Laurie, several of us have posted about friends, family or ourselves who have been stopped by the police because we looked "out of place". Happens to people regardless of their color.
Believe me, with the top up on my hubby's car, you can't see from a distance the color of the person driving. Driving in a nice sports car on Six Flags Drive IS suspicious. Driving in a beat up pick up truck in East Cobb is suspicious. As I said earlier "suspicious" has no color.
LPPT, on 25 March 2012 - 11:26 AM, said:
The thing is as long as you are white, it will never occur to you to wonder if you are stopped for the color of your skin, or if the police didn't investigate because of your color.
You don't have to question and that is a fact of life, granted much is based on statistics and I understand what LE deals with on that. Bottom line we can't allow the innocent to suffer for it.
This can not be a black versus white thing, it has to be about right and wrong.
Yes, there is. My obligation to my family and my clients to take care of what is important to them.
JerryLovedLSU, on 25 March 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:
Nothing's stopping you from marching.
See, no one in the South ever asks if you have crazy people in your family. They just ask which side they're on. -- Julia Sugarbaker
In loving memory of Mason (December 1, 2001 to December 9, 2001) and Ashley Jr. (December 1, 2001 to December 2, 2001)
It was not 2am when this started it was a little after 7pm. Of all the reports that I have read or seen on tv I have never heard 2am mentioned by anyone.
Not if he was in a gated community where he had no business. If he had business there, like visiting a friend or relative and THEY gave him the code to unlock the gate, then he was not committing a crime by being there. However, if he wasn't there visiting someone who gave him the code for the gate, he WAS committing a crime. Did I understand correctly that he "cutting through" the property? Isn't that a little like trespassing? How many people have I seen on here through the years who complain about kids "cutting through" the back part of their land?
I wasn't aware it was a gated community. If that is the case, I can understand why Zimmerman would call 911 and report a suspicious person.
The penalty for trespassing is not death by a neighborhood watch vigilante.
If a kid cuts through someone's property, the owner doesn't have the right to shoot them. Call the cops and let the cops handle it. Zimmerman was armed and went looking for a confrontation and a kid is dead.
converse, on 25 March 2012 - 01:21 PM, said:
I don't think many believe it could actually happen. Electing Obama was supposed to fix these kinds of things. Not make them worse...
As they should, whites are getting tired of feeling guilty for all the things they haven't done but are blamed for.
This topic is a prime example of how some let their "white guilt" smother basic common sense.
It is a gated community with a neighborhood watch. This was not a public street. And Zimmerman DID have a right to check the guy out. I have had to deal with 17 year old punks and they think they are untouchable. I am betting this was the case.
What everyone needs to be concerned with at this point is if Zimmerman is prosecuted because of the uproar, I have a feeling the big white sleeping giant is going to be awakened and all hell is going to break loose.
You mean like the reaction White America had when the Simi Valley cops who pummeled Rodney King for speeding got off on all assault charges?
Come on. The victim ... the kid should be given a shot at justice ... And it is not justice for a self-appointed vigilant to stalk someone - that is what following them is from the victim's point of view - and then when they provoke the victim into defending themselves kill them and walk.
If that is your vision of justice, you must share wet dreams with the Klan.
You mean like the reaction White America had when the Simi Valley cops who pummeled Rodney King for speeding got off on all assault charges?
Come on. The victim ... the kid should be given a shot at justice ... And it is not justice for a self-appointed vigilant to stalk someone - that is what following them is from the victim's point of view - and then when they provoke the victim into defending themselves kill them and walk.
If that is your vision of justice, you must share wet dreams with the Klan.
pubby
Really? I think you are way out of line with this comment.
Maybe poker's just not your game Ike. I know! Let's have a spelling contest!
Really? I think you are way out of line with this comment.
I very much agree with you feelip. That comment would be out of line for any member on this site, especially the "owner" of this site. My opinion, of course.
I very much agree with you feelip. That comment would be out of line for any member on this site, especially the "owner" of this site. My opinion, of course.
Typical liberal. When you run out of intelligent responses, go with personal attacks.
Wow! Sounds eerily familiar.
Maybe poker's just not your game Ike. I know! Let's have a spelling contest!
