were had
-
well, as innocent as any black male can be. At the time of the murder, he wasn't doing anything to break the law. Now, he might have been in the process of becoming a thug like most of them...but at the time, he was not breaking any law(s)...other than being black in a white-ish area.
Uh, Assault on an innocent victim with intent to kill was enough to earn him the bullet.
-
lol at innocent
lol at Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather...just like many Dominicans don't think they are black. Just like that Latino soccer player that said that mess on the pitch, and said, "oh I have black relatives".
Look there are articles that paint him in a negative light, and there are articles that will paint him in a positive light...fact is, he shouldn't have been carrying the gun in the first place...you let the police handle the heavy lifting, because now, he can't handle the burden of what his actions caused.
-
The prosecutor can't prove what happened in those initial 5 seconds when TM met GZ and it got physical. And that's a common thing when you have two dudes fighting and nobody knows who started it. So that's why I said it's a coin flip to begin with. Then the jury will have to look at the factors before the fight occured.
Who was following who?
Who had a weapon?
Who lived on that street, who did not?
Were they both adults?
Did EITHER person have any reason to want to confront the other person?
Trayvon was unarmed, had a destination on that road, was a minor being followed by a person who mistook him for someone who stole a bike from him.
Zimm had an ax to grind, a gun in his pants, was the only adult here, and didn't live on that damn street. he was recorded following TM.
These factors, in my opinion, make that 50/50 jury coin flip look a lot different.
-
lol at Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather...just like many Dominicans don't think they are black. Just like that Latino soccer player that said that mess on the pitch, and said, "oh I have black relatives".
Look there are articles that paint him in a negative light, and there are articles that will paint him in a positive light...fact is, he shouldn't have been carrying the gun in the first place...you let the police handle the heavy lifting, because now, he can't handle the burden of what his actions caused.
Fact is 10's of thousands of gangsta blacks should not be carrying a gun yet they choose to use them on a daily basis against true innocent people. Why is it blacks are trying to play the "oh I is innocent and blacks is innocent peoples" card ?
-
The prosecutor can't prove what happened in those initial 5 seconds when TM met GZ and it got physical. And that's a common thing when you have two dudes fighting and nobody knows who started it. So that's why I said it's a coin flip to begin with. Then the jury will have to look at the factors before the fight occured.
Who was following who?
Who had a weapon?
Who lived on that street, who did not?
Were they both adults?
Did EITHER person have any reason to want to confront the other person?
Trayvon was unarmed, had a destination on that road, was a minor being followed by a person who mistook him for someone who stole a bike from him.
Zimm had an ax to grind, a gun in his pants, was the only adult here, and didn't live on that damn street. he was recorded following TM.
These factors, in my opinion, make that 50/50 jury coin flip look a lot different.
None of those questions are relevant in this matter.
-
Fact is 10's of thousands of gangsta blacks should not be carrying a gun yet they choose to use them on a daily basis against true innocent people. Why is it blacks are trying to play the "oh I is innocent and blacks is innocent peoples" card ?
No doubt, 10 of thousands of gangsta wannabes, criminals, etc shouldn't be carrying guns...
But here is the deal, I knew someone would spout off like you just did---it's not "oh I'm innocent", as far as we know, it's "innocent at the time".
No, Trayvon was not an angel, but why is it, that people like you seemingly think, "well he was a black kid, he had no future anyway. I mean, he was going to grow up and be a criminal. He was taken out before he hurt someone."
I know of white, black kids who were in juvi (and did a lot worse than what Trayvon did) and now are
upstanding citizens and make good money. It's also funny, that comparing many of the posters here to Trayvon, they have no room to talk at this age. And if you want to get right down to it, it seems that Zimmerman has done more dirt, screwed up far more than Trayvon, who was a juvenile....he's a habitual eff up. And if you know the area where he grew up---one of the richest areas in the nation...it's easy for a habitual eff up to slip thru the cracks...and what happens? A collision course like this. Many times this happens for said type of people---although, not to this degree.
It could be selling drugs out of the house and the parents not knowing, until getting busted. It could be many diff things.
-
Uh, Assault on an innocent victim with intent to kill was enough to earn him the bullet.
by that logic, i can attack anyone (exactly what happened here), and if they, in retaliation and self defense, start kicking my ass, i should be able to shoot them? Sorry, that's not how the justice system works.
