Trayvon Martin Death Investigation

Are old photos of Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman deceptive?

Yes, just like that little boy, 250 lb. with Asphager's syndrome (or whatever the spelling is), whose parents display an innocent child's picture taken years ago, prior to his incidental death with the Cal City cops. Is this a new trend in the 'hood???????
Read on:

From a RELIABLE SOURCE!

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. -- When he was shot, Trayvon Martin was not the baby-faced boy in the photo that has been on front pages across the country. And George Zimmerman wasn't the beefy-looking figure in the widely published mugshot.

Both photos are a few years old and no longer entirely accurate. Yet they may have helped shape initial public perceptions of the deadly shooting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/31/10952926-are-old-photos-of-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-deceptive






NBC's Michael Isikoff reports on George Zimmerman's arrest at an Orlando bar, where he allegedly interfered with a law enforcement official investigating underage alcohol sales.

"When you have such a lopsided visual comparison, it just stands to reason that people would rush to judgment," said Kenny Irby, who teaches visual journalism at the Poynter Institute, a journalism think tank in St. Petersburg, Fla.

The most widely seen picture of Martin, released by his family, was evidently taken a few years ago and shows a smiling, round-cheeked youngster in a red T-shirt. But at his death, Martin was 17 years old, around 6 feet tall and, according to his family's attorney, about 140 pounds.




It's the New "WAVE"..... says ME!

________________________________________________________________________________
Trayvon Martin case: Mayor says police resisted release of 911 tapes

Zimmerman, 28, is best known from a 7-year-old booking photo of an apparently heavyset figure with an imposing stare, pierced ear and facial hair, the orange collar of his jail uniform visible. The picture, released by police following the deadly shooting, was taken after Zimmerman's 2005 arrest on an assault-on-an-officer charge that was eventually dropped.

In a police video made public this week of Zimmerman being brought in for questioning a half-hour after the shooting, the 5-foot-9 man appears much slimmer.

In a case that has caused a nationwide furor over race and the laws of self-defense, Martin was shot to death by Zimmerman in the city of Sanford on Feb. 26 as the unarmed black teenager was walking back from a convenience store.


George Zimmerman, the man who shot Trayvon Martin, had gotten into an altercation with an officer several years ago. NBC's Michael Isikoff reports.

Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer whose father is white and whose mother is Hispanic, has claimed self-defense, saying he opened fire after Martin punched him in the face, knocked him to the ground and began slamming his head on the sidewalk.

Black leaders and others are demanding Zimmerman's arrest on murder or manslaughter charges, but state and federal authorities are still investigating.

Betsi Grabe, a professor at Indiana University-Bloomington who has studied the effect of news images on public opinion, said photos that gain the most traction play into the desires of both journalists and the public for a story with a distinct victim and aggressor.

theGrio: Trayvon Martin's parents must grieve in the spotlight

"At the center of most stories we tell in our society, cross-culturally and across the centuries, is the struggle between good and evil," she said. "If the ingredients are there, that is what journalists will grab onto and present."

Grabe said it is natural to present the most innocent-looking image of the person believed to be the victim, and the most menacing one of the suspect.

A more complex portrait of the two figures has emerged since then. A photo of a beaming Zimmerman looking sharp in a jacket and tie has come out, along with a more recent picture of Martin, with gold teeth and a white sleeveless undershirt. At the same time, it was learned that Martin had been suspended from school for marijuana residue in his backpack.


George Zimmerman's brother spoke out for the first time Thursday night, defending his brother's actions in the killing of unarmed Florida teen Trayvon Martin and saying that medical records will back his account of the shooting. NBC's Ron Allen reports.

The Associated Press has not been able to verify the sources or creators of what are purported to be more recent photographs of Martin circulating online and elsewhere. The family's attorney has not released the photos.

"Everyone's views seem to be gyrating back and forth with each new scrap of evidence that comes out," said David O. Markus, a prominent Miami defense attorney. "This is why we have courts and juries, and why the process is slow. No one should rush to judgment."

Gordon Coonfield, a communications professor at Villanova University in Pennsylvania, said the early perceptions of Zimmerman as a vigilante may ultimately have no bearing on the case.

He cited the case of Rodney King, the black motorist beaten two decades ago by white Los Angeles police officers in an episode captured on video. The officers were acquitted in state court, though two were later found guilty on federal charges.

