Trayvon Martin Shooter Released On $150,000 Bond

[Jingthing]

Some more new dirt on Zimmerman. A choirboy, he ain't:

The pictures posted on the page including several with an ethnically diverse group of friends. The blog section boasts about having two felonies knocked down to misdemeanors and describes a court battle with an ex-girlfriend. Zimmerman faced two felonies in 2005 for obstructing justice and battery on a law enforcement officer, but the cases were reduced to misdemeanor simple battery, and he was left with no criminal conviction on his record.

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/05/02/george_zimmerman_s_myspace_page_old_profile_makes_disparaging_remarks_about_mexicans.html

A man clearly capable of manslaughter? You bethca!

[Ulysses G.]

Anyone is capable of manslaughter if their life is threatened. That bit of "dirt" does not change anything.

[Colin Yai]

Anyone is capable of manslaughter if their life is threatened. That bit of "dirt" does not change anything.

Quite correct UG is someone came at me in the dark with a knife and I had a baseball bat in my hand!,well no need to go any further have I .

[Jingthing]

Anyone is capable of manslaughter if their life is threatened. That bit of "dirt" does not change anything.

Quite correct UG is someone came at me in the dark with a knife and I had a baseball bat in my hand!,well no need to go any further have I .

Let's be more precise here. Of course most all people are capable of killing in self defense. I know I am at least in intent if not capability (I carry no weapons).

Manslaughter is a specific legal charge. If the charge against Zimmerman is reduced from 2nd degree murder, he can still defend himself against a manslaughter charge with a SUCCESSFUL proof of a self defense justification.

The point I was making about posting the dirt is more evidence that Zimmerman was less than an innocent "victim" even if there is an element of self defense. He was carrying a gun. Legally, yes, but against the rules of his community role. If he had decided to not carry that gun that night, clearly the chances that ANYONE would be dead would be much reduced. Would Zimmerman have been so bold in pursuing a person that he considered a threat without his gun? Doubtful. There is a cause and effect here and clearly Zimmerman is a big part of the cause. Enough for some kind of conviction? Let the justice system decide. That's the good news here. It's in their hands instead of the good old boy police network.

As far as what happened that night. No we don't know yet and there is a good chance we may NEVER know given the mess with the conflicting eyewitnesses. However, when you think about self defense, think of the self defense of the poor dead victim. He was unarmed pursued by an armed man. Who had the better justification for self defense in that scenario?

Edited May 3, 2012 by Jingthing

[softgeorge]

Tragic story, but who was Trayvon Martin? What was his claim to fame on the world stage? Sorry but I have just never heard of him.

[Jingthing]

Tragic story, but who was Trayvon Martin? What was his claim to fame on the world stage? Sorry but I have just never heard of him.

Just a young black man that was well loved by his family and friends. An unarmed, innocent American citizen who was shot dead by an overly nosy neighbor with a gun. That's all, folks.

[kerryk]

Tragic story, but who was Trayvon Martin? What was his claim to fame on the world stage? Sorry but I have just never heard of him.

Just a young black man that was well loved by his family and friends. An unarmed, innocent American citizen who was shot dead by an overly nosy neighbor with a gun. That's all, folks.

George do you believe the above?

[Jingthing]

Tragic story, but who was Trayvon Martin? What was his claim to fame on the world stage? Sorry but I have just never heard of him.

Just a young black man that was well loved by his family and friends. An unarmed, innocent American citizen who was shot dead by an overly nosy neighbor with a gun. That's all, folks.

George do you believe the above?

What's false about it?

Young ... check

Black ... check

Man ... check

Loved by family ... check

Loved by friends ... check

Unarmed ... check

Innocent ... check (he was unarmed and was in the neighborhood for a VERY LEGITIMATE reason)

Shot dead ... check

By a nosy neighbor ... check (well documented evidence that Zimmerman was a major league PEST crying wolf to the police way above a normal quota)

That's all ... OK, probably not check

Edited May 3, 2012 by Jingthing

[kerryk]

Tragic story, but who was Trayvon Martin? What was his claim to fame on the world stage? Sorry but I have just never heard of him.

Just a young black man that was well loved by his family and friends. An unarmed, innocent American citizen who was shot dead by an overly nosy neighbor with a gun. That's all, folks.

George do you believe the above?

What's false about it?

Young ... check

Black ... check

Man ... check

Loved by family ... check

Loved by friends ... check

Unarmed ... check

Innocent ... check (he was unarmed and was in the neighborhood for a VERY LEGITIMATE reason)

Shot dead ... check

By a nosy neighbor ... check (well documented evidence that Zimmerman was a major league PEST crying wolf to the police way above a normal quota)

That's all ... OK, probably not check

JT I didn't say it was false. George is an Aussie with almost no knowledge of America or American people I only wondered if he found your statement believable.

[Jingthing]

I took your comment as an implication that what I stated was wrong.

[kerryk]

I took your comment as an implication that what I stated was wrong.

