On 3/25/2012 8:47 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
gonjahgonjah.net wrote in
net:

On 3/25/2012 7:38 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
gonjahgonjah.net wrote in
net:

On 3/25/2012 12:25 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 11:57:57 -0400, Ed
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 11:33:37 -0400, "
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 07:07:16 -0500,
wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
(Note: I don't like anyone covering their head and/or face
when walking in public).
Wow! You must be a baddd asss when it's -40F. ;-)
In Florida?

Han is not in Florida.
Right, but it was raining that day and people in Florida often
cover their heads in the rain. I do up here.
Have you seen the transcript of the phone conversation with the
girl?
AS IF the girlfriend will always be telling the truth...especially
after the kid's parents began howling about racism. Stories can
change.

Martin says "I think this guy is following me" "I an going to put
my hoodie up" "I am walking slower" (in response to her saying he
should run). He was "heading toward the back gate" according to the
Zimmerman call.
The 46 other calls make it sound like this was not the first time
someone was trespassing on that route.
It sure sounds like this was a well established shortcut from the
7-11 area to the houses behind the community, along with quite a
bit of theft along the way.
Do any one of those things justify shooting Martin? BTW: Martin
wasn't trespassing. AFAIKT
Martin was NOT shot for trespassing,he was shot during an ATTACK on
Zimmerman. Where Zimmerman sustained injuries to face and back of
head. HOW do you fall on grass and get a bad gash on the -back- of
your head?

The kid had his phone,he could have shouted "I'm calling 911" (and
done so),he could have politely asked why he was being followed.
He could have knocked on somebody's door,involve a third party,a
neutral. Heck,most people with bad intent would flee once their
victim knocked on a home's door and/or began yelling.
Martin apparently chose to attack. a Bad choice.

Big "could have". I'll bet those details are haunting Zimmerman.
From what I've read Z is very remorseful.

Naturally a normal person is going to be remorseful about having to kill a
person,the first time,even in justified self-defense.
Mentally Disturbed people are the ones who have no problem killing.
Sociopaths,psychopaths.snip

Right. But is this the behavior of a man that thinks HE did the right
thing? I'm not saying Z is any of those things. I think he's a man who
exercised VERY poor judgement and in most cases there are consequences.

gonjah gonjah.net wrote in
news
On 3/25/2012 8:05 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
gonjahgonjah.net wrote in
net:

On 3/25/2012 2:28 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 12:33:42 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

On 3/25/2012 12:25 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 11:57:57 -0400, Ed
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 11:33:37 -0400, "
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 07:07:16 -0500,
wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
(Note: I don't like anyone covering their head and/or face
when walking in public).
Wow! You must be a baddd asss when it's -40F. ;-)
In Florida?

Han is not in Florida.
Right, but it was raining that day and people in Florida often
cover their heads in the rain. I do up here.
Have you seen the transcript of the phone conversation with the
girl?

Martin says "I think this guy is following me" "I an going to put
my hoodie up" "I am walking slower" (in response to her saying he
should run). He was "heading toward the back gate" according to
the Zimmerman call.
The 46 other calls make it sound like this was not the first time
someone was trespassing on that route.
It sure sounds like this was a well established shortcut from the
7-11 area to the houses behind the community, along with quite a
bit of theft along the way.
Do any one of those things justify shooting Martin? BTW: Martin
wasn't trespassing. AFAIKT
Martin attacking and beating the snot out of Zimmerman was. Do
keep up.
I'm not trying to be rude but I was commenting on gfretwell's post.
I really wanted to know what he thought. The "beating" (wasn't in
this post) as you call it is still in question.

Zimmerman is 28 and looks from the photo to be a full grown armed
man. Martin was 16 and 140lbs.
Six foot three,that's a long reach. even a 140 lb "kid" (and athlete)
can pack a pretty good punch with a long reach.
some pro boxers are less than 140 lbs.
BTW,people have been killed by a SINGLE punch to the head from
ordinary people.
Zimmerman should not have been following Martin IMO.
He was keeping the suspect in sight until police arrived,so the
suspect could be identified,and the police don't grab the wrong guy
while the suspect gets away.
there's no law against it,and people are not required to obey the
dispatcher's commands. those are ADVICE,recommendations.

there's also NO evidence he confronted Martin.
From Martin's girlfriend's statement,it sounds like Martin was going
to
confront (or go after)the follower.

Sounds like
profiling to me.
SO what? POLICE are not allowed to profile.
no reason why a neighborhood watch guy can't.

This nw guy didn't need to carry a gun either.

In retrospect,yes he did;he was attacked by a big kid,and injured.


I'm guessing a manslaughter charge is coming. With
the feds involved though I'm not sure. Zimmerman's past may play a
part.
His past should not "play a part".
Courts have ruled you cannot consider a defendant's past in deciding
guilt in a court case.

That I'm not sure of.

it's the law. I'm no lawyer,but I've read about it.
Juries don't like it either.

It is interesting to note that a friend of Z who
is black said that Z didn't appear to be a racist.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...e-zimmerman-tr
ayvon-martin_n_1378390.html


""I'm a black male and all that I know is that George has never given
me any reason whatsoever to believe he has anything against people of
color," Oliver said."


it may be used to justify -charges-,that result in a trial. But then
it's the prosecution's burden to PROVE -beyond a reasonable doubt-
that Z confronted,provoked,or attacked Martin. I doubt there's
evidence to do that.
Z does NOT have to prove his innocence.
What Zimmerman has to worry about is a lame jury,one that's loaded
with dummies,lazies,or biased people. (lazies will vote to convict
just to go home;path of least resistance)
or the Black Panthers frightening the jurors,blackmail of black
riots,etc.

Interesting case. We had something (sort of) similar happen here
only a few blocks from my house. Yazdi was charged with murder.

depends on what state you live in. laws vary from state to state.
Florida has it's "Stand Your Ground" law protecting lawful
self-defense.


"Stand your ground" doesn't apply because Z followed M.

Yeah,it does. But I don't have the specific cite handy.
there's no law against following someone,it's not a provocation or threat
in itself.

I'm sure
you're aware, but just in case.

I meant to post the link to the Yazdi shooting.

http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/local/a...oting-at-avery
-ranch

Much different but it's another case where someone needed to exercise
better judgement.





--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On 3/25/2012 8:47 PM, wrote:
On Mar 25, 9:37 pm, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:
On 3/25/2012 8:10 PM, wrote:





On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:05:45 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:
On 3/25/2012 7:51 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:47:42 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:
On 3/25/2012 7:13 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:40:43 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:
Zimmerman is 28 and looks from the photo to be a full grown armed man.
Martin was 16 and 140lbs.
How tall are these people. If Zimmerman is a 28 year old couch potato
at 5'6 and 240 pounds, my money is in the 17 year old football player
winning the fight.
True enough but I have even more trouble with the fact that Zimmerman is
the adult here. Another thing is he followed Martin. Why?
He was on the neighborhood watch. As a resident, he has every right to know
what's going on in his neighborhood. Martin did *not* have the right to
attack him, however. Why can't you get these simple facts through your thick
head?
He was told by the dispatcher "he didn't need to do that." You know
what? He didn't need to do that.
You do know that the dispatcher was no ordering him to do anything. She
couldn't. Good grief, you're stupid!
It was the dispatchers way of tell Z police policy.

We had some shootings near by and I happened to hear the shots. When I
called 911 they didn't tell me: "Can you go over there and get a better
look." - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Whether he "needed" to do that or not isn't the issue. The only
issue is who started the actual assault and if Zimmerman had a
legitmate fear for his life when he fired.

You have heard that there is only one eye witness who actually
SAW at least part of what happened? That witness says that
he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, Zimmerman was on his
back and it was Zimmeman whowas yelling for help. Police
say Zimmerman had grass stains on his back, his face was
bloodied, he needed stitches to the back of his head. Yet
the media are trying to turn this into something revolving
around "stand your ground"? Even without any such law,
by Zimmerman's and the eye witness accounts, he had
no place to retreat to.

Having heard the above, I can see why the police didn't charge
Zimmermansnip

I actually do too. The SYG issue muddied the fact and got a lot of
people up-in-arms. It's unfortunate the way this thing unfolded.

The only thing I can say for certain is Z exercised extremely poor
judgement by not following the directive of the dispatch.

gonjah gonjah.net wrote in
net:

On 3/25/2012 7:51 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:47:42 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

On 3/25/2012 7:13 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:40:43 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

Zimmerman is 28 and looks from the photo to be a full grown armed
man. Martin was 16 and 140lbs.
How tall are these people. If Zimmerman is a 28 year old couch
potato at 5'6 and 240 pounds, my money is in the 17 year old
football player winning the fight.

True enough but I have even more trouble with the fact that
Zimmerman is the adult here. Another thing is he followed Martin.
Why?
He was on the neighborhood watch. As a resident, he has every right
to know what's going on in his neighborhood. Martin did *not* have
the right to attack him, however. Why can't you get these simple
facts through your thick head?

