Forum Post: Looks like there’s been some lying going on around the Trayvon case.
Posted 12 years ago on March 29, 2012, 11:33 a.m. EST by factsrfun
(8310)
from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Here’s what they say, if you smoke pot it’s ok to kill you.
http://nation.foxnews.com/trayvon-martin/2012/03/27/oreilly-2-sides-trayvon-martin-tragedy
What fight?
“O'REILLY: Well, according to the Sanford Police Department report George Zimmerman did have a bloody nose and a wound on the back of his head. Apparently the police do believe there was some kind of physical confrontation between Zimmerman before he shot... and the young man... before the young man was shot.”
Will O’Reilly go after that cop for lying to him?
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/zimmerman-surveillance-night-trayvon-martin-shooting-16027434
So what is the consensus on why the boy deserved to be killed?
Hoodie? Rejoining his family when threatened? Being young? Being suspended from school on suspicion? Being black? Failing to share Skittles? Holding his brother's Skittles? Looking like Obama's imagined son? The police needed a score? Help me out here.
How much dirt does it take, real, or imagined, or fabricated, to justify killing an unarmed child who weighs a hundred pounds less than his killer who chased him, when he could have just driven his pickup to the store as he says he planned?
A lot of people have been saying let's wait till the facts come out, I hear this happened over a month ago, how long are those facts going to take?
The filter is now the special prosecutor who has clamped down on "official" information releases, so now they are limited to self serving leaks on both sides.
Based on the fun fact released re the special prosecutor, I am not so highly confident in the direction this may go. There is so much room to grind personal axes which have been used on various participants backs over the years, that justice may still be part of the collateral damage.
in this case, justice will be hard to find, so many other factors have come to play, I hope that the overall numbers are looked at, actually I want every case of "justified homicide" be looked at by someone from outside the state of FL. numbers ran and such, but this case itself may be impossible to sort out at this point, as with most court cases though it will be what happens, happens, not that much to do with justice often times.
When much if not most of the population determines truth to be what I am comfortable with, not even generally, but in the moment, truth must demonstrate amazing agility. It it any wonder that justice is so elusive?
One more thought, Having been the recipient of the justice bvorn of lawyers who lie. judges who accept it and other lawyers, acknowledging the lie refusing to take it to the Bar, I have proposed that both judges and lawyers be sworn in, and prosecuted for perjury and subject to civil suits for lying.
The argument is that the client would not get the best possible defense. My response is that they would get the best defense that the truth allows and the truth trumps the law. Sorry to get serious on you.
I will get lighter above in light of today's leak.
I don't know that much about the Britsh system but I watch Law and Order UK on TV and I think it is somewhat like that, but they spend almost as much on the public defenders as they do the DAs I think as well.
We generally agree that there are things wrong in our judicial system. Clearly there are problems directly caused by Congress's tinkering, motivated by corruption. But I think it goes further than that. Eyewitness testimony has been demonstrated scientifically, and confirmed by many DNA tests, to be much less reliable that was thought. Chin of custody of evidence can be much more reliable if the technology is authorized and is implemented properly. But the conduct of judges and attorneys and their self policing (which is a consistent failure in every other field) is extremely suspect, in my humble opinion.
Our public defenders are so motivated to do a poor job that the Supreme Court ruling just handed down requiring competent representation is past due.
95% of cases are decided by pled bargin, people denied their day in court through intimadation, ple bargins should be unconstitutional, then you would see some real changes if they had to do some work and convince everyday people before they put people in jail, a lot fewer would be in prison
And that is one of the elephants. If we find ways to put the "other" out of sight in prison warehouses, we don't have to consider them in any way. Having the other warehoused in the military, as "contractors" they are merely a resource that is expendable, don't have to be rehabilitated when the return to society or educated or employed.
There isn't such a high correlation between plea bargains and justice.
the correlation is how much you can cost the DA's office tieing things up in court
[Removed]
of course this isnt a rush to judgement. This case represents everything OWS stands for - Mob justice.
No, it was a rush from justice that got interrupted by an about face to march toward it. Stay tuned, film at eleven.
What would you do if a stranger keeps following you?
Good morning Billy, I don't think we've met, looked at a couple of your posts, the two I saw had to do with the troll hunt, it doesn't hurt to talk a little truth no matter the subject and knowing about trolls is a good thing, but I only read a little and it looked like you considered bensdad a troll, did I misread? might I ask your current opinion?
I was incensed the first time they said that Zimmerman was hurt, being from a military, firefighters and police officers community,,,,,it amazed me that there was never a call to paramedics, or for an ambulance, no type of a medical unit at the scene or otherwise. Nor was Zimmerman transported to any facility to receive medical attention by the police officers either..straight to the station! The police and Zimmerman's account of what took place was a tall tale filled with holes and BS from the beginning.
I got a RN recently, and while I am no emergecy nurse, I have spent some time there, no way there is not pictures of any injury, and if it is in the police report and there are no treatment notes or pictures then that's obstruction of justice and somebody, not just Zimmerman needs jail time.
http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/327370-trayvon-martin-police-report
Sandford Fire and Rescue was on scene.
The report states Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose and the back of his head..but yet, nothing states there was a broken nose, or wounds that required stitches at the back of his head. Since Travyon was on the ground lying face down, how do we know the blood on Zimmerman was not Travyon's as he fell against Zimmerman, or that Zimmerman was unable to prevent his falling on him making him hit the back of his head and getting his shirt wet? Why would Zimmerman yell for help, when he had the gun, and wore a holster as if he was a G-man? Shot at point blank range in the chest????
NAW.!!!!
That report regarding the SFD and treatment given to Zimmerman was given approximately 8 hours after the incident to a different officer by a different officer.
It is bogus since here was time to create a story in order to keep Zimmerman out of harms way.....It is not impossible to change stories, before they are officially entered, particularly when someones family member has a working relationship with the police department, i.e. judges, attorney's and prosecutors who all belong to the same GOB's club and watch each others back. Too much controversial lying going on here!
But, here's the rub and one thing that has not been changed is this... The report states "Homicide, Negligent, Manslaughter-Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act"....The code, which has not been changed is. 782.11 which under Florida law reads thus..... 782.11 Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act.—Whoever shall unnecessarily kill another, either while resisting an attempt by such other person to commit any felony, or to do any other unlawful act, or after such attempt shall have failed, shall be deemed guilty of manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. The law is the law....and obviously these guya are trying to skirt the law or ignore it, or believe we don't know the law, or else they have been doing this for so long, they forgot to cover their tracks completely!
I'm glad Obama spoke out about this case.
President Obama: "If I had a son he'd look like Trayvon."
I think he said a lot there, we attack some people then deny them protection under the law, immigrants, homeless, gay, and people of color.
[Removed]
I would expect that we'd be able to see a nose splint taped to Zimmerman's face if he does have a broken nose. I also would think there would be a bandage or at least band-aids on the back of his head if there were cuts to the back of the head as was claimed by Zimmerman's attorney. I saw neither of those on the police station video.
I agree, and I even have some training in this field, a head injury would bleed a lot and be bandaged.
I know the video is of poor quality and so it's difficult to get a really good look and Zimmerman. I also didn't notice any thing that looked like blood on his shirt and there probably ought to be a some blood, if his nose was broken. Did they take Zimmerman to a medical center prior to his being taken in? Was he wearing the same clothes as when the altercation took place do you know? If he's wearing the same clothes why is that? Those clothes should be taken into evidence for DNA testing, I would think. They'd be very much compromised by the time he was processed at police HQ.