I very much agree with you feelip. That comment would be out of line for any member on this site, especially the "owner" of this site. My opinion, of course.
Maybe you should threaten another lawsuit. Just my opinion, of course.
I've got it bookmarked and copied. You admitted it was a poor choice of words. Got it. Looking forward to it.
Like you said, it was a poor choice of words (I agree, it was) and that it was not a racist thing. To that I agree. Only a bigot would try to make what happened to you a racist thing. Since you agreed it was a poor choice of words and NOT a racist thing, then you've proved my point that only a bigot would think it is a racist thing.
It was not 2am when this started it was a little after 7pm. Of all the reports that I have read or seen on tv I have never heard 2am mentioned by anyone.
I've got it bookmarked and copied. You admitted it was a poor choice of words. Got it. Looking forward to it.
Like you said, it was a poor choice of words (I agree, it was) and that it was not a racist thing. To that I agree. Only a bigot would try to make what happened to you a racist thing. Since you agreed it was a poor choice of words and NOT a racist thing, then you've proved my point that only a bigot would think it is a racist thing.
Just some friendly advice for you zoo - there are consequences for actions and regardless of what you think, you simply just can't call others names such as "bigots" and expect for it to be okay.
I've got it bookmarked and copied. You admitted it was a poor choice of words. Got it. Looking forward to it.
Like you said, it was a poor choice of words (I agree, it was) and that it was not a racist thing. To that I agree. Only a bigot would try to make what happened to you a racist thing. Since you agreed it was a poor choice of words and NOT a racist thing, then you've proved my point that only a bigot would think it is a racist thing.
Are you hammered? I watched you debate before and you are usually pretty decent. I think you're smashed. Am I close?
Not to worry, I think Pubby passed out over an hour ago.
Maybe poker's just not your game Ike. I know! Let's have a spelling contest!
Just some friendly advice for you zoo - there are consequences for actions and regardless of what you think, you simply just can't call others names such as "bigots" and expect for it to be okay.
And since you agreed it was a poor choice of words and that you were not making a racist thing, then you're not acting the part of the bigot, no? Now if you would have held that what happened to you was a racist thing, I would have some questions about it. But since you retracted those words, I guess it you're agreeing with me.
And since you agreed it was a poor choice of words and that you were not making a racist thing, then you're not acting the part of the bigot, no? Now if you would have held that what happened to you was a racist thing, I would have some questions about it. But since you retracted those words, I guess it you're agreeing with me.
Read this very, very carefully ZC - I did not call anyone a bigot. YOU did. I hate it that you can't accept responsibility for your actions.
Read this very, very carefully ZC - I did not call anyone a bigot. YOU did. I hate it that you can't accept responsibility for your actions.
Read this very carefully, Beach Bum. I said IF you were to have made what happened to you a racial thing, then THAT would have taken a bigot to think like that. Since you said your words were poorly chosen, then you're saying it was NOT reverse discrimination.
Everyone can nominate another for a bullet through the report this post button appearing to the left bottom of each post.
Don't do it maliciously and don't cry wolf or you may get shot yourself ... the popo can get trigger happy when they're over-worked.
I think the solution is to hand out a gun to every citizen. It should become part of the healthcare bill because this demonstrates without a doubt not having a gun is dangerous to your health!
Really? I think you are way out of line with this comment.
Feelip:
I don't think so.
What you're proposing as a reasonable interpretation of the law is nothing more than a license to kill.
Yes, the klan would have loved to have had these laws in place in the 1960s ... heck, you stalk your victim, radio around (they didn't have cells then) to your buds ahead, the victim feels trapped and lashed out like a rat trapped and you shoot him dead protected by stand your ground laws.
Indeed, if the kid had been armed with a gun with a legal carry permit, under your interpretation of the law, would he have been justified shooting Zimmerman?
The plain fact is the interpretation of the stand your ground law making this justified homicide is what is way out of line.
