In Trayvon Martin's text messages, talk of marijuana, fights and guns

[J]

It seems the closer people look at Travon Martin, they can see he
wasn't the 'good kid' the media made him appear to be.








http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/in-trayvon-martins-text-messages-talk-of-marijuana-fights-and-guns/2122811







In the months and days before his shooting death, Trayvon Martin was
getting into fights, getting high on marijuana, getting suspended from
school and talking with friends about getting a gun, according to
cellphone text messages that defense lawyers for shooter George
Zimmerman released Thursday.

Trayvon's chronically misspelled, slang-filled messages � as well as
pictures of a semi-automatic pistol, marijuana plants and Trayvon
flipping his middle fingers � are all part of Zimmerman's defense plan
to put the Miami Gardens 17-year-old posthumously on trial.

"So you just turning into a lil hoodlum," one friend, whose name has
been withheld, texted Trayvon.

Trayvon replied: "No not at all."

At one point, Trayvon joked that the friend was "soft."

"Boy don't get one planted in ya chest," the friend joked back.

The message, a likely reference to being shot, eerily foreshadowed
Trayvon's fate three months later.

On the rainy evening of Feb. 26, 2012, Zimmerman fatally shot Trayvon
at an apartment complex in Sanford, near Orlando, where the Miami
Gardens teen was sent to live with his dad to get back on track.

That night, Trayvon was returning from a convenience store where he
had just bought a pack of Skittles and some iced tea. Zimmerman said
he believed the young man in the hoodie sweatshirt was up to no good.

No one witnessed who threw the first punch at whom or why.

But soon Trayvon was dead from a Sig Sauer gunshot wound, Zimmerman
was in police custody and the nation began debating Florida's deadly
force law known as "stand your ground."

The law offers protections for some shooters in public places, but
Zimmerman was still charged with second-degree murder by a special
prosecutor appointed by Gov. Rick Scott. Zimmerman is pleading
self-defense, and said Trayvon attacked him.

His trial is scheduled for June 10.











J Young
jdyo...@ymail.com

Honesty. Decency. Integrity

[Ashton Crusher]

The only people who talk about the "stand your ground" law are those
who don't understand the law. This was not a stand your ground case.
Trayvon was attacking Zimmerman and he did what ANYONE who is being
attacked may legally do, he shot the asshole attacking him. The stand
your ground law deals with whether or not you have a duty to retreat
if you can do so rather then shoot someone. Stand your ground laws
say you do not have a duty to retreat when you are attacked. Have you
ever heard anyone say the police have a duty to retreat if they are
attacked? yet for years the public was expected to do just that until
some states finally passed stand your ground laws.

>The law offers protections for some shooters in public places, but
>Zimmerman was still charged with second-degree murder by a special
>prosecutor appointed by Gov. Rick Scott. Zimmerman is pleading
>self-defense, and said Trayvon attacked him.
>
>His trial is scheduled for June 10.
>
>

The regular prosecutor knew there was no justification to charge
Zimmerman so they brought in a ringer to do the dirty work.

[Mitchell Holman]

J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote in
news:poo2q8971lihgjsjf...@4ax.com:

>
>
> It seems the closer people look at Travon Martin, they can see he
> wasn't the 'good kid' the media made him appear to be.
>

Trayvon was an unarmed teenager.

There was no reason for a grown man
to shoot him. "Self-defense"? Sheesh.......

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <poo2q8971lihgjsjf...@4ax.com>,

J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:

> It seems the closer people look at Travon Martin, they can see he
> wasn't the 'good kid' the media made him appear to be.

Which of those messages were capital offenses?

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Dakota]

On 5/25/2013 8:34 PM, J wrote:
>
> It seems the closer people look at Travon Martin, they can see he
> wasn't the 'good kid' the media made him appear to be.
>

Trevon was just a normal kid. The only reason disgusting-J posted this
story is that Martin was black and J is racist scum.

The closer people look at vile J, they more he looks like a
Nazi-loving, Catholic-pedopriest-protecting, Jew-hating,
Japanese-hating, Pole-hating, woman-hating, gay-hating, etc, etc, asshole.

<snip>

<guns and politics snipped>

[GOP_Decline_and_Fall]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:34:38 -0700, J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:

>Trayvon's chronically misspelled, slang-filled messages

I guess that makes his murder acceptable then ...right J?

[Don Martin]

If _that_ is true, then we have license to hunt down and kill a number
of people who post here.

--

aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/

[deep]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 03:55:11 -0700, GOP_Decline_and_Fall
<D...@null.net> wrote:

It's trying to justify racial profiling and the murder of a young
black kid because he might have smoked a little weed a few times.

It doesn't get any more pathetic than that.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

Well, yeah, it does.

"House nigger isn't racist. It refers to the slaves who were willing
to kiss their master's white asses in order to get a job in the house
rather than out in the fields. It refers to ass kissing slaves. It
accurately points out a pattern of behavior. Has nothing to do with
race."
-Deep Dudu
House Negro (also House Nigger) is a pejorative term for a black
person, used to compare someone to a house slave of a slave owner from
the historic period of legal slavery in the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Nigger

[Syd M.]

On May 25, 9:34 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> It seems the closer people look at Travon Martin, they can see he
> wasn't the 'good kid' the media made him appear to be.
>
>

But IBen is still the bad guy bigot that he always was...

PDW

[Scout]

"Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:hlwdjsd2-94E341...@news.giganews.com...

> In article <poo2q8971lihgjsjf...@4ax.com>,
> J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>> It seems the closer people look at Travon Martin, they can see he
>> wasn't the 'good kid' the media made him appear to be.
>
>
> Which of those messages were capital offenses?

Possibly attacking an armed stranger putting him in fear of life and limb.

[Syd M.]

On May 26, 11:22 am, "Scout"
<me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hlwdjsd2-94E341...@news.giganews.com...
>
> > In article <poo2q8971lihgjsjfm2fjrb3vk2mhoj...@4ax.com>,

> > J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> >> It seems the closer people look at Travon Martin, they can see he
> >> wasn't the 'good kid' the media made him appear to be.
>
> > Which of those messages were capital offenses?
>
> Possibly attacking an armed stranger putting him in fear of life and limb.

Or being attacked by that armed stranger did it, too.
Esp since he wasn't armed...

PDW

[Scout]

"Syd M." <pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f1ad89d3-0574-45e0...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...

Except that isn't an offense committed by Travon and thus doesn't fulfill
the conditions set by Jeanne.

[SaPeIsMa]

"Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:hlwdjsd2-94E341...@news.giganews.com...

> In article <poo2q8971lihgjsjf...@4ax.com>,
> J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>> It seems the closer people look at Travon Martin, they can see he
>> wasn't the 'good kid' the media made him appear to be.
>
>
> Which of those messages were capital offenses?
>

No one claimed they were, dummy
Just another (really dumb) attempt at redirection

[zayton]

On Saturday, May 25, 2013 8:34:38 PM UTC-5, J wrote:
> It seems the closer people look at Travon Martin, they can see he
>
> wasn't the 'good kid' the media made him appear to be.
>
>
>
>

Well then, I guess that makes it OK to stalk and murder him after the police hve instructed you to stand down....

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/in-trayvon-martins-text-messages-talk-of-marijuana-fights-and-guns/2122811
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In the months and days before his shooting death, Trayvon Martin was
>
> getting into fights, getting high on marijuana, getting suspended from
>
> school and talking with friends about getting a gun, according to
>
> cellphone text messages that defense lawyers for shooter George
>
> Zimmerman released Thursday.
>
>
>

> Trayvon's chronically misspelled, slang-filled messages � as well as

>
> pictures of a semi-automatic pistol, marijuana plants and Trayvon
>

> flipping his middle fingers � are all part of Zimmerman's defense plan

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:43:40 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com>
wrote:

It's a lie when somebody invents motivations like that which aren't
there, dummy..

[Tom McDonald]

The answer to Jeanne's question is "Walking While Black". It's been good
enough reason to kill black folks for centuries.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <AXtot.45792$KM4....@newsfe25.iad>,

Precisely.

[Gray Guest]

Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in news:AXtot.45792$KM4.18318
@newsfe25.iad:

> The answer to Jeanne's question is "Walking While Black". It's been good
> enough reason to kill black folks for centuries.
>

Man what a bigot you are. Are you a member of the Klan?

--
Refusenik #1

Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.

Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama

[Syd M.]

On May 26, 5:23 pm, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In article <AXtot.45792$KM4.18...@newsfe25.iad>,

>  Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/26/2013 11:06 AM, Scout wrote:
>

> > > "Syd M." <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> > >news:f1ad89d3-0574-45e0...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> > >> On May 26, 11:22 am, "Scout"
> > >> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> > >>> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >>>news:hlwdjsd2-94E341...@news.giganews.com...
>
> > >>> > In article <poo2q8971lihgjsjfm2fjrb3vk2mhoj...@4ax.com>,
> > >>> > J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> >> It seems the closer people look at Travon Martin, they can see he
> > >>> >> wasn't the 'good kid' the media made him appear to be.
>
> > >>> > Which of those messages were capital offenses?
>
> > >>> Possibly attacking an armed stranger putting him in fear of life and
> > >>> limb.
>
> > >> Or being attacked by that armed stranger did it, too.
> > >> Esp since he wasn't armed...
>
> > > Except that isn't an offense committed by Travon and thus doesn't
> > > fulfill the conditions set by Jeanne.
>
> > The answer to Jeanne's question is "Walking While Black". It's been good
> > enough reason to kill black folks for centuries.
>
> Precisely.
>
>

The bigots here sure do think that it's applicable.