He was told by the dispatcher "he didn't need to do that." You know
what? He didn't need to do that.



SO WHAT? people don't HAVE to follow what the dispatcher says.
it's not official,the dispatchers are not on-site,nor are they LEOs.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On 3/25/2012 8:58 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
gonjahgonjah.net wrote in news:-
tnet:

On 3/25/2012 7:13 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:40:43 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

Zimmerman is 28 and looks from the photo to be a full grown armed man.
Martin was 16 and 140lbs.
How tall are these people. If Zimmerman is a 28 year old couch potato
at 5'6 and 240 pounds, my money is in the 17 year old football player
winning the fight.

True enough but I have even more trouble with the fact that Zimmerman is
the adult here. Another thing is he followed Martin. Why?

Z -followed- Martin because he wanted to keep him in sight,so that when
police arrived,he could positively identify the suspect,so that police did
not lose him or grab the wrong guy. Apparently,Zimmerman had that problem
other times when he called police,the suspect disappeared before police
arrived.

So_what if Zimmerman is the adult here?
Martin was old enough to act responsibly. there was no need to attack
Zimmerman. All he needed to do was wait for police to arrive,like Zimmerman
was doing. Heck,Trayvon simply politely asking why he was being followed
and answering a question or two would have peacefully settled the whole
thing.


Damn. This is one sad situation. An over zealous nw man with a gun and a
kid that "may have" felt he had something to prove.

On 3/25/2012 9:06 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
gonjahgonjah.net wrote in
net:

On 3/25/2012 7:51 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:47:42 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

On 3/25/2012 7:13 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:40:43 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

Zimmerman is 28 and looks from the photo to be a full grown armed
man. Martin was 16 and 140lbs.
How tall are these people. If Zimmerman is a 28 year old couch
potato at 5'6 and 240 pounds, my money is in the 17 year old
football player winning the fight.
True enough but I have even more trouble with the fact that
Zimmerman is the adult here. Another thing is he followed Martin.
Why?
He was on the neighborhood watch. As a resident, he has every right
to know what's going on in his neighborhood. Martin did *not* have
the right to attack him, however. Why can't you get these simple
facts through your thick head?
He was told by the dispatcher "he didn't need to do that." You know
what? He didn't need to do that.


SO WHAT?

Someone got shot. That's what.

On 3/25/2012 9:04 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
gonjahgonjah.net wrote in
news
On 3/25/2012 8:05 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
gonjahgonjah.net wrote in
net:

On 3/25/2012 2:28 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 12:33:42 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

On 3/25/2012 12:25 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 11:57:57 -0400, Ed
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 11:33:37 -0400, "
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 07:07:16 -0500,
wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
(Note: I don't like anyone covering their head and/or face
when walking in public).
Wow! You must be a baddd asss when it's -40F. ;-)
In Florida?

Han is not in Florida.
Right, but it was raining that day and people in Florida often
cover their heads in the rain. I do up here.
Have you seen the transcript of the phone conversation with the
girl?

Martin says "I think this guy is following me" "I an going to put
my hoodie up" "I am walking slower" (in response to her saying he
should run). He was "heading toward the back gate" according to
the Zimmerman call.
The 46 other calls make it sound like this was not the first time
someone was trespassing on that route.
It sure sounds like this was a well established shortcut from the
7-11 area to the houses behind the community, along with quite a
bit of theft along the way.
Do any one of those things justify shooting Martin? BTW: Martin
wasn't trespassing. AFAIKT
Martin attacking and beating the snot out of Zimmerman was. Do
keep up.
I'm not trying to be rude but I was commenting on gfretwell's post.
I really wanted to know what he thought. The "beating" (wasn't in
this post) as you call it is still in question.

Zimmerman is 28 and looks from the photo to be a full grown armed
man. Martin was 16 and 140lbs.
Six foot three,that's a long reach. even a 140 lb "kid" (and athlete)
can pack a pretty good punch with a long reach.
some pro boxers are less than 140 lbs.
BTW,people have been killed by a SINGLE punch to the head from
ordinary people.
Zimmerman should not have been following Martin IMO.
He was keeping the suspect in sight until police arrived,so the
suspect could be identified,and the police don't grab the wrong guy
while the suspect gets away.
there's no law against it,and people are not required to obey the
dispatcher's commands. those are ADVICE,recommendations.

there's also NO evidence he confronted Martin.
From Martin's girlfriend's statement,it sounds like Martin was going
to
confront (or go after)the follower.

Sounds like
profiling to me.
SO what? POLICE are not allowed to profile.
no reason why a neighborhood watch guy can't.
This nw guy didn't need to carry a gun either.
In retrospect,yes he did;he was attacked by a big kid,and injured.
I'm guessing a manslaughter charge is coming. With
the feds involved though I'm not sure. Zimmerman's past may play a
part.
His past should not "play a part".
Courts have ruled you cannot consider a defendant's past in deciding
guilt in a court case.
That I'm not sure of.
it's the law. I'm no lawyer,but I've read about it.
Juries don't like it either.

Then site the law.


It is interesting to note that a friend of Z who
is black said that Z didn't appear to be a racist.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...e-zimmerman-tr
ayvon-martin_n_1378390.html


""I'm a black male and all that I know is that George has never given
me any reason whatsoever to believe he has anything against people of
color," Oliver said."


it may be used to justify -charges-,that result in a trial. But then
it's the prosecution's burden to PROVE -beyond a reasonable doubt-
that Z confronted,provoked,or attacked Martin. I doubt there's
evidence to do that.
Z does NOT have to prove his innocence.
What Zimmerman has to worry about is a lame jury,one that's loaded
with dummies,lazies,or biased people. (lazies will vote to convict
just to go home;path of least resistance)
or the Black Panthers frightening the jurors,blackmail of black
riots,etc.

Interesting case. We had something (sort of) similar happen here
only a few blocks from my house. Yazdi was charged with murder.

depends on what state you live in. laws vary from state to state.
Florida has it's "Stand Your Ground" law protecting lawful
self-defense.

"Stand your ground" doesn't apply because Z followed M.
Yeah,it does. But I don't have the specific cite handy.
there's no law against following someone,it's not a provocation or threat
in itself.

No. It's been stated several times now, and even by the Gov of Fl, that
SYG doesn't apply here.

gonjah gonjah.net wrote in
news
On 3/25/2012 8:11 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:58:17 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

On 3/25/2012 7:38 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
gonjahgonjah.net wrote in
net:

On 3/25/2012 12:25 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 11:57:57 -0400, Ed
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 11:33:37 -0400, "
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 07:07:16 -0500,
wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
(Note: I don't like anyone covering their head and/or face
when walking in public).
Wow! You must be a baddd asss when it's -40F. ;-)
In Florida?

Han is not in Florida.
Right, but it was raining that day and people in Florida often
cover their heads in the rain. I do up here.
Have you seen the transcript of the phone conversation with the
girl?
AS IF the girlfriend will always be telling the truth...especially
after the kid's parents began howling about racism. Stories can
change.

Martin says "I think this guy is following me" "I an going to put
my hoodie up" "I am walking slower" (in response to her saying he
should run). He was "heading toward the back gate" according to
the Zimmerman call.
The 46 other calls make it sound like this was not the first time
someone was trespassing on that route.
It sure sounds like this was a well established shortcut from the
7-11 area to the houses behind the community, along with quite a
bit of theft along the way.
Do any one of those things justify shooting Martin? BTW: Martin
wasn't trespassing. AFAIKT
Martin was NOT shot for trespassing,he was shot during an ATTACK on
Zimmerman. Where Zimmerman sustained injuries to face and back of
head. HOW do you fall on grass and get a bad gash on the -back- of
your head?

The kid had his phone,he could have shouted "I'm calling 911" (and
done so),he could have politely asked why he was being followed.
He could have knocked on somebody's door,involve a third party,a
neutral. Heck,most people with bad intent would flee once their
victim knocked on a home's door and/or began yelling.
Martin apparently chose to attack. a Bad choice.

Big "could have". I'll bet those details are haunting Zimmerman.
From what I've read Z is very remorseful.
I'm sure he is. What does that have to do with the price of rice in
China, comrade?


If I told you M deserves a fair trial would you get out of my asshole?


ZIMMERMAN deserves a fair trial,now that one is likely to be forced upon
the state by the blackmail of blacks.(arrest and convict him or we'll riot)
I expect blacks will riot if Zimmerman is found to have acted in self-
defense by the FDLE investigation and/or a Grand Jury(which is not a
trial).

Trayvon Martin got what he deserved,since he violently attacked
Zimmerman,in a state that allows lawful armed carry and self-defense.
He had NO right to punch or beat on Zimmerman.
(AFAIK,there's no evidence of any punches or other physical violence on
Trayvon,except for the gunshot wound. if there were,Z would have been
charged with a crime.)
If Trayvon's punch or the subsequent fall and head injury had torn an
artery in Z's brain and he died,as has happened to other people,it would
have been manslaughter at least.
Or Zimmerman could have lost an eye;serious bodily injury.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:58:20 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:




Z was returning to his car,he had no idea he would be attacked.He was
unprepared for it.
That IS the only way a skinny school kid could drop a hefty adult,
surprise attack.
Zimmerman had a significant head wound on the back of his head,and a bloody
nose. and Martin was seen ON TOP of Zimmerman,a guy who outweighed him by
at least 100 lbs.

