First of all, it was his step mother who had been separated from his father for several years and was bitter about the way their relationship ended. Second, she wasn't there so her opinion is no more valid than any of us on the internet.
The Trayvon Martin shooting
- Thread starter Mick1991
- Start date
First of all, it was his step mother who had been separated from his father for several years and was bitter about the way their relationship ended. Second, she wasn't there so her opinion is no more valid than any of us on the internet.
Do you want me to screenshot the first page of google results? It was pretty much universally that kind of site and a few people disagreeing with your point. It didn't offend me as much as it showed you don't know what you are talking about. Are you just copy and pasting from an email forward?
No, but the fact she said that 'he isnt what the media made him out to be' shows a level of awareness that others lacked at the time. Out of curiosity do you think he targeted him because he was black?
For what it's worth the FBI's own investigation of Zimmerman last year concluded that he most likely wasn't a racist.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/12/george-zimmerman-not-racist-fbi
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/12/george-zimmerman-not-racist-fbi
What are you talking about? Here is the full quote:
On what planet do you spend most of your time?
I dont get what youre trying to say? I was trying to find a link to where Zimmerman had sued NBC and NBC had apologised over their doctoring of the phone call and his portrayal. There is no disagreement, it is a fact that they doctored it and they themselves have since apologized. I think you have gotten wires crossed somewhere by the fact that I rushed to link to it and happened to use that link. the Washingtonpost one is clearer.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...immerman-Picked-Him-Out-Because-He-Was-Black? click that link and read.
stanley 'hes not what the media makes him out to be'
Now I had better check what Brietbart is to make sure its not iffy.
I'm not taking issue with the selectively edited call tape. I'm taking issue with your general attitude that can be summed up in these quotes
"Leftist nut jobs are so quick to call the police racist"
"No actually you will find it is Zimmerman isnt black so he must have been guilty."
"In todays media the killing of a black man is very often media portrayed as never the black persons fault"
"Leftist nut jobs are so quick to call the police racist"
"No actually you will find it is Zimmerman isnt black so he must have been guilty."
"In todays media the killing of a black man is very often media portrayed as never the black persons fault"
But what he had was a criminal record and a history of violence. Someone like him should never have been allowed to own a gun let alone carry one in public.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...immerman-Picked-Him-Out-Because-He-Was-Black? click that link and read.
stanley 'hes not what the media makes him out to be'
Now I had better check what Brietbart is to make sure its not iffy.
For feck's sake, you are retarded.
There is nothing to read, unless you want me to trawl through the comments of the racists that frequent Andrew Breitbart's site. There is a link to a video where at the one minute mark she says EXACTLY WHAT I JUST POSTED A FEW POSTS UP.
And yes, you should check out links before you post them.
Ok they arent the whole of my posts, but anyway,
the first point is correct isnt it? People wont believe any form of evidence because they believe the racism comes from the institution, making any sort of defence useless. Whilst there are cases where that has been true as with Lawrence, its not the norm, and is quite rare.
the second post was tongue in cheek to the even more stupid post firstly. it is not his son. Second he is black..so he has to have been guilty. what do you expect from chavs.
Why did you choose to persue my post instead of his which contains 3 equally as ridiculous points one which is no different to mine but for it being black not white?
The third one is something I personally have noticed, and a case of political correctness creating inverted racism. perhaps I made it sound worse than I meant it, but what I was trying to say was that often in the media they become so inverted that nothing could ever be the fault of the other person, theres always an excuse, and often there is but not always.
I still dont understand why you are saying all of that.
I quoted 'hes not what the media makes him out to be'
You then seemed to take issue with that quote as though it wasnt said anywhere on the video. It wasnt said on the speaking part but underneath it had in quotes stanley ' hes not what the media makes him out to be'. Thats all I was saying and you totally overblew it.
What is the point you are making by bringing up this (selectively edited, ironically) quote?