Not at all. JT I think you are right 100% of the time. 90% when writing about food and 10% when writing about politics.

[softgeorge]

Tragic story, but who was Trayvon Martin? What was his claim to fame on the world stage? Sorry but I have just never heard of him.

Just a young black man that was well loved by his family and friends. An unarmed, innocent American citizen who was shot dead by an overly nosy neighbor with a gun. That's all, folks.

George do you believe the above?

I have no reason to disbelieve it as I have never actually heard of the guy anyway. Yes so I will take his word for it.

[Ulysses G.]

As far as what happened that night. No we don't know yet and there is a good chance we may NEVER know

By George, I think you've got it!

[Jingthing]

As far as what happened that night. No we don't know yet and there is a good chance we may NEVER know

By George, I think you've got it!

Yes but it's like that with a lot of criminal cases. The facts remain that we DO know. One man had a gun. One man had no gun. The man with the gun lives. The man without the gun is dead. Thus, an attempt at discovering the truth with the criminal justice system is the RIGHT thing to do. Just taking the word of Zimmerman as truth when the dead man can't speak, even more so that Zimmerman turns out to be rather dirty, is not fair to the dead man and his family. Agreed? Edited May 3, 2012 by Jingthing

[koheesti]

As far as what happened that night. No we don't know yet and there is a good chance we may NEVER know...

Really? Haven't you been telling us for weeks that some racist with a gun shot an innocent boy?

[Jingthing]

As far as what happened that night. No we don't know yet and there is a good chance we may NEVER know...

Really? Haven't you been telling us for weeks that some racist with a gun shot an innocent boy?

That would be the flame way of characterizing what I have been saying.

More objectively:

1. Yes, clearly Zimmerman reacted to this black men in typical, predictable ways of fear and distrust that are massively common in the racist society that is America. Calling him a racist specifically isn't the point. Its more about his thought processes.

2. Yes he had a gun and yes he shot an unarmed black man dead. There must be consequences for that. Martin was indeed innocently walking that night. If there was self defense on Martin's part against Zimmerman's aggression (which fits the pattern of his history), there is little doubt it was PROVOKED. Nobody in their right mind seriously believes Martin's intention that night was to take a walk and randomly attack someone. People talk so much about self defense of Zimmerman. Zimmerman had the gun. It was Martin who really needed self defense.

Edited May 3, 2012 by Jingthing

[Scott]

A baiting post has been removed.

You are welcomed to your opinion, however, personal attacks on other posters for having a different opinion are not going to be tolerated and will result in a suspension.

Keep it civil.

[koheesti]

As far as what happened that night. No we don't know yet and there is a good chance we may NEVER know...

Really? Haven't you been telling us for weeks that some racist with a gun shot an innocent boy?

That would be the flame way of characterizing what I have been saying.

More objectively:

1. Yes, clearly Zimmerman reacted to this black men in typical, predictable ways of fear and distrust that are massively common in the racist society that is America. Calling him a racist specifically isn't the point. Its more about his thought processes.

2. Yes he had a gun and yes he shot an unarmed black man dead. There must be consequences for that. Martin was indeed innocently walking that night. If there was self defense on Martin's part against Zimmerman's aggression (which fits the pattern of his history), there is little doubt it was PROVOKED. Nobody in their right mind seriously believes Martin's intention that night was to take a walk and randomly attack someone. People talk so much about self defense of Zimmerman. Zimmerman had the gun. It was Martin who really needed self defense.

Hardly a flame on my part. All one has to do is read your past posts in this very thread to see that I was 100% correct in my summary of your stated judgement. However, I am very happy to see that in the post above you show signs of being more reasonable.

That said,

If there was self defense on Martin's part against Zimmerman's aggression (which fits the pattern of his history),

What pattern of aggression in Zimmerman's history are you talking about? Joining a neighborhood watch program to stop criminal activity is not a "sign of aggression". It's a sign of trying to do the right thing and he should be commended for it. Then, punish him for carrying a gun when he shouldn't have been that resulted in someone getting killed. However the events unfolded that night, if Zimmerman didn't have the gun, Trayvon would not have been shot (instead he might be serving on death row for murdering the smaller Zimmerman by bashing in his head).

If you want to talk about past history being any indication of guilt, then it is crucial to mention that young, black men had been committing robberies in the neighborhood in very recent past history. That Martin was likely innocent and fit the description of the thieves is a tragedy.

[koheesti]

People talk so much about self defense of Zimmerman. Zimmerman had the gun. It was Martin who really needed self defense.

Do you feel the same way about that young mother a few months ago who had a gun when a man broke into her home and when he came after her she shot him dead? Not having a gun while the other person does, DOES NOT mean the person without the gun is in need of self defense. It means they made a very, very bad decision.

[koheesti]

If there was self defense on Martin's part against Zimmerman's aggression (which fits the pattern of his history), there is little doubt it was PROVOKED.

It's a tragedy.