Maybe he slipped on wet grass running after the kid and injured his
head. Then the kid jumped on him in retaliation.

We can come up with all sorts of scenarios on both sides. Fact is, we
cannot draw any conclusions just yet.

gonjah gonjah.net wrote in
net:

On 3/25/2012 7:39 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:54:30 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:11:40 -0500, Jim
wrote:

defense with a handgun has the least risk and best success for
one's self,which is what you the defender is concerned about,not
the wellbeing of your attacker.
If I can stab an attacker, with a small blade. and hit the jugular
I'll save some ammo.

more likely,you may not get the chance to stab,particularly with a guy with
a long reach like a 6foot plus person has. you might hit a button or other
hard object that stops your blade. you more likely might just wound him and
REALLY anger him.

For the $.25, I'd prefer not to have to clean the blade.

A boy lost his life.



through unwise actions of his own choice.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:19:43 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:


once an attacker is knocked down,you have no right to pummel them further
and call it "self-defense". same for shooting them.


That is true. While I agree with that, if I was really PO'd because
someone severely agitated me, I just pay pummel the hell out of him
for a few minutes. It is not the right thing to do, but humans often
react that way.

So easy to say what should be done, so difficult to maintain composure
when in a bad situation.

gonjah gonjah.net wrote in
net:

On 3/25/2012 8:40 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
gonjahgonjah.net wrote in
net:

On 3/25/2012 7:42 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:37:06 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

On 3/25/2012 6:33 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
Ed wrote in
:

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 08:36:29 -0700 (PDT),
" wrote:


a 6 foot 3 kid who was suspended from school (I don't know
why,maybe aggression?),from a broken home,and was last seen
ON TOP of Zimmerman(by a credible witness),before he was shot
in self-defense.Zimmerman's face and head injuries support
that.
We have no idea what led up to that though. Was he provoked?
I sense a little pre-judging here.
I don't see pre-judging in any of the above.
O do, in this comment fro above:
(I don't know why,maybe aggression?)

Easy; Martin told his girlfriend he was being followed. (around
7PM) a polite kid would have asked the follower why,and if
questioned about his activities,told the guy he was visiting his
dad,etc... and then everybody would have gone on their way.
a polite or smart kid would have called 911 himself(and before
approaching the unknown guy).
a smart kid would NOT approach the unknown guy who was following
him if he had reason to fear him.

an aggressive kid would be "in your face","what business is it of
your's?",or even begin pushing or punching.
Since we have reports of Zimmerman in the act of returning to his
vehicle(from NBC news),Martin had to attack Zimmerman.
Plus,since Zimmerman is a short but hefty guy,a sneak attack is
necessary for a tall but slight young man to drop him.

We DO know Martin was suspended from school for a week(but not
why,the school will not reveal that),we know he's a school
athlete,and athletics these days teaches aggression.
We also know he comes from a broken home,and no father at home(he
lives with his mom in Miami-Dade area.
that IS a good indicator of trouble.

And if Martin hadn't racially profiled him.....
doesn't matter,Zimmerman is not a law enforcement official(LEO).
He can "profile" if he wants.

Of course. That doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. I can walk
around South Chicago at night too.


all he does is call police and have them
check out the suspect,as he did that night with Trayvon.
But his credibility drops if he makes too many wrong accusations.
but 47 calls to police in a 3 year period is not too many calls.

...and if Martin hadn't pummeled him?
We need to know more about the attack. Notice I'm not calling you
stupid, thick, dense or anything. I respect your opinion.

what you seek to know,there were no witnesses for.

Yeah, but as you pointed out, there is evidence at the scene, the
telephone conversation, the testimony of Z and the person that heard
the confrontation.

the telephone conversation of the girlfriend is hearsay. she was not THERE.


there's no evidence or
witnesses to any alleged provocation or wrongdoing on Zimmerman's
part. and in that event,Zimmerman goes free. the burden of proof of a
crime is on the prosecution.
All the -evidence- points to Z doing legitimate self-defense.


There is evidence of a adult, with a handgun, following a unarmed boy
who was apparently doing nothing wrong.

Not a crime.nor any provocation.

Z followed M because he was
black and wearing a hoodie. He was told by dispatch he didn't need to
follow him.

doesn't matter. it's not law or any order that must be obeyed.

Z went looking for trouble and he found it.
an ASSUMPTION (of yours)not supported by evidence.

Z instigated the confrontation.

No evidence to support that either.

It was very poor judgement on Z's part.

that's no crime.

That much
we know. The attack? That remains to be seen. So far, IMO, Z brought
it on by following M against the advice of the PD.


Following someone is NOT justification for an attack.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On 3/25/2012 9:26 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
gonjahgonjah.net wrote in
net:

On 3/25/2012 7:39 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:54:30 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:11:40 -0500, Jim
wrote:

defense with a handgun has the least risk and best success for
one's self,which is what you the defender is concerned about,not
the wellbeing of your attacker.
If I can stab an attacker, with a small blade. and hit the jugular
I'll save some ammo.
more likely,you may not get the chance to stab,particularly with a guy with
a long reach like a 6foot plus person has. you might hit a button or other
hard object that stops your blade. you more likely might just wound him and
REALLY anger him.

For the $.25, I'd prefer not to have to clean the blade.
A boy lost his life.


through unwise actions of his own choice.


Regardless of what M did you can't deny Z should not have followed M. Or
do you think it's okay to harass innocent young men because they are
black and wearing hoodies?

That's the part you seem to ignore. M *was* doing NOTHING wrong. He was
targeted and followed by an older man for no reason other than he was black.

gonjah gonjah.net wrote in
net:

On 3/25/2012 8:47 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
gonjahgonjah.net wrote in
net:

On 3/25/2012 7:38 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
gonjahgonjah.net wrote in
net:

On 3/25/2012 12:25 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 11:57:57 -0400, Ed
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 11:33:37 -0400, "
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 07:07:16 -0500,
wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
(Note: I don't like anyone covering their head and/or face
when walking in public).
Wow! You must be a baddd asss when it's -40F. ;-)
In Florida?

Han is not in Florida.
Right, but it was raining that day and people in Florida often
cover their heads in the rain. I do up here.
Have you seen the transcript of the phone conversation with the
girl?
AS IF the girlfriend will always be telling the truth...especially
after the kid's parents began howling about racism. Stories can
change.

Martin says "I think this guy is following me" "I an going to put
my hoodie up" "I am walking slower" (in response to her saying he
should run). He was "heading toward the back gate" according to
the Zimmerman call.
The 46 other calls make it sound like this was not the first time
someone was trespassing on that route.
It sure sounds like this was a well established shortcut from the
7-11 area to the houses behind the community, along with quite a
bit of theft along the way.
Do any one of those things justify shooting Martin? BTW: Martin
wasn't trespassing. AFAIKT
Martin was NOT shot for trespassing,he was shot during an ATTACK on
Zimmerman. Where Zimmerman sustained injuries to face and back of
head. HOW do you fall on grass and get a bad gash on the -back- of
your head?

The kid had his phone,he could have shouted "I'm calling 911" (and
done so),he could have politely asked why he was being followed.
He could have knocked on somebody's door,involve a third party,a
neutral. Heck,most people with bad intent would flee once their
victim knocked on a home's door and/or began yelling.
Martin apparently chose to attack. a Bad choice.

Big "could have". I'll bet those details are haunting Zimmerman.
From what I've read Z is very remorseful.

Naturally a normal person is going to be remorseful about having to
kill a person,the first time,even in justified self-defense.
Mentally Disturbed people are the ones who have no problem killing.
Sociopaths,psychopaths.snip

Right. But is this the behavior of a man that thinks HE did the right
thing?

yeah,it is normal.

m not saying Z is any of those things. I think he's a man who
exercised VERY poor judgement and in most cases there are
consequences.


the REAL "poor judgement" was Trayvon's. Zimmerman survived.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:11:40 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:




do you know the diference between a Taser and a stun gun?
the Taser works (usually) at a distance,the stun gun requires you be within
arms reach of an attacker. Both can be blocked by heavy clothing.
Letting an attacker GET to within arms reach is not a good idea.

Yes, that is why I said Taster, not stun gun.
Taser works for something like 15 feet.


you'd have a guy carry many different defensive weapons(actually,I suspect
you'd prefer people had no guns...),and then he's gotta choose,and that
takes time you may not have.

You suspect wrong. They should be used carefully though.





also,once an attacker begins beating on you,HOW do you know that he's going
to stop before you die,or before you lose an eye,or become brain-damaged?
you have NO way of knowing.

If Tased, he won't be doing that.

the way to stay unshot is to not try to punch me.

Or to shoot you first.

