Florida Teen Shot

[normiss 801]

IIRC, the POTUS got involved and made a few phone calls....and had a "Special Prosecutor" put on the case with god-like powers.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

IIRC, the POTUS got involved and made a few phone calls....and had a "Special Prosecutor" put on the case with god-like powers.

The more this is looked into the more it smells

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

IIRC, the POTUS got involved and made a few phone calls....and had a "Special Prosecutor" put on the case with god-like powers.

I was following this case pretty closely, and I never heard anything about Obama getting Angela Corey put on the case. Do you remember where you heard this?

[wayneflorida 0]

Quote

Quote

IIRC, the POTUS got involved and made a few phone calls....and had a "Special Prosecutor" put on the case with god-like powers.

The more this is looked into the more is smells

When GZ is found not quilty during the State of Florida trial the Feds will indict GZ for hate or civil right crimes against TM. TM's father (POTUS) and AG Eric Holder will see to that.

President Obama getting reelected is probably GZ's worst nightmare.

[normiss 801]

Angela Cory is the one that violated Mr. Zimmerman's constitutional rights.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Angela Cory is the one that violated Mr. Zimmerman's constitutional rights.

What did she do that violated his constitutional rights?

[normiss 801]

Removed the Grand Jury and filed charges herself.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Removed the Grand Jury and filed charges herself.

I didn't think a grand jury was required for filing second-degree murder charges, but maybe that depends on the state? I'm certainly no expert in law though, so I don't know???

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

According to reports, Zimmerman NEVER talked to Martin while he was watching him

He lost site of him so he returned to his vehicle

Marting then approached him and attacked him

The eveidence we have seen fully supports Zimmermans account of the story

All the the bs happened a month AFTER the incident

Then is was improperly reported to be a racial incident. We now are fairly sure this is not the case either

And there are very troubling things about this case
The least of which is those who wish to condem Zimmerman at all costs

I don't wish to condemn either side. I'm more interested in the truth.

What evidence is there that TM attacked GZ?

There's evidence of a fight, including witnesses.
But the only claims about who attacked whom come from GZ. Who is going to say the TM attacked him no matter what the truth is.

And GZ has admitted that he initiated the entire situation, by first following TM with his car, then escalating the situation by getting out of his car and pursuing TM after TM tried to evade GZ by running away.

That simple fact, that GZ started the situation and that TM apparently tried to escape the situation, would pretty much negate any claim of self-defense where I live in Wisconsin. Different states have different laws of course.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[normiss 801]

We'll need a criminal lawyer to sort that out.
The Constitution calls for one....not sure in Florida.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

According to reports, Zimmerman NEVER talked to Martin while he was watching him

He lost site of him so he returned to his vehicle

Marting then approached him and attacked him

The eveidence we have seen fully supports Zimmermans account of the story

All the the bs happened a month AFTER the incident

Then is was improperly reported to be a racial incident. We now are fairly sure this is not the case either

And there are very troubling things about this case
The least of which is those who wish to condem Zimmerman at all costs

I don't wish to condemn either side. I'm more interested in the truth.

What evidence is there that TM attacked GZ?

There's evidence of a fight, including witnesses.
But the only claims about who attacked whom come from GZ. Who is going to say the TM attacked him no matter what the truth is.

And GZ has admitted that he initiated the entire situation, by first following TM with his car, then escalating the situation by getting out of his car and pursuing TM after TM tried to evade GZ by running away.

That simple fact, that GZ started the situation and that TM apparently tried to escape the situation, would pretty much negate any claim of self-defense where I live in Wisconsin. Different states have different laws of course.

If he tried to escape, he would not have met up with GZ

GZ is on a recording saying he lost sight of TM

Following someone is not a crime
Following does not start anything
If you are only being followed and you dont like that, call the cops and keep moving.

If you are trying to escape, you do not confront

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

We'll need a criminal lawyer to sort that out.
The Constitution calls for one....not sure in Florida.

The article I linked talks about that

It seems that a GJ is a federal requirment

It seems the states CAN do differently but most do use a GJ

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mirage62 0]

Quote

I don't wish to condemn either side. I'm more interested in the truth.

This is what gets me, the poster starts with the above. Seems reasonable.........

The follows with........