There is not as much DNA testing as TV would lead us to believe BTW, but when i saw on FOX that he had a broken nose, a wound on the back of his head, I thought to myself, I'm glad I hadn't posted on this, because of course there will be pictures, I have a little experience, and all the talk would change when these picture of Zimmerman's injuries were shown, then we would understsnd why the DA didn't charge him, what has happened is we see there are no injuries and we find out his grandfather was a judge, so I think we now know why he wasn't charged, and a bunch of people need to go to jail.
If an ambulance responded, wouldn't there be a report of Zimmerman's injuries or the lack thereof? When a homicide occurs, I wonder why DNA testing wouldn't be pursued whenever possible? I mean, someone died, for heaven's sake! Sorry for not being more up to speed on this. Been doing other things today and haven't been to any news sites yet.
no worries I come and go, you may be right DNA may be routine in cases like this with the costs dropping and all, of course there would be a bandage too as you say, today I guess his lawyer up and took off befor an interview with Larence O'Donald I think Zimmerman most likely did comit a crime and will face charges, but even more so I want to know about these ploice reports, who wrote them, why were there not charges ect.
I thought I heard or read that when Zimmerman was taken in for processing, charges were recommended by someone, though I can't recall the name or that person's title. Obviously the recommendation got over-ruled by someone of greater authority. I suppose material evidence or eyewitness testimony that was counter to Zimmerman's account would be necessary for charges to be filed, right? A witness said that Martin was on top of Zimmerman while they were on the ground. Excessive force should be considered in this case, I think. It would be one thing to fight back if attacked, and an entirely different thing to use a gun in a fist fight. What a mess this whole thing is. I really feel for those parents.
it is a terrible situation, I did read that the investorgator wanted to file, I would think it is the DA's call to charge someone, but at the same time i don't even know if he was held questioned and released the same day or what, but I have seen where '"justifiable homicides" had increased since the law passed, I care about these people, but if there has been a trend that is what I think is the bigger issue I think, I wasn't going to post on this but when I saw the tape that goes against what had been reported on the police report, then that becomes offical misconduct, if true, and we should all be concerned about that going forward
I was thinking about this stand your ground law and was wondering what will happen when two people who are both armed face each other as their aggressor? Won't it be like something out of the wild west like "High Noon?"
Up above brighton and I have been having a little fun with this one.
I read that - just slipped my mind that I had. Twisted yet funny.
We need to ask lots of questions. Zimmerman's father is a retired judge. Zimmerman did not appear to have any broken nose or scalp laceration in the cop video, nor did he request medical attention.
The lead investigator wanted Zimmerman to be arrested and charged.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/martin-bashir/46884612/#46884612
No way the cops don't take pictures of any injuries, I don't see anything on Zimmerman, If there are no pictures I would like to see if this police report says anything close to what O'Reilly reported, if it does, I think laws were broken, by the cops/DA.
Remember the controversy was based on race crime. That is when it was white and black. The real crime is the people jumping to conclusions about what is being shown on fake new shows to get ratings.
Hate crimes make big news.
They report part truths as fact then question any real facts as being made up.
This is a horrible event regardless of what they say on the news. Putting the parents through repeat interviews just maks them relive the whole thing. I'm sure that there are plenty of honest police looking into this now.
Let it be.
Race has nothing to do with his lawyer saying he had a broken nose and a wound on the back of his head, those are facts, he either did or he didn't, if he didn't then he's lying, if he's lying then he's lying, and one must look past his words to see what happened, here we have an uninjuried man, a dead boy, and a gun but no arrest, how many times has this happen in FL since 2005 where the dead person is white and the uninjuried person is black? FL can provide the numbers we can see for ourseleves, if the feds don't make them do that, at this point, I think the best thing would be to hang Jeb's body outside the State House with a sign saying don't sign stupid laws, but that might be going overboard.
Between 2000 and 2006, the number of justifiable homicides by citizens in Florida never rose above 18. Since 2007, the number has been 40 or higher every year. The numbers provided only apply to cases where a felon was killed by a private citizen.
Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law took effect in late 2005. In 2006, the first year of “Stand Your Ground”, only 12 justifiable homicides were tallied. The very next year, that number jumped to 42 statewide, and has remained about the same since.
Justifiable homicides of a felon by a private citizen in Florida:
Read more: http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/local_news/investigations/i-team-justifiable-homicides-double-since-stand-your-ground#ixzz1qq2a93qJ
And just in case you'd like to spread the idea of lynching folks responsible for making this law a bit more equitably.....
Despite liberal protesters’ claims that Florida’s so-called “stand your ground” gun law demonstrates that Republican policymakers are responsible for the February death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, an analysis of its legislative history shows that it was a bipartisan effort — and that no Florida Democratic state senator voted against it.
One Democrat, Fort Lauderdale state Sen. Mandy Dawson, missed the vote. But the rest of the Senate chamber supported it, 39-0.
The Florida House vote was 92-20. Twelve Democrats voted in favor.
And of the 15 states that have passed variations of the law since 2005, the year Florida’s model legislation became law, eight — a majority — had Democratic governors when the laws were enacted. None issued a veto.
Democratic governors who signed “stand your ground” bills, or otherwise permitted them to become law, include Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana, Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, Brian Schweitzer of Montana, John Lynch of New Hampshire, Brad Henry of Oklahoma, Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Janet Napolitano of Arizona – now the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security.
The bills in Louisiana and West Virginia passed with Democratic control of both houses in the states’ legislatures, in 2006 and 2008, respectively.
Former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm now hosts “The War Room” on Current TV. During her March 29 show, Granholm broadcast three separate segments blaming Republicans for what she described as “the type of [gun] laws that permit George Zimmerman to walk free today.” Responding to a guest who described “stand your ground” as “a bad law … just a bad law” Granholm responded, “Of course.”
http://news.yahoo.com/stand-ground-laws-not-just-gop-policy-records-053103956.html
Hey you seem to have a lot of data, in the near 200 cases since 2005 how many were black shooter white/Latin "agressor" and how many the other way around? do you know? can you find out? I could be convinviced here. We should look at net worths too and see if the there is a trend based on net worth as well.
I took pity on you facts...since you seem unable to engage in your own researching. But before we take this any further, let's establish the issue at hand in separating out Hispanic/Latin murder/justifiable homicide rates from black and white.
Being Hispanic/Latin is considered by governments to be "ethnicity" not "race". (NOTE: That is not MY opinion, that is a statement of fact)
In census takings, those with Hispanic ethnicity choose to self describe their race.
In crime stats, the information can be self described, determined by the police or listed as other/unknown. So your question of "how many were black shooter white/Latin "agressor" and how many the other way around?" is not answerable with the governmental data available for research. (Note the words inside the quotation marks are YOUR words, not mine.)
Since the main law in question is Florida's, I decided to do your research for you covering four categories....National Justifiable Homicide, Florida Civilian Justifiable Homicide, Florida Cop Justifiable Homicide and Florida's Homicide numbers by year. If you read it carefully, you'll see that at the same time that Florida's Justifiable Homicide by Civilians numbers went up, so did the numbers for the Police AND plain old Homicide. Something that the media is hiding in their reporting.........
FBI stats for Justifiable Homicide by Citizen - FDLE’s manual explains that the label is based on an investigating officer’s findings -- not on the actions by a prosecutor or court. The FBI’s UCR handbook explains that a storekeeper shooting a gunman attempting a robbery is a justifiable homicide. But if two men playing cards get into an argument in which the first man attacked the second with a broken bottle and the second man shot his attacker claiming self-defense, that should not be reported as justifiable homicide.