PDW

[Scout]

"Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

news:hlwdjsd2-E2A677...@news.giganews.com...

So you're a racist.....

[Tom McDonald]

On 5/26/2013 5:59 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
> Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in news:AXtot.45792$KM4.18318
> @newsfe25.iad:
>
>> The answer to Jeanne's question is "Walking While Black". It's been good
>> enough reason to kill black folks for centuries.
>>
>
> Man what a bigot you are. Are you a member of the Klan?
>

Thought you were dead. Well, hope springs.

[Tom McDonald]

Horseshit. Merely pointing out the racism that led to Trayvon's death.

[Scout]

"Tom McDonald" <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:RRyot.9541$EM6....@newsfe04.iad...

What racism? The only racism I see is your assertion that it was about
racism.

[RD Sandman]

Ashton Crusher <de...@moore.net> wrote in
news:jbu2q8h3d2ni5so5t...@4ax.com:

Oooops. No one knows for sure (other than Zimmerman) who started the
physical portion of the confrontation.

The stand
> your ground law deals with whether or not you have a duty to retreat
> if you can do so rather then shoot someone. Stand your ground laws
> say you do not have a duty to retreat when you are attacked.

SYG in Florida is handled by statute 776.012 (or 776.013 if it is in your
home and is Castle Doctrine). It consists of eight words. Here it is:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in
using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent
that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to
defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of
unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force
and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to
prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or
another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.013 as noted covers Castle Doctrine. SYG is in the eight words,
"...and does not have a duty to retreat..."

Have you
> ever heard anyone say the police have a duty to retreat if they are
> attacked? yet for years the public was expected to do just that until
> some states finally passed stand your ground laws.
>
>
>>The law offers protections for some shooters in public places, but
>>Zimmerman was still charged with second-degree murder by a special
>>prosecutor appointed by Gov. Rick Scott. Zimmerman is pleading
>>self-defense, and said Trayvon attacked him.
>>
>>His trial is scheduled for June 10.
>>
>>
>
> The regular prosecutor knew there was no justification to charge
> Zimmerman so they brought in a ringer to do the dirty work.

We shall see when testimony comes in under oath.

Zimmerman and his attornies turned down a SYG hearing to resolve the
issue. If he had been held by the judge as to being covered by SYG then
he would have been immune to both civil and criminal charges ensuing out
of the encounter.

Here is the statute 776.032 for that:

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for
justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s.
776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal
prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person
against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in
s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official
duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with
any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should
have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this
subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining
in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for
investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the
agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines
that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs,
compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the
defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the
court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in
subsection (1).
History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27.






--
Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman

You can be young without money, but you
can't be old without it.

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:knt93t$hdd$1...@dont-email.me:

Ended up that way, anyway.

[Gray Guest]

Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in news:0uyot.11729$rW2.131
@newsfe05.iad:

There are a lot of people that need to be dead before me.

And at the rate things are going it's likely I'll get my wish.

[RD Sandman]

"Syd M." <pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote in

news:f1ad89d3-0574-45e0...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:

What makes you think Zimmerman knew that? Currently it is unknown who
started the physical portion of the encounter. The trial should bring
that out.

[deep]

Zimmerman profiled Martin as trouble solely because he was black. He
was doing nothing wrong. He was coming back from the store with
candy. His father lived in the neighborhood and he was heading for
his father's house. He was just an innocent kid walking through the
neighborhood until Zimmerman started following him for no reason other
than racism.

[RD Sandman]

Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in news:AXtot.45792$KM4.18318
@newsfe25.iad:

> On 5/26/2013 11:06 AM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Syd M." <pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>> news:f1ad89d3-0574-45e0-bf0e-8347cc21b382

@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>>> On May 26, 11:22 am, "Scout"
>>> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:hlwdjsd2-94E341...@news.giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> > In article <poo2q8971lihgjsjfm2fjrb3vk2mhoj...@4ax.com>,
>>>> > J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> It seems the closer people look at Travon Martin, they can see he
>>>> >> wasn't the 'good kid' the media made him appear to be.
>>>>
>>>> > Which of those messages were capital offenses?
>>>>
>>>> Possibly attacking an armed stranger putting him in fear of life and
>>>> limb.
>>>
>>> Or being attacked by that armed stranger did it, too.
>>> Esp since he wasn't armed...
>>
>> Except that isn't an offense committed by Travon and thus doesn't
>> fulfill the conditions set by Jeanne.
>>
>>
> The answer to Jeanne's question is "Walking While Black". It's been
good
> enough reason to kill black folks for centuries.
>

Perhaps. Zimmerman, however, was also a minority. He was half hispanic.

[Tom McDonald]

Did you follow the story?

[RD Sandman]

Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in
news:1hi4q85k9giu2nphl...@4ax.com:

Then, perhaps, both sides should carefully watch what they say.

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:au24q8pt4ur0d0s78...@4ax.com:

Well, at least until you popped in.

[deep]

Doesn't mean he wasn't a racist who hated black kids. You think you
have to be white to be a racist? How bizarre.

[RD Sandman]

Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:RRyot.9541$EM6....@newsfe04.iad:

Let me reword that for you so it is more correct.

"Horseshit. Merely pointing out the unsaid racism that led to Trayvon's
death. I can't find it so I will just make comment that it is there."

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:t5g5q8ljv5llehptq...@4ax.com:

Hmmmm, just where is that in the transcripts? He did mention that Martin
was black but that was because the dispatcher asked him.

He
> was doing nothing wrong. He was coming back from the store with
> candy. His father lived in the neighborhood and he was heading for
> his father's house. He was just an innocent kid walking through the
> neighborhood until Zimmerman started following him

You were doing so good until you got here. From this point on, it is
pure conjecture on your part.

for no reason other
> than racism.

[RD Sandman]

Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:7jzot.29432$JB5....@newsfe26.iad:

Yes. Did you?

[deep]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 21:11:57 -0500, RD Sandman
<rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>"Syd M." <pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:f1ad89d3-0574-45e0...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On May 26, 11:22 am, "Scout"
>> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:hlwdjsd2-94E341...@news.giganews.com...
>>>
>>> > In article <poo2q8971lihgjsjfm2fjrb3vk2mhoj...@4ax.com>,
>>> > J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> It seems the closer people look at Travon Martin, they can see he
>>> >> wasn't the 'good kid' the media made him appear to be.
>>>
>>> > Which of those messages were capital offenses?
>>>
>>> Possibly attacking an armed stranger putting him in fear of life and
>>> limb
>> .
>>
>> Or being attacked by that armed stranger did it, too.
>> Esp since he wasn't armed...
>
>What makes you think Zimmerman knew that? Currently it is unknown who
>started the physical portion of the encounter. The trial should bring
>that out.

Unfortunately they may never know for sure and it will just be
Zimmerman's word against a dead kid. It's absolutely insane, and is
nothing but a condonement of anarchy, to think that we have to let a
shooter go just because he claims he was defending himself with no
proof or witnesses. What you are suggesting is a license for any
racist to gun down a black kid and claim he was assaulted. That's
insane. It can't be allowed to happen. If Martin was carrying a gun
it would be completely different, but he wasn't. He was an unarmed 17
year old kid.

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:qmg5q85gncvr0uvu2...@4ax.com:

It also doesn't mean that is a racist who hated black kids. He tutored
them. I don't know the truth of the Zimmerman case, but then neither do
you. The difference between us is that I am not declaring anyone guilty
without hearing the facts under oath. You operate on prejudice.

[deep]

Nope. Zimmerman even admitted he was suspicious of Martin because he
was a black kid in a hoodie and he looked like he didn't belong there.

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:32j5q8llqaqce7v3q...@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 26 May 2013 21:11:57 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>"Syd M." <pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>news:f1ad89d3-0574-45e0...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On May 26, 11:22 am, "Scout"
>>> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:hlwdjsd2-94E341...@news.giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> > In article <poo2q8971lihgjsjfm2fjrb3vk2mhoj...@4ax.com>,
>>>> > J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> It seems the closer people look at Travon Martin, they can see he
>>>> >> wasn't the 'good kid' the media made him appear to be.
>>>>
>>>> > Which of those messages were capital offenses?
>>>>
>>>> Possibly attacking an armed stranger putting him in fear of life and
>>>> limb
>>> .
>>>
>>> Or being attacked by that armed stranger did it, too.
>>> Esp since he wasn't armed...
>>
>>What makes you think Zimmerman knew that? Currently it is unknown who
>>started the physical portion of the encounter. The trial should bring
>>that out.
>
> Unfortunately they may never know for sure and it will just be
> Zimmerman's word against a dead kid.

There were eyewitnesses to some of it and they have the girl's sworn
statement. Of course, they could be wrong and she has already lied about
some details in her testimony.

It's absolutely insane, and is
> nothing but a condonement of anarchy, to think that we have to let a
> shooter go just because he claims he was defending himself with no
> proof or witnesses. What you are suggesting is a license for any
> racist to gun down a black kid and claim he was assaulted. That's
> insane. It can't be allowed to happen.

So Zimmerman needs to be sacrificed whether he is really guilty or not in
order to make your idea of the world be right. Did I get that right?

If Martin was carrying a gun
> it would be completely different, but he wasn't. He was an unarmed 17
> year old kid.

