ZIMMERMAN CHARGED!? Tune in @ 6:00pm EST News

[brewmama]

WOuld you be willing to enlighten me? I mean about the why? For real though not a over stereotype version

I don't think it is just an issue of taking one side over the other, but, speaking for myself, it is a reaction to the blatant intentional race-baiting that the media indulged in,(along with the lawyers that the Martins hired.) There was really no racial component to it, and to see the extent that Zimmerman was lied about was just so over the top and dishonest that it was purely evil. Then Martin was portrayed as such an angelic innocent, when that was also false. On top of that, memories of the Duke lacrosse case being portrayed in much the same way, and turning out to be totally false, make skepticism of the media line quite reasonable. I cannot believe the harm and disservice to our country that the handling of these cases has done, whipping up hatred and black on white racism to a fever pitch. Then come the truly ridiculous charges leveled at Zimmerman, which are jaw-dropping in their inanity. Read what Alan Dershowitz said about it.

And then to hear people who claim to be open minded and tolerant either actively engage in the propagation of hatred and lies or are merely willingly drawn into it without learning the facts is truly astounding. They say nothing about the black on white violence that has occurred because of the way this was reported, with much less provocation than George Zimmerman had, which just shows the hypocritical nature of their stance. It's all about making blacks victims and angry, angry, angry. They say nothing about black on black crime and the horrendous murder rate for young blacks, except of course, to say it's "racism". So obviously they don't really care about blacks at all, they just want to use whatever circumstances are available to promote their cause du jour, which is usually along the lines of "whites are bad, guns are bad". Yes, it is a great shame that a young black man is dead, but the fact remains that if he hadn't attacked George Zimmerman he wouldn't be.

 

[rturner76]

I don't think it is just an issue of taking one side over the other, but, speaking for myself, it is a reaction to the blatant intentional race-baiting that the media indulged in,(along with the lawyers that the Martins hired.) There was really no racial component to it, and to see the extent that Zimmerman was lied about was just so over the top and dishonest that it was purely evil. Then Martin was portrayed as such an angelic innocent, when that was also false. On top of that, memories of the Duke lacrosse case being portrayed in much the same way, and turning out to be totally false, make skepticism of the media line quite reasonable. I cannot believe the harm and disservice to our country that the handling of these cases has done, whipping up hatred and black on white racism to a fever pitch. Then come the truly ridiculous charges leveled at Zimmerman, which are jaw-dropping in their inanity. Read what Alan Dershowitz said about it.

And then to hear people who claim to be open minded and tolerant either actively engage in the propagation of hatred and lies or are merely willingly drawn into it without learning the facts is truly astounding. They say nothing about the black on white violence that has occurred because of the way this was reported, with much less provocation than George Zimmerman had, which just shows the hypocritical nature of their stance. It's all about making blacks victims and angry, angry, angry. They say nothing about black on black crime and the horrendous murder rate for young blacks, except of course, to say it's "racism". So obviously they don't really care about blacks at all, they just want to use whatever circumstances are available to promote their cause du jour, which is usually along the lines of "whites are bad, guns are bad". Yes, it is a great shame that a young black man is dead, but the fact remains that if he hadn't attacked George Zimmerman he wouldn't be.

That is definitely the right wing stance laid out perfectly. Then there is the left wing side. We will never know what transpired between the two of them in that confrontation etc. WHy was he stalking Martin? Plus other questions. I guess it will be impossible to hear it objectively. Why the split is so left right I don't know but I'm left wing and on Martin's side myself so I'm no better.

 

[Lovely Lane]

I don't think it is just an issue of taking one side over the other, but, speaking for myself, it is a reaction to the blatant intentional race-baiting that the media indulged in,(along with the lawyers that the Martins hired.) There was really no racial component to it, and to see the extent that Zimmerman was lied about was just so over the top and dishonest that it was purely evil. Then Martin was portrayed as such an angelic innocent, when that was also false. On top of that, memories of the Duke lacrosse case being portrayed in much the same way, and turning out to be totally false, make skepticism of the media line quite reasonable. I cannot believe the harm and disservice to our country that the handling of these cases has done, whipping up hatred and black on white racism to a fever pitch. Then come the truly ridiculous charges leveled at Zimmerman, which are jaw-dropping in their inanity. Read what Alan Dershowitz said about it.

