17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?

I am all for getting the number of guns down and out of the hands of criminals but that old dude is a hero. Gun? Licensed! Does he know how to wield it? Yup. Look at how he puts both hands on it and levels it before he fires the first time.

Crime is rampant in my city and more needs to be done to curb the proliferation of guns but in this instance, I am glad dude was there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ed_jaxon

Crime is rampant in my city and more needs to be done to curb the proliferation of guns but in this instance, I am glad dude was there.

---

The proliferation of guns is only a problem when it's guys like the two in the OP who are acquiring them. The proliferation of guns amongst our non-criminal element of society is a very good thing.

Not similar cases at all. If someone chooses to commit a crime, IMO they are taking their lives in their own hands.

The only problem I'd have would be if those kids saw that old man's gun and turned and ran, and he STILL shot them. That would be wrong.

BTW I haven't watched the vid, but did this old man see these guys attempting to rob OTHER people and decide he was going to shoot them?? That's a little sketchy.
Did the kids die??

Trayvon wasn't armed. Trayvon wasn't committing a crime. Zimmerman was following him for several blocks in his SUV and on foot because he looked 'suspicious'.
THat's bullshit x3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

The only problem I'd have would be if those kids saw that old man's gun and turned and ran, and he STILL shot them. That would be wrong.

BTW I haven't watched the vid, but did this old man see these guys attempting to rob OTHER people and decide he was going to shoot them?? That's a little sketchy.
Did the kids die??

Trayvon wasn't armed. Trayvon wasn't committing a crime. Zimmerman was following him for several blocks in his SUV and on foot because he looked 'suspicious'.
THat's bullshit x3.

---

Why not watch the vid and then comment? Only takes a minute. The post was to show a situation where "stand your ground" was not only applicable, but very effective. Plenty of people protesting against stand your ground. Maybe they need to leave the law alone.

The best of all possible worlds is a world totally free of guns.

Not everyone should be a gun owner as some are not emotionally capable of the responsibility of using deadly force.

Legally acquired guns can and often do fall into the hands of those with no business having them. Kids and grand kids for example.

Personally I would love to see a violent offender database like they have with sex offenders. We need to know when a violent person who has committed a crime with a firearm is in our midst.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donkey

The proliferation of guns is only a problem when it's guys like the two in the OP who are acquiring them. The proliferation of guns amongst our non-criminal element of society is a very good thing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

The only problem I'd have would be if those kids saw that old man's gun and turned and ran, and he STILL shot them. That would be wrong.

.

---

I was thinking you have a strange sense of right and wrong. What about the 30 people in the cafe? When one guys smashing the place with a bat while the other has a gun in people's faces. But you didnt watch the vid, just commented. He shot, and kept shooting until they were out, he then locks the door and waits for police. He hit both of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

Trayvon wasn't armed. Trayvon wasn't committing a crime.

---

Trayvon started committing a crime when he began physically assaulting Zimmerman. At that point, it does not matter if he was armed or not. The person being assaulted has the legal right to defend themselves, which includes the use of deadly force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donkey

Trayvon started committing a crime when he began physically assaulting Zimmerman. At that point, it does not matter if he was armed or not. The person being assaulted has the legal right to defend themselves, which includes the use of deadly force.

---

Shut up - we're not starting with your donkey (assinine) remarks in this thread. Your previous post about how "The proliferation of guns amongst our non-criminal element of society is a very good thing." just goes to show how stupid you are.

So, a discussion which addresses the actual law which will apply to the Zimmerman case, rather than some anti-gun fantasy is assinine?

I realize you aren't from the US, don't live in the US, and many of our ideals are foreign to you, but the proliferation of guns amongst law-abiding Americans is actually a guaranteed right in our Constitution. The vast majority of Americans do not find it to be "stupid."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donkey

So, a discussion which addresses the actual law which will apply to the Zimmerman case, rather than some anti-gun fantasy is assinine?

I realize you aren't from the US, don't live in the US, and many of our ideals are foreign to you, but the proliferation of guns amongst law-abiding Americans is actually a guaranteed right in our Constitution. The vast majority of Americans do not find it to be "stupid."