"I think the nation felt quite certain it saw the truth of what happened to Rodney King, and the DA tried the case as if the images spoke for themselves," Coonfield said. "Yet the state criminal court decided the images were not self-evidently true. The defense won by offering a more convincing explanation of the images, focusing on what could not be seen - officers' motives, reasoning, and judgment."



Don we now, our gay apparrel, hoodies, hoodies, hoodies. Stupid parents.

Will you Black people start some other kinds of lawsuits? This is getting old, already.

Like Moby's signature of Obama, you Black people's excuse for raising idiots, along with white, yellow, brown, red, "It's NOT MY FAULT".

Let justice run its course. Black, white, yellow or red. Whatever. Our USA is so divided since POTUS is in office. I can't believe he spoke out on something that occurs ten to 20 times a day, every second of the day. Helloooo.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

"Cross burning," for example is a clear attempt at intimidation, and it's directed not just at one black family, but other blacks as well.

So charge the perpetrator with intimidation, and if any of the other blacks you claim were affected by the act wish to come forward to demonstrate to the court how they were harmed, and to press charges, they may do so. But you can’t just presume that because the perpetrator committed a crime against one black person that he committed a crime against all black persons. He should be tried only for the crime he actually committed, not for the crime you think he committed.

You don't seem to grasp the fact that motive matters. It's considered during the sentencing phase for almost all serious crimes.

I've barely begun to go into the legal rationales for hate crime laws. Before I do, I'd like to find out what you really meant when you stated that "the perpetrator should be punished based upon the laws relating to the crime itself, not punished because of why or upon whom the crime was perpetrated."

Are you really saying that the reason why a crime is committed is irrelevant?

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

I'd like to find out what you really meant when you stated that "the perpetrator should be punished based upon the laws relating to the crime itself, not punished because of why or upon whom the crime was perpetrated."

The statement pretty much speaks for itself.

So following that logic, killing someone in a "crime of passion" should be treated the same way as killing someone for money, correct?

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

I'd like to find out what you really meant when you stated that "the perpetrator should be punished based upon the laws relating to the crime itself, not punished because of why or upon whom the crime was perpetrated."

The statement pretty much speaks for itself.

So following that logic, killing someone in a "crime of passion" should be treated the same way as killing someone for money, correct?

I have no problem with a defendant invoking the ‘crime of passion’ defense in an attempt to lessen the punishment. I do have a problem with the state invoking hate crime statutes in order to enhance the punishment by punishing a person not only for what he did, but for what he thought.

My point was that motive does matter. Since the "state" generally seeks to maximize the penalty for a murder for hire, as opposed to a "crime of passion," it's clear that the reason why a crime was committed is relevant.

Agreed?

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

My point was that motive does matter. Since the "state" generally seeks to maximize the penalty for a murder for hire, as opposed to a "crime of passion," it's clear that the reason why a crime was committed is relevant.

Agreed?

In the case of a murder for hire, the reason why the crime was committed is tangible (there are obviously two parties involved, one of whom can testify that he either hired someone, or that he himself was hired, to commit the murder), thus verifiable. In the case of a so-called hate crime, the reason why the crime was committed is neither tangible nor verifiable. The case depends on the state arbitrarily deciding upon, and then prosecuting for, what was in a person’s thoughts.

Yeah. Well since you insist on discussing this in terms of a "hate crime," I would argue that if the reason that the crime was committed is neither "tangible or verifiable," then it isn't a hate crime at all. I don't think that we disagree on this as much as you seem to think we do... again, my point is simply that the motive does matter.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

What a major turd.

Speaking of "major turds" here's your boy Brent Bozell....
MRC’s Brent Bozell To Hannity: Trayvon Martin Is ‘Another Tawana Brawley Moment’

Quote :

The outrage over the way some in the media have been covering the tragedy of Trayvon Martin has crossed partisan lines, as last night Brent Bozell of the conservative Media Research Center targeted the “liberal media,” particularly NBC and MSNBC, for their role in advancing the story. Bozell spoke to Sean Hannity during his regular segment on the eponymous program and condemned the “falsehoods” of NBC and called the shooting “another Tawana Brawley moment.”

