Will Americans Stand Up If The DOJ Goes After George Zimmerman

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by hounddoghowlie

 

It seems a good % if not majority of the people screaming the loudest about the Martin trial are those who know the least about what happened at and during the trial. Have you noticed that?

It's nothing subtle. It doesn't require a lot of detective work, eh? The statements made are often directly contradicting the established evidence and testimony of witnesses and investigators alike. As if the trail never even happened and we've learned nothing beyond what the media said happened as the version, 1 day before the trial began.

If would be nice if people who choose to be a part of the topic at least trouble themselves enough to LEARN the topic beyond the 'fury inducing' media version, which was meant to have precisely that impact.

Thanks for sharing a moment of logic with the re-enactment and holding to established evidence, not media guesswork and their efforts to stir the emotions and stoke the hate simmering out here.

Ok so what is the truth than?

You speak as if all these people don't have it, but yet I didn't actually see "it" mentioned explicitly.
Mind elaborating on that a bit?

And why does the amount of hours spent watching something on TV equate to "knowledge" about anything? You know it doesn't, especially when through the MSM sunglasses.

There isn't much to know about this case other than a few basics:
1) Some guy hit some other guy in the face illegally and took a bullet for his mistake.
2) This is legal self-defense.

reply to post by Onslaught2996


Are you ignorant? Do this google teenager one punch kills man and see how many news storys pop up. You can kill somebody by hitting them once in the head. Now think not only did Zimmerman get punched in the head for doing something he had every legal right to do but he also had his head slammed multiple times into concrete.

XYankee:

I don't think it is fair first of all to say "he was acting like a cop" that is a low blow...

No worries, you are entitled to your opinion, but he was still acting like he was a pseudo-cop. He holds (or held) ambitions for an authoritarian office or status, and was zealously proactive towards this aim in his role as a security guard for the housing estate. Which is why he ignored the Dispatcher (whom you call young and thus imputing inexperienced) and followed Martin.

The second problem is that those who do aspire to become a cop try to pay close attention as to how a cop would handle a situation like this because they have a respect for the law. I personally would be asking my self this question before deciding, and trying to make sure I am justified. This should be a good thing!

Not even remotely related to my post, but only to your mindset and way of thinking, so it is not a problem at all.

...stated he did not have the authority to give commands or instructions that were "Orders".

He would not have given 'orders' because he does not know the full extent of the situation, but advised Zimmerman not to follow the suspect so as not to exacerbate the situation, in other words, wait for the 'real' police to show up! Zimmerman does have a lawful duty to comply with the request if the situation isn't deteriorating, which it wasn't until Zimmerman chose to ignore the 'expert' advice. The age of the dispatcher has no bearing on the matter. He has the job and is obviously qualified for it...he is in fact a 'real' cop, which is more than could be said for Zimmerman.

The next thing the dispatcher asks was "what direction was Martin running" Naturally, If you cannot see because of the layout of the complex you would try to get to a vantage point that would allow you to see and provide that info to the dispatch.

If you look at the Dispatcher's question, you will see it is phrased in the past tense, not the present tense. He wasn't asking Zimmerman to go take a look, he was asking Zimmerman the direction he saw him run. Meaning that the Dispatcher did not want him to follow the suspect or go in the same direction of the suspect, but merely to 'state' the direction the suspect had earlier run.

But instead, being the little punk that he was, decided that he was going to teach "whitie" a lesson...

Ah, so this is the point of your post, a racist rant of prejudice. Apart from pointing out to you your errors of comprehension, is there any point in furthering the conversation with you? I don't believe so.

reply to post by hypervigilant


Do you know what Pro bono means? His daddy didnt pay a dime to Omara or West they did it for free.

reply to post by muzzleflash


By and large, I agree with what you've said on this thread, for the first thing I want to say on it. I think you've made a great deal of sense here.

After a couple days of on and off debating this topic myself on other threads and quite ..energetically.. at times? There are specifics here that come to mind for the sort of willful ignorance I'm talking about. A couple that come to mind for highlights?

#1. There were no witnesses to the fight. We don't know what happened for sure.

- Wrong. The trial showed there were at least 2 witnesses. One with direct eyes on the fight and on the phone relating to 911 when the gunshot came. The second one, on scene moments after the gunshot and before Zimmerman even collected his senses to get off the ground. It's amazing the number still talking as if these two men didn't exist.

#2. George Zimmerman was ordered to stop following and leave.

- Wrong. We know by the trial and dispatch that he was given no encouragement. He was told they 'didn't need that' in terms of his help and continued assistance. He was never told to return to his vehicle or to leave Martin alone, as such and cease what he was doing. Again, an example of Media version vs. Trial evidence

#3. Zimmerman was a racist and profiled him by color

- Wrong. The FBI investigated George Zimmerman with the intent of filing federal charges in the start and while it looked like the state may file nothing. They determined that Zimmerman likely profiled Martin as a teen and up to no good, but found no evidence that he knew for certain or considered it relevant that Martin was a black boy vs. a Mexican, Cuban or Haitian immigrant, for example. A bit of everything in Florida for that mix, after all.