... And I stand by the statement that if all who think that the laws give Zimmerman a complete bye - no arrest much less prosecution - are sharing a dream with those in the klan because if that is the way it is, the bigots are rejoicing.
pubby
PS: I think the jury is out on whether Zimmerman was a bigot or not. He may have just been scared by the sudden attack because he wasn't smart enough to know that stalking someone can lead to a confrontation. But to assign immunity from prosecution to a neighborhood watcher is a bit much who stalked a person is a bit much.
He may have just been scared by the sudden attack because he wasn't smart enough to know that stalking someone can lead to a confrontation.
So he is supposed to accept whatever fate comes his way because he followed the kid? I find it hilarious you're trying to make an argument that it is OK for the kid to attack the guy but is wrong for the guy getting attacked to protect himself.
Are you really trying to make that argument or did you have a brain fart when typing all that out?
This post has been edited by converse: 25 March 2012 - 10:38 PM
So he is supposed to accept whatever fate comes his way because he followed the kid? I find it hilarious you're trying to make an argument that it is OK for the kid to attack the guy but is wrong for the guy getting attacked to protect himself.
Are you really trying to make that argument or did you have a brain fart when typing all that out?
No brain fart.
Good law.
If you're being stalked you are vulnerable to attack. Has there been an attack yet?
No, but you don't know if the stalker is armed or not or means you harm. If the stalker is on the phone, you don't know if he's calling in his gang members to surround you.
When you're being stalked, you're being treated like a rat. You are being backed into a corner ... and you have the right to stand your ground, too. Fact is, if you (the person being stalked) get scared enough, you might attack because you may, rationally or irrationally, that the stalker is bringing more gang members to the scene with his phone.
Zimmerman, by no account I've seen, told Martin to take it easy, that he'd called the police and that they'll be there in a minute.
There is a good chance the kid attacked him to try and put him on the ground and run away. That is just as likely as any other scenario. I'd have considered such a strategy to get away from a stalker.
Fact is, if you insist on your interpretation of the law, there are only two ways for this tragedy to have been averted.
The first is tell your sons and daughters that they either need to carry because the law will accept their aggressive way out of the confrontation if they shoot their stalker or they need to, when stalked, kneel on the ground and be prepared to die but hope for the best.
I mean the act of stalking is an act of aggression. rather than it being one guy bringing a fist to a gun fight, they could draw to determine who is right because, in my book, both were in essence standing their ground.
But I really don't believe any of want a society where every 17 year old teenager feels compelled to pack heat for fear they'll be stalked by a gun-toting vigilante hoping to corner them for the kill.
pubby
PS: Regarding the use of the word stalking ... According to a 2002 report by the National Center for Victims of Crime, "Virtually any unwanted contact between two people that directly or indirectly communicates a threat or places the victim in fear can be considered stalking."
I'm sure that Zimmerman didn't think he was stalking Martin, he was just following him, staring him down and intimidating him. All that is on the 911 tape that involved Zimmerman's call.
Remember also that Martin was a football player. one of the key lessons I learned in football was the defense is a good offense. That is why it was inevitable that the kid 'attacked' ... and had the kid been armed ... well when you're being stalked on the public streets you are the victim of a crime and you are allowed to defend yourself.
If I were on a jury and I heard on the 911 tape that Zimmerman said, Citizen Arrest, Citizen Arrest, I'd be inclined to let him off ... but to be confronted by a heavy set guy stalking me - at my age I can't run - I'm too liable to confront the stalker aggressively.
There is a good chance the kid attacked him to try and put him on the ground and run away. That is just as likely as any other scenario. I'd have considered such a strategy to get away from a stalker.
So you believe it is OK to physically attack someone for following you, but not OK to protect yourself from being physically attacked? In your eyes there is more harm from following someone than there is by throwing someone on the ground and punching them in the face?
Is your argument Zimmerman deserved to get beat up and had no right to protect his self? If so you better not follow anyone at any time because the definition of stalking you are using could describe any kind of following. By your logic I would be justified in beating the snot out of you for simply following me down the street in your car and you would be guilty of murder if you fought back and I was killed.
What you're proposing as a reasonable interpretation of the law is nothing more than a license to kill.
Yes, the klan would have loved to have had these laws in place in the 1960s ... heck, you stalk your victim, radio around (they didn't have cells then) to your buds ahead, the victim feels trapped and lashed out like a rat trapped and you shoot him dead protected by stand your ground laws.