Hannity then plays a segment of NBC News where they play an edited version of George Zimmerman‘s 911 call that omits the operator asking for Martin’s race. “How could NBC in good conscience do that?” Hannity asked.
Bozell called this “an all-out falsehood… what they did was in the first clip, when you hear him say ‘he looks black,’ anybody believes there are racial overtones to what this man did.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/03/28/MSNBC-ZImmerman-Ellipses

Ha! I see your also a fan of that race baiting Dan Riehl and the rest of the scum over at Breitbart.
Still More Overtly Racist Comments at Breitbart.com

Quote :

Since I posted yesterday about Dan Riehl’s ugly race-baiting article at Breitbart.com and the deluge of overtly racist comments that followed, hundreds more comments have been posted there: Hoodie-Wearing Gunmen Kill 1, Wound 5 in Bobby Rush’s Chicago District.

None of the sickening hate speech quoted in our previous post has been deleted; instead, they’re just piling more onto the heap.

WARNING: this stuff is ugly and offensive. But it shows you what the Breitbart.com team is now encouraging and permitting at their site.

This is what we need My African brothers and sisters! We need show everyone we don’t f|_|ck around. We real n199as!!!!

[…]

he can’t help it. it’s just the animal instinct.

[…]

Does anybody here know the local number of the “Klan”?

[…]

This is just violent, criminal, damn N***ers doing what N***ers do best. No surprise here.

[…]

You have got that right. Can’t argue that.

[…]

The Blacks from Chicago are the worst. Just take a look at our current POTUS and you see no character, no morals, no kindness, JUST GREED

[…]

Looks like the problem is taking care of itself. If we are going to continue giving these animals free stuff it should be limited to ammunition only.

This is just from a quick scan of the first couple of pages, and as usual, all of these comments have high ratings from other readers.

Another Sickening Deluge of Open Racism at Breitbart.com Dan Riehl kicks it off

Quote :

Here’s Dan “Darker Means Guiltier” Riehl again at Breitbart.com, with another blatantly race-baiting post: Hoodie-Wearing Gunmen Kill 1, Wound 5 in Bobby Rush’s Chicago District.

No point in quoting this; I’ll just give you the short version. Blacks, crime, hoodies, blacks, crime, Black Panthers. Also, blacks.

Riehl’s audience at Breitbart.com takes it from there, of course:

What follows is another barrage of racist comments that I'll spare everyone from having to look at.
Thanks for letting us all know where you get your talking points from. Proud of yourself?

happy jack wrote:

[ In the case of a so-called hate crime, the reason why the crime was committed is neither tangible nor verifiable. The case depends on the state arbitrarily deciding upon, and then prosecuting for, what was in a person’s thoughts.[/b]

So when a Black family moves into a white neighborhood and the very next day wakes up to find "N***er go home,or Kill all N***ers" spray painted on their garage you wouldn't call that a hate crime?

Looks like another baldfaced lie from George Zimmerman and his family....
Trayvon Martin shooting: It's not George Zimmerman crying for help on 911 recording, 2 experts say

Quote :

Tom Owen, forensic consultant for Owen Forensic Services LLC and chair emeritus for the American Board of Recorded Evidence, used voice identification software to rule out Zimmerman. Another expert contacted by the Sentinel, utilizing different techniques, came to the same conclusion.

Zimmerman claims self-defense in the shooting and told police he was the one screaming for help. But these experts say the evidence tells a different story.

Owen, a court-qualified expert witness and former chief engineer for the New York Public Library's Rodgers and Hammerstein Archives of Recorded Sound, is an authority on biometric voice analysis — a computerized process comparing attributes of voices to determine whether they match.

After the Sentinel contacted Owen, he used software called Easy Voice Biometrics to compare Zimmerman's voice to the 911 call screams.

"I took all of the screams and put those together, and cut out everything else," Owen says.

The software compared that audio to Zimmerman's voice. It returned a 48 percent match. Owen said to reach a positive match with audio of this quality, he'd expect higher than 90 percent.
"As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it's not Zimmerman," Owen says, stressing that he cannot confirm the voice as Trayvon's, because he didn't have a sample of the teen's voice to compare.

Not all experts rely on biometrics. Ed Primeau, a Michigan-based audio engineer and forensics expert, is not a believer in the technology's use in courtroom settings.

He relies instead on audio enhancement and human analysis based on forensic experience. After listening closely to the 911 tape on which the screams are heard, Primeau also has a strong opinion.

"I believe that's Trayvon Martin in the background, without a doubt," Primeau says, stressing that the tone of the voice is a giveaway. "That's a young man screaming."

