OT: George Zimmerman - Again

[Ron]

He now has a website so his supporters can send him money.

http://therealgeorgezimmerman.com/

[IGot2P]

On 4/9/2012 6:15 PM, Ron wrote:
> He now has a website so his supporters can send him money.
>
> http://therealgeorgezimmerman.com/

I just checked and therealgeorgezimmermansucks.com is available. Heck, I
can buy it and one year's hosting for only $35 from misk.com. Might just
do that and put up a site for donations to the family of Trayvon Martin.

Don

[gonjah]

On 4/9/2012 6:15 PM, Ron wrote:

> He now has a website so his supporters can send him money.
>
> http://therealgeorgezimmerman.com/

The link maybe down. At this point I willing to let the system take it's
course.

He's well represented. His lawyer is a bulldog. :)

[Ron]

Refresh it.

[gonjah]

Nope. Must be my connection.

[Ron]

Yeah, it's down right now.


Service Temporarily Unavailable

The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to
maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later.

[Evan]

The family of Trayvon Martin doesn't need donations, they have
won the jackpot at the hands of Mr. Zimmerman who in his
one-man-band Neighborhood Watch operation which was both
encouraged by and officially supported/endorsed by the HOA
of the gated community...

They will either have to take out additional mortgages on their
townhouses or the entire association can be dissolved and
liquidated to pay for the lawsuit which will no doubt end up
being in the tens of millions of dollars range... The Martin
family will do okay as long as they are willing to wait for
their turn in civil court, Zimmerman's records in the way of
his extensive contact with the local police both prior to
and during his involvement with NW will sink the HOA...

Zimmerman violated the basic principles of what NW is
all about by pursuing a suspicious person AND being
armed while doing it... He should have known better
and paid more attention to the NW guidelines... His
"self-defense" claim via the "stand-your-ground" law is
full of shit, he by his own choice volunteered for NW
and placed himself in danger by violating the procedures
of that program... He was representing MORE than his
own personal interests and was at the time of the shooting
providing a volunteer security service with the recognition
of and under the supervision of the HOA on the common
property under their control...

I am not sure what Zimmerman's personal deal was but
the situation sounds a lot like he went wannabe cop/
"Dirty Harry" within his "area of freedom" as the sole
member of the NW... This is why NW programs are
not intended to be made up of a single individual and
within the program it is highly recommended that any
patrol activities take place in pairs if at all possible...
So someone who was given carte blanche power by
the HOA seems to have fallen in the "noble cause
corruption" trap that some police officers fall prey to,
where the ends justify the means...

I mean it is not as if he would have been arrested
if the boy who ended up dead was a blonde haired,
blue eyed all American white preppy kid is it ?

[harry]

Well it works for me in the UK.
Briefly, a person claiming to be Zimmerman is saying that he is aware
of other donation websites but saying they are not his and he has
recieved no money.

Mind you he IS asking for money. If it is him?
He ha shad 745 hits on the counter.

[gonjah]

Fund for the canteen?

[Stormin Mormon]

Didn't OJ Simpson have a similar group or website?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Ron" <BigEL...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:e6f16cbf-89bf-49e8...@h12g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...

[HeyBub]

Or too many people rushing in to make a contribution.

Or, possibly, a DDOS attack.

[gonjah]

That site looks *very* suspicious to me.

I'll wait and send him a care package. He'll need ciggies soon for
bartering.

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <78i7o7dfrbqvh5bvn...@4ax.com>,
gfre...@aol.com wrote:

>
>
> The special prosecutor has waved off the grand jury and she may end up
> deciding they still do not have a case they can win.
This means nothing. The only time a grand jury is required is if
they are going for first degree murder and that was beyond even Rev.
Sharpton's most fervent wet dream.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Apr 10, 7:41 am, Kurt Ullman <kurtull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <78i7o7dfrbqvh5bvn73qlkbs1qcqctp...@4ax.com>,

Actually, I think it probably does mean something. I
highly doubt that if she thought there were no grounds
to charge Z, that she would make that call herself.
Far more likely she would have punted it to the grand
jury and let them decide. That way at least some
segment of the public would be involved. So, I would
expect that she will now charge Z.

[gonjah]

That was my immediate thought too but, after hearing from people
familiar with this prosecutor, the decision not to use the GJ apparently
means very little. She's appears to be the "Harry Truman" of prosecutors
and was the reason she was picked.

[gonjah]

My suspicions were wrong.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/04/george_zimmerman_launches_webs.html

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <caadnYT_yv0uoxnS...@posted.toastnet>,

gonjah <gonjah.net> wrote:

>
> That was my immediate thought too but, after hearing from people
> familiar with this prosecutor, the decision not to use the GJ apparently
> means very little. She's appears to be the "Harry Truman" of prosecutors
> and was the reason she was picked.

That was my understanding too. She just likes to make the hard decisions
herself instead of pawning them off on others. She is going to get
yelled at either way, it might as well be for something she did herself
(grin)>

[Ron]

It IS him. His atty's and a friend confirmed it.

[Ron]

On Apr 10, 2:53 am, harry <haroldhr...@aol.com> wrote:

BTW, that counter is off. It now days 54. Within an hour last night
there were over 5,0000 hits.

[Jim Yanik]

gonjah <gonjah.net> wrote in
news:caadnYT_yv0uoxnS...@posted.toastnet:

WHY should "the public" be involved in deciding whether Zimmerman gets
charged and prosecuted? It's not a "democratic" decision.
It's not "mob rule".
It is strictly a matter of the LAW that is on the books at the current
time,and it's the PROSECUTOR who decides whether a case meets the
qualifications for prosecution.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

[Stormin Mormon]

Aparently, some folks want to bring back the Roman Colusseums? Have the
crowds decide who dies?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in message
news:XnsA0317C1E3DA28...@216.168.3.44...

[gonjah]

On 4/10/2012 11:11 AM, Jim Yanik wrote:
>> That was my immediate thought too but, after hearing from people
>> > familiar with this prosecutor, the decision not to use the GJ apparently
>> > means very little. She's appears to be the "Harry Truman" of prosecutors
>> > and was the reason she was picked.
>> >
> WHY should "the public" be involved in deciding whether Zimmerman gets
> charged and prosecuted? It's not a "democratic" decision.
> It's not "mob rule".
> It is strictly a matter of the LAW that is on the books at the current
> time,and it's the PROSECUTOR who decides whether a case meets the
> qualifications for prosecution.

I'm glad it's not going to the GJ. All I want is justice. My own
*opinion* is he's guilty but Z deserves justice which could set him free
too. I referred to Truman because, apparently, she has guts.

But I'm glad you were able to get that off your chest.

[Oren]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:04:12 -0500, gonjah <gonjah.net> wrote:

>My own
>*opinion* is he's guilty but Z deserves justice which could set him free
>too

Bring the guilty bastard in, so we can hurry up and have a fair trial!

...two words keep getting in the way: probable cause

Evidence gathered for a probable cause arrest just may not be enough
"evidence" for the prosecutor to convict, if she does charge him (Z).
DA's make bread and butter on their wins / conviction rates.

[gonjah]

Again I said justice. Nothing about a trial. I did have a knee jerk
reaction in the beginning.

I "think" he's guilty. I'll admit I don't know.

Have you made your donation?

[Robert Green]

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:WYmdneMcp4In3RnS...@earthlink.com...

> In article <caadnYT_yv0uoxnS...@posted.toastnet>,
> gonjah <gonjah.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > That was my immediate thought too but, after hearing from people
> > familiar with this prosecutor, the decision not to use the GJ apparently
> > means very little. She's appears to be the "Harry Truman" of prosecutors
> > and was the reason she was picked.
>
> That was my understanding too. She just likes to make the hard decisions
> herself instead of pawning them off on others. She is going to get
> yelled at either way, it might as well be for something she did herself
> (grin)>

I think she knew that an angry jury would indeed indict a ham sandwich, even
if it wasn't kosher. The decision appears to be important in that it rules
out murder one. Her investigation must have not revealed any prior contact
between the two which is something hard to determine with a cursory
investigation. We routinely have people who get thrown out of nightclubs in
DC coming back with a gun to get revenge. It sounds like she ruled that
out. From what I read so far, Zimmerman will get a fair shake from her and
it may be a total pass. At most, he might get charged with operating as an
unlicensed armed security guard. Maybe.

The latest news (hotly contested) has a heavily armed contingent of Neo
Nazis saying they are ready to patrol the streets of Sanford to put down any
"race riots."

Does a CHL in Florida limit the number of pistols one can carry? With two
shoulder rigs, two waist holsters and two ankle holsters someone could carry
100+ rounds or so ready to rock and roll. Could be we're leading up to a
massive gunfight that would make the OK Corral look like square dance.

--
Bobby G.

[Ron]

On Apr 9, 7:15 pm, Ron <BigELil...@msn.com> wrote:
> He now has a website so his supporters can send him money.
>
> http://therealgeorgezimmerman.com/

Breaking news....his legal team has withdrawn from the case.

