Trayvon Martin: Cellphone pics of guns and drugs

Originally posted by peashooter

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by peashooter
Article from today: "Al Sharpton Confronts George Zimmerman's Lawyer Over Trayvon Martin Case"

Quoting from article:

"Sharpton pressed O'Mara on the issue, saying that experts have said that the screams for help in the background of a 911 call belonged to Martin. O'Mara said that other experts have said the voice is not easily identifiable."

Although not solid evidence Trayvon's lawyer hammers home the point some of us are trying to make:

"The probable cause is that you have the dead body of an unarmed person and there was no crime and there was no reason the police could determine at the scene. That's probable cause. Otherwise, anyone in this country could be shot and killed and the police could just decide in the police station, 'We'll decide whether they go or not.' That's a dangerous precedent, wouldn't you think so Attorney O'Mara?"

www.huffingtonpost.com...

edit on 31-5-2013 by peashooter because: spelling

edit on 31-5-2013 by peashooter because: (no reason given)

After the Tawana Brawly case, Sharpton (who should be in jail for fraud) has absolutely zero credibility.

Like someone has already said Zimmerman is involved with domestic violence, and had a bad past as well. To be fair let's ignore everyone's past in this case:

Then if you agree their pasts are irrelevant then this statement (no matter how bad of lawyer Sharpton was) still stands:

"The probable cause is that you have the dead body of an unarmed person and there was no crime and there was no reason the police could determine at the scene. That's probable cause."

edit on 1-6-2013 by peashooter because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-6-2013 by peashooter because: (no reason given)

AL Sharpton is a proven fraud who created the Tawana Brawly case. He has a known history of lying and creating a crime where it did not exist. Very different.

If I'm confronted, at night, by someone larger, or younger, I REFUSE to be taken advantage of - out comes the pistol. Want to hurt me, rob me, jump me - YOU'RE GONNA GET SHOT, end of story.

I for one, am sick and tired of these violent young people trying to make us afraid to go out of our homes and trying to make a living of robbing and stealing thing from other people because they're too LAZY to work for what they want. Well, the answer is simple, you shoot them down like you would a mad dog. As soon as everyone understands that the better of out society will be and I don't care if they're 14 or 50 or if they're Black or White.

Originally posted by bbracken677

No offense, but that may be BS depending on other factors.

No offense taken, because you're not saying anything offensive or controversial. Yes, other factors can play a part, but when two people of equal skill and determination compete in a fight, but are mismatched in size, a fast, skinny tall one is going to rely on his reach and speed, and a shorter, slower, stockier one is going to want to get in close. That's Fighting 101, and not made up BS.

Originally posted by bbracken677
I dare say you have not been in many scrapes to make a blanket statement like that.

Actually, I've had more than my fair share of no rules street fights and via the internet, seen a lot more.

Originally posted by bbracken677
Your comments indicate an extreme bias and looking for anything that will support your rationalization of the events. Events which you cannot claim any specific inside knowledge of. The fact is we just do not know exactly how things went down. We do not know for a fact who was the aggressor. We do not know if Zimmerman was in mortal danger (or felt he was) or whether he was initiating actions which caused Trevon to react defensively prompting the shooting.

I understand having an opinion about how you felt it went down, but presenting opinion as fact is disingenuous.

Why would I be biased? I don't know either of the people involved and don't even live in the same country as them. They are just characters in an internet news story to me, really. I may have an interest in the outcome, but it's not going to affect my life, either way.

Originally posted by pistolerooo
If I'm confronted, at night, by someone larger, or younger, I REFUSE to be taken advantage of - out comes the pistol. Want to hurt me, rob me, jump me - YOU'RE GONNA GET SHOT, end of story.

I for one, am sick and tired of these violent young people trying to make us afraid to go out of our homes and trying to make a living of robbing and stealing thing from other people because they're too LAZY to work for what they want. Well, the answer is simple, you shoot them down like you would a mad dog. As soon as everyone understands that the better of out society will be and I don't care if they're 14 or 50 or if they're Black or White.

And what on god's green earth the above have to do with Trayvon by all accounts he was returning to his dad's house seems like you want to shoot any young kid down like a mad dog based on nothing but your fear. but fear begat fear for then what happens what some young dude believe YOU ARE SIZING HIM UP..for a kill shot and he popped you outta fear.

Zimmerman's attorney Mark O'Mara logically discusses much of what we have been discussing here in a very rational manner in an interview with CNN's Victor Blackwell (not the Worst Dressed List Mr Blackwell; completely different guy)...

I'd highly recommend that anyone reading this thread click the link to Mediaite and watch the video:

Zimmerman’s Attorney: If Jury Rules Trayvon Was Aggressor, Is That A ‘Loss For Civil Rights’?

“Parks and Crump,” Blackwell asked, referencing the Dickensian-named law firm representing Martin’s family, “have said a lot about how this is a landmark in justice as it relates to African Americans, and racial injustice. How do you keep this trial limited to a few minutes on one night in February?”

O'Mara's answer is thoughtful, logical and rational and you can watch it at the link below.

