"If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon." - Obama. What the MSM isn't telling you.

There's about 13-14 thousand murders a year in the US, I've always wondered what makes a particular crime hit the newstands while the other tens of thousands of murders don't. I think the answer is ultimately them being of benefit to a particular political agenda. Obama, and most of the 300 million other Americans glued to their televiaion sets for thirty billion hours a week don't know either of the people involved, yet here we sit debating the in's and out's of this uninvestigated and untried crime, that's exactly what they want out of the deal. What's so important about this that the news has to clog up with it, what about the other 14 thousand murders? Don't buy into this mass media hype, it's all being played like some kind of sick game to get us to argue with each other about racial issues.

Originally posted by pierregustavetoutant

Nice oversimplification. Your hard facts are very 1 sided and full of spin. Exactly how MSNBC is playing it. Do you work there?
I never heard anywhere in the media of evidence of Trayvon's drug dealing, his size, the fact that witnesses saw him on top of Zimmerman, or that Zimmerman was bleeding.
All I've seen on TV is candy with a sugarcoating. No facts whatsoever.

Most portrayals evoke a white man (rather than hispanic with black family members) who killed a poor unarmed black child who was the sweetest, most precious thing ever. Hitler killed Webster and now the federal government must take away everyone's guns to protect all the Websters in the world.

And the armed/unarmed thing is an argument for people who sit behind a computer in cozy suburbia. The world is a dangerous place. People will harm you. Unless you have some form of Superman's x-ray vision, you assume that the other guy is well armed. If you don't, you are dumb. Or severely injured. Or dead.

And you are complicating the situation. I'm all for the 2nd amendment, and if this case tries to take away from that I will fight it tooth and nail. Martins drug dealing or size frankly have nothing to do with this case. You ever hear the term "flight or fight"? Perhaps Martin decided to fight against Zimmerman because he was tired of being pursued? Let me ask you this straight up. If I was following you around, yelling at you, asking you why you were in my neighborhood, and I KEPT following you. At some point wouldn't you decide to stop and confront me? I know if I was in Martins shoes I would have. And the armed vs unarmed does come into play. Because what Zimmerman should have done was perhaps follow Martin but keep away from him. The police were called. They were en-route. Dispatch TOLD Zimmerman to stop following him. But he kept on. He escalated the situation. Had he stopped pursuing Martin perhaps none of this would have happened. If Martin was doing something illegal then the cops could have dealt with it.

My agitation at this case is that Zimmerman wasn't at least arrested. I mean he was just let go. Even the vigilante killer in NY was arrested and held for a while. They just basically said here "ok free to go" which leads me to believe that yes, you are correct.. much information is not being told here.

Originally posted by nightstalker78
.
4.Didn't see a black kid.He saw a person who didn't belong where he was.

He clearly stated in the 911 tapes that it was a black kid he saw.

5.Get over it.if he wouldve said "#in cracker" or "#ing "spics"..would it be a big deal?No it wouldnt.

It is a big deal it goes toward motive...whether or not the shooting was racially motived

6.Should've stopped.But that has nothing to do with the case.

Has everything to do with the case...It helps in determining justification.

7.Yes it does apply.if you're attacked.Get the facts of the case before you claim the bs you are.

Henderson: Self-defense law sponsor stands his ground

there's nothing in the statute that authorizes pursue and confront. That's a disqualifying factor.

This is from a guy who has sponsored the law....State Rep. Dennis Baxley.


Maybe you should get your facts straight....ugh the lack of intelligence shows.

Originally posted by happyhomemaker29
I could be wrong, but to me, Zimmerman was the original aggressor with his stalking. And, fine, let say he did ask Treyvon what he was doing there. But by then Treyvon had been running from Zimmerman, to the point where he felt flee was no longer an option so fight was. Yes, he probably got a few blows before Zimmerman killed him. But Zimmerman went after him first by stalking and chasing him. If I were on a jury, just knowing the facts that Zimmerman chased him after being told not to, that Zimmerman had a gun and Treyvon did not, that Treyvon landed the first physical blow, I think we'd be looking at manslaughter at best, murder in the 3rd.

I agree with you to an extent. My main question is under what circumstances this turned into a physical confrontation and that's something I don't know. I couldn't convict him not knowing that.

reply to post by kerazeesicko


High five

reply to post by DerekJR321

Originally posted by nightstalker78

Originally posted by DerekJR321

Originally posted by pierregustavetoutant
Let's look at the hard facts of the case. If you take away the media spin, this is not nearly so cut and dry and the media's take and Obama's agit-prop even take on a sinister aspect.
Deny ignorance. Question everything.

Ok. Hard facts.

1. Zimmerman was armed.
2. Martin was unarmed.
3. Martin was walking back to his fathers fiancee's house after buying Ice Tea and Skittles at the store.
4. Zimmerman saw a black kid and began to pursue him.
5. Zimmerman called 911. Made comments like "these as$holes always get away" and "fuc%ing coon".
6. Dispatch asked if Zimmerman was following Martin. When he said yes, Dispatch told him to stop.
7. Zimmerman continued anyway. Stand your ground no longer applies.
8. Zimmerman confronts Martin and they get into a scuffle.
9. Martin is dead.