[HeyBub]

That's the second time you opine that "he's guilty." May I ask, guilty of
what?

[Ron]

Go here (if you have a FB account) and ask that question.

http://www.facebook.com/TryonMartin

Those people are nuts. Guilty until proven innocent there.

[gonjah]

Very good question IMHO. Please be aware this is conjecture:

With that said:

The charge would be as appears on the police report 2/26:

"Homicide-Neglig Mansl/Unnessary Killing to Prevent Unlawful Act"

My theory:

Z see M and calls 911. They tell him "we don't need...."

Z follows anyway with a loaded handgun.

A confrontation occurs and they wrestle. Z then shoots M.

SYG never applies because Z pursued M.

There is some cover-up by Z. (I don't know if this is fabricated or
confusion.)

Enough witnesses come forth and counter Z's version of events.

It was actually M screaming for help. Z was on top of M. These are two
things, I think, Z was either lying or confused about and *could* be
determining factors

I'm not exactly sure why Z shot M. Maybe he was just scared.

I could be wrong but this still what I *think* from what I've gleaned at
this point.

Jim

[Evan]

On Apr 10, 1:57 am, gfretw...@aol.com wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 17:43:35 -0700 (PDT), Evan

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <evan.news.re...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >On Apr 9, 7:32 pm, IGot2P <IGo...@crsales.com> wrote:
> >> On 4/9/2012 6:15 PM, Ron wrote:
>
> >> > He now has a website so his supporters can send him money.
>
> >> >http://therealgeorgezimmerman.com/
>
> >> I just checked and therealgeorgezimmermansucks.com is available. Heck, I
> >> can buy it and one year's hosting for only $35 from misk.com. Might just
> >> do that and put up a site for donations to the family of Trayvon Martin.
>
> >> Don
>
> >The family of Trayvon Martin doesn't need donations, they have
> >won the jackpot at the hands of Mr. Zimmerman who in his
> >one-man-band Neighborhood Watch operation which was both
> >encouraged by and officially supported/endorsed by the HOA
> >of the gated community...
>

> Florida HOAs and Condo Assns (this is probably a condo assn) typically
> carry a million dollar insurance policy or more and that may be the
> only asset they have. The foreclosures have put most of these
> associations in virtual bankruptcy.
> The officers are protected from personal liability by law so the
> insurance is the only deep pocket ... assuming they can actually prove
> Zimmerman was acting as their agent.
> The stand your ground law protects Zimmerman from a suit.

>
> The special prosecutor has waved off the grand jury and she may end up

> deciding they still do not have a case they can win. I think the best
> they can hope for is a hung jury but an outright aquittal is likely
> based on the evidence I have seen so far based on Florida law. All
> they have to demonstrate is that Zimmerman was in fear of great injury
> and if they can't break the story that Martin was banging his head on
> the pavement, without any doubt, it is a slam dunk.

No sir, HOA's are funded by the persons residing
in the units described within the establishing document...

That means that every owner within the HOA owns
a percentage of every activity the HOA and its board
participate in upon the grounds of their development...

Florida law may protect specific officers and individuals
from being sued however that does not make the
association (and through it the unit owners) immune
from civil lawsuits above the typical amount of insurance
policies that commercial property owners carry...

It just means that the legal costs during trial and any
judgment amount are divided up amongst the unit
owners via a special assessment... Which if lets
say the jury decides on $25,000,000 in damages,
each of the 225 owners would owe about $111,000 of
that liability if it was equally divided unless there is
another method of creating the assessments based
on square footage of the unit...

As far as your story of the case being a slam dunk
in proving Zimmerman's innocence on a charge of
some type of homicide, wrong, first off, he put himself
in harms way and was basically acting as the private
armed police of the HOA -- which specifically recognized
him as the "go to guy" when residents have issues,
that they should contact Zimmerman whenever they
contact the police... That ties in the HOA to the death,
and creates liability for them for failure to make sure
that agents acting on their behalf were properly trained
and supervised even if those agents were unpaid
volunteers...

Zimmerman placed himself in a dangerous situation,
so he had no expectation of any ground to stand on,
as he provoked the encounter by his own voluntary
choice while providing a very dangerous NW patrol
service... If he feared for his life he should not have
brandished the gun (how else was it unholstered and
in view if he was properly carrying it) at the kid he
assumed was a burglar when he as a private citizen
does not have any powers of arrest or detention...
So the only one in the encounter who had a "stand
your ground" claim was the dead kid -- because he
was stalked and had a weapon pointed at him by
an individual who had ZERO legal authority to either
stop the kid or hold him at gunpoint for the police,
as all he was at the time was a suspicious person
that Zimmerman should have allowed the police
officers to confront and investigate...
If Trayvon indeed attacked Zimmerman who was
pointing a gun at him and in that struggle
Zimmerman lost control of the gun and feared for
his life at that point, too fucking bad -- he had
committed three crimes at that point and there
is a specific exemption in the "stand your ground"
law for those who are committing a crime and/or
who provoke the force used against them, the truth
of the event is that Zimmerman provoked the
encounter and he is the only actual witness
whom through his study of criminal justice knows
not to make any kind of statement against his
own legal interests...

It is clear from the totality of all the accounts of
the event that Zimmerman is not telling the truth
and knew about the law and exactly what to say
to hamper the police power to arrest him at the
scene... Zimmerman will never admit to the
felony count of brandishing a firearm... He knows
that telling the truth would invalidate his position
as far as the "stand your ground" claim...

He may very well not face criminal charges but
there is NO chance that the HOA and the owners
will be able to get off without having to pay out
for what happened...

[harry]

On Apr 10, 9:09 pm, "Robert Green" <robert_green1...@yah00.com> wrote:
> "Kurt Ullman" <kurtull...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:WYmdneMcp4In3RnS...@earthlink.com...
>
> > In article <caadnYT_yv0uoxnSnZ2dnUVZ_tKdn...@posted.toastnet>,

The begining of a proper American revolution.

[harry]

Now THAT sounds a logical argument...........

[harry]

On Apr 11, 6:19 am, gfretw...@aol.com wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:57:38 -0700 (PDT), Evan
>
> The plaintiff still has to prove that Zimmerman was an agent of the
> condo board. If they can come up with any official documents or even a
> statement that he was representing the board at a recorded board
> meeting, they may have something. If it was just the neighbors,
> operation away from recorded board meetings who decided Zimmerman was
> the go to guy, the condo association is off the hook.
>
> As for the liabilities extending to the individual owners, I do not
> think that is true. I will ask my wife. She is a Fl Licensed CAM.
> I know when it came up with our HOA, we were told they could take all
> of the common property but they could not come after homeowners.
> HOAs and condos are different articles in the Fl Statutes. You really
> have to know which one you are talking about.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Zimmerman placed himself in a dangerous situation,
> >so he had no expectation of any ground to stand on,
> >as he provoked the encounter by his own voluntary
> >choice while providing a very dangerous NW patrol
> >service...  If he feared for his life he should not have
> >brandished the gun (how else was it unholstered and
> >in view if he was properly carrying it) at the kid he
> >assumed was a burglar when he as a private citizen
> >does not have any powers of arrest or detention...
> >So the only one in the encounter who had a "stand
> >your ground" claim was the dead kid -- because he
> >was stalked and had a weapon pointed at him by
> >an individual who had ZERO legal authority to either
> >stop the kid or hold him at gunpoint for the police,
> >as all he was at the time was a suspicious person
> >that Zimmerman should have allowed the police
> >officers to confront and investigate...
>

> You are just making shit up now. We still do not know what happened
> that night
> Nobody  has said he brandished the gun or that he tried to hold Martin
> for the police. His story according to his dad is he lost sight of
> Martin and was heading back to his truck when he was confronted by
> Martin.
>
> There is conflicting witness testimony and none of it is particularly
> reliable. Nobody was really close enough to see at night, in the rain.
> We don't really even know for sure exactly what Zimmerman says
> happened. We just have leaks and second hand reports yet there are no
> shortage of people who THINK they know what happened.
> The fact that he called the police about prowlers and suspicious
> activity over 40 times without actually confronting a single one of
> them before seems to indicate he was not the cowboy people say he was.-

It does indicate he was paranoid and fearful.

[HeyBub]

Robert Green wrote:
>
> The latest news (hotly contested) has a heavily armed contingent of
> Neo Nazis saying they are ready to patrol the streets of Sanford to
> put down any "race riots."

Urban legend.

>
> Does a CHL in Florida limit the number of pistols one can carry?
> With two shoulder rigs, two waist holsters and two ankle holsters
> someone could carry 100+ rounds or so ready to rock and roll. Could
> be we're leading up to a massive gunfight that would make the OK
> Corral look like square dance.

A CHL holder can carry as many handguns as he wants. But that's silly.

I refer you to the Rules of Gunfighting:

#6 "If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun... and a
friend with a long gun."
Corallary: "Use your handgun to fight your way to a long gun."

More rules at:
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2009/10/23/rules-of-gunfighting/

Especially #20:
"Be polite. Be professional. But... have a plan to kill everyone you meet."