2000 = Nation 164 / Florida Civilian 12 / Fl Police 20 / Fl Total Homicide 903
2001 = Nation 222 / Florida Civilian 12 / Fl Police 21 / Fl Total Homicide 874
2002 = Nation 233 / Florida Civilian 12 / Fl Police 23 / Fl Total Homicide 911
2003 = Nation 247 / Florida Civilian 16 / Fl Police 16 / Fl Total Homicide 924
2004 = Nation 222 / Florida Civilian 8 / Fl Police 23 / Fl Total Homicide 946
2005 = Nation 192 / Florida Civilian 18 / Fl Police 25 / Fl Total Homicide 883
2006 = Nation 238 / Florida Civilian 12 / Fl Police 21 / Fl Total Homicide 1129
2007 = Nation 257 / Florida Civilian 42 / Fl Police 60 / Fl Total Homicide 1201
2008 = Nation 268 / Florida Civilian 41 / Fl Police 52 / Fl Total Homicide 1169
2009 = Nation 266 / Florida Civilian 45 / Fl Police 60 / Fl Total Homicide 1017
2010 = Nation 278 / Florida Civilian 40 / Fl Police 56 / Fl Total Homicide 987
Now, these are not "my" facts, they are the FBI and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement facts. You can verify them at the following links:
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html#table2_16
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_14.html
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl15.xls
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/327501-justifiable-homicides-2000-2010-4.html
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm
OK well I did look at the links the data is deep if there at all ,but the thing is what I want to know is this:
Is there a higher inadence of "justifiable homicide" when the dead person is black, in FL or anywhere else? Also why was this law needed. couldn't you use self defense as a defense before 2005 in FL? nothing you provide gives us the race or ethnicity of any of your data sets.
So we are now cool with calling Zimmerman white, is that right?
You like "facts" so you could do some digging on your own. Here's a place for you to start.........
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl15.xls
This is interesting....
In 2010, 69.4 percent of all persons arrested were white, 28.0 percent were black, and the remaining 2.6 percent were of other races.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/table-49
WOW America is less than 70% white? Already? I did not know that! And 28% black hispanics make up less than 3% of arrests? huh I don't know if I believe that are you SURE you're not lying?
You might want to slow down and read that again...........
In 2010, 69.4 percent of all persons ARRESTED were white, 28.0 percent were black, and the remaining 2.6 percent were of other races.
Did you follow the links factsrfun? Probably not.....
so are you saying whites are artestted at a lower rate than they appear in the population? that seems like something we should look into, now about 69.4 + 28.0 leaving hardly anything for hispanics, again one more time I ask are you SURE you're not lying?
For Pete's sake facts. Go read the link.
That is a quote straight from the FBI stats page.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/persons-arrested
For someone who supposedly thinks facts r fun, you don't seem to be willing to make any effort to find out what the facts are....or is it that you need to go back to school and get a refresher course on reading?
Some have pointed out that Zimmerman is Latin not white but in the stats they often place Latins with whites, I am saying that may have happened here, before I look I just want to know if you are paying attention to your crap and do you stand behind what you are saying and none of those 69.4% are hispanic, are we on the same page now?
Nice try facts. Have you checked out the link yet? If you had you could have determined for yourself if Hispanic Americans were included in the stats for the "white" total arrested in 2010.
Apparently, you and shooz are either too lazy or unable to do your own research relying instead on distractions to cover your own level of ignorance on the things you write about.
You want to know whether or not "whites" includes Hispanics, then follow the link..
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/table-43
That's exactly what I was saying so to get back to the beginning then , when I ask about how white shooters and black recievers of the bullet and how many the other way around in these justifiedable cases, why were you so forceful pointing out that Zimmerman was Latin when we all knew all along this is how they do the stats?
Please copy and paste any comment I made on Zimmerman being "Latin". Any reference to race or ethnicity was in response to something you wrote.
Are you getting confused as to who posted what?
This is in response to your statement that "Hispanics" is independent of race and constitutes an ethnicity category.
Then hell....why are all dark skinned people called black? Ethnicity shows they originated from all across the globe, continents, here, there and everywhere...
So....as it stands all dark skinned people's ethnicity is that of Berber, Mauri, or the Moors, whereas all pale skins are from Spain, Portugal, Great Britain, Europe, Caucasions. and then the two mixed and created....???????
Whereas in truth all Asiatics, dark skinned nations......migrated and lived all across the globe... So....here we are....not that virtual melting pot your demigod scholars would have us to believe!!! But many many tribes, from many many lands and cultures and nations!!! Wow! That was easy to understand!!!
Attacking the messenger?
I simply stated what the norm is for census taking.
If you have an issue with that, take it up with the government who determines how and why census data is accumulated.
Since when were Hispanics considered "white"...? Was that before or after the Conquistadors arrived on these shores and chased them down further into Central America. Or was that when Central America imported more pale skin members of the European nations to come to Central and South America to amalgamate with the dark-skinned races? Or did that occur when they started immigrating here and found out that they could be just as racist as the pale skin nations that remained here after their founding fathers destroyed the originating cultures here and created their own? Hmmmm....Mucho food for thought!!!! You all are in some kind of mental fog!!! Glad my family taught me the truth!!!
Hispanicity is independent of race, and constitutes an ethnicity category, as opposed to a racial category at least at it pertains to the census taking. Perhaps facts was not aware of this - he seems unable to do his own research even when links are provided for him to do so.
Here's another link for facts not to follow.........
http://www.futurity.org/society-culture/skewed-stats-distort-black-crime-reports/
I think hanging bodies of the guy who wrote it and the guy who signed it, in front of the state house with signs saying
“don't pass stupid laws”
should be enough, after all I'm not a monster I don't think we need to get them all.
These people too?
Democratic governors who signed “stand your ground” bills, or otherwise permitted them to become law:
Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana,
Jennifer Granholm of Michigan,
Brian Schweitzer of Montana,
John Lynch of New Hampshire,
Brad Henry of Oklahoma,
Phil Bredesen of Tennessee,
Joe Manchin of West Virginia and
Janet Napolitano of Arizona – now the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security.
Or do your threats of lynching only extend to the Republicans who voted for or signed these bills into law?
Careful, your true colors might be showing.
Sure that would speed the process of what we need to get done, if we're really going to address wealth inequality,
I would prefer less bloody options, I often say I am here to keep the guillotine away, (my son came up with that :))
In times of great change though sometimes bad things happen, I pray everyday it does not come to that. So to back up our big mouths in this case, maybe just Jeb, then maybe people will stop using stupid words like lynch mob to describe concerned citizens asking questions.
If you want people to stop using the word "lynch mob" then it might help if you didn't post that you wanted to "hang" the bodies of our elected officials. You do realize that you perpetuate the very thing you say you are here to do ("keep the guillotine away") when you use that kind of language?
[-] 1 points by factsrfun (2468) 1 hour ago
I think hanging bodies of the guy who wrote it and the guy who signed it, in front of the state house with signs saying
[-] 2 points by factsrfun (2468) 3 days ago
.... I think the best thing would be to hang Jeb's body outside the State House with a sign saying don't sign stupid laws, but that might be going overboard.
Twice in the same forum post..........
OK so now you're point is that the left brought these words in?
What you have there are not "Posts" they are "replies" the difference being that we have been talking about this for a bit I am not the first to use the words lynch mob what comes from lynch mobs bodies that’s what, now that's one of those pesky facts you keep talking like I don't like when it is clear you are one the who hates facts.
Who said you were the "first" to use the words? The word "first" was not found in my post/reply.