And then to hear people who claim to be open minded and tolerant either actively engage in the propagation of hatred and lies or are merely willingly drawn into it without learning the facts is truly astounding. They say nothing about the black on white violence that has occurred because of the way this was reported, with much less provocation than George Zimmerman had, which just shows the hypocritical nature of their stance. It's all about making blacks victims and angry, angry, angry. They say nothing about black on black crime and the horrendous murder rate for young blacks, except of course, to say it's "racism". So obviously they don't really care about blacks at all, they just want to use whatever circumstances are available to promote their cause du jour, which is usually along the lines of "whites are bad, guns are bad". Yes, it is a great shame that a young black man is dead, but the fact remains that if he hadn't attacked George Zimmerman he wouldn't be.

No, I don't see it that way.
To always blame the media, especially a so-called labeled 'liberal media' is so typical and exhausting. The media is one of the first to be blamed for uncivil actions of others.

Zimmerman killed Martin, the police did nothing about it until out-side help put the story on front page news. Sure, crazies from both sides of the issue were highlighted, that sells newspapers, more viewers tune into the News channels. Problem is, people tend to forget what the News Media is in business for, they are a for-profit company. They are not a public service organization on the government dole. Look at Fox, they ran their share of commentaries and interviews on it, and they were just as bad or good as all others in whipping up their base.

Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck, but no, he wanted to play cop and be a hero.

 

[ulu]

but the fact remains that if he hadn't attacked George Zimmerman he wouldn't be (dead).

If zimmerman hadn't pursued him, for no legitimate reason, he wouldn't be dead.

 

[IisJustMe]

WOuld you be willing to enlighten me? I mean about the why? For real though not a over stereotype version

It's a psychological compulsion to support the perceived underdog, on the part of the liberal who takes the side of the black. Over the last 50 years it has become engrained in the liberal psyche to automatically assume a conflict between a white man (Hispanic being an adequate replacement) and a black man is the result of the black man being made a the victim, as he has always been, whereas the white man is wrong simply because he's white.

I can't explain the whys and the wherefores of this phenomenon adequately, except to say it was the moderate left (that was the only kind of "left" we had in this country in the 1960s) with the support of the centrists of the rest of the country, that accomplished monumental change through the civil rights movement, a legacy of the Kennedy presidency. Since then, the left has seen all blacks as victims of the white majority, and they certainly were in the Old South that still existed as late as 1968. The left took upon itself the cause of champion of the less fortunate, the perceived victim, because they felt guilty about what their own people had done to the black minority. Perhaps they should have, but they have gone overboard to the point that, when individual blacks have acted as anything other than the less fortunate or the victim, the assumption is that some great injustice has been done to him/her by a white person that has caused him/her to act in such a negative manner. Therefore, they can't be held responsible for their actions. After all, they're the victim. They can't be the perpetrator, but if they are, it isn't really their fault. Its white society's, its government's, its law enforcement's. Anyone but the actual fault of the perpetrator. That, at least, is the reasoning.

The truth is, everyone is responsible for their own actions. No one gets a free ride for acting like a jerk, a crazy person or a thug. This is one more example of the prevailing antithesis of that truth. Martin is given a pass simply because he's black. Ignored is the evidence he saw Zimmerman following him, doubled back and beat Zimmerman severely. Zimmerman should not have had a gun, as neighborhood watch personnel are not allowed to carry them. For his sake, however, it is good that he did. Sadly, had Martin killed Zimmerman, the reaction would have been non-existent. Just another black kid attacking a white (Hispanic) man that would have quickly been swept under the rug because it is politically incorrect to identify a black criminal as such.

 

[rturner76]

It's a psychological compulsion to support the perceived underdog, on the part of the liberal who takes the side of the black. Over the last 50 years it has become engrained in the liberal psyche to automatically assume a conflict between a white man (Hispanic being an adequate replacement) and a black man is the result of the black man being made a the victim, as he has always been, whereas the white man is wrong simply because he's white.

I can't explain the whys and the wherefores of this phenomenon adequately, except to say it was the moderate left (that was the only kind of "left" we had in this country in the 1960s) with the support of the centrists of the rest of the country, that accomplished monumental change through the civil rights movement, a legacy of the Kennedy presidency. Since then, the left has seen all blacks as victims of the white majority, and they certainly were in the Old South that still existed as late as 1968. The left took upon itself the cause of champion of the less fortunate, the perceived victim, because they felt guilty about what their own people had done to the black minority. Perhaps they should have, but they have gone overboard to the point that, when individual blacks have acted as anything other than the less fortunate or the victim, the assumption is that some great injustice has been done to him/her by a white person that has caused him/her to act in such a negative manner. Therefore, they can't be held responsible for their actions. After all, they're the victim. They can't be the perpetrator, but if they are, it isn't really their fault. Its white society's, its government's, its law enforcement's. Anyone but the actual fault of the perpetrator. That, at least, is the reasoning.

