Trayvon Martin Death Investigation

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

By being willing to turn over much of its real estate to the trial, MSNBC is allowing itself to attract some of the audience that migrates to HLN and CNN during other cases, but can avoid the charge that it is dumbing itself down to increase ratings.

[b]We won't need to worry about MSNBC "dumbing itself down".
When you've hit the wall, you've hit the wall.

Wow That went right over your head.

Over my head?
I don't think so.

Still haven't grasped it,huh?

Fox News Host: Zimmerman ‘Has Already Been Punished’ With Weight Gain

Quote :

Fox News host Gregg Jarrett says that George Zimmerman “has already been punished” for the killing of Trayvon Martin because he “looks like he’s put on a hundred pounds.”

During Monday’s coverage of jury selection, Jarrett and Fox News host Kimberly Guilfoyle observed that Zimmerman had gained weight since his arrest in April 2012.

“He does look like a different guy,” Jarrett remarked. “It looks like he’s put on a hundred pounds. Look, he has been in hiding and he fears for his life, and there have been all kinds of death threats. And, you know, he can’t go anywhere, can’t get out and get exercise.”

“Probably suffering from stress and anxiety,” Guilfoyle added.

“You eat when you’re under stress and pressure and stuff like that,” Jarrett agreed. “So, you know, he’s already been punished to some extent. We’ll wait and see whether a Jury punishes him further.”

“This is an individual that was trying to do some civic duty by being on the community watch,” Guilfoyle opined. “That was the purpose of why he was there that night.”

“Sure, let’s not forget there’s a reason for a community watch,” Jarrett replied. “Because that’s a community with a need for a watch. Because they’d had problems like this in the past.”

In every other big trial the far right and Fox takes the side of the prosecution and howls for vengeance . That is until an innocent unarmed black kid gets killed by a wannabe cop and neighborhood vigilante. Then all of a sudden they get overcome with compassion for the killer.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

.... an innocent unarmed black kid ...

[b]Unarmed, yes.
Innocent?
Kinda remains to be seen, doesn't it?

No....it doesn't. There has been no allegation from anyone that Martin committed a crime.

Quote :

Sanford, Florida (CNN) -- An affidavit of probable cause in Florida's case against George Zimmerman for the shooting death of an unarmed 17-year-old says that the neighborhood watch volunteer "profiled" the victim, Trayvon Martin, and disregarded a police dispatcher's request that he await the arrival of police.

The affidavit, which was drawn up Wednesday but not made public until Thursday, was prepared by investigators for the state attorney, who charged Zimmerman with second-degree murder Wednesday.

"Martin then walked back to and entered the gated community and was on his way back to the townhouse where he was living when he was profiled by George Zimmerman," the affidavit says. "Martin was unarmed and was not committing a crime."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/12/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?_s=PM:JUSTICE#

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

.... an innocent unarmed black kid ...

[b]Unarmed, yes.
Innocent?
Kinda remains to be seen, doesn't it?

No....it doesn't. There has been no allegation from anyone that Martin committed a crime.

Yes, there has.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

.... an innocent unarmed black kid ...

[b]Unarmed, yes.
Innocent?
Kinda remains to be seen, doesn't it?

No....it doesn't. There has been no allegation from anyone that Martin committed a crime.

Yes, there has.

Then show us. Oh,and please make sure it comes from a legitimate source and not from some internet troll trying to start a circle jerk.

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

.... an innocent unarmed black kid ...

[b]Unarmed, yes.
Innocent?
Kinda remains to be seen, doesn't it?

No....it doesn't. There has been no allegation from anyone that Martin committed a crime.

Yes, there has.

Then show us. Oh,and please make sure it comes from a legitimate source and not from some internet troll trying to start a circle jerk.

Zimmerman made the allegation.
It's what his entire defense is based upon.
Where the fuck have you been?

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

.... an innocent unarmed black kid ...

[b]Unarmed, yes.
Innocent?
Kinda remains to be seen, doesn't it?

No....it doesn't. There has been no allegation from anyone that Martin committed a crime.

Yes, there has.

Then show us. Oh,and please make sure it comes from a legitimate source and not from some internet troll trying to start a circle jerk.

Zimmerman made the allegation.
It's what his entire defense is based upon.
Where the fuck have you been?

Sorry but I don't consider the killer a "legitimate source" especially since he was the one who initiated their interaction by getting out of his truck and following Martin ,who btw,had committed NO crime.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Sorry but I don't consider the killer a "legitimate source" especially since he was the one who initiated their interaction by getting out of his truck and following Martin ,who btw,had committed NO crime.