[HeyBub]

gonjah wrote:
>>>
>>> I "think" he's guilty. I'll admit I don't know.
>>>
>> That's the second time you opine that "he's guilty." May I ask,
>> guilty of what?
>>
>>
>
> Very good question IMHO. Please be aware this is conjecture:
>
> With that said:
>
> The charge would be as appears on the police report 2/26:
>
> "Homicide-Neglig Mansl/Unnessary Killing to Prevent Unlawful Act"
>

Ah, okay. You - and the police - refer to Florida Penal Code, # 782.11

"782.11 Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act.--Whoever shall
unnecessarily kill another, either while resisting an attempt by such other
person to commit any felony, or to do any other unlawful act, or after such
attempt shall have failed, shall be deemed guilty of manslaughter, a felony
of the second degree..."

I'll admit I don't completely understand this law. It seems to say that it
is a crime to kill someone who is attempting a felony or any other unlawful
act, or kills him after the attempt fails. That translates into a crime if
the killing prevents a felony! That seems to negate the notion of
self-defense: I can't kill an attacker until he actually kills me!

The "weasel word" in the statute may be "unnecessarily". That is, if there
is a less intense method of preventing the felony than homicide, the use of
homicide instead of the lesser method makes the killing illegal.

In any event, if the police report is accurate, exactly WHAT is the felony
or other unlawful act Martin was about to commit?

Eh? Eh?

[tra...@optonline.net]

Your making the assumption that the defining moment
is the beginning, when Z follows M. I don't read the
law that way. Z following M was perfectly legal. The
SYG or any right to self defense applies when some
actual conflict has occured. By Z's account, which
has not be contradicted, that occured when he was
walking back to his car and M came up to him and
asked if he had a problem. Then M punched Z.
Not saying that is 100% true, just that so far I have
not heard any evidence to contradict it.

>
> There is some cover-up by Z. (I don't know if this is fabricated or
> confusion.)

What cover-up are you claiming?

>
> Enough witnesses come forth and counter Z's version of events.

We have only one eyewitness to the actual altercation.
That witness says Z was on the ground, M was on top,
Z was the one yelling for help. The witness says he
yelled that he was going to call 911, which he did.
While in the house calling, he heard the gunshot.
That is consistent with Z's account. Where are your
other witnesses?

>
> It was actually M screaming for help. Z was on top of M. These are two
> things, I think, Z was either lying or confused about and *could* be
> determining factors

And from what have you determined that it was M
screaming for help?

>
> I'm not exactly sure why Z shot M. Maybe he was just scared.

Apparently so. If you were on your back on the ground,
nose broken, cut to your head, being beaten, screaming
for help, you'd probably be scared too.

>
> I could be wrong but this still what I *think* from what I've gleaned at
> this point.
>

> Jim- Hide quoted text -
>

What you think doesn't seem to be supported by the
basic facts we know so far.

[tra...@optonline.net]

That's interesting and the first time I've heard it.
You have a reference?

>That ties in the HOA to the death,
> and creates liability for them for failure to make sure
> that agents acting on their behalf were properly trained
> and supervised even if those agents were unpaid
> volunteers...

I agree if the HOA is in fact tied to the neighborhood
watch program then they are open for a civil suit and
there is a good chance they or their insurance company
will wind up paying.

>
> Zimmerman placed himself in a dangerous situation,
> so he had no expectation of any ground to stand on,
> as he provoked the encounter by his own voluntary
> choice while providing a very dangerous NW patrol
> service...

That's a huge leap. Show us where in the law it
says that by keeping an eye on someone or even
walking up to them on the street, you lose your
right to self defense if they attack you.....

>If he feared for his life he should not have
> brandished the gun (how else was it unholstered and
> in view if he was properly carrying it) at the kid he
> assumed was a burglar when he as a private citizen

There is no evidence he did any such thing.
You're making this up as you go.

> does not have any powers of arrest or detention...

No one is claiming Z did that or ever intended
to.

> So the only one in the encounter who had a "stand
> your ground" claim was the dead kid -- because he
> was stalked and had a weapon pointed at him by
> an individual who had ZERO legal authority to either
> stop the kid or hold him at gunpoint for the police,

Total fabrication. The gun was only pointed at M
after Z was on the ground, M was on top beating Z
and Z was yelling for help. That account is Z's and
the only eyewitness to the struggle. It's also
consistent with the physical evidence. Your reference
that says otherwise is?

As far as SYG or any other self defense laws, by
those two accounts, which are also consistent with
the physical evidence, what occured sure
sounds like self-defense to me. Or at least
within the scope of reasonable doubt for a
jury.

> as all he was at the time was a suspicious person
> that Zimmerman should have allowed the police
> officers to confront and investigate...
> If Trayvon indeed attacked Zimmerman who was
> pointing a gun at him

Obviously you don't even have the most basic facts.
No is saying Z had a gun pointed at M and they M
attacked.

>and in that struggle
> Zimmerman lost control of the gun and feared for
> his life at that point, too fucking bad -- he had
> committed three crimes at that point

According to you, without regard for the facts.
What exactly are the 3 crimes? One, I would
assume is pointing the gun at M, which of course
there is no evidence ever occured. It's quite
silly to even suggest it. Like M is going to be
dumb enough to jump a guy holding a gun on
him? Geez, what a maroon.

>and there
> is a specific exemption in the "stand your ground"
> law for those who are committing a crime and/or
> who provoke the force used against them, the truth
> of the event is that Zimmerman provoked the
> encounter and he is the only actual witness
> whom through his study of criminal justice knows
> not to make any kind of statement against his
> own legal interests...

Wrong. Again, you're obviously too lazy to look at
the most basic facts before rushing to judgement.
There is a eyewitness to the struggle, as I
pointed out above. And he confirms Z's account.

>
> It is clear from the totality of all the accounts of
> the event that Zimmerman is not telling the truth
> and knew about the law and exactly what to say
> to hamper the police power to arrest him at the
> scene...

You haven't even looked at the most basic facts,
let alone the totality. What's next, editing 911 tapes,
like NBC?

> Zimmerman will never admit to the
> felony count of brandishing a firearm...  He knows
> that telling the truth would invalidate his position
> as far as the "stand your ground" claim...

And again, who besides you says he was brandishing
a firearm?

>
> He may very well not face criminal charges but
> there is NO chance that the HOA and the owners
> will be able to get off without having to pay out

> for what happened...- Hide quoted text -
>

That's about the only thing you've got right here.

[gonjah]

I don't revolutions usually involve hunger? ;)

[gonjah]

LOL just woke up!

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Apr 11, 1:19 am, gfretw...@aol.com wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:57:38 -0700 (PDT), Evan

> The plaintiff still has to prove that Zimmerman was an agent of the
> condo board. If they can come up with any official documents or even a
> statement that he was representing the board at a recorded board
> meeting, they may have something. If it was just the neighbors,
> operation away from recorded board meetings who decided Zimmerman was
> the go to guy, the condo association is off the hook.
>
> As for the liabilities extending to the individual owners, I do not
> think that is true. I will ask my wife. She is a Fl Licensed CAM.
> I know when it came up with our HOA, we were told they could take all
> of the common property but they could not come after homeowners.
> HOAs and condos are different articles in the Fl Statutes. You really
> have to know which one you are talking about.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> >Zimmerman placed himself in a dangerous situation,
> >so he had no expectation of any ground to stand on,
> >as he provoked the encounter by his own voluntary
> >choice while providing a very dangerous NW patrol
> >service...  If he feared for his life he should not have
> >brandished the gun (how else was it unholstered and
> >in view if he was properly carrying it) at the kid he
> >assumed was a burglar when he as a private citizen
> >does not have any powers of arrest or detention...
> >So the only one in the encounter who had a "stand
> >your ground" claim was the dead kid -- because he
> >was stalked and had a weapon pointed at him by
> >an individual who had ZERO legal authority to either
> >stop the kid or hold him at gunpoint for the police,
> >as all he was at the time was a suspicious person
> >that Zimmerman should have allowed the police
> >officers to confront and investigate...
>

> You are just making shit up now. We still do not know what happened
> that night
> Nobody  has said he brandished the gun or that he tried to hold Martin
> for the police. His story according to his dad is he lost sight of
> Martin and was heading back to his truck when he was confronted by
> Martin.
>
> There is conflicting witness testimony and none of it is particularly
> reliable. Nobody was really close enough to see at night, in the rain.

That isn't true. There is one eyewitness who did see the
struggle. His account is consistent with Z. The witness says
that M was on top, Z was on the ground, getting beaten,
yelling for help. The witness yelled that he was calling 911
and went into his house to do so. While in the house he
heard the gun shot.

> We don't really even know for sure exactly what Zimmerman says
> happened. We just have leaks and second hand reports yet there are no
> shortage of people who THINK they know what happened.
> The fact that he called the police about prowlers and suspicious
> activity over 40 times without actually confronting a single one of

> them before seems to indicate he was not the cowboy people say he was.- Hide quoted text -
>

I agree.