-
by that logic, i can attack anyone (exactly what happened here), and if they, in retaliation and self defense, start kicking my ass, i should be able to shoot them? Sorry, that's not how the justice system works.
Wrong logic since you are the one going around starting the attacks. You should be shot and killed every single time and it would be justified. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
-
by that logic, i can attack anyone (exactly what happened here), and if they, in retaliation and self defense, start kicking my ass, i should be able to shoot them? Sorry, that's not how the justice system works.
Uh, did you miss the part where Trayvon was the aggressor and not Zimmerman?
-
The prosecutor can't prove what happened in those initial 5 seconds when TM met GZ and it got physical. And that's a common thing when you have two dudes fighting and nobody knows who started it. So that's why I said it's a coin flip to begin with. Then the jury will have to look at the factors before the fight occured.
Who was following who?
Who had a weapon?
Who lived on that street, who did not?
Were they both adults?
Did EITHER person have any reason to want to confront the other person?
Trayvon was unarmed, had a destination on that road, was a minor being followed by a person who mistook him for someone who stole a bike from him.
Zimm had an ax to grind, a gun in his pants, was the only adult here, and didn't live on that damn street. he was recorded following TM.
These factors, in my opinion, make that 50/50 jury coin flip look a lot different.
Zimm was attacked by Travyon and shot him in self-defense. Eye-witness accounts, a phone recording, and photos of the aftermath all support this. It's irrelevant whether Zimm was following Travyon, is older than him, or was carrying a gun since none of those are illegal. If you want to bring character defamation into this (with your accusations about Zimm having an ax to grind), then Travyon was a thug who already had been suspended from school and had run-ins with the law. Unless there is some clear evidence we haven't heard about yet that proves Zimm is guilty, then I don't see him losing this case
-
Zimm was attacked by Travyon and shot him in self-defense. Eye-witness accounts, a phone recording, and photos of the aftermath all support this.
Please, please, please list this evidence.
All I've seen are reports resulting from the screams, where people looked out and saw them both on the ground already.
NOBODY (to my knowledge) saw who attacked who first. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. I've been asking for weeks on getbig for someone to link to evidence or witnesses showing someone attacking. Not winning the fight - but attacking.
-
Uh, did you miss the part where Trayvon was the aggressor and not Zimmerman?
You're super smart and know exactly what happened, even though other people don't.
This reminds me of how you're super smart about the Civil War and knew more about slavery than the people who were enslaved.
Man, you got some smarts, kid.
What's your hat size? I bet it's pretty big seeing how it has to accommodate such a big brain and all.
-
Please, please, please list this evidence.
All I've seen are reports resulting from the screams, where people looked out and saw them both on the ground already.
NOBODY (to my knowledge) saw who attacked who first. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. I've been asking for weeks on getbig for someone to link to evidence or witnesses showing someone attacking. Not winning the fight - but attacking.
I didn't say who attacked who first, only that Zimm was attacked by Travyon. However, I'm willing to bet that Travyon threw the first punch. I wish I had access to view pics of his body when police arrived on the scene. No doubt they took pics of the dead body. I'm willing to bet he didn't have much, if any, signs of bodily harm (besides the gun wound) otherwise this would have made news. Instead, we have pics of Zimm's injuries. Travyon was most likely the aggressor and also the one who had the upper hand in the fight.
-
I didn't say who attacked who first, only that Zimm was attacked by Travyon. However, I'm willing to bet that Travyon threw the first punch. I wish I had access to view pics of his body when police arrived on the scene. No doubt they took pics of the dead body. I'm willing to bet he didn't have much, if any, signs of bodily harm (besides the gun wound) otherwise this would have made news. Instead, we have pics of Zimm's injuries. Travyon was most likely the aggressor and also the one who had the upper hand in the fight.
zimm could have thrown one soft punch, and trayvon responded with a punch to nose that knocked zimm on ass and cracked head.
Nobody knows who swung first. Nobody knows who started the fight. ZImm looks like the type to fight like a popcorn fart.
everybody keeps saying "but but but zimm started it."" but there is no proof of this. only proof is that he was losing the fight. people start fights and lose them all the time.
-
I didn't say who attacked who first, only that Zimm was attacked by Travyon. However, I'm willing to bet that Travyon threw the first punch. I wish I had access to view pics of his body when police arrived on the scene. No doubt they took pics of the dead body. I'm willing to bet he didn't have much, if any, signs of bodily harm (besides the gun wound) otherwise this would have made news. Instead, we have pics of Zimm's injuries. Travyon was most likely the aggressor and also the one who had the upper hand in the fight.