Source: Mediaite www.mediaite.com...

reply to post by NickDC202

Again the issue is not weather a black kid got shot that kind of stuff happens every day but the fact the stupid stand your ground law allowed for an alleged killer not in law enforcement to walk on his own say so without even appearing in court,honestly I never even knew that such ridiculous laws existed till this case,the racial angle was an after thought and that has links to profiling,this thing in my opinion would have been a local issue if GZ was taken into custody and had to explain himself in front of a jury,the side issue of GZ the wife beater and police assaulter and general A-hole matched by TV's thug posturing on Face Book ,weed smoking and gun show off ,if that was his gun in the first place is besides the point..THEY WERE NEVER /b] gonna let GZ see the inside of a court room,that's the failure right there,for even in a car accident involving death you of have to go before a jury of some sort unless I am mistaken.

Originally posted by Spider879
reply to post by NickDC202

 

Again the issue is not weather a black kid got shot that kind of stuff happens every day but the fact the stupid stand your ground law allowed for an alleged killer not in law enforcement to walk on his own say so without even appearing in court,honestly I never even knew that such ridiculous laws existed till this case,the racial angle was an after thought and that has links to profiling,this thing in my opinion would have been a local issue if GZ was taken into custody and had to explain himself in front of a jury,the side issue of GZ the wife beater and police assaulter and general A-hole matched by TV's thug posturing on Face Book ,weed smoking and gun show off ,if that was his gun in the first place is besides the point..THEY WERE NEVER /b] gonna let GZ see the inside of a court room,that's the failure right there,for even in a car accident involving death you of have to go before a jury of some sort unless I am mistaken.

Before responding I was conflicted about whether or not there would have been charges without Sharpton's involvement; then I did my research and I am no longer conflicted: without Sharpton's involvement there WOULD have been charges. Here's why:

According a Reuters article on 3 April 2013, following the 26 February 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin:
www.reuters.com...

For about 10 days, the story remained obscure. Television news from nearby Orlando aired a few segments. The Orlando Sentinel published two brief articles, and the twice-weekly Sanford Herald ran 213 words. Otherwise, there was media silence.

Frustrated with the way law enforcement were handling his son's death, Trayvon's father Tracy called his sister-in-law Patricia Jones who is an attorney. On 28 February 2012, Jones connected Mr Martin to Benjamin Crump, Florida's best-known civil rights attorney who took the case pro bono.

Now Crump and Jackson needed a media strategy. On March 5, Jackson brought in Ryan Julison, a publicist who had worked with her on a number of high-profile cases. After speaking with Tracy Martin, Julison said he also took the job for free and went to work pitching the story to national media.

Crump knew from his experience on the boot-camp case that publicity could force officials to act, but it would require persuading two people who had never stood before a television camera to withstand the spotlight.

On 7 March 2012 the shooting death got national media attention when Reuters published a story titled "Family of Florida Boy Killed by Neighborhood Watch Seeks Arrest." The next day, CBS News aired a segment on incident and by 10 am on 8 March 2012 a crowd of reporters gathered at Natalie Jackson's law office for a news conference with Ben Crump and Tracy Martin. The media firestorm had begun.
www.reuters.com...


According to a 26 March 2012 New York Times article:
www.nytimes.com...

By the end of the week, CNN and its sister channel HLN were also on the story, as were some black radio hosts and bloggers.

National coverage increased somewhat the week of March 12, but really intensified only after March 16, when tapes of 911 calls were released, showing that Mr. Zimmerman had been told by a dispatcher that he did not need to follow Trayvon. Having the audio — which the police had previously declined to release — was critical because it gave radio and TV reporters more material for their segments and because it aroused more suspicion about Mr. Zimmerman.

Within days of the national media scrutiny, the Justice Department said it would investigate the case, and on March 23, President Obama addressed it directly, furthering the media dialogue.

www.nytimes.com...

Rev Al's actions did more to create division between people and publicize himself; his actions polarized a nation but without his involvement I have no doubt there would have been an charges against Zimmerman.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Propulsion
My big question everyone seems to be avoiding is “Will there be riots if Zimmerman gets acquitted of the charges?

I believe so. This will go down during the heat of the summer which always irritates things AND you've got the New Black Panthers (among others) who are race baiting and calling for Zimmermans death already. I do believe it could happen and I"m concerned that this will factor in with the jury ....

I cannot help but reflect back on the whole Rodney King ordeal, and when you have Rev. Al Sharpton and Co. portraying Martin as this innocent poor defenseless black kid who got killed by a white guy. (Of course he’s not 100% white, but Al would have everyone believe he’s 100% white), you then have a pot boiling over into something extremely unsettling.

