George Zimmerman charged with 2nd degree murder of Trayvon Martin **Read Post #142**

[ScipioCowboy]

Which is why the OJ comparison was silly to begin with.

I was solely addressing the eventual guilt or innocence of the person, not the crime for which he or she is being tried.

[casmith07]

OJ may have been guilty, but juries make decisions based on evidence. Right?

And if the evidence wasn't sufficient to convict him, it doesn't matter whether or not he really did it. I felt the same way about Casey Anthony.

Exactly.

[Cajuncowboy]

The prosecutors must prove Zimmerman's shooting of Martin was rooted in hatred or ill will and counter his claims that he shot Martin to protect himself while patrolling his gated community in the Orlando suburb of Sanford. Zimmerman's lawyers would only have to prove by a preponderance of evidence — a relatively low legal standard — that he acted in self-defense at a pretrial hearing to prevent the case from going to trial.
[/INDENT]

So I guess the prosecutor must prove that Zimmerman didn't use self defense. I was told last night by a future lawyer they didn't have to.

[casmith07]

So I guess the prosecutor must prove that Zimmerman didn't use self defense. I was told last night by a future lawyer they didn't have to.

Read a little lower - the defense must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it was self-defense.

Also, thanks for the thinly-veiled swipe.

[casmith07]

I get what you're saying, and in an ideal world yes, but realistically, OJ was found innocent because the lead detective was a racist and then got caught lying about it, which fit right in to the whole planted evidence angle the defense was aiming for.

Not entirely...OJ was found innocent because the moronic prosecutor asked him to try on the glove, which of course OJ struggled to attempt to put on.

It's widely regarded as the biggest prosecutorial error in the history of the criminal justice system.

[Cajuncowboy]

Read a little lower - the defense must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it was self-defense.

Also, thanks for the thinly-veiled swipe.


The prosecutors must prove Zimmerman's shooting of Martin was rooted in hatred or ill will and counter his claims that he shot Martin to protect himself.

As for the defense, as it says, it is a very low standard they have to meet. nothing even close to what the prosecutor has to do.

And are you not a future lawyer? It wasn't a swipe.

[casmith07]

The prosecutors must prove Zimmerman's shooting of Martin was rooted in hatred or ill will and counter his claims that he shot Martin to protect himself.

As for the defense, as it says, it is a very low standard they have to meet. nothing even close to what the prosecutor has to do.

And are you not a future lawyer? It wasn't a swipe.

Give me a break. You know exactly what you were doing.

[Cajuncowboy]

Give me a break. You know exactly what you were doing.

What are you talking about. I said a future lawyer. How is that a swipe? Are you not going to be a lawyer? If I misunderstood then I apologize. I thought you said that. And it was you that told me the defense didn't have to prove how he was killed, just that he was killed.

[Romo_To_Dez]

The prosecutors must prove Zimmerman's shooting of Martin was rooted in hatred or ill will and counter his claims that he shot Martin to protect himself.

As for the defense, as it says, it is a very low standard they have to meet. nothing even close to what the prosecutor has to do.

And are you not a future lawyer? It wasn't a swipe.


Unless there is evidence that we don't know about and people are speculating that based on what we do know that they will have a hard time proving that Zimmerman did 2nd degree murder.

Things like whether or not they can prove that it was Zimmerman or not Zimmerman screaming on the tape and that it was Trayvon screaming for help. And if they can tell at what distance and angle that Trayvon was shot could be the difference if Zimmerman is convicted.

We don't know about the Autopsy results on Trayvon's body. Also does Zimmerman have medical records to prove that his injuries are as serious as he said because they were not serious enough to go to the hospital.

I don't think that it should be allowed to shot someone in a fist fight and say that you feared for your life if the injuries do not show that.

[Cajuncowboy]

Unless there is evidence that we don't know about and people are speculating that based on what we do know that they will have a hard time proving that Zimmerman did 2nd degree murder.

Things like whether or not they can prove that it was Zimmerman or not Zimmerman screaming on the tape and that it was Trayvon screaming for help. And if they can tell at what distance and angle that Trayvon was shot could be the difference if Zimmerman is convicted.

We don't know about the Autopsy results on Trayvon's body. Also does Zimmerman have medical records to prove that his injuries are as serious as he said because they were not serious enough to go to the hospital.

I don't think that it should be allowed to shot someone in a fist fight and say that you feared for your life if the injuries do not show that.

Yeah, we still need to see the evidence, which none of us has seen. Though he did have cuts on the back of his head.

As for the screams, if there are other injuries on Martin's body that is a big problem for Zimmerman. Further, what kind of screams were they? If it was Zimmerman, he would be yelling because he was getting beat on. If it was Martin, it could have been that he was getting beat on. But I don't know what the screams could have been if there are no other marks on Martin. It will be interesting to see if the screams were before the shot or after. Did Martin die instantly or did he survive for a time. Did Martin have bruises on his knuckles from hitting Zimmerman. And did Zimmerman have the same kind of bruises.