Oh yeah. All that he had was that little gunshot wound.
-
Uh, did you miss the part where Trayvon was the aggressor and not Zimmerman?
I have always had respect for your posts, you always seem to have educated reasonable opinions Mr. Adonis, but in this instance it is clear that you do not have a grasp for the criminal justice system. In every first world country, Zimmerman would be charged for manslaughter for having killed Martin, except in the USA where the justice system is so backward and archaic that they might as well still be hanging people from trees for stealing apples.
In most other countries it is immoral to shoot or maim someone for stealing televisions or bicycles or starting fights. These are viewed as tangible items that will be replaced by insurance and are not worth killing someone over, especially a youth. Carrying a gun with the intention of intervening in a breaking is unthinkable. Just call the cops and let someone who has the power of authority intervene in the situation.
Zimmerman likely did not have the communication skills to find out the answers that he wanted from Martin, and was likely to aggressive in his speech, which led to the fight. No matter who started the fight, it is absurd that Zimmerman would pull a gun to "defend" himself. If he was in a fight with a minor, or with an adult for that matter, and was losing he should have taken a few punches and been done with it. He would have had a black eye and a bruised ego, but that would have been the end of it, and Martin would have been charged with aggravated assault and Zimmerman would have "won". Instead he killed a kid to prevent himself from taking a few hits. Zimmerman should not have stopped to question Martin to start with, he did not have the skills or authority to do so, but more than that he had no grounds to pull a gun during a fist fight with a minor.
This entire situation is a travesty. Zimmerman was trying to protect his neighbourhood, which is very admirable, but he went about it in the worst way possible, making multiple mistakes along the way. And now a teen is dead because of it.
-
Also, can someone please explain to me what an "Associates Degree" is? We don't have those here.
-
I have always had respect for your posts, you always seem to have educated reasonable opinions Mr. Adonis, but in this instance it is clear that you do not have a grasp for the criminal justice system. In every first world country, Zimmerman would be charged for manslaughter for having killed Martin, except in the USA where the justice system is so backward and archaic that they might as well still be hanging people from trees for stealing apples.
In most other countries it is immoral to shoot or maim someone for stealing televisions or bicycles or starting fights. These are viewed as tangible items that will be replaced by insurance and are not worth killing someone over, especially a youth. Carrying a gun with the intention of intervening in a breaking is unthinkable. Just call the cops and let someone who has the power of authority intervene in the situation.
Zimmerman likely did not have the communication skills to find out the answers that he wanted from Martin, and was likely to aggressive in his speech, which led to the fight. No matter who started the fight, it is absurd that Zimmerman would pull a gun to "defend" himself. If he was in a fight with a minor, or with an adult for that matter, and was losing he should have taken a few punches and been done with it. He would have had a black eye and a bruised ego, but that would have been the end of it, and Martin would have been charged with aggravated assault and Zimmerman would have "won". Instead he killed a kid to prevent himself from taking a few hits. Zimmerman should not have stopped to question Martin to start with, he did not have the skills or authority to do so, but more than that he had no grounds to pull a gun during a fist fight with a minor.
This entire situation is a travesty. Zimmerman was trying to protect his neighbourhood, which is very admirable, but he went about it in the worst way possible, making multiple mistakes along the way. And now a teen is dead because of it.
Yeah you're right, he should have just stayed there getting his head bashed into the ground and hoped he didn't get beat to death. ::)
The man has a right to defend himself with deadly force if he feels his life is endangered. We can argue all day long if he was in the right or wrong in pursing Trayvon but he is at least afforded the right to defend his life.
-
delusional bitch who thinks he can help a community. secretly wants to be/blow batman. murdered innocent black kid because he was getting his ass kicked after confronting him for no good reason.
Will lets hope batman spends some time in a "bat" cage. :D
-
Also, can someone please explain to me what an "Associates Degree" is? We don't have those here.
2 years of college. zimmerman's dream of being a cop was ended when he was arrested for FELONY ASSAULT on a POLICE OFFICER. He pleaded down and got alcohol counseling from the state. Then he had a domestic abuse charge. Sounds like he had real anger issues. But he loved that power of having a gun and stopping people on the street - in fact, he used to do "key checks" where he would stop people on the street and demand they show the key to prove they lived here.
how hard would you laugh if a fat man stopped you and demanded to see your housekey cause he didn't recognize you? GTFO.