[gonjah]

Yup.

[gonjah]

My "conjecture." I'm often wrong. ;)

[gonjah]

Another good question. "Perceived" unlawful act? Ya got me there. ;)

[HeyBub]

gonjah wrote:
>>> Bobby G.
>> The begining of a proper American revolution.
>
> I don't revolutions usually involve hunger? ;)

No. I can't think of a one.

There's the French Revolution, of course, but that was totally unnecessary -
there was plenty of cake.

People who are hungry are concerned solely with their next meal, not the
state of political affairs in the kingdom.

[harry]

> I don't revolutions usually involve hunger? ;)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Quite often. Moreso after the revolution starts.
So if you are a fat git, all you have to do is hide and live off your
in-built energy resource. Surface when the fun dies down and the gun
owners are dead.

[gonjah]

I've heard at least one witness so far that said it sounded like M
screaming and one credible witness that said they saw a man that looked
like Z on top of M.

The screaming sounds like a younger man. Almost like a boy's voice to
me. My wife said the same thing.

[harry]

The revolution will, start when some poor starving bastard is caught
thieving from a Super store to feed his kids and is shot. Someone may
then shoot the shooter and way to go. Situation escalates.
Plenty of guns in America.

[gonjah]

The way it was explained to me: Revolutions start as a result of the "J"
Curve. Hunger may have been the example used. You're example would
perfectly fit the bill.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Apr 11, 10:43 am, gonjah <gonjah.net> wrote:

How would someone who only HEARD the struggle know
who was screaming? They would have no familiarity with
either person's voice. I saw one of those witnesses too.
Something about having the windows open, but the blinds
closed so they only heard it from inside the house.
The eyewitness was outside and both saw and heard it
as it happened.

> and one credible witness that said they saw a man that looked
> like Z on top of M.

I heard one of those too, I think it's the same one from
above. They saw this AFTER the gun shot. How long
after, I don't know. Could be consistent with Z being on
the bottom, firing, then getting up.

>
> The screaming sounds like a younger man. Almost like a boy's voice to
> me. My wife said the same thing.
>
>

Again, none of us know what either person involved voice
sounds like. You would think that if Z cooperates they
could reproduce the scene, screams, using the same
phone, same location, and forensically compare them.

[gonjah]

On 4/11/2012 10:27 AM, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
> <snip>

>> I've heard at least one witness so far that said it sounded like M
>> screaming
> How would someone who only HEARD the struggle know
> who was screaming?

> They would have no familiarity with
> either person's voice. I saw one of those witnesses too.
> Something about having the windows open, but the blinds
> closed so they only heard it from inside the house.
> The eyewitness was outside and both saw and heard it
> as it happened.
>
>
>> and one credible witness that said they saw a man that looked
>> like Z on top of M.
> I heard one of those too, I think it's the same one from
> above. They saw this AFTER the gun shot. How long
> after, I don't know. Could be consistent with Z being on
> the bottom, firing, then getting up.

Yup. This would definitely have to be put in context with the situation
and other witnesses. That was the witness on CNN that was disguised
(silhouette) about a week ago. That's the best I've heard yet but I'm
not obsessed with the news on this thing.

>
>> The screaming sounds like a younger man. Almost like a boy's voice to
>> me. My wife said the same thing.
>>
>>
> Again, none of us know what either person involved voice
> sounds like. You would think that if Z cooperates they
> could reproduce the scene, screams, using the same
> phone, same location, and forensically compare them.
>
>

Nah. I think someone could listen to Z's voice and use this evidence in
context.

Is it "damning"? No. "Hypothetically", Z could have been screaming when
he shot M. "Sounds" real unlikely to me.

"To me", it's about putting all the pieces together to make conjecture.

We have a gazillion "could haves" here.

I learned to live with the OJ verdict and I could live with letting Z
go. I still think OJ was the killer and I was a OJ fan just like
millions of us. There "has" to be good evidence to convict or killers
can go free. I wouldn't have it any other way.

[gonjah]

On 4/11/2012 10:52 AM, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 23:17:33 -0700 (PDT), harry<harol...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 11, 6:19 am, gfretw...@aol.com wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:57:38 -0700 (PDT), Evan

>>> You are just making shit up now. We still do not know what happened
>>> that night
>>> Nobody has said he brandished the gun or that he tried to hold Martin
>>> for the police. His story according to his dad is he lost sight of
>>> Martin and was heading back to his truck when he was confronted by
>>> Martin.
>>>
>>> There is conflicting witness testimony and none of it is particularly
>>> reliable. Nobody was really close enough to see at night, in the rain.
>>> We don't really even know for sure exactly what Zimmerman says
>>> happened. We just have leaks and second hand reports yet there are no
>>> shortage of people who THINK they know what happened.
>>> The fact that he called the police about prowlers and suspicious
>>> activity over 40 times without actually confronting a single one of
>>> them before seems to indicate he was not the cowboy people say he was.-
>> It does indicate he was paranoid and fearful.

> This was over a period of 8 years.
>
>

Yup, so he shot the guy. Isn't that the problem?

That's why we all shouldn't carry guns. IMO.

[Robert Green]

"gonjah" <gonjah.net> wrote in message news:L5GdnVOK-

<stuff snipped>

> The way it was explained to me: Revolutions start as a result of the "J"
> Curve. Hunger may have been the example used. You're example would
> perfectly fit the bill.

I wonder if all the folks who were up in arms about leaving the Union ever
really gave a though to how things would work out for the South in the end?
A hundred years under the thumb of the North for being unwilling to abandon
a practice given up in most of the rest of the civilized world. One
antithetical to the spirit of the Constitution and Declaration of
Independence. Stubborn SOBs who would rather see the things destroyed than
endure forced change which they were forced to do anyway, with dreadful
results.

People are all for getting riled up but they never seem to think through to
the consequences. I hear the same sort of rumblings that were circulating
back then. Anyone who thinks the US couldn't go through another civil war
probably believed that the stock market couldn't tank again. My wife keeps
saying "all the counter-insurgency training the Guard and Reserve got in
AfRaq might be called upon someday in the near future." All it takes is
some great natural disaster to reshuffle the entire deck. Japan got a love
tap from nature with the recent quake. Had it hit Tokyo, some economists
believe it could have collapsed world's economy.

--
Bobby G.

[Stormin Mormon]

They'd need a black kid to wear a hoody and punch him, too. And, they would
have to give him back his gun, so he could be as realistic as possible. What
could go wrong, go wrong, go wrong??????

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

<gfre...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ekabo7tukooosnl78...@4ax.com...

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 08:27:14 -0700 (PDT), "tra...@optonline.net"
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:

>Again, none of us know what either person involved voice
>sounds like. You would think that if Z cooperates they
>could reproduce the scene, screams, using the same
>phone, same location, and forensically compare them.
>
>

Are they going to break his nose and bang his head on the concrete
again too? Without recreating that stress, the test is useless.

[gonjah]

On 4/11/2012 10:59 AM, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:43:22 -0500, gonjah<gonjah.net> wrote:
>
>> The screaming sounds like a younger man. Almost like a boy's voice to
>> me. My wife said the same thing.

> Since we don't have a good sample of Martin's voice and the 911
> recordings are pretty poor quality, it will be had to figure that out.
> The "expert" who said it was Martin is only 52% sure. That is a coin
> toss.
> Computer "enhancement" means you are removing and adding sounds until
> it "sounds" better but that is no indication that you are actually
> adding accuracy.

I think you're confusing me with the prosecutor. I can listen to the
tape and make conjecture. I don't know what she has at her disposal or
what is admissible. If Z goes to trial do you think the jury should not
hear the tape? That would be a big problem for the prosecutor IMO.

[gonjah]

On 4/11/2012 11:06 AM, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

> Would you have been happier if Zimmerman was beaten to death?

There is nothing to be "happy" about.

[Robert Green]

"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:ipCdnay_YrwmCxjS...@earthlink.com...

> gonjah wrote:
> >>> Bobby G.
> >> The begining of a proper American revolution.
> >
> > I don't revolutions usually involve hunger? ;)
>
> No. I can't think of a one.

Oops. Just because you can't think of one is certainly no proof that none
exist. In fact, it's probably just the other way around.

> There's the French Revolution, of course, but that was totally
unnecessary -
> there was plenty of cake.
>
> People who are hungry are concerned solely with their next meal, not the
> state of political affairs in the kingdom.

OK - agreed. So then where do they get their next meal from? From the rich
folks that usually have plenty of food around. Thus the revolution begins.
Hunger may be the origin, but political change is often the result. The
Romans gave out bread just to keep the Roman citizens fed and less likely to
revolt. The US Government gives out foodstamps. (-: This process has been
repeated, as far as I know, since Egyptian times. Something about the Coat
of Many Colors, the 7 years of famine, etc. (-

Hunger does indeed lead to revolution. It was one of the basic causes of
both the French and Russian revolutions, or do you have information to the
countrary?

--
Bobby G.