Those are the "hard facts". So what exactly is the "sweet and innocent" that is being left out here? The kid deserved to die because he was a black kid in a white neighborhood? Or maybe he deserved to die because he didn't obey the Neighborhood Watchman right? Or... MAYBE he deserved to die because he (Martin) saw an armed man following him through the neighborhood.

Hard facts...

1.Zimmerman was legally armed.
2.Yeah he was.so?
3.Media making this kid out to be innocent.Never mind the fact he was in Sanford when he lives in miami.On a school night no less.
4.Didn't see a black kid.He saw a person who didn't belong where he was.
5.Get over it.if he wouldve said "#in cracker" or "#ing "spics"..would it be a big deal?No it wouldnt.
6.Should've stopped.But that has nothing to do with the case.
7.Yes it does apply.if you're attacked.Get the facts of the case before you claim the bs you are.
8 and 9.the kid attacked Zimmerman.

edit on 24-3-2012 by nightstalker78 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-3-2012 by nightstalker78 because: (no reason given)

1.Zimmerman was legally armed.

I fail to see what your point is. Last I checked, carring a gun legally does not give the person a right to kill.

2.Yeah he was.so?

What do you mean "yeah so?" Martin was clearly at an absurd disadvantage to the gun wielding vigilante. Thats an important aspect.

Media making this kid out to be innocent.Never mind the fact he was in Sanford when he lives in miami.On a school night no less.

He was visiting his father and shopping at 711, how is that doing wrong?

4.Didn't see a black kid.He saw a person who didn't belong where he was.

Except Zimmerman does not decide who is supposed to be where. He can NOT make that call.

5.Get over it.if he wouldve said "#in cracker" or "#ing "spics"..would it be a big deal?No it wouldnt.

That did not happen so how you drew a conclusion off a fictional event that you just made up boggles my mind.

6.Should've stopped.But that has nothing to do with the case.

That has EVERYTHING to do with the case. It is a HUGE reason why this kid is dead.

7.Yes it does apply.if you're attacked.Get the facts of the case before you claim the bs you are.

Stand your ground does not apply. Refer to my post on page 22 or 23.

8 and 9.the kid attacked Zimmerman.

Zimmerman chased down a KID for no reason while wielding a weapon. That is just fact. What is not fact is who threw the first punch. That is speculation. And even if Martin had "attacked" Zimmerman, it was clearly out of fear for his life.

reply to post by kerazeesicko


Blah blah blah it's always lack of intelligence with you people.I live not 15 minutes from where this happened.Pretty sure I know more about this case than you do.It's constantly on the news here.Get the # over it.The guy wasn't charged for a reason(as I've already stated).And it isn't because the kid was black.

Originally posted by Chalupas
WHAT THE MSM ISNT TELLING YOU
OBAMA - "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon."

What the protestors and MSM are saying:

-- "Trayvon Martin was a helpless child."--
Don't be fooled by the pictures from his 7th grade graduation. Trayvon Martin was 6'3, 170 pounds, and a football player. Far from helpless against a 5'8, overweight, Zimmerman.

--"Trayvon was a child of high moral standing."--

imageshack.us...
Actually, from his facebook posts we can assume he was a known drug dealer.

--"Zimmerman was told by police not to follow Martin."--
Wrong. Zimmerman was told that by a 911 dispatcher who has no authority.

--"Zimmerman shot at Trayvon without reason."---
Wrong. According to the POLICE REPORT, Zimmerman was bleeding and had wet, grass stains on the back of his shirt.

--"You can hear Trayvon yelling for help in the 911 audio files."
According to EYE WITNESS accounts, Zimmerman was underneath Trayvon Martin yelling for help.

--"Trayvon lived in the nieghborhood."--
False again. Trayvon was serving an 8 day school suspension at the time and staying with his father.

More to come as the investigation continues.

This sort of reminds me of the shooting in Arizona of a democrat congresswoman.

- Gabrielle Giffords - Tucson,AZ

After the shooting the MSM charges in and starts throwing accusations around. - MSNBC -

The MSNBC opportunists have arrived in Florida.

- Lets blame the NRA and the 2nd Amendment. -

Originally posted by nightstalker78
reply to post by kerazeesicko

 

Blah blah blah it's always lack of intelligence with you people.I live not 15 minutes from where this happened.Pretty sure I know more about this case than you do.It's constantly on the news here.Get the # over it.The guy wasn't charged for a reason(as I've already stated).And it isn't because the kid was black.

I am sorry, but Zimmerman IS being charged. He is going to be brought into court and it will be decided there. Not by you. And living "close to the event" has nothing to do with your knowledge of facts regarding it(of which, you display a lack of it).

reply to post by DJMSN

The whole point is that no one had to die....Zimmerman was following this kid after being told not to....Zimmerman is not any kind of authorized law enforcement

Pretty much sums it up.