Who may have initiated the confrontation and been beating up Zimmerman.
We don't know. What we do know is that Zimmerman had wounds to the back
of his head, Martin had abrasions to his knuckles and the eye witnesses
state that Martin was on top and Zimmerman was yelling for help.

It will be interesting under oath. I just hope that the verdict is not a
political one like OJ's.

[Tom McDonald]

Yes. I heard the 911 tapes. I head what Zimmerman said, unprovoked and
unasked, about Martin and other black folks.

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:upj5q8pj9hbn17mcs...@4ax.com:

Why do you keep leaving out the part about recent break-ins into homes in
the neighborhood? Anyway, he stated that Marin looked suspicious but did
not mention that the Martin was black until dispatch asked him. He also
didn't identify Martin as a kid.

[RD Sandman]

Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in news:qlAot.10442$kj3.6652
@newsfe16.iad:

> On 5/26/2013 9:51 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:7jzot.29432$JB5....@newsfe26.iad:
>>
>>> On 5/26/2013 8:54 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Tom McDonald" <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:RRyot.9541$EM6....@newsfe04.iad...
>>>>> On 5/26/2013 8:16 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:hlwdjsd2-E2A677...@news.giganews.com...
>>>>>>> In article <AXtot.45792$KM4....@newsfe25.iad>,
>>>>>>> Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/26/2013 11:06 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Syd M." <pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> news:f1ad89d3-0574-45e0-bf0e-8347cc21b382

And just what was that?

[GOP_Decline_and_Fall]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 21:50:49 -0500, RD Sandman
<rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:

The police investigators were clear enough.

Zimmerman Called Trayvon Martin One Of 'These Assholes' In 911 Call

http://www.businessinsider.com/zimmerman-called-trayvon-martin-was-one-of-these-assholes-in-911-call-2012-6
>

Sanford, Fla., investigators taunted George Zimmerman in a
post-shooting interview as they forced him to listen to the 911 call
he made the night he shot teenager Trayvon Martin.

The call makes it sound like Zimmerman was chasing 17-year-old Martin,
but Zimmerman claims the sound was just wind.

"It sounds like he's running to get away from you," Sanford Police
lead investigator Chris Serino told Zimmerman.

"You basically jumped out of the car to see where he was going? That's
not fear. That's going to be a problem."

Recordings from Zimmerman's post-shooting interviews with police were
recently made available on his legal defense site.

In the 911 call, Zimmerman can be heard saying "These assholes always
get away."

Zimmerman can also be heard saying "These fucking punks," as he
reportedly pursued Martin.

"He wasn't a fucking punk," Serino said.

While police were initially sympathetic to Zimmerman's plight during
the Feb. 29 interview, officers became increasingly hostile as
Zimmerman failed to answer questions in precise detail.

He answered at least half of investigators' questions by saying he
didn't know or couldn't remember how things happened the night he shot
Martin.

Throughout the course of the hours-long interview, police repeatedly
asked why Zimmerman left his vehicle in the first place, why he
pursued Martin, and if he went looking for the teenager or whether
Martin found him while Zimmerman was walking back to his vehicle.

"It sounds like you're looking for him," Serino said. "You wanted to
catch him. You wanted to catch the bad guy."

In the emergency call, Zimmerman said Martin "looks like he's up to no
good or he's on drugs or something. Something's wrong with him."

"What's that supposed to mean?" Serino asked Zimmerman.

"I don't know," Zimmerman quietly replied.

[RD Sandman]

GOP_Decline_and_Fall <D...@null.net> wrote in
news:3al5q8hl5v1ducto9...@4ax.com:

Per several other entities who have listened to that tape including the
FBI, there is no clear way to tell exactly what Zimmerman said.

> Sanford, Fla., investigators taunted George Zimmerman in a
> post-shooting interview as they forced him to listen to the 911 call
> he made the night he shot teenager Trayvon Martin.
>
> The call makes it sound like Zimmerman was chasing 17-year-old Martin,
> but Zimmerman claims the sound was just wind.
>
> "It sounds like he's running to get away from you," Sanford Police
> lead investigator Chris Serino told Zimmerman.

That's probably true.

> "You basically jumped out of the car to see where he was going? That's
> not fear. That's going to be a problem."
>
> Recordings from Zimmerman's post-shooting interviews with police were
> recently made available on his legal defense site.
>
> In the 911 call, Zimmerman can be heard saying "These assholes always
> get away."

See above. It has also been claimed that he said "These niggers always
get away." and "These fucking punks always get away." and "These people
always get away." etc....

> Zimmerman can also be heard saying "These fucking punks," as he
> reportedly pursued Martin.
>
> "He wasn't a fucking punk," Serino said.
>
> While police were initially sympathetic to Zimmerman's plight during
> the Feb. 29 interview, officers became increasingly hostile as
> Zimmerman failed to answer questions in precise detail.

Yes.

> He answered at least half of investigators' questions by saying he
> didn't know or couldn't remember how things happened the night he shot
> Martin.
>
> Throughout the course of the hours-long interview, police repeatedly
> asked why Zimmerman left his vehicle in the first place, why he
> pursued Martin, and if he went looking for the teenager or whether
> Martin found him while Zimmerman was walking back to his vehicle.

In Zimmerman's statement to his father, he said that Martin found him
when Zimmerman was walking back to his vehicle after getting a house
number from one of the units.

> "It sounds like you're looking for him," Serino said. "You wanted to
> catch him. You wanted to catch the bad guy."
>
> In the emergency call, Zimmerman said Martin "looks like he's up to no
> good or he's on drugs or something. Something's wrong with him."
>
> "What's that supposed to mean?" Serino asked Zimmerman.
>
> "I don't know," Zimmerman quietly replied.

This is why we wait for trials when everyone is under oath.

[Scout]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA1CCC3198...@216.196.121.131...

> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
> news:knt93t$hdd$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>>
>>
>> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hlwdjsd2-94E341...@news.giganews.com...
>>> In article <poo2q8971lihgjsjf...@4ax.com>,
>>> J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It seems the closer people look at Travon Martin, they can see he
>>>> wasn't the 'good kid' the media made him appear to be.
>>>
>>>
>>> Which of those messages were capital offenses?
>>
>> Possibly attacking an armed stranger putting him in fear of life and
>> limb.
>
> Ended up that way, anyway.

Yea but whether it was an offense by Travon is dependent on who attacked
whom. Sadly conclusive evidence of that is lacking. What we do know
indicates a fight, but who started it and who was thus in the wrong remains
unknown. Thus would tend to suggest to me reasonable doubt and I don't see
anyway the prosecution could reasonably overcome that. However, what I think
doesn't really matter, maybe the prosecution will presented some additional
information that may reduce any doubt. Have to see how this shakes out and
hope that in the end it will be governed by the facts presented rather than
any emotionalism....by either side.

[Scout]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA1CCC34E2...@216.196.121.131...

> "Syd M." <pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:f1ad89d3-0574-45e0...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On May 26, 11:22 am, "Scout"
>> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:hlwdjsd2-94E341...@news.giganews.com...
>>>
>>> > In article <poo2q8971lihgjsjfm2fjrb3vk2mhoj...@4ax.com>,
>>> > J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> It seems the closer people look at Travon Martin, they can see he
>>> >> wasn't the 'good kid' the media made him appear to be.
>>>
>>> > Which of those messages were capital offenses?
>>>
>>> Possibly attacking an armed stranger putting him in fear of life and
>>> limb
>> .
>>
>> Or being attacked by that armed stranger did it, too.
>> Esp since he wasn't armed...
>
> What makes you think Zimmerman knew that? Currently it is unknown who
> started the physical portion of the encounter. The trial should bring
> that out.

Well, IMO the prosecution is going to need to or it doesn't look like their
case is going to stand up.

[Scout]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA1CCCE73F...@216.196.121.131...

Yep, and even if they are trying to be utterly honest, eyewitness testimony
is notoriously unreliable. IMO, it makes a fair investigative tool, but
shouldn't mean much in court.

> It's absolutely insane, and is
>> nothing but a condonement of anarchy, to think that we have to let a
>> shooter go just because he claims he was defending himself with no
>> proof or witnesses. What you are suggesting is a license for any
>> racist to gun down a black kid and claim he was assaulted. That's
>> insane. It can't be allowed to happen.
>
> So Zimmerman needs to be sacrificed whether he is really guilty or not in
> order to make your idea of the world be right. Did I get that right?

I think you've got it pegged.

> If Martin was carrying a gun
>> it would be completely different, but he wasn't. He was an unarmed 17
>> year old kid.
>
> Who may have initiated the confrontation and been beating up Zimmerman.
> We don't know. What we do know is that Zimmerman had wounds to the back
> of his head, Martin had abrasions to his knuckles and the eye witnesses
> state that Martin was on top and Zimmerman was yelling for help.
>
> It will be interesting under oath. I just hope that the verdict is not a
> political one like OJ's.

We can only hope.

[Scout]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA1CCCC072...@216.196.121.131...

One might even call that prejudice racist...

Oh, but I forget we've already established that Dudu is a racist.

[Scout]

"Tom McDonald" <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:7jzot.29432$JB5....@newsfe26.iad...

I did, and that has nothing to do with your claims of racism.

So once again, then only racism I see is yours.

[Scout]

"Tom McDonald" <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:qlAot.10442$kj3....@newsfe16.iad...

Hmmm..

Exactly what part of the transcript are you suggesting is where Zimmerman
said anything like that?