Zimmerman's call to authorities minutes before the shooting provides a good standard for comparison, Primeau says, because it captures his voice both at rest and in an agitated state.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Well since you insist on discussing this in terms of a "hate crime,"....

I’m not quite sure what I said that gives you the idea that I’m discussing this case in terms of a hate crime, mainly because, although some sort of crime was apparently committed, I don't have enough information to even know who committed the crime, much less what they were thinking about at the time. I think you and I are the only ones on these threads who have admitted to not knowing precisely what took place.

Wow. I wasn't talking about this case. I was engaging in an academic discussion solely about whether "motive matters." (It does)

But I guess I can see how you would think that I was talking about this case. Sorry if I caused any confusion.

The reason that I have no comment on the Zimmerman/Martin incident is that I learned a long time ago that it's better to wait until the facts are all in, (or at least enough of them to draw a conclusion) so in the meantime I just thought that it would be a good time to have a discussion about your comment that seemed to imply that the "why" of a crime (any crime) is irrelevant. (It isn't)

happy jack wrote:

chuckmo48 wrote:

So if I am a Florida resident and someone pisses me off and I can say that I reasonably believe that person was going to kill me I can legally kill him...

No, if someone merely pisses you off, you cannot 'legally' kill him. You may invoke the Stand Your Ground defense, but if an investigation establishes that you killed someone who was not a reasonable threat to you, you would not be covered under the Stand Your Ground law, and you would be subject to prosecution. It's really very simple.
(Incidentally, Indiana has a very similar law, in case you were unaware.)

What the "Stand Your Ground" law does is create a huge legal loophole that allows criminals to kill unarmed people and get away with it.Prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the dead person did not attack the killer.In Florida,the "Stand Your Ground" defense has been used successfully to allow gang members and wife beaters to escape any punishment for their crimes. This NRA sponsored expansion of gun rights is the only reason George Zimmerman is not behind bars where he belongs. Hopefully this incident will lead to some sanity about gun laws. Almost three million people have signed Change.Org's petition by Treyvon Martin's parents to charge George Zimmerman, including Florida's Attorney General.

I honestly wonder why anyone is drawing conclusions on a case that has NOT hit the judicial system, yet.

Everything is all about what everyone THINKS. They got the message in Florida. You just don't arrest a guy until the facts come out, in this particular case. Everyone speculates. The media, producing old pictures of the victim reminds me of the same thing that couple did for their 250 lb., 6 foot whatever, to gain sympathy from the public, despite the belief they are in the right to sue the police department.

Right away, the parents want results. The system has to work itself out. I can't judge, and won't judge. The courts have to do that. The media can twist the public's mind which makes everyone go in a jumble.

I can't recall specifically, but perhaps you guys out there can. Was there not a case where a white guy was dragged behind a pick-up truck and left to die - and the culpruts were black? I'm sure you can recall something of it - and I questioned just why there was no public outrage over it at the time, especially from the "Rainbow Coalition:, who IS suppose to cover people of all color.

Anyway, the media is just struggling to stay in business and will sent out all kinds of messages. I kind of think Zimmerman may be found guilty, but who am I to even think that, until all the facts are laid out, and the judicial system plays its role?

Meanwhile, I personally am sick of all these "Marches" for every cause, and it has held no meaning anymore. Really. I wonder if you guys feel that way. Marching. Marching, join us for the domestic violence in Munster next week, someone wrote in the comment section on some "Letter to the Editor" today. Then the NATO March...Wall Street. Now this.

It really upsets me more when the parents don't grieve and instead, are holding fundraisers to bury a kid, then in this incident, the mother trademarks the kids name on stuff. I wouldn't even think of those two things right after a son's death. It wouldn't be about marching, about money, nothing like that. It would be going through the legal system and sorting it out from there. The mother of this "KID" takes a patent out to have royalties sent to her, without even the criminal system runing its course, to see if or what happened. Too much disparity in reporting from the press or media rials up those that want justice, "NOW!" Well, I wanted justice right away about a year ago. I'm working through the legal system, and I can't just storm in, and say, "You were wrong!" I have to go through the legal system, present proof, etc.

Sparks, someone mentioned that Indiana has a similar law to "Stand Your Ground". You seem to know a lot about stuff, so what is Indiana's version of "Stand Your Ground". If you don't know, just say so. But, it will and will be helpful in my situation.