-
(CNN) -- The lawyer for the neighborhood watch leader who fatally shot unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, said Thursday that his client has received about $200,000 from supporters. Orlando lawyer Mark O'Mara told CNN's "AC360" that George Zimmerman told him Wednesday of the donations as they were trying to shut down his Internet presence to avoid concerns about possible impersonators.
"He asked me what to do with his PayPal accounts and I asked him what he was talking about," O'Mara told Anderson Cooper. "And he said those were the accounts that had the money from the website he had. And there was about 200, $204,000 that had come in to date."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Good. FUBO!
-
I'm not a lawyer
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html)
The 2011 Florida Statutes
Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
View Entire Chapter
CHAPTER 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
776.031 Use of force in defense of others.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.
776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.
776.051 Use of force in resisting arrest or making an arrest or in the execution of a legal duty; prohibition.
776.06 Deadly force.
776.07 Use of force to prevent escape.
776.08 Forcible felony.
776.085 Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.
776.031 Use of force in defense of others.—A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1189, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 2005-27.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27.
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.
776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.—A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of any force:
(1) Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest;
(2) When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped; or
(3) When necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice. However, this subsection shall not constitute a defense in any civil action for damages brought for the wrongful use of deadly force unless the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by such flight and, when feasible, some warning had been given, and:
(a) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others; or
(b) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1, ch. 75-64; s. 1, ch. 87-147; s. 54, ch. 88-381; s. 1191, ch. 97-102.
776.051 Use of force in resisting arrest or making an arrest or in the execution of a legal duty; prohibition.—
(1) A person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer, or to resist a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the execution of a legal duty, if the law enforcement officer was acting in good faith and he or she is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer.
(2) A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, is not justified in the use of force if the arrest or execution of a legal duty is unlawful and known by him or her to be unlawful.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1192, ch. 97-102; s. 1, ch. 2008-67.
776.06 Deadly force.—
(1) The term “deadly force” means force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm and includes, but is not limited to:
(a) The firing of a firearm in the direction of the person to be arrested, even though no intent exists to kill or inflict great bodily harm; and
(b) The firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which the person to be arrested is riding.
(2)(a) The term “deadly force” does not include the discharge of a firearm by a law enforcement officer or correctional officer during and within the scope of his or her official duties which is loaded with a less-lethal munition. As used in this subsection, the term “less-lethal munition” means a projectile that is designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person without penetrating the person’s body.
(b) A law enforcement officer or a correctional officer is not liable in any civil or criminal action arising out of the use of any less-lethal munition in good faith during and within the scope of his or her official duties.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1, ch. 99-272.
776.07 Use of force to prevent escape.—
(1) A law enforcement officer or other person who has an arrested person in his or her custody is justified in the use of any force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody.
(2) A correctional officer or other law enforcement officer is justified in the use of force, including deadly force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape from a penal institution of a person whom the officer reasonably believes to be lawfully detained in such institution under sentence for an offense or awaiting trial or commitment for an offense.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 7, ch. 95-283; s. 1193, ch. 97-102.
776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 4, ch. 75-298; s. 289, ch. 79-400; s. 5, ch. 93-212; s. 10, ch. 95-195.
776.085 Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.—
(1) It shall be a defense to any action for damages for personal injury or wrongful death, or for injury to property, that such action arose from injury sustained by a participant during the commission or attempted commission of a forcible felony. The defense authorized by this section shall be established by evidence that the participant has been convicted of such forcible felony or attempted forcible felony, or by proof of the commission of such crime or attempted crime by a preponderance of the evidence.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the term “forcible felony” shall have the same meaning as in s. 776.08.
(3) Any civil action in which the defense recognized by this section is raised shall be stayed by the court on the motion of the civil defendant during the pendency of any criminal action which forms the basis for the defense, unless the court finds that a conviction in the criminal action would not form a valid defense under this section.
(4) In any civil action where a party prevails based on the defense created by this section:
(a) The losing party, if convicted of and incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime, shall, as determined by the court, lose any privileges provided by the correctional facility, including, but not limited to:
1. Canteen purchases;
2. Telephone access;
3. Outdoor exercise;
4. Use of the library; and
5. Visitation.
(b) The court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee to be paid to the prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party’s attorney; however, the losing party’s attorney is not personally responsible if he or she has acted in good faith, based on the representations of his or her client. If the losing party is incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime and has insufficient assets to cover payment of the costs of the action and the award of fees pursuant to this paragraph, the party shall, as determined by the court, be required to pay by deduction from any payments the prisoner receives while incarcerated.