Quote

And GZ has admitted that he initiated the entire situation, by first following TM with his car, then escalating the situation by getting out of his car and pursuing TM after TM tried to evade GZ by running away.

The area had been robbed - a lot. GZ does follow someone, thats a fact and get's out of the car. Thats a fact. That seems to be all we know.

The TM group with say anything GZ says is a self serving lie.

It goes to trial what happens if there just isn't any more evideance? You put GZ away because nobody should ever use a gun to defend them selfs??

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Quote

Quote

According to reports, Zimmerman NEVER talked to Martin while he was watching him

He lost site of him so he returned to his vehicle

Marting then approached him and attacked him

The eveidence we have seen fully supports Zimmermans account of the story

All the the bs happened a month AFTER the incident

Then is was improperly reported to be a racial incident. We now are fairly sure this is not the case either

And there are very troubling things about this case
The least of which is those who wish to condem Zimmerman at all costs

I don't wish to condemn either side. I'm more interested in the truth.

What evidence is there that TM attacked GZ?

There's evidence of a fight, including witnesses.
But the only claims about who attacked whom come from GZ. Who is going to say the TM attacked him no matter what the truth is.

And GZ has admitted that he initiated the entire situation, by first following TM with his car, then escalating the situation by getting out of his car and pursuing TM after TM tried to evade GZ by running away.

That simple fact, that GZ started the situation and that TM apparently tried to escape the situation, would pretty much negate any claim of self-defense where I live in Wisconsin. Different states have different laws of course.

If he tried to escape, he would not have met up with GZ

GZ is on a recording saying he lost sight of TM

Following someone is not a crime
Following does not start anything
If you are only being followed and you dont like that, call the cops and keep moving.

If you are trying to escape, you do not confront

One more time, where is the evidence that "fully supports" GZ's version?
How do you know that GZ didn't keep looking after hanging up? Because he says so?

And following can be very provocative.

Here's an experiment - Find a suspicious looking kid, maybe near a school. Follow him or her with your car, just like GZ did. Do it obviously enough that they see you.
And if they run away, get out of your car and follow them on foot.
See what happens.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I don't wish to condemn either side. I'm more interested in the truth.

This is what gets me, the poster starts with the above. Seems reasonable.........

The follows with........

Quote

And GZ has admitted that he initiated the entire situation, by first following TM with his car, then escalating the situation by getting out of his car and pursuing TM after TM tried to evade GZ by running away.

The area had been robbed - a lot. GZ does follow someone, thats a fact and get's out of the car. Thats a fact. That seems to be all we know.

The TM group with say anything GZ says is a self serving lie.

It goes to trial what happens if there just isn't any more evideance? You put GZ away because nobody should ever use a gun to defend them selfs??

Did you mean this to be a reply to me?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[linebckr83 3]

Quote

Here's an experiment - Find a suspicious looking kid, maybe near a school. Follow him or her with your car, just like GZ did. Do it obviously enough that they see you.
And if they run away, get out of your car and follow them on foot.
See what happens.

It happened to me more than once. What'd I do? Went home or somewhere public. It's only proactive if it's with a violent kid. I'm not violent, so I avoid violence. He had a history of violence, why is it surprising that he'd confront someone who was following him?

I know enough "thugs" who start fights for someone simply looking at them wrong. You TM supporters act like you've never dealt with these kinds of kids/people before. Judging that he was a violent, drug-using teenager (school records, twitter records) it's absolutely no surprise he went looking for a fight with someone he had an issue with.

"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

According to reports, Zimmerman NEVER talked to Martin while he was watching him

He lost site of him so he returned to his vehicle

Marting then approached him and attacked him

The eveidence we have seen fully supports Zimmermans account of the story

All the the bs happened a month AFTER the incident

Then is was improperly reported to be a racial incident. We now are fairly sure this is not the case either

And there are very troubling things about this case
The least of which is those who wish to condem Zimmerman at all costs

I don't wish to condemn either side. I'm more interested in the truth.

What evidence is there that TM attacked GZ?

There's evidence of a fight, including witnesses.
But the only claims about who attacked whom come from GZ. Who is going to say the TM attacked him no matter what the truth is.

And GZ has admitted that he initiated the entire situation, by first following TM with his car, then escalating the situation by getting out of his car and pursuing TM after TM tried to evade GZ by running away.

