All Things, Trayvon Martin / George Zimmerman

[Enfuego]

ROTFLAMO!!!! You're one of the idiots who thinks Williard is going to win, so I'll give your comments the attention they deserve, which is same, none. And, even if he does walk on this, no slam dunk, they've got him cold on civl rights violations in a 2nd trial, just like those Rodney King cops and those red neck cocksuckers in Mississippi in the 1960s. Get over it. Twit...:finger::finger::missingte:bigfingerointer::madasshol:laughingb:fckmad:

Civil rights violations? This is getting absurd now.

 

[Dafinch]

You do realize at the scene of a homicide or assault, one of the first things investigators look at is the wounds of the victim right? What are they looking for? They are looking for defensive wounds. Have you heard that term before? I'm saying the evidence points to Martin being the aggressor. Whether a jury believes that or not is up to them.

And how do you know what the rules of their neighborhood watch program are? I'm not saying I do but I have a feeling you don't either.

"Defensive wounds' in this situation don't mean shit because they don't tell who started the fight, how many times do you need to be told that??? As far as your "feelings," I've noticed that they tend to be dead wrong, throw another log on the fire in that regard(notice the words "a self-appointed captain of an unregistered neighborhood watch" and "It’s important to note that George Zimmerman violated at least two long-standing rules of national neighborhood watch programs—he was armed, and he confronted Martin rather than waiting for police.)"


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._watch_do_those_actually_decrease_crime_.html

And this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/u...neighborhood-watch-groups.html?pagewanted=all

Note, in particular, the following excerpt, and, especially, the final sentence:

In Sanford, she said, watch groups are not even supposed to make the rounds. That is the job of another kind of volunteer organization, Citizens on Patrol, whose members are selected and trained by the police and who drive the streets in a specially marked vehicle. Members of that group, Ms. Dorival said, “are armed only with a radio.”
A wide range of neighborhood watch organizations exist across the country. Some have patrols, while others like Sanford’s do not. But the National Sheriffs’ Association, which sponsors the program nationwide, is absolutely clear on one point: guns have no place in a watch group. A manual distributed by the association repeatedly underscores the point: “Patrol members do not carry weapons.”
The manual warns that watch members should “not attempt to apprehend a person committing a crime or to investigate a suspicious activity.” It should be emphasized to members of patrols, the materials state, that “they do not possess police power and they shall not carry weapons.” The consequences of not following the guidelines are severe, the manual states: “Each member is liable as an individual for civil and criminal charges should he exceed his authority.”

What are your "feelings" NOW, Slick?

 

[Dafinch]

Civil rights violations? This is getting absurd now.

Yeah, tell that to those Mississipi scum who never dreamed in a million years they'd be convicted of that, in Mississippi, in the 1960s, and the Simi Valley cops-who were beating the shit out of drugged out felon who had fled law enforcement officers, as opposed to some wanna be cop shooting down a kid who had committed no crime. Keep your head plugged up your ass, that's what you're good at.

 

[Enfuego]

Wounds on Zimmerman and Martin don't mean anything? You're right man, they don't mean anything to the case at all. I mean why even look at the physical evidence at all? Why even have evidence if it doesn't help tell a story?

And oh by the way, I think him carrying a gun was foolish. This paragraph you've put in bold is not in dispute. Nobody thinks him carrying a weapon was smart. We're talking about his authority while acting as a watch not carrying a pistol.

 

[Enfuego]

Yeah, tell that to those Mississipi scum who never dreamed in a million years they'd be convicted of that, in Mississippi, in the 1960s, and the Simi Valley cops-who were beating the shit out of drugged out felon who had fled law enforcement officers, as opposed to some wanna be cop shooting down a kid who had committed no crime. Keep your head plugged up your ass, that's what you're good at.

You've kind of lost it man. Now we're going from discussing if he possibly could get convicted on manslaughter charges to possible civil rights violations? How would you justify those charges Mrs. Corey?

 

[Dafinch]

Wounds on Zimmerman and Martin don't mean anything? You're right man, they don't mean anything to the case at all. I mean why even look at the physical evidence at all? Why even have evidence if it doesn't help tell a story?

And oh by the way, I think him carrying a gun was foolish. This paragraph you've put in bold is not in dispute. Nobody thinks him carrying a weapon was smart. We're talking about his authority while acting as a watch not carrying a pistol.

YOU were talking about the following: "And how do you know what the rules of their neighborhood watch program are? I'm not saying I do but I have a feeling you don't either."

I said he wasn't in a neighborhood watch program, that they didn't have one, and that in the event they DID have one, he massively violated two very important rules of such organizations which kind of refuted your "gem" shown above. You're babbling on about Zimmerman's "authority" had to question somebody who, btw, had every right to be there. Really? What "authority" is that? Not only is he not law enforcement, he's not even on a f'ing neighborhood watch. How do you find you way home at night????

 

[texansfan]

Dafinch has his opinion, it's completely wrong, but he's entitled to it. Nothing he bothered to quote means anything in this case. If there was a problem with him carrying a weapon it would had been discussed by law enforcement already. Zimmerman was legally carrying his weapon, and also had the right to approach and question Martin. Who cares what the National Sheriff's Association and their guidelines say? Guidelines are just that, they aren't the law.

The only question that will be answered in this case is whether or not the claim of self defense is justified. The opinions of posters, the media, and all of the other bullshit are meaningless. As of today, three more witnesses have changed their stories regarding what they saw.

Who cares what title he had, if any. He was legally carrying a gun, and he has the right to approach anybody he wants to.