Indeed, if the kid had been armed with a gun with a legal carry permit, under your interpretation of the law, would he have been justified shooting Zimmerman?
The plain fact is the interpretation of the stand your ground law making this justified homicide is what is way out of line.
... And I stand by the statement that if all who think that the laws give Zimmerman a complete bye - no arrest much less prosecution - are sharing a dream with those in the klan because if that is the way it is, the bigots are rejoicing.
pubby
PS: I think the jury is out on whether Zimmerman was a bigot or not. He may have just been scared by the sudden attack because he wasn't smart enough to know that stalking someone can lead to a confrontation. But to assign immunity from prosecution to a neighborhood watcher is a bit much who stalked a person is a bit much.
So in your little corner of utopia you just hide in the corner while the bad guys carry your sheeze off. And before I have to hear the trucking Skittles excuse again, tell me how (without checking him out) was Zimmerman supposed to know that Tray Tray was not up to no good?
I can tell you that if someone is in my neighborhood I am going to check them out and if they attack me I am going to shoot them.
Because I am this way, I stopped a burglary in progress at my neighbors home 20+ years ago. AND I was told by the Paulding County detective that was investigating the crime if I saw them again to just shoot and call him. And before you start name calling again, these were white people.
Maybe poker's just not your game Ike. I know! Let's have a spelling contest!
So you believe it is OK to physically attack someone for following you, but not OK to protect yourself from being physically attacked? In your eyes there is more harm from following someone than there is by throwing someone on the ground and punching them in the face?
Is your argument Zimmerman deserved to get beat up and had no right to protect his self? If so you better not follow anyone at any time because the definition of stalking you are using could describe any kind of following. By your logic I would be justified in beating the snot out of you for simply following me down the street in your car and you would be guilty of murder if you fought back and I was killed.
There is a difference between stalking someone and observing someone. Had he retreated when confronted; had he uttered the words "citizen arrest, citizen arrest" so that it could be heard by 911 or the neighbors, had he simply figured some other way to diffuse the situation (go get in his car and lock the door and tell the kid, wait here, the cops are coming) are all alternatives. Not following him on foot was also an alternative. He could have gotten in his car and in the event of a confrontation, simply driven off.
Hell, he could have fired in the ground or into the air when the kids was 20 yards away and coming.
As far as your following logic, there is a big difference between sharing the physical space of a highway or other public space and following. You know that difference and most of us do know the difference. And yes, most people are spooked when a car makes too many of the same turns and keeps their distance. And yes, there are cases ascribed to road rage over this kind of activity ... that does end in murder. I can say with some certainty that if the shooter is known, they are usually charged.
And yes, police have been known to tail people but just as notably, they pride themselves on not being spotted when doing so and if confronted, they will either immediately go the other way or identify themselves so as to avoid a confrontation. (The latter is why many police wear uniforms - so they are identified.)
Even a plain clothes detective, if spotted following you, will likely identify himself by flashing a badge to warn you off from a threatened attack. (flashing a badge is the same as showing your firearm ... and I'm guessing that Zimmerman did not even do the latter.)
But as an unidentified individual following someone, your threat is one that is hard to gauge reasonably. You could be anything from a rapist who likes young boys to a hardened killer hired by your girlfriends father or even the deranged rival for her affections. And the fact is the person being followed has every right to protect himself from any of these and may indeed have a reason to believe any of these threats may be the one posed by the stalker.
Heck, the stalker could be a Ted Bundy, Wayne Williams or Henry Lee Lucas and everyone is supposed to be meek and submit to whomever is following them? Get real.
Finally, I'm not saying that what Zimmerman did in this case is first degree murder. I figure that he may have a case that could result in acquittal ... for instance there could be evidence that when the kid started toward him he did announce he was neighborhood watch, this is a citizen arrest and show his gun.
While I'm under the impression that wasn't the case, it could be because we don't know with any certainty the precise facts. Indeed, the facts as we know them would suggest that a crime did take place and that crime may be murder.