...he is simply a wannabe nieghborhood watch idiot....with a gun..

I think this comment is a little short-sighted. It diminishes the responsibility of the neighborhood program. Don’t throw out the baby with the water. It generalizes the program in its entirety and that’s not fair. Just because one person can’t be responsible doesn’t mean it reflects everyone. Although as a neighborhood watch person, I don't believe they are authorized to carry weapons.

if he just stayed in the car and waited for cops to arrive there never would have been any confrontation

Common sense always prevails. It would have been Zimmerman’s best action. And the most responsible action. Good call.

...one man armed...one 140 pound kid unarmed...

While true, this is subjective. His weight is irrelevant. It is self-serving to create picture of events. It’s like saying because people are young they are innocent. That’s just not true. But, one man armed, one kid unarmed is more accurate and objective.

Great post.

reply to post by TsukiLunar


Geraldo says "Don't wear a hoodie." You are asking for trouble.

Ok so tell me this. Why was anybody screaming? If he was running you would hear footsteps would you not? So why would Zimmerman hold him down to shoot him?if he had the culprit already then why the need to shoot? Because Zimmerman was on bottom. The screaming happened about fifteen seconds before the gunshot. So either it was Zimmerman yelling as the kid attacked back then grabbing his gun out of defense. Or Zimmerman held the kid down gave him a noogie for a couple seconds then got up and shot him. Now what one makes more sence

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by TsukiLunar

 

Geraldo says "Don't wear a hoodie." You are asking for trouble.

Don't wear a hoodie because i might get shot for no reason and its my fault because i wore a hoodie?

No, its not up to you to decide on my taste of clothes. I can wear a hoodie and i should be able to do so without getting shot.

Someone clear this up for me, is a hoodie threatening?

Originally posted by SonoraUndergroundLabs
The screaming happened about fifteen seconds before the gunshot. So either it was Zimmerman yelling as the kid attacked back then grabbing his gun out of defense. Or Zimmerman held the kid down gave him a noogie for a couple seconds then got up and shot him. Now what one makes more sence

Yeah.... because you wouldn't scream if you had a guy with a gun threatening you would you?

Originally posted by blupblup

Originally posted by SonoraUndergroundLabs
The screaming happened about fifteen seconds before the gunshot. So either it was Zimmerman yelling as the kid attacked back then grabbing his gun out of defense. Or Zimmerman held the kid down gave him a noogie for a couple seconds then got up and shot him. Now what one makes more sence

Yeah.... because you wouldn't scream if you had a guy with a gun threatening you would you?

Either way, Zimmerman initiated the confrontation after CHASING DOWN a kid who Zimmerman decided "did not belong".

Originally posted by TsukiLunar

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by TsukiLunar

 

Geraldo says "Don't wear a hoodie." You are asking for trouble.

Don't wear a hoodie because i might get shot for no reason and its my fault because i wore a hoodie?

No, its not up to you to decide on my taste of clothes. I can wear a hoodie and i should be able to do so without getting shot.

Someone clear this up for me, is a hoodie threatening?

Then why do I have to take my hood off when I walk into a mini market? I guess I can sue them for stereotyping me by saying im gonna steal if my hood is on. Or are you going to say I can go into the store with it on Haha.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
Either way, Zimmerman initiated the confrontation after CHASING DOWN a kid who Zimmerman decided "did not belong".

I understand that... I have been saying it is his fault all along.

Originally posted by blupblup

Originally posted by SonoraUndergroundLabs
The screaming happened about fifteen seconds before the gunshot. So either it was Zimmerman yelling as the kid attacked back then grabbing his gun out of defense. Or Zimmerman held the kid down gave him a noogie for a couple seconds then got up and shot him. Now what one makes more sence

Yeah.... because you wouldn't scream if you had a guy with a gun threatening you would you?

I like how you took it out of context. I asked... where were the running footsteps? If you heard yelling.g you must be able to hear running and all that shebang. And there is a thing called citizens arrest. If it were after curfew he would be within reasonable bounds to detain him. Until his parents and or police arrive.

Originally posted by blupblup

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
Either way, Zimmerman initiated the confrontation after CHASING DOWN a kid who Zimmerman decided "did not belong".

I understand that... I have been saying it is his fault all along.

edit on 24/3/12 by blupblup because: (no reason given)

Yah, I know. That star is from me. I agree with you totally.

reply to post by SonoraUndergroundLabs

Then why do I have to take my hood off when I walk into a mini market? I guess I can sue them for stereotyping me by saying im gonna steal if my hood is on. Or are you going to say I can go into the store with it on Haha.

First, MARTIN WAS WALKING DOWN THE STREET MINDING HIS OWN BUSINESS. Second, Zimmerman does NOT(nor do you) decide the dress code of passing civilians.