What's new

George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin

What did Obama say that was wrong/bad?

If you have to ask you haven't been paying attention.

The mere fact that a sitting President would offer ANY comment at all is offensive in and of itself. At most Obama should have said, "It's not appropriate for me to comment beyond asking that we not rush to judgement and allow the Law Enforcement people in FL to complete their investigation."
 
Notice the story that happened some 30+ days ago is now slip sliding away?

Suddenly appears to be a non story.

MSM agenda has been exposed.

Whats Al and Jesse to do to maintain their public persona?
 
Notice the story that happened some 30+ days ago is now slip sliding away?

Suddenly appears to be a non story.

MSM agenda has been exposed.

Whats Al and Jesse to do to maintain their public persona?

What I want to know is what exactly does Jesse Jackson DO for a living? Who pays him?
 
Did you even read the article you linked? What relevance does “self defense of the home in Florida” have on the Zimmerman / Martin case?

I'll wait.

Martin was not killed during the commission of a felony home invasion. Self defense laws that govern a citizen’s right to use deadly force during a home invasion have absolutely nothing to do with this case Period! .........

May be I misunderstood what you were referring to but when I read the 766.012 statute is was based on home/property invasion. The section I referred to in post #5. It is the 3rd section of FL statute 776.013 As I understand it, .013 expanded upon the original statute and expanded the stand your ground law beyond home/property. Here is the section that is being called into question:

(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.

By the way, I really do not understand how hard this is to look up.

While past acts may or may not be allowed in a court of law, I believe they are quite relevant as an indicator of future behavior. Since he has a history of assault that does seem to substantiate the assumption that he may have done it a forth time.

I do not believe I said anything about a time duration that Zimmerman followed Martin. I think the fact that he felt safer calling his girl friend than calling the cops is quite relevant. I was not aware that you had established the rules of evidence in this case. My apologies.

I do not believe the proximity to the car has any bearing. Martin could have decided to approach Zimmerman to tell him to stop following him. Zimmerman could have felt threaten and started to pull his gun on an unarmed kid. Martin could have decided that it was either get the gun away from Zimmerman or die. We will likely never know since Marin is dead.

I can understand your reluctance to adress the rest of the post. You made unfounded assumptions that were pretty off the wall.
Weather conditions at the time were reported as heavy rain. It is more than likely that Zimmerman spotted and observed Martin while driving his SUV through the gated community he patrolled. It is not likely that Zimmerman would be patrolling outside his vehicle in the rain. It is unclear if Zimmerman stopped his SUV to question Martin from within his SUV (not against the law and well within his legal boundaries) or if Zimmerman just observed Martin and then parked and got out of his SUV to question Martin.

Zimmerman stated that Martin’s suspicious activities included indicators that he may be under the influence of alcohol / drugs and appeared to be casing homes as he slowly walked (it has been reported that Martin had just be suspended from school due to having pot residue in a plastic baggy on school property). In light of this recent disclosure, Zimmerman observations become more relevant as he may in fact have observed Martin stoned to the bone!


The more I learn about Martin and his propensity to comment crime, the clearer the picture becomes of what Obama’s son would look like, a loser! I guess the police just acted stupidly huh Ms Tree?

On what basis did Zimmerman make these assumptions. Given the weather conditions he must have been following Marin fairly closely and for quite some time .... or he is lying to protect his butt.

So Martins prior acts are relevant for you but Zimmerman's past assault charges are not relevant? Nice.
 
Notice the story that happened some 30+ days ago is now slip sliding away?

Suddenly appears to be a non story.

MSM agenda has been exposed.

Whats Al and Jesse to do to maintain their public persona?

Now then one must ask why the MSM dropped this like a hot potato?

Could it be that Mr Martin was not as pure as the driven snow?
 
Could it be that there are no new developments and it's a standard news cycle?
 
Could it be that there are no new developments and it's a standard news cycle?


Unlikely as the MSM loves to make their own news.

So what is it again that Jesse Jackson does to earn a living? I didn't know race baiting paid so well! 😀 😀
 
Unlikely as the MSM loves to make their own news.

So what is it again that Jesse Jackson does to earn a living? I didn't know race baiting paid so well! 😀 😀


Where the heck have you been? Sharpton, jackson, Coulter, Limbaugh..... they are laughing all the way to the bank.
 
Could it be that there are no new developments and it's a standard news cycle?

Yeah, right...................Story from Feb 23 is a national issue a month later.
No DNC agenda here that's for sure.


by Dan Riehl 34 minutes ago

NBC News is said to have launched an internal investigation into why it posted an edited version of George Zimmerman's call to a 911 dispatcher made prior to a shooting incident resulting in the death of 17 year-old Trayvon Martin. The altered version made it appear as though Martin's race was an important factor that night for Zimmerman, when, in fact, he was only answering a question posed by a 911 dispatcher.

NBC told the Washington Post's Erik Wemple Saturday that it would investigate an incident in which the "Today" show used an abridged recording of George Zimmerman's 911 call before he killed Trayvon Martin. The version used by NBC emphasized race as a factor in the incident.

Big Journalism first reported on the online version of the MSNBC controversy 3 days ago and followed up with another report yesterday, March 30th on NBC's aired segment. As the Hollywood Reporter states, Fox News, led by host Sean Hannity, along with Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center, have also been challenging NBC on what appears to be an outrageous use of an editing technique to make the 911 call seem damning of Zimmerman, as well as divisive and inflammatory along racial lines.

After playing both versions, Hannity said: “They forgot the dispatcher’s question! How could NBC, in good conscience, do that?”