The situation is murky enough that the defense needs to make their case before a judge and jury. For instance, there isn't hard fast incontrovertible evidence that the kid actually did attack Zimmerman and that his grass stains and injuries (if any) didn't occur earlier in the evening from another altercation.
For the record Converse and Feelip ... you do know that if you go to a bar and get in a fist fight and in the midst of the fight you pickup a tire tool and whack your opponent on the noggin and kill him, you're likely going to find yourself in jail on charges of manslaughter ... whether or not you started the fight or not. And you'll also be jailed if there is gun play and you shoot him with your gun. You might have a chance of not landing in jail if the bartender says you were totally innocent when the guy came up and hit you and then, in the midst of the fight, drew his gun and you shot him with it in the middle of the struggle.
There is not that much difference between this and a bar fight.
There is a difference between stalking someone and observing someone. Had he retreated when confronted; had he uttered the words "citizen arrest, citizen arrest" so that it could be heard by 911 or the neighbors, had he simply figured some other way to diffuse the situation (go get in his car and lock the door and tell the kid, wait here, the cops are coming) are all alternatives. Not following him on foot was also an alternative. He could have gotten in his car and in the event of a confrontation, simply driven off.
Hell, he could have fired in the ground or into the air when the kids was 20 yards away and coming.
As far as your following logic, there is a big difference between sharing the physical space of a highway or other public space and following. You know that difference and most of us do know the difference. And yes, most people are spooked when a car makes too many of the same turns and keeps their distance. And yes, there are cases ascribed to road rage over this kind of activity ... that does end in murder. I can say with some certainty that if the shooter is known, they are usually charged.
And yes, police have been known to tail people but just as notably, they pride themselves on not being spotted when doing so and if confronted, they will either immediately go the other way or identify themselves so as to avoid a confrontation. (The latter is why many police wear uniforms - so they are identified.)
Even a plain clothes detective, if spotted following you, will likely identify himself by flashing a badge to warn you off from a threatened attack. (flashing a badge is the same as showing your firearm ... and I'm guessing that Zimmerman did not even do the latter.)
But as an unidentified individual following someone, your threat is one that is hard to gauge reasonably. You could be anything from a rapist who likes young boys to a hardened killer hired by your girlfriends father or even the deranged rival for her affections. And the fact is the person being followed has every right to protect himself from any of these and may indeed have a reason to believe any of these threats may be the one posed by the stalker.
Heck, the stalker could be a Ted Bundy, Wayne Williams or Henry Lee Lucas and everyone is supposed to be meek and submit to whomever is following them? Get real.
Finally, I'm not saying that what Zimmerman did in this case is first degree murder. I figure that he may have a case that could result in acquittal ... for instance there could be evidence that when the kid started toward him he did announce he was neighborhood watch, this is a citizen arrest and show his gun.
While I'm under the impression that wasn't the case, it could be because we don't know with any certainty the precise facts. Indeed, the facts as we know them would suggest that a crime did take place and that crime may be murder.
The situation is murky enough that the defense needs to make their case before a judge and jury. For instance, there isn't hard fast incontrovertible evidence that the kid actually did attack Zimmerman and that his grass stains and injuries (if any) didn't occur earlier in the evening from another altercation.
For the record Converse and Feelip ... you do know that if you go to a bar and get in a fist fight and in the midst of the fight you pickup a tire tool and whack your opponent on the noggin and kill him, you're likely going to find yourself in jail on charges of manslaughter ... whether or not you started the fight or not. And you'll also be jailed if there is gun play and you shoot him with your gun. You might have a chance of not landing in jail if the bartender says you were totally innocent when the guy came up and hit you and then, in the midst of the fight, drew his gun and you shot him with it in the middle of the struggle.
There is not that much difference between this and a bar fight.
pubby
What you and a few others don't seem to get is I am not defending Zimmerman. I'm just not falling for the "poor black child" routine. And I am also defending the system that is ALREADY in place to handle the issue. Unless some evidence is presented proving that the local law enforcement agency investigating this case has done something illegal, I don't see what everyone is pissing and moaning about.
Maybe poker's just not your game Ike. I know! Let's have a spelling contest!
There is a difference between stalking someone and observing someone.
As far as your following logic, there is a big difference between sharing the physical space of a highway or other public space and following.
