Zimmerman was a hero to Blacks before the shooting.

Comments made on the video....
This is an excellent video with lots of info I had never seen or heard about George Zimmerman - An Alter Boy for years, a public hero for stepping in and rescuing a black homeless man being beaten by a white kid, and making sure a police official's son is prosecuted for that beating, mentoring black children,

Zim's Mom was from Peru, His grandfather was black.

Was Fredericka going to a rodeo? She looked ridiculous as hell w/ her pink shiny cowboy hat and matching pink flowers.LOL!

Interesting...I don't know how to post the You-tube only the link.
How many of these cases did Obama comment on?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K02P9SHPIis

Joanimaroni wrote:Interesting...I don't know how to post the You-tube only the link.
How many of these cases did Obama comment on?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K02P9SHPIis

    Wonder why CNN and NBC didn't 'edit' the good reports on Zimmerman...Anyone know if Zimmerman has litigation against those that intentionally slandered him?....

Right-click on the link at the top of the YouTube page and copy. On the forum page, click the YouTube icon. A window will open. Right-click the link you copied into the space designated for the link. Press "insert". Done.

Thank you

People never seem to understand the difference between the current case in question and every other case that they compare it to when they say "Why isn't this being covered?"

Case A: Person A kills person B. Person A is arrested.

Case B: Person A kills person B. No arrest is made.


See the difference here?

boards of FL wrote:People never seem to understand the difference between the current case in question and every other case that they compare it to when they say "Why isn't this being covered?"

Case A:  Person A kills person B.  Person A is arrested.

Case B:  Person A kills person B.  No arrest is made.


See the difference here?

Case B: Person A kills person B while defending himself. No arrest.

Joanimaroni wrote:

boards of FL wrote:People never seem to understand the difference between the current case in question and every other case that they compare it to when they say "Why isn't this being covered?"

Case A:  Person A kills person B.  Person A is arrested.

Case B:  Person A kills person B.  No arrest is made.


See the difference here?

Case B:  Person A kills person B while defending himself.  No arrest.

Case B:  Person A profiles person B and follows him around with a gun.  Person B runs away.  Person A continues to pursue.  Person A and person B engage in conflict.  Person A kills person B.  Turns out that Person A's suspicions were erroneous. Oops. No arrest is made.

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

boards of FL wrote:People never seem to understand the difference between the current case in question and every other case that they compare it to when they say "Why isn't this being covered?"

Case A:  Person A kills person B.  Person A is arrested.

Case B:  Person A kills person B.  No arrest is made.


See the difference here?

Case B:  Person A kills person B while defending himself.  No arrest.

Case B:  Person A profiles person B and follows him around with a gun.  Person B runs away.  Person A continues to pursue.  Person A and person B engage in conflict.  Person A kills person B.  Turns out that Person A's suspicions were erroneous.  Oops.  No arrest is made.

Case B:  Person A profiles person B  (legal activity) follows him to get a current location  for  policeman .  Person A has a concealed and permitted weapon holstered.  Person B runs away but doesn't run to safety (his home).  Person A is confronted by person B who doubled back. Person B attacks Person A. Person A unable to retreat must fire weapon to save his life.    No arrest made secondary to self defense shooting incident.  Oops...biased media attention,  racial upset/tension, and presidential commentary  (interference in a civil matter) force an arrest.

Joanimaroni wrote:Person A unable to retreat must fire weapon to save his life.  

He was getting his ass kicked by the kid he was stalking. Killing the kid isn't the only option.

Let's set a precedent that anytime a fight breaks out, whoever is armed can shoot the other guy.

This guy reached into his pocket. It turns out that we was just getting his keys. Unfortunately, I felt he was going for a gun and that my life was being threatened, so I shot him. Oops.

Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter, not second degree murder. He didn't go out there with a plan to kill anyone, though his own moronic actions and persistence in pursuing someone who was obviously trying to get away resulted in him killing a kid who was doing nothing wrong.

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:Person A unable to retreat must fire weapon to save his life.  

