VMI77 wrote:I don't see how you can contend he got a pass unless you're also contending that the police are either stupid or corrupt. To believe he got a pass you have to believe that the police who investigated either were fooled by the shooter (IOW, that the media is smarter than the police), or that they knowingly let him go without charges, which would imply that they're so racist they would let a killer go free.
Read my post above. The police have his statement and they also have the tapes.
I don't understand what you're getting at. You seem to be saying that they didn't come to a conclusion you believe is obvious. If so, then in your view, is it because the police are stupid, or corrupt?
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."
matriculated wrote:The Miami Herald reports that Zimmerman told the police on the scene that he actually never pursued the teen. That is a blatant lie in light of the fact that on the tape he says that he is following the boy.
Miami Herald:
"Zimmerman said he had stepped out of his truck to check the name of the street he was on when Trayvon attacked him from behind as he walked back to his truck, police said. He said he feared for his life and fired the semiautomatic handgun he was licensed to carry because he feared for his life.
Zimmerman told the police that the only reason he exited his car was to see the name of the street. We've all heard the tape by now. Sanford PD: "Are you following him?" Zimmerman: "Yes." Sanford PD: "OK, we don't need you to do that."
...so his "story" explains how he came to be sitting on the victim 2-3 houses down in a lady's yard??? we're still not hearing the truth...
Last edited by speedsix on Thu Mar 22, 2012 4:41 pm, edited 3 times in total.
VMI77 wrote:I don't see how you can contend he got a pass unless you're also contending that the police are either stupid or corrupt. To believe he got a pass you have to believe that the police who investigated either were fooled by the shooter (IOW, that the media is smarter than the police), or that they knowingly let him go without charges, which would imply that they're so racist they would let a killer go free.
Read my post above. The police have his statement and they also have the tapes.
I don't understand what you're getting at. You seem to be saying that they didn't come to a conclusion you believe is obvious. If so, then in your view, is it because the police are stupid, or corrupt?
I'm not getting at anything. Draw your own conclusions. Zimmerman tells the police on the scene he got out of his car just to check the street name. The police have him on tape admitting that he actually followed the boy. Several weeks later, no arrest. IANAL
P.S. speedsix, I think you need to fix your post above, your comment got sucked into the quote of my post it seems...
Last edited by matriculated on Thu Mar 22, 2012 4:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote:
"..Zimmerman was in no way conceivable "standing his ground"...he was playing police...and pursued the boy even after being told not to...he does not represent most responsible CHLers and we have no moral or ethical responsibility to support him...
...as to the fight to preserve "Stand your ground"-type laws...certainly..."
To this I can only reply HUAH!!!
This reminds me of a purportedly true and documented old west story. A miscreant on a wagon train shoots and kills a squaw simply for the thrill of "killin' an Injun". The enraged Indians surround the wagon train and demand the settlers hand over the perp "or else". For the good of all minus one they surrender him to a grisly fate.
The above is my perception based on the "facts" as published. If it turns out that Zimmerman was indeed some kind of neighborhood Zorro righter of wrongs (i.e. a wannabe cop / vigilante) and pursued that kid - regardless of what happened in the last few moments, he deserves to go to prison or to a mental institution.
One day, years ago, in broad open daylight, I, a bright young college student, was walking down a PUBLIC thoroughfare, on my way home. Some old neighborhood vigilante type decided I looked "suspicious". He stopped his car, and in a very aggressive, confrontational, hostile, contemptuous, and demeaning manner, demanded that I produce my driver's license. I asked him to produce a police officer's credential. Once I confirmed that he was indeed not a peace officer I told him to have a nice day. At that he threatened to call the sheriff's office. I told him "fine" and went on my way. Had he exited his car and so much as touched me, I'd have come unglued. No citizen has the right to do what Zimmerman did, if indeed he did it, as reported.
If he did, I think he deserves to be thrown to the wolves. If he uses the "stand your ground" defense successfully, I regrettably would have to agree that the law NEEDS to be tweaked. So I hope it doesn't come to that. We can all learn from Teddy Roosevelt. Half of his motto was "carry a big stick". We who carry a big stick must NEVER forget or forego the other half: "Speak softly".
By falling in with the lynch mob and not looking at applicable law, gun owners are falling into a trap. If, despite Florida law, this guy gets arrested and convicted because the Martin family's lawyers managed to whip up a media field day and convict Zimmerman in the carnival barking kangaroo court of public opinion, this sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of us if we're ever involved in a self defense shooting.
First they came for the stupid wannabe cop, and we didn't say anything.
Do we really want to see the rest of the poem?