On 3/25/2012 9:31 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
gonjahgonjah.net wrote in
net:

On 3/25/2012 8:40 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
gonjahgonjah.net wrote in
net:

On 3/25/2012 7:42 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:37:06 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

On 3/25/2012 6:33 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
Ed wrote in
:

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 08:36:29 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:


a 6 foot 3 kid who was suspended from school (I don't know
why,maybe aggression?),from a broken home,and was last seen
ON TOP of Zimmerman(by a credible witness),before he was shot
in self-defense.Zimmerman's face and head injuries support
that.
We have no idea what led up to that though. Was he provoked?
I sense a little pre-judging here.
I don't see pre-judging in any of the above.
O do, in this comment fro above:
(I don't know why,maybe aggression?)

Easy; Martin told his girlfriend he was being followed. (around
7PM) a polite kid would have asked the follower why,and if
questioned about his activities,told the guy he was visiting his
dad,etc... and then everybody would have gone on their way.
a polite or smart kid would have called 911 himself(and before
approaching the unknown guy).
a smart kid would NOT approach the unknown guy who was following
him if he had reason to fear him.

an aggressive kid would be "in your face","what business is it of
your's?",or even begin pushing or punching.
Since we have reports of Zimmerman in the act of returning to his
vehicle(from NBC news),Martin had to attack Zimmerman.
Plus,since Zimmerman is a short but hefty guy,a sneak attack is
necessary for a tall but slight young man to drop him.

We DO know Martin was suspended from school for a week(but not
why,the school will not reveal that),we know he's a school
athlete,and athletics these days teaches aggression.
We also know he comes from a broken home,and no father at home(he
lives with his mom in Miami-Dade area.
that IS a good indicator of trouble.

And if Martin hadn't racially profiled him.....
doesn't matter,Zimmerman is not a law enforcement official(LEO).
He can "profile" if he wants.
Of course. That doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. I can walk
around South Chicago at night too.


all he does is call police and have them
check out the suspect,as he did that night with Trayvon.
But his credibility drops if he makes too many wrong accusations.
but 47 calls to police in a 3 year period is not too many calls.

...and if Martin hadn't pummeled him?
We need to know more about the attack. Notice I'm not calling you
stupid, thick, dense or anything. I respect your opinion.

what you seek to know,there were no witnesses for.
Yeah, but as you pointed out, there is evidence at the scene, the
telephone conversation, the testimony of Z and the person that heard
the confrontation.
the telephone conversation of the girlfriend is hearsay. she was not THERE.

there's no evidence or
witnesses to any alleged provocation or wrongdoing on Zimmerman's
part. and in that event,Zimmerman goes free. the burden of proof of a
crime is on the prosecution.
All the -evidence- points to Z doing legitimate self-defense.

There is evidence of a adult, with a handgun, following a unarmed boy
who was apparently doing nothing wrong.
Not a crime.nor any provocation.

Z followed M because he was
black and wearing a hoodie. He was told by dispatch he didn't need to
follow him.
doesn't matter. it's not law or any order that must be obeyed.

Z went looking for trouble and he found it.
an ASSUMPTION (of yours)not supported by evidence.

Z instigated the confrontation.

No evidence to support that either.

It was very poor judgement on Z's part.
that's no crime.

That much
we know. The attack? That remains to be seen. So far, IMO, Z brought
it on by following M against the advice of the PD.

Following someone is NOT justification for an attack.


If there was an attack we don't know who initiated it. Maybe Z started
it and M got the better of him so Z shot him. Hummmm?

gonjah gonjah.net wrote in
:

On 3/25/2012 9:04 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
gonjahgonjah.net wrote in
news
On 3/25/2012 8:05 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
gonjahgonjah.net wrote in
net:

On 3/25/2012 2:28 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 12:33:42 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

On 3/25/2012 12:25 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 11:57:57 -0400, Ed
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 11:33:37 -0400, "
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 07:07:16 -0500,
wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
(Note: I don't like anyone covering their head and/or
face when walking in public).
Wow! You must be a baddd asss when it's -40F. ;-)
In Florida?

Han is not in Florida.
Right, but it was raining that day and people in Florida often
cover their heads in the rain. I do up here.
Have you seen the transcript of the phone conversation with the
girl?

Martin says "I think this guy is following me" "I an going to
put my hoodie up" "I am walking slower" (in response to her
saying he should run). He was "heading toward the back gate"
according to the Zimmerman call.
The 46 other calls make it sound like this was not the first
time someone was trespassing on that route.
It sure sounds like this was a well established shortcut from
the 7-11 area to the houses behind the community, along with
quite a bit of theft along the way.
Do any one of those things justify shooting Martin? BTW: Martin
wasn't trespassing. AFAIKT
Martin attacking and beating the snot out of Zimmerman was. Do
keep up.
I'm not trying to be rude but I was commenting on gfretwell's
post. I really wanted to know what he thought. The "beating"
(wasn't in this post) as you call it is still in question.

Zimmerman is 28 and looks from the photo to be a full grown armed
man. Martin was 16 and 140lbs.
Six foot three,that's a long reach. even a 140 lb "kid" (and
athlete) can pack a pretty good punch with a long reach.
some pro boxers are less than 140 lbs.
BTW,people have been killed by a SINGLE punch to the head from
ordinary people.
Zimmerman should not have been following Martin IMO.
He was keeping the suspect in sight until police arrived,so the
suspect could be identified,and the police don't grab the wrong guy
while the suspect gets away.
there's no law against it,and people are not required to obey the
dispatcher's commands. those are ADVICE,recommendations.

there's also NO evidence he confronted Martin.
From Martin's girlfriend's statement,it sounds like Martin was
going to
confront (or go after)the follower.

Sounds like
profiling to me.
SO what? POLICE are not allowed to profile.
no reason why a neighborhood watch guy can't.
This nw guy didn't need to carry a gun either.
In retrospect,yes he did;he was attacked by a big kid,and injured.
I'm guessing a manslaughter charge is coming. With
the feds involved though I'm not sure. Zimmerman's past may play a
part.
His past should not "play a part".
Courts have ruled you cannot consider a defendant's past in
deciding guilt in a court case.
That I'm not sure of.
it's the law. I'm no lawyer,but I've read about it.
Juries don't like it either.

Then site the law.


It is interesting to note that a friend of Z who
is black said that Z didn't appear to be a racist.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...rge-zimmerman-
tr ayvon-martin_n_1378390.html


""I'm a black male and all that I know is that George has never
given me any reason whatsoever to believe he has anything against
people of color," Oliver said."


it may be used to justify -charges-,that result in a trial. But
then it's the prosecution's burden to PROVE -beyond a reasonable
doubt- that Z confronted,provoked,or attacked Martin. I doubt
there's evidence to do that.
Z does NOT have to prove his innocence.
What Zimmerman has to worry about is a lame jury,one that's loaded
with dummies,lazies,or biased people. (lazies will vote to convict
just to go home;path of least resistance)
or the Black Panthers frightening the jurors,blackmail of black
riots,etc.

Interesting case. We had something (sort of) similar happen here
only a few blocks from my house. Yazdi was charged with murder.

depends on what state you live in. laws vary from state to state.
Florida has it's "Stand Your Ground" law protecting lawful
self-defense.

"Stand your ground" doesn't apply because Z followed M.
Yeah,it does. But I don't have the specific cite handy.
there's no law against following someone,it's not a provocation or
threat in itself.

No. It's been stated several times now, and even by the Gov of Fl,
that SYG doesn't apply here.




BEFORE they knew the specifics.
Politicians are usually not very good lawyers,that's why they went into
politics.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On 3/25/2012 9:33 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
gonjahgonjah.net wrote in
net:

On 3/25/2012 8:47 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
gonjahgonjah.net wrote in
net:

On 3/25/2012 7:38 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
gonjahgonjah.net wrote in
net:

On 3/25/2012 12:25 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 11:57:57 -0400, Ed
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 11:33:37 -0400, "
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 07:07:16 -0500,
wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
(Note: I don't like anyone covering their head and/or face
when walking in public).
Wow! You must be a baddd asss when it's -40F. ;-)
In Florida?

Han is not in Florida.
Right, but it was raining that day and people in Florida often
cover their heads in the rain. I do up here.
Have you seen the transcript of the phone conversation with the
girl?
AS IF the girlfriend will always be telling the truth...especially
after the kid's parents began howling about racism. Stories can
change.

Martin says "I think this guy is following me" "I an going to put
my hoodie up" "I am walking slower" (in response to her saying he
should run). He was "heading toward the back gate" according to
the Zimmerman call.
The 46 other calls make it sound like this was not the first time
someone was trespassing on that route.
It sure sounds like this was a well established shortcut from the
7-11 area to the houses behind the community, along with quite a
bit of theft along the way.
Do any one of those things justify shooting Martin? BTW: Martin
wasn't trespassing. AFAIKT
Martin was NOT shot for trespassing,he was shot during an ATTACK on
Zimmerman. Where Zimmerman sustained injuries to face and back of
head. HOW do you fall on grass and get a bad gash on the -back- of
your head?