It wasnt a major point at all, I dont know why you blew it up so high, it was only that Trayvons step mum believed he hadnt hunted him for racial reasons. I was adding it to the thread, and you seemed to take massive issue with it. Also I wiki'd that site and it didnt say anything about being like the other sites you mentioned.
Why do I "persue [sic]" your post? Because you come in like the racist Uncle at Christmas making all this ridiculous claims and acting like you know what you are talking about when all you are saying is half truths that you probably got from a talk show host or a forwarded email.
All my information comes from the news, the news on the jury case, and Wikipedia. If anyone gets there's from anywhere better i'd like to hear it. Its up to people to make up their own mind, based on the evidence.
I wondered how long it would take for someone to claim im racist. That just about says it all. Wheres the facepalm smiley?
This is like the third or fourth post where you have said that I'm blowing it up so high. Look, if you come into the Current Events forum spewing nonsense, expect to get called out on it. It's not personal, you've just posted a metric feckton of shit.
Have you found any links to eyewitness accounts that Martin was the aggressor i.e. started the fight?
Its funny how people can never keep a straight debate, you go on so long and then there's always going to be the insults starting to creep in when the debate starts going backwards and forwards. You don't know anything about me personally and I can absolutely guarantee you I am not racist, and I hold NO racist values whatsoever, but I am a believer in fair and equal treatment, and I don't believe Zimmerman was treated fairly and equally.
If you want to believe that anyone who doesnt go along with that is a racist then thats up to you, but then whos being prejudice?
If you want to believe that anyone who doesnt go along with that is a racist then thats up to you, but then whos being prejudice?
Is that what you think this is, a debate? This is you posting bs links and me doing your factchecking.
These were the eywitness reports
'One eye-witness statement given the night of the shooting describes "a black male, wearing a dark colored 'hoodie' on top of a white or Hispanic male who was yelling for help." The witness said that the black male was throwing punches "MMA [mixed martial arts] style." After hearing a "pop," he saw the black male "laid out on the grass." When the witness was subsequently interviewed weeks later by a different agency, the witness said he thought that the black male was either punching or pinning the lighter skinned male underneath him. He was no longer certain who was calling for help, having not seen their mouths in the dark. He was still certain that the black male had been on top of the lighter-skinned male'
A witness to the confrontation just prior to the shooting stated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and punching him, while Zimmerman was yelling for help. This witness, who identified himself as "John", stated that "the guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911".] He went on to say that when he got upstairs and looked down, "the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."
On March 29, 2012, an eyewitness referred to as a male said that he saw two men on the ground scuffling, then heard the shooting, and saw Zimmerman walk away with no blood on him. The witness later appeared on CNN AC360 referred to as a female, giving more details on her account. She pointed out that she heard an argument between a younger and an older voice. During the time that she witnessed the incident, the scuffling happened on the grass. She said that the larger man, who walked away after the gunshot, was on top and that it was too dark to see blood on his face.
A witness who arrived shortly after the shooting revealed photos that he took that night that showed "blood trickling down the back of Zimmerman's head from two cuts. It also shows a possible contusion forming on the crown of his head". In revealing the photo to ABC News in mid-April, he noted that he had heard but had not seen the scuffle, had been the first to arrive, and had been the first to talk to Zimmerman after the shooting.
and finally the person who was on the phone to Martin.