[Ashton Crusher]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 21:10:02 -0500, RD Sandman
<rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>Ashton Crusher <de...@moore.net> wrote in
>news:jbu2q8h3d2ni5so5t...@4ax.com:

>
>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:34:38 -0700, J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>It seems the closer people look at Travon Martin, they can see he
>>>wasn't the 'good kid' the media made him appear to be.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>>http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/in-trayvon-martins-text
>>>-messages-talk-of-marijuana-fights-and-guns/2122811
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>In the months and days before his shooting death, Trayvon Martin was
>>>getting into fights, getting high on marijuana, getting suspended from
>>>school and talking with friends about getting a gun, according to
>>>cellphone text messages that defense lawyers for shooter George
>>>Zimmerman released Thursday.
>>>
>>>Trayvon's chronically misspelled, slang-filled messages � as well as
>>>pictures of a semi-automatic pistol, marijuana plants and Trayvon
>>>flipping his middle fingers � are all part of Zimmerman's defense plan
>>>to put the Miami Gardens 17-year-old posthumously on trial.
>>>
>>>"So you just turning into a lil hoodlum," one friend, whose name has
>>>been withheld, texted Trayvon.
>>>
>>>Trayvon replied: "No not at all."
>>>
>>>At one point, Trayvon joked that the friend was "soft."
>>>
>>>"Boy don't get one planted in ya chest," the friend joked back.
>>>
>>>The message, a likely reference to being shot, eerily foreshadowed
>>>Trayvon's fate three months later.
>>>
>>>On the rainy evening of Feb. 26, 2012, Zimmerman fatally shot Trayvon
>>>at an apartment complex in Sanford, near Orlando, where the Miami
>>>Gardens teen was sent to live with his dad to get back on track.
>>>
>>>That night, Trayvon was returning from a convenience store where he
>>>had just bought a pack of Skittles and some iced tea. Zimmerman said
>>>he believed the young man in the hoodie sweatshirt was up to no good.
>>>
>>>No one witnessed who threw the first punch at whom or why.
>>>
>>>But soon Trayvon was dead from a Sig Sauer gunshot wound, Zimmerman
>>>was in police custody and the nation began debating Florida's deadly
>>>force law known as "stand your ground."
>>>
>>
>> The only people who talk about the "stand your ground" law are those
>> who don't understand the law. This was not a stand your ground case.
>> Trayvon was attacking Zimmerman and he did what ANYONE who is being
>> attacked may legally do, he shot the asshole attacking him.
>
>Oooops. No one knows for sure (other than Zimmerman) who started the
>physical portion of the confrontation.
>

It doesn't necessarily matter who started it. If I'm recalling
correctly, the critical part of teh confrontation, supported by the
physical evidence, is that part where they were on the ground and
Trayvon was trying to bash Zimmerman's skull by banging it into the
sidewalk. Zimmerman's wounds from this are documented. I'm sure
there will be many attempts by the Trayvon apologists to dismiss this
evidence but I see no way around these facts. Zimmerman, at the time
he shot Trayvon, was being attacked by Trayvon.


> The stand
>> your ground law deals with whether or not you have a duty to retreat
>> if you can do so rather then shoot someone. Stand your ground laws
>> say you do not have a duty to retreat when you are attacked.
>
>SYG in Florida is handled by statute 776.012 (or 776.013 if it is in your
>home and is Castle Doctrine). It consists of eight words. Here it is:
>
>776.012 Use of force in defense of person.�A person is justified in
>using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent
>that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to
>defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of
>unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force
>and does not have a duty to retreat if:
>
>(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to
>prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or
>another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
>
>(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
>
>776.013 as noted covers Castle Doctrine. SYG is in the eight words,
>"...and does not have a duty to retreat..."
>
> Have you
>> ever heard anyone say the police have a duty to retreat if they are
>> attacked? yet for years the public was expected to do just that until
>> some states finally passed stand your ground laws.
>>
>>
>>>The law offers protections for some shooters in public places, but
>>>Zimmerman was still charged with second-degree murder by a special
>>>prosecutor appointed by Gov. Rick Scott. Zimmerman is pleading
>>>self-defense, and said Trayvon attacked him.
>>>
>>>His trial is scheduled for June 10.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The regular prosecutor knew there was no justification to charge
>> Zimmerman so they brought in a ringer to do the dirty work.
>
>We shall see when testimony comes in under oath.
>
>Zimmerman and his attornies turned down a SYG hearing to resolve the
>issue. If he had been held by the judge as to being covered by SYG then
>he would have been immune to both civil and criminal charges ensuing out
>of the encounter.
>

Yes, I know they did. At the time it was reported as to why and it
made sense but I don't recall the reasons offhand.


>Here is the statute 776.032 for that:
>
>776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for
>justifiable use of force.�
>(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s.
>776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal
>prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person
>against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in
>s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official
>duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with
>any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should
>have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this
>subsection, the term �criminal prosecution� includes arresting, detaining
>in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
>(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for
>investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the
>agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines
>that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
>(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney�s fees, court costs,
>compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the
>defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the
>court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in
>subsection (1).
>History.�s. 4, ch. 2005-27.
>
>
>


Isn't it interesting that they make sure you are defenseless against
the worst thugs most of us will ever encounter, the police.

[Dakota]

On 5/26/2013 5:59 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
> Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in news:AXtot.45792$KM4.18318
> @newsfe25.iad:

>
>> The answer to Jeanne's question is "Walking While Black". It's been good
>> enough reason to kill black folks for centuries.
>>
>

> Man what a bigot you are. Are you a member of the Klan?
>
GG's the deceitful bigot who snipped the clearly non-racist context of
T McD's comment.

[Dakota]

On 5/26/2013 8:16 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hlwdjsd2-E2A677...@news.giganews.com...
>> In article <AXtot.45792$KM4....@newsfe25.iad>,
>> Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/26/2013 11:06 AM, Scout wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > "Syd M." <pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> >
>>> news:f1ad89d3-0574-45e0...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> >> On May 26, 11:22 am, "Scout"
>>> >> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>> >>> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>>> >>>
>>> >>> news:hlwdjsd2-94E341...@news.giganews.com...
>>> >>>
>>> >>> > In article <poo2q8971lihgjsjfm2fjrb3vk2mhoj...@4ax.com>,

>>> >>> > J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> >> It seems the closer people look at Travon Martin, they can
>>> see he
>>> >>> >> wasn't the 'good kid' the media made him appear to be.
>>> >>>

>>> >>> > Which of those messages were capital offenses?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Possibly attacking an armed stranger putting him in fear of
>>> life and
>>> >>> limb.
>>> >>
>>> >> Or being attacked by that armed stranger did it, too.
>>> >> Esp since he wasn't armed...
>>> >
>>> > Except that isn't an offense committed by Travon and thus doesn't
>>> > fulfill the conditions set by Jeanne.
>>> >
>>> >

>>> The answer to Jeanne's question is "Walking While Black". It's been
>>> good
>>> enough reason to kill black folks for centuries.
>>

>> Precisely.
>
> So you're a racist.....
>

Wrong. Racist J posted a list of cherry picked info that implied that
Trevon Martin was a thug. Jeanne asked which item on the list was a
capital offense. The "Walking While Black" comment posted in response
was a reference to our nation's shameful history of racism.

[Dakota]

On 5/26/2013 8:54 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Tom McDonald" <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:RRyot.9541$EM6....@newsfe04.iad...

>> Horseshit. Merely pointing out the racism that led to Trayvon's death.
>
> What racism? The only racism I see is your assertion that it was about
> racism.
>

The OP has a well established record of being a racist. He included
talk.politics.guns hoping to attract others. Turns out he did.

Plonk.

[Tom McDonald]

The 911 calls included unprovoked statements by Zimmerman about 'these
people' that, when I heard them repeated on the news, appeared to me to
clearly suggest he called people like Martin 'coons'. Some other folks
thought they heard him say, 'niggers' as well.

It's been a while since I heard the tapes, but I was left with the very
definite impression that Zimmerman had pegged Martin as a potential bad
guy solely based on his race and presence in Zimmerman's neighborhood.

So that's why I said Martin may have been killed for the 'offense' of
'walking while black'.

If you take that as racism on my part, you are being pretty dense.

[Tom McDonald]

Yup.

[Tom McDonald]

GG has it in for me. I don't think I'm alone, though. I suspect GG is
one of those Usenet tough-guys who would faint at the sight of RL trouble.

[Scout]

"Tom McDonald" <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:rHJot.10448$kj3....@newsfe16.iad...

Really?

Do you have any sort of conclusive evidence exactly what he meant by "these
people' ?

In short is the racism in what he said......or in you?

>when I heard them repeated on the news, appeared to me to clearly suggest
>he called people like Martin 'coons'. Some other folks thought they heard
>him say, 'niggers' as well.

Odd, none of that is in the transcripts and despite audio enhancement
attempts NO ONE has been able to hear him saying either of these things.

Seems to me some racist people are hearing what they want to hear rather
than what is there.

> It's been a while since I heard the tapes, but I was left with the very
> definite impression that Zimmerman had pegged Martin as a potential bad
> guy solely based on his race and presence in Zimmerman's neighborhood.

Given that the media was expressly attempting to give that impression at one
point I can understand your confusion, but that's no excuse for your
ignorance now.

I suggest you go back and revisit it again and rely not on what others tell
you but what you find out for yourself.

> So that's why I said Martin may have been killed for the 'offense' of
> 'walking while black'.