(c) If the losing party is incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime, the court shall issue a written order containing its findings and ruling pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) and shall direct that a certified copy be forwarded to the appropriate correctional institution or facility.
History.—s. 1, ch. 87-187; s. 72, ch. 96-388.
-
I have always had respect for your posts, you always seem to have educated reasonable opinions Mr. Adonis, but in this instance it is clear that you do not have a grasp for the criminal justice system. In every first world country, (1) Zimmerman would be charged for manslaughter for having killed Martin, except in the USA where the justice system is so backward and archaic that they might as well still be hanging people from trees for stealing apples.
(2) In most other countries it is immoral to shoot or maim someone for stealing televisions or bicycles or starting fights. These are viewed as tangible items that will be replaced by insurance and are not worth killing someone over, especially a youth. Carrying a gun with the intention of intervening in a breaking is unthinkable. Just call the cops and let someone who has the power of authority intervene in the situation.
Zimmerman likely did not have the communication skills to find out the answers that he wanted from Martin, and was likely to aggressive in his speech, which led to the fight. No matter who started the fight, it is absurd that Zimmerman would pull a gun to "defend" himself. If he was in a fight with a minor, or with an adult for that matter, and was losing he should have taken a few punches and been done with it. He would have had a black eye and a bruised ego, but that would have been the end of it, and Martin would have been charged with aggravated assault and Zimmerman would have "won". Instead he killed a kid to prevent himself from taking a few hits. Zimmerman should not have stopped to question Martin to start with, he did not have the skills or authority to do so, but more than that he had no grounds to pull a gun during a fist fight with a minor.
This entire situation is a travesty. Zimmerman was trying to protect his neighbourhood, which is very admirable, but he went about it in the worst way possible, making multiple mistakes along the way. And now a teen is dead because of it.
(1) Really? Other countries charge people who intentionally kill others with manslaughter?
(2) I assume you saw Zimmerman's head. Zimmerman's injuries came from his head repeatedly hitting the concrete. FYI: You can die from having your head hit repeatedly against the concrete.
-
zimmerman.... democrat/obama voter. calls police on potholes. challenges people to show their keys. can't fight. assaulted a cop and caught a domestic abuse charge. college dropout. fat fvck who gets skinnyfat for jail.
yes, he's a great dude, 333386. a real role model.
-
zimmerman.... democrat/obama voter. calls police on potholes. challenges people to show their keys. can't fight. assaulted a cop and caught a domestic abuse charge. college dropout. fat fvck who gets skinnyfat for jail.
yes, he's a great dude, 333386. a real role model.
Bernie Goetz , Zimm Winning.
-
Yeah you're right, he should have just stayed there getting his head bashed into the ground and hoped he didn't get beat to death. ::)
The man has a right to defend himself with deadly force if he feels his life is endangered. We can argue all day long if he was in the right or wrong in pursing Trayvon but he is at least afforded the right to defend his life.
I understand your point that he has the right to defend himself. Pulling a gun during a fist fight is not defending yourself. Ive seen many dozens of fights and rarely is anyone ever injured at all, sometimes a fat lip and a black eye, but to think that his life was in danger during a fist fight? Come on... Would you consider your life in danger if a teenager punched you in the face a few times? I would be angry but i have trouble believing that my life would be in danger.
-
(1) Really? Other countries charge people who intentionally kill others with manslaughter?
(2) I assume you saw Zimmerman's head. Zimmerman's injuries came from his head repeatedly hitting the concrete. FYI: You can die from having your head hit repeatedly against the concrete.
In his ideal legal system you just lay there and pray the person bashing your skull is generous enough to lay off of you before death kicks in. Sure didn't help the thousands of people who were killed this way though, does it?
-
(1) Really? Other countries charge people who intentionally kill others with manslaughter?
(2) I assume you saw Zimmerman's head. Zimmerman's injuries came from his head repeatedly hitting the concrete. FYI: You can die from having your head hit repeatedly against the concrete.