[b]What you "consider" to be the truth and what the actual truth is are two different things entirely, as your laughable interpretation of "truth" is notorious on this forum.
Zimmerman alleged that Martin attacked him, which would be a crime, and that is the allegation whose existence you for some reason deny. If you don't like it, TFB, but it makes it no less true that there was an allegation, does it?

Yes,an allegation by the killer who has previously admitted that he lied to the court. Not exactly credible is it?

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Sorry but I don't consider the killer a "legitimate source" especially since he was the one who initiated their interaction by getting out of his truck and following Martin ,who btw,had committed NO crime.

[b]What you "consider" to be the truth and what the actual truth is are two different things entirely, as your laughable interpretation of "truth" is notorious on this forum.
Zimmerman alleged that Martin attacked him, which would be a crime, and that is the allegation whose existence you for some reason deny. If you don't like it, TFB, but it makes it no less true that there was an allegation, does it?

Yes,an allegation by the killer who has previously admitted that he lied to the court. Not exactly credible is it?

Not exactly disproven, is it?
Hence, remains to be seen, as I said earlier.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Sorry but I don't consider the killer a "legitimate source" especially since he was the one who initiated their interaction by getting out of his truck and following Martin ,who btw,had committed NO crime.

[b]What you "consider" to be the truth and what the actual truth is are two different things entirely, as your laughable interpretation of "truth" is notorious on this forum.
Zimmerman alleged that Martin attacked him, which would be a crime, and that is the allegation whose existence you for some reason deny. If you don't like it, TFB, but it makes it no less true that there was an allegation, does it?

Yes,an allegation by the killer who has previously admitted that he lied to the court. Not exactly credible is it?

Not exactly disproven, is it?
Hence, remains to be seen, as I said earlier.

I'll take the word of a sworn police officer and you can take the word of a documented liar that has already lied to the court. See how that works out for ya

I've been able to watch the jury selection on my flat screen TV in HD and commercial free but got totally bored rather quickly and gave up. My sympathy goes out to the reporters who are going to have to sit in court everyday listening to the questioning. I can see this easily taking weeks before they can empanel a jury of 6 people and 4 alternates.

Jury selection has been excruciatingly slow. In 2 days they've managed to interview about 14 potential jurors while they've already dismissed over 40 before they could even be questioned.

They have yet to find anyone who has not heard of the case. The questions are all about what they know,who have they discussed it with,a lot of direct questions as to exactly what networks they watch Fox,NBC,CNN,etc.,what newspapers they read,and they ask the same questions over and over again.

happy jack wrote:

I have taken neither Zimmerman's nor anyone else's word up to this point. I merely corrected your blatantly false assertion that there had been no allegation that Martin committed a crime.

Allegations from a killer that has already lied are not exactly credible.

happy jack wrote:

Incidentally, there was no "sworn police officer" present as the incident unfolded, so why is his word, and his lack of eyewitness status, worth anything at all in this case?[

Because he interviewed the killer and investigated the case.

What most of us already knew...
George Zimmerman's case exposes the joke of stand-your-ground laws

Quote :

Florida is one of many states with a stand-your-ground law that seems to legally protect everyone but those in genuine danger

   George Zimmerman is back in court to face murder charges for the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. Besides deciding Zimmerman's fate, the trial will shine a spotlight on Florida's controversial self defense laws generally known as 'stand your ground'.

In Florida, the law reads:

     

Quote :

 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.

These laws are so forgiving, shall we say, that until national outcry prompted an investigation, Zimmerman was not even charged in the murder and still has a decent chance of being acquitted even though reports are that he initiated the confrontation, and the victim was unarmed.

Sweeping as the stand-your-ground laws are, however, the one area where they might actually be of some use – providing cover for victims of domestic violence who kill or injure abusive partners before they are killed or injured themselves – is the one area where the laws frequently prove to be of no use at all. This says a lot about how stand-your-ground laws work. They have less to do with making sure people whose lives are in genuine danger can take action to protect themselves and more to do with letting people who could evade danger, if they wished, take the law into their own hands.

The main achievement (if you can call it that) of the first stand-your-ground law that was pushed through the state legislature in Florida in 2005 was that it removed the "duty to retreat" from the self defense equation. Americans always had the right to use deadly force in the face of an imminent threat to their lives but only after availing of any opportunity to back away. Now that safeguard has been removed prompting the law, which was heavily backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA), to be dubbed the "kill at will" statute.

After the bill was passed in Florida, the American Legislative Exchange Counsel (ALEC) formed a task force to draft model legislation, which has since been implemented in over 20 states. Despite the sweeping protections these laws offer to anyone who responds with deadly force to what they perceived was a grave threat, however, victims of domestic violence who kill or injure their partners before they get killed themselves appear to be no better off.