Who said that the "left" brought these words in? The word "left" was not found in my post/reply. Nor was the word "right" or any other term to describe a side.
You however, whether in "replies" or in original posts, stated:
[-] 1 points by factsrfun (2468) 1 hour ago
I think hanging bodies of the guy who wrote it and the guy who signed it, in front of the state house with signs saying
[-] 2 points by factsrfun (2468) 3 days ago
.... I think the best thing would be to hang Jeb's body outside the State House with a sign saying don't sign stupid laws, but that might be going overboard.
So it's Ok for you to use these wrods but not others? yep that sounds about right having chatted with you.
Show me where I suggested hanging the bodies of anyone. I asked you if your threats to hang bodies included those Democrats who signed these bills into law or those Democrats who voted for them to become law.......
You are very good at putting words into other peoples mouths in order to hide your own words and their meaning. But the more you do this, the more I get to point it out when you do it.....and the more your tactics of distraction will become known to other readers....
Maybe I did get it wrong, what do lynch mobs do exactly?
Another attempt at distracting readers from the fact that you are here suggesting that the bodies of elected officials be hung up in front of state houses.....
So the numbers doubled after the 2005 law "Stand you ground" was put in place, yes I think the feds should look at all of those, how many were black shooter white or Latin victim?
I agree that the stats should be looked at...not just race but also type...i.e..how many were justifiable not based upon race but because someone came in the front door of the home or business or lunged into a private vehicle.
A family member once served on a jury in Florida regarding the case of a homicide in which the deceased (a white man) lunged into the vehicle of a man attempting to retreat from the bar parking lot where the two had been brawling. The defendant had a hunting knife in his glove compartment and grabbed it to defend himself. According to witnesses the truck was moving when the deceased lunged in the open window. During the struggle the knife caused mortal injury. The defendant went to jail for five years for negligent homicide. Had he been in his home, it would have been justifiable homicide. At that time, he had a "duty to retreat" under the law. Despite the fact that the truck was moving (iow he was trying to retreat) he still went to jail because of the way the law was written. The Stand Your Ground law attempted to correct this among other things.
How many cases were similar to that one and would have before the law required jail time for the person who was defending themselves?
Oh, and during your reading up on this, did you read about Jeb Bush and the two sponsors of this bill stating that they felt that Zimmerman was NOT protected by the Stand Your Ground law?
There is a lot more to this than just race. And I hope we get those stats as a result of this.
Like I said we need to look at every one.
Of course Jeb would not want to be held accountable for his actions, that's nothing new for the Bush family.
Fallacy:
Jeb Bush is a Republican. All Republicans are 'evil" therefore, his statement that the law does not apply to Zimmerman is simply designed to cover his evil
Jeb is a Bush. All of the Bush family are evil therefore, his statement that the law does not apply to Zimmerman is simply designed to cover his evil.
We know that factsrfun says the Republicans are evil, since factsrfun says it, it is true. What factsrfun says must be true, since he wrote it and he never lies. (Here, we must agree that factsrfun never lies in order to believe all of the above.)
These are these you have said now, I will let you defend them, as I do not defend strawmen. But at least it seems you are chatching the drift of things though I think you overstate.
The shooter was Latin
might have more to do with Zimmerman's granddad being a judge than race
http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/327370-trayvon-martin-police-report
Officer Tim Smith needs to produce the pictures he took to support the statements in his report about blood "coming from" the head is there no policy in regards to taking photos of injures?
O'Reilly is guilty of jumping to conclusions and I want to see Officer Smith answer some questions about how he determined where the blood was coming from, note he says nothing about seeing a wound of any kind.
O’Reilly LIED the word "wound" is not in the report O'Reilly jump to conclusions and made that up, but it made the black man look bad so why not? that's normal for O'Reilly
You are arguing that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. That is a "fallacy".....There was blood therefore there was a "wound" whether or not the word was used in the police report or not.
You are also arguing a popular belief that O'Reilly doesn't "report" the news in a fair and balanced way. That's is called in the fallacy world "appealing to popularity".........you are trying to convince others of something that the facts in this instance don't support based upon a "popular" opinion of the speaker.
Despite the fact that for days prior to O'Reilly speaking on this subject there were numerous others (included Anderson Cooper) reporting virtually the same things - you insist on grabbing onto one sentence (about pot) and one word (wound) to support the "popular" belief that O'Reilly is in the wrong here.
So let me ask you, if I see an unarmed dead seventeen year old and an armed live twenty eight year old who weighs at least 60 pounds more, and I assume that the older armed man could have protected himself from the boy without killing him, is that really worst than reading the words “blood coming from” and assuming that there is a wound?
I mean for Bill O’Reilly to be innocent here, we would have to believe the last assumption to be so normal as to not be mentioned, but the first is so outrageous that is the equal to a lynch mob.
How many times are you going to post the same thing? Do you think if you repeat it enough it will become "fact"? You've posted basically the same thing four times in the past hour.....repetition does not prove the truth of your premise.
[-] 1 points by factsrfun (2468) 0 minutes ago
So let me ask you, if I see an unarmed dead seventeen year old and an armed live twenty eight year old who weighs at least 60 pounds more, and I assume that the older armed man could have protected himself from the boy without killing him, is that really worst than reading the words “blood coming from” and assuming that there is a wound?
I mean for Bill O’Reilly to be innocent here, we would have to believe the last assumption to be so normal as to not be mentioned, but the first is so outrageous that is the equal to a lynch mob.
[-] 1 points by factsrfun (2468) 1 hour ago
So let me ask you, if I see an unarmed dead seventeen year old and an armed live twenty eight year old who weighs at least 60 pounds more, and I assume that the older armed man could have protected himself from the boy without killing him, is that really worst than reading the words “blood coming from” and assuming that there is a wound?
I mean for Bill O’Reilly to be innocent here, we would have to believe the last assumption to be so normal as to not be mentioned, but the first is so outrageous that is the equal to a lynch mob.
[-] 1 points by factsrfun (2468) 40 minutes ago
O'Reilly is guilty of jumping to conclusions and I want to see Officer Smith answer some questions about how he determined where the blood was coming from, note he says nothing about seeing a wound of any kind.
O’Reilly LIED the word "wound" is not in the report O'Reilly jump to conclusions and made that up, but it made the black man look bad so why not? that's normal for O'Reilly
So let me ask you, if I see an unarmed dead seventeen year old and an armed live twenty eight year old who weighs at least 60 pounds more, and I assume that the older armed man could have protected himself from the boy without killing him, is that really worst than reading the words “blood coming from” and assuming that there is a wound?
I mean for Bill O’Reilly to be innocent here, we would have to believe the last assumption to be so normal as to not be mentioned, but the first is so outrageous that is the equal to a lynch mob.
[-] 1 points by factsrfun (2468) 28 minutes ago
So let me ask you, if I see an unarmed dead seventeen year old and an armed live twenty eight year old who weighs at least 60 pounds more, and I assume that the older armed man could have protected himself from the boy without killing him, is that really worst than reading the words “blood coming from” and assuming that there is a wound?
I mean for Bill O’Reilly to be innocent here, we would have to believe the last assumption to be so normal as to not be mentioned, but the first is so outrageous that is the equal to a lynch mob.
You keep saying the same thing over and over but you have yet to answer this simple question don't know how many times I will have to ask it
You are arguing that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. That is a "fallacy".....There was blood therefore there was a "wound" whether or not the word was used in the police report or not.
You are also arguing a popular belief that O'Reilly doesn't "report" the news in a fair and balanced way. That's is called in the fallacy world "appealing to popularity".........you are trying to convince others of something that the facts in this instance don't support based upon a "popular" opinion of the speaker.