The kid had his phone,he could have shouted "I'm calling 911" (and
done so),he could have politely asked why he was being followed.
He could have knocked on somebody's door,involve a third party,a
neutral. Heck,most people with bad intent would flee once their
victim knocked on a home's door and/or began yelling.
Martin apparently chose to attack. a Bad choice.

Big "could have". I'll bet those details are haunting Zimmerman.
From what I've read Z is very remorseful.

Naturally a normal person is going to be remorseful about having to
kill a person,the first time,even in justified self-defense.
Mentally Disturbed people are the ones who have no problem killing.
Sociopaths,psychopaths.snip
Right. But is this the behavior of a man that thinks HE did the right
thing?
yeah,it is normal.

Crying for days? I don't know. Never shot anyone.


m not saying Z is any of those things. I think he's a man who
exercised VERY poor judgement and in most cases there are
consequences.

the REAL "poor judgement" was Trayvon's. Zimmerman survived.


He may wish he didn't.

On 3/25/2012 9:36 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
gonjahgonjah.net wrote in
:

On 3/25/2012 9:04 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
gonjahgonjah.net wrote in
news
On 3/25/2012 8:05 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
gonjahgonjah.net wrote in
net:

On 3/25/2012 2:28 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 12:33:42 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

On 3/25/2012 12:25 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 11:57:57 -0400, Ed
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 11:33:37 -0400, "
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 07:07:16 -0500,
wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
(Note: I don't like anyone covering their head and/or
face when walking in public).
Wow! You must be a baddd asss when it's -40F. ;-)
In Florida?

Han is not in Florida.
Right, but it was raining that day and people in Florida often
cover their heads in the rain. I do up here.
Have you seen the transcript of the phone conversation with the
girl?

Martin says "I think this guy is following me" "I an going to
put my hoodie up" "I am walking slower" (in response to her
saying he should run). He was "heading toward the back gate"
according to the Zimmerman call.
The 46 other calls make it sound like this was not the first
time someone was trespassing on that route.
It sure sounds like this was a well established shortcut from
the 7-11 area to the houses behind the community, along with
quite a bit of theft along the way.
Do any one of those things justify shooting Martin? BTW: Martin
wasn't trespassing. AFAIKT
Martin attacking and beating the snot out of Zimmerman was. Do
keep up.
I'm not trying to be rude but I was commenting on gfretwell's
post. I really wanted to know what he thought. The "beating"
(wasn't in this post) as you call it is still in question.

Zimmerman is 28 and looks from the photo to be a full grown armed
man. Martin was 16 and 140lbs.
Six foot three,that's a long reach. even a 140 lb "kid" (and
athlete) can pack a pretty good punch with a long reach.
some pro boxers are less than 140 lbs.
BTW,people have been killed by a SINGLE punch to the head from
ordinary people.
Zimmerman should not have been following Martin IMO.
He was keeping the suspect in sight until police arrived,so the
suspect could be identified,and the police don't grab the wrong guy
while the suspect gets away.
there's no law against it,and people are not required to obey the
dispatcher's commands. those are ADVICE,recommendations.

there's also NO evidence he confronted Martin.
From Martin's girlfriend's statement,it sounds like Martin was
going to
confront (or go after)the follower.

Sounds like
profiling to me.
SO what? POLICE are not allowed to profile.
no reason why a neighborhood watch guy can't.
This nw guy didn't need to carry a gun either.
In retrospect,yes he did;he was attacked by a big kid,and injured.
I'm guessing a manslaughter charge is coming. With
the feds involved though I'm not sure. Zimmerman's past may play a
part.
His past should not "play a part".
Courts have ruled you cannot consider a defendant's past in
deciding guilt in a court case.
That I'm not sure of.
it's the law. I'm no lawyer,but I've read about it.
Juries don't like it either.
Then site the law.

It is interesting to note that a friend of Z who
is black said that Z didn't appear to be a racist.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...rge-zimmerman-
tr ayvon-martin_n_1378390.html


""I'm a black male and all that I know is that George has never
given me any reason whatsoever to believe he has anything against
people of color," Oliver said."


it may be used to justify -charges-,that result in a trial. But
then it's the prosecution's burden to PROVE -beyond a reasonable
doubt- that Z confronted,provoked,or attacked Martin. I doubt
there's evidence to do that.
Z does NOT have to prove his innocence.
What Zimmerman has to worry about is a lame jury,one that's loaded
with dummies,lazies,or biased people. (lazies will vote to convict
just to go home;path of least resistance)
or the Black Panthers frightening the jurors,blackmail of black
riots,etc.

Interesting case. We had something (sort of) similar happen here
only a few blocks from my house. Yazdi was charged with murder.

depends on what state you live in. laws vary from state to state.
Florida has it's "Stand Your Ground" law protecting lawful
self-defense.

"Stand your ground" doesn't apply because Z followed M.
Yeah,it does. But I don't have the specific cite handy.
there's no law against following someone,it's not a provocation or
threat in itself.
No. It's been stated several times now, and even by the Gov of Fl,
that SYG doesn't apply here.



BEFORE they knew the specifics.
Politicians are usually not very good lawyers,that's why they went into
politics.


How does "SYG" apply when Z pursued M? It may have apply for M.

gonjah gonjah.net wrote in news:-
tnet:

On 3/25/2012 9:06 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
gonjahgonjah.net wrote in
net:

On 3/25/2012 7:51 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:47:42 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

On 3/25/2012 7:13 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:40:43 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

Zimmerman is 28 and looks from the photo to be a full grown armed
man. Martin was 16 and 140lbs.
How tall are these people. If Zimmerman is a 28 year old couch
potato at 5'6 and 240 pounds, my money is in the 17 year old
football player winning the fight.
True enough but I have even more trouble with the fact that
Zimmerman is the adult here. Another thing is he followed Martin.
Why?
He was on the neighborhood watch. As a resident, he has every right
to know what's going on in his neighborhood. Martin did *not* have
the right to attack him, however. Why can't you get these simple
facts through your thick head?
He was told by the dispatcher "he didn't need to do that." You know
what? He didn't need to do that.


SO WHAT?

Someone got shot. That's what.


leave the WHOLE post;
SO WHAT? people don't HAVE to follow what the dispatcher says.
it's not official,the dispatchers are not on-site,nor are they LEOs.

the ADVICE of the dispatcher is not relevant to Trayvon's decision to
initiate violent assault.

and actually,yeah he did "need" to keep Trayvon in sight until police
arrived,so that police got the right suspect. Trayvon just decided to get
violent before police arrived.That poor decision,the one that got somebody
killed,is not Zimmerman's fault.

"Following" never killed anybody,didn't break any law,didn't hurt
anyone,nor did it violate anyone's rights.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Thanks. I could not find that, any where.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

wrote in message
...

7:09 until about 7:18 PM or there about on feb 26 2012

Maybe Martin figured this hispanic looking guy is following him.....

Might have been different, if another negro had followed?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"gonjah" gonjah.net wrote in message
net...

And if Martin hadn't racially profiled him.....

Martin is Trayvon martin,the one shot.
Zimmerman (Z)is the neighborhood watch guy.


Yeah. Thanks

Got out of his car, followed the teen, obviously enough that the teenager
mentioned it on the cell phone..... that sounds like escallation to me.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
4...

All the -evidence- points to Z doing legitimate self-defense.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

gonjah gonjah.net wrote in
net:

On 3/25/2012 8:47 PM, wrote:
On Mar 25, 9:37 pm, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:
On 3/25/2012 8:10 PM, wrote:





On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:05:45 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:
On 3/25/2012 7:51 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:47:42 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:
On 3/25/2012 7:13 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:40:43 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net
wrote:
Zimmerman is 28 and looks from the photo to be a full grown
armed man. Martin was 16 and 140lbs.
How tall are these people. If Zimmerman is a 28 year old couch
potato at 5'6 and 240 pounds, my money is in the 17 year old
football player winning the fight.
True enough but I have even more trouble with the fact that
Zimmerman is the adult here. Another thing is he followed
Martin. Why?
He was on the neighborhood watch. As a resident, he has every
right to know what's going on in his neighborhood. Martin did
*not* have the right to attack him, however. Why can't you get
these simple facts through your thick head?
He was told by the dispatcher "he didn't need to do that." You
know what? He didn't need to do that.
You do know that the dispatcher was no ordering him to do anything.
She couldn't. Good grief, you're stupid!
It was the dispatchers way of tell Z police policy.

We had some shootings near by and I happened to hear the shots. When
I called 911 they didn't tell me: "Can you go over there and get a
better look." - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Whether he "needed" to do that or not isn't the issue. The only
issue is who started the actual assault and if Zimmerman had a
legitmate fear for his life when he fired.

You have heard that there is only one eye witness who actually
SAW at least part of what happened? That witness says that
he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, Zimmerman was on his
back and it was Zimmeman whowas yelling for help. Police
say Zimmerman had grass stains on his back, his face was
bloodied, he needed stitches to the back of his head. Yet
the media are trying to turn this into something revolving
around "stand your ground"? Even without any such law,
by Zimmerman's and the eye witness accounts, he had
no place to retreat to.