The truth is, everyone is responsible for their own actions. No one gets a free ride for acting like a jerk, a crazy person or a thug. This is one more example of the prevailing antithesis of that truth. Martin is given a pass simply because he's black. Ignored is the evidence he saw Zimmerman following him, doubled back and beat Zimmerman severely. Zimmerman should not have had a gun, as neighborhood watch personnel are not allowed to carry them. For his sake, however, it is good that he did. Sadly, had Martin killed Zimmerman, the reaction would have been non-existent. Just another black kid attacking a white (Hispanic) man that would have quickly been swept under the rug because it is politically incorrect to identify a black criminal as such.

OK We've picke'd apart the left so what about the right....Is it white makes right? 2nd ammendment? Protect yourself from the animals?

 

[IisJustMe]

OK We've picke'd apart the left so what about the right....Is it white makes right? 2nd ammendment? Protect yourself from the animals?

We have an overly developed sense of right and wrong, and we tend to judge based on facts, circumstances and the law. For the most part, that doesn't lead us astray, but it can, when we fail to consider all the extenuating circumstances that might divert us from a proper conclusion.

As with liberals, many conservatives never bother to look for the extenuating circumstances, and they unfailingly take the side of the white, assuming the black person is the thug, criminal or drug addict they assume all blacks are. That's called stereotyping, and it comes from the tendency of the Conservative mind to view anyone as different from them as inferior. I have to admit most of us do this to greater or lesser degrees, most to lesser. But those who do it consistently will regularly come down against any minority in any situation because it simply is how they think, regardless of how misguided it is.

 

[rturner76]

We have an overly developed sense of right and wrong, and we tend to judge based on facts, circumstances and the law. For the most part, that doesn't lead us astray, but it can, when we fail to consider all the extenuating circumstances that might divert us from a proper conclusion.

As with liberals, many conservatives never bother to look for the extenuating circumstances, and they unfailingly take the side of the white, assuming the black person is the thug, criminal or drug addict they assume all blacks are. That's called stereotyping, and it comes from the tendency of the Conservative mind to view anyone as different from them as inferior. I have to admit most of us do this to greater or lesser degrees, most to lesser. But those who do it consistently will regularly come down against any minority in any situation because it simply is how they think, regardless of how misguided it is.

I think this is spot on. I think the liberal assessment was a little over simplified but I can't say I totally disagree with it. Good insightful posting!

 

[brewmama]

No, I don't see it that way.
To always blame the media, especially a so-called labeled 'liberal media' is so typical and exhausting. The media is one of the first to be blamed for uncivil actions of others.

Zimmerman killed Martin, the police did nothing about it until out-side help put the story on front page news. Sure, crazies from both sides of the issue were highlighted, that sells newspapers, more viewers tune into the News channels. Problem is, people tend to forget what the News Media is in business for, they are a for-profit company. They are not a public service organization on the government dole. Look at Fox, they ran their share of commentaries and interviews on it, and they were just as bad or good as all others in whipping up their base.

Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck, but no, he wanted to play cop and be a hero.

I cannot understand how you can just overlook the egregious falsehoods perpetrated by the media. How can you just ignore it, and when one complains about it, simply claim that it is typical and exhausting? Please explain how Fox news lied in a similar manner.

Zimmerman killed Martin WITH CAUSE, and the police had no case to charge him with, and still don't for that matter. What I object to is the unthinking knee jerk reaction that is so pervasive here, with no regard to real justice.

 

[brewmama]

We have an overly developed sense of right and wrong, and we tend to judge based on facts, circumstances and the law. For the most part, that doesn't lead us astray, but it can, when we fail to consider all the extenuating circumstances that might divert us from a proper conclusion.

As with liberals, many conservatives never bother to look for the extenuating circumstances, and they unfailingly take the side of the white, assuming the black person is the thug, criminal or drug addict they assume all blacks are. That's called stereotyping, and it comes from the tendency of the Conservative mind to view anyone as different from them as inferior. I have to admit most of us do this to greater or lesser degrees, most to lesser. But those who do it consistently will regularly come down against any minority in any situation because it simply is how they think, regardless of how misguided it is.

I hope you are speaking for yourself, because I find your conclusion erroneous, at least for anyone I know, and certainly most of the posters here. Perhaps there are some folks, somewhere who fit that portrayal, but I certainly don't see any "tendency of the Conservative mind to view anyone as different from them as inferior". Not anyone that speaks for conservatism anyway. I certainly would have voted for Herman Cain, Alan Keyes, or any other conservative black. The only ones I see viewing others as inferior are the liberal elitists, including Obama, with his "bitter clingers" remark.