That simple fact, that GZ started the situation and that TM apparently tried to escape the situation, would pretty much negate any claim of self-defense where I live in Wisconsin. Different states have different laws of course.

If he tried to escape, he would not have met up with GZ

GZ is on a recording saying he lost sight of TM

Following someone is not a crime
Following does not start anything
If you are only being followed and you dont like that, call the cops and keep moving.

If you are trying to escape, you do not confront

One more time, where is the evidence that "fully supports" GZ's version?
How do you know that GZ didn't keep looking after hanging up? Because he says so?

And following can be very provocative.

Here's an experiment - Find a suspicious looking kid, maybe near a school. Follow him or her with your car, just like GZ did. Do it obviously enough that they see you.
And if they run away, get out of your car and follow them on foot.
See what happens.

There is no evidence that says or indicates Zimmerman is lying

It seems the state is hold info

Why?

This thing stinks

And no matter the truth anymore

Zimmerman looses

Edited to add

and TM has already lost

it is just a question now if he is responcible or not

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I don't wish to condemn either side. I'm more interested in the truth.

This is what gets me, the poster starts with the above. Seems reasonable.........

The follows with........

Quote

And GZ has admitted that he initiated the entire situation, by first following TM with his car, then escalating the situation by getting out of his car and pursuing TM after TM tried to evade GZ by running away.

The area had been robbed - a lot. GZ does follow someone, thats a fact and get's out of the car. Thats a fact. That seems to be all we know.

The TM group with say anything GZ says is a self serving lie.

It goes to trial what happens if there just isn't any more evideance? You put GZ away because nobody should ever use a gun to defend them selfs??

Did you mean this to be a reply to me?

It was probably directed at me, those quotes are my words.

So...

I don't automatically dismiss GZ's statements as "self-serving lies." But I don't accept them as unvarnished truth either. If you think about it, he would make a statement like he did no matter what actually happened.

And I'm certainly not saying that nobody should use a gun for self defense. Nor should they ignore suspicious behavior.

But I was taught that use of lethal force for self defense requires that the situation not be initiated by the person claiming self defense. And to never, ever, ever chase anyone. And GZ broke both of those basic rules. He put himself into the situation. Deliberately.

A couple of instructors and a lawyer have told me that here in Wisconsin, what GZ did, no matter who started the final fight, would probably have resulted in 2nd degree murder charges.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I don't wish to condemn either side. I'm more interested in the truth.

This is what gets me, the poster starts with the above. Seems reasonable.........

The follows with........

Quote

And GZ has admitted that he initiated the entire situation, by first following TM with his car, then escalating the situation by getting out of his car and pursuing TM after TM tried to evade GZ by running away.

The area had been robbed - a lot. GZ does follow someone, thats a fact and get's out of the car. Thats a fact. That seems to be all we know.

The TM group with say anything GZ says is a self serving lie.

It goes to trial what happens if there just isn't any more evideance? You put GZ away because nobody should ever use a gun to defend them selfs??

Did you mean this to be a reply to me?

It was probably directed at me, those quotes are my words.

So...

I don't automatically dismiss GZ's statements as "self-serving lies." But I don't accept them as unvarnished truth either. If you think about it, he would make a statement like he did no matter what actually happened.

And I'm certainly not saying that nobody should use a gun for self defense. Nor should they ignore suspicious behavior.

But I was taught that use of lethal force for self defense requires that the situation not be initiated by the person claiming self defense. And to never, ever, ever chase anyone. And GZ broke both of those basic rules. He put himself into the situation. Deliberately.

A couple of instructors and a lawyer have told me that here in Wisconsin, what GZ did, no matter who started the final fight, would probably have resulted in 2nd degree murder charges.

I dont buy that

People call others names
People do stupid things

Following someone does not require or allow those being followed confront and maybe attack the follower

IF, TM started a fight, nothing that happened before that point changes the fact HE, Martin started the incident that got him dead

Period

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GeorgiaDon 362]

Quote

Following someone is not a crime
Following does not start anything

Earlier in this thread (about 5,000 pages ago) someone (who I'm not going to bother looking up) said something much like this.

Let's try a little thought experiment.* Suppose your daughter (since this hypothetical anyway I'll assume you have a daughter) calls you up and tells you there is this guy who she doesn't know who is following her. When she speeds up, he speeds up. She changes direction, he changes direction.