Having heard the above, I can see why the police didn't charge
Zimmermansnip

I actually do too. The SYG issue muddied the fact and got a lot of
people up-in-arms. It's unfortunate the way this thing unfolded.

The only thing I can say for certain is Z exercised extremely poor
judgement by not following the directive of the dispatch.


HOW did the SYG law "muddy" the facts?
All that law did is prevent the charging of Zimmerman with a crime he did
not commit,that there was no evidence for,and then have to prove himself
innocent.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:47:53 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:



Whether he "needed" to do that or not isn't the issue. The only
issue is who started the actual assault and if Zimmerman had a
legitmate fear for his life when he fired.

You have heard that there is only one eye witness who actually
SAW at least part of what happened? That witness says that
he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, Zimmerman was on his
back and it was Zimmeman whowas yelling for help. Police
say Zimmerman had grass stains on his back, his face was
bloodied, he needed stitches to the back of his head. Yet
the media are trying to turn this into something revolving
around "stand your ground"? Even without any such law,
by Zimmerman's and the eye witness accounts, he had
no place to retreat to.

Having heard the above, I can see why the police didn't charge
Zimmerman and why he in fact may not be guilty of
anything.

Agree that he should not be charged yet. But we still don't know the
entire story. Did he do something to provoke the kid? We don't know,
may never know.

Roy Rogers for community watchman? He could shoot the iced tea out of
Martin's hand, and no one would get hurt.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...

Don't forget Roy Rogers, The Lone Ranger and Cisco Kid(cowboy not the IT
guy), those old American heroes could shoot the wing off a fly and
the pistol out of the hand of any bad guy in the old West. ^_^

TDD

On 3/25/2012 9:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:47:53 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:



Whether he "needed" to do that or not isn't the issue. The only
issue is who started the actual assault and if Zimmerman had a
legitmate fear for his life when he fired.

You have heard that there is only one eye witness who actually
SAW at least part of what happened? That witness says that
he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, Zimmerman was on his
back and it was Zimmeman whowas yelling for help. Police
say Zimmerman had grass stains on his back, his face was
bloodied, he needed stitches to the back of his head. Yet
the media are trying to turn this into something revolving
around "stand your ground"? Even without any such law,
by Zimmerman's and the eye witness accounts, he had
no place to retreat to.

Having heard the above, I can see why the police didn't charge
Zimmerman and why he in fact may not be guilty of
anything.
Agree that he should not be charged yet. But we still don't know the
entire story. Did he do something to provoke the kid? We don't know,
may never know.

Ditto

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:38:46 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:




Martin was NOT shot for trespassing,he was shot during an ATTACK on
Zimmerman. Where Zimmerman sustained injuries to face and back of head.
HOW do you fall on grass and get a bad gash on the -back- of your head?

Easy. Want to see the scar? Happened so fast I did not even know I
was falling. Just found myself on the ground and had hit the back of
my head. If your feet go out from under you, it is very easy to fall
backwards and hit the back of your head on the ground, a sidewalk,
etc.

On 3/25/2012 9:46 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
gonjahgonjah.net wrote in
net:

On 3/25/2012 8:47 PM, wrote:
On Mar 25, 9:37 pm, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:
On 3/25/2012 8:10 PM, wrote:





On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:05:45 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:
On 3/25/2012 7:51 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:47:42 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:
On 3/25/2012 7:13 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:40:43 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net
wrote:
Zimmerman is 28 and looks from the photo to be a full grown
armed man. Martin was 16 and 140lbs.
How tall are these people. If Zimmerman is a 28 year old couch
potato at 5'6 and 240 pounds, my money is in the 17 year old
football player winning the fight.
True enough but I have even more trouble with the fact that
Zimmerman is the adult here. Another thing is he followed
Martin. Why?
He was on the neighborhood watch. As a resident, he has every
right to know what's going on in his neighborhood. Martin did
*not* have the right to attack him, however. Why can't you get
these simple facts through your thick head?
He was told by the dispatcher "he didn't need to do that." You
know what? He didn't need to do that.
You do know that the dispatcher was no ordering him to do anything.
She couldn't. Good grief, you're stupid!
It was the dispatchers way of tell Z police policy.

We had some shootings near by and I happened to hear the shots. When
I called 911 they didn't tell me: "Can you go over there and get a
better look." - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Whether he "needed" to do that or not isn't the issue. The only
issue is who started the actual assault and if Zimmerman had a
legitmate fear for his life when he fired.

You have heard that there is only one eye witness who actually
SAW at least part of what happened? That witness says that
he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, Zimmerman was on his
back and it was Zimmeman whowas yelling for help. Police
say Zimmerman had grass stains on his back, his face was
bloodied, he needed stitches to the back of his head. Yet
the media are trying to turn this into something revolving
around "stand your ground"? Even without any such law,
by Zimmerman's and the eye witness accounts, he had
no place to retreat to.

Having heard the above, I can see why the police didn't charge
Zimmermansnip
I actually do too. The SYG issue muddied the fact and got a lot of
people up-in-arms. It's unfortunate the way this thing unfolded.

The only thing I can say for certain is Z exercised extremely poor
judgement by not following the directive of the dispatch.

HOW did the SYG law "muddy" the facts?
All that law did is prevent the charging of Zimmerman with a crime he did
not commit,that there was no evidence for,and then have to prove himself
innocent.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/n...,3805848.story

"And theformer Florida governor, Jeb Bush
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/arlington/headlines/20120323-in-arlington-jeb-bush-says-stand-your-ground-invalid-in-trayvon-martin-case.ece,
who signed the bill into law in 2005 and supported its passage, said
Saturday he did not think it should protect Zimmerman, who shot the
unarmed teen after trailing him as Trayvon walked to the home of a
family friend living in the same gated community as Zimmerman.

“Stand your ground means stand your ground. It doesn’t mean chase after
somebody who’s turned their back,” Bush said while speaking at the
University of Texas in Arlington."


From the guy who signed it into law.

gonjah gonjah.net wrote in
net:

On 3/25/2012 8:22 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Han wrote:
wrote in
news
Han wrote:
Wasn't it you who said that you're ONLY innocent until proven
guilty in criminal cases? When you enter the country, it's you
who has to prove your identity, and the immigration people can
just say I don't believe that passport is real, wait over there
until I find out more. At least that was what she said to me she
COULD do. You have to have a driver's license when driving a car,
so why don't you have to have a gun license if you own/possess a
gun?
Well, you don't necessarily have to have a driver's license to
drive a car - the necessity or a license depends on where you are
doing the driving.
Of course we are all talking public space here. In the FL case of
Martins vs Zimmermann, it was apparently public enough for both to
be in the same area.

Um, yeah. Your point is...?

In the case of guns, the U.S. is unique in asserting that "the
right to keep an bear arms shall not be infringed." Some states and
city jurisdictions take one extreme view of guns and require
governmental permission, of one sort or another, to own or buy a
gun, other jurisdictions do not.
I'm not in favor of a Wild West mentality in cities.

No "Wild West" mentality here.
it was not any macho challenge or "duel" crap,it was simple self-defense.
People DO get attacked,robbed,or raped in cities.
There ARE bad people out there,violent people. when they know or suspect
someone is armed,they leave that person alone,and find easier victims.


I am. An armed society is a polite society.

Nothing polite about being shot.

the politeness comes from people RECOGNIZING that the wrong actions could
get them shot. When dueling was common,people went to great lengths to NOT
insult others.

Trayvon didn't know Zimmerman had a gun,or he never would have attacked
him. Trayvon never learned about the SYG law or Florida's concealed carry
laws. His parents failed in raising him,he never learned about not seeking
out trouble.

If Z could do this night over again
I'm sure he would.

Slowly, but surely, the notion that self-defense as an unassailable
right is creeping 'cross the land and that personal weapons tending
to assert that right should not be challenged.
That is very regrettable, IMO (and I do know there are other
opinions). I can just see someone getting in an argument on a
crowded subway platform (and I've seen arguments). Would you want
to see anyone, anyone at all, start shooting.

Wild imaginations not supported by fact. Just the opposite happens.
Who is going to get violent when the result could be a shooting? the
violence occurs when people think they are safe or are stronger than the
other person,"might over right".
Besides,you must not remember Bernard Goetz and the NY subway shooting of
the 4 young thugs with screwdrivers who tried to rob him. a crowded subway
car,and no bystanders got hit.

In the first instance, how do you know those involved in a
spittle-frothing argument were NOT armed?

Here's the facts: People with concealed handgun permits do NOT start
shooting. Period. No matter the amount of insults hurled. Absolutely.

BS. How could you possibly know the mental state of each person with a
chp?

You can check the data amassed in EVERY US state that issues such permits
since concealed carry was adopted;the revocation rates for permit
violations of any sort are exceedinly LOW,fractions of a percent. States
are quick to revoke permits if a person violates the law,even non-gun
violations.