[Vic Smith]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:43:22 -0500, gonjah <gonjah.net> wrote:


>

>I've heard at least one witness so far that said it sounded like M
>screaming and one credible witness that said they saw a man that looked
>like Z on top of M.
>
>The screaming sounds like a younger man. Almost like a boy's voice to
>me. My wife said the same thing.
>

You've only got news report speculation.
You have no idea what a real Zimmerman scream sounds like.
Best to wait for the forensics and real investigation results.
Even then interpretation of them may be politically based.

Now my turn to speculate.
Unless Zimmerman actually laid hands on Martin first, he
walks.
Martin had a phone. He could have called 911 himself.
If he physically accosted Zimmerman, he made what is
commonly referred to as a "fatal mistake."
Of course without a 100% credible eyewitness account, which appears to
be missing, this will drag on and on.
That's what I expect will happen.
Either no charges, and endless protests.
Or a trial and acquittal.
With endless protests. Starting with jury selection.

--Vic

[Stormin Mormon]

+1 slam dunk +1

Kick im right in the gonjah!

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

<gfre...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:2vabo79abv8obobnj...@4ax.com...

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 10:56:31 -0500, gonjah <gonjah.net> wrote:

>
>

>Yup, so he shot the guy. Isn't that the problem?
>
>That's why we all shouldn't carry guns. IMO.

[Oren]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 10:56:31 -0500, gonjah <gonjah.net> wrote:

>Yup, so he shot the guy. Isn't that the problem?
>

No!

>That's why we all shouldn't carry guns. IMO.

Giggle.

[gonjah]

Genuinely amused? Please share.

[Vic Smith]

Probably not being able to afford cable TV might do now.
As long as both food and cable TV are available, peace reigns.

--Vic

[Ron]

George Zimmerman to Be Charged in Trayvon Martin's Death

A Florida special prosecutor has decided to charge neighborhood watch
captain George Zimmerman in the shooting death of unarmed teen Trayvon
Martin, sources told ABC News.

The decision by Florida special prosecutor Angela Corey is expected to
be announced at a 6 p.m. news conference in Jacksonville, Fla.

[Oren]

Sure. Liberals should not carry guns. They might put their eye out or
sumpin'.

Do I have to think of everything?

[gonjah]

Thanks for the heads up. BTW: I thought Oren was a man's name. <giggle?>

[Oren]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:42:32 -0500, gonjah <gon...@wasted.net> wrote:

>Thanks for the heads up. BTW: I thought Oren was a man's name. <giggle?>

"Oren" may mean "Christmas Tree" in Hebrew. Let me know if you can
confirm this, please.

[Evan]

On Apr 11, 10:09 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>
wrote:


Trader, you live a sheltered life man...

Zimmerman was playing NW/Private Cop/vigilante...

He would have had NOTHING to fear in any way at
all if he had NOT confronted the boy, he chose to do
so willingly OR his choices lead to that being the
entirely predictable outcome... Zimmerman was
wrong ALL the way on that PERIOD...

The situation that I described is the best fit for how
what happened occurred based on the outcome and
the "average" of all the various stories that are
circulating... If you had any experience with the real
world beyond getting a traffic ticket you would know
how these sordid type things happen in real life...

As to your specific points:

My reference to the HOA's liability will be confirmed
by minutes of the board meeting wherein the HOA
board members sought volunteers for a NW watch
group and then subsequently acknowledged
Zimmerman as a volunteer in the NW capacity...
The HOA board has full and sole legal authority
over what takes place on association
common property, they have to authorize and
supervise all activities undertaken on the common
areas of the association property... The news media
has made references to an HOA newsletter which was
published within which the HOA board instructed
any residents/owners who had any reason to
call the police to also notify Zimmerman of the
circumstances which required police contact...
That equals sufficient evidence that the HOA
endorsed, supported and encouraged his activities
even if they lacked the abilities to properly
direct and supervise them... Case Closed...

The HOA will eventually lose the wrongful death
and negligence in management/supervision case..
That means that the individual owners who fund
the existence of the HOA by ownership in the
association are legally and financially responsible...
I mean it is rare when something comes along
so nicely wrapped up in a bow like this, and I am
sure that Zimmerman's defense team on the
criminal trial will introduce this evidence making
it legal facts as far as the courts are concerned
in the instance of a civil lawsuit....

So it is a "huge leap" to say that Zimmerman
placed himself in the "danger" by his own
choice by continuing to search for the boy
AFTER he already placed a call to 911 ?
BULLSHIT... He continued his pursuit by his
own choice for whatever internal motivations
or whatever thoughts he had against the
advice of the 911 dispatcher, against the NW
patrol guidelines of "Observe and Report"
all for a person who "looked suspicious" only
to end up CONFRONTING said person, either
at a location of his own choosing or because
the boy turned and asked him what his
fucking deal was... Zimmerman had ZERO
legal authority to stop anyone anywhere outside
of his own home for being "suspicious" as he
is not a law enforcement/peace officer of any
kind... Better still Zimmerman did all of this
while ARMED... That sort of "patrol" is a high
liability activity for which the standard boiler plate
insurance policies DO NOT cover... It requires
special insurance and training requirements be
met, something which the HOA board will soon
learn, I am quite sure that they were unaware
that Zimmerman was conducting his patrols
on their behalf while armed... I know this because
I studied criminal justice in college for 5 years,
worked as an unarmed security supervisor for
3 years and worked in property management
positions for another 5 years... You can read
the NW guidebook yourself if you want to see
that Zimmerman clearly violated them...
HINT: its in the huge ass box on page 22 of the
NW manual:

""REMEMBER:
Community members only serve as the extra
“eyes and ears” of law enforcement. They should
report their observations of suspicious activities to
law enforcement; however, citizens should never try
to take action on those observations. Trained law
enforcement should be the only ones ever to take
action based on observations of suspicious activities.""

So can you explain how Zimmerman had his
"encounter" with the boy, if he had stayed in his
truck like he should have he would not have been
following the boy at all...

Now about the gun... When being properly carried
in a lawful manner, they are generally secured in
some sort of holster... It had to be removed from
that holster by Zimmerman -- just when that happened
is debatable, yet Zimmerman is the only one who
knows how and why that occurred, he knows that the
only answer which is not against his best interest is
that he feared for his life ? Why ? Again, he had
to be engaged in pursuit of the boy, which can not
be disputed as he admitted that fact to the 911
dispatcher, which makes his claim of SYG quite
tenuous -- Trayvon had more of a SYG self-defense
claim against Zimmerman because the man was
stalking him... Whose SYG rights are more important
in a situation like this where one with a gun follows
the other who only looks suspicious when the gun
toter has ALREADY called the police... Trying to
explain a legally valid chain of events which results
in an acquittal based on self-defense/SYG will be a
magic trick... Zimmerman clearly provoked any use
of force against him by the boy and has ZERO legal
justification for his continued pursuit of or search to
reacquire visual contact with the boy after summoning
the police as his NW mission objective was already
completed with the phone call...

If Zimmerman had not pulled his gun out, the boy
would not be dead -- he escalated things to the lethal
level... He clearly thought the ends justified the means
and since he was regaled as a hero after his recent
foiling of a burglary in progress, it is not that great a
leap if you understand the wanna be cop mindset to
postulate that Zimmerman drew his weapon in order
to detain and/or control the boy while waiting on the
police to arrive...

Now to your rebuttal of the issue on Zimmerman
detaining or stopping the boy, you said no one is
claiming he did or even attempted it, ok, then why
did he continue to follow/search for the boy after
he KNEW police were on the way for a hot call ?
Either he went insane with "noble cause corruption"
and was gonna do what he was gonna do OR he
intended to stop and detain the suspicious person
without the legal authority to do so for the police
and against the guidelines of NW and the 911
dispatcher's advice... Which choice do you think
better fits the known facts of the case ? It has to
be one of the above, nothing else logically fits the
known facts of the case...

Now to address this:
> As far as SYG or any other self defense laws, by
> those two accounts, which are also consistent with
> the physical evidence, what occured sure
> sounds like self-defense to me. Or at least
> within the scope of reasonable doubt for a
> jury.

Umm, a claim of self-defense is an affirmative one,
that means that you have to admit the event took
place... It is upon the defendant to produce legally
valid and sufficient evidence to substantiate said
claim, the standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'
doesn't enter into it, either the argument/evidence
is successful and the judge allows the jury to consider
that or it fails and the defendant has admitted guilt
in order to be able to make the self-defense claim...

It actually sounds like you don't know what self-defense
is beyond the basic concept and idea... Not how it
works in the legal system in the absence of numerous
supporting witnesses at the scene or video recordings
of what took place... But if you want to judge a book
by its covering without looking deeper into things and
taking everyone at his word without any question, fine,
but a criminal justice student/police groupie like
Zimmerman knows a lot more about how the laws and
legal processes work that you do, that is for sure...

Now to address this:

> According to you, without regard for the facts.
> What exactly are the 3 crimes? One, I would
> assume is pointing the gun at M, which of course
> there is no evidence ever occured. It's quite
> silly to even suggest it. Like M is going to be
> dumb enough to jump a guy holding a gun on
> him? Geez, what a maroon.

1. Brandishing a weapon/Assault with a deadly weapon
2. Stalking while in possession of a deadly weapon
3. Kidnapping/Unlawful detention/False Arrest

Umm, there is a prima facie case that Zimmerman
did indeed point his weapon at the boy, the boy was
shot by said weapon, so it did occur, the only witness
to when exactly that first took place besides the
defendant is dead and unable to testify...

Private citizens DO NOT have legal authority to draw
a weapon on someone under most circumstances
-- PERIOD... The only valid reason is for a fleeing
felon if you witnessed the crime in person you may
use lethal force even as a private citizen to affect a
citizen's arrest of a felon... "Self-defense" which
involves lethal force generally needs to involve an
underlying felony committed by the dead person
against the one who fired the fatal shot or else it is
murder... It is not self-defense to kill someone who
looks scary if they jump out and yell BOO and scare
you, your life if not in danger... Nor is it self-defense
to reassess your tactical situation when you have
initiated or provoked combat with someone by your
own actions only to find you underestimated the
situation and now you want to blast your way out
of it OK Corral style... That is murder, not self-defense
even under the Florida SYG law -- seems like you
have not read the exceptions...

A Fabrication ?

> Total fabrication. The gun was only pointed at M
> after Z was on the ground, M was on top beating Z
> and Z was yelling for help. That account is Z's and
> the only eyewitness to the struggle. It's also
> consistent with the physical evidence. Your reference
> that says otherwise is?

> Obviously you don't even have the most basic facts.
> No is saying Z had a gun pointed at M and they M
> attacked.

> And again, who besides you says he was brandishing
> a firearm?

Umm, you assume facts not in evidence... Again, the
boy would not have had access to Zimmerman had
Zimmerman ceased his unlawful pursuit given the only
motivations remaining for that activity given what else
is known... The only eyewitness was not clear on
what exactly took place and who was who, all that is
know is that the witness observed the end stage of
the combat immediately prior to the death occurring...
You are lending more credibility to a vague statement
made by a witness who was looking out from inside
a dwelling without knowing the distances involved or
the medical/sensory conditions of the individual who
saw something as well as the lighting conditions at the
scene... You accept the "facts" without considering
any of those issues, let alone any possible social
connection the witness may have had with
ZImmerman which may influence any statements
being made ? Wow, you are about as sharp as that
narcotics detective who was the first supervisory
investigator at the scene... You sound to me a lot
like you are member of the blue pill club and will
accept a convenient lie/illusion on its face rather
than seeking out the truth by means of questioning
the supposed facts...

The boy died, that means that a firearm was
brandished and discharged... Unless you are
trying to assert some form of immaculate
miraculous gunfire which was able to kill the
boy from a holstered weapon or some sort of
magic bullet like the Kennedy Assassination
conspiracy theorists kept trying to invent to explain things
that were observed that were beyond comprehension
at the time...

When the boy actually attacked does not matter,
he is the only one in this event to have an actual
SYG self-defense claim... Your inability to understand
how the legal system works is what is keeping
you from being able to see what actually happened...

Now let's deal with this:

> Wrong. Again, you're obviously too lazy to look at
> the most basic facts before rushing to judgement.
> There is a eyewitness to the struggle, as I
> pointed out above. And he confirms Z's account.

Umm, yes, combat occurred, there is a witness
to a brief instant of that yet it is unclear who was
winning and whether or not it was a fair fight...

There are apparently only two witnesses to the
initiation of the combat, one of them is dead and
the other is not going to make a declaration
against his own legal interests... That is something
that every criminal justice student learns like
three weeks into the basic legal process or
principles of evidence class... So we can not rely
solely on Zimmerman's account in order to be able
to discover the truth of what happened...

> You haven't even looked at the most basic facts,
> let alone the totality. What's next, editing 911 tapes,
> like NBC?

I am not NBC, I am someone who like ZImmerman
has had some education into the legal system, the
parts and functions of which seem beyond your
grasp... The basic fact is that Zimmerman is the
only surviving witness to the entire sequence of
events and he has knowledge of the legal system
and law enforcement investigatory methods and
therefore knows not to make and statements
against his own position... Some portions and
snip-its have been recorded on the 911 call,
and one second of the end game was glanced
at from afar by one witness whose voracity is
as yet unknown... It seems that most of the
officers at the scene that night are members of
the "blue pill club" like yourself, it seems odd
that the one police officer who wanted to arrest
Zimmerman that night was the experienced
homicide investigator who like me is a member
of the "red pill club"...

You have one redemption in your understanding
of the events, you agree that there is civil liability
yet you seem to underestimate how serious it is
nor can foresee the insurance company retroactively
cancelling the policy and denying all claims since
the negligence in this situation was gross and
involved a "group think" which is polite way of
saying a coordinated conspiracy of more than two
people was involved... I see a court liquidating
the association and auctioning off the townhouses
to settle most of the owner's financial liability
in this case which will run into the tens of millions
of dollars...

[Evan]

On Apr 11, 7:26 am, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> gonjah wrote:
>

> >>> I "think" he's guilty. I'll admit I don't know.
>
> >> That's the second time you opine that "he's guilty." May I ask,
> >> guilty of what?
>
> > Very good question IMHO. Please be aware this is conjecture:
>
> > With that said:
>
> > The charge would be as appears on the police report 2/26:
>
> > "Homicide-Neglig Mansl/Unnessary Killing to Prevent Unlawful Act"
>
> Ah, okay. You - and the police - refer to Florida Penal Code, # 782.11
>
> "782.11  Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act.--Whoever shall
> unnecessarily kill another, either while resisting an attempt by such other
> person to commit any felony, or to do any other unlawful act, or after such
> attempt shall have failed, shall be deemed guilty of manslaughter, a felony
> of the second degree..."
>
> I'll admit I don't completely understand this law. It seems to say that it
> is a crime to kill someone who is attempting a felony or any other unlawful
> act, or kills him after the attempt fails. That translates into a crime if
> the killing prevents a felony! That seems to negate the notion of
> self-defense: I can't kill an attacker until he actually kills me!
>
> The "weasel word" in the statute may be "unnecessarily". That is, if there
> is a less intense method of preventing the felony than homicide, the use of
> homicide instead of the lesser method makes the killing illegal.
>
> In any event, if the police report is accurate, exactly WHAT is the felony
> or other unlawful act Martin was about to commit?
>
> Eh? Eh?

Heybub:

It means you can't kills someone after they surrender...

When the threat ends so does any authority to use
lethal force...

The only people who are concerned with escalations
of force and using the appropriate level are traine

[gonjah]

Some are going to take this really hard. No matter how much logic you
shovel at them it's not going to stick. Hopefully, they are not the ones
making the real, important and tough decisions.

[Evan]

On Apr 11, 1:19 am, gfretw...@aol.com wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:57:38 -0700 (PDT), Evan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> You are just making shit up now. We still do not know what happened
> that night
> Nobody  has said he brandished the gun or that he tried to hold Martin
> for the police. His story according to his dad is he lost sight of
> Martin and was heading back to his truck when he was confronted by
> Martin.
>
> There is conflicting witness testimony and none of it is particularly
> reliable. Nobody was really close enough to see at night, in the rain.
> We don't really even know for sure exactly what Zimmerman says
> happened. We just have leaks and second hand reports yet there are no
> shortage of people who THINK they know what happened.
> The fact that he called the police about prowlers and suspicious
> activity over 40 times without actually confronting a single one of
> them before seems to indicate he was not the cowboy people say he was.

No, in order for the owners to have any legal input into
how the HOA operates, i.e. the election of board members
or other officers, they have to have an interest in ownership
in the association corporation which is established in the
HOA documents...

That means that they own a percentage of every event
which takes place on the common areas of the association
property even if they did not participate in it... The owners
who never show up to HOA meetings still have to pay
fee assessments/fines levied against their units by the
HOA board even if they pretty much live in ignorance
of how it all works...

What this means is that if someone wins an award
for damages against the association corporation, all those
stakeholders in that corporation, i.e. the unit owners,
are financially responsible to fund the payment of
those damages via "special/emergency assessments"
or via the entire corporation and their real property
interests namely their units being liquidated by the
court or a court appointed receiver to settle the debt...

There is no insulation or immunity from that jeopardy
afforded to the unit owners by any association corporation,
HOA board, HOA board insurance, state law protecting
board officers, the flawed SYG proclaimed immunity which
only prohibits criminal sanctions for the death involved but
says nothing about civil immunity from liability...

Without the common property you no longer have an HOA,
and you have owners of units who have no legal means to
access their property if the common elements have been
seized or surrendered... So, yes, if the association insurance
can not or will not cover the damages, then the unit owners
are on the hook to cough up the money even if that means
dissolution and liquidation of their real property and chattels
to accomplish that payment process...

Now about your final sentiment:

> The fact that he called the police about prowlers and suspicious
> activity over 40 times without actually confronting a single one of
> them before seems to indicate he was not the cowboy people say he was.

Umm... Buzzz... Wrong answer... Those 45 calls to the police
were mostly long prior to his involvement with NW... However,
this death in the final confrontation as a part of NW came AFTER
his interruption of an attempted burglary... He was hailed a hero
blah blah blah...

So the pattern of 45 calls to the police over a several year period
is something that shows a pattern of conduct... He broke up an
attempted crime recently and may have become emboldened by
his "instincts" and snapped to a flawed judgment with Trayvon...

Since his last intervention was heroic, the ends justify the means,
this mental trapping is common in law enforcement and is called
"noble cause corruption"... Someone died because of the
escalation...

[Robert Green]

"Vic Smith" <thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote in message

<stuff snipped>

> >Hunger does indeed lead to revolution. It was one of the basic causes of
> >both the French and Russian revolutions, or do you have information to
the
> >countrary?
>
> Probably not being able to afford cable TV might do now.
> As long as both food and cable TV are available, peace reigns.

The key is privation. As soon as people lose something they once had, they
get angry.

Foodstamps and cable TV sound perilously close to Roman "bread and circuses"
and the way they kept order among the unruly masses.

--
Bobby G.

[harry]

And/or religion. (Jam tomorrow syndrome)

[harry]

> of force and using the appropriate level are traine-

That is exactly how it works in most places including the UK.

We have lots of Hollywood watchers here. Wouldbe dirty Harrys.

[harry]

On Apr 11, 5:10 pm, gfretw...@aol.com wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:59:21 -0400, "Robert Green"
>
> <robert_green1...@yah00.com> wrote:
>
> >I wonder if all the folks who were up in arms about leaving the Union ever
> >really gave a though to how things would work out for the South in the end?
> >A hundred years under the thumb of the North for being unwilling to abandon
> >a practice given up in most of the rest of the civilized world.  One
> >antithetical to the spirit of the Constitution and Declaration of
> >Independence.  Stubborn SOBs who would rather see the things destroyed than
> >endure forced change which they were forced to do anyway, with dreadful
> >results.
>
> Slavery would have fallen from it's own weight and without the
> punitive "reconstruction" of the south, things might have actually
> improved faster for southern blacks. If nothing else, they would have
> simply moved north.
> Perhaps that is what the north feared the most.

The original intention wasto ship them back to Africa. They had the
place all picked out ready - Liberia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Colonization_Society
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia
You only have to look at the national flag!

[harry]

Again, that sounds completely logical.

[harry]

> escalation...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Boy you are quite some orator. ;-)

[Attila.Iskander]

"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

news:tYSdnQUQ2KKYThnS...@earthlink.com...
> gonjah wrote:
>> On 4/10/2012 2:06 PM, Oren wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:04:12 -0500, gonjah<gonjah.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> My own
>>>> *opinion* is he's guilty but Z deserves justice which could set him
>>>> free too
>>> Bring the guilty bastard in, so we can hurry up and have a fair
>>> trial! ...two words keep getting in the way: probable cause
>>>
>>> Evidence gathered for a probable cause arrest just may not be enough
>>> "evidence" for the prosecutor to convict, if she does charge him (Z).
>>> DA's make bread and butter on their wins / conviction rates.
>>
>> Again I said justice. Nothing about a trial. I did have a knee jerk
>> reaction in the beginning.

>>
>> I "think" he's guilty. I'll admit I don't know.
>>
>
> That's the second time you opine that "he's guilty." May I ask, guilty of
> what?

Well Z is actually guilty of "homicide"
What some people have problems with, is that in some cases homicide is NOT a
crime.
The concept of justifiable homicide is hard to swallow for some.

[Han]

"Attila.Iskander" <Attila....@Live.com> wrote in
news:jm6dem$co5$1...@dont-email.me:

> Well Z is actually guilty of "homicide"
> What some people have problems with, is that in some cases homicide is
> NOT a crime.
> The concept of justifiable homicide is hard to swallow for some.

That nice and competent looking lady in FL seems to think Z committed
manslaughter. That is not the same as justifiable homicide. We'll need to
wait until he pleads to a lesser charge or the end of the trial and appeals
to REALLY KNOW what Z is guilty of under the law.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

[Robert Green]

"gonjah" <gonjah.net> wrote in message
news:ebedndayVPo0DxjS...@posted.toastnet...
> On 4/11/2012 9:14 AM, gonjah wrote:
> > On 4/11/2012 1:08 AM, harry wrote:
> >> On Apr 10, 9:09 pm, "Robert Green"<robert_green1...@yah00.com> wrote:
> >>> "Kurt Ullman"<kurtull...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>
> >>> news:WYmdneMcp4In3RnS...@earthlink.com...
> >>>
> >>>> In article<caadnYT_yv0uoxnSnZ2dnUVZ_tKdn...@posted.toastnet>,
> >>>> gonjah<gonjah.net> wrote:
> >>>>> That was my immediate thought too but, after hearing from people
> >>>>> familiar with this prosecutor, the decision not to use the GJ
> >>>>> apparently
> >>>>> means very little. She's appears to be the "Harry Truman" of
> >>>>> prosecutors
> >>>>> and was the reason she was picked.
> >>>> That was my understanding too. She just likes to make the hard
> >>>> decisions
> >>>> herself instead of pawning them off on others. She is going to get
> >>>> yelled at either way, it might as well be for something she did
> >>>> herself
> >>>> (grin)>
> >>> I think she knew that an angry jury would indeed indict a ham
> >>> sandwich, even
> >>> if it wasn't kosher. The decision appears to be important in that
> >>> it rules
> >>> out murder one. Her investigation must have not revealed any prior
> >>> contact
> >>> between the two which is something hard to determine with a cursory
> >>> investigation. We routinely have people who get thrown out of
> >>> nightclubs in
> >>> DC coming back with a gun to get revenge. It sounds like she ruled
> >>> that
> >>> out. From what I read so far, Zimmerman will get a fair shake from
> >>> her and
> >>> it may be a total pass. At most, he might get charged with
> >>> operating as an
> >>> unlicensed armed security guard. Maybe.
> >>>
> >>> The latest news (hotly contested) has a heavily armed contingent of
Neo
> >>> Nazis saying they are ready to patrol the streets of Sanford to put
> >>> down any
> >>> "race riots."
> >>>
> >>> Does a CHL in Florida limit the number of pistols one can carry?
> >>> With two
> >>> shoulder rigs, two waist holsters and two ankle holsters someone
> >>> could carry
> >>> 100+ rounds or so ready to rock and roll. Could be we're leading up
> >>> to a
> >>> massive gunfight that would make the OK Corral look like square dance.
> >>>
> >>> --

> >>> Bobby G.
> >> The begining of a proper American revolution.
> >
> > I don't revolutions usually involve hunger? ;)
>

> LOL just woke up!

Hunger for food, hunger for justice, hunger for blood - it's all from
hunger.

--
Bobby G.

[Robert Green]

<gfre...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:m2bbo751sqsop3j9t...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:59:21 -0400, "Robert Green"
> <robert_g...@yah00.com> wrote:
>
> >I wonder if all the folks who were up in arms about leaving the Union
ever
> >really gave a though to how things would work out for the South in the
end?
> >A hundred years under the thumb of the North for being unwilling to
abandon
> >a practice given up in most of the rest of the civilized world. One
> >antithetical to the spirit of the Constitution and Declaration of
> >Independence. Stubborn SOBs who would rather see the things destroyed
than
> >endure forced change which they were forced to do anyway, with dreadful
> >results.
>
> Slavery would have fallen from it's own weight

That's what I think although I have historian friends who vehemently
disagree.

>and without the
> punitive "reconstruction" of the south, things might have actually
> improved faster for southern blacks.

After the war, many blacks ended up in prison and worked the very same
fields before emancipation as convict laborers. Before the war, hardly any
blacks were in prison because that would have deprived their owner of the
slave's service.

> If nothing else, they would have simply moved north.
> Perhaps that is what the north feared the most.

It took a long, long time for blacks to migrate to the northern cities.
Societal inertia.

--
Bobby G.

[Robert Green]

"Oren" <Or...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:7m09o7t26gpevvr3b...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:04:12 -0500, gonjah <gonjah.net> wrote:
>
> > My own *opinion* is he's guilty but Z deserves justice
> > which could set him free too

> Bring the guilty bastard in, so we can hurry up and have a fair trial!

Channeling "Life of Brian:"

"Nail him up, I say, nail some SENSE into him!"

The saddest part is that even he realizes that when he shot Martin, he blew
a big hole in his own life:

<<On the Web site, Zimmerman, 28, wrote: "I was involved in a life altering
event which led me to become the subject of intense media coverage. As a
result of the incident and subsequent media coverage, I have been forced to
leave my home, my school, my employer, my family and ultimately, my entire
life.">>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/zimmermans-lawyers-withdraw-trayvon-martin-case/2012/04/10/gIQA09XG9S_story.html

To add to his troubles:

<<The Justice Department is also investigating the Martin shooting as a
potential hate crime. Justice spokesman Xochitl Hinojosa said the department
would not comment on the investigation.>>

Maybe GZ he'll get rich off donations to his site or get his own TV show:
"Vigilante Wars." I'll bet plenty of crooks are passing around the hat in
his name, but he'll never see the money. There's a movie we had to watch in
J-school about a guy who's trapped in a mine or well. A media circus
quickly evolves around the event. Little did my professor know about what
would follow: OJ, Martin, Phil Spector . . .

<<Media circuses make up the central plot device in the 1951 movie Ace In
The Hole about a self-interested reporter who, covering a mine disaster,
allows a man to die trapped underground. It cynically examines the
relationship between the media and the news it reports. The movie was
subsequently re-issued as The Big Carnival, with "carnival" referring to
what we now call a "circus." >>

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

--
Bobby G.

[Robert Green]

"Han" <nob...@nospam.not> wrote in message
news:XnsA0334A78D...@216.151.153.71...

<stuff snipped>

> That nice and competent looking lady in FL seems to think Z committed
> manslaughter. That is not the same as justifiable homicide. We'll need
to
> wait until he pleads to a lesser charge or the end of the trial and
appeals
> to REALLY KNOW what Z is guilty of under the law.

I believe that she charged him with murder two, a step up from manslaughter
with much harsher penalties:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/us/zimmerman-faces-second-degree-murder-charge-in-florida.html

<<Under second-degree murder, the jury must find that a death was caused by
a criminal act "demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human
life," said Eric Abrahamsen, a criminal defense lawyer in Tallahassee,
reading from the state's standard jury instructions. The maximum sentence
for second-degree murder is life in prison; the minimum penalty under these
charges is 25 years.
Dan Markel, a law professor at Florida State University, said he was "very
surprised" by the severity of the charges "in light of the evidence that
seems to have been brought to the attention of the public so far." Many
legal experts had predicted that Mr. Zimmerman would be charged with
manslaughter. >>

I strongly suspect Corey's got information about the crime the public hasn't
heard yet. That should be interesting if and when revealed.

--

Bobby G.

[Robert Green]

"gonjah" <gonjah.net> wrote in message

<stuff snipped>

> Is it "damning"? No. "Hypothetically", Z could have been screaming when
> he shot M. "Sounds" real unlikely to me.

Agree. The screams could easily be what made Corey decide to push for
murder two. Deadly force stops being justified the moment the attacker
breaks off his attack and there's no more threat of great bodily harm. It
sounds, from the reading I've done last night, that this may be the focus of
her case.

--
Bobby G.

[HeyBub]

harry wrote:
>
> Quite often. Moreso after the revolution starts.
> So if you are a fat git, all you have to do is hide and live off your
> in-built energy resource. Surface when the fun dies down and the gun
> owners are dead.

When SOME gun owners are dead.

Eighty-five percent of Americans live in a home with at least one gun. There
are, by best estimates, some 240 million guns in the US. The VAST majority -
I'd say 237 million - are owned by righteous, law-abiding citizens. The rest
are owned by gang-bangers. That's for guns.

It was once estimated that there's a ten-year supply of ammunition in the
country. Virtually none of it is owned by the aforementioned gang-bangers.
They obtain their bullets, usually, one at a time.

If the gang-bangers and assorted squints, goblins, scrots, stink-eyes,
goats, knuckle-draggers, dopers, skells, and other assorted evil-doers
decide, en masse, to revolt, ah, glorious day.

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <XnsA0334A78D...@216.151.153.71>,

Or just the end of the trial if acquitted. Be sorta interesting if the
jury does an OJ-esque jury nullification.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <jm6hdt$1pc$4...@dont-email.me>,

"Robert Green" <robert_g...@yah00.com> wrote:

> "
> I strongly suspect Corey's got information about the crime the public hasn't
> heard yet. That should be interesting if and when revealed.
>

Wouldn't be the first SA to overcharge a count under pressure. Would
be interesting to see if there are any lesser included charges that the
jury could consider under FL law. Charge murder 2 for political purposes
and then he gets some flavor of manslaughter from the jury.

> --
>
> Bobby G.

[HeyBub]

Attila.Iskander wrote:
>>
>> That's the second time you opine that "he's guilty." May I ask,
>> guilty of what?
>
> Well Z is actually guilty of "homicide"
> What some people have problems with, is that in some cases homicide
> is NOT a crime.
> The concept of justifiable homicide is hard to swallow for some.

Right. "Homicide" is the killing of a human being by the action (or, in some
cases, inaction) by the actor. In my state there are five kinds of homicide:
* Murder - killing with premeditation
* Manslaughter - killing in the heat of passion
* Negligent - death resulting from something where the actor should know
better
* Justifiable - self defense, killing an enemy in time of war
* Excusable - none of the above, act of God

Two men go on a hunting trip. One shoots and kills the other. The homicide
could be any of the above depending on the circumstances:
* Murder - shooter went on the trip with the intent to kill the victim
* Manslaughter - the pair get into a heated argument, shooter kills the
victim
* Negligent - victim shakes bush he was hiding behind, actor fires at bush
* Justifiable - victim shoots at actor first, actor returns fire
* Excusable - victim jumps from behind distant tree wearing deer costume

[Robert Green]

<gfre...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2vabo79abv8obobnj...@4ax.com...

<stuff snipped>

> Would you have been happier if Zimmerman was beaten to death?

The law across most of the US used to be pretty plain that outside of your
house, meeting fists with a gun was an unacceptable use of deadly force. It
seems even parts of the Florida state code say that, too. Although some
people have died from single punch, it's pretty damn rare. It's hard for me
to believe that Martin's attack, if it was an attack or the result of a
shoving match and mutual combat, was not a homicidal one but an indication
of great discomfort at being stalked, followed, observed, phoned in,
eyeballed or whatever word you want to use. Do you think Martin was set on
killing him? I don't see it. Regrettably Zimmerman came to the
confrontation with a deadly weapon. That may weigh heavily on him.

Some case law on Florida Penal Code, # 782.11

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/666/666.F2d.966.80-5488.html

<<When Daugherty failed to respond to an order to stop and a warning shot,
Cobb fired twice at Daugherty, mortally wounding him. Eldridge and Cobb then
began to scuffle, during which time Eldridge grabbed Cobb's gun. Cobb
managed to wrest the gun from Eldridge's grasp and purposely shot Eldridge.
The medical examiner found that two bullets entered the back of Eldridge's
head, followed a 35o downward path, and exited the right frontal bone,
immediately killing him. The bullets also passed through a straw hat that
remained on the victim's head despite the scuffle. At the time of the
shootings, Cobb was aware that both victims were unarmed. The jury found
Cobb guilty of unnecessarily killing Eldridge in violation of Fla.Stat. §
782.11 (1975), but acquitted him of unnecessarily killing Daugherty.3>>

I can hear the legal fees piling up from here.

--
Bobby G.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Apr 12, 8:40 am, "Robert Green" <robert_green1...@yah00.com> wrote:
> <gfretw...@aol.com> wrote in message

>
> news:2vabo79abv8obobnj...@4ax.com...
>
> <stuff snipped>
>
> > Would you have been happier if Zimmerman was beaten to death?
>
> The law across most of the US used to be pretty plain that outside of your
> house, meeting fists with a gun was an unacceptable use of deadly force.  It
> seems even parts of the Florida state code say that, too.  Although some
> people have died from single punch, it's pretty damn rare.

Single punch? Who's talking a single punch? By Z and the
eyewitness accounts he was being beaten. It was not just
one punch. And you certainly can die from being beaten to
death, not unusual at all. And while the next punch
might not kill you, it could render you unconscious so the perp
can then finish the job.

>It's hard for me
> to believe that Martin's attack, if it was an attack or the result of a
> shoving match and mutual combat, was not a homicidal one but an indication
> of great discomfort at being stalked, followed, observed, phoned in,
> eyeballed or whatever word you want to use.

Yeah, he may have had some discomfort. But try attacking someone,
beating them up and when arrested for assault using the fact that you
felt
"great discomfort" as a defense. It won't fly.

And if he was actually fearful and suspicous as to who was
keeping an eye on him, he had a cell phone, why didn't he
call 911? Go to a house where it looked like people were
home? Anyone who would attack in a situation like that is
the aggressor and clearly has some anger management
issues.

> Do you think Martin was set on
> killing him?  I don't see it.

No, I don't think anyone believes M was intent on killing him.
Nor was Z intent of killing M until he believed he had to in order
to save his own life.

> Regrettably Zimmerman came to the
> confrontation with a deadly weapon.

Yeah, you'd feel better if the beating continued and Z wound
up in the hospital or dead.

>That may weigh heavily on him.

If they follow the law, it should not.

[tra...@optonline.net]

Should be interesting to see how Corey is going to handle the
only eyewitness we know about who was there and both saw
and heard what was going on. That witness says it was Z on
the bottom, getting beaten and yelling for help.

She better have some damn good evidence we don;t know
about or she's gonna be looking pretty foolish.