Despite the fact that for days prior to O'Reilly speaking on this subject there were numerous others (included Anderson Cooper) reporting virtually the same things - you insist on grabbing onto one sentence (about pot) and one word (wound) to support the "popular" belief that O'Reilly is in the wrong
Pretty sure Trayvon had a wound, not so sure about Zimmerman but O'Reilly is.
This is for Concerned....4 hours ago...Since you don't want anyone to reply to you ..I just stated the facts of true history my friend...the government census....well..... if people are unaware of their true nationality....is that my fault? Why are you on the defensive....I don't mind hearing the truth...do you?? That is why this country is in the turmoil it is in to this day...the truth needs to be revealed to the masses....but then again...like you...they usually turn from it and act offended!
"concerned" is concerned that you might follow what he says, but in case you missed it this race thing got started because he made a big deal out of Zimmerman being Latin not white, then starts using stats that put Latins and whites in the same group, like he thought i was a Republican or something (by that I mean stupid)
Oh....it amazes me how people use race, politics, sex and religion to justify the crazy shyt people do no matter what race, political party, gender or sexual preference or religious belief of that person. As if any of those things constitute what good or evil actually reigns in a persons heart, mind and soul!!! If it was there when they were born, it will remain there until they die...people are misguided by these labels of lies!!!
and all this is made much worst whaen the cops look the other way just becuase you're one of the "good" ones
Speaking of lying. There is a new opportunity for someone who is nearly acquainted with the Zimmerman family. They need someone to go on TV and attest to the "fact" that Mr. Zimmerman was an avid ventriloquist, often appearing at parties as both a bouncer and a ventriloquist. So, it would be typical behavior for him, when we was facing a life threatening hoodie wielded by a smaller, weaker adversary, to scream for help in the voice of his attacker.
If you can do this with great sincerity and aplomb. you might just have an opportunity to cash in. Contact Magistrate Robert Zimmerman, retired but still active.
The kid was using self defense. The guy approaching you with a gun after spying on you and following you is the threat. Not the KID walking around with skittles and iced tea.
Even if Trayvon was kicking the guys ass, he still did not instigate the fight. You can't start a fight with someone, start losing, and then kill them and get away with it. That's called murder.
I hate O'Reilly so much.
I hear what you are saying, the only thing is, under FL law I am not sure if you are allowed to defend youself if you do not have a gun.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html
That is a link to the law. The law doesn't state that one can only use a gun to forcibly defend or use deadly force in defending themselves.
But Trayvon couldn't use his fists?
That heroic young man facing a suspicious armed man hanging out in back of the homes in his neighborhood, with nothing but his fists to defend himself.
Let's remember the context of this........TrevorMnemonic wrote "The kid was using self defense" referring to Marton responding to a threat and not being the "instigator".
You wrote "I am not sure if you are allowed to defend youself if you do not have a gun."
I provided you a link to the law so that you could determine the "facts" regarding means other than a gun in self defense. The law doesn't state that one cannot use their "fists" to self defend.
How do you jump then to the irrelevant conclusion that "Trayvon couldn't use his fists?".....despite phrasing it as a question, your intent was clear.
You questioned the law. I presented a link to the law. If you had read it you would see that self defense using defensive or deadly force is not required to be at the point of a gun.
Damn I guess that clears everything up, killing people who use their fist to defend themselves in FL does not result in arrest.
Fallacy....Distraction
Fallacy....False Dilemma
Falacy....Complex Question
Fallacy...Hasty Generalization
Pick one....you've managed to use them all.
Oh is it really that complex?
I don't think so.
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm
Can you follow that link facts? It might be enlightening for you. And it was provided by one of your fellow occupiers....!
You've become so concerned that you've lost this argument that you won't even discuss the subject anymore, I feel like Michal Jordon and I just dunked over a varsity player...yeah?
Now you know what the NRA is working toward. Everyone must carry a gun to qualify for self defense and immunity from prosecution. Of course, when everyone carries a gun, just like our defense budget, you will have to double it, two guns, then....
When everyone has guns, only criminals won't have a gun. We call it the "gun mandate."
damn you beat me to it as I was reading and thinking how the law was written to encourage gun sales, why not two? ok so here's the new law if there is a shooting whoever has the most guns gets to be the "victem" how's that?
An eminently logical conclusion, I might say. They call them toys, I believe. The one with the most toys.....
that true...
and whoever spends the most on guns obviously cares the most about self defense, so naturally they would be defending themselves the logic is perfect!
NO- when everybody has a gun, NRA is richer and more powerful
ALEC - YOU RULE!
When we offically crown our first American King maybe we should call him ALEC like the Romans did Ceaser, It would be His Royal Highness Mitt ALEC, or if we're really lucky Rick ALEC All Hail!!
And two guns, and four guns....And you really don't have to carry them all. Some can be left where your children can reach them. And some will be easily found by burglars. And...
Great idea - this will deplete our excess population of bullets so I will buy stock in ammunition companies and casket companies
You and Bain Capital.
hey I watch movies if guns are within reach of everyone, it makes life more exciting, (and the movie better?)
As long as bullets don't come out of the screen.
but just think how great it would be if life were like a TV script, of course there would be a lot more funerals, but think of immigration as casting calls, anyway.....
I got in the mood for fun reading your stuff and came up with this, what do you think?
http://occupywallst.org/forum/a-new-idea-to-improve-americas-corporate-efficienc/
Yep, life is like a TV script. That is why reality should be cancelled.
They turned life into a movie at least, I just saw it, it's called The Hunger Games.
I am a little reluctant to see it, I get vibes it might depress me. ( I am a little irritated that the gal in the picture with the bow and arrow is holding it improperly.)
Hey I once ran a nuc plant, but I still watched The China Syndrome, it is pertty good in a Tintanic sort of way, as I watch it I was thinking if you offer a million dollar prize, I think you could get a game going today, not sure what that says, if it is true
There are a number of elephants in the room (I love that one) that people don't talk about. In a private comment I made to therising I discussed "freedom" of the kind that really means freedom from responsibility, to do whatever I want to do while ignoring the consequences, to the planet, certainly as if it were capable of diluting those consequences to zero, and even to ignore the personal consequences of their choices in food and insurance and everything in between. We have frozen in our minds judgements that we made decades ago and are refusing to reconsider in light of significant new evidence.
I get what you're saying too deep right now, I saw an elephant when watching the other borther talk to Maher about healthcare, he said 10% of the people make-up 66% of the costs, the elephant is they are not the 10% sickest, but he couldn't say that
Don't sweat it, I have enough for several of you anti-gun libs.
And that is such a comfort. And they are such a good investment too. I have several obsolete tools I no longer use.
Your government employs millions of tools, overpaid and quite superflous.
Subject change, noted.
Does your question about going after whoever it was that lied apply to all the sources who reported the same thing?
A Sanford police officer who responded to the incident, Timothy Smith, noted in his police report that when he arrived on the scene, Zimmerman had a bloody nose and blood on the back of his head. His back was wet and covered in grass, "as if he had been laying on his back on the ground," Smith wrote. Smith said Zimmerman was placed in the back of the squad car, where he was given medical attention by the Fire Department.
Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2012/03/29/2055730/police-surveillance-video-shows.html#storylink=cpy
A Sanford police officer who responded to the incident, Timothy Smith, noted in his police report that when he arrived on the scene, Zimmerman had a bloody nose and blood on the back of his head. His back was wet and covered in grass, "as if he had been laying on his back on the ground," Smith wrote.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/29/MNPH1NS3V8.DTL#ixzz1qcSxoLAl
Witness statements and a doctor's report corroborated his injuries, Lee said. A police report said he had a bloody nose and a grass-stained shirt.
http://www.theledger.com/article/20120328/NEWS/120329297?p=3&tc=pg
7:36 p.m. EST, March 26, 2012|
By Rene Stutzman, Orlando Sentinel
With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk, leaving him bloody and battered, law-enforcement authorities told the Orlando Sentinel.
That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say. There have been no reports that a witness saw the initial punch Zimmerman told police about.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_miami-schools-punch-unarmed-black-teenager
And where in the link to O'Reilly that you gave does it say "if you smoke pot it’s ok to kill you"?
So let me ask you, if I see an unarmed dead seventeen year old and an armed live twenty eight year old who weighs at least 60 pounds more, and I assume that the older armed man could have protected himself from the boy without killing him, is that really worst than reading the words “blood coming from” and assuming that there is a wound?
I mean for Bill O’Reilly to be innocent here, we would have to believe the last assumption to be so normal as to not be mentioned, but the first is so outrageous that is the equal to a lynch mob.
"However, he should be very cautious. He referenced Trayvon in a "son" context but today the Associated Press is reporting the teenager was suspended from school for drug activity."
The "drug" involed was pot, O'Reilly knew that, so what's that got to do with wiether this was a lawful shooting, maybe more with smearing the victem I think.
O'REILLY: Now "Talking Points" does not believe President Obama was suggesting that at all. He was just expressing outrage in very personal terms; as the leader of the country the President is entitled to do that.
However, he should be very cautious. He referenced Trayvon in a "son" context but today the Associated Press is reporting the teenager was suspended from school for drug activity.
That's the entire comment made by O'Reilly - nowhere did he say that if you smoke pot it is okay to "kill" you.
Personally, I believe that it was a comment that did not need to be made - I understand why the President said what he said - he was identifying with the racial profiling that does take place in this country - identifying with the fact that under different circumstances, his son would likely be a victim at some point in his life of this profiling. O'Reilly did not even need to comment on this one, but....
I also understand what he meant. The whole story has not yet come out. The media is not helping and O'Reilly simply meant that the President might not want to speak out too much until that whole story is out....
Again, he did not say nor even imply that if you smoke pot you can be killed..........
Ok please explain what does Trayvon smoking some pot got to do with it?
Obama drinks beer, so as a parent he's got nothing to say really.
I think I already pointed out that it was an unneeded comment by Reilly....
"Personally, I believe that it was a comment that did not need to be made..."
Again, it was not implied that if you smoke pot you can be killed.
You ask me where O’Reilly said.....if that's not what he means then why does he bring it up? I don't care if Trayvon had a pound in his backpack and was handing out jays, what's that got to do with this story?
Has Zimmerman ever been in fist fight before, maybe we should be hearing about that if he has.
yeah Zimmerman's gradda was a judge, I hear, so yeah looks like a lot of people lied, let's see the pictures and clear this all up before it gets out of hand.
Can we kill this thread - this case has nothing to do with the movement - it's a distraction and diversion - I can think of some other things I'd like to randomly discuss as well but ... not the place
I didn't bring this here the people who run this site did:
http://occupywallst.org/archive/page-2/
maybe you are the one out of place.
I'm talking to them - kill the thread and these types of discussions - headlining it's not our cause - taking up the mantle of media zizzle hurts our own message I can also think of a cause you didn't bother with - was a case where two college students were abducted and raped and beaten for days then had their genitalia mutilated and forced to swallow chemicals got lit on fire and chopped up one was not fully dead - she died of suffocation mutilated and burned in the trash bag. They refused to call it a hate crime though it clearly was. I can only imagine her thoughts in those last moments and that her parents must not be able to get that from their heads either. Their sweet little girl reduced to garbage half alive chopped up burned by chemicals suffocating in a bag after hours of brutal rape and torcher after watching the same happen to her boyfriend. Just having a nice little American date night. That kind of evil is born only from pure hatred and vengeance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom
Did the cops let the people who did go after they had them, without charges?
If so maybe we should have.
Actually some of them got mis-trials due to technicalities and others small sentences because they wouldn't prosecute it as a racist hate crime ...the sentences could only be for so long they got off with papercuts for what they did aside from which that case has nothing to do with occupy nor does Travyon - but I'm sick of the black community sick to death - time to take responsibility for the stereotypes of violence that they cause and instead of blaming the terrorist thugs and demanding action - they protect them and excuse the behavior saying it's not their fault they raised their sons to become gang members - teach your children not to be criminals ? Guess that is racism huh? I think more like truth to idiocy. Anyone who lives near minority communities (even minorities - are afraid to live there) This is not peace in my eyes - how about making the best of a bad or poor situation not terrorizing you whole community and making everyone afraid while creating stereotypes and saying they have an excuse to commit crimes. I'm not saying it's a good law to be able to shoot people on sight nor saying Zimmerman isn't a fool or drowning in his own fear. I'm saying, when the entire black community starts to violently riot against whites for the crime of one man- Occupy is going to be attached at the hip and blamed for a connection and it will be over. Way to ruin an entire movement because of one idiot with a gun and all to defend the entire black community who will jump on this case as if everyone is racist and as if Zimmerman is representative of anyone without pure minority blood - because in truth they are racist themselves. Don't see them denigrating the acts of the thugs within their communities, instead making excuses for things like the Christian - Newsom murders while calling us all racist. Thanks for fucking up so big Occupy - Wall street will thank you too.
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
It's just plain fun to watch the Left go apoplectic and turn into a reincarnation of Paul Kersey from Death Wish. Ya'll want to form posse's and hang Zimmerman from a tree.
The Pacifist Left embracing Vigilante Justice is completely in line with their hypocrisy,which they possess in infinite supply.
Another situation where knee jerk activism usurps facts and the law.
Huh? My impression of this whole mess is that it should wake us all up to (a) often unrecognized assumptions based on appearances (aka, prejudice) lead to careless action; (b) stand your ground laws promote vigilante behavior by allowing fear, real or imagined, to result in dangerous action; and (c) the media need to be more responsible in what they report and when they report it -- responsibility guidelines. If the gov't can't regulate "free speech", then we should let the media know what we think by ignoring them for a few months (would make life much more positive!).
(c) the media need to be more responsible in what they report and when they report it -- responsibility guidelines. If the gov't can't regulate "free speech", then we should let the media know what we think by ignoring them for a few months (would make life much more positive!).
I just thought I'd copy and paste that. It cannot be stressed enough. Fox News made the right call by holding off on reporting this case...that is until they decided to fuck up the information by reporting on it.
FOX came out as soon as they thought they had something to attack the victim with, they didn't "wait".
You have convinced me more than ever that the Left is just using this as other tragedies for political gain and gun grabbing. Anything to curtail freedom of gun ownership and the right to self defense.
Exploiting these type of unfortunate incidents to blame honest,legal gun owners who are already besieged by a torrent of restrictive gun laws that diminish our 2nd Amendment rights,is criminal unto itself.
Hey, that is totally ridiculous... There are a lot of households that have legal weapons or a legal weapon. Yet, the majority of us do not go around in our communities trying to find out why people are walking around, or hanging out. That is why we pay taxes and have the police. Even in areas where crime is high, you don't have too many residents coming out of their homes with guns blazing or chasing someone down. Only fools, vigilantes, or people who have something to prove (like overactive superiority complexes) take it upon themselves to be someones judge and jury...unless of course its a lynch mob, then I would say...'STAND YOUR GROUND FOR DAMN SURE and bring all your cousins too!"