---

I've lived in the USA for 12 yrs and traveled through more states and cities than any American I know. Don't stand on the fucking "Constitution" as back up for gun ownership. Wasn't slavery and killing Indians part of your culture at one point (but you changed), wasn't there cannibalism in the USA (but you changed). Things CAN change and backing it up with a document that was created by different people in different times, is pathetic. A massive amount of American's who own guns are actually fairly fucking stupid and they should never have had those rights. You bring guns into your society and they will always fall into the wrong hands, or those "law-abiding" people decide that today, they've had enough, or their "law abiding" kids get a hold of the guns.

As far as Treyvon Martin/Zimmerman - I'm fucking tired of hearing about it. The gun nuts just want Zimmerman to get off so their gun rights aren't violated and the racists just want the right to be able to kill another un-armed nigger without retribution, and the blacks "leaders" just want to look for an excuse to cause friction and line their own pockets.
A kid was killed needlessly. That's the only story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donkey

Trayvon started committing a crime when he began physically assaulting Zimmerman. At that point, it does not matter if he was armed or not. The person being assaulted has the legal right to defend themselves, which includes the use of deadly force.

---

Again, you can't claim 'self defense' if you are the one who provoked the confrontation.

If I follow you in the middle of the night in my car, get out and chase after you on foot and then YOU smack me in the face, afterwards I don't have the justification to claim 'self defense' and shoot you dead through the heart.

Eliminate race, pretend Trayvon is a close loved one in your family, then ask yourself was your loved one's death justified or fair because a stranger decided to follow them home because they looked 'suspicious'??

Does that make sense?

At the time of the murder, Zimmerman outweighed this kid by FORTY POUNDS, despite being roughly 4 inches shorter than Trayvon.

This was murder by a paranoid vigilante, plain and simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seanchai

Don't stand on the fucking "Constitution" as back up for gun ownership.

---

Why would it not be? The Constitution literally guarantees that right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seanchai

Wasn't slavery and killing Indians part of your culture at one point (but you changed), wasn't their cannibalism in the USA (but you changed). Things CAN change and backing it up with a document that was created by different people in different times, is pathetic.

---

Except slavery was against our Constitution. Our Founding Fathers also provided Americans with a remedy if we felt like our Constitution no longer reflected the ideals and values of The People. There is a process to change it. Many agree that this framework is what has made America the greatest nation on earth. I happen to believe it is a key factor in American Exceptionalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seanchai

A massive amount of American's who own guns are actually fairly fucking stupid and they should never have has those rights.

---

I would be far more uncomfortable with the federal government deciding who our rights applied to and who they didn't, based on their interpretation of "stupid," than I am with a few stupid people having the opportunity to exercise Constitutional rights just like everyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seanchai

As far as Treyvon Martin/Zimmerman - I'm fucking tired of hearing about it. The gun nuts just want Zimmerman to get off so their gun rights aren't violated and the racists just want the right to be able to kill another un-armed nigger without retribution, and the blacks "leaders" just want to look for an excuse to cause friction and line their own pockets.
A kid was killed needlessly. That's the only story.

---

No matter what happens in the Zimmerman case, the gun rights of law-abiding Americans aren't in jeopardy. And unarmed blacks (as a black man, I choose not to use the word "nigger," but respect your right to), whites, asians, hispanics, etc., need to understand that simply being unarmed does not give you the right to physically beat on someone. Sure, you can do it, but you may not live to tell your side of the story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

Again, you can't claim 'self defense' if you are the one who provoked the confrontation.

---

Simply following someone (if that's even proven to be true) does not give the person being followed the right to physically assault the person following them.

I'm sure celebrities would love to have the lawful right to beat down those pesky paparazzi who constantly follow them, bump into them, scream at them, and otherwise generally harass them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donkey

Many agree that this framework is what has made America the greatest nation on earth. I happen to believe it is a key factor in American Exceptionalism.

---

Erm ... ok. You've lost any point or the little credibility you had right here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donkey

Except slavery was against our Constitution. Our Founding Fathers also provided Americans with a remedy if we felt like our Constitution no longer reflected the ideals and values of The People. There is a process to change it. Many agree that this framework is what has made America the greatest nation on earth. I happen to believe it is a key factor in American Exceptionalism.