Very astute observation --I'm rather chagrined it didn't occur to me. That is exactly the legal strategy here because that will be a lot easier to accomplish than changing the law. Where are the national media stories and coverage for unambiguous acts of self-defense, or gun owners saving a victim from rape or murder? There are none. Where's all the media outrage for the White kid doused with gasoline and set on fire by a couple of Black kids? There is none --and very very little coverage. None of that fits or advances the collectivist narrative and agenda. This gives the left fuel to fire up anti-gun, anti-self-defense, and racial identity agendas, AND it allows them to whore for the Obama campaign, by promoting the illusion that his administration is concerned about people and trying to bring "change" and "justice" to America, setting all those racist southern conservative types right.
While I do agree with you that the media has an agenda, and we do not hear enough stories about the good guys, where are those black kids who set the white kid on fire? Were they arrested for their actions? Or did they walk because they were defending themselves? That's the difference....justice is and will be served in that case.....this one for the first 3 weeks the guy was getting a pass.
Jusster
I don't know where they are, mainly because it's not being covered nationally. I don't think they've been caught, haven't found anything that says they were, but then, there is virtually no coverage. And that was really my point, it was a "hate" crime....they followed the kid, poured gas on him, and lit him on fire, because he's White...and there is no national media outrage as there would be if the races were reversed, while the race issue in this case is being hyped. And if the races had been reversed it's not too difficult to imagine national media attention and demands that the police devote more resources to catching them --since "justice" can't be served unless they're caught.
I don't see how you can contend he got a pass unless you're also contending that the police are either stupid or corrupt. To believe he got a pass you have to believe that the police who investigated either were fooled by the shooter (IOW, that the media is smarter than the police), or that they knowingly let him go without charges, which would imply that they're so racist they would let a killer go free.
Ok found the story about the white kid being burned by 2 black teenagers. Has the news clip in it too. I will say the same thing that I said about the Martin/Zimmerman case at the beginning. Not enough details at this time for me to state an opinion. If they are classmates who attend the same school then they shouldn't be hard to find. But your details about gas being poured on the kid are incorrect. See news clip.
Now back to the case that started the OP. The SDPD is currently under investigation AND yesterday SD city council voted that they have no faith in the police chief, which means they are asking that he be fired. So I don't know about stupid or corrupt, but looks like others already believe they are incompetent to say the least.
...incompetence,at the least...(I am one of those)...it wasn't handled professionally at all...whether the motive was racially caused indifference, cronyism due to who his parents are (Z's) or whatever other reason...if it had been handled with normal levels of thoroughness and professionalism, this level of outcry might have been avoided...
Jusster wrote:Now back to the case that started the OP. The SDPD is currently under investigation AND yesterday SD city council voted that they have no faith in the police chief, which means they are asking that he be fired. So I don't know about stupid or corrupt, but looks like others already believe they are incompetent to say the least.
Jusster
He stepped down "temporarily" today. I don't think "temporarily" is gonna cut it. I still think this guy has no clue about the magnitude of the situation.
VMI77 wrote:I don't see how you can contend he got a pass unless you're also contending that the police are either stupid or corrupt. To believe he got a pass you have to believe that the police who investigated either were fooled by the shooter (IOW, that the media is smarter than the police), or that they knowingly let him go without charges, which would imply that they're so racist they would let a killer go free.
Read my post above. The police have his statement and they also have the tapes.
I don't understand what you're getting at. You seem to be saying that they didn't come to a conclusion you believe is obvious. If so, then in your view, is it because the police are stupid, or corrupt?
I'm not getting at anything. Draw your own conclusions. Zimmerman tells the police on the scene he got out of his car just to check the street name. The police have him on tape admitting that he actually followed the boy. Several weeks later, no arrest. IANAL
P.S. speedsix, I think you need to fix your post above, your comment got sucked into the quote of my post it seems...
Hey, while I tend to think the guy was on a power trip and committed murder, I haven't seen the evidence, and I've also learned over time that the media lie --all the time. Some things they lie about more than other things and this is one of those things. In the last 30 years nearly every story where the media could create a national narrative that undermines the concept of self-defense, the reporting has fundamentally been a lie (usually a lie by omission). They deliberately lie about the law, as they're doing here, to inflame people --trying to convince them that self-defense is either wrong or stupid and that only the government should have guns. This story fits every bit of the collectivist agenda to a tee....boiling down to: see what happens when people are allowed to have guns.
You must believe that the police are both stupid and corrupt. Anyone who's been alive for the last 20 years knows that the racial aspect alone is going to draw attention, so it is highly unlikely that the police didn't look closely at the evidence and consult a prosecutor in the wake of this shooting, and make certain their judgement was legal and correct, because they'd have to know they were going to be under the looking glass --unless they're stupid. And if it's so obvious that he's guilty, or should be charged, then they had also to decide to let someone get away with murder ---and what would their motivation be for that? They hate African Americans so much that they're willing to have their world turned upside down in order to let a killer go free?
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."
Jusster wrote:Now back to the case that started the OP. The SDPD is currently under investigation AND yesterday SD city council voted that they have no faith in the police chief, which means they are asking that he be fired. So I don't know about stupid or corrupt, but looks like others already believe they are incompetent to say the least.