On March 20, Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump revealed that Martin had been on the phone with a friend moments before he was shot. During an ABC News exclusive report, Crump allowed portions of his recorded interview with Martin's friend to be aired. She said that Martin told her that a man was watching him from his vehicle while talking on the phone before the man started following Martin. Martin told his friend at one point that he had lost the man but the man suddenly appeared again] The friend, originally known only as "Witness 8", said that she told Martin to run to the townhouse where he was staying with his father and the father's girlfriend. She then heard Martin say, "What are you following me for?" followed by a man's voice responding, "What are you doing around here?" She said that she heard the sound of pushing before the phone went dead. She immediately attempted to call him back, but was unable to reach him Crump stated that he would turn the information over to the Justice Department because "the family does not trust the Sanford Police Department to have anything to do with the investigation." Martin's friend was subsequently interviewed by state prosecutors on April 2, 2012. During her interview with the prosecutor, Martin's friend recounted her last phone call with Martin and added that Martin had described the man as "crazy and creepy", watching him from a vehicle while the man was talking on the phone] Martin's friend told prosecutors that she heard words like "get off, get off", right before she lost contact with Martin. She also testified that Martin referred to Zimmerman as a "creepy ass cracker" during their telephone conversation.
On March 6, 2013, prosecutors admitted that she had lied under oath, when she falsely testified that she had been in the hospital on the day of Martin's funeral.
So no, there were no witnesses to the very start of it but they all but one state that Martin was the person on top of Zimmerman, and the aggressor.
'One eye-witness statement given the night of the shooting describes "a black male, wearing a dark colored 'hoodie' on top of a white or Hispanic male who was yelling for help." The witness said that the black male was throwing punches "MMA [mixed martial arts] style." After hearing a "pop," he saw the black male "laid out on the grass." When the witness was subsequently interviewed weeks later by a different agency, the witness said he thought that the black male was either punching or pinning the lighter skinned male underneath him. He was no longer certain who was calling for help, having not seen their mouths in the dark. He was still certain that the black male had been on top of the lighter-skinned male'
A witness to the confrontation just prior to the shooting stated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and punching him, while Zimmerman was yelling for help. This witness, who identified himself as "John", stated that "the guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911".] He went on to say that when he got upstairs and looked down, "the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."
On March 29, 2012, an eyewitness referred to as a male said that he saw two men on the ground scuffling, then heard the shooting, and saw Zimmerman walk away with no blood on him. The witness later appeared on CNN AC360 referred to as a female, giving more details on her account. She pointed out that she heard an argument between a younger and an older voice. During the time that she witnessed the incident, the scuffling happened on the grass. She said that the larger man, who walked away after the gunshot, was on top and that it was too dark to see blood on his face.
A witness who arrived shortly after the shooting revealed photos that he took that night that showed "blood trickling down the back of Zimmerman's head from two cuts. It also shows a possible contusion forming on the crown of his head". In revealing the photo to ABC News in mid-April, he noted that he had heard but had not seen the scuffle, had been the first to arrive, and had been the first to talk to Zimmerman after the shooting.
and finally the person who was on the phone to Martin.
On March 20, Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump revealed that Martin had been on the phone with a friend moments before he was shot. During an ABC News exclusive report, Crump allowed portions of his recorded interview with Martin's friend to be aired. She said that Martin told her that a man was watching him from his vehicle while talking on the phone before the man started following Martin. Martin told his friend at one point that he had lost the man but the man suddenly appeared again] The friend, originally known only as "Witness 8", said that she told Martin to run to the townhouse where he was staying with his father and the father's girlfriend. She then heard Martin say, "What are you following me for?" followed by a man's voice responding, "What are you doing around here?" She said that she heard the sound of pushing before the phone went dead. She immediately attempted to call him back, but was unable to reach him Crump stated that he would turn the information over to the Justice Department because "the family does not trust the Sanford Police Department to have anything to do with the investigation." Martin's friend was subsequently interviewed by state prosecutors on April 2, 2012. During her interview with the prosecutor, Martin's friend recounted her last phone call with Martin and added that Martin had described the man as "crazy and creepy", watching him from a vehicle while the man was talking on the phone] Martin's friend told prosecutors that she heard words like "get off, get off", right before she lost contact with Martin. She also testified that Martin referred to Zimmerman as a "creepy ass cracker" during their telephone conversation.
On March 6, 2013, prosecutors admitted that she had lied under oath, when she falsely testified that she had been in the hospital on the day of Martin's funeral.