Maybe, but so far I've seen no evidence to support that claim.

> If you take that as racism on my part, you are being pretty dense.

It is when you assert racism where none has been shown to exist.

After all, I'm more than willing to look at your evidence for this racism,
but I doubt you can produce it.

[deep]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/18/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-evidence_n_1528268.html

[Scout]

"Ashton Crusher" <de...@moore.net> wrote in message
news:9416q8hsgs51hiemq...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 26 May 2013 21:10:02 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Ashton Crusher <de...@moore.net> wrote in
>>news:jbu2q8h3d2ni5so5t...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:34:38 -0700, J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It seems the closer people look at Travon Martin, they can see he
>>>>wasn't the 'good kid' the media made him appear to be.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/in-trayvon-martins-text
>>>>-messages-talk-of-marijuana-fights-and-guns/2122811
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>In the months and days before his shooting death, Trayvon Martin was
>>>>getting into fights, getting high on marijuana, getting suspended from
>>>>school and talking with friends about getting a gun, according to
>>>>cellphone text messages that defense lawyers for shooter George
>>>>Zimmerman released Thursday.
>>>>

>>>>Trayvon's chronically misspelled, slang-filled messages - as well as

>>>>pictures of a semi-automatic pistol, marijuana plants and Trayvon

>>>>flipping his middle fingers - are all part of Zimmerman's defense plan

Sorry, but legally it makes a vast importance.

> If I'm recalling
> correctly, the critical part of teh confrontation, supported by the
> physical evidence, is that part where they were on the ground and
> Trayvon was trying to bash Zimmerman's skull by banging it into the
> sidewalk. Zimmerman's wounds from this are documented. I'm sure
> there will be many attempts by the Trayvon apologists to dismiss this
> evidence but I see no way around these facts. Zimmerman, at the time
> he shot Trayvon, was being attacked by Trayvon.

Yes, but that only establishes a fight occurred. Not who started it.

If, for example, Zimmerman took a swing at Trayvon then he can't later claim
self defense because Trayvon is kicking his ass.

If on the other hand Travyon started the fight, then Zimmerman can
legitimately claim self defense for any actions he took that was necessary
to fend off that attack.

So who started it, does matter quite a bit in whether Zimmerman's actions
were legally justifiable or not.

In fact I think the whole case will hinge on this point, and I don't see how
the prosecution can refute Zimmerman's case without any proof showing that
Zimmerman started the fight.

[Scout]

"Dakota" <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
news:knvfmc$80p$1...@dont-email.me...

So we should automatically simply assume racism all the time?

That we should judge Zimmerman to be a racist simply because he's Hispanic?

That attitude seems pretty racist to me.

[Scout]

"Tom McDonald" <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:3KKot.11421$uT3....@newsfe20.iad...

So you agree with him that you're judging Zimmerman to be a racist simply
because of the color of his skin?

I suggest you reconsider who is the one really showing themselves as a
racist.

[Dakota]

Plonk the fool. He brings nothing to the table.

[Scout]

"Dakota" <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message

news:knvfv8$9fu$1...@dont-email.me...

And when asked to back up the claims of racism with proof of that
racism...Dakota runs away.

Seems asking to see the facts that support such claims is more than Dakota
can stand.

[RD Sandman]

Ashton Crusher <de...@moore.net> wrote in

news:9416q8hsgs51hiemq...@4ax.com:

The problem is that if you start the physical confrontation and are
getting your ass whipped, you cannot then claim self defense since you
must be involved in a lawful activity. That is one reason why bank
robbers cannot shoot police officers in self defense when they are
robbing a bank. That is why it is important who started the physical
portion of it.

If I'm recalling
> correctly, the critical part of teh confrontation, supported by the
> physical evidence, is that part where they were on the ground and
> Trayvon was trying to bash Zimmerman's skull by banging it into the
> sidewalk.

Yes, and that is the part Zimmerman will use to claim that Martin
attacked him....not the other way around.

Zimmerman's wounds from this are documented. I'm sure
> there will be many attempts by the Trayvon apologists to dismiss this
> evidence but I see no way around these facts. Zimmerman, at the time
> he shot Trayvon, was being attacked by Trayvon.

Zimmerman, at the time he shot Trayvon, appeared to be losing to him.

Nor do I but I would bet that one of them is that if they could not
convince that judge that Zimmermn acted in self defense then it was
virtually all over and he would face 2d degree murder charges without
that on the table. It would seem to me that his legal team thought their
chances were better to convince a jury with a preponderance of the
evidence. All it would take at that point would be a majority vote not a
unanimous one.

It also states that that officer must be involved in performance of his
or her official duties and that the claimant must have reasonably known
that the other was a police officer.

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:knuq40$3e8$1...@dont-email.me:

Bingo!!

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:knuq5b$3jn$1...@dont-email.me:

I think that they are hanging their hopes on the fact that Zimmerman left
his vehicle and pursued Martin on foot. They claim that dispatch asking
Zimmerman if he was following Martin and then stating "We don't need you
to do that." was an order for him to sit tight and not leave his vehicle.
However, at that point, he, apparently, already had and was on foot.
When told that is wasn't necessary for him to follow Martin, he said
"OK" and, per his statement, went to get a house number from one of the
units on Retreat View Circle. His vehicle was parked on Twin Trees.
Zimmerman's claim is that Martin confronted him on his way back to his
vehicle.

[RD Sandman]

Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:rHJot.10448$kj3....@newsfe16.iad:

Yep, and per the FBI it is not clear what was said. It could have been
those or any of a multitude of other things like "these people", "these
assholes", etc...

> It's been a while since I heard the tapes, but I was left with the
> very definite impression that Zimmerman had pegged Martin as a
> potential bad guy solely based on his race and presence in Zimmerman's
> neighborhood.

He also said that Martin was peering around, etc... and there had been
recent breakins.

> So that's why I said Martin may have been killed for the 'offense' of
> 'walking while black'.
>
> If you take that as racism on my part, you are being pretty dense.

He doesn't.....but accusing others of racism is what some of you appear
to be doing.

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:isv6q8t39i53a940q...@4ax.com:

Even the FBI with its audio enhancement cannot tell you specifically what
was said and you want me to believe the Huffy Post?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 20:44:56 -0700, GOP_Decline_and_Fall
<D...@null.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 26 May 2013 21:50:49 -0500, RD Sandman
><rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>deep wrote in news:t5g5q8ljv5llehptq...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 21:54:19 -0400, "Scout"

>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Tom McDonald" <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>> Zimmerman profiled Martin as trouble solely because he was black.
>>
>>Hmmmm, just where is that in the transcripts? He did mention that Martin
>>was black but that was because the dispatcher asked him.
>>
>>
>> He
>>> was doing nothing wrong. He was coming back from the store with
>>> candy. His father lived in the neighborhood and he was heading for
>>> his father's house. He was just an innocent kid walking through the
>>> neighborhood until Zimmerman started following him
>>
>>You were doing so good until you got here. From this point on, it is
>>pure conjecture on your part.
>
>The police investigators were clear enough.
>
>Zimmerman Called Trayvon Martin One Of 'These Assholes' In 911 Call
>
>http://www.businessinsider.com/zimmerman-called-trayvon-martin-was-one-of-these-assholes-in-911-call-2012-6
>>
>
>Sanford, Fla., investigators taunted George Zimmerman in a
>post-shooting interview as they forced him to listen to the 911 call
>he made the night he shot teenager Trayvon Martin.
>
>The call makes it sound like Zimmerman was chasing 17-year-old Martin,
>but Zimmerman claims the sound was just wind.
>
>"It sounds like he's running to get away from you," Sanford Police
>lead investigator Chris Serino told Zimmerman.
>
>"You basically jumped out of the car to see where he was going? That's
>not fear. That's going to be a problem."
>
>Recordings from Zimmerman's post-shooting interviews with police were
>recently made available on his legal defense site.
>
>In the 911 call, Zimmerman can be heard saying "These assholes always
>get away."
>
>Zimmerman can also be heard saying "These fucking punks," as he
>reportedly pursued Martin.
>
>"He wasn't a fucking punk," Serino said.
>
>While police were initially sympathetic to Zimmerman's plight during
>the Feb. 29 interview, officers became increasingly hostile as
>Zimmerman failed to answer questions in precise detail.
>
>He answered at least half of investigators' questions by saying he
>didn't know or couldn't remember how things happened the night he shot
>Martin.
>
>Throughout the course of the hours-long interview, police repeatedly
>asked why Zimmerman left his vehicle in the first place, why he
>pursued Martin, and if he went looking for the teenager or whether
>Martin found him while Zimmerman was walking back to his vehicle.
>
>"It sounds like you're looking for him," Serino said. "You wanted to
>catch him. You wanted to catch the bad guy."
>
>In the emergency call, Zimmerman said Martin "looks like he's up to no
>good or he's on drugs or something. Something's wrong with him."
>
>"What's that supposed to mean?" Serino asked Zimmerman.
>
>"I don't know," Zimmerman quietly replied.

He diodn't help his case by lying about his finances to get bail.

The prosecution will hammer home that he lied, so why should they
believe what says about this too?

[RD Sandman]

Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote in news:knvfmc$80p$1...@dont-email.me:

Which doesn't mean that Zimmerman is. He tutored black children.

[RD Sandman]

Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in
news:5r57q8h5kh7ncechf...@4ax.com:

Not under oath he didn't. That was his wife who lied under oath.