He was getting his ass kicked by the kid he was stalking.  Killing the kid isn't the only option.  

Let's set a precedent that anytime a fight breaks out, whoever is armed can shoot the other guy.

This guy reached into his pocket.  It turns out that we was just getting his keys.  Unfortunately, I felt he was going for a gun and that my life was being threatened, so I shot him.  Oops.

Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter, not second degree murder.  He didn't go out there with a plan to kill anyone, though his own moronic actions and persistence in pursuing someone who was obviously trying to get away resulted in him killing a kid who was doing nothing wrong.

This is actually true.  It's called self defense.

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:Person A unable to retreat must fire weapon to save his life.  

He was getting his ass kicked by the kid he was stalking.  Killing the kid isn't the only option.  

Let's set a precedent that anytime a fight breaks out, whoever is armed can shoot the other guy.

This guy reached into his pocket.  It turns out that we was just getting his keys.  Unfortunately, I felt he was going for a gun and that my life was being threatened, so I shot him.  Oops.

Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter, not second degree murder.  He didn't go out there with a plan to kill anyone, though his own moronic actions and persistence in pursuing someone who was obviously trying to get away resulted in him killing a kid who was doing nothing wrong.

He was getting his ass kicked by the kid he was stalking. Killing the kid isn't the only option.

Actually it was following but if you prefer the word stalking remember, some of the actions that can contribute to stalking can be legal, such as gathering information.



What option did he have? He yelled for help, he tried to get out from under Martin, he fired his weapon while having his head slammed on concrete. Zimmerman had been told "you're going to die".


Florida’s “Stand-Your-Ground” law was passed in 2005. The law allows those who feel a reasonable threat of death or bodily injury to “meet force with force” rather than retreat.

Joanimaroni wrote:What option did he have?

He could have fought back or he could have continued getting his ass kicked.  If he was going to go with the latter, he could have simply balled up until Martin basically had enough.  Fights break out everywhere every day and, miraculously, most don't end with someone getting fatally shot.  Now, had there been a rash of fights breaking out in Sanford - all of which resulted in death for the loser - sure, I could see where Zimmerman could have  reasonably felt his life was in danger.  If Sanford had some weird reputation of being a place in which all fist fights end in death, Zimmerman would have a good case for self defense.  But since that isn't the case, and since Zimmerman has shown a history of having unreasonable suspicion, he is guilty of manslaughter here.

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:What option did he have?

He could have fought back or he could have continued getting his ass kicked.  If he was going to go with the latter, he could have simply balled up until Martin basically had enough.  Fights break out everywhere every day and, miraculously, most don't end with someone getting fatally shot.  Now, had there been a rash of fights breaking out in Sanford - all of which resulted in death for the loser - sure, I could see where Zimmerman could have  reasonably felt his life was in danger.  If Sanford had some weird reputation of being a place in which all fist fights end in death, Zimmerman would have a good case for self defense.  But since that isn't the case, and since Zimmerman has shown a history of having unreasonable suspicion, he is guilty of manslaughter here.

Imminent danger....has to be considered.  Zimmerman, as you said was getting his asses kicked. In actuality he was getting his head slammed into concrete. He felt he was in imminent danger. His actions were justified.


All that other "stuff" you said is inconsequential.

Joanimaroni wrote:Imminent danger....has to be considered.  Zimmerman, as you said was getting his asses kicked. In actuality he was getting his head slammed into concrete. He felt he was in imminent danger. His actions were justified.

He was wrong. Just as he was wrong about Martin being some sort of burglar. Just as he was wrong in each of the countless calls that he made to the non-emergency police line. He has an irrational sense that everyone he doesn't recognize in his neighborhood is a criminal. Being overly sensitive to people you don't know isn't a license to kill.