Lawfully armed citizens are just not committing crimes or violent acts.
They are not the ones to fear,no threat to other law-abiding ordinary
decent citizens(ODCs).


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Based only on media reports for my opinions. I think theformer Florida
governor makes sense.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"gonjah" gonjah.net wrote in message
net...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/n...,3805848.story

"And theformer Florida governor, Jeb Bush
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/arlington/headlines/20120323-in-arlington-jeb-bush-says-stand-your-ground-invalid-in-trayvon-martin-case.ece,
who signed the bill into law in 2005 and supported its passage, said
Saturday he did not think it should protect Zimmerman, who shot the
unarmed teen after trailing him as Trayvon walked to the home of a
family friend living in the same gated community as Zimmerman.

“Stand your ground means stand your ground. It doesn’t mean chase after
somebody who’s turned their back,” Bush said while speaking at the
University of Texas in Arlington."


From the guy who signed it into law.

gonjah gonjah.net wrote in
net:

On 3/25/2012 8:10 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:05:45 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

On 3/25/2012 7:51 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:47:42 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

On 3/25/2012 7:13 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:40:43 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

Zimmerman is 28 and looks from the photo to be a full grown
armed man. Martin was 16 and 140lbs.
How tall are these people. If Zimmerman is a 28 year old couch
potato at 5'6 and 240 pounds, my money is in the 17 year old
football player winning the fight.
True enough but I have even more trouble with the fact that
Zimmerman is the adult here. Another thing is he followed Martin.
Why?
He was on the neighborhood watch. As a resident, he has every
right to know what's going on in his neighborhood. Martin did
*not* have the right to attack him, however. Why can't you get
these simple facts through your thick head?
He was told by the dispatcher "he didn't need to do that." You know
what? He didn't need to do that.
You do know that the dispatcher was no ordering him to do anything.
She couldn't. Good grief, you're stupid!

It was the dispatchers way of tell Z police policy.

We had some shootings near by and I happened to hear the shots. When I
called 911 they didn't tell me: "Can you go over there and get a
better look."


do you recall the Missouri woman who called 911 when two thugs were
breaking into her house and she was alone with her newborn baby?
she ASKED the dispatcher if it was OK to shoot the thugs if they broke
in,and the dispatcher told her she could not tell her it was OK to
shoot them,but "go ahead and do what you need to protect yourself and your
baby".
she killed one thug,and the other ran away.

she lived 25 miles from the city,and it took police something like 25
minutes to arrive.

when I heard gunshots in my apartment complex at 4 AM,I looked out the
window and saw the shooters run to their car and drive off with their
headlights off.
I told the police what I saw a few minutes later,made out a report.
turns out they tried to rob a guy,shot him twice in the arm,small caliber
bullets,.22's,he wasn't hurt bad. Unfortunately,it was too dark for a
description or to get plate numbers. they got away.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:37:31 -0500, gonjah gonjah.net wrote:

On 3/25/2012 8:10 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:05:45 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

On 3/25/2012 7:51 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:47:42 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

On 3/25/2012 7:13 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:40:43 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

Zimmerman is 28 and looks from the photo to be a full grown armed man.
Martin was 16 and 140lbs.
How tall are these people. If Zimmerman is a 28 year old couch potato
at 5'6 and 240 pounds, my money is in the 17 year old football player
winning the fight.
True enough but I have even more trouble with the fact that Zimmerman is
the adult here. Another thing is he followed Martin. Why?
He was on the neighborhood watch. As a resident, he has every right to know
what's going on in his neighborhood. Martin did *not* have the right to
attack him, however. Why can't you get these simple facts through your thick
head?
He was told by the dispatcher "he didn't need to do that." You know
what? He didn't need to do that.
You do know that the dispatcher was no ordering him to do anything. She
couldn't. Good grief, you're stupid!

It was the dispatchers way of tell Z police policy.

You're just too funny!

We had some shootings near by and I happened to hear the shots. When I
called 911 they didn't tell me: "Can you go over there and get a better
look."

Given your contribution to society, they certainly should have.

gonjah gonjah.net wrote in
:

On 3/25/2012 9:26 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
gonjahgonjah.net wrote in
net:

On 3/25/2012 7:39 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:54:30 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:11:40 -0500, Jim
wrote:

defense with a handgun has the least risk and best success for
one's self,which is what you the defender is concerned about,not
the wellbeing of your attacker.
If I can stab an attacker, with a small blade. and hit the jugular
I'll save some ammo.
more likely,you may not get the chance to stab,particularly with a
guy with a long reach like a 6foot plus person has. you might hit a
button or other hard object that stops your blade. you more likely
might just wound him and REALLY anger him.

For the $.25, I'd prefer not to have to clean the blade.
A boy lost his life.


through unwise actions of his own choice.


Regardless of what M did you can't deny Z should not have followed M.

Yes,I can.

Or do you think it's okay to harass innocent young men because they
are black and wearing hoodies?

there was no "harassment".

he DID NOT KNOW the suspect was innocent. in fact,he thought the opposite.
He called police to have them determine if he was innocent or not.
If he was "hunting" blacks,he could have just shot the kid and claimed self
defense,THEN called police.

That's the part you seem to ignore. M *was* doing NOTHING wrong. He
was targeted and followed by an older man for no reason other than he
was black.


not "targeted",nor "harassed". followed,yes. and lawful.
since the neighborhood had experienced a high level of thefts and
burglaries recently,it was reasonable.

Guess what?
blacks commit crimes FAR out of proportion to their numbers in the
population.Geraldo was right;when you see surveillance video of
robbers,it's usually blacks in hoodies.

the police logs for Sanford are very high in such crimes.
It's the crime center of Seminole County.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 21:05:22 -0500, gonjah gonjah.net wrote:

On 3/25/2012 8:47 PM, wrote:
On Mar 25, 9:37 pm, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:
On 3/25/2012 8:10 PM, wrote:





On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:05:45 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:
On 3/25/2012 7:51 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:47:42 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:
On 3/25/2012 7:13 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:40:43 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:
Zimmerman is 28 and looks from the photo to be a full grown armed man.
Martin was 16 and 140lbs.
How tall are these people. If Zimmerman is a 28 year old couch potato
at 5'6 and 240 pounds, my money is in the 17 year old football player
winning the fight.
True enough but I have even more trouble with the fact that Zimmerman is
the adult here. Another thing is he followed Martin. Why?
He was on the neighborhood watch. As a resident, he has every right to know
what's going on in his neighborhood. Martin did *not* have the right to
attack him, however. Why can't you get these simple facts through your thick
head?
He was told by the dispatcher "he didn't need to do that." You know
what? He didn't need to do that.
You do know that the dispatcher was no ordering him to do anything. She
couldn't. Good grief, you're stupid!
It was the dispatchers way of tell Z police policy.

We had some shootings near by and I happened to hear the shots. When I
called 911 they didn't tell me: "Can you go over there and get a better
look." - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Whether he "needed" to do that or not isn't the issue. The only
issue is who started the actual assault and if Zimmerman had a
legitmate fear for his life when he fired.

You have heard that there is only one eye witness who actually
SAW at least part of what happened? That witness says that
he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, Zimmerman was on his
back and it was Zimmeman whowas yelling for help. Police
say Zimmerman had grass stains on his back, his face was
bloodied, he needed stitches to the back of his head. Yet
the media are trying to turn this into something revolving
around "stand your ground"? Even without any such law,
by Zimmerman's and the eye witness accounts, he had
no place to retreat to.

Having heard the above, I can see why the police didn't charge
Zimmermansnip

I actually do too. The SYG issue muddied the fact and got a lot of
people up-in-arms. It's unfortunate the way this thing unfolded.

You mean it's unfortunate that it's unfolding that Zimmerman was perfectly
justified in shooting the punk.

The only thing I can say for certain is Z exercised extremely poor
judgement by not following the directive of the dispatch.

It was *NOT* a directive, moron!

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 21:50:12 -0500, gonjah gonjah.net wrote:

On 3/25/2012 9:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:47:53 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:



Whether he "needed" to do that or not isn't the issue. The only
issue is who started the actual assault and if Zimmerman had a
legitmate fear for his life when he fired.

You have heard that there is only one eye witness who actually
SAW at least part of what happened? That witness says that
he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, Zimmerman was on his
back and it was Zimmeman whowas yelling for help. Police
say Zimmerman had grass stains on his back, his face was
bloodied, he needed stitches to the back of his head. Yet
the media are trying to turn this into something revolving
around "stand your ground"? Even without any such law,
by Zimmerman's and the eye witness accounts, he had
no place to retreat to.

Having heard the above, I can see why the police didn't charge
Zimmerman and why he in fact may not be guilty of
anything.
Agree that he should not be charged yet. But we still don't know the
entire story. Did he do something to provoke the kid? We don't know,
may never know.

Ditto

Yet you want to hang him anyway. Nice.