 

[Lovely Lane]

I cannot understand how you can just overlook the egregious falsehoods perpetrated by the media.

I didn't think I had.

How can you just ignore it, and when one complains about it, simply claim that it is typical and exhausting? Please explain how Fox news lied in a similar manner.

All to often it becomes exhausting in hearing that the media is to blame for others acting uncivil. Seems to me that you have ignored Zimmerman's personality of being a busy-body with a hero complex.

Zimmerman killed Martin WITH CAUSE, and the police had no case to charge him with, and still don't for that matter. What I object to is the unthinking knee jerk reaction that is so pervasive here, with no regard to real justice.

That is to be seen. Remember the first investigating detective wanted to press charges but was stopped by chief and DA, as I recall.

Killed Martin with Cause? That is yet to be proven. To place himself in that position of selecting a young black man, stalk for several blocks, and confront with unauthorized self-proclaim authority of being a concerned citizen with concealed weapon is not to me Cause. That to me is baiting a confrontation and then killing a human-being.

 

[IisJustMe]

I hope you are speaking for yourself, because I find your conclusion erroneous, at least for anyone I know, and certainly most of the posters here. Perhaps there are some folks, somewhere who fit that portrayal, but I certainly don't see any "tendency of the Conservative mind to view anyone as different from them as inferior". Not anyone that speaks for conservatism anyway. I certainly would have voted for Herman Cain, Alan Keyes, or any other conservative black. The only ones I see viewing others as inferior are the liberal elitists, including Obama, with his "bitter clingers" remark.

I'm speaking from a professional, psychologically based viewpoint, and not in relation to "all" conservatives or "all" liberals (as I detailed in the other post). I note, however, you didn't take issue with that one.

Both sides have their flaws and ingrained ways of thinking. The more honest we are about our propensities, even if we never display them, the more likely we will overcome the polarization that will destroy this country.

 

[Lovely Lane]

I'm speaking from a professional, psychologically based viewpoint, and not in relation to "all" conservatives or "all" liberals (as I detailed in the other post). I note, however, you didn't take issue with that one.

Both sides have their flaws and ingrained ways of thinking. The more honest we are about our propensities, even if we never display them, the more likely we will overcome the polarization that will destroy this country.

I'm speaking from a professional, psychologically based viewpoint,??? Really? And what are your qualifications? Viewer of Fox News, perhaps.

Polarization of politics comes from the religious right in supporting a cult high priest when they made religion a issue in 2008 and continuing placing class against class, white vs. black. Now that is a psychologically view of the con's. As they are doing in the Martin case. Fox News and the SBC talking heads made it a race-case.

 

[Illuminaughty]

I agree with innocent until proven guilty. That applies not only to Zimmerman but also to Trayvon Martin. People have already found Trayvon guilty of having tried to kill Zimmerman. A lot of the same people attacking folks for finding Zimmerman guilty without a trial have themselves found Trayvon guilty.

 

[RaiseTheDead]

People have already found Trayvon guilty of having tried to kill Zimmerman. A lot of the same people attacking folks for finding Zimmerman guilty without a trial have themselves found Trayvon guilty.

The only thing Trayvon's "guilty" of is being shot to death. Killed with one bullet? Normally that's reserved for Hollywood. What was Zimmerman packing, a 44 magnum or a judge? There's so much we don't know about the event; like anything relevant!

How did Z not get covered in blood?
" " " get to the location of the shooting in the first place?
Why didn't Martin resolve this peacefully? Did he try and Z was really that belligerent? The only reasonable outcome to this seems to me to be the 2 of them walk to Martin's door, proving that he had business being there in the first place, and placating Z. At 17 I certainly would've thought of that, and I also feel some ethical duty on Z's behalf to suggest that, if there was any dialog at all.

 

[RaiseTheDead]

If Martin was afraid or concerned at being followed by a stranger, why not make his own 9-1-1 call? Why not beat-feet it back to his girlfriend's apartment and be done with it? Why double back, confront and attack Zimmerman?

1. It wasn't Trayvon's girlfriend's apartment. Is it even established if Trayvon was living there, or if it was a visit?

2. We don't actually know that Trayvon "doubled back, confronted and attacked." At first I thought this was the essence of the case, but maybe not?

the fact that he was attacked gives him the right to defend himself with deadly force.

1. It's not a fact he was attacked.
2. I'm not sure that merely being attacked grants you the right to use deadly force, even in FL. It seems the law is written to give you the right to do what Z did in a situation such as Z describes. Coincidence?