I would be far more uncomfortable with the federal government deciding who our rights applied to and who they didn't, based on their interpretation of "stupid," than I am with a few stupid people having the opportunity to exercise Constitutional rights just like everyone else.

---

Actually, Slavery was originally not against our Constitution. It wasn't made Unconstitutional until after the passage of the 14th Amendment.

Now, don't you Europeans pat yourselves on the back too hard. When the US Constitution was ratified, your countries allowed slavery, too. At least in your colonies.

I do agree with you that establishing a process to Amend the Constitution is a wonderful thing. And that it's far better to have that process than to turn over our rights to the whim of whomever is the President at the time. In that case you are choosing to have a benevolent dictatorship. And while you may love the decisions of today's benevolent dictator, you may hate the decisions of the next one.

To put it another way, I prefer the Constitution to either Bush or Obama.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Queens Guy

Now, don't you Europeans pat yourselves on the back too hard. When the US Constitution was ratified, your countries allowed slavery, too. At least in your colonies.

---

Absolutely - we had slavery and a host of other abominations. My point being, just because something once was, doesn't mean it always has to be. Change can be good and a constitution can be amended. I'm sure slave owners thought it was their "right" to own slaves and tribes thought it their "right" to eat humans but they changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seanchai

I've lived in the USA for 12 yrs and traveled through more states and cities than any American I know. Don't stand on the fucking "Constitution" as back up for gun ownership. Wasn't slavery and killing Indians part of your culture at one point (but you changed), wasn't there cannibalism in the USA (but you changed). Things CAN change and backing it up with a document that was created by different people in different times, is pathetic. A massive amount of American's who own guns are actually fairly fucking stupid and they should never have had those rights. You bring guns into your society and they will always fall into the wrong hands, or those "law-abiding" people decide that today, they've had enough, or their "law abiding" kids get a hold of the guns.

As far as Treyvon Martin/Zimmerman - I'm fucking tired of hearing about it. The gun nuts just want Zimmerman to get off so their gun rights aren't violated and the racists just want the right to be able to kill another un-armed nigger without retribution, and the blacks "leaders" just want to look for an excuse to cause friction and line their own pockets.
A kid was killed needlessly. That's the only story.

---

LOL so fuckin true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seanchai

wasn't there cannibalism in the USA (but you changed).

---

They may have taken that stuff out of our grade-school history books. When was their cannibalism in the USA? Not as a fetish or cult sort of thing, or the guy in Miami who got naked and ate the face of the homeless guy, but as a more mainstream part of culture?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Queens Guy

They may have taken that stuff out of our grade-school history books. When was their cannibalism in the USA? Not as a fetish or cult sort of thing, or the guy in Miami who got naked and ate the face of the homeless guy, but as a more mainstream part of culture?

---

Your 50th state.

George Zimmerman and his lawyer, Mark O'Mara will be interviewed by Sean Hannity on Fox News Channel tonight at 9pm Eastern.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...173609523.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

Again, you can't claim 'self defense' if you are the one who provoked the confrontation.

If I follow you in the middle of the night in my car, get out and chase after you on foot and then YOU smack me in the face, afterwards I don't have the justification to claim 'self defense' and shoot you dead through the heart.

Eliminate race, pretend Trayvon is a close loved one in your family, then ask yourself was your loved one's death justified or fair because a stranger decided to follow them home because they looked 'suspicious'??

Does that make sense?

At the time of the murder, Zimmerman outweighed this kid by FORTY POUNDS, despite being roughly 4 inches shorter than Trayvon.

This was murder by a paranoid vigilante, plain and simple.

---

I have said this a few months back o this exact forum, and nobody seems to care unless it's done to them... people are biased because to them, the black kid was at fault because of how he represented himself with the hood and everything. But people fail to see the big picture. He was still a human child, who had a family who loved him, and a possible great future cut short. It's unfair, but people are unfair too. What can you really do?

For those who had any doubt, George Zimmerman is a NUT.
It was 'God's plan' that led him to murder Trayvon.