All of this stuff needs to be fleshed out and I am sure it will be.

[casmith07]

Unless there is evidence that we don't know about and people are speculating that based on what we do know that they will have a hard time proving that Zimmerman did 2nd degree murder.

Things like whether or not they can prove that it was Zimmerman or not Zimmerman screaming on the tape and that it was Trayvon screaming for help. And if they can tell at what distance and angle that Trayvon was shot could be the difference if Zimmerman is convicted.

We don't know about the Autopsy results on Trayvon's body. Also does Zimmerman have medical records to prove that his injuries are as serious as he said because they were not serious enough to go to the hospital.

I don't think that it should be allowed to shot someone in a fist fight and say that you feared for your life if the injuries do not show that.

The law agrees.

Also, there was a timeline on television while I was watching CNN yesterday, basically breaking down the phone calls Martin made to his girlfriend, 911 calls, to the shooting, to the police arriving and taking Zimmerman in.

All of that time, plus the arrival at the police station, etc. leaves a time of about 4 to 5 minutes where Zimmerman would've received medical treatment from paramedics on the scene. If he had a busted nose and a gash on the back of his head gushing blood...you'd need more than 5 minutes to stop all of the bleeding.

He probably would have also had blood on his shirt.

[Cajuncowboy]

The law agrees.

Also, there was a timeline on television while I was watching CNN yesterday, basically breaking down the phone calls Martin made to his girlfriend, 911 calls, to the shooting, to the police arriving and taking Zimmerman in.

All of that time, plus the arrival at the police station, etc. leaves a time of about 4 to 5 minutes where Zimmerman would've received medical treatment from paramedics on the scene. If he had a busted nose and a gash on the back of his head gushing blood...you'd need more than 5 minutes to stop all of the bleeding.

He probably would have also had blood on his shirt.

the police video shows he had cuts on the back of his head.

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/national/george-zimmerman-case-enhanced-police-video-shows-marks-injuries-on-back-zimmermans-head

[Hoofbite]

Yeah, we still need to see the evidence, which none of us has seen. Though he did have cuts on the back of his head.

As for the screams, if there are other injuries on Martin's body that is a big problem for Zimmerman. Further, what kind of screams were they? If it was Zimmerman, he would be yelling because he was getting beat on. If it was Martin, it could have been that he was getting beat on. But I don't know what the screams could have been if there are no other marks on Martin. It will be interesting to see if the screams were before the shot or after. Did Martin die instantly or did he survive for a time. Did Martin have bruises on his knuckles from hitting Zimmerman. And did Zimmerman have the same kind of bruises.

All of this stuff needs to be fleshed out and I am sure it will be.

What do you mean?

The screams were before the shot.

Lasted for an extended period and then stopped immediately once the shot was fired.

[Cajuncowboy]

What do you mean?

The screams were before the shot.

Lasted for an extended period and them stopped immediately once the shot was fires.

I know that. I'm just saying that is all evidence that needs to be entered by the prosecution.

[Romo_To_Dez]

The law agrees.

Also, there was a timeline on television while I was watching CNN yesterday, basically breaking down the phone calls Martin made to his girlfriend, 911 calls, to the shooting, to the police arriving and taking Zimmerman in.

All of that time, plus the arrival at the police station, etc. leaves a time of about 4 to 5 minutes where Zimmerman would've received medical treatment from paramedics on the scene. If he had a busted nose and a gash on the back of his head gushing blood...you'd need more than 5 minutes to stop all of the bleeding.

He probably would have also had blood on his shirt.


There's also blood spatter or what should be from Trayvon if he really was shot in such a close range and there should be some on Zimmerman.

This is explained away by some saying that it was raining or that Zimmerman had his jacket zipped up and that his coat is red and we can't see any blood in the video.

[JonJon]

Unless there is evidence that we don't know about and people are speculating that based on what we do know that they will have a hard time proving that Zimmerman did 2nd degree murder.

Things like whether or not they can prove that it was Zimmerman or not Zimmerman screaming on the tape and that it was Trayvon screaming for help. And if they can tell at what distance and angle that Trayvon was shot could be the difference if Zimmerman is convicted.

We don't know about the Autopsy results on Trayvon's body. Also does Zimmerman have medical records to prove that his injuries are as serious as he said because they were not serious enough to go to the hospital.

I don't think that it should be allowed to shot someone in a fist fight and say that you feared for your life if the injuries do not show that.
I quietly wondered since news first broke of this and details started coming out about where the two were positioned when the shooting took place. If Martin was standing over Zimmerman banging his head into the ground like some indicated, and Zimmerman shot him while Martin was on top, you'd think that Zimmerman would have had some blood to fall or splatter onto his shirt. But from the accounts of the witnesses moments after the shooting, Zimmerman had Martin pinned downed with his legs and was seen standing over him after the shot was fired. It will be interesting to see what forensics finds in this investigation.