Not according to the definition you gave above. Much like sexual harassment, stalking defined above is up to the victim to define it definition. Even if you personally don't believe you're stalking someone you are guilty because the other party thought you were. So if this kid has the legal right to bash the head in of this guy then anyone who feels threaten has the same right. So again, using your definition of stalking, you’d fully support the too right for someone physically assault you because they believed you were following them?
PUBBY, on 26 March 2012 - 12:13 AM, said:
PS: Regarding the use of the word stalking ... According to a 2002 report by the National Center for Victims of Crime, "Virtually any unwanted contact between two people that directly or indirectly communicates a threat or places the victim in fear can be considered stalking."
I am certain Zimmerman felt threated while he was getting punched in the face. If Trevon felt threaten and wanted to escape, why didn't he run after getting Zimmerman on the ground? Zimmerman yelled "Help Me!" more than once. How many "Help Me!"s does it take to turn a victim in to an attacker? How many Attackers scream help me? How many people who set out to kill someone only shoot a single shot in their attempt to murder? How many murders call 911 before committing a crime?
Are you proposing Zimmerman broke his own nose, rolled around in the grass, and caused the bloody wounds himself? Do you believe the witnesses who said they seen him on the ground screaming “Help Me!” with Trevon on top of him were lying?
The only thing we can say for sure at this point is Zimmerman was told he “didn’t need to” stop following the kid. He wasn’t told "not to". He was performing neighborhood watch duties when this happened and called in to 911. He did show signs a struggle and so far police and witnesses have confirmed his story.
Seems some here looking for more of a lynching than true justice….
This post has been edited by converse: 26 March 2012 - 12:41 PM
To the apologetic, guilt-ridden left, Zimmerman has to be guilty. Had the opposit occurred, their handlers would allow them to approach the shooting objectively. All one has to consider in trying to understand why seeming intelligent (enough) people are taking this tact is that becasue the dead body is black, and the survivor isn't, the survivor is assumed guilty until proven innocent. Without that assumption, there is no way to shed themselves of their guilt with the issue; no political mileage.
It's that simple. Don't over complicate it.
This post has been edited by smitty: 26 March 2012 - 12:56 PM
My opinions do not reflect a command of reasoning but instead, reflect that reason
Found this today. I'll still have to verify authenticity, if possible.
There is also this
Here are some excerpts from the report:
Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk several times, leaving him bloody and battered, authorities have revealed to the Orlando Sentinel.
That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say.
Zimmerman has not spoken publicly about what happened, but that night, Feb. 26, and in later meetings he described and re-enacted for police what he says happened.
In his version of events, he had turned around and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from behind, the two exchanged words then Trayvon punched him in the nose, sending him to the ground, and began beating him.
The article also includes the following information:
Police have been reluctant to provided details about all their evidence, but this is what they've disclosed to the Sentinel:
Zimmerman was on his way to the grocery store when he spotted Trayvon walking through his gated community.
Trayvon was visiting his father's fiancée, who lived there. He had been suspended from school in Miami after being found with an empty marijuana baggie. Miami schools have a zero-tolerance policy for drug possession.
Zimmerman called police and reported a suspicious person, describing Trayvon as black, acting strangely and perhaps on drugs.
Zimmerman got out of his SUV to follow Trayvon on foot. When a dispatch employee asked Zimmerman if he was following the 17-year-old, Zimmerman said yes. The dispatcher told Zimmerman he did not need to do that.
There is about a one-minute gap during which police say they're not sure what happened.
Zimmerman told them he lost sight of Trayvon and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words.
Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police.
Trayvon then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose.
Zimmerman fell to the ground and Trayvon got on top of him and began slamming his head into the sidewalk, he told police.
Zimmerman began yelling for help.
Several witnesses heard those cries, and there's been a dispute about from whom they came: Zimmerman or Trayvon.
Lawyers for Trayvon's family say it was Trayvon, but police say their evidence indicates it was Zimmerman.
One witnesses, who has since talked to local television news reporters, told police he saw Zimmerman on the ground with Trayvon on top, pounding him and was unequivocal that it was Zimmerman who was crying for help.