#4. We have no clue whatsoever who started the fight or who even had intent.

- Wrong. The trial showed through, ironically enough, the Prosecutions own "star witness" that Trayvon had a problem with the "creepy ass cracker" and he was helpful enough to talk about it with the witness who then testified to the events and conversation. So we know Martin returned to seek out Zimmerman and initiate a confrontation. So said he to his Girl. So she testified in court, however reluctantly. I'd call that one of the largest "ooops" the Prosecution had and similar to Marsha Clark letting OJ take command of physical evidence and be the one to determine if that evidence "fit".


I'm thinking the above points probably run pretty close to what you also view as the factual record at this point in time. It's what I'm regularly seeing the people arguing against Zimmerman either ignoring as it if never happened (when they DO know full well) or honestly ignorant of the fact it came out at trial this way at all .....and of course, that kind of ignorant is the willful kind, eh?

reply to post by GrantedBail


Actually they do make decisions. If they didnt Trayvons phones texts and pictures would have been admitted into evidence and with that proof that he liked to fight and make people bleed. That he also sold drugs was trying to get codiene, had a gun at one point and was trying to buy an illegal gun. Please get off the bandwagon to no where. Did you watch the trial stream or were you watching hln

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

By and large, I agree with what you've said on this thread, for the first thing I want to say on it. I think you've made a great deal of sense here.

After a couple days of on and off debating this topic myself on other threads and quite ..energetically.. at times? There are specifics here that come to mind for the sort of willful ignorance I'm talking about. A couple that come to mind for highlights?

#1. There were no witnesses to the fight. We don't know what happened for sure.

- Wrong. The trial showed there were at least 2 witnesses. One with direct eyes on the fight and on the phone relating to 911 when the gunshot came. The second one, on scene moments after the gunshot and before Zimmerman even collected his senses to get off the ground. It's amazing the number still talking as if these two men didn't exist.

#2. George Zimmerman was ordered to stop following and leave.

- Wrong. We know by the trial and dispatch that he was given no encouragement. He was told they 'didn't need that' in terms of his help and continued assistance. He was never told to return to his vehicle or to leave Martin alone, as such and cease what he was doing. Again, an example of Media version vs. Trial evidence

#3. Zimmerman was a racist and profiled him by color

- Wrong. The FBI investigated George Zimmerman with the intent of filing federal charges in the start and while it looked like the state may file nothing. They determined that Zimmerman likely profiled Martin as a teen and up to no good, but found no evidence that he knew for certain or considered it relevant that Martin was a black boy vs. a Mexican, Cuban or Haitian immigrant, for example. A bit of everything in Florida for that mix, after all.

#4. We have no clue whatsoever who started the fight or who even had intent.

- Wrong. The trial showed through, ironically enough, the Prosecutions own "star witness" that Trayvon had a problem with the "creepy ass cracker" and he was helpful enough to talk about it with the witness who then testified to the events and conversation. So we know Martin returned to seek out Zimmerman and initiate a confrontation. So said he to his Girl. So she testified in court, however reluctantly. I'd call that one of the largest "ooops" the Prosecution had and similar to Marsha Clark letting OJ take command of physical evidence and be the one to determine if that evidence "fit".

I'm thinking the above points probably run pretty close to what you also view as the factual record at this point in time. It's what I'm regularly seeing the people arguing against Zimmerman either ignoring as it if never happened (when they DO know full well) or honestly ignorant of the fact it came out at trial this way at all .....and of course, that kind of ignorant is the willful kind, eh?

Wow I didn't expect this, this post is awesome right here!
I even learned a little too!

Thank you Wrabbit! If only I could star you 10times for that haha!
Very nice layout there.

I would like to see the detractors address your points in full.
That would be enlightening IMHO. (Well at this point I already know how it will probably pan out haha).

(PS- Checking your prior post history on this topic also brings some very informative posts people maybe should go check out for additional details).

This trial was nothing more than the other side of the same coin of the Bernard Goetz trial. Except Z had a legal gun and a CCW permit. The bottom line is if one "Feels" threatend just shoot away and you'll get off.

Why would I stand up for a child killer?

reply to post by WaterBottle


I love the double standard hes a child if he dies by the action of his own hands but would have been charged as an adult for felony aggravated assault if Zimmerman hadnt shot him

It's important for us to remember one thing.

Being found not guilty by a jury does NOT mean that you are innocent.

So many things factor into the jury's decision.

Not to mention the individual state laws. I find it ridiculous that if this had taken place in many other states, the verdict could have come back as "guilty".

All i know is that Zimmerman was directly responsible for the series of events that left a young man dead. Period. His conscience will surely punish him every day, for the rest of his life.

Originally posted by WaterBottle
Why would I stand up for a [color=gold] child killer?

I know.
If only TM could
have stayed sober for three more weeks.


Mike

TM
died Febuary 26 2012
born Febuary 05 1994

three weeks shy of 18 years.