> The prosecution will hammer home that he lied, so why should they
> believe what says about this too?
>

[Tom McDonald]

Suggestion considered. Suggestion weighed with other evidence available.
Suggestion rejected.

[Tom McDonald]

True. I am just morally against killfiles, thinking I should have the
moral fiber to be able to deal wisely with the plonkables without plonking.

In the case of GG, I am apparently mistaken in my thinking.

[Gray Guest]

Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in news:uLKot.11429$uT3.2685
@newsfe20.iad:

Really? Like to give a shot?

--
Refusenik #1

Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.

Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama

[Don Martin]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 10:51:52 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
wrote:

You overlook his humble offerings of eructation and flatus.

--

aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/

[Tom McDonald]

On 5/27/2013 1:23 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
> Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in news:uLKot.11429$uT3.2685
> @newsfe20.iad:
>
>> On 5/27/2013 6:12 AM, Dakota wrote:
>>> On 5/26/2013 5:59 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
>>>> Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in news:AXtot.45792$KM4.18318
>>>> @newsfe25.iad:
>>>>
>>>>> The answer to Jeanne's question is "Walking While Black". It's been
> good
>>>>> enough reason to kill black folks for centuries.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Man what a bigot you are. Are you a member of the Klan?
>>>>
>>> GG's the deceitful bigot who snipped the clearly non-racist context of T
>>> McD's comment.
>>>
>> GG has it in for me. I don't think I'm alone, though. I suspect GG is
>> one of those Usenet tough-guys who would faint at the sight of RL
> trouble.
>>
>
> Really? Like to give a shot?
>

As a courtesy to you:

Plonk

[Tom McDonald]

On 5/27/2013 2:45 PM, Don Martin wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2013 10:51:52 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/27/2013 10:14 AM, Tom McDonald wrote:
>>> On 5/27/2013 6:12 AM, Dakota wrote:
>>>> On 5/26/2013 5:59 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
>>>>> Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in news:AXtot.45792$KM4.18318
>>>>> @newsfe25.iad:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The answer to Jeanne's question is "Walking While Black". It's
>>>>>> been good
>>>>>> enough reason to kill black folks for centuries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Man what a bigot you are. Are you a member of the Klan?
>>>>>
>>>> GG's the deceitful bigot who snipped the clearly non-racist context
>>>> of T
>>>> McD's comment.
>>>>
>>> GG has it in for me. I don't think I'm alone, though. I suspect GG is
>>> one of those Usenet tough-guys who would faint at the sight of RL
>>> trouble.
>>
>> Plonk the fool. He brings nothing to the table.
>
> You overlook his humble offerings of eructation and flatus.
>

You are suggesting he's a methane digester?

[Scout]

"Tom McDonald" <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:KtNot.13414$ZU7....@newsfe28.iad...

So you're denying your agreement with what he said then?

[GOP_Decline_and_Fall]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 13:08:36 -0500, RD Sandman

The Judge Lester said he lied to his bail bondsman and lied to his
lawyer in an attempt to defraud contributors to his "defense fund" and
flee abroad.

Judge: Zimmerman was going to jump bail with other people�s money

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/05/2882584_zimmerman-bond-ruling-expected.html

A judge said Thursday that George Zimmerman appeared to be preparing
to flee when he transferred funds out of his name just before his bond
hearing, but his plan was �thwarted.�

The judge overseeing George Zimmerman�s murder trial wrote a stern
eight-page order Thursday that set bail at $1 million and said the
former neighborhood watch volunteer thumbed his nose at the judicial
system as he plotted a life on the run.

Seminole County Circuit Judge Kenneth R. Lester ordered Zimmerman to
remain in Seminole County, doing away with the special perk that had
allowed Zimmerman to await trial in hiding out of state before his
initial bail was revoked. Lester said nothing in the defense team�s
presentation in a three-hour hearing last week explained why someone
would stash a second passport and $135,000 if it wasn�t to jump bail.

�Notably, together with the passport, the money only had to be hidden
for a short time for him to leave the country if the defendant made a
quick decision to flee,� Lester wrote. �It is entirely reasonable for
this court to find that, but for the requirement that he be placed on
electronic monitoring, the defendant and his wife would have fled the
United States with at least $130,000 of other people�s money.�

He rejected the defense argument that Zimmerman, 28, was young and
confused when he instructed his wife, in jailhouse phone
conversations, to transfer all the funds he raised online out of his
name and allowed her to lie about it under oath at his initial bond
hearing.

�Trayvon Martin is the only male whose youth is relevant to this
case,� Lester wrote.

Lester�s strong rebuke underscored the difficult road Zimmerman has
ahead before this judge, legal experts said. It�s Lester who would
decide in a �Stand Your Ground� hearing whether Zimmerman�s case
should be tossed out on the basis of self-defense immunity.
Zimmerman�s life is now in the hands of a judge who said the defendant
�manipulated� and flouted the court.

�A witness� credibility is everything, and the judge views everything
Zimmerman says with a suspicious eye,� said Mark NeJame, an Orlando
attorney and CNN analyst whom Zimmerman consulted before hiring his
current lawyer, Mark O�Mara. �Now O�Mara is going to face the tough
decision whether to ever put him on the stand again.�

The judge noted in his ruling that Zimmerman even lied to his attorney
by suggesting he could not pay for his defense.

Read more here:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/05/2882584_zimmerman-bond-ruling-expected.html#storylink=cpy

>> The prosecution will hammer home that he lied, so why should they
>> believe what says about this too?

That he is a documented liar is undisputed.

His lawyer may try to avoid putting him on the stand at all, but has
to show it was self defense somehow by attempting to paint the
murdered boy as a threat to the adult armed self-appointed vigilante
following him at night.

[Tom McDonald]

Re-read the origin of this part of the thread in context.

[RD Sandman]

GOP_Decline_and_Fall <D...@null.net> wrote in
news:anb7q8dkj51vhjlev...@4ax.com:

I agree....my only point was that he didn't lie about it under oath.

> His lawyer may try to avoid putting him on the stand at all, but has
> to show it was self defense somehow by attempting to paint the
> murdered boy as a threat to the adult armed self-appointed vigilante
> following him at night.

Actually what he needs to do is to convince the majority of the jury that
Martin initiated the physical portion of the confrontation. Meanwhile the
prosecutor has to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that
Zimmerman initiated the physical contact and therefore his claim of self
defense has no merit.

[Don Martin]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 14:10:58 -0500, Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Would that he could--the world would be a safer place for it.

[Gray Guest]

Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in news:m5Oot.32289$cs.22612
@newsfe03.iad:

imbecilic coward.

[Ashton Crusher]

There is a reason I used the modifier "necessarily". It will depend
on whether things escalate and who escalates first. If they each slap
each other equally hard that is not likely going to justify deadly
force. After the first slap exchange either of them could come back
with a knife from their pocket. That could change the whole game
making the "who started it" moot.

>
>> If I'm recalling
>> correctly, the critical part of teh confrontation, supported by the
>> physical evidence, is that part where they were on the ground and
>> Trayvon was trying to bash Zimmerman's skull by banging it into the
>> sidewalk. Zimmerman's wounds from this are documented. I'm sure
>> there will be many attempts by the Trayvon apologists to dismiss this
>> evidence but I see no way around these facts. Zimmerman, at the time
>> he shot Trayvon, was being attacked by Trayvon.
>
>Yes, but that only establishes a fight occurred. Not who started it.
>
>If, for example, Zimmerman took a swing at Trayvon then he can't later claim
>self defense because Trayvon is kicking his ass.
>

Sure he can. Under your theory, if someone swings at you first but
then you get the upper hand you are entitled to just keep on beating
them till you kill them, that you have no obligation to stop once they
are disabled. You are wrong. Even if Z "started it" by accosting T,
that doesn't give T free rein to beat the hell out of Z. And if he
does start to beat the hell out of Z, Z is perfectly within his rights
to shoot him.

>If on the other hand Travyon started the fight, then Zimmerman can
>legitimately claim self defense for any actions he took that was necessary
>to fend off that attack.
>

See above.

>So who started it, does matter quite a bit in whether Zimmerman's actions
>were legally justifiable or not.
>

It's ONE factor to be considered but not the ONLY factor.

>In fact I think the whole case will hinge on this point, and I don't see how
>the prosecution can refute Zimmerman's case without any proof showing that
>Zimmerman started the fight.
>

I think you are quite wrong.

[Ashton Crusher]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 12:05:19 -0500, RD Sandman

See my reply to Scout. You are not obliged to let someone kill you
who is responding with deadly force to something you did to them that
was not a "deadly force" activity. To pretend otherwise would be to
say that if someone gets in your way and belly bumps you that you are
entitled to shoot them. Even if Z grabbed T's arm to stop him so he
could ask him a question that doesn't preclude Z from shooting T if T
try's to beat him to death. Remember, this is not a Castle doctrine
issue, neither of them were in their own home.

> If I'm recalling
>> correctly, the critical part of teh confrontation, supported by the
>> physical evidence, is that part where they were on the ground and
>> Trayvon was trying to bash Zimmerman's skull by banging it into the
>> sidewalk.
>
>Yes, and that is the part Zimmerman will use to claim that Martin
>attacked him....not the other way around.
>

There is not a shred of evidence I've seen that suggests Z did
anything that could be construed as "assaulting" T. To the contrary,
my recollection is that T came at Z and is the one that initiated
anything violent.