On 3/25/2012 10:27 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 21:05:22 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

On 3/25/2012 8:47 PM, wrote:
On Mar 25, 9:37 pm, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:
On 3/25/2012 8:10 PM, wrote:





On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:05:45 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:
On 3/25/2012 7:51 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:47:42 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:
On 3/25/2012 7:13 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:40:43 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:
Zimmerman is 28 and looks from the photo to be a full grown armed man.
Martin was 16 and 140lbs.
How tall are these people. If Zimmerman is a 28 year old couch potato
at 5'6 and 240 pounds, my money is in the 17 year old football player
winning the fight.
True enough but I have even more trouble with the fact that Zimmerman is
the adult here. Another thing is he followed Martin. Why?
He was on the neighborhood watch. As a resident, he has every right to know
what's going on in his neighborhood. Martin did *not* have the right to
attack him, however. Why can't you get these simple facts through your thick
head?
He was told by the dispatcher "he didn't need to do that." You know
what? He didn't need to do that.
You do know that the dispatcher was no ordering him to do anything. She
couldn't. Good grief, you're stupid!
It was the dispatchers way of tell Z police policy.

We had some shootings near by and I happened to hear the shots. When I
called 911 they didn't tell me: "Can you go over there and get a better
look." - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Whether he "needed" to do that or not isn't the issue. The only
issue is who started the actual assault and if Zimmerman had a
legitmate fear for his life when he fired.

You have heard that there is only one eye witness who actually
SAW at least part of what happened? That witness says that
he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, Zimmerman was on his
back and it was Zimmeman whowas yelling for help. Police
say Zimmerman had grass stains on his back, his face was
bloodied, he needed stitches to the back of his head. Yet
the media are trying to turn this into something revolving
around "stand your ground"? Even without any such law,
by Zimmerman's and the eye witness accounts, he had
no place to retreat to.

Having heard the above, I can see why the police didn't charge
Zimmermansnip
I actually do too. The SYG issue muddied the fact and got a lot of
people up-in-arms. It's unfortunate the way this thing unfolded.
You mean it's unfortunate that it's unfolding that Zimmerman was perfectly
justified in shooting the punk.

The only thing I can say for certain is Z exercised extremely poor
judgement by not following the directive of the dispatch.
It was *NOT* a directive, moron!

A directive is defined as an order "or" instruction.

On 3/25/2012 10:25 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:37:31 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

On 3/25/2012 8:10 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:05:45 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

On 3/25/2012 7:51 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:47:42 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

On 3/25/2012 7:13 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:40:43 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

Zimmerman is 28 and looks from the photo to be a full grown armed man.
Martin was 16 and 140lbs.
How tall are these people. If Zimmerman is a 28 year old couch potato
at 5'6 and 240 pounds, my money is in the 17 year old football player
winning the fight.
True enough but I have even more trouble with the fact that Zimmerman is
the adult here. Another thing is he followed Martin. Why?
He was on the neighborhood watch. As a resident, he has every right to know
what's going on in his neighborhood. Martin did *not* have the right to
attack him, however. Why can't you get these simple facts through your thick
head?
He was told by the dispatcher "he didn't need to do that." You know
what? He didn't need to do that.
You do know that the dispatcher was no ordering him to do anything. She
couldn't. Good grief, you're stupid!
It was the dispatchers way of tell Z police policy.
You're just too funny!

We had some shootings near by and I happened to hear the shots. When I
called 911 they didn't tell me: "Can you go over there and get a better
look."
Given your contribution to society, they certainly should have.

WTF is your problem? Please go away.

gonjah gonjah.net wrote in
:

On 3/25/2012 9:31 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
gonjahgonjah.net wrote in
net:

On 3/25/2012 8:40 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
gonjahgonjah.net wrote in
net:

On 3/25/2012 7:42 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:37:06 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

On 3/25/2012 6:33 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
Ed wrote in
:

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 08:36:29 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:


a 6 foot 3 kid who was suspended from school (I don't know
why,maybe aggression?),from a broken home,and was last seen
ON TOP of Zimmerman(by a credible witness),before he was
shot in self-defense.Zimmerman's face and head injuries
support that.
We have no idea what led up to that though. Was he
provoked? I sense a little pre-judging here.
I don't see pre-judging in any of the above.
O do, in this comment fro above:
(I don't know why,maybe aggression?)

Easy; Martin told his girlfriend he was being followed. (around
7PM) a polite kid would have asked the follower why,and if
questioned about his activities,told the guy he was visiting
his dad,etc... and then everybody would have gone on their way.
a polite or smart kid would have called 911 himself(and before
approaching the unknown guy).
a smart kid would NOT approach the unknown guy who was
following him if he had reason to fear him.

an aggressive kid would be "in your face","what business is it
of your's?",or even begin pushing or punching.
Since we have reports of Zimmerman in the act of returning to
his vehicle(from NBC news),Martin had to attack Zimmerman.
Plus,since Zimmerman is a short but hefty guy,a sneak attack is
necessary for a tall but slight young man to drop him.

We DO know Martin was suspended from school for a week(but not
why,the school will not reveal that),we know he's a school
athlete,and athletics these days teaches aggression.
We also know he comes from a broken home,and no father at
home(he lives with his mom in Miami-Dade area.
that IS a good indicator of trouble.

And if Martin hadn't racially profiled him.....
doesn't matter,Zimmerman is not a law enforcement official(LEO).
He can "profile" if he wants.
Of course. That doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. I can walk
around South Chicago at night too.


all he does is call police and have them
check out the suspect,as he did that night with Trayvon.
But his credibility drops if he makes too many wrong accusations.
but 47 calls to police in a 3 year period is not too many calls.

...and if Martin hadn't pummeled him?
We need to know more about the attack. Notice I'm not calling you
stupid, thick, dense or anything. I respect your opinion.

what you seek to know,there were no witnesses for.
Yeah, but as you pointed out, there is evidence at the scene, the
telephone conversation, the testimony of Z and the person that heard
the confrontation.
the telephone conversation of the girlfriend is hearsay. she was not
THERE.

there's no evidence or
witnesses to any alleged provocation or wrongdoing on Zimmerman's
part. and in that event,Zimmerman goes free. the burden of proof of
a crime is on the prosecution.
All the -evidence- points to Z doing legitimate self-defense.

There is evidence of a adult, with a handgun, following a unarmed
boy who was apparently doing nothing wrong.
Not a crime.nor any provocation.

Z followed M because he was
black and wearing a hoodie. He was told by dispatch he didn't need
to follow him.
doesn't matter. it's not law or any order that must be obeyed.

Z went looking for trouble and he found it.
an ASSUMPTION (of yours)not supported by evidence.

Z instigated the confrontation.

No evidence to support that either.

It was very poor judgement on Z's part.
that's no crime.

That much
we know. The attack? That remains to be seen. So far, IMO, Z brought
it on by following M against the advice of the PD.

Following someone is NOT justification for an attack.


If there was an attack we don't know who initiated it. Maybe Z started
it and M got the better of him so Z shot him. Hummmm?


Conjecture,and there's NO evidence to support that.
Zimmerman's injuries,physical evidence,and witness testimony supports
Zimmerman's version.
But since the deader is black,people are trying to turn it around and put
it all on Zimmerman.

a law-abiding,decent adult citizen,and a BIG late-teen who's suspended from
school,and from a broken home.
He would not even been up here if it weren't for his suspension,he'd still
be in Miami-Dade.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On 3/25/2012 10:26 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
gonjahgonjah.net wrote in
:

On 3/25/2012 9:26 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
gonjahgonjah.net wrote in
net:

On 3/25/2012 7:39 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:54:30 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:11:40 -0500, Jim
wrote:

defense with a handgun has the least risk and best success for
one's self,which is what you the defender is concerned about,not
the wellbeing of your attacker.
If I can stab an attacker, with a small blade. and hit the jugular
I'll save some ammo.
more likely,you may not get the chance to stab,particularly with a
guy with a long reach like a 6foot plus person has. you might hit a
button or other hard object that stops your blade. you more likely
might just wound him and REALLY anger him.

For the $.25, I'd prefer not to have to clean the blade.
A boy lost his life.


through unwise actions of his own choice.

Regardless of what M did you can't deny Z should not have followed M.
Yes,I can.

Or do you think it's okay to harass innocent young men because they
are black and wearing hoodies?
there was no "harassment".

he DID NOT KNOW the suspect was innocent. in fact,he thought the opposite.
He called police to have them determine if he was innocent or not.
If he was "hunting" blacks,he could have just shot the kid and claimed self
defense,THEN called police.
That's the part you seem to ignore. M *was* doing NOTHING wrong. He
was targeted and followed by an older man for no reason other than he
was black.

not "targeted",nor "harassed". followed,yes. and lawful.
since the neighborhood had experienced a high level of thefts and
burglaries recently,it was reasonable.

Guess what?
blacks commit crimes FAR out of proportion to their numbers in the
population.Geraldo was right;when you see surveillance video of
robbers,it's usually blacks in hoodies.

the police logs for Sanford are very high in such crimes.
It's the crime center of Seminole County.


Huh? M had every right to be where we was and was doing nothing wrong.
So you follow him? You live in a very paranoid world.