“This isn’t bias, this isn’t distortion, this is an all-out falsehood by NBC News,” answers Bozell, who runs a conservative watchdog group called the Media Research Center.

“When you hear him say, ‘he looks black,’ anyone watching that believes that there are racial overtones to what this man did,” Bozell says. “How could you not believe that? It goes with the narrative of the profiling. The only problem is, they edited out the dispatcher asking him, ‘what does he look like?’”

“This is NBC News, Brent, and this is what they did at a time when emotions are running very high in this country,” Hannity said during his Thursday night TV show.

“Tom Brokaw, Matt Lauer, I wonder if they’re proud tonight?” Hannity asked.

NBC News declined to comment.

As the 911 call editing controversy continues to grow, MSNBC contributor Touré was recently called out on air by CNN's Piers Morgan for his seemingly racially biased handling of the Florida story. When MSNBC branded itself as the "Leans Forward" network, few likely suspected it meant to stir up racial divide in America. Now, NBC looks to be taking a page out of MSNBC's playbook, as well.

MSNBC contributor Toure suffered an epic meltdown on CNN last night. Piers Morgan challenged Touré to come on his show to debate the Trayvon killing after their Twitter war earlier in the week. Morgan blasted Toure for his race-baiting and lecturing.

With the NAACP and MSNBC's Al Sharpton divided over the incident, Barack Obama weighing in early, only to say nothing in recent days, and now rival Cable News networks questioning MSNBC's and even NBC's judgment, it's hard to see the post-racial healing in America Barack Obama promised while running for office in 2008.
 
I think the bigger issue is the stand your ground law in FL. The law is fatally flawed. If you look at section 3 of the law it essentially says that I can follow someone in a public place and if that person turns on me and I feel threatened I can can use force including deadly force to save my self. Even though I initiated the pursuit, I can still claim that I felt threatened. The fact that justifiable homicides have tripled in FL seems to have skated under the radar on this one.

I do not know what happened in this case. There were no witnesses to what happened. No one knows who threw the first punch. It does seem clear that Zimmerman was following Martin even tho9ugh 911 dispatch said not too. If I were being followed by someone at night I am not sure what I would do.

If you read the law, the police had no reason to arrest much less detain Zimmerman. A kid gets shot and the shooter is not even out on bail? WTF??? The law either needs to be struck down or modified. I do not see how someone can pursue an individual and then claim to be threatened by the individual.
It's a good law, if your not out causing trouble you have nothing to worry about. zimmerman was looking out for his neighbors and his neighborhood. Punks must go or they might get hurt.
 
Have you read the law? One could argue that the intent was good, how ever if you read the law the execution, specifically section 3 is quite poor in that it can be manipulated very easily.

The problem with the law as it is written is that the ground I can 'stand' on travels with me. The ground can travel with me as I get up into your face and the second you try and intimidate me I can then claim that I felt threatened and shoot you. Now you could do the same thing to me so I guess it depends on who draws first. The problem I see with the law is that since I was following you and intimidating you, why should I have the ability to claim self defense when I instigated it? It seems to me like claiming that the bear is at fault for getting pissed off when I poke it.

If you are going to follow someone you cannot be surprised or feel intimidated when the prey turns on you. Now if it can be proven that Martin attacked (if he did) Zimmerman as an offensive move as opposed to a defensive (stop following me) then there may be a case but so far as I have seen, there seems to be very little to support that claim other than Knotbuynit's little story of fancy.

The problem with the law is that it does not deal with the issue of who initiated the scenario where force is applied. If you are going to poke the bear, it is your fault that you get your butt whooped, not the bears.
 
Have you read the law? One could argue that the intent was good, how ever if you read the law the execution, specifically section 3 is quite poor in that it can be manipulated very easily.

The problem with the law as it is written is that the ground I can 'stand' on travels with me. The ground can travel with me as I get up into your face and the second you try and intimidate me I can then claim that I felt threatened and shoot you. Now you could do the same thing to me so I guess it depends on who draws first. The problem I see with the law is that since I was following you and intimidating you, why should I have the ability to claim self defense when I instigated it? It seems to me like claiming that the bear is at fault for getting pissed off when I poke it.

If you are going to follow someone you cannot be surprised or feel intimidated when the prey turns on you. Now if it can be proven that Martin attacked (if he did) Zimmerman as an offensive move as opposed to a defensive (stop following me) then there may be a case but so far as I have seen, there seems to be very little to support that claim other than Knotbuynit's little story of fancy.

The problem with the law is that it does not deal with the issue of who initiated the scenario where force is applied. If you are going to poke the bear, it is your fault that you get your butt whooped, not the bears.
following someone while looking out for your neighborhood or neighbors is NOT poking the bear! waite for the facts .... it could be a surprise ending. Anytime jackson and sharpton get involved it usually ends bad for their side.
 
Thank God there is no agenda from MSM.

See NBC got caught fraudulently altering the dispatch call from Zimmerman?

Why would NBC do such a thing? To make this out so Zimmerman comes off as a racist?

Great news right there. As exposed by Fox News and media watchdog site NewsBusters, the “Today” segment took this approach to a key part of the dispatcher call:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

Here’s how the actual conversation went down:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

The difference between what “Today” put on its air and the actual tape? Complete: In the “Today” version, Zimmerman volunteered that this person “looks black,” a sequence of events that would more readily paint Zimmerman as a racial profiler. In reality’s version, Zimmerman simply answered a question about the race of the person whom he was reporting to the police. Nothing prejudicial at all in responding to such an inquiry.

Story
 

Latest posts

Back
Top