Outside of that, I think too many people are jumping to conclusions at this point. If Zimmerman is surely guilty, it will come out at the end. So will the guy who cleared him as having the right to shoot this young adult. I feel Zimmerman may be guilty, but I can't presume. I have to wait and see how the system comes to that conclusion.

I think these marches are getting out of hand for whatever reason people march for. So far, I have not seen any "march" changing anything. Perhaps in this case, though, it may bring to light that Florida's law, "Stand Your Ground" (and Indiana, if it truly exists) needs to be revised or eliminated. I think it creates more problems than it resolves.

As far as a cross-burning occuring on a lawn of a black family moving into a white neighborhood, I have not read about this occuring, but, VERY rarely. I think those days are over compared to thousands of black on black crime - the very children, kids, adult kids and adults that probably died in the thousands since two days ago. Where is the outrage from Al or Jesse to address the problem of fly by shootings by Blacks/gangs (white or black) against their own skin pigmentation that occurs everyday, everywhere across America?

That is more important to me than anything. Why not a stink about that? A little five year old gets shot outside a funeral home by a gang flying by the funeral home after family was standing outside yesterday, after a funeral...that's ok, right?

I think the priorties are mixed up with the leaders trying to signal out just a few cases versus millions across the U.S.

In this case, you just can't put a "bounty" on Zimmerman, you can't ASSUME things happened the way the different versions the media through out. The marches are stupid. The hoodies are stupid. If Traves or whatever his name was, was white and wore a hoodie and his pants showing the crack of his arse, do you think these "MARHCERS", or even Bobby Rush would have appeared on the floor wearing his pants to the bottom of his arse if that's what the victim had on and wore at the time, including the hoodie? I doublt it. The hoodie is worn by blacks, whites, yellows, green and read. Hoodie had nothing to do with it. Pants half down had nothing to do with it. If it did, would Rush have wore that, also?

I'm not just asking you, but all of you. I feel these marches for any cause have gone on too often, for too long, for too, frequently, they are now being ignored.

What about when a bunch of blacks drag a white guy down the road, where was the uproar? If you insist, I can provide a link and probably find quite a few cases citing them. I am sick of Blacks bringing up all they've done hundreds of years ago. They did not do anything more than white folks did. My mom picked crops, lived in a shack, you would wonder how the hell they ever stood the winter in the shack she lived in with no heat, but a wooden stove, no shingles, just boards with holes on the outside. She had to quit school (walking five miles) after her mom (my gram) died when she was sixteen years old...she lead a poor, poor life. Getting an orange at Christmas was a present. So, can't say the Blacks had it worse than her. She didn't know skin color was different. She managed to take in the hobos and no matter what color their skin was. In exchange for helping out on the farm, she prepared the one asset they had: livestock and food from the fields.

Ok, back on subject. One thing I would like to know is, why do these parents present pictures of innocent looking children in this case, and in the case of the adult "kid" from Calumet City, IL when they were innocent looking, but not the most recent pictures? Is this unusual?

Artie60438 wrote:

Ha! I see your also a fan of that race baiting Dan Riehl and the rest of the scum over at Breitbart.

Uh huh.
And, of course, NBC is not engaging in race-baiting, are they?

I’m sorry the first source I provided gave you the vapors.
How’s this one?
As you can see, the story has not changed one iota, regardless of the source. And the story is very clear about one thing – whoever was responsible for this was indisputably attempting to shape, in a deliberately negative manner, the public’s perception of Zimmerman.
Combine this with the constant use of the angelic photo of Trayvon Martin in juxtaposition to the mug shot of George Zimmerman and try to tell me with a straight face that there is no media bias in this case.
If you cannot see how this is a blatant attempt by NBC to skew the public's perception of George Zimmerman, then you are a very, very stupid person.
If you can see how this is a blatant attempt by NBC to skew the public's perception of George Zimmerman and deny that fact anyway, then you are a very, very dishonest person.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/nbc-to-do-internal-investigation-on-zimmerman-segment/2012/03/31/gIQAc4HhnS_blog.html?hpid=z6