1) yes. The charge of manslaughter is used when the killing is not for profit or premeditated but in the "heat of the moment" so to say. It does not carry a life sentence. Here, Zimmerman is being charged with second degree murder, which I believe does carry a life sentence. Its hard to keep us with every law in every state, maybe someone can verify that?
2) No, I haven't seen pictures of his injuries. I have not heard of his injuries being severe in any way.
-
1) yes. The charge of manslaughter is used when the killing is not for profit or premeditated but in the "heat of the moment" so to say. It does not carry a life sentence. Here, Zimmerman is being charged with second degree murder, which I believe does carry a life sentence. Its hard to keep us with every law in every state, maybe someone can verify that?
2) No, I haven't seen pictures of his injuries. I have not heard of his injuries being severe in any way.
Understandable if you aren't from the states. There are certain times when the "heat of the moment" applies under a majority of jurisdictions...usually not in a case such as this. That said, I will gladly take the laws in the United States to the laws in other countries.
If you see his pics, it might change your perspective.
-
In his ideal legal system you just lay there and pray the person bashing your skull is generous enough to lay off of you before death kicks in. Sure didn't help the thousands of people who were killed this way though, does it?
Where are these thousands? I would assume as a grown man you have been in a fight or two in your life, how many of those have been life threatening enough for you to fear for your life? Perhaps you are right and his life really was in danger, I (or any of us) have no way of knowing how intense the fight was. I just find it hard to rationalize that in a fist fight with a teenager you would be fearing for your life, but who am I to judge Zimmermans, or your level of fear.
I see a lot of violence at work, we even have a number of street level drug dealers who are occasionally clients. Even they have rules in regards to "street justice" If someone beats the shit out of your friend, you beat the shit out of that guy. If someone stabs you, you stab them.
What doesn't happen is someone gets beat up, and then the other person gets shot.
-
Where are these thousands? I would assume as a grown man you have been in a fight or two in your life, how many of those have been life threatening enough for you to fear for your life? Perhaps you are right and his life really was in danger, I (or any of us) have no way of knowing how intense the fight was. I just find it hard to rationalize that in a fist fight with a teenager you would be fearing for your life, but who am I to judge Zimmermans, or your level of fear.
I see a lot of violence at work, we even have a number of street level drug dealers who are occasionally clients. Even they have rules in regards to "street justice" If someone beats the shit out of your friend, you beat the shit out of that guy. If someone stabs you, you stab them.
What doesn't happen is someone gets beat up, and then the other person gets shot.
People have been beat to death all over the world for centuries, don't be a smartass.
Where are all these thousands? ::)
-
Understandable if you aren't from the states. There are certain times when the "heat of the moment" applies under a majority of jurisdictions...usually not in a case such as this. That said, I will gladly take the laws in the United States to the laws in other countries.
If you see his pics, it might change your perspective.
Perhaps, I haven't seen the pictures, if he did suffer serious injury then I could understand his reason for pulling a gun.
The US justice system gives citizens many more rights for protecting property and themselves, compared to other areas, however the rate of incarceration in the US is appalling. You are paying thousands of dollars personally to house all of those inmates! many of them in jail for ridiculous drug crimes, or theft. I also don't live in a country where citizens are allowed to carry weapons. Here only cops and gang members carry guns so it is very very very rare that a shooting does not involve either of those two groups. People don't get beat to death here, maybe that is a real danger there. From my experience a kid getting shot by a neighbourhood watch captain is unfathomable. Only a jury now will decide who was in the right.
Either way, both of these individuals could have went on to have productive and fulfilling lives. Now neither of them will. Very sad.
-
People have been beat to death all over the world for centuries, don't be a smartass.
Where are all these thousands? ::)
Really? I don't believe that thousands of people are being beat to death in one on one fist fights. You are the one being a smart ass. If you live in a first world country where thousands of people are being beat to death in fist fights I would expect that country to be in an all out riot or revolution. Also, if that is happening, you should move because you are in danger of being beat to death by a 17 year old high school student... :-\
-
Perhaps, I haven't seen the pictures, if he did suffer serious injury then I could understand his reason for pulling a gun.
The US justice system gives citizens many more rights for protecting property and themselves, compared to other areas, however the rate of incarceration in the US is appalling. You are paying thousands of dollars personally to house all of those inmates! many of them in jail for ridiculous drug crimes, or theft. I also don't live in a country where citizens are allowed to carry weapons. Here only cops and gang members carry guns so it is very very very rare that a shooting does not involve either of those two groups. People don't get beat to death here, maybe that is a real danger there. From my experience a kid getting shot by a neighbourhood watch captain is unfathomable. Only a jury now will decide who was in the right.