Based on the evidence presented thus far I believe Zimmerman may be convicted of man slaughter but not 2nd degree murder. Mr. Zimmerman pursued and eventually provoked a deadly confrontation with the young man. Martin, I believe, did attack Mr. Zimmerman out of his own fear of what this menacing figure was doing following him around in the dark. Zimmerman's appearance on the night of the incident was far different than what we are seeing in the court room. He had a shaved head with a goatee giving an appearance of a street wise cracker yet now after legal counsel coaching he has shaved the goatee and has grown his hair out. So now we have a well groomed rotund Hispanic guy who does not give off the message Martin saw on the night he died which was one of a menacing figure following him and he was not able to lose him. Mr.Zimmerman, in my opinion, should have first warned Martin he was armed before pulling the trigger. If we are to believe Zimmerman's account he could have easily verbally warned the guy giving him a butt whipping that he was armed and would shoot if he (martin) did not stop the assault. This was so avoidable and unnecessary but, in my mind, Zimmerman was 100% responsible for this young man's death but other evidence may still be brought in during the defense's case that could change my view.

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:Imminent danger....has to be considered.  Zimmerman, as you said was getting his asses kicked. In actuality he was getting his head slammed into concrete. He felt he was in imminent danger. His actions were justified.

He was wrong.  Just as he was wrong about Martin being some sort of burglar.  Just as he was wrong in each of the countless calls that he made to the non-emergency police line.  He has an irrational sense that everyone he doesn't recognize in his neighborhood is a criminal.  Being overly sensitive to people you don't know isn't a license to kill.

Being in imminent danger is justifiable.

knothead wrote:Based on the evidence presented thus far I believe Zimmerman may be convicted of man slaughter but not 2nd degree murder.  Mr. Zimmerman pursued and eventually provoked a deadly confrontation with the young man.  Martin, I believe, did attack Mr. Zimmerman out of his own fear of what this menacing figure was doing following him around in the dark.  Zimmerman's appearance on the night of the incident was far different than what we are seeing in the court room.  He had a shaved head with a goatee giving an appearance of a street wise cracker yet now after legal counsel coaching he has shaved the goatee and has grown his hair out.  So now we have a well groomed rotund Hispanic guy who does not give off the message Martin saw on the night he died which was one of a menacing figure following him and he was not able to lose him.  Mr.Zimmerman, in my opinion, should have first warned Martin he was armed before pulling the trigger.  If we are to believe Zimmerman's account he could have easily verbally warned the guy giving him a butt whipping that he was armed and would shoot if he (martin) did not stop the assault.  This was so avoidable and unnecessary but, in my mind, Zimmerman was 100% responsible for this young man's death but other evidence may still be brought in during the defense's case that could change my view.  

Following someone around isn't against the law.

Starting a fight and slamming someone's head against the sidewalk is against the law.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZk9tycQ9q0

 

Damaged Eagle wrote:

knothead wrote:Based on the evidence presented thus far I believe Zimmerman may be convicted of man slaughter but not 2nd degree murder.  Mr. Zimmerman pursued and eventually provoked a deadly confrontation with the young man.  Martin, I believe, did attack Mr. Zimmerman out of his own fear of what this menacing figure was doing following him around in the dark.  Zimmerman's appearance on the night of the incident was far different than what we are seeing in the court room.  He had a shaved head with a goatee giving an appearance of a street wise cracker yet now after legal counsel coaching he has shaved the goatee and has grown his hair out.  So now we have a well groomed rotund Hispanic guy who does not give off the message Martin saw on the night he died which was one of a menacing figure following him and he was not able to lose him.  Mr.Zimmerman, in my opinion, should have first warned Martin he was armed before pulling the trigger.  If we are to believe Zimmerman's account he could have easily verbally warned the guy giving him a butt whipping that he was armed and would shoot if he (martin) did not stop the assault.  This was so avoidable and unnecessary but, in my mind, Zimmerman was 100% responsible for this young man's death but other evidence may still be brought in during the defense's case that could change my view.  

Following someone around isn't against the law.