George Zimmerman: 'It Was God's Plan' For Me To Kill Trayvon Martin - YouTube

zimmerman exposed

notice that during the DA questioning of zimmerman ,he does not remmeber then when he is interviewed on the news he suddenly remmbers all these details.
see transcipts

IMPORTANT READ MORE;
http://wearytravelermusings.blogspot...ell-truth.html

witness # 9

Zimmerman accused of sexual abuse

A new round of evidence released reveals that a woman, identified only as Witness 9, tearfully told Florida authorities investigating Zimmerman that he molested her for 10 years.

The woman, a relative of Zimmerman, recounts incidents that she said began when she was 6 and he was 8.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...BIzDt1dQQf47lP

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimm...ry?id=16807202

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natina

the most damaging evidence to zimmerman is when he takes the stand

George Zimmerman Will Not Tell The Truth


George Zimmerman has no interest in expressing fidelity to His Honor, the Court, or the public. When Zimmerman took the witness stand at his 20 April 2012 bond hearing, he lied under oath in two forms: acts of omission and blatant falsehoods.


Zimmerman took the stand to make a self-serving statement in the cloak of an apology, but the message’s audience was for the media and a candid public, not the parents of the slain Trayvon Martin. It should be noted that O’Mara allowed this disrespectful action to be undertaken and His Honor did not stop it, either.

The faux apology given to turn the tide of negative media attention:

O'MARA: You advised me that you wanted to make a short statement, is that correct?
ZIMMERMAN: Correct.
ZIMMERMAN: I wanted to say I am sorry for the loss of your son. I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. And I did not know if he was armed or not.
O'MARA: Nothing further, your honor.

George Zimmerman took the stand and performed for the media. The narrative was starting to change and the fickle media started pretending as if both the dead, unarmed minor, Trayvon Martin, and his confessed killer, George Zimmerman, were victims. This is absolutely incorrect. Man profiled, stalked, chased, and ultimately killed the minor. Those are the facts. Furthermore, Zimmerman lied on the stand about how old he thought Trayvon Martin was. When the non-emergency dispatcher asked how old Zimmerman thought the supposedly “suspicious guy” was, Zimmerman said “late teens.” 17 would classify as late teens. Let’s let that percolate into our collective conscience for a moment. A 28-year-old adult male tells the dispatcher that he believes a minor is indeed a minor and he stills exits his vehicle, with gun holstered, to chase after the “fucking punk” who would not get away. I can’t speak for Angela B. Corey, but when I heard this, I thought for sure any doubt about her over-charging Zimmerman went away.

State’s Attorney asking what took so long for the faux apology:

DE LA RIONDA: I'm sorry, sir, you're not really addressing that to the court. You're doing it here to the victim's family, is that correct?
ZIMMERMAN: They are here in the court, yes.
DE LA RIONDA: I understand. But I thought you were going to address Your Honor, Judge Lester, not -- so that's really addressed to the family and where the media happens to be, correct, Mr. Zimmerman?
ZIMMERMAN: No, to the mother and the father.
DE LA RIONDA: Ok. And tell me, after you committed this crime and you spoke to the police, did you ever make that statement to the police, sir? That you were sorry for what you've done or their loss?
ZIMMERMAN: No sir.
DE LA RIONDA: You never stated that, did you?
ZIMMERMAN: I don't remember what I said. I believe I did say that.
DE LA RIONDA: You told that to the police?
ZIMMERMAN: In one of the statements, I said that I felt sorry for the family.
DE LA RIONDA: You did?
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.
DE LA RIONDA: So that would be recorded because all those conversations were recorded, right?
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.
DE LA RIONDA: And you're sure you said that?
ZIMMERMAN: I'm fairly certain.
DE LA RIONDA: And so which officer did you tell that to? You made five statements I believe, total.
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir, I'm sorry, all the names run together.
DE LA RIONDA: And do you remember if it was a male or a female?
ZIMMERMAN: There were both males and females.
DE LA RIONDA: At the time you made that statement that you were sorry?
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.
DE LA RIONDA: And let me make sure the record's clear, you stated exactly what to those detectives?
ZIMMERMAN: I don't remember exactly what -- verbatim.
DE LA RIONDA: But you're saying you expressed concern for the loss of Mr. Martin, or that you had shot Mr. Martin, that you actually felt sorry for him?
ZIMMERMAN: I felt sorry that they lost their child, yes.
DE LA RIONDA: And so you told detectives that you wanted them to convey that to the parents?
ZIMMERMAN: I don't know if they were detectives or not.
DE LA RIONDA: Officers, I apologize.
ZIMMERMAN: I didn't know if they were going to convey it or not. I just made the statement.
DE LA RIONDA: Ok. And then you said that you called them or you left a message for them to tell them that?
ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.
DE LA RIONDA: Why did you wait 50 something days to tell them -- that is, the parents?
ZIMMERMAN: I don't understand the question, sir.
DE LA RIONDA: Why did you wait so long to tell Mr. Martin and the victim's mother, the father and mother, why did you wait so long to tell them?
ZIMMERMAN: I was told not to communicate with them.
DE LA RIONDA: Ok. So even through your attorney, you didn't ask to do it right away? Your former attorneys or anything.
ZIMMERMAN: I did ask them to express that to them. And they said that they were going to.