> Zimmerman's wounds from this are documented. I'm sure
>> there will be many attempts by the Trayvon apologists to dismiss this
>> evidence but I see no way around these facts. Zimmerman, at the time
>> he shot Trayvon, was being attacked by Trayvon.
>
>Zimmerman, at the time he shot Trayvon, appeared to be losing to him.
>

Well duh. Not just "losing" to him but having his head beat against
teh sidewalk. IOW, T was using deadly force against Z and Z was
rightfully entitled to respond with deadly force. As I said before,
any other way of looking at this is the same as saying anytime anyone
touches you gives you a license to kill them AND that they cannot use
deadly force to stop that attack.

Yeah right. We all know that in the real world the cops routinely
beat the hell out of people (and sometimes kill them) to the point
where the people would be entitled to shoot the cop but absent video,
and sometimes even if you have video, the cops will say they were
"just doing their job" and the rest of the "justice" system just winks
at it. This just gives them more cover for their criminal behavior.

[Scout]

"Ashton Crusher" <de...@moore.net> wrote in message

news:sre7q8plvpq5j481j...@4ax.com...

Doesn't matter if things escalate, or who escalated it. The issue is who
started it.

> If they each slap
> each other equally hard that is not likely going to justify deadly
> force.

Didn't say it did. However, if Zimmerman slapped Trayvon who then punched
him and started beating him up the Zimmerman wouldn't be able to claim self
defense since HE not Trayvon initiated the violence. You can't claim self
defense after starting a fight and getting your ass kicked. At least not
normally.

> After the first slap exchange either of them could come back
> with a knife from their pocket. That could change the whole game
> making the "who started it" moot.

If they leave and then come back, then it's a whole new event legally.

>>> If I'm recalling
>>> correctly, the critical part of teh confrontation, supported by the
>>> physical evidence, is that part where they were on the ground and
>>> Trayvon was trying to bash Zimmerman's skull by banging it into the
>>> sidewalk. Zimmerman's wounds from this are documented. I'm sure
>>> there will be many attempts by the Trayvon apologists to dismiss this
>>> evidence but I see no way around these facts. Zimmerman, at the time
>>> he shot Trayvon, was being attacked by Trayvon.
>>
>>Yes, but that only establishes a fight occurred. Not who started it.
>>
>>If, for example, Zimmerman took a swing at Trayvon then he can't later
>>claim
>>self defense because Trayvon is kicking his ass.
>>
>
> Sure he can.

Based on what legal theory?

> Under your theory, if someone swings at you first but
> then you get the upper hand you are entitled to just keep on beating
> them till you kill them, that you have no obligation to stop once they
> are disabled.

Oh, I'm as much bound by the law as the other person would be in how I act
in self defense. However, your ability to respond in legal self defense is
drastically reduced and perhaps even eliminated.

So yea, if you start a fight you may have little legal option but to take
it.

> You are wrong. Even if Z "started it" by accosting T,
> that doesn't give T free rein to beat the hell out of Z.

So T wouldn't have the authority to act in his own self defense?

> And if he
> does start to beat the hell out of Z, Z is perfectly within his rights
> to shoot him.

I see, so he starts a fight, the other person react in self defense when you
claim justifies them killing the person who you attacked.

Sorry, but I suggest you check the statutes and case law because rarely, if
ever, are you going to be able to claim self defense when YOU initiated the
violence.

>>If on the other hand Travyon started the fight, then Zimmerman can
>>legitimately claim self defense for any actions he took that was necessary
>>to fend off that attack.
>>
>
> See above.

Yep, and in court it's almost certainly not going to fly.

>>So who started it, does matter quite a bit in whether Zimmerman's actions
>>were legally justifiable or not.
>>
>
> It's ONE factor to be considered but not the ONLY factor.

Actually it's a key primary factor. If you started the violence, then your
ability to do anything in self defense is all but eliminated if not
eliminated.

>>In fact I think the whole case will hinge on this point, and I don't see
>>how
>>the prosecution can refute Zimmerman's case without any proof showing that
>>Zimmerman started the fight.
>>
>
> I think you are quite wrong.

Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion but this was hashed over way
back when this first started and case law and legal theory was cited to show
that the person who starts the violence has little or no recourse to any
claim of acting in self defense.

[GOP_Decline_and_Fall]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 14:43:20 -0500, RD Sandman

It's hard to see how that could happen without putting Zimmerman on
the stand.

[Dakota]

In my comment I didn't claim Zimmerman was a racist. I merely noted
that J is a racist.

[Dakota]

I'm not familiar with the details of Florida's stand your ground law,
but I was surprised when Zimmerman's lawyers decided to forgo that
hearing and proceed to trial. Now I'm wondering if it will be possible
for the lawyers to request a SYG hearing if Zimmerman is convicted. If
so, that may be the reason they decided to hold off.

[RD Sandman]

Ashton Crusher <de...@moore.net> wrote in

news:8mf7q81viqpjcme9h...@4ax.com:

Excuse me, but a deadly force response is really what the claimant
perceives as being necessary to defend him or herself. They need to be
able to convince people (the reasonable person syndrome) that they felt
that they were in immediate fear of loss of life or serious bodily harm.
Ergo, if Zimmerman started the physical confrontation, then Martin may
well have felt he was in that position. That being so, Martin would be
the one who could make the claim of self defense, not Zimmerman. You
cannot start a fight and then claim self defense if you are losing it.

To pretend otherwise would be to
> say that if someone gets in your way and belly bumps you that you are
> entitled to shoot them.

Not at all. Learn a bit about "reasonable person syndrome". Look at the
statutes on use of deadly physical force. They all claim that while
engaging in a lawful activity you feared loss of life or serious bodily
harm before you engaged deadly physical force. You cannot do it simply
for getting your ass handed to you because you picked on the wrong
person.

Even if Z grabbed T's arm to stop him so he
> could ask him a question that doesn't preclude Z from shooting T if T
> try's to beat him to death.

Yep. Now go prove that's what happened. Reaching for someone's arm is
not a deadly force threat. It depends on who initiated the physical
portion of the encounter.

Remember, this is not a Castle doctrine
> issue, neither of them were in their own home.

I am very much aware of the situation that they may have been in and with
self defense laws. BTW, no one is claiming Castle Doctrine.

>> If I'm recalling
>>> correctly, the critical part of teh confrontation, supported by the
>>> physical evidence, is that part where they were on the ground and
>>> Trayvon was trying to bash Zimmerman's skull by banging it into the
>>> sidewalk.
>>
>>Yes, and that is the part Zimmerman will use to claim that Martin
>>attacked him....not the other way around.
>>
>
> There is not a shred of evidence I've seen that suggests Z did
> anything that could be construed as "assaulting" T.

There has been no released eyewitness testimony as to how the
confrontation started and ensued.

To the contrary,
> my recollection is that T came at Z and is the one that initiated
> anything violent.

There have been no statements to that effect so I don't know where that
came from.

>> Zimmerman's wounds from this are documented. I'm sure
>>> there will be many attempts by the Trayvon apologists to dismiss
>>> this evidence but I see no way around these facts. Zimmerman, at
>>> the time he shot Trayvon, was being attacked by Trayvon.
>>
>>Zimmerman, at the time he shot Trayvon, appeared to be losing to him.
>>
>
> Well duh. Not just "losing" to him but having his head beat against
> teh sidewalk. IOW, T was using deadly force against Z and Z was
> rightfully entitled to respond with deadly force.

Bullshit. It depends on who initiated the confrontation. No one under
oath has presented anything indicating who started it.

As I said before,
> any other way of looking at this is the same as saying anytime anyone
> touches you gives you a license to kill them AND that they cannot use
> deadly force to stop that attack.

You read a lot of things into statements that aren't there.

Oh, well. Nothing there is germaine to Zimmerman and Martin.

--
Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman

You can be young without money, but you
can't be old without it.

[GOP_Decline_and_Fall]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 16:04:29 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
wrote:

The reasons for forgoing the SYG hearing are pretty clear

Judge: Zimmerman was going to jump bail with other people�s money

A judge said Thursday that George Zimmerman appeared to be preparing
to flee when he transferred funds out of his name just before his bond
hearing, but his plan was �thwarted.�

Read more here:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/05/2882584_zimmerman-bond-ruling-expected.html#storylink=cpy

[Tom McDonald]

On 5/27/2013 4:12 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> Ashton Crusher <de...@moore.net> wrote in
> news:8mf7q81viqpjcme9h...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 27 May 2013 12:05:19 -0500, RD Sandman
>> <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Ashton Crusher <de...@moore.net> wrote in
>>> news:9416q8hsgs51hiemq...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 21:10:02 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>> <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ashton Crusher <de...@moore.net> wrote in
>>>>> news:jbu2q8h3d2ni5so5t...@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:34:38 -0700, J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems the closer people look at Travon Martin, they can see he
>>>>>>> wasn't the 'good kid' the media made him appear to be.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/in-trayvon-martins-
>>>>>>> te xt -messages-talk-of-marijuana-fights-and-guns/2122811
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the months and days before his shooting death, Trayvon Martin
>>>>>>> was getting into fights, getting high on marijuana, getting
>>>>>>> suspended from school and talking with friends about getting a
>>>>>>> gun, according to cellphone text messages that defense lawyers for
>>>>>>> shooter George Zimmerman released Thursday.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Trayvon's chronically misspelled, slang-filled messages � as well

>>>>>>> as pictures of a semi-automatic pistol, marijuana plants and

>>>>>>> Trayvon flipping his middle fingers � are all part of Zimmerman's

This was all so long ago that I've forgotten a fair bit of the details,
but one that stuck out to me was Zimmerman stating that Martin came at
him when he, Zimmerman, reached for his phone in his pants pocket. IIRC
(and I might not), that was the same side on which he carried his gun.