Zimmerman then shot Trayvon once in the chest from very close range, according to authorities.
When police arrived less than two minutes later, Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose, had a swollen lip and had bloody lacerations to the back of his head.
Might I point out the last few lines. This case will hinge on exactly who the evidence indicates attacked who. I do not know, I was not there. I can not truly say one way or another. Therefore I CHOOSE to remain neutral on this case. The media and protestors are skewing the evidence that is being presented to the public. The TRUTH will hopefully come out. And if Zimmerman murdered Tray, then he needs to be punished. But if the EVIDENCE clears him and shows that Tray attacked Zimmerman, then I pray that justice will prevail and that Zimmerman's rights are protected from the media and protestors cries for inappropriate justice. (Even though what he did was not very bright) This is why lynch mobs are illegal.
Mr. Dis offers Professional, Reliable lawn care for all of your home's needs. Please PM for a free Quote.
I'm a Uber Hottie... LGM say's so...
I hearby give credit to the Phoenicians for the Phoenician alphabet in all my writings on PCOM
This is the sort of thing that really pisses me off about the media and the obvious slant toward minorities and popular thought and opinion by pop culture. I was in wallyworld yesterday and on my way to checkout, I saw a People magazine with that Trayvon boy's baby faced picture all over the cover doing their best to paint him as an innocent little boy to the public. It is misleading and does a disservice to us all and the process of the law. How is Sullivan going to get a fair trial if there ever is one with everyone rallying to hang him just by what they see and hear in the news? Impossible. Try to find 12 jurors who are not affected by this.
I don't know if that boy was innocent and just a well mannered kid minding his own business or a punk trying to get away with something maybe casing a house in Sullivan's neighborhood and neither does People magazine or anyone else for that matter because we were not there in that mans shoes. Let the facts be brought to light and justice should eventually prevail. It just makes me sick that the whole dang country seems to be ready to fry this guy when they don't know anything except what the media presents to them. Bunch of dang sheep!
That 13 year old that will be physically and emotionally scarred for life by having his face burned in an OBVIOUS HATE CRIME, gets no sympathy from the press because he ain't black! I just hope they find the two punks that set him ablaze and return in kind, they're gonna burn in hell anyway. Why isn't this young boy's face plastered all over a popular magazine to help raise a public outcry for the justice he deserves?
I'd address that "stand your ground" and "Castle Doctrine" legislation that this state has also passed but it would take this too far off topic. Suffice it to say, I'm 10,000 percent behind and in full favor of both!
This post has been edited by One Ton: 01 April 2012 - 03:23 PM
Wow! so glad my several scholarship granted soon to be honors graduate son doesn't read comments on this website. We moved out here when our sons were babies and always felt it was a good and decent place to live. My son runs through our subdvision at nite because of homework, and to stay in shape, I walk every nite as well(in the fall and winter with a hoodie on)....I used to hear police tell children if someone was following them to run or if they are captured to holler and scream, and fight them off....now how do we know Trayvon wasn't accosted by GZ and he fought for his life? To think that could have easily been my two older law abiding sons! And to think people on here feel he had the right to follow and chase him with a loaded gun and end his life is PATHETIC AND CRUEL! I often wonder if the roles were switched and GZ had shot a young white boy would there be more sympathy and outrage from this particular group? ......smmfh! Sad as hell how some people are on Pcom, but really not surprised!
So you are putting your sons in the same group as Trayvon just because they are black? Did either of your sons get kicked out of school for having pot? Have your sons ever been caught with burglary tools? Nice try, but I think you know the difference just like most everyone else does. Seems pretty pathetic that you would use this angle.
If you want to brag about your son being an honor graduate GO FOR IT! You will get tons of pats on the back from the folks on PCOM. But to use your son's accomplishments to try to draw a parallel to some delinquent is just plain sad.
BTW, had Trayvon been white, it would have never made the news.
OH! Got to hate it when someone grabs your post before you can edit.
This post has been edited by feelip: 18 May 2012 - 02:51 PM
Maybe poker's just not your game Ike. I know! Let's have a spelling contest!
Help
LPPT, on 25 March 2012 - 11:26 AM, said:
Promote to Article
