trayvan martin

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Zimmerman has not made any comments outside of the statements quoted in the police report. You must be referring to comments made by others. In any case, the claim that he was "inching his way toward the grass" is entirely consistent with what happened, even if it turns out that those third-party comments are not accurate.

I am perfectly willing to change my mind on the whole matter, but I need to see some facts that contradict the police report, EMT report, and two eye witnesses. Do you have any facts?
lol, now you are asking me if i have facts, when i have had to correct yours all of 20 minutes ago.

was unaware there were only 2 eye witnesses, you might want to look into that. was unaware there was an EMT report, link please?

and lol @ believing what's in a police report. not even worth the paper it's printed on.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
I get where you are coming from. It sucks to be on the wrong side of the facts.

This is a bit of news to me though, is the "black kid" charged with something? What stereotypes are you clinging to?
yes, he is charged with threatening a man's life, and has already paid with the death penalty.

zimmerman's tall tale only makes sense if you assume martin was a guilty party. if you assume he is innocent, say walking home with some candy when a man with a history of violence and aggression attacked him, you come to a completely different conclusion on what should be the next step here.

let's just get the damn thing to trial.
 

desert dude

Well-Known Member
lol, now you are asking me if i have facts, when i have had to correct yours all of 20 minutes ago.

was unaware there were only 2 eye witnesses, you might want to look into that. was unaware there was an EMT report, link please?

and lol @ believing what's in a police report. not even worth the paper it's printed on.
That will be very convincing to a jury.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
That will be very convincing to a jury.
sanford police have a history which will be very much examined at a trial and applied to this case. reasonable doubt already exists given the history of this particular police force.

i mean, this is the same town where a black teen was shot in the back and the shooter got off with self defense.
 

desert dude

Well-Known Member
sanford police have a history which will be very much examined at a trial and applied to this case. reasonable doubt already exists given the history of this particular police force.

i mean, this is the same town where a black teen was shot in the back and the shooter got off with self defense.
Good luck with that, prosecutor.
 

Mindmelted

Well-Known Member
sanford police have a history which will be very much examined at a trial and applied to this case. reasonable doubt already exists given the history of this particular police force.

i mean, this is the same town where a black teen was shot in the back and the shooter got off with self defense.


Thats sounds like a terrible prosecutor not the police force.....
 

Carne Seca

Well-Known Member
sanford police have a history which will be very much examined at a trial and applied to this case. reasonable doubt already exists given the history of this particular police force.

i mean, this is the same town where a black teen was shot in the back and the shooter got off with self defense.
don't forget the black homeless man nearly beaten to death by a police officer's son and no charges were ever filed (even with it being filmed). The same police officer that was heading the Trayvon Martin investigation. I see a pattern here.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Good luck with that, prosecutor.
i'm no prosecutor, the prosecutor stepped down due to a "conflict of interest". darn pesky facts.

don't forget the black homeless man nearly beaten to death by a police officer's son and no charges were ever filed (even with it being filmed). The same police officer that was heading the Trayvon Martin investigation. I see a pattern here.
darn pesky facts.
 

desert dude

Well-Known Member
If Zimmer's account of the shooting of Trayvon is accurate, and I have seen nothing to indicate that it is not, then Zimmer is immune from prosecution. He cannot be charged, which probably explains why he was not charged.

"
Florida

2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[SUP][20][/SUP]
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013. 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. (2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer. (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property. 776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
"
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
I wish to hell this would go to trial already. This thread is getting as bad as the paulbot threads and their insistence that Holy Ron the Paul was going to win the GOP nomination, may his blessed vaginal speculum illuminate the darkest of caverns. That black kid just HAS to be guilty. He just HAS to!!! Otherwise, all our of well worn stereotypes will fall by the wayside.
oh lol! "That's one door down." cn
 

desert dude

Well-Known Member
I have no idea whether the following is a true statement but it certainly seems to contradict the many implications in this thread that George Zimmerman was a racist.


“You will recall the incident of the beating of the black homeless man Sherman Ware on December 4, 2010 by the son of a Sanford police officer. The beating sparked outrage in the community but there were very few that stepped up to do anything about it. I would presume the inaction was because of the fact that he was homeless not because he was black. Do you know the individual who stepped up when no one else in the black community would? Do you know who spent tireless hours putting flyers on the cars of persons parked in the churches of the black community? Do you know who waited for the church-goers to get out of church so that he could hand them flyers in an attempt to organize the black community against this horrible miscarriage of justice? Do you know who helped organize the City Hall meeting on January 8, 2011 at Sanford City Hall?? That person was GEORGE ZIMMERMAN.” – from a letter to Turner Clayton of the Seminole County NAACP written by “a concerned Zimmerman family member”

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/04/daniel-zimmerman/quote-of-the-day-narrative-destroying-edition/
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
I have no idea whether the following is a true statement but it certainly seems to contradict the many implications in this thread that George Zimmerman was a racist.


“You will recall the incident of the beating of the black homeless man Sherman Ware on December 4, 2010 by the son of a Sanford police officer. The beating sparked outrage in the community but there were very few that stepped up to do anything about it. I would presume the inaction was because of the fact that he was homeless not because he was black. Do you know the individual who stepped up when no one else in the black community would? Do you know who spent tireless hours putting flyers on the cars of persons parked in the churches of the black community? Do you know who waited for the church-goers to get out of church so that he could hand them flyers in an attempt to organize the black community against this horrible miscarriage of justice? Do you know who helped organize the City Hall meeting on January 8, 2011 at Sanford City Hall?? That person was GEORGE ZIMMERMAN.” – from a letter to Turner Clayton of the Seminole County NAACP written by “a concerned Zimmerman family member”

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/04/daniel-zimmerman/quote-of-the-day-narrative-destroying-edition/
fucking balloons.
 

Carne Seca

Well-Known Member
fucking balloons.
A "Zimmerman family member" wrote this. No photos of him doing this? No flyers to back this up? Funny how he is trying so hard to help organize the "black community." If it wasn't a back issue and rather a homeless one then why was he "organizing" the "black community"? Homelessness is strictly a black problem? Shouldn't this have been for the ENTIRE community? Yeah. VERY believable.
 

desert dude

Well-Known Member
A "Zimmerman family member" wrote this. No photos of him doing this? No flyers to back this up? Funny how he is trying so hard to help organize the "black community." If it wasn't a back issue and rather a homeless one then why was he "organizing" the "black community"? Homelessness is strictly a black problem? Shouldn't this have been for the ENTIRE community? Yeah. VERY believable.
Like I said, I don't know whether the statement is true. I only posted it because it contradicts the prevailing wisdom here that Zimmer was a racist. It might be a total fabrication by the Zimmer clan, but I would think that if it is true then there will be people who will step forward to testify to it if that ever becomes necessary. Reading the SYG law, though, I don't see how Zimmer can be charged.
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Like I said, I don't know whether the statement is true. I only posted it because it contradicts the prevailing wisdom here that Zimmer was a racist. It might be a total fabrication by the Zimmer clan, but I would think that if it is true then there will be people who will step forward to testify to it if that ever becomes necessary. Reading the SYG law, though, I don't see how Zimmer can be charged.
why post it if you don't know if its true or not. You will defend Zimmerman no matter what it seems.
 
Top