There are YT videos and threads about the riots that will take place if Zimmerman walks. I have hope that nothing will happen if he does, but history shows in cases like this, that people end up getting hurt or killed. I have a bad feeling about this. A gut feeling…

Rather than blaming Al Sharpton for making a political football of this event, you should be criticising Sanford PD for instantly treating the death of a young black man as a justifiable kill, based on the bare minimum of investigation. Releasing Zimmerman just because he had a few minor injuries and claimed he was in fear of his life - without even knowing who the dead teen was - should be viewed as criminal negligence.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


There is a huge difference between Sharpton "making a political football of this event" and Sharpton using incendiary tactics to inflame racial tensions creating a polarization which only he benefits from. Sharpton's tactics have resulted in people who support the prosecution or the defense to be adamant in their opinions and vicious in their arguments without any substantial, factual evidence presented. As far as I am concerned anyone so staunch in their position without the knowledge and understanding of the evidence is behaving like someone recovering from a lobotomy. Nothing is more hilarious and more troubling than individuals adamantly supporting either side without a full understanding of the facts; they truly are the dumbest people on the planet.

Originally posted by bbracken677
Amen...as I stated earlier: I have people coming in every day to apply for a job dressed like they are going to a party in the hood and then cant understand why they are not offered a position in B to B sales.

Bad parents, lack of sense, lack of understanding how things work.

For the love of God, coming in to apply for a freaking job is not the same as walking down the street dressed in baggy clothes.

Are we being serious here? So should we walk down streets at night dressed in a suit and tie during halftime of an NBA game?

So according to you (since image is so important, like the media makes of it today), anyone who cannot afford nice clothes deserves to be judged? You've never been poor in your life? Never worn your older siblings' clothes?

Please use logic in your argument.

Here's an example of the "parents" you're talking about, I'm glad her little girl learned a lesson which you desperately need.

myq105.cbslocal.com...

"Mom Forces Daughter To Wear Thrift Clothes After She Bullied Another Girl About Her Clothes"

reply to post by peashooter


Epic fail in the debate mate.....

No-one is talking about being poor. We are talking about these examples........ deliberately hiding your face in public. It is designed to get other people nervous and intimidate, and guess what , it works.

Our street cloths are still a "uniform". And we all react to uniforms.


It is zoological in nature to be suspicious of people we do not know. It is not racial, even though race plays a factor in those first few seconds ( simply because we are animals. Not because we are racist ) Through experience we learn to calm down and act civilized.

I live in a very mufti cultural country. And I am a half cast myself. But still find myself responding to very dark skinned Africans. ( As we so few around, lots of Indians, Chinese, Polynesian, white people etc... )

All good to learn to over-ride that negative reaction, But what happens if your life experiences have forced you to reinforce the stranger danger response. ?

Be it in the subway, street or in the jungle. It is in our best interest to show our face and empty hands.


You want to test your theory Put your money where your mouth is......... Go put a Nazi uniform on and go visit some people you know. People you know really well and trust you.

Get back to me with the reaction genius.

Originally posted by thedeadtruth
reply to post by peashooter

 

Epic fail in the debate mate.....

No-one is talking about being poor. We are talking about these examples........ deliberately hiding your face in public. It is designed to get other people nervous and intimidate, and guess what , it works.

Hmmm... I never realised my old parka coat was designed to frighten anyone who saw me wearing it. There was me thinking the hood was meant to keep the wind, rain and snow out.

Or how about this one....

Go put on a wig and a mini skirt. And stand on a street corner. See how long it takes before..

(1) Someone offers you money for sex.

(2) The cops hassle you.

(3) You get beaten up by a real prostitute for being on their corner.


While your teeth are being kicked down your throat, make sure you cry out, " book ... cover .. please ... no . Why cant we just get along "

Excellent point.....

" I never realised my old parka coat was designed to frighten anyone who saw me wearing it. There was me thinking the hood was meant to keep the wind, rain and snow out. "


So what do you do when that functional clothing is high jacked by criminals to obscure their face, on mass. Remember the balaclava has a perfectly designed legal function to.

Try wearing one down the street, even in winter, and see what happens.



I am not saying I agree with the situation. It just is what it is.

reply to post by thedeadtruth

Try wearing one down the street, even in winter, and see what happens.

Lol, are you giving clothing advice?

Try wearing a t-shirt.

Originally posted by thedeadtruth
Excellent point.....

" I never realised my old parka coat was designed to frighten anyone who saw me wearing it. There was me thinking the hood was meant to keep the wind, rain and snow out. "


So what do you do when that functional clothing is high jacked by criminals to obscure their face, on mass. Remember the balaclava has a perfectly designed legal function to.

What you do is treat each hoody wearing individual on a case by case basis, rather than jump to conclusions and assume that they all must be up to no good and that is the only reason they are covering their heads.

reply to post by Tribunal


I am too poor. It was a choice of no pants or no t-shirt.

Aren't you glad I choose the pants.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


Whats it like living in there ? Your head I mean. Can I come and join you. Lots of candy floss to go around ?


You think you are better, I bet you judge a book by its cover every day. Your reinforced instincts for danger or trust are stronger than your reasoning. So stop acting otherwise.

My point is this.....

The first time someone stuck on a Habit. It meant nothing. It came to represent something positive to later generations.

Unless you were an abuse victim of a Nun. Then it has a negative connotation .

The first time a person put on a Nazi uniform, it meant nothing to the average person. But it came to represent something evil latter on.


I know before I leave the house I look in the mirror and reflect on the image I am projecting. I try to be situation-ally aware, and that includes how people see me. Not just me see them.



To ignore this is folly, and certainly falls into the natural selection category.