I am not sure when you think anyone is coming after our guns...the only place I hear that expressed is by people with guns. I believe it is criminal for anyone to use a tragedy for anything except to not let it be in vain; that we learn something about who we are and what is really important in life. Unfortunately, tragedy is the heart of drama, and subject to abuse by all. Please be careful with your guns and with your tempers and with your actions. That is all I ask here.
Your fail in understanding the depth of this case is astounding. No one is calling for Zimmerman to be lynched, we are in fact standing our ground on the fact that justice is not some random dude deciding that he should stalk some kid because he looks dodgy, shoot and kill the 17 year old unarmed kid buying candying and a soft-drink. The claim of "feeling threatened" is just too lame when he was the one stalking the kid.
What people (not 'the Left' as you like to partisan it as) are angered by, is that this is not an isolated incident, and the racist minority are using absurd laws to protect racist murder. Will not stand.
You don't even know all the facts yet and you claim I "fail in understanding"?
" No one is calling for Zimmerman to be lynched"
Bullshit,have you not been paying attention?
That "kid" was 6'3 and till you and I learn all the facts it's best to not jump on the Trayvon sympathy train,...it might just derail.
What does his height have to do with anything...Did you see the picture of fat ass Zimmerman, a man almost 10 years older? So are you saying Zimmerman is a punk, a girly man, a wimp, an effeminate male? Like I mentioned to someone, my grandmother can handle a group of male hoods better than Zimmerman. He should have just stayed home and waited for the police if he thought a man child could kick his ass!!
Well said!
I reiterate, till you and I learn all the facts it's best to not jump on the Trayvon sympathy train,...it might just derail.
Hey, sympathy has nothing to do with this! By law, Zimmerman was wrong, dead wrong and as a community watch person (see I can't say man) he did not follow protocol. Therefore, HE WAS IN THE WRONG....pure and simple!!! His was an act of anarchy "disorder and violence; lawlessness; disorder in any sphere of activity" at its fullest!!!
Zimm's father is a judge that is why he was excused of murder. That is a FACT!
Sounds suspect, typical, but still suspect.
Jewish Judge. What is more suspect. But know one is reporting his father is jewish. The news talks about his spanish mother like she had something to do with his no arrest when it is obvious his jewish father has the connections.
Really I was just pointing out what a huge liar Bill O'Reilly is, saying all that crap about the police report saying there were injuries, if a cop wrote tyhat there were injuries and didn't take pictures he'd be fired the next day. Zimmerman, shimmerman O'Reilly's a liar that's what counts.
[Removed]
O'Reilly may be a limp noodle Independent who sometimes sounds more like a Lib,but He's not a "liar". I don't much like him either but dismissing him like that is disingenuous.
Bill O'Reilly hasn't an honest bone in his body!! He is a puppet!
Then Bill O'Reilly needs to tell us who lied to him because there is no wound on the man's head, O'Reilly said that the police report said there was, there is a lie in there somewhere, we will know if it is O'Reilly's when we see him go after whoever lied to him, because that would sure me rilled up if I had put out a lie based on something someone told me to be true, if your source lies and you still protect thier identiy then your just lying too not reporting, so we will see if O'Reilly is the liar or just the victem of one.
http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/327370-trayvon-martin-police-report
The link above it to the police report.
O'Reilly reported on this March 27th. The story of Zimmerman's "injuries" was reported by his attorney to Anderson Cooper on CNN on March 23rd .
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/24/zimmermans-lawyer-trayvon-martin-injured-my-client/
O'Reilly didn't "lie". He covered what others had already been covering.
Officer Tim Smith needs to purduce the pictures he took to support the statements in his report about blood "coming from" is there no policy in regards to taking photos of injures? of course O'Reilly is gulity of jumping to conclusions as I want to see Offier Smith answer somes questions about how he determined wher the blood was coming from, note he says nothing about seeinf a wound of any kind.
ORielly LIED the word "wound" is not in the report O'Reilly jump to conclusions and made that up, but it made the black man look bad so why not that's the norn for O'Reilly
First off everybody else is doing it is no excuss if you report that the report says such and such, and it trun out to wrong, just saying the french believed it too is no escuss, unless you put that disclaiamer out there something to the affect of "I don't have a clue but other people are saying...." I guess then you would not be responible for what you report.
here I will repeat what I already put in the post:
“O'REILLY: Well, according to the Sanford Police Department report George Zimmerman did have a bloody nose and a wound on the back of his head. Apparently the police do believe there was some kind of physical confrontation between Zimmerman before he shot... and the young man... before the young man was shot.”
This is where O'Reilly say the police report not the lawyer says there are injuries.
Did you read the police report?
http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/327370-trayvon-martin-police-report
As I said...for someone who is supposed to like "facts", you sure do post a lot of non fact on this forum. It is not a "fact" that O'Reilly "lied". It is your opinion based upon a predetermined bias.
O'Reilly is guilty of jumping to conclusions and I want to see Officer Smith answer some questions about how he determined where the blood was coming from, note he says nothing about seeing a wound of any kind.
O’Reilly LIED the word "wound" is not in the report O'Reilly jump to conclusions and made that up, but it made the black man look bad so why not? that's normal for O'Reilly
So let me ask you, if I see an unarmed dead seventeen year old and an armed live twenty eight year old who weighs at least 60 pounds more, and I assume that the older armed man could have protected himself from the boy without killing him, is that really worst than reading the words “blood coming from” and assuming that there is a wound?
I mean for Bill O’Reilly to be innocent here, we would have to believe the last assumption to be so normal as to not be mentioned, but the first is so outrageous that is the equal to a lynch mob.
I listen to all this "dribble" about what happened, what didn't happen and anything else that makes this sound like what law enforcement did was wrong and in most peoples eyes "racists".
Well, you weren't there so you don't know what happened. And when you condem people for not doing what you think should have been done you are calling them a "liar".
We are a country of laws and if what Zimmerman did was not in accordnace with the law he will be tried in court.
That's what's wrong with the vast majority of peole in this country and that's why this country is so screwed up -
When something doesn't go the way people think it should then they expect the "government" to do something about it.
No wonder we are losing our freedoms - it's because of stupid shit like this with stupid shit that people say and then expecting the government to do something about it.
Time will be the deciding factor on what happens to Zimmerman - not your worthless "dribble" condeming him before he has a chance to prove his innocence or guilt -
This is the typical attitude of todays society - " want it now" or I should say "I want him in jail now" and I don't want to wait for it to go to court I want him convicted now - you all are displaying your "instant gratification" attitudes.
That my friend make no sense whatsoever! Instant gratification....hell, the child was killed over a month ago.. I can grow tomatoes in that amount of time so what is so damned instant about that? I don't see too many people asking the government for anything other than to do what would have been done for any citizen under the circumstances if the race had been different....A trial, a jury, a judge, preceded by an investigation. What planet do you live on? As a human being, Trayvon had just as much a legality to have his rights respected the same as Zimmerman. Only thing is....Trayvon was not given the opportunity to prove either his guilt or his innocence and was tried that night by a one man council which the "alleged" government took no further. Had Trayvon been white....yes, I do believe in my heart of heart there would have been an investigation immediately!! So bug off!!
There is an investigation going on - by the federal government. So, it takes time to complete it but yet we have people condemming Zimmerman -
Not one person who posted on this site was there to witness a thing. That is a fact and it is a fact that they are clueless as to what happened that night.
So again as I said it's all worthless dribble just incite people to respond.