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

Originally posted by WaterBottle
Why would I stand up for a [color=gold] child killer?

I know.
If only TM could
have stayed sober for three more weeks.

Mike

TM
died Febuary 26 2012
born Febuary 05 1994

three weeks shy of 18 years.

Are you high? Because I think your maths is a little off there

Originally posted by muse7
I'll stand with the government and support them 100% ... the jurors might have found Zimmerman not guilty. But that doesn't mean he's not responsible for the death of an unarmed kid.

Zimmerman chased down this Kid and the Kid fought back and Zimmerman shot him.

Who threw the first punch? Likely the Kid...but I don't blame him for that.

I think that Zimmerman lied about what happened. His multiple stories speak to that.

The prosecution? They over-reached and failed to prove thier case "BEYOND any doubt"

So I think the jury ruled correctly on the evidence they had and the case that was made.

Zimmerman IS responsible for the death of the Trayvon Martin.

So if the he can be charged with that responsibility absent "murder" which involves pre-meditated intent...then that is fair.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

Originally posted by WaterBottle
Why would I stand up for a [color=gold] child killer?

I know.
If only TM could
have stayed sober for three more weeks.

Mike

TM
died Febuary 26 2012
born Febuary 05 1994

three weeks shy of 18 years.

Are you high? Because I think your maths is a little off there

TM
died Febuary 26 2012
born Febuary 05 1994

a2012
-1994
=0018


Use a calculator
If one can't add in their head.


Mike

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by muse7
I'll stand with the government and support them 100% ... the jurors might have found Zimmerman not guilty. But that doesn't mean he's not responsible for the death of an unarmed kid.

Zimmerman [color=gold] chased down this Kid and the Kid fought back and Zimmerman shot him.

Who threw the first punch? Likely the Kid...but I don't blame him for that.

Pure fabrication.

It is clear the person quoted above
worships at the alter of lies and propaganda.


Mike

Originally posted by mikegrouchy


TM
died Febuary 26 2012
born Febuary 05 1994

a2012
-1994
=0018


Use a calculator
If one can't add in their head.

Mike

If the dates are as you say - they are not, by the way - then he would be 18 and 3 weeks. Not 3 weeks shy of his 18th birthday.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

If the dates are as you say - they are not, by the way - then he would be 18 and 3 weeks. Not 3 weeks shy of his 18th birthday.

I'm glad you agree.
See, consensus is possible.


Mike

Originally posted by Onslaught2996
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress

 

George Zimmerman not a member of recognized neighborhood watch organization

it has been revealed that Zimmerman was not a member of any group recognized by the organization. Zimmerman violated the central tenets of Neighborhood Watch by following Martin, confronting him and carrying a concealed weapon. “In no program that I have ever heard of does someone patrol with a gun in their pocket,” Carmen Caldwell, the Executive Director of Citizens’ Crime Watch of Miami-Dade, told theGrio. “Every city and municipality has their own policies. Here in Miami-Dade we train people only to be the eyes and ears of their communities. Not to follow and most definitely not to carry a weapon.”

He was not a part of anything.

that doesn't mean s____. this was a private gated community. and had a Home Owners Association, in most cases have their own neighbor watch. below i will provide a page that the national sheriff's assocation tries to get HOAs to join their association. there is no law that says you have to register with the National Sheriffs’ Association / the parent organization of USAonWatch-Neighborhood Watch, to have your own neighbor watch program, there are plenty of communities that have their own neighbor hood watch. they are not a official, state or federal agency. and i repeat You do not have to register with them to have a neighbor watch.

this from their web site. National Sheriffs’ Association

the National Sheriffs’ Association is a The Charter of the National Sheriffs’ Association, granted by the state of Ohio under its non-profit corporation in other words a company.

they would have you think that they are the only way to have one but they are wrong.

and here is the page where i said " tries to get HOAs to join their association"

The Great Debate Over HOAs
If the community you live in does not currently have an HOA, it is unlikely one will be formed after the homes are constructed. But if you live in a neighborhood with an HOA or are consider moving to one, it is important to consider what this could mean to neighborhood watch. Some communities use the HOA as a central platform to run NW. NW is an item on the HOA meeting agenda. But many other communities believe NW should be a separate group with its own purpose. There is no clear answer to this debate because what works in one community may not always work in the next.

Homeowner's Associations and Neighborhood Watch

it was well established in court he was a member of the neighbor watch, if not the prosecution would have been all over this like white on rice. and at least one if not more witnesses knew GZ was on the neighbor watch.

one even testified, that he help her after a home invasion.

Originally posted by WaterBottle
Why would I stand up for a child killer?

Because the Jury found him not guilty.

A goverment has NO RIGHT to overturn a verdict or find a fake offence to charge someone else.


No you might not agree with the the veridct but you should defend it from goverment interferance otherwise next time time your beloved president may try and change a verdict you do agree with.....maybe yours....


Bottom line the goverment should always remain seperate from the justice department.