Either way, both of these individuals could have went on to have productive and fulfilling lives. Now neither of them will. Very sad.
You don't have to suffer serious injury to protect yourself. That wouldn't make any sense. Beat the hell out of me...then right before I think I will die, I shoot you. Stupid...don't you think?
There are too many people in jail for drugs, that is all I agree with you about. Theft? They need to be in jail for that.
You are so against carrying guns and seem to live in a very safe area...although you stated:
"I see a lot of violence at work, we even have a number of street level drug dealers who are occasionally clients. Even they have rules in regards to "street justice" If someone beats the shit out of your friend, you beat the shit out of that guy. If someone stabs you, you stab them."
...I'll stick to the U.S. laws, you guys can stab each other all you want...
-
I am also not trying to portrait Martin as innocent in this situation. The kid obviously was aggressive and violent. I just think that it is important to examine the entire situation, from start to finish, the way a judge or jury should do.
-
SANFORD, Florida (Reuters) - A pit bull named Big Boi began menacing George and Shellie Zimmerman in the fall of 2009.
Zimmerman musn't have visited the Getbig Pitbull Threads, had he done that he would have realised that Pitbulls aren't dangerous and would only lick you to death.
-
Motivated By Media Lies About George Zimmerman, a Hate Crime Occurs In Chicago
Big Journalism ^ | April 26, 2012 | John Nolte
Posted on April 26, 2012 10:06:31 PM EDT by 2ndDivisionVet
We're learning today that in Obama's Chicago, 18 year-old Alton L. Hayes has just been charged by police with "attempted robbery and aggravated battery along with a hate crime" for attacking and robbing a 19 year-old man. Hayes is black, the victim is white, and Hayes told investigators "he was angry about the [Trayvon] Martin shooting and decided to attack the victim because of his race."
Now why would Hayes do this? For starters, Zimmerman is Hispanic, not Caucasian. Secondly, there's absolutely zero proof Zimmerman was racially motivated to shoot Martin. In fact, an overwhelming amount of evidence suggests race had nothing to do with it.
My guess is that if Hayes is telling the truth about his sinister motives, he's been watching too much CNN, MSNBC, NBC, and ABC. After all, those are the media outlets guilty, in some cases, of outright racial fabrication in their zeal to aid Barack Obama's re-election campaign by falsely attributing racism to Mr. Zimmerman's motives.
The bottom line is that if Hayes' professed motive for attacking another man is based on lies told over and over and over again by Obama's Media Palace Guards....
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
-
You don't have to suffer serious injury to protect yourself. That wouldn't make any sense. Beat the hell out of me...then right before I think I will die, I shoot you. Stupid...don't you think?
There are too many people in jail for drugs, that is all I agree with you about. Theft? They need to be in jail for that.
You are so against carrying guns and seem to live in a very safe area...although you stated:
"I see a lot of violence at work, we even have a number of street level drug dealers who are occasionally clients. Even they have rules in regards to "street justice" If someone beats the shit out of your friend, you beat the shit out of that guy. If someone stabs you, you stab them."
...I'll stick to the U.S. laws, you guys can stab each other all you want...
Hahaha yeah we are supposed to revert back to the "street code of honor" and reach for the nearest sharp object if we are being brutally stabbed by an assailant!
-
You don't have to suffer serious injury to protect yourself. That wouldn't make any sense. Beat the hell out of me...then right before I think I will die, I shoot you. Stupid...don't you think?
There are too many people in jail for drugs, that is all I agree with you about. Theft? They need to be in jail for that.
You are so against carrying guns and seem to live in a very safe area...although you stated:
"I see a lot of violence at work, we even have a number of street level drug dealers who are occasionally clients. Even they have rules in regards to "street justice" If someone beats the shit out of your friend, you beat the shit out of that guy. If someone stabs you, you stab them."
...I'll stick to the U.S. laws, you guys can stab each other all you want...
That is the way most laws are designed. Not if someone hits you once you get to shoot them. You can disagree with that, but that is how many laws are designed, with levels of progression in violence in mind. Having seen the photos now though, I can understand the progression here, and the pictures do not jive with the tv news story at all.