 

[Dafinch]

You've kind of lost it man. Now we're going from discussing if he possibly could get convicted on manslaughter charges to possible civil rights violations? How would you justify those charges Mrs. Corey?

I have neither the time nor the inclination to educate a nitwit. I mentioned two important cases where it came into play, use google, it's your friend. You've made over 5,000 posts in about 5 years, and I haven't seen one yet that wasn't stupid. The statement, what are you doing in this thread if you don't have an opinion on what happened, or words to that effect, is one of the stupidest things I've ever read here-and, in THIS forum, that's SAYING something. Who fucking died and made YOU king??? YOU finally came to the realization about 500 posts in that you and I "agree to disagree," so, having finally gotten that through your thick skull, why don't you "honor"somebody else with your pearls of wisdom, because I'm not interested in them.

 

[wabashwonders]

Dafinch has his opinion, it's completely wrong, but he's entitled to it. Nothing he bothered to quote means anything in this case. If there was a problem with him carrying a weapon it would had been discussed by law enforcement already. Zimmerman was legally carrying his weapon, and also had the right to approach and question Martin. Who cares what the National Sheriff's Association and their guidelines say? Guidelines are just that, they aren't the law.

The only question that will be answered in this case is whether or not the claim of self defense is justified. The opinions of posters, the media, and all of the other bullshit are meaningless. As of today, three more witnesses have changed their stories regarding what they saw.

Who cares what title he had, if any. He was legally carrying a gun, and he has the right to approach anybody he wants to.

I've been reading the evidence that was released and there are so many different views right now, this is going to be crazy to figure out. The one constant thing so far though is that no one actually saw what started it. One witness says she actually saw one man chasing after the other but can't tell who was chasing who. But then she says she saw this after she took her contacts out, so who knows. One thing that I did read that I thought was very strange. Probably doesn't mean anything except maybe that some of the cops aren't sure of what they saw. One police officer who arrived on the scene described what he saw and said the victim(Martin) was wearing a grey sweatshirt, light colored shorts and white tennis shoes. Now I guess he could have mistaken the hoodie for a sweatshirt, but the ME report says they recovered a pair of shoes and pants from Martin. As specific as everything else is in the report I found this a bit strange.

 

[Enfuego]

I have neither the time nor the inclination to educate a nitwit. I mentioned two important cases where it came into play, use google, it's your friend. You've made over 5,000 posts in about 5 years, and I haven't seen one yet that wasn't stupid. The statement, what are you doing in this thread if you don't have an opinion on what happened, or words to that effect, is one of the stupidest things I've ever read here-and, in THIS forum, that's SAYING something. Who fucking died and made YOU king??? YOU finally came to the realization about 500 posts in that you and I "agree to disagree," so, having finally gotten that through your thick skull, why don't you "honor"somebody else with your pearls of wisdom, because I'm not interested in them.

After that post, I think I'm going to charge you with civil rights violations.

 

[vitterd]

Several witnesses are now changing their story.....doesnt look good for the old bully Zimmerman

 

[wabashwonders]

Several witnesses are now changing their story.....doesnt look good for the old bully Zimmerman

Actually, it may help him. The more and more different stories we hear just raises more and more reasonable doubt as to what actually did happen. Especially when people are changing their minds. Just means they are not sure as to what happened. Reasonable doubt usually results in acquittals.

 

[mplastered]

Makes a witness appear unreliable also.

 

[vitterd]

Actually, it may help him. The more and more different stories we hear just raises more and more reasonable doubt as to what actually did happen. Especially when people are changing their minds. Just means they are not sure as to what happened. Reasonable doubt usually results in acquittals.

Maybe.... but the facts as some have claimed may not be facts at all

 

[Dafinch]

After that post, I think I'm going to charge you with civil rights violations.

Have at it, you'll have about as much right to do so as Zimmerman did to question Martin in the community in which one of his parents lived. A "right" to ask questions, what planet are some of you guys from?

 

[Vico_dan]

Have at it, you'll have about as much right to do so as Zimmerman did to question Martin in the community in which one of his parents lived. A "right" to ask questions, what planet are some of you guys from?

Stayed out of this thread, but something needs to be corrected. TM was visiting the girlfriend of his father. Neither one of TM's parents ever lived in the community where the altercation occurred. Most accounts state that TM had been to this community once, maybe twice. Again, the home was owned by TM's father's girlfriend and not by either of his parents

 

[Enfuego]

Have at it, you'll have about as much right to do so as Zimmerman did to question Martin in the community in which one of his parents lived. A "right" to ask questions, what planet are some of you guys from?

You can go up and ask anyone anything in America. Yes, well within his right to do so.

 

[wabashwonders]

Stayed out of this thread, but something needs to be corrected. TM was visiting the girlfriend of his father. Neither one of TM's parents ever lived in the community where the altercation occurred. Most accounts state that TM had been to this community once, maybe twice. Again, the home was owned by TM's father's girlfriend and not by either of his parents

But he still had a right to be there because he was an invited guest. He had already been staying there a week before this incident occurred. I'm surprised Zimmerman had not already noticed him at some point before that night.

 

[Vico_dan]

But he still had a right to be there because he was an invited guest. He had already been staying there a week before this incident occurred. I'm surprised Zimmerman had not already noticed him at some point before that night.

Absolutely had a right to be there. Just correcting the "one of the parents lived there" information. The statement could be misleading.

 

[wabashwonders]

Absolutely had a right to be there. Just correcting the "one of the parents lived there" information. The statement could be misleading.

Do we know for sure his dad did not live with the girlfriend? I believe it is her house, but why would he be staying there if his dad did not also live there. I was under the assumption that his dad lived with the girl friend.