Would you not be at all alarmed? Would your response to her really be "It's a free country, he can walk/run wherever he wants to."? Would you really have zero impulse to get in your car, go to your daughter, and ask this guy what the hell he is doing following your daughter around?

Lets make it a bit more interesting. Lets say she tells you that the guy has been following her for a week or so. She's noticed that he's always there when she gets off work, follows her as she goes shopping or walks to her car. He's always somewhere close by when she goes for lunch. He's across the street, watching, when she comes out of her house in the morning. But he doesn't speak to her or anything, just follows. All the time.

Would you be alarmed? He's "just following", after all. Free country and all that. No harm in following, right? Only a fool would feel threatened if a total stranger started following them, right?

Quote

GZ is on a recording saying he lost sight of TM

So what? What else would you expect him to say?

Quote

If he tried to escape, he would not have met up with GZ
If you are trying to escape, you do not confront

Neither statement is true if GZ caught up to or cornered TM.

Further, suppose you noticed someone following you in the manner I described above. Suppose you decide to approach them and ask why they are following you. Does that now make you the aggressor? Do you not have any right to ask why someone is following you?

Don

*For the literalists who are somehow unable to understand examples, analogies, or metaphors, I am NOT saying that GZ stalked TM for days and days. I am simply challenging the idea that "following" is a completely innocent activity that should never be taken as threatening or confrontational in itself. That is all.

** I started this reply, had to go to the lab for a while, can back and finished it, and then saw wolfriverjoe had suggested a similar "experiment". Great minds think alike/simple never differ? Take your pick.

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Following someone is not a crime
Following does not start anything

Earlier in this thread (about 5,000 pages ago) someone (who I'm not going to bother looking up) said something much like this.

Let's try a little thought experiment.* Suppose your daughter (since this hypothetical anyway I'll assume you have a daughter) calls you up and tells you there is this guy who she doesn't know who is following her. When she speeds up, he speeds up. She changes direction, he changes direction.

Would you not be at all alarmed? Would your response to her really be "It's a free country, he can walk/run wherever he wants to."? Would you really have zero impulse to get in your car, go to your daughter, and ask this guy what the hell he is doing following your daughter around?

Lets make it a bit more interesting. Lets say she tells you that the guy has been following her for a week or so. She's noticed that he's always there when she gets off work, follows her as she goes shopping or walks to her car. He's always somewhere close by when she goes for lunch. He's across the street, watching, when she comes out of her house in the morning. But he doesn't speak to her or anything, just follows. All the time.

Would you be alarmed? He's "just following", after all. Free country and all that. No harm in following, right? Only a fool would feel threatened if a total stranger started following them, right?

Quote

GZ is on a recording saying he lost sight of TM

So what? What else would you expect him to say?

Quote

If he tried to escape, he would not have met up with GZ
If you are trying to escape, you do not confront

Neither statement is true if GZ caught up to or cornered TM.

Further, suppose you noticed someone following you in the manner I described above. Suppose you decide to approach them and ask why they are following you. Does that now make you the aggressor? Do you not have any right to ask why someone is following you?

Don

*For the literalists who are somehow unable to understand examples, analogies, or metaphors, I am NOT saying that GZ stalked TM for days and days. I am simply challenging the idea that "following" is a completely innocent activity that should never be taken as threatening or confrontational in itself. That is all.

Yes you could ask if you wanted to
That would be a stupid risk IMO

Based on what is being said however TM took it a step further and attacked GZ

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Following someone does not require or allow those being followed to confront and maybe attack the follower

I disagree with the "confront" part - face to face, verbal? no problems. If guy one can follow. Then guy two can stop and ask him "WTF".

But - the first person to actually get physical is the one that's 100% responsible for the physical confrontation regardless of what happens up to that part.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

[

He had a history of violence, why is it surprising that he'd confront someone who was following him?

Assumes facts not in evidence.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Based on what is being said however TM took it a step further and attacked GZ

Assumes facts not in evidence.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Following someone does not require or allow those being followed to confront and maybe attack the follower

I disagree with the "confront" part - face to face, verbal? no problems. If guy one can follow. Then guy two can stop and ask him "WTF".

But - the first person to actually get physical is the one that's 100% responsible for the physical confrontation regardless of what happens up to that part.

Agreed!!!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln