Trayvon Martin shooting was not an act of racism, but a community trying to defend itself

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

Trayvon Martin shooting was not an act of racism, but a
community trying to defend itself

By Ed Farnan
Irish Central
Sunday, April 22, 2012

http://www.irishcentral.com/story/news/from-the-right/trayvon-martin-shooting-was-not-an-act-of-racism-but-a-community-trying-to-defend-itself-148455875.html

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

[Metspitzer]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 01:30:47 GMT, use...@mantra.com and/or
www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:

>Trayvon Martin shooting was not an act of racism, but a
>community trying to defend itself
>
>By Ed Farnan
>Irish Central
>Sunday, April 22, 2012
>
>http://www.irishcentral.com/story/news/from-the-right/trayvon-martin-shooting-was-not-an-act-of-racism-but-a-community-trying-to-defend-itself-148455875.html
>

At one time, some of the crime reports from Twin Lakes were online. I
admit I have not seen them all (and can no longer find them), but of
the reports I read all of the perpetrators were black except one.

One report was of one white and two black males.

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Apr 22, 9:30 pm, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.

Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> Trayvon Martin shooting was not an act of racism, but a
> community trying to defend itself
>
> By Ed Farnan
> Irish Central
> Sunday, April 22, 2012
>

> http://www.irishcentral.com/story/news/from-the-right/trayvon-martin-...

>
> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> Om Shanti

DEFEND ITSELF FROM WHAT? A kid walking down the street?

[ray]

In article
<7cfd4005-8603-4cc9...@m18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,

How about a kid attacking an adult simply because he was following him?

--
Barock Insane Obama: The greatest joke America ever played on itself.

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

In article <jn4ga...@news1.newsguy.com>,
ray <xxxr...@aol.com> posted:

>
> In article
> <7cfd4005-8603-4cc9...@m18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> thepinkpantsuit <editor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:

> >
> > > Trayvon Martin shooting was not an act of racism, but a
> > > community trying to defend itself
> > >
> > > By Ed Farnan
> > > Irish Central
> > > Sunday, April 22, 2012
> > >
> > > http://www.irishcentral.com/story/news/from-the-right/trayvon-martin-...
> >

> > DEFEND ITSELF FROM WHAT? A kid walking down the street?
>
> How about a kid attacking an adult simply because he was following him?
>

> Barock Insane Obama: The greatest joke America ever played on itself.

Or for not buying him a PlayStation -- see below:

4-yr-old kills father after being refused PlayStation

Monday, April 23, 2012

Riyadh - An angry four-year-old Saudi boy killed his
father for refusing to buy him a PlayStation, Saudi media
reported on Monday.

Continues at:

http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_4-yr-old-kills-father-after-being-refused-playstation_1679768

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Apr 23, 5:07 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article
> <7cfd4005-8603-4cc9-a96b-11cc8dcb4...@m18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,

>
>
>
>
>
>  thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 22, 9:30 pm, use...@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr.
> > Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> > > Trayvon Martin shooting was not an act of racism, but a
> > > community trying to defend itself
>
> > > By Ed Farnan
> > > Irish Central
> > > Sunday, April 22, 2012
>
> > >http://www.irishcentral.com/story/news/from-the-right/trayvon-martin-...
>
> > > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > Om Shanti
>
> > DEFEND ITSELF FROM WHAT? A kid walking down the street?
>
> How about a kid attacking an adult simply because he was following him?

A strange adult who gets out of his vehicle at night to follow a minor
could be reasonably construed as threatening. That's how minors are
abducted. Martin had every reasonable right to be fearful when
confronted.

[thepinkpantsuit]

Do you get that? What do you tell your children to do when confronted
at night by strangers? Say hi there!

[ray]

In article
<93564255-6d6b-4d3c...@j3g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,

So fearful that he couldn't take the cell phone he was talking with his
girlfriend on and call police? So fearful that he turned around and
attacked Zimmeman? Doesn't sound so fearful to me. If I fear somebody,
I get the hell away from them as fast as I can. I don't attack them.

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Apr 23, 7:35 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article

> <93564255-6d6b-4d3c-96b6-88790312c...@j3g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,

>
>
>
>
>
>  thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 23, 5:07 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <7cfd4005-8603-4cc9-a96b-11cc8dcb4...@m18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > >  thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 22, 9:30 pm, use...@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr.
> > > > Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> > > > > Trayvon Martin shooting was not an act of racism, but a
> > > > > community trying to defend itself
>
> > > > > By Ed Farnan
> > > > > Irish Central
> > > > > Sunday, April 22, 2012
>
> > > > >http://www.irishcentral.com/story/news/from-the-right/trayvon-martin-...
>
> > > > > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > > > > Om Shanti
>
> > > > DEFEND ITSELF FROM WHAT? A kid walking down the street?
>
> > > How about a kid attacking an adult simply because he was following him?
>
> > A strange adult who gets out of his vehicle at night to follow a minor
> > could be reasonably construed as threatening. That's how minors are
> > abducted. Martin had every reasonable right to be fearful when
> > confronted.
>
> So fearful that he couldn't take the cell phone he was talking with his
> girlfriend on and call police?

You mean like Zimmerman, who was instructed by police not to follow?

>So fearful that he turned around and
> attacked Zimmeman?  Doesn't sound so fearful to me.  If I fear somebody,
> I get the hell away from them as fast as I can.  I don't attack them.

Precisely. So why did Zimmerman get out of the car and confront Martin
if he perceived him as a threat?

[thepinkpantsuit]

My point here is this: the person first confronted is the person
standing his ground. Zimmerman was told not to follow but instead he
chose not only to follow but to confront. That gives Martin the right
to stand his ground. The circumstances, i.e., Martin was an unarmed
minor, caught off guard and confronted by a strange adult at night, is
cause for duress. People have the right to stand there ground, and in
this case it was Martin. He died standing his ground against some
strange man following him and then confronting him at night. And that
is why the dispatcher suggested Zimmerman not do it.

[thepinkpantsuit]

And another element to consider: what form of identfication did
Zimmeran produce to inform Martin he was a 'town watch' participant,
and add credibility to any claim he may have made? Unlike Jay's
example, teens simply walking down a street, bothering no one, are not
obligated to listen to strange adults following them. But they are
obligated to answer to law enforcement. The argument that somehow
Zimmerman acted in self-defense, once he disobeyed authorities and
confronted an innocent kid on the street who "bothered" him, is
specious.

[Too_Many_Tools]

> confronted.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yep..Zimmerman could easily be a pedophile stalking his prey.

TMT

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Apr 22, 8:30 pm, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.

Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> Trayvon Martin shooting was not an act of racism, but a
> community trying to defend itself
>
> By Ed Farnan
> Irish Central
> Sunday, April 22, 2012
>

> http://www.irishcentral.com/story/news/from-the-right/trayvon-martin-...

>
> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> Om Shanti

Against what...Skittles?

TMT

[Metspitzer]

Zimmerman says at the hearing that he did not know how old Martin was.
He calls him a kid on his 911 call.

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Apr 24, 10:53 am, Metspitzer <Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 20:07:52 -0700 (PDT), thepinkpantsuit
>
>
>
>
>

And mumbles at how they 'always get away'. Clearly, Zimmerman
completely over-reacted to an unarmed kid walking down the street at
night. It's not as if Zimmerman caught the kid comitting a crime and
decided to intervene. There was plenty of time for cops to arrive at
the scene and check out any suspicious activity. 'Rush to judgment' is
an understatement here. It's really unacceptable.

[ray]

In article
<5fdc1525-9518-4f62...@q13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,

So you want me to believe this opinion you formed based on lies?

You have absolutely no proof that Zimmerman ever confronted Martin.

You have absolutely no proof that Zimmerman did not take the advice of
the dispatcher, and stop following Martin.

The 911 tape is very telling of this. When Zimmerman said that Martin
started to run, that's when you could hear his breathing get heavier;
the phone sliding against something, the voice fading in and out. After
the dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that" the phone became
clear once again, Zimmerman's breathing returned to normal, and his
voice once again was calm; all within five seconds of the dispatcher
gave that advice.

Give a listen for yourself. And no, this is not the doctored NBC tape,
this is the unedited one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9A-gp8mrdw

[ray]

In article
<a8544264-9ab9-4c05...@h5g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,

He could have easily been a plain clothes narcotics officer as well.

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Apr 24, 5:07 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article

> <5fdc1525-9518-4f62-b650-0154ccd86...@q13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,

It's not lies. It's logic. One person was in a vehicle. One person was
on foot. In order for them to make physical contact on the grass,
Zimmerman had to exit his vehicle in proximity to the victim.
Zimmerman never claimed he was pulled from the vehicle by force. He
therefore exited of his own volition.

>
> You have absolutely no proof that Zimmerman ever confronted Martin.

See above.

> You have absolutely no proof that Zimmerman did not take the advice of
> the dispatcher, and stop following Martin.

See below.

> The 911 tape is very telling of this.  When Zimmerman said that Martin
> started to run,

To run in the opposite direction is to avoid contact. If Martin is
running away from Zimmerman, and Zimmerman is not chasing Martin, how
is contact ultimately made?

that's when you could hear his breathing get heavier;
> the phone sliding against something, the voice fading in and out.  After
> the dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that" the phone became
> clear once again, Zimmerman's breathing returned to normal, and his
> voice once again was calm; all within five seconds of the dispatcher
> gave that advice.
>
> Give a listen for yourself.  And no, this is not the doctored NBC tape,
> this is the unedited one:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9A-gp8mrdw

Good listen. How wrong was Zimmerman in his assessment? He mistook an
unarmed kid returning home from a convenience store for a dangerous
criminal.

[ray]

In article
<a3ceba1b-6859-413d...@z3g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,

thepinkpantsuit <editor...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > So you want me to believe this opinion you formed based on lies?
>
> It's not lies. It's logic. One person was in a vehicle. One person was
> on foot. In order for them to make physical contact on the grass,
> Zimmerman had to exit his vehicle in proximity to the victim.
> Zimmerman never claimed he was pulled from the vehicle by force. He
> therefore exited of his own volition.
> >
> > You have absolutely no proof that Zimmerman ever confronted Martin.
>
> See above.

That doesn't prove anything other than Zimmerman exited his car which
nobody is denying. But just because he exited his car does not mean he
confronted Martin.

> > You have absolutely no proof that Zimmerman did not take the advice of
> > the dispatcher, and stop following Martin.
>
> See below.
>
> > The 911 tape is very telling of this.  When Zimmerman said that Martin
> > started to run,
>
> To run in the opposite direction is to avoid contact. If Martin is
> running away from Zimmerman, and Zimmerman is not chasing Martin, how
> is contact ultimately made?

Contact was made the way Zimmerman described it. The six foot 160 lbs
Martin ran away, but came back later after Zimmerman hung up the phone
with 911 to confront him. It's obvious Martin felt dissed and wanted to
even the score.

Now, after Zimmerman said he lost sight of Martin, he stayed on the
phone with police for at least a minute. That means if Martin wanted to
escape Zimmerman, he had a minute head start. It's not that big of a
complex. A kid his age could probably run from one end of that complex
to the other in a minute or so. So it's reasonable to believe he could
have easily made it to the house he was staying at during the time he
escaped Zimmerman and the time he hung up with 911.

> that's when you could hear his breathing get heavier;
> > the phone sliding against something, the voice fading in and out.  After
> > the dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that" the phone became
> > clear once again, Zimmerman's breathing returned to normal, and his
> > voice once again was calm; all within five seconds of the dispatcher
> > gave that advice.
> >
> > Give a listen for yourself.  And no, this is not the doctored NBC tape,
> > this is the unedited one:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9A-gp8mrdw
>
> Good listen. How wrong was Zimmerman in his assessment? He mistook an
> unarmed kid returning home from a convenience store for a dangerous
> criminal.

No, Zimmerman said Martin was suspicious. And how right was Zimmerman?
As it turned out, Martin did not live there as he suspected. Martin was
a stranger roaming around a complex known for it's multiple house
thefts.

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Apr 24, 7:56 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article

> <a3ceba1b-6859-413d-8b6c-abdddd4fc...@z3g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > So you want me to believe this opinion you formed based on lies?
>
> > It's not lies. It's logic. One person was in a vehicle. One person was
> > on foot. In order for them to make physical contact on the grass,
> > Zimmerman had to exit his vehicle in proximity to the victim.
> > Zimmerman never claimed he was pulled from the vehicle by force. He
> > therefore exited of his own volition.
>
> > > You have absolutely no proof that Zimmerman ever confronted Martin.
>
> > See above.
>
> That doesn't prove anything other than Zimmerman exited his car which
> nobody is denying.  But just because he exited his car does not mean he
> confronted Martin.

Nobody is denying it because Zimmerman called 911 to report a
suspicious person and then got out of his car after he was instructed
by authorities not to follow, not to involve himself. That is fact.
The act of leaving the car indicates two things: 1) that Zimmerman
felt no imminent bodily danger, and 2) he continued to obstruct
justice by involving himself, with an innocent, unarmed teen. And as I
stated before, Zimmerman handed over the stand your ground opportunity
to Martin at that moment. Obviously Zimmerman was acting suspiciously
toward the kid, not visa versa. That is fact. He was on the phone
reporting him. For walking. Walking. No crime had been committed.

>
> > > You have absolutely no proof that Zimmerman did not take the advice of
> > > the dispatcher, and stop following Martin.
>
> > See below.
>
> > > The 911 tape is very telling of this.  When Zimmerman said that Martin
> > > started to run,
>
> > To run in the opposite direction is to avoid contact. If Martin is
> > running away from Zimmerman, and Zimmerman is not chasing Martin, how
> > is contact ultimately made?
>
> Contact was made the way Zimmerman described it.  The six foot 160 lbs
> Martin ran away, but came back later after Zimmerman hung up the phone
> with 911 to confront him.

Where does it say he ran away and then came back? Cite?

>It's obvious Martin felt dissed and wanted to
> even the score.

Pure conjecture for Martin. Not pure conjecture for Zimmerman's state
of mind, who was the aggressor, and who stated to 911 that these
people always get away. He openly expresses his frustration and states
his intent. And don't forget Martin's call to his girlfriend and the
dropped phone upon attack. Was he going to throw the first punch while
talking on the phone to his girlfriend? How does that work?

>
> Now, after Zimmerman said he lost sight of Martin, he stayed on the
> phone with police for at least a minute.  That means if Martin wanted to
> escape Zimmerman, he had a minute head start.  It's not that big of a
> complex.  A kid his age could probably run from one end of that complex
> to the other in a minute or so.  So it's reasonable to believe he could
> have easily made it to the house he was staying at during the time he
> escaped Zimmerman and the time he hung up with 911.
>
> > that's when you could hear his breathing get heavier;
> > > the phone sliding against something, the voice fading in and out.  After
> > > the dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that" the phone became
> > > clear once again, Zimmerman's breathing returned to normal, and his
> > > voice once again was calm; all within five seconds of the dispatcher
> > > gave that advice.
>
> > > Give a listen for yourself.  And no, this is not the doctored NBC tape,
> > > this is the unedited one:
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9A-gp8mrdw
>
> > Good listen. How wrong was Zimmerman in his assessment? He mistook an
> > unarmed kid returning home from a convenience store for a dangerous
> > criminal.
>
> No, Zimmerman said Martin was suspicious.  And how right was Zimmerman?
> As it turned out, Martin did not live there as he suspected.  Martin was
> a stranger roaming around a complex known for it's multiple house
> thefts.

Seriously? You seriously believe this?

1) Martin was at his father's home. Unarmed. 2) people are free to
walk in neighborhoods where they are visiting people. That is not a
crime.

[ray]

In article
<fe73a3dc-b0b4-4da5...@z3g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,

thepinkpantsuit <editor...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > That doesn't prove anything other than Zimmerman exited his car which
> > nobody is denying.  But just because he exited his car does not mean he
> > confronted Martin.
>
> Nobody is denying it because Zimmerman called 911 to report a
> suspicious person and then got out of his car after he was instructed
> by authorities not to follow, not to involve himself. That is fact.
> The act of leaving the car indicates two things: 1) that Zimmerman
> felt no imminent bodily danger, and 2) he continued to obstruct
> justice by involving himself, with an innocent, unarmed teen. And as I
> stated before, Zimmerman handed over the stand your ground opportunity
> to Martin at that moment. Obviously Zimmerman was acting suspiciously
> toward the kid, not visa versa. That is fact. He was on the phone
> reporting him. For walking. Walking. No crime had been committed.

I question where you are getting your facts from. Where do you get this
"got out of his car after being told not to follow Martin" from? How do
you know when he exited his car? Did he say so? Did the dispatcher
ask? No.

When the dispatcher heard Zimmerman huffing and puffing, he asked
Zimmerman if he was following Martin (obviously on foot) Zimmerman
replied "yes I am." The dispatcher then advised "we don't need you to
do that." To me, that says Zimmerman was already out of his car.

He did not call the police because Martin was walking. He called the
police because he recognized a person he had never seen in the
neighborhood before and said he was suspicious--that's all.

> >
> > > > You have absolutely no proof that Zimmerman did not take the advice of
> > > > the dispatcher, and stop following Martin.
> >
> > > See below.
> >
> > > > The 911 tape is very telling of this.  When Zimmerman said that Martin
> > > > started to run,
> >
> > > To run in the opposite direction is to avoid contact. If Martin is
> > > running away from Zimmerman, and Zimmerman is not chasing Martin, how
> > > is contact ultimately made?
> >
> > Contact was made the way Zimmerman described it.  The six foot 160 lbs
> > Martin ran away, but came back later after Zimmerman hung up the phone
> > with 911 to confront him.
>
> Where does it say he ran away and then came back? Cite?

After Zimmerman was advised to stop following Martin, Zimmerman reported
to the dispatcher that he lost sight of Martin. I already provided you
with the site to the 911 call. Listen to it.

> >It's obvious Martin felt dissed and wanted to
> > even the score.
>
> Pure conjecture for Martin. Not pure conjecture for Zimmerman's state
> of mind, who was the aggressor, and who stated to 911 that these
> people always get away. He openly expresses his frustration and states
> his intent. And don't forget Martin's call to his girlfriend and the
> dropped phone upon attack. Was he going to throw the first punch while
> talking on the phone to his girlfriend? How does that work?

Making up facts again? You are going to dispute a 911 call over a 15
year olds recount of what she said she heard? That should hold strong
in court. It's clearly an open and shut case now.

<snip>

> >
> > No, Zimmerman said Martin was suspicious.  And how right was Zimmerman?
> > As it turned out, Martin did not live there as he suspected.  Martin was
> > a stranger roaming around a complex known for it's multiple house
> > thefts.
>
> Seriously? You seriously believe this?
>
> 1) Martin was at his father's home. Unarmed. 2) people are free to
> walk in neighborhoods where they are visiting people. That is not a
> crime.

No it isn't, but assault and battery is. All evidence points to
Martin's attack on Zimmerman. He had the injuries to prove it, the
funeral director stated there was not one mark on Martin's body
indicating a struggle, and you have the paramedics account of treating
Zimmerman at the scene, and the close-up of the head injuries Zimmerman
suffered.

There is no crime in walking the streets in a neighborhood where you are
a guest just as there is no crime of following somebody who you deem
suspicious.

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Apr 24, 10:14 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article

> <fe73a3dc-b0b4-4da5-b31e-db0d557dd...@z3g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > That doesn't prove anything other than Zimmerman exited his car which
> > > nobody is denying.  But just because he exited his car does not mean he
> > > confronted Martin.
>
> > Nobody is denying it because Zimmerman called 911 to report a
> > suspicious person and then got out of his car after he was instructed
> > by authorities not to follow, not to involve himself. That is fact.
> > The act of leaving the car indicates two things: 1) that Zimmerman
> > felt no imminent bodily danger, and 2) he continued to obstruct
> > justice by involving himself, with an innocent, unarmed teen. And as I
> > stated before, Zimmerman handed over the stand your ground opportunity
> > to Martin at that moment. Obviously Zimmerman was acting suspiciously
> > toward the kid, not visa versa. That is fact. He was on the phone
> > reporting him. For walking. Walking. No crime had been committed.
>
> I question where you are getting your facts from.  Where do you get this
> "got out of his car after being told not to follow Martin" from?  How do
> you know when he exited his car?  Did he say so?  Did the dispatcher
> ask?  No.


> When the dispatcher heard Zimmerman huffing and puffing, he asked
> Zimmerman if he was following Martin (obviously on foot) Zimmerman
> replied "yes I am."

Thank you for clarifying. So Zimmerman--a stranger--was following
Martin--an unarmed teen--on foot, down some dark street. That makes
Zimmerman the aggressor. If a stranger was following you on foot, and
you were unarmed, how would you defend yourself? That is the scenario.
Even if Marting threw the first punch at a strange man following him
down a dark street----he had cause to feel threatened. Zimmerman did
not. Hell, he was following the guy on foot instead of running from
this dangerous kid.

>The dispatcher then advised "we don't need you to
> do that."  To me, that says Zimmerman was already out of his car.

Okay.

>
> He did not call the police because Martin was walking.  He called the
> police because he recognized a person he had never seen in the
> neighborhood before and said he was suspicious--that's all.

You can't recognize a person you've never seen. But even if you could
that doesn't give cause to following a person you don't recognize.
Most people would consider it menacing and suspicious and possibly
threatening.

Who's disputing the 911 call? It is a beaut! Zimmeran sounds paranoid,
hyper, edgy, perturbed he doesn't recognize this individual. He sounds
like he was looking for 'action.' Actually, the entire thing is
recorded and probably will be analyzed for court.

>That should hold strong
> in court.  It's clearly an open and shut case now.

If you say so.

>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > > No, Zimmerman said Martin was suspicious.  And how right was Zimmerman?
> > > As it turned out, Martin did not live there as he suspected.  Martin was
> > > a stranger roaming around a complex known for it's multiple house
> > > thefts.
>
> > Seriously? You seriously believe this?
>
> > 1) Martin was at his father's home. Unarmed. 2) people are free to
> > walk in neighborhoods where they are visiting people. That is not a
> > crime.
>
> No it isn't, but assault and battery is.  All evidence points to
> Martin's attack on Zimmerman.  He had the injuries to prove it, the
> funeral director stated there was not one mark on Martin's body
> indicating a struggle, and you have the paramedics account of treating
> Zimmerman at the scene, and the close-up of the head injuries Zimmerman
> suffered.

Martin was standing his ground after being followed and cornered by a
strange man with a gun, on a dark street, in his father's
neighborhood. I'd interpret that as menacing, suspicious and
threatening.

[ray]

In article
<266e1cb6-d67d-4594...@b14g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
thepinkpantsuit <editor...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > When the dispatcher heard Zimmerman huffing and puffing, he asked
> > Zimmerman if he was following Martin (obviously on foot) Zimmerman
> > replied "yes I am."
>
> Thank you for clarifying. So Zimmerman--a stranger--was following
> Martin--an unarmed teen--on foot, down some dark street. That makes
> Zimmerman the aggressor. If a stranger was following you on foot, and
> you were unarmed, how would you defend yourself? That is the scenario.
> Even if Marting threw the first punch at a strange man following him
> down a dark street----he had cause to feel threatened. Zimmerman did
> not. Hell, he was following the guy on foot instead of running from
> this dangerous kid.

Exactly, he did follow Martin. But as Zimmerman told 911, Martin got
away and was clearly out of sight for the remaining of that 911 call.
You are trying to make it out as if Martin was cornered. If he was, it
would have been recorded on the 911 tape. It didn't happen that way.

<snip>

> > > Pure conjecture for Martin. Not pure conjecture for Zimmerman's state
> > > of mind, who was the aggressor, and who stated to 911 that these
> > > people always get away. He openly expresses his frustration and states
> > > his intent. And don't forget Martin's call to his girlfriend and the
> > > dropped phone upon attack. Was he going to throw the first punch while
> > > talking on the phone to his girlfriend? How does that work?
> >
> > Making up facts again?  You are going to dispute a 911 call over a 15
> > year olds recount of what she said she heard?
>
> Who's disputing the 911 call? It is a beaut! Zimmeran sounds paranoid,
> hyper, edgy, perturbed he doesn't recognize this individual. He sounds
> like he was looking for 'action.' Actually, the entire thing is
> recorded and probably will be analyzed for court.

Yes it will, and likely, it will go in favor of Zimmerman as he
describes his actions during the call. Zimmerman has a record of
placing 911 calls to the police during his neighborhood watch; 48 of
them in total. If he was so eager for action, why did he never act on
the other calls he made?

> >That should hold strong
> > in court.  It's clearly an open and shut case now.
>
> If you say so.
>
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> >
> > > > No, Zimmerman said Martin was suspicious.  And how right was Zimmerman?
> > > > As it turned out, Martin did not live there as he suspected.  Martin
> > > > was
> > > > a stranger roaming around a complex known for it's multiple house
> > > > thefts.
> >
> > > Seriously? You seriously believe this?
> >
> > > 1) Martin was at his father's home. Unarmed. 2) people are free to
> > > walk in neighborhoods where they are visiting people. That is not a
> > > crime.
> >
> > No it isn't, but assault and battery is.  All evidence points to
> > Martin's attack on Zimmerman.  He had the injuries to prove it, the
> > funeral director stated there was not one mark on Martin's body
> > indicating a struggle, and you have the paramedics account of treating
> > Zimmerman at the scene, and the close-up of the head injuries Zimmerman
> > suffered.
>
> Martin was standing his ground after being followed and cornered by a
> strange man with a gun, on a dark street, in his father's
> neighborhood. I'd interpret that as menacing, suspicious and
> threatening.

As Ronald Reagan once said "There you go again."

There is no evidence that Martin was ever cornered. Again, he had at
least a minute head start on Zimmerman even if it was Zimmerman's intent
to chase him further after he hung up with the police. Martin could
have easily been safe and sound at his father's fiancee's house by then,
or at the very least, far enough away from Zimmerman to see him as a
threat.

Let me ask you: if all investigations prove that Zimmerman's story was
exactly as he said, and it turns out that evidence points to Martin
returning to Zimmerman and then attacking him, would you then agree that
Zimmerman had every legal right to shoot Martin?

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Apr 25, 5:17 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article

> <266e1cb6-d67d-4594-b8df-2084d517b...@b14g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,

You're obviously cemented in you opinion but this case is fairly
straightforward. Zimmer spotted someone he 'thought' was suspicious,
got out of his car armed, followed and then confronted the person.
That makes Zimmerman the aggressor and ultimately the perpetrator of a
crime, because Zimmerman was wrong and he killed an innocent kid. A
kid with no priors, after being warned by authorities to stop. In
retrospect it can be seen that the only person in imminent danger of
deadly bodily harm is the deceased, who when threatened by the
menacing implications of a stranger following him on a dark unfamiliar
street, may have thrown a punch to stand his ground against a man with
a gun. You have no idea at what point Zimmerman pulled that gun on
Martin. It is quite possible Zimmerman approached with his weapon in
view because I'm not sure how he could have accessed his gun while on
the ground being beaten.

Chew on that.

[thepinkpantsuit]

Well? If Zimmerman is on the ground, with his head being smashed by
Martin, how does Zimmerman reach for his gun, unless his gun was
already pulled and Martin tried to tackle Zimmerman to protect himself
from being shot.

What say you? I say this sounds very plausible.

[ray]

In article
<9f22442e-6fd2-4e3a...@i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,

I've discredited all your non-truths of this story not to mention adding
common sense. You are hell bent on believing what you wish no matter
who says what. Your reply before this one proves just that. And no
matter what evidence is presented to defend Zimmerman to prove that
everything happened the way he described it, I am willing to bet you
won't accept the case being thrown out of court, or if trail, be found
not guilty. You will always believe Zimmerman is guilty no matter what.

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Apr 26, 6:28 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article

> <9f22442e-6fd2-4e3a-9191-5888af219...@i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,

Oh, okay.

>You are hell bent on believing what you wish no matter
> who says what.  Your reply before this one proves just that.

No, what it proves is that there are unanswered questions, like when
did Zimmerman pull out his weapon? How and under what circumstances?
Whose and how many screams of "no, no," and was that time enough to
just turn around and walk away?

>And no
> matter what evidence is presented to defend Zimmerman to prove that
> everything happened the way he described it,

Because dead men can't talk and describe their side of events, can
they? Zimmerman's account does not make sense and there is no one to
dispute it. He is dead and now events must be pieced back together.

>I am willing to bet you
> won't accept the case being thrown out of court, or if trail, be found
> not guilty.  You will always believe Zimmerman is guilty no matter what.

What the court rules, the court rules. But it would be safe to assume
I'll always think he's an over-reactive paranoid ass with a record of
domestic and other violent acts.

[The Starmaker]

Now that you mention that, you changed my mind...
I was always believed that Zimmerman was innoncent..until i saw him on the stand..i saw a glint
in his eye..like he is trying to get away with murder. Maybe he's just a guy on 'neighborhood watch',
with a gun...waiting for an opportunity to use it...in otherwords, an intent to kill....anyone.

Zimmerman was just having some fun killing somebody...that no reason for him to have to go to jail.

You're making 'fun' a crime...

It's 'fun' killing people...that's why so many guys join the army, to kill!

What do you call it in the movies...itchy fingers...trigger happy?

Come on already...he was just having fun.

What is the point of going on 'neighborhood watch' if you cannot kill somneone...


Make my day?


Why do people buy guns? To shoot somebody!

A guy cannot have fun anymore???


Gee Whiz..


The Starmaker

[ray]

In article
<011fd386-87ec-43af...@i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,

Nope, you're batting 500 again. Only one arrest in a so-called violent
case where he was a drunk kid and pushed a police officer. The charge
was plead down and he didn't serve any time in jail. No domestic
disputes either. His ex-girlfriend had a restraining order on him, but
he had one on her as well. No charges ever filed for any kind of
violence.

[Libertarian]

Americans shooting unarmed fellow Americans in the Red States.

I don't see the problem.

If you don't want that to happen, move to Canada where they have a
Conservative government in charge and it rarely occurs.

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Apr 26, 8:30 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article

> <011fd386-87ec-43af-b04b-58bde56f7...@i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,

Oh, come on now.

>Only one arrest in a so-called violent
> case where he was a drunk kid and pushed a police officer.

And that isn't a problem for you? The guy obviously has an issue with
authority, which is why he continued to follow Martin when instructed
otherwise. Despite this history of behavior, you tend to believe it
was the kid who took an attitude with Zimmerman, not the other way
around? Zimmerman had the audacity to assault a police officer!
Tackling a kid is nothing.

>The charge
> was plead down and he didn't serve any time in jail.

That's nice.

>No domestic
> disputes either.  His ex-girlfriend had a restraining order on him, but
> he had one on her as well.  No charges ever filed for any kind of
> violence.

Mmmm hmmm.

I really can't respond to this. If you think those two instances are
not illustrative of a short fuse, a volatile temperament, I don't know
what to say.

[ray]

In article
<79b72502-1eea-4b19...@d20g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>,

thepinkpantsuit <editor...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > What the court rules, the court rules. But it would be safe to assume
> > > I'll always think he's an over-reactive paranoid ass with a record of
> > > domestic and other violent acts.
> >
> > Nope, you're batting 500 again.
>
> Oh, come on now.
>
> >Only one arrest in a so-called violent
> > case where he was a drunk kid and pushed a police officer.
>
> And that isn't a problem for you? The guy obviously has an issue with
> authority, which is why he continued to follow Martin when instructed
> otherwise. Despite this history of behavior, you tend to believe it
> was the kid who took an attitude with Zimmerman, not the other way
> around? Zimmerman had the audacity to assault a police officer!
> Tackling a kid is nothing.

People under the influence behave in ways they otherwise may not sober.
This is nothing new, nor indicative of their personality.

Once again, you try to make a case out of lies. There is no evidence
whatsoever that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after the
dispatcher (who has no real authority) advised him not to. It's all made
up. In fact, the 911 tape proves otherwise when Zimmerman said he lost
sight of Martin.

> >The charge
> > was plead down and he didn't serve any time in jail.
>
> That's nice.
>
> >No domestic
> > disputes either.  His ex-girlfriend had a restraining order on him, but
> > he had one on her as well.  No charges ever filed for any kind of
> > violence.
>
> Mmmm hmmm.
>
> I really can't respond to this. If you think those two instances are
> not illustrative of a short fuse, a volatile temperament, I don't know
> what to say.

Don't say anything--ask. Ask why the state of Florida issued a CCW to a
person who had a simple restraining order and a drunken incident with a
police officer?

I have a CCW, and in an extremely drunken state as a minor, I too had an
incident with police. But I'm not a violent person--never was. Alcohol
like drugs makes you do things you would otherwise not do. The police
dropped all charges against me because of my state of mind. The alcohol
prompted my actions--not my personality.

Anybody can file a restraining order for any reason even if it's for
revenge. You never had a fight with a girlfriend of yours? And because
Zimmerman had a restraining order against his girlfriend, does that mean
she's a violent person?

Martin was staying in the complex because he was suspended from school
suspected of theft. So is he automatically guilty too?

What you and others are attempting to do is make Zimmerman out to be
somebody he is not in effort to cast guilt and suspicion. Everybody F's
up including Martin which is why his FaceBook posts were deleted
immediately after his death. Zimmerman may not be an angel, but neither
was Martin.

[The Starmaker]

>Libertarian wrote:
>
> Americans shooting unarmed fellow Americans in the Red States.
>
> I don't see the problem.

The problem is...you don't see the problem. You'll probably from Canada...that's where deserters move to, are you a deserter?

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Apr 26, 10:16 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article

> <79b72502-1eea-4b19-a132-aa37b35ed...@d20g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>,

>
>
>
>
>
>  thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > What the court rules, the court rules. But it would be safe to assume
> > > > I'll always think he's an over-reactive paranoid ass with a record of
> > > > domestic and other violent acts.
>
> > > Nope, you're batting 500 again.
>
> > Oh, come on now.
>
> > >Only one arrest in a so-called violent
> > > case where he was a drunk kid and pushed a police officer.
>
> > And that isn't a problem for you? The guy obviously has an issue with
> > authority, which is why he continued to follow Martin when instructed
> > otherwise. Despite this history of behavior, you tend to believe it
> > was the kid who took an attitude with Zimmerman, not the other way
> > around? Zimmerman had the audacity to assault a police officer!
> > Tackling a kid is nothing.
>
> People under the influence behave in ways they otherwise may not sober.
> This is nothing new, nor indicative of their personality.

Sure it is. Beat your wife while drunk and you're still a wife beater.

>
> Once again, you try to make a case out of lies.  There is no evidence
> whatsoever that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after the
> dispatcher (who has no real authority) advised him not to. It's all made
> up.  In fact, the 911 tape proves otherwise when Zimmerman said he lost
> sight of Martin.

Because Zimmerman is telling the truth? There is only one witness.
We'll know what they have when it gets to trial.

>
> > >The charge
> > > was plead down and he didn't serve any time in jail.
>
> > That's nice.
>
> > >No domestic
> > > disputes either. His ex-girlfriend had a restraining order on him, but
> > > he had one on her as well. No charges ever filed for any kind of
> > > violence.
>
> > Mmmm hmmm.
>
> > I really can't respond to this. If you think those two instances are
> > not illustrative of a short fuse, a volatile temperament, I don't know
> > what to say.
>
> Don't say anything--ask.  Ask why the state of Florida issued a CCW to a
> person who had a simple restraining order and a drunken incident with a
> police officer?

That's a good question.

> I have a CCW, and in an extremely drunken state as a minor, I too had an
> incident with police.  But I'm not a violent person--never was.  Alcohol
> like drugs makes you do things you would otherwise not do.  The police
> dropped all charges against me because of my state of mind.  The alcohol
> prompted my actions--not my personality.

See above. I think you're personalizing this. Just because you are not
a violent person doesn't mean the same applies to Zimmerman.

>
> Anybody can file a restraining order for any reason even if it's for
> revenge.

No, that is not true for every state.

You never had a fight with a girlfriend of yours?  And because
> Zimmerman had a restraining order against his girlfriend, does that mean
> she's a violent person?

I'm a woman. And, no, I've never had a physical fight.

>
> Martin was staying in the complex because he was suspended from school
> suspected of theft. So is he automatically guilty too?

And it's ridiculous. I can't tell you how many times I've had baggies
with earrings and jewelry findings and tools to repair. A baggy with
earrings and tools means nothing. It's laughable.

>
> What you and others are attempting to do is make Zimmerman out to be
> somebody he is not in effort to cast guilt and suspicion.

Listen, an unarmed kid is dead. And people want to know why and how
this happened.

>Everybody F's
> up including Martin which is why his FaceBook posts were deleted
> immediately after his death.

And apparently you can still find Zimmerman there.

>Zimmerman may not be an angel, but neither
> was Martin.

I'm not saying he was. I'm not even calling it racial. I'm saying that
some self-appointed community watch person, with an attitude and a
gun, followed and killed an unarmed kid who was simply walking through
his neighborhood. That mistake concerns all communities. It could have
been anyone's kid. At the very least, this is a tragic and careless
accidental death.

[thepinkpantsuit]

Yeah, sure. I change so many minds. Why does everyone always think I'm
a guy?! That's rhetorical. Don't answer it.

[The Starmaker]

It's your...tone. It's sounds...aggresive. Do you play with guns?

[thepinkpantsuit]

What tone? I think I sound feminine!

[The Starmaker]

I'm not talking about the sound of your voice...it's your ascii
characters.

[thepinkpantsuit]

All and all this was an anger-free thread. A beautiful thing. I can
feel a cool calm breeze rush over it.

[The Starmaker]

I certaintly wouldn't want to be in a jury room with you...I put a hoodie on you and shoot you!

[Dano]

"thepinkpantsuit" wrote in message
news:7363260e-81d7-40c1...@er9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

====================================

What a scary thought. An aggressive woman. You go girl!

[ray]

In article
<4980ed6d-4c43-49f3...@l3g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,

thepinkpantsuit <editor...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >Zimmerman may not be an angel, but neither
> > was Martin.
>
> I'm not saying he was. I'm not even calling it racial. I'm saying that
> some self-appointed community watch person, with an attitude and a
> gun, followed and killed an unarmed kid who was simply walking through
> his neighborhood. That mistake concerns all communities. It could have
> been anyone's kid. At the very least, this is a tragic and careless
> accidental death.

So if some 16 year old breaks into my house this evening, and I make
swiss cheese out of him, you would object to this? If not, why would
you object to a guy protecting himself against an attack from a 17 year
old 160 lbs guy? An attack is an attack. And if Zimmerman was attacked
which all evidence points to that he was, then he had every right to use
deadly force as I do inside of my home. I don't care if he's 17 or 55.

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Apr 27, 4:19 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article

> <4980ed6d-4c43-49f3-bd36-3d1eae2da...@l3g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >Zimmerman may not be an angel, but neither
> > > was Martin.
>
> > I'm not saying he was. I'm not even calling it racial. I'm saying that
> > some self-appointed community watch person, with an attitude and a
> > gun, followed and killed an unarmed kid who was simply walking through
> > his neighborhood. That mistake concerns all communities. It could have
> > been anyone's kid. At the very least, this is a tragic and careless
> > accidental death.
>
> So if some 16 year old breaks into my house this evening, and I make
> swiss cheese out of him, you would object to this?

That is a false analogy. <wink, wink, giggle, giggle, feminizing,
here.>

Now you're talking about someone perpetrating a crime on your private
property, with the intent to do harm, which is not comparable to an
unarmed kid simply walking along--toodle-dee--do--on city property.

If not, why would
> you object to a guy protecting himself against an attack from a 17 year
> old 160 lbs guy?  An attack is an attack.

Oh, no, an attack isn't an attack. It's standing your ground when
hassled and followed by a stranger.

And if Zimmerman was attacked
> which all evidence points to that he was, then he had every right to use
> deadly force as I do inside of my home.  I don't care if he's 17 or 55.

I already explained why it's not the equivalent. And I'd call it
excessive deadly force used after he initiated a confrontation with an
unarmed teen.

It all comes down to which party was "standing ground."

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

Florida judge rejects bail hike for Trayvon Martin's killer

Friday, April 27, 2012

http://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martins-killer-raises-more-200-000-defense-021028644.html

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

Blacks, Libs Gear Up For Rodney King 2.0 Riots Re: Trayvon

http://www.joeclarke.net/

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Apr 27, 5:54 pm, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.

Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> Florida judge rejects bail hike for Trayvon Martin's killer
>
> Friday, April 27, 2012
>

> http://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martins-killer-raises-more-200-000-defe...

>
> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> Om Shanti

"Lester said he needed more information about Zimmerman's fund-raising
before he could agree to any request for reconsideration of the bond."

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

Forwarded post:

luther
April 22, 2012

When all is said and done George Zimmerman will be
recognized as a hero who has put his life on the line
repeatedly defending his community.

End of forwarded post from:
http://www.irishcentral.com/story/news/from-the-right/trayvon-martin-shooting-was-not-an-act-of-racism-but-a-community-trying-to-defend-itself-148455875.html?commentspage=3

[ray]

In article
<dd22f2a0-b65d-4ca1...@f5g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,

Exactly. And there is no evidence or even hint of evidence that
Zimmerman tracked Martin down and cornered him. That's why this case
should never make it to trial.

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

Black Panther's Bounty for Zimmerman

Friday, April 27, 2012

http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2012/04/27/3233/

[Bill Steele]

Has anyone else noticed that most of the groups to which this was posted
are fictitious?

[thepinkpantsuit]

On May 2, 3:25 pm, Bill Steele <w...@cornel.edu> wrote:
> Has anyone else noticed that most of the groups to which this was posted
> are fictitious?

Um....good catch!

I'm used to it.

[The Starmaker]

furthermore pickpantsuit, if the two of us were in the Trump boardroom, I would kick your ass bigtime!

You'd be in tears..

[thepinkpantsuit]

I'm sure of it.

I cannot believe this is who you are trolling.