Zimmerman should not have followed Martin. You can say he provoked Martin by following him. You can also say that Martin should not have turned around and followed Zimmerman to confront him either. Hence Martin then provoked Zimmerman to shoot him. Would Zimmerman have been so brave if he didn't have the gun? Would Martin have been so brave if he knew that Zimmerman had a gun?

Nobody in their right mind seriously believes Martin's intention that night was to take a walk and randomly attack someone.

Nobody in their right mind seriously beleives Zimmerman's intention that night was to take a walk and randomly shoot someone.

[Jingthing]

People talk so much about self defense of Zimmerman. Zimmerman had the gun. It was Martin who really needed self defense.

Do you feel the same way about that young mother a few months ago who had a gun when a man broke into her home and when he came after her she shot him dead? Not having a gun while the other person does, DOES NOT mean the person without the gun is in need of self defense. It means they made a very, very bad decision.

No, I don't feel the same about that at all. That was a classic HOME INVASION.

As far as Zimmerman's personal history and record of aggressive behavior, I have posted details and links about that before and am not going to repeat myself.

[Jingthing]

If there was self defense on Martin's part against Zimmerman's aggression (which fits the pattern of his history), there is little doubt it was PROVOKED.

It's a tragedy.

Zimmerman should not have followed Martin. You can say he provoked Martin by following him. You can also say that Martin should not have turned around and followed Zimmerman to confront him either. Hence Martin then provoked Zimmerman to shoot him. Would Zimmerman have been so brave if he didn't have the gun? Would Martin have been so brave if he knew that Zimmerman had a gun?

Nobody in their right mind seriously believes Martin's intention that night was to take a walk and randomly attack someone.

Nobody in their right mind seriously beleives Zimmerman's intention that night was to take a walk and randomly shoot someone.

Agreed. But he had a gun and he killed an innocent man taking a walk. So he faces charges. As it should be,

[koheesti]

People talk so much about self defense of Zimmerman. Zimmerman had the gun. It was Martin who really needed self defense.

Do you feel the same way about that young mother a few months ago who had a gun when a man broke into her home and when he came after her she shot him dead? Not having a gun while the other person does, DOES NOT mean the person without the gun is in need of self defense. It means they made a very, very bad decision.

No, I don't feel the same about that at all. That was a classic HOME INVASION.

As far as Zimmerman's personal history and record of aggressive behavior, I have posted details and links about that before and am not going to repeat myself.

So not having a gun and attacking someone outside the home is OK?

[Jingthing]

Every case is different. Without a lethal weapon, smaller chances we'd be talking murder or manslaughter conviction. Obviously an unprovoked violent attack of any kind is illegal.

[TAWP]

I don't care if he's Mother Theresa, if he murdered an unarmed boy and he is found guilty of it, he goes down.

You make it sound like he walked up to some young boy on the street and blew him away.

The reality is very far from that.

[TAWP]

Some more new dirt on Zimmerman. A choirboy, he ain't:

The pictures posted on the page including several with an ethnically diverse group of friends. The blog section boasts about having two felonies knocked down to misdemeanors and describes a court battle with an ex-girlfriend. Zimmerman faced two felonies in 2005 for obstructing justice and battery on a law enforcement officer, but the cases were reduced to misdemeanor simple battery, and he was left with no criminal conviction on his record.

http://slatest.slate...t_mexicans.html

A man clearly capable of manslaughter? You bethca!

So atleast this part:

The pictures posted on the page including several with an ethnically diverse group of friends.

...should prove that the racist-nonsense some of you posters (and NBC) try to push is pure bull.

[chuckd]

...and from another blog, these comments posted by Trayvon before his unfortunate death.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/26/the-daily-caller-obtains-trayvon-martins-tweets/

[Jingthing]

I don't care if he's Mother Theresa, if he murdered an unarmed boy and he is found guilty of it, he goes down.

You make it sound like he walked up to some young boy on the street and blew him away.

The reality is very far from that.

I think more like the filters in your brain make it sound that way. Because that's not what I said. Anyway, on Zimmerman, Bloomberg got it right:

Zimmerman “was a man with a history of violence,” Bloomberg said in prepared remarks. “I can tell you in New York we would never allow such an individual to carry a gun and neither would many other states.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/11/bloomberg-flips-out-after-thedc-asks-question-about-bounty-on-zimmerman-video/#ixzz1tyaK0MAy

[Jingthing]

...and from another blog, these comments posted by Trayvon before his unfortunate death.

http://dailycaller.c...martins-tweets/

Sounds like he was into affecting a thug persona like about half the teenagers in America. We can't shoot them all, dude. The facts are on the night that he was killed, he was carrying no weapon, and he had no record of violent behavior. His killer, the opposite. All I'm saying is let the justice system proceed do its best with this case. Edited May 5, 2012 by Jingthing

[koheesti]

...and from another blog, these comments posted by Trayvon before his unfortunate death.

http://dailycaller.c...martins-tweets/

Such a sweet, young boy! (typical teenager nowadays)