So no, there were no witnesses to the very start of it but they all but one state that Martin was the person on top of Zimmerman, and the aggressor.
I am going to bed now, talk about it tomorrow if you want.
No it doesn't. It emphatically does not. What it says is that Martin was winning. There is no mention of the word aggressor. Stop lying.
So you don't know who started the fight. Did it occur to you that an un armed Martin was defending himself against an armed Zimmerman?
Or possibly, an unarmed Martin attacked who he thought to be an unarmed Zimmerman. Face it, no one knows what the hell happened between the time Zimmerman called the cops and the time of the shooting. The jury came to the only conclusion it could based on the evidence available. Every thing discussed beyond that is mental masturbation that does nothing to resolve the issues. Charles Barkley suggested that all the commentators who talked beyond that were feeding their own racist agendas. I'd say "racial" rather than "racist," but the idea is the same.
Zimmerman had a criminal record and has a history of violence, Martin neither. A system that allows private citizens like Zimmerman to be able to carry a concealed weapons in public and then to follow an un-armed private citizens in public who have not committed any crime apart from 'looking suspicious,' then when the confrontation leads to a conflict the unarmed citizen does not appear to have any rights to defend themselves against an armed citizen. What happened to Martin looks like legalized manslaughter.
Where in your discussion above is there evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman initiated a confrontation that lead to physical violence? In the absence of such proof, the jury cannot find manslaughter. They must be guided by the evidence and the law, not anyone's personal biases or prejudices regarding laws, gun possession, or the personal attributes of any given party.
In the present case the defense, arguing relative to the known facts, could state that it was just as likely that Martin, assuming the fat white guy following him was unarmed, attacked, overcame, and was smashing his head on the pavement. We prosecutors must argue the facts as proved to show the elements of the crime were committed. The defense need only concoct a story consistent with the evidence that might exonerate him. If both stories are consistent with the known evidence, the defendant gets to walk. I spent a career as a prosecutor, I don't like that result much either, but the jury got this one right.
Didn't Zimmerman admit to following Martin? Zimmerman does not follow Martin, then no confrontation.
A statement that he followed does not imply "stalking" or "hunting down" (which I will note you did not say, but others have). Simply following also does not suggest close proximity--merely within vision--which Zimmerman also claims he lost. Then there is Martin's communication with his girl friend about the "cracker.," coupled with the evidence that Martin was administering a beating to Zimmerman (despite the 40 pound weight advantage that Martin advocates claim meant he could not have overcome Zimmerman). As I said, it is easy for a defense attorney to argue out of this that Zimmerman kept his distance and that Martin initiated any contact. In a criminal case, that will lead to acquittal.
Now--in a civil case, a jury might buy the idea that "but for" the conduct of Zimmerman following Martin, as you suggest, the incident would not have occurred. Given the different legal theories available, and lower standard of proof, there is substantial likelihood that Martin's parents will prevail in their civil case against Zimmerman.
Echoes of the Martin/Zimmerman case.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/19766/jordan-davis-florida-teen-shot-michael-dunn-behind-bars-in-trayvon-martin-style-incident
I suppose if Dunn states that he genuinely feared for his life's, something which appears impossible to disprove, and with the probable absence of independent witnesses, he has probably got a good chance of getting off.
In the 15 months since their deadly altercation, George Zimmerman's and Travyon Martin’s pasts have been under a microscope, but recent court rulings could sharply restrict what a jury hears about any events that took place before their encounter on the fateful night.
- Martin’s school records, which include a suspension from his Miami high school -- less than a month before his altercation with Zimmerman – for possessing a baggie with marijuana residue.
- Texts and photos from Martin’s cellphone that refer to or show firearms. "U gotta gun?" reads a text from Martin's phone, sent eight days before his death. The defense cited a photo of a hand holding a gun, taken with Martin’s phone, and another picture of a gun on a bed.
- Texts with marijuana references, and photos that show Martin blowing smoke and what appear to be marijuana plants.
- Texts and video that suggest that Martin was involved in organized fights.
- Zimmerman’s 2005 arrest for “resisting officer with violence” and “battery of law enforcement officer” after a confrontation with an officer who was questioning a friend for alleged underage drinking. The charges were reduced to “resisting officer without violence” and then waived when he entered an alcohol education program, according to court documents.
- A 2005 civil motion filed by Zimmerman’s ex-fiancee for a restraining order alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman counterfiled for a restraining order, and both were granted.
I'm not peddling anything. Zimmerman has a criminal record and a history of violence ,Martin has neither. This is a fact. What you have posted confirms this.
No it doesn't, that's what you want to believe, but that's understandable.
The evidence would point to him having a history of violence.
Technically speaking Zimmerman does not have a criminal record. He was never convicted of anything. Both his ex and Zimmerman filed restraining orders against each other and both were granted, but no trial took place and thus no conviction. It would appear in the police officer case he was over-charged to begin with, then a lower charge put in place and dropped when he entered alchohol rehab. Oh and he did get a speeding ticket, but certainly that one doesn't come into play in this case, and he did avoid conviction on that when the cop failed to show up in court.
<p>Now that is not saying Zimmerman is a good guy, far from it, but technically with no convictions, he has no criminal record. He has a past that is far from perfect. If he had a criminal record with convictions, he probably would not have had a concealed weapons permit.
<p>Now that is not saying Zimmerman is a good guy, far from it, but technically with no convictions, he has no criminal record. He has a past that is far from perfect. If he had a criminal record with convictions, he probably would not have had a concealed weapons permit.
I was thinking of putting that but I didn't want it to appear like I was making Zimmerman out to be a saint by making an excuse for everything.
My main concern and curiosity over this case one that the Anti Zimmermans are so keen to ignore in favour of bellowing emotional rants is one that isnt even Martins fault. Its one that I think is worthy of far more discussion.
Why did the media decide to edit the truths and demonize Zimmerman?
Why didthey doctor his phone call to make him appear racist and why did it intentionally show misleading photographs and information in order to suit an agenda?
Why did they automatically assume Zimmerman was white before realizing he wasn't and backtracking, and why do a lot of people assume that he was white even now, and lower this to the level of black vs white?
What is in it for them, what do they have to gain from doing that, and isnt it something of a concern? I know the media in the U.S is worse than over here but I didnt realise it was that bad.
I did ask this before but instead of answers some preferred to skirt the question with emotional responses, as they know damn well its wrong but dont want to admit it.
My main concern and curiosity over this case one that the Anti Zimmermans are so keen to ignore in favour of bellowing emotional rants is one that isnt even Martins fault. Its one that I think is worthy of far more discussion.
Why did the media decide to edit the truths and demonize Zimmerman?
Why didthey doctor his phone call to make him appear racist and why did it intentionally show misleading photographs and information in order to suit an agenda?
Why did they automatically assume Zimmerman was white before realizing he wasn't and backtracking, and why do a lot of people assume that he was white even now, and lower this to the level of black vs white?
What is in it for them, what do they have to gain from doing that, and isnt it something of a concern? I know the media in the U.S is worse than over here but I didnt realise it was that bad.
I did ask this before but instead of answers some preferred to skirt the question with emotional responses, as they know damn well its wrong but dont want to admit it.
the simple fact is Martin would be alive today if he had not been black. That is what the righties like to ignore.
Thats terrible reasoning though, you're indicating he was only killed because he was black which is bollocks of the highest order.
If anyone who was killed wasn't who they are then they wouldn't have been killed.
Theres absolutely zero evidence to suggest Zimmerman targeted him because he was black, but a lot of evidence to suggest he didnt. Why do you choose to believe the former? Its not about left vs right, its about common sense vs emotional lunacy.