I don't think people should face large periods of incarceration for theft, no. If some 20 year old steals your TV, he should not spend 10 years locked up, with the general public paying for his care for a decade. He should be given an appropriate sentence and should be able to do restorative justice, where he can pay back the person or company whose TV he stole. Who wants to pay millions of dollars for some asshole who has stolen a 300 dollar tv??? it doesn't make sense.
I dont stab anyone, I see a lot of this sort of violence at work. And the goal is always to take people out of the system and make them productive tax paying citizens who contribute to society.
Im out, have to go eat before work. Good chat though, I like to hear opposing points of view, It is ignorant to think that my opinions are always right, and I respect your views, the ones that I agree with and the ones that I don't.
8)
-
That is the way most laws are designed. Not if someone hits you once you get to shoot them. You can disagree with that, but that is how many laws are designed, with levels of progression in violence in mind. Having seen the photos now though, I can understand the progression here, and the pictures do not jive with the tv news story at all.
I don't think people should face large periods of incarceration for theft, no. If some 20 year old steals your TV, he should not spend 10 years locked up, with the general public paying for his care for a decade. He should be given an appropriate sentence and should be able to do restorative justice, where he can pay back the person or company whose TV he stole. Who wants to pay millions of dollars for some asshole who has stolen a 300 dollar tv??? it doesn't make sense.
I dont stab anyone, I see a lot of this sort of violence at work. And the goal is always to take people out of the system and make them productive tax paying citizens who contribute to society.
Im out, have to go eat before work. Good chat though, I like to hear opposing points of view, It is ignorant to think that my opinions are always right, and I respect your views, the ones that I agree with and the ones that I don't.
8)
I agree that it is ignorant to think other people do not have valid opinions. However, I do think the U.S. legal analysis you have given isn't entirely correct. For example, the part I made bold is simply incorrect. You cannot usually shot someone for merely punching you once in the face. You can defend yourself with deadly force if you reasonably believe that deadly force is being used against you. This is a very logical law and I would be nervous to live in a country that did not allow this.
Regarding theft, it depends in my personal opinion. If you commit home invasions, you should be locked up for 20 years or more. If you break a window of a store late at night and steal a t.v....eh, I personally don't think that is worth 20 years.
-
Motivated By Media Lies About George Zimmerman, a Hate Crime Occurs In Chicago
LOL @ the perp saying 'but but but it's the media's fault i was encouraged to kill someone'.
LOL @ the media, the perp, and anyone who buys into it.
-
So what happened. Did Zimmerman go free?
-
8) lots of blacks fought in wars to keep all our sorry asses free . Some are criminals . Blacks sold blacks to whites during slavery . Whites perpetrated this and bought them . whites fought in wars to keep present blacks free and fought in wars to free them period . Some whites are criminals . these rediculous elementary facts shouldnt need to be highlited . its 2012 for f---k sake folks . ::)
-
Uh, did you miss the part where Trayvon was the aggressor and not Zimmerman?
Agressor or initiator?
Or just better at fighting than zimmerman.
Is it right for me to approach you with confrontation on the brain, you beat me up, then as a result i shoot you?
-
8) lots of blacks fought in wars to keep all our sorry asses free . Some are criminals . Blacks sold blacks to whites during slavery . Whites perpetrated this and bought them . whites fought in wars to keep present blacks free and fought in wars to free them period . Some whites are criminals . these rediculous elementary facts shouldnt need to be highlited . its 2012 for f---k sake folks . ::)
Inspirational Post.
-
Agressor or initiator?
Or just better at fighting than zimmerman.
Is it right for me to approach you with confrontation on the brain, you beat me up, then as a result i shoot you?
speculation is all people have about how the fight started
my guess is if the jury is mainly black he will be found guilty and not guilty if mainly white
all you americans seem to have inbuilt racial prejudice which comes to the surface in threads like this
in my humble opinion you need to change your gun laws if people carry guns fights will end in death
-
speculation is all people have about how the fight started
my guess is if the jury is mainly black he will be found guilty and not guilty if mainly white
all you americans seem to have inbuilt racial prejudice which comes to the surface in threads like this
in my humble opinion you need to change your gun laws if people carry guns fights will end in death
Thing is, he was on the neighborhood watch, and he wasn't supposed to have a gun with him.
Did the gun give him adequate security (read balls) to go after Trayvon? If he left the gun home, and the situation happened, would he have pursued, or just do as he was told? Who knows...