Jusster
Incompetent is close enough to stupid, when it comes to professional performance, that I won't quibble about the difference. It doesn't necessarily mean that at all. This is political now and they made a political move. Just as you'd expect a politician to do. With any ambiguity and a huge political outcry about something with PC written all over it, politicians, being nearly universally gutless, are going to throw anyone to the wolves, and guilt or innocence doesn't matter.
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."
Eyewitnesses are very unreliable in a situation like this.
Recently in my town, the police shot and killed a man. There were two stories being told:
Police story:
Traffic stop. Guy in passenger seat comes up with a felony warrant for his arrest, but when he realizes he is about to get arrested and go away for a very long time, he runs to his car. One officer follows, attempts to use taser, one dart doesn't stick. Perp responds with a .357 revolver, fires it at officer's face. Bullet misses officer by less than an inch, goes through hair, powder burns on face. He falls over backwards. From other officers' view, it looks like he just blew their coworker's head off. Multiple officers fire their duty weapons, most rounds hit, coroner doesn't know how many times he was hit because there's simply too much damage. Officers cuff him and then check for vitals.
Eyewitnesses:
Everything above, but they claim that he was cuffed BEFORE he was shot, and that he never fired his weapon or did anything to attack the officers.
One problem: Eyewitnesses didn't know that tasers have cameras on the front that turn on when the taser is activated. The taser video destroys the story of the neighborhood "witnesses".
My point: I trust physical evidence more than witnesses. Too many people out there are anti-gun, anti-cop or whatever. Plus, people like to change their stories when something gets into the media to try and be cool or be a part of the story to get their 15 minutes of fame out of it. With so many people brought up to admire American Idol stars more than say a soldier or police officer who puts his or her life on the line every day for others, it's no surprise that everybody wants to be a fame seeker. Screw those people, I want some hard evidence.
Jusster wrote:But your details about gas being poured on the kid are incorrect. See news clip.
Enlighten me please....here's a quote from the article at the link I provided:
"They rushed him on the porch as he tried to get the door open," Coon told KMBC. "(One of them) poured the gasoline, then flicked the Bic, and said, 'This is what you deserve. You get what you deserve, white boy.'"
I didn't watch the clip, just read the article.....are you saying they just poured it "at" him, not "on" him?
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."
VMI77 wrote:Hey, while I tend to think the guy was on a power trip and committed murder,
Murder? Maybe. I don't think there was any premeditation involved. I'd be perfectly satisfied if he'd got arrested and tagged with a manslaughter charge.
VMI77 wrote:I've also learned over time that the media lie --all the time.
I know.
Miami Herald says they got the info about what Zimmerman told the police on the scene from Sanford PD, hence the "police said." If Miami Herald is blatantly making that up for some reason, that shouldn't be hard to prove. I see no reason to question the veracity of that claim. The Sanford PD isn't.
VMI77 wrote:Anyone who's been alive for the last 20 years knows that the racial aspect alone is going to draw attention, so it is highly unlikely that the police didn't look closely at the evidence and consult a prosecutor in the wake of this shooting, and make certain their judgement was legal and correct, because they'd have to know they were going to be under the looking glass --unless they're stupid.
PracticalTactical wrote:Eyewitnesses are very unreliable in a situation like this.
Recently in my town, the police shot and killed a man. There were two stories being told:
Police story:
Traffic stop. Guy in passenger seat comes up with a felony warrant for his arrest, but when he realizes he is about to get arrested and go away for a very long time, he runs to his car. One officer follows, attempts to use taser, one dart doesn't stick. Perp responds with a .357 revolver, fires it at officer's face. Bullet misses officer by less than an inch, goes through hair, powder burns on face. He falls over backwards. From other officers' view, it looks like he just blew their coworker's head off. Multiple officers fire their duty weapons, most rounds hit, coroner doesn't know how many times he was hit because there's simply too much damage. Officers cuff him and then check for vitals.
Eyewitnesses:
Everything above, but they claim that he was cuffed BEFORE he was shot, and that he never fired his weapon or did anything to attack the officers.
One problem: Eyewitnesses didn't know that tasers have cameras on the front that turn on when the taser is activated. The taser video destroys the story of the neighborhood "witnesses".
My point: I trust physical evidence more than witnesses. Too many people out there are anti-gun, anti-cop or whatever. Plus, people like to change their stories when something gets into the media to try and be cool or be a part of the story to get their 15 minutes of fame out of it. With so many people brought up to admire American Idol stars more than say a soldier or police officer who puts his or her life on the line every day for others, it's no surprise that everybody wants to be a fame seeker. Screw those people, I want some hard evidence.
Exactly....and when you throw in our lying media and their anti-gun agenda, there is even more cause for doubt.
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."
If you say so.