If all that's correct (and I'll be happy to be shown differently), then
ISTM that Martin might have reasonably feared for his life. A man was
following him, when he was doing nothing wrong, and when confronted,
looked like he might have been going for a gun.

<snip>

[RD Sandman]

GOP_Decline_and_Fall <D...@null.net> wrote in
news:6hh7q81nrrgh7qvbs...@4ax.com:

Stranger things have happened. I even made an error in what I wrote.
Zimmerman doesn't need to convince the majority of the jury, all he needs
to do is to not let the jury go beyond a reasonable doubt as to his
claim. In Florida, the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

[RD Sandman]

Ashton Crusher <de...@moore.net> wrote in

news:sre7q8plvpq5j481j...@4ax.com:

Not really. In the case you mentioned the first person who escalated the
level of the confrontation to a deadly force level would be the one
considered to be the initiator. In the case above, it would be the
person pulling the knife. Deadly physical force is not a defense for
being slapped. How would that unleash the "immediate fear of loss of
like or serious bodily harm" that would be required.

>>> If I'm recalling
>>> correctly, the critical part of teh confrontation, supported by the
>>> physical evidence, is that part where they were on the ground and
>>> Trayvon was trying to bash Zimmerman's skull by banging it into the
>>> sidewalk. Zimmerman's wounds from this are documented. I'm sure
>>> there will be many attempts by the Trayvon apologists to dismiss
>>> this evidence but I see no way around these facts. Zimmerman, at
>>> the time he shot Trayvon, was being attacked by Trayvon.
>>
>>Yes, but that only establishes a fight occurred. Not who started it.
>>
>>If, for example, Zimmerman took a swing at Trayvon then he can't later
>>claim self defense because Trayvon is kicking his ass.
>>
>
> Sure he can. Under your theory, if someone swings at you first but
> then you get the upper hand you are entitled to just keep on beating
> them till you kill them,

Not unless you can convince folks that you were in immmediate fear of

loss of life or serious bodily harm.

that you have no obligation to stop once they
> are disabled. You are wrong.

So is your scenario.

Even if Z "started it" by accosting T,
> that doesn't give T free rein to beat the hell out of Z.

That would depend on how Zimmerman accosted Martin. If he put Martin in
fear for his life when he accosted him, then Martin could be the one who
has the claim of self defense.

And if he
> does start to beat the hell out of Z, Z is perfectly within his rights
> to shoot him.

Wrong. It will hinge on who the jury believes initiated the action and
who was actually defending himself.

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:ko0fla$3dv$1...@dont-email.me:

That is a variable. The person who has the claim of self defense is not
the one who escalated it to a deadly level. A mere confrontation does
not meet the requirements for self defense with deadly physical force.
Physical confrontation may well be the determiner and I don't know of any
eyewitnesses to that. It could come down to whether or not the jury
accepts Zimmerman's testimony and he has already lied to the police and
his wife lied under oath. He hasn't acted in his own best interests.

>> If they each slap
>> each other equally hard that is not likely going to justify deadly
>> force.
>
> Didn't say it did. However, if Zimmerman slapped Trayvon who then
> punched him and started beating him up the Zimmerman wouldn't be able
> to claim self defense since HE not Trayvon initiated the violence. You
> can't claim self defense after starting a fight and getting your ass
> kicked. At least not normally.

Bingo!! If you could than all bullies who started losing a fight could
simply escalate to deadly physical force.

>> After the first slap exchange either of them could come back
>> with a knife from their pocket. That could change the whole game
>> making the "who started it" moot.
>
> If they leave and then come back, then it's a whole new event legally.

And if all that had happened to that point was a pair of slaps then the
person drawing the knife would be the aggressor and the other party would
own the self defense claim.

[Dakota]

On 5/27/2013 3:30 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2013 12:05:19 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Ashton Crusher <de...@moore.net> wrote in
>> news:9416q8hsgs51hiemq...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 21:10:02 -0500, RD Sandman
>>> <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ashton Crusher <de...@moore.net> wrote in
>>>> news:jbu2q8h3d2ni5so5t...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:34:38 -0700, J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems the closer people look at Travon Martin, they can see he
>>>>>> wasn't the 'good kid' the media made him appear to be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/in-trayvon-martins-te
>>>>>> xt -messages-talk-of-marijuana-fights-and-guns/2122811
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the months and days before his shooting death, Trayvon Martin was
>>>>>> getting into fights, getting high on marijuana, getting suspended
>>>>> >from school and talking with friends about getting a gun, according
>>>>>> to cellphone text messages that defense lawyers for shooter George
>>>>>> Zimmerman released Thursday.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Trayvon's chronically misspelled, slang-filled messages � as well as

>>>>>> pictures of a semi-automatic pistol, marijuana plants and Trayvon

>>>>>> flipping his middle fingers � are all part of Zimmerman's defense

I don't recall seeing any evidence indicating that Martin hit
Zimmerman more than once or twice. The back of Zimmerman's head showed
that it was likely injured by the pavement but his face seems to show
only his nose being injured. According to the wiki, aside from the
gunshot wound, Martin's autopsy found that he had "one small abrasion
on his left ring finger below the knuckle. No other injuries were
found on Martin's body at the time of his death."

Photographs of Zimmerman's injuries are available at the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

>
>> Yes, and that is the part Zimmerman will use to claim that Martin
>> attacked him....not the other way around.
>>
>
> There is not a shred of evidence I've seen that suggests Z did
> anything that could be construed as "assaulting" T. To the contrary,
> my recollection is that T came at Z and is the one that initiated
> anything violent.
>

No one but Zimmerman knows who initiated the violence. The only other
witness is dead.

>
>> Zimmerman's wounds from this are documented. I'm sure
>>> there will be many attempts by the Trayvon apologists to dismiss this
>>> evidence but I see no way around these facts. Zimmerman, at the time
>>> he shot Trayvon, was being attacked by Trayvon.
> >
>> Zimmerman, at the time he shot Trayvon, appeared to be losing to him.
>>
>
> Well duh. Not just "losing" to him but having his head beat against
> teh sidewalk. IOW, T was using deadly force against Z and Z was
> rightfully entitled to respond with deadly force. As I said before,
> any other way of looking at this is the same as saying anytime anyone
> touches you gives you a license to kill them AND that they cannot use
> deadly force to stop that attack.
>
>>>> The stand
>>>>> your ground law deals with whether or not you have a duty to retreat
>>>>> if you can do so rather then shoot someone. Stand your ground laws
>>>>> say you do not have a duty to retreat when you are attacked.
>

Stand your ground is irrelevant - for now. Zimmerman's lawyers chose
to forgo the pre-trial SYG hearing. This is a murder trial.

>
>>>> SYG in Florida is handled by statute 776.012 (or 776.013 if it is in
>>>> your home and is Castle Doctrine). It consists of eight words. Here
>>>> it is:
>>>>

>>>> 776.012 Use of force in defense of person.�A person is justified in

Wow. That's wrong in so many ways that I'm amazed.

Preponderance of evidence is a term used in civil actions. It's a
lower standard than that used in a criminal trial.

In a criminal trial, the burden is on the prosecution to prove their
case beyond a reasonable doubt. To avoid conviction, the defense must
create that reasonable doubt.

If even one juror refuses to convict, a mistrial is declared. The
defendant isn't acquitted. The prosecution then decides whether to
retry the case with a new jury.

One reason Zimmerman's lawyers may have waived the pre-trial SYG
hearing is that it would have forced Zimmerman to answer questions
that they preferred he avoid at the time. One report I read compared
an SYG hearing to laying your cards on the table. If there's a
possibility that testimony before the SYG hearing could be used
against a defendant in a criminal trial, it seems wise to avoid it.

I posted an earlier response in which I wondered if a post trial SYG
hearing was a possibility. I've just found an Orlando Sentinal article
that seems to indicate that it is.

"On Tuesday, O'Mara said he might file a motion, requesting "stand
your ground" immunity, after the state puts on its last piece of
evidence at Zimmerman's trial."

http://preview.tinyurl.com/cvkwq6x

>
>>>> Here is the statute 776.032 for that:
>>>>
>>>> 776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for

>>>> justifiable use of force.�

>>>> (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or
>>>> s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from
>>>> criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force,
>>>> unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement
>>>> officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the
>>>> performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified
>>>> himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person
>>>> using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a
>>>> law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term

>>>> �criminal prosecution� includes arresting, detaining in custody, and

>>>> charging or prosecuting the defendant. (2) A law enforcement agency
>>>> may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as
>>>> described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person
>>>> for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that
>>>> the force that was used was unlawful. (3) The court shall award

>>>> reasonable attorney�s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of

>>>> income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any
>>>> civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the
>>>> defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

>>>> History.�s. 4, ch. 2005-27.

[Scout]

"GOP_Decline_and_Fall" <D...@null.net> wrote in message
news:6hh7q81nrrgh7qvbs...@4ax.com...

Yep, and SOB the prosecution can't do so.

So unless the defense does so and Zimmerman states he started the fight, how
exactly do you propose the prosecution is going to resolve the issue of
proof beyond a reasonable doubt?