Who cares? As far as any alleged "investigation" by the police, there was none, it was an open and shut case. There was no investigation started until a month later, after people started protesting, along with family members of the "Victim" as well as the news media getting wind of it. Now remember, this is weeks after the shooting occurred.
Zimmerman has many alleged friends who are spewing "worthless dribble"....were they there? His father said his nose was broken, was he there also? Then there is a 911 call, instructions given to Zimmerman, but he took the law into his own hands that nite! Zimmerman's brother is giving a rhetorical bunch of BS to the news media, but was he there? Yes, there may be two sides to every story, unfortunately one side is very lopsided in this case. So, that my friend does not make true facts....get real!!!
Like I said - the truth will come out and then everyone will know instead of "assuming"
Who is assuming man...it is what it is, always has been always will be!
One thing the rulers never really can understand is a lot of us were born with our eyes wide open, no amount of rainbow coloring is going to keep us "white washed" as to how this system works or keep rose colored glassed on our noses.
If the judicial system was as balanced and just as the scales should be, there would be no need for OW, or the zillion amount of protesters around the globe. It is time some people grew up and take that blindfold off!
O'Reilly said that the police report said that there was a wound on the back of his head, either somebody lied to O'Reilly, or O'Reilly lied, or the police report is a lie, I have eyes there is no wound. If there was a wound, that we just can't see then there will be pictures, treatment notes ect. I come from the south, there was a time when the cops didn't bother if the victem was black, you don't have to believe that, I mean if you support the GOP you have to believe all kinds of lies, what's one more?
[Removed]
How about we let the attorneys decide if he is guilty of a crime - It's a lot easier to keep emotions out of the picture when people do this.
well I don't have the cofidence in that DA that you do, having seen the vid, local boys in MI and LA use to do this stuff all the time, hell the local DA would join in if he was off duty, just trusting the locals is not always enough
Well, if there "a cover up" regarding Zimmerman, the grand jury will find out - they are now investigating what happened and the truth will be coming soon.
And if it is determined the police did a "cover up" it will also be found out.
So until that happens lets not continue to condem a person because of what we think happened.
Here's the rub and one thing that has not been changed is this... The report states "Homicide, Negligent, Manslaughter-Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act"....The code, which has not been changed is. 782.11 which under Florida law reads thus..... 782.11 Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act.—Whoever shall unnecessarily kill another, either while resisting an attempt by such other person to commit any felony, or to do any other unlawful act, or after such attempt shall have failed, shall be deemed guilty of manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. The law is the law....and obviously these guya are trying to skirt the law or ignore it, or believe we don't know the law, or else they have been doing this for so long, they forgot to cover their tracks completely!
the grand good old boy jury, I want the feds to take a look at them locals if somebody wrote in police report there was a gash, but took no picture, that cop needs some jailtime, if it's not in the police report, then O'Reilly needs to do retraction at least
http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/327370-trayvon-martin-police-report
The link above it to the police report.
O'Reilly reported on this March 27th. The story of Zimmerman's "injuries" was reported by his attorney to Anderson Cooper on CNN on March 23rd .
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/24/zimmermans-lawyer-trayvon-martin-injured-my-client/
Facts...when are you going to stop the "O'Reilly" lied hogwash? For someone who supposedly likes "facts" you sure do seem to do a lot of speculating and accusing with very little of them....
First off everybody else is doing it is no excuses if you report that the report says such and such, and it turns out to be wrong, just saying the French believed it too is no excuse, unless you put that disclaimer out there something to the affect of "I don't have a clue but other people are saying...." I guess then you would not be responsible for what you report. here I will repeat what I already put in the post:
O'REILLY: Well, according to the Sanford Police Department report George Zimmerman did have a bloody nose and a wound on the back of his head. Apparently the police do believe there was some kind of physical confrontation between Zimmerman before he shot... and the young man... before the young man was shot.”
This is where O'Reilly say the police report not the lawyer says there are injuries.
Officer Tim Smith needs to produce the pictures he took to support the statements in his report about blood "coming from" is there no policy in regards to taking photos of injures? of course O'Reilly is guilty of jumping to conclusions as I want to see Officer Smith needs to answer some questions about how he determined where the blood was coming from, note he says nothing about seeing a wound of any kind.
O’Reilly LIED the word "wound" is not in the report O'Reilly jump to conclusions and made that up, but it made the black man look bad so why not? that's normal for O'Reilly
Evidence need not to be presented to a lynch mob. What makes you all think you should be the jury before the trail. Its amazing that race is still the excuse for so many. Well the race card was thrown down and they had the wrong card.
That is raciest!
The whites were not involved in the crime. White and black officers are on the police force. Let them do their job and move on.
So let me ask you, if I see an unarmed dead seventeen year old and an armed live twenty eight year old who weighs at least 60 pounds more, and I assume that the older armed man could have protected himself from the boy without killing him, is that really worst than reading the words “blood coming from” and assuming that there is a wound?
I mean for Bill O’Reilly to be innocent here, we would have to believe the last assumption to be so normal as to not be mentioned, but the first is so outrageous that is the equal to a lynch mob.
OK You said if you see. That is my point, you did not see. Every thing else is speculation. You keep saying the George was bigger. He weighted more but was 5 inches shorter. So a shorter overweight guy gets assaulted and defends his home that has repeated attacks in recent weeks. Does that make Travyon a bully.
George was at home. He called police. He was assaulted. severity of the attack is a opinion that is a personal decision during violence.
Question: has George been arrested for Hate crimes, assault or any crime that would lead you to believe he was a predator.
George lives in his car? I did not know that.
A 28 year old man with a gun, picks a fight with a kid that had just truned 17 and starts getting his ass kicked so he shoots the kid.
That sounds a lot like the truth to me, I can see clearly on the vid there is no wound with my own eyes I see that, that is all we know for true an uninjuried man killed a boy with a gun that's all we know that we can see with our eyes.
But, here's the rub and one thing that has not been changed is this... The report states "Homicide, Negligent, Manslaughter-Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act"....The code, which has not been changed is. 782.11 which under Florida law reads thus..... 782.11 Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act.—Whoever shall unnecessarily kill another, either while resisting an attempt by such other person to commit any felony, or to do any other unlawful act, or after such attempt shall have failed, shall be deemed guilty of manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. The law is the law....and obviously these guya are trying to skirt the law or ignore it, or believe we don't know the law, or else they have been doing this for so long, they forgot to cover their tracks completely!
We have the right to defend our self...
Regardless of race, religion, or age if we feel threaten then we have the right. Regardless of all else George was defending him self in his opinion. Every person's view of threat is different. Had George displayed violence in the past. If not then you have to assume since he was defending his home and person that he has the right to. As to the injuries. If he was assaulted in any manor then it supports his case regardless of the appearance of being minor. If he had been killed by the teen, who was the bigger person, would we be raising our voices against Travyon for being a bully and race crime. Probably not.
Lets move back to why we are here. OWS
Everyone can assume all they want, whichever way they want, and as long as they want...but that will not change what is written on the police report, which is not an assumption and by law still stands as follow pursuant Florida Revised Codes, just like any other state codes and laws: 782.11 Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act.—Whoever shall unnecessarily kill another, either while resisting an attempt by such other person to commit any felony, or to do any other unlawful act, or after such attempt shall have failed, shall be deemed guilty of manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
Where is the code listed on the police report for self-defense? I'm afraid I missed that one!
Why are we here again? Oh yeh, greed, oppression, human rights violations, ignoring Constitutional Rights, police brutality, the gods of the 1%? Hmmmmmmmmmmm????.