I still don't see it as at all probable that someone calls the police, and THEN goes out of their way to kill someone.

 

[ulu]

Say someone breaks into your home; you fight them, gaining the upper hand and start smashing their head on the ground, but then they pull out a gun and kill you. Would you have been in the wrong because you were smashing their head on the ground? Of course not.

Similarly, martin was within his rights to defend himself when zimmerman was stalking him. Zimmerman was the aggressor by following martin for no legit reason.

 

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

Wow, the ignorance of the law in this thread is astounding. In addition the assumptions so often made by posters who claim that others are assuming really provide some humor.

Look up F.S. 786 and related use of force laws.

Also, in so many threads we have already stated the legal definition and related Florida Statutes regarding "stalking". Zimmerman did not stalk Martin, at least not by legal definition.

We have also defined that dispatchers are not Law Enforcement Officers - at least not in this case, other agencies may use LEO dispatch but the majority in Florida do not including Sanford PD which contracts communications technicians from the Seminole County Sheriff's Office - and this if a command was given Zimmerman would have no reason to abide by it as it did not come from lawful authority. Further, "we don't need you to do that" is not a concise order to cease current activity.

To properly analyze the case we can only use known evidence and actual Statutes. With that in mind here are some questions to ask about the case -

Please consider the relevance of exceptions before answering.

Is it illegal for a person to observe another person (barring voyeurism and other unrelated circumstances)

Is it illegal to talk with or converse (not assault) another person?

Is it illegal to follow or even walk next to another person (barring an injunction for protection) on public or common/public/general use property?

Is it illegal for a person to contact law enforcement in order to make a complaint regarding what they perceive to be a suspicious person?

Please answer or ask for further definition of the question. This whole "answer with a question" business is ridiculous and immature. Each of the above questions can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no" and articulation if needed.

 

[Lovely Lane]

Wow, the ignorance of the law in this thread is astounding. In addition the assumptions so often made by posters who claim that others are assuming really provide some humor.

Look up F.S. 786 and related use of force laws.

Also, in so many threads we have already stated the legal definition and related Florida Statutes regarding "stalking". Zimmerman did not stalk Martin, at least not by legal definition.

We have also defined that dispatchers are not Law Enforcement Officers - at least not in this case, other agencies may use LEO dispatch but the majority in Florida do not including Sanford PD which contracts communications technicians from the Seminole County Sheriff's Office - and this if a command was given Zimmerman would have no reason to abide by it as it did not come from lawful authority. Further, "we don't need you to do that" is not a concise order to cease current activity.

To properly analyze the case we can only use known evidence and actual Statutes. With that in mind here are some questions to ask about the case -

Is it illegal for a person to observe another person?

Is it illegal to talk with or converse (not assault) another person?

Is it illegal to follow or even walk next to another person (barring an injunction for protection) on public or common/public/general use property?

Is it illegal for a person to contact law enforcement in order to make a complaint regarding what they perceive to be a suspicious person?

Please answer or ask for further definition of the question. This whole "answer with a question" business is ridiculous and immature. Each of the above questions can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no" and articulation if needed.

oh, it's you again and the law. I remember that you were proven wrong in the early days of Martin case. Zimmerman has been charged where you said he wouldn't be.
Stalking comes in different forms, one has a legal definition the other hasn't. Zimmerman stalked Martin for blocks because he was a black kid in a hoody. Zimmerman killed Martin, Zimmerman lies, Zimmerman has a history of playing busybody with a twist of wanting to be a hero. If it were not for concealed pistol in his pants Zimmerman would have stayed in the truck.

 

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

oh, it's you again and the law. I remember that you were proven wrong in the early days of Martin case. Zimmerman has been charged where you said he wouldn't be.
Stalking comes in different forms, one has a legal definition the other hasn't. Zimmerman stalked Martin for blocks because he was a black kid in a hoody. Zimmerman killed Martin, Zimmerman lies, Zimmerman has a history of playing busybody with a twist of wanting to be a hero. If it were not for concealed pistol in his pants Zimmerman would have stayed in the truck.

You recall my statements incorrectly. What I had stated numerous times was that given currently released evidence that I could not see a rightful or lawful charge because of the lack of probable cause. Does that ring a bell?

I also stated numerous times that the SAO has all the evidence and has a more complete picture of the event and thus anything we could say about the case beyond what evidence was released was in fact, speculation. Starting to sound familiar now?

Again, your definition of stalking is not relevant as we are speaking of law. Thus a legal definition is the only proper one.

Also, you failed to answer my questions and yet again speculated regarding Zimmerman's actions if he had not had a firearm.