Starting a fight and slamming someone's head against the sidewalk is against the law.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZk9tycQ9q0

 

*******************************************************

Based on my own rather long life and given your logic, I could have killed numerous individuals or conversely been killed by simply engaging someone physically. I agree with the literal meaning of your statement but that must taken within the factual context. We cannot allow people to start settling fights with a deadly weapon . . . . . difficult concept for some.

knothead wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

knothead wrote:Based on the evidence presented thus far I believe Zimmerman may be convicted of man slaughter but not 2nd degree murder.  Mr. Zimmerman pursued and eventually provoked a deadly confrontation with the young man.  Martin, I believe, did attack Mr. Zimmerman out of his own fear of what this menacing figure was doing following him around in the dark.  Zimmerman's appearance on the night of the incident was far different than what we are seeing in the court room.  He had a shaved head with a goatee giving an appearance of a street wise cracker yet now after legal counsel coaching he has shaved the goatee and has grown his hair out.  So now we have a well groomed rotund Hispanic guy who does not give off the message Martin saw on the night he died which was one of a menacing figure following him and he was not able to lose him.  Mr.Zimmerman, in my opinion, should have first warned Martin he was armed before pulling the trigger.  If we are to believe Zimmerman's account he could have easily verbally warned the guy giving him a butt whipping that he was armed and would shoot if he (martin) did not stop the assault.  This was so avoidable and unnecessary but, in my mind, Zimmerman was 100% responsible for this young man's death but other evidence may still be brought in during the defense's case that could change my view.  

Following someone around isn't against the law.

Starting a fight and slamming someone's head against the sidewalk is against the law.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZk9tycQ9q0

 

*******************************************************

Based on my own rather long life and given your logic, I could have killed numerous individuals or conversely been killed by simply engaging someone physically.  I agree with the literal meaning of your statement but that must taken within the factual context.  We cannot allow people to start settling fights with a deadly weapon . . . . . difficult concept for some.

That is the law. Zimmerman did not start a fight. Martin did.

knothead wrote:Based on the evidence presented thus far I believe Zimmerman may be convicted of man slaughter but not 2nd degree murder.  Mr. Zimmerman pursued and eventually provoked a deadly confrontation with the young man.  Martin, I believe, did attack Mr. Zimmerman out of his own fear of what this menacing figure was doing following him around in the dark.  Zimmerman's appearance on the night of the incident was far different than what we are seeing in the court room.  He had a shaved head with a goatee giving an appearance of a street wise cracker yet now after legal counsel coaching he has shaved the goatee and has grown his hair out.  So now we have a well groomed rotund Hispanic guy who does not give off the message Martin saw on the night he died which was one of a menacing figure following him and he was not able to lose him.  Mr.Zimmerman, in my opinion, should have first warned Martin he was armed before pulling the trigger.  If we are to believe Zimmerman's account he could have easily verbally warned the guy giving him a butt whipping that he was armed and would shoot if he (martin) did not stop the assault.  This was so avoidable and unnecessary but, in my mind, Zimmerman was 100% responsible for this young man's death but other evidence may still be brought in during the defense's case that could change my view.  

I find your assessment interesting to say Z pursued a deadly fight? So you think it is ok to respond w/ violence in situations?

That is the law. Zimmerman did not start a fight. Martin did

Dreams, I know but only Zimmerman knows the truth and you and I must extrapolate from the remnants of evidence . . . . . I don't disagree that Martin probably went on the attack . . . .why? Because he was fearful for his own safety by being followed in the dark by a stranger? It cuts both ways . . .

knothead wrote:That is the law. Zimmerman did not start a fight. Martin did

Dreams, I know but only Zimmerman knows the truth and you and I must extrapolate from the remnants of evidence . . . . . I don't disagree that Martin probably went on the attack . . . .why? Because he was fearful for his own safety by being followed in the dark by a stranger? It cuts both ways . . .

If fearful, why didn't Martin run to his father's house....it was close by.

Martin was probably feeling his oats and the gangsta hype kicked in and he wasn't going to let some short pudgy cracker make him retreat..pride killed him.