Zimmerman isn’t a very good liar, or at least he isn’t a believable one. When De La Rionda asked if he expressed the same sentiment to the police that he was expressing 50+ days later in His Honor’s Court, he said, “no.” Then he says he did express the sentiment. When De La Rionda asked who he told that too, he resorts back to the tried and the true, “I don’t know/I can’t remember” line that he used when he was questioned by Serino. I’ll get to that in a moment. I’m sure it’s not going to come as a surprise, but I’ve listened to everything that was released by George Zimmerman Legal Case, and I can tell you all that he never expressed remorse, contrition, or anything resembling sorrow for killing an unarmed minor. Before the stress test, he does ask a female police officer if she slept well, and he does ask her if she has “ever had to kill anybody,” as if trying to draw some parallels between the murder of Trayvon Martin and her job as a trained law enforcement agent. She seemed a bit perplexed/annoyed to me and answered “no/nope.” Real law enforcement agents are trained to use deadly force as a last resort, not a first option. So this is lie #2 given by George Zimmerman at his 20 April 2012 bond hearing.

George Zimmerman perjuring himself under oath about what was said to Serino/others:

DE LA RIONDA: But before you committed this crime on February 26th, you were arrested -- I'm sorry, not arrested. You were questioned that day, right, February 26th?
ZIMMERMAN: That evening into the 27th.
DE LA RIONDA: And then the following morning. Is that correct?
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.
DE LA RIONDA: And the following evening, too. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.
DE LA RIONDA: Ok. Would it be fair to say you were questioned about four or five times?
ZIMMERMAN: I remember giving three statements, yes sir.
DE LA RIONDA: And isn't it true that in some of those statement when you were confronted about your inconsistencies, you started "I don't remember"?
O'MARA: Outside the scope of direct examination. I will object your honor.
JUDGE LESTER: We'll give you a little bit of leeway. Not a whole lot but a little bit here, ok.
DE LA RIONDA: Isn't it true that when you were questioned about the contradictions in your statements that the police didn't believe it, that you would say "I don't remember"?
JUDGE LESTER: I'm going to grant his motion at this time.
O'MARA: Thank you, your honor.
DE LA RIONDA: Would you agree you changed your story as it went along?
ZIMMERMAN: Absolutely not.

Zimmerman’s most egregious lie is above. De La Rionda asked Zimmerman about how many statements he gave. Zimmerman replies. De La Rionda asked Zimmerman if he said “I don’t remember?” when Serino/Singleton poked holes in his account of what happened, using the non-emergency phone call to do so, and Zimmerman replied matter-of-factly, “Absolutely not.” Folks, that is the third lie to His Honor’s Court. George Zimmerman Legal Case has the audio still up. It is up for anyone who wants to listen to it. Make no mistake, when asked about things that didn’t add up, Zimmerman would say “I don’t know/I don’t remember.” When it was clear that Serino/Singleton were playing bad cop or no longer believed him, Zimmerman got defensive, lied, and omitted facts. He told the dispatcher he was following Trayvon. On the February 29, 2012, part 3 of the interview with Serino/Singleton; he said he wasn’t following, but walking in the same direction. When asked what type of running Trayvon was doing, he said he couldn’t remember/didn’t know. When asked why he got out of his car, Singleton bluntly said, “That isn’t what you told me.”