This disparity of treatment of (mostly) women who respond with force to perceived threats in their own homes compared to (mostly) men who respond to perceived threats on the streets is clearly illustrated in the case of Marissa Alexander. Last year Alexander was handed a 20-year prison sentence in Florida after firing a warning shot in the course of an altercation with her abusive husband that neither harmed nor killed him. Alexander's husband, who had a history of domestic violence and admitted to beating her and previous partners, had begun hitting his wife after discovering text messages on her phone from her ex-husband. Alexander fled to the garage but says the door mechanism failed so she couldn't escape. Instead she retrieved her (licensed) gun from the car and went back into the living room where she fired a warning shot at her husband, who she claims lunged at her shouting "bitch, I will kill you."

Maybe Alexander should have or could have retreated, but in the context of stand-your-ground laws, where there is no duty to do so, it would seem on paper at least that she acted within her rights. The judge in her case rejected a motion to grant her immunity under the statute, however, saying that "there is insufficient evidence that the defendant reasonably believed deadly force was needed to prevent death or great bodily harm to herself" and the fact that she came back into the living room rather than retreating "is inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for her life".

Obviously every case needs to be tried on its own merits, but it's almost impossible to not conclude that there are some double standards at play when it comes to women who try to defend themselves against abusive partners in their homes, compared to people like George Zimmerman, who claims self defense when they kill unarmed strangers in the street.

For decades failing to meet the "duty to retreat" from their own homes in the face of an imminent threat to their lives has made it nearly impossible for women who shoot or kill abusive partners to make successful self defense arguments. In the recent past many states, including Florida, have recognized that imposing a duty to retreat from one's own home in the face of a domestic threat is inherently unfair. But now, even after stand-your-ground laws have removed the duty to retreat in most situations, women who kill or injure abusive partners still face an uphill battle trying to defend themselves in court.

For now, Zimmerman has decided to claim his actions were self defense, not stand-your-ground. But his case certainly illustrates how stand-your-ground could be used (and abused). A study of the outcomes of nearly 200 stand-your-ground cases in Florida by the Tampa Bay Times found that 70% resulted in an outright acquittal. The same study also found that 73% of the cases where the victim was black resulted in an acquittal compared to 59% of cases where the victim was white. Statistically then this gives George Zimmerman a fighting chance to walk free even though he was armed with a weapon and allegedly went in pursuit of his victim who was armed only with a bag of skittles.

Whatever the outcome of his case, however, that Zimmerman can even invoke a self defense claim under such circumstances should give people pause when it comes to assessing the merits of stand-your-ground laws. The fact that these sweeping laws fail to protect those in genuine fear for their lives just makes them all the more suspect.

Just announced that jury will be sequestered.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

I have taken neither Zimmerman's nor anyone else's word up to this point. I merely corrected your blatantly false assertion that there had been no allegation that Martin committed a crime.

Allegations from a killer that has already lied are not exactly credible.

happy jack wrote:

Incidentally, there was no "sworn police officer" present as the incident unfolded, so why is his word, and his lack of eyewitness status, worth anything at all in this case?[

Because he interviewed the killer and investigated the case.

So what good is the “sworn police officer’s” word if everything he knows is based upon false information? Because, according to you, the person he interviewed was lying to him, making any information gleaned from that person worthless.
You make no sense.

Miss the part of "investigated the case"? Pay attention. Experienced police officers can tell when monsters like Zimmerman are lying.

Just in case you weren't sure the Zimmerman family was trash:evil:
George Zimmerman’s dad lashes out at ‘racist’ Black community in e-book

Quote :

Robert Zimmerman Sr., the father of Florida murder suspect George Zimmerman, unleashed a host of accusations of racism at many segments of the African-American community in an e-book released on Friday, Think Progress reported.

In the book, the older Zimmerman denounces the National Association for the Advancement of Colored Peoples (NAACP) as promoting “racism and hatred for their own, primarily financial, interests” and writes that “without prejudice and racial divide, the NAACP would simply cease to exist.”

The author’s son is accused of second-degree murder in the February 2012 shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida. George Zimmerman, who is biracial, contends that he shot the teen, who was black, dead in self-defense after being attacked.

In the book, Robert Zimmerman calls the attorneys representing Martin’s family “the scheme team” in the book and accuses Martin’s funeral director of being a “racial activist and former head of the local NAACP.”

He also insists that racism in America is “flourishing at the insistence of some in the African American Community,” and names the Congressional Black Caucus, the National Basketball Association, the United Negro College Fund and the Black Chamber of Commerce, among other groups, as perpetrators.

[quote="happy jack"]

Artie60438 Experienced police officers can tell when monsters like Zimmerman are lying. wrote:

[color=black]Really?[/font">


How?

The same way that I can tell you're a troll that rarely if ever,adds anything useful to a discussion.