Posted at 04:40 PM ET, 03/31/2012 TheWashingtonPost

NBC to do ‘internal investigation’ on Zimmerman segment

By Erik Wemple

NBC told this blog today that it would investigate its handling of a piece on the “Today” show that ham-handedly abridged the conversation between George Zimmerman and a dispatcher in the moments before the death of Trayvon Martin. A statement from NBC:
“We have launched an internal investigation into the editorial process surrounding this particular story.”
Great news right there. As exposed by Fox News and media watchdog site NewsBusters, the “Today” segment took this approach to a key part of the dispatcher call:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.
Here’s how the actual conversation went down:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
The difference between what “Today” put on its air and the actual tape? Complete: In the “Today” version, Zimmerman volunteered that this person “looks black,” a sequence of events that would more readily paint Zimmerman as a racial profiler. In reality’s version, Zimmerman simply answered a question about the race of the person whom he was reporting to the police. Nothing prejudicial at all in responding to such an inquiry.
In an appearance on Fox News’s “Hannity,” Brent Bozell, president of the conservative Media Research Center, called this elision on the part of ”Today” an “all-out falsehood” — not just a distortion or misrepresentation.
And it’s a falsehood with repercussions. Much of the public discussion over the past week has settled on how conflicting facts and interpretations call into question whether Zimmerman acted justifiably or criminally. That’s a process that’ll continue. But one set of facts in the is ironclad, and that’s the back-and-forth between Zimmerman and the dispatcher. To portray that exchange in a way that wrongs Zimmerman is high editorial malpractice well worthy of the investigation that NBC is now mounting.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Ha! I see your also a fan of that race baiting Dan Riehl and the rest of the scum over at Breitbart.

[b]Uh huh.
And, of course, NBC is not engaging in race-baiting, are they?

More of the Bill Maher did it too defense strategy? NBC would never allow the types of racists comments that Bretbart and Dan Riehl does. If I had a dollar for every time Breitbart & Co,Fox News,etc, deliberately lied or misled people I'd be a multi-millionaire.

Well, parts of my questions were answered through your bickering. I do side with Jack, I'm not sorry,. I share the same opinion(s. But no one answered this directly: You blame the media for showing younger versions of the victim and so called-victim, Zimmerman, but, who supplied the picture outside the family for the BIG, YOUNG, victim Zimmerman supposedly shot in self-defense. I agree about the part where Jack insiuates the media, but it doesn't acknowledge who supplies the younger version picture of the young, black "victim". Again, is this a new "norm" as in the Cal City case? How can you blame the media for what the family presented as a latest version of what a child looks like now, when in fact media leaks out the pix portrays him at 4 tears younger. with hints of a baggaged past and face book crap?

I understand kids do things parents are not aware of, but one thing my parents did, was, if we came home with the "first time stealing", he marched us right back to the store, and forced us to tell the store manager we stoled, we are sorry, and here's our stolen lipstick or whatever." Back then, they admired parents who had the nerve to drive you right back to where they asked you how in the hell did you buy lipstick or even nail polish. Not me, my little sister wrote about it. The angel I never thought did such a thing...but I did, and boy, you know I was grounded forever for four years for stupid, defiant acts. But stealing tvs, game systems, today? I have yet to hear from any kid/parent saying they marched their kid right back to the source where they got their crap from. Like a flat screen tv? It's the parents...kids they get paid for having, then when they get older, anything they bring home that the parent/s themselves could never afford, it's "OK".

But, answer my questions: Why this sudden showing of their poor kids at years younger than at the actual age they are claiming they were "done wrong"? Is this something new, or have I missed this over the years?

happy jack wrote:

sparks wrote:

In Florida,the "Stand Your Ground" defense has been used successfully to allow gang members and wife beaters to escape any punishment for their crimes.

Could you provide a link for this?

He might not beat his wife, but I'm sure she has no say in anything, or dillusionally thinks she's not worthy of any other person but him as a husband. If this was posted on his facebook, he'd summon her over and tell her to read this, what I wrote, and order her to tell me off. She, as an enabler, as Queen for the MOMENT, will take over the keyboard and strike right back "at'cha". Nothing like co-dependents. Except not for drugs, for each other's ego.

By the way, I don't expect Sparks to answer. He's busy asking his wife if she remembered to do his wash, clean the floor, spit-clean his shoes, while she so admires the fact she is "NEEDED". I can just envision that marriage. Two enablers. He thinks he's God, and she believes it. I really believe that.

I don't think she has a mind of her own; if she did, she would have left right after marrying. She felt dependent on his "masterful mouth and ways". It's a form of dysfunctional, dependendecy, at his mercy. She was told what boundaries not to cross in their marriage. His word is the word of God.

He judges, depite all those bible passages he wrote in the past. Those are the kind to avoid even dating.

Go ahead...words don't hurt ME.