George Zimmerman is going to assert an affirmative defense in his second-degree murder trial. If Zimmerman has no interest in expressing fidelity to the truth in His Honor’s Court, I wouldn’t be making any long term plans for the future unless they included a prison facility.
http://wearytravelermusings.blogspot...ell-truth.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natina

http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/...Stand-Grou.jpg


Zimmerman Defense Witnesses Undercut Defense On Cross-Examination At Second Bond Hearing
http://wearytravelermusings.blogspot...-undercut.html

Character & Credibility: The Zimmerman Family
http://wearytravelermusings.blogspot...an-family.html

George Zimmerman Will Not Tell The Truth

http://wearytravelermusings.blogspot...ell-truth.html

---

Jerome Ersland Gets Life for Gunning Down 16-Year-Old Drug Store Robber

SEE VIDEO

On today's episode of Great Moral Dilemmas of the Day, we bring you the perplexing case of a vigilante pharmacist. The year was 2009, and Jerome Ersland was working at Reliable Pharmacy, the store he owned in Oklahoma City. It would not be a good day...

Two armed punks came in and tried to rob the store. Ersland, not a druggist to be trifled with, pulled out a gun and shot 16-year-old Antwun Parker in the head.

Video of the incident shows the second mope fleeing. Ersland follows him out of the store, but the bad guy is already gone.

It would seem an open and shut case of self-defense -- until security cameras depict what happened next.

Erland returned to the store and could be seen digging for something behind the counter. Then he retrieved another gun and methodically moved toward Parker, who was laying wounded on the floor. Just to make sure Parker lost his interest in robbery, Ersland pumped him full of five more bullets, killing him.

In Oklahoma City, he was hailed as a hero for taking out a bad guy. Parker's accomplices, Anthony Morrison and Emanuel Mitchell, were subsequently convicted of first-degree murder in the death of their friend, plus conspiracy for organizing the heist.

But jurors didn't seem so enthralled with Ersland once they learned the full breadth of the incident. In court, his defense was hoping to shoot for a manslaughter charge. The jury decided instead to convict him of murder.

He won't be sentenced till July 11, but he faces the possibility of life with parole.

So what do you think, dearest reader? Was this a case of a man simply protecting himself and his employees? Or was this merely a cold-blooded execution disguised as heroism?

SEE VIDEO

http://www.truecrimereport.com/2011/...life_for_g.php

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EvonRose

the black kid was at fault because of how he represented himself with the hood and everything.

---

Are you fucking kidding. It was raining. He wore his hood up. I do that.

many people wear hoodies ,beenies and or ski mask in the rain.

zimmerman just has issues that rewuire 25 years to life in prison to help resolve.

HEY CHECK OUT THE ZIMMERMAN TRANSCRIPTS ABOVE OR BELOW!
HEAR THE DA EXAMINE ZIMMERMAN AND HE GETS CAUGHT IN A TANGLED WEB


http://wearytravelermusings.blogspot...ell-truth.html


http://www.idgara.net/web4.jpghttp://evertb.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/web.jpg

I don't understand how someone on bail for murder can be allowed to appear on TV to give his side of the story before the trial has even taken place. I am trying to think if it has happened in a criminal case in the UK but I can't recall one. Just today a policeman who was accused of causing the death of a man who was drunk in the middle of a demonstration, and, having been struck by the policeman fell to the ground and died shortly thereafter, was found not guilty by a jury. But the court was not given a history of the policeman's record prior to the incident, which shows that he had been disciplined for violent actions against suspects so many times some felt he should not even be on the force. The point being that a trial must be about the event regardless of the personal histories of the people involved before it.

If you want to read about it, its here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...n-Harwood.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I don't understand how someone on bail for murder can be allowed to appear on TV to give his side of the story before the trial has even taken place. I am trying to think if it has happened in a criminal case in the UK but I can't recall one. Just today a policeman who was accused of causing the death of a man who was drunk in the middle of a demonstration, and, having been struck by the policeman fell to the ground and died shortly thereafter, was found not guilty by a jury. But the court was not given a history of the policeman's record prior to the incident, which shows that he had been disciplined for violent actions against suspects so many times some felt he should not even be on the force. The point being that a trial must be about the event regardless of the personal histories of the people involved before it.

If you want to read about it, its here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...n-Harwood.html

---

I should add, found not guilty of manslaughter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I don't understand how someone on bail for murder can be allowed to appear on TV to give his side of the story before the trial has even taken place. I am trying to think if it has happened in a criminal case in the UK but I can't recall one. Just today a policeman who was accused of causing the death of a man who was drunk in the middle of a demonstration, and, having been struck by the policeman fell to the ground and died shortly thereafter, was found not guilty by a jury. But the court was not given a history of the policeman's record prior to the incident, which shows that he had been disciplined for violent actions against suspects so many times some felt he should not even be on the force. The point being that a trial must be about the event regardless of the personal histories of the people involved before it.

If you want to read about it, its here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...n-Harwood.html

---

Generally speaking, in the US the lawyer for the accused would strongly advise him to not discuss the case to anybody, much less to give an interview on TV. I think some lawyers have even asked judges for permission to drop a client because of them not following this advice.

I think the US has different rules than the UK does about what the media can report about a case before the verdict. Can the UK media report the kind of things that the US media has been reporting? Or are they not allowed to?

Even under US rules, this case is very different than the average case. This case is very much a trial by media, where the media has had to retract some of their reports, which were the result of their own technical analysis of audio and videotape, which they had complete control over, as opposed to an interview with a witness.

The chance of finding a juror who hasn't heard about this case is very slim. So, the defense is trying to let those potential jurors hear things that are favorable to the defense. Make Zimmerman less of 'a monster'.

Also, if he is seen as less of 'a monster', it decreases the chance of riots if he is eventually found not guilty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seanchai

Are you fucking kidding. It was raining. He wore his hood up. I do that.

---

Seanchai! I am on Trayvon's side please read the whole paragraph in this case maybe you wouldn't misunderstand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

Again, you can't claim 'self defense' if you are the one who provoked the confrontation.

If I follow you in the middle of the night in my car, get out and chase after you on foot and then YOU smack me in the face, afterwards I don't have the justification to claim 'self defense' and shoot you dead through the heart.

Eliminate race, pretend Trayvon is a close loved one in your family, then ask yourself was your loved one's death justified or fair because a stranger decided to follow them home because they looked 'suspicious'??

Does that make sense?

At the time of the murder, Zimmerman outweighed this kid by FORTY POUNDS, despite being roughly 4 inches shorter than Trayvon.

This was murder by a paranoid vigilante, plain and simple.

---

Exactly! It is reasonable, to think that if an physical altercation ocurred, then it was Martin, was defending himself against a person pursuing him. The very fact that Martin is now dead, is evidence, that he had a right to fear, the person pursuing him. Let's look a Zimmeerman's story. Was there any real evidence that Martin had committed a crime? Perhaps if there had been a break-in in the neighborhood within an half hour of the shooting incident, then Zimmerman's suspicions would appear to be be more reasonable. Or perhaps, if Maritn were carrying a household item, such a video game console. Zimmerman's thoughts and actions of following Martin, were not based the actual real situation, but a figment of his mental state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Queens Guy

Generally speaking, in the US the lawyer for the accused would strongly advise him to not discuss the case to anybody, much less to give an interview on TV. I think some lawyers have even asked judges for permission to drop a client because of them not following this advice.

I think the US has different rules than the UK does about what the media can report about a case before the verdict. Can the UK media report the kind of things that the US media has been reporting? Or are they not allowed to?

Even under US rules, this case is very different than the average case. This case is very much a trial by media, where the media has had to retract some of their reports, which were the result of their own technical analysis of audio and videotape, which they had complete control over, as opposed to an interview with a witness.

The chance of finding a juror who hasn't heard about this case is very slim. So, the defense is trying to let those potential jurors hear things that are favorable to the defense. Make Zimmerman less of 'a monster'.

Also, if he is seen as less of 'a monster', it decreases the chance of riots if he is eventually found not guilty.

---

Trial by media is common here, but I don't know of accused in criminal trials being given an opportunity to tell their story on tv before the trial begins. Reportage tends to take place in the newspapers before any proceedings have begun when even the more lurid papers such as Murdoch's Sun, will use words like 'allegedly' and 'according to police sources' when referring to someone under questioning -even if it turns out later they are innocent. More serious is the way that the press in a desperate attempt to get readers can stray over the boundaries; two tabloids, the Mirror and the Daily Mail were this week found guilty of contempt of court for publishing a story about a man already found guilty of murder, whose trial for abduction of another young woman was halted because of the prejudicial content of the articles -the papers will be fined at a later date, the report on it is here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...ld?INTCMP=SRCH

Another example is that the judge in a trial of people accused of rioting in the UK last year, used his powers to stop the BBC from broadcasting two documentaries this week on the riots in case they prejudiced the outcome in court, the report on that is here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/j...?newsfeed=true

The Courts take prejudice very seriously here, even if the media tries to get round it with as much sensational coverage as they can before the trial, and often to bad effect, too many innocent people have had their lives ruined by the outrageous needs of the press for lurid stories. Note that this only applies to England and Wales, as Scotland has its own legal system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yodajazz

Exactly! It is reasonable, to think that if an physical altercation ocurred, then it was Martin, was defending himself against a person pursuing him. The very fact that Martin is now dead, is evidence, that he had a right to fear, the person pursuing him. Let's look a Zimmeerman's story. Was there any real evidence that Martin had committed a crime? Perhaps if there had been a break-in in the neighborhood within an half hour of the shooting incident, then Zimmerman's suspicions would appear to be be more reasonable. Or perhaps, if Maritn were carrying a household item, such a video game console. Zimmerman's thoughts and actions of following Martin, were not based the actual real situation, but a figment of his mental state.

---

Thank you for this comment. A tall kid being followed by an unknown person who was not law enforcement. I have a teenaged and a grown son. If someone stalked and killed my son, there wouldn't be a court date. Zimmerman has the nerve to say "it was God's plan" for him to kill this boy. Anyone who thinks that's okay has mental issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EvonRose

Seanchai! I am on Trayvon's side please read the whole paragraph in this case maybe you wouldn't misunderstand.

---

You should only be on the side of truth and justice which hasnt been decided by a jury yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eccentricBlue

You should only be on the side of truth and justice which hasnt been decided by a jury yet.

---

How much did you donate to Zimmerman?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eccentricBlue

You should only be on the side of truth and justice which hasnt been decided by a jury yet.

---

There have been plenty of executions decided by a jury and found o have been wrong. There is a simple right and wrong. Killing somebody needlessly, is clearly wrong. You are part of the God Squad ... don't you have "Though shall not kill" ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seanchai

There have been plenty of executions decided by a jury and found o have been wrong. There is a simple right and wrong. Killing somebody needlessly, is clearly wrong. You are part of the God Squad ... don't you have "Though shall not kill" ?

---

Come now, you know that all their bible bullshit is adapted for convenience. The God Squad uses what they want when they want and how they want to justify to themselves their own inappropriate and often repulsive behavior. Modern 'Christians' have mastered the art of NewSpeak.......Orwell couldn't have created them if he tried. They far surpass any of the mind-control freaks he did create.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eccentricBlue

You should only be on the side of truth and justice which hasnt been decided by a jury yet.

---

justice sometimes has no truth, it's time for people to use commonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eccentricBlue

You should only be on the side of truth and justice which hasnt been decided by a jury yet.

---

'Truth and Justice'??? 'Decided by a Jury'????? You're kidding right? Or just out of high school? The only damn truth and justice is found in books and Hollywood - it is a self-perpetuating fiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EvonRose

justice sometimes has no truth, it's time for people to use commonsense.

---

Just imagine of common sense was more common.... lol. But I agree, the justice system is in no way perfect, however I just don't want to buy into the hysteria on either side. Some people disagree with me and go straight into attack mode, however cooler heads must prevail because 2 wrongs never make a right. Race should not be a factor so I refuse to let that sway my opinion.