[Romo_To_Dez]

Yeah, we still need to see the evidence, which none of us has seen. Though he did have cuts on the back of his head.

As for the screams, if there are other injuries on Martin's body that is a big problem for Zimmerman. Further, what kind of screams were they? If it was Zimmerman, he would be yelling because he was getting beat on. If it was Martin, it could have been that he was getting beat on. But I don't know what the screams could have been if there are no other marks on Martin. It will be interesting to see if the screams were before the shot or after. Did Martin die instantly or did he survive for a time. Did Martin have bruises on his knuckles from hitting Zimmerman. And did Zimmerman have the same kind of bruises.

All of this stuff needs to be fleshed out and I am sure it will be.


If you heard the tape than to me it sounds like someone screaming in fear for their life and is begging for help. To me I think it was Trayvon screaming I could be wrong.

There were two experts that said that it wasn't Zimmerman screaming but they didn't have Trayvon's voice to compare and I don't know if voice experts could be used in the court to say that they don't think that it was Zimmerman screaming.

[Cajuncowboy]

There's also blood spatter or what should be from Trayvon if he really was shot in such a close range and there should be some on Zimmerman.

This is explained away by some saying that it was raining or that Zimmerman had his jacket zipped up and that his coat is red and we can't see any blood in the video.

That really depends on the caliber of the gun, the clothes Martin was wearing and where he was shot, trajectory of the and other factors. Again, they need to flesh all of this out before they can answer any of the larger questions.

[5Stars]

That really depends on the caliber of the gun, the clothes Martin was wearing and where he was shot, trajectory of the and other factors. Again, they need to flesh all of this out before they can answer any of the larger questions.

Zimmerman should have never left his car. He was told not to by the dispatcher. Error #1...this whole thing would have been avoided.

[Cajuncowboy]

Zimmerman should have never left his car. He was told not to by the dispatcher. Error #1...this whole thing would have been avoided.

And?

Do you know what happened between the two when they made contact? Martin approached his car while he was still in it. So it seems like Martin made the first move in Zimmerman's direction.

[5Stars]

And?

Do you know what happened between the two when they made contact? Martin approached his car while he was still in it. So it seems like Martin made the first move in Zimmerman's direction.

Your reaching, my friend. If I was told to stay in my car, and the perp started to approach me, guess what? I drive away. It's not that hard to grasp.

[Cajuncowboy]

Your reaching, my friend. If I was told to stay in my car, and the perp started to approach me, guess what? I drive away. It's not that hard to grasp.

Except that's not what happened. I'm not reaching for anything. If this guy killed Martin and it wasn't self defense, then he needs to pay the price. I am just trying to make sure that ALL the evidence is out before the guy is convicted.

It's all moot anyway since Martin and Zimmerman's lives are both over. Two lives went down that night.

[5Stars]

Except that's not what happened. I'm not reaching for anything. If this guy killed Martin and it wasn't self defense, then he needs to pay the price. I am just trying to make sure that ALL the evidence is out before the guy is convicted.

It's all moot anyway since Martin and Zimmerman's lives are both over. Two lives went down that night.

And it did not have to happen...stay in the car and drive away, wait for the police. That is what a sensible person should/would do.

Oh, well, no skin off my back...

;)

[casmith07]

If you heard the tape than to me it sounds like someone screaming in fear for their life and is begging for help. To me I think it was Trayvon screaming I could be wrong.

There were two experts that said that it wasn't Zimmerman screaming but they didn't have Trayvon's voice to compare and I don't know if voice experts could be used in the court to say that they don't think that it was Zimmerman screaming.

The prosecution will likely rely on friends/family of Trayvon to attempt to prove that it's his voice, as well as ear/eyewitnesses in the neighborhood.

[Cajuncowboy]

And it did not have to happen...stay in the car and drive away, wait for the police. That is what a sensible person should/would do.

Oh, well, no skin off my back...

;)

No question that bad decisions were made that night.

[WoodysGirl]

Except that's not what happened. I'm not reaching for anything. If this guy killed Martin and it wasn't self defense, then he needs to pay the price. I am just trying to make sure that ALL the evidence is out before the guy is convicted.

It's all moot anyway since Martin and Zimmerman's lives are both over. Two lives went down that night.Well, I'm sure all the evidence will be out at some point since the case is now officially in the legal system.

But since I'm not in Florida, why should I wait before having an opinion about the basics of what occurred. Because while you and others are telling people to wait for all the facts to come out, you're also presenting alternative theories and speculating about what actually occurred, in the process not waiting for all the evidence to come out.

It's the nature of the beast for people to assume, conclude, and have opinions. But having a discussion about what occurred doesn't mean people AREN'T for more info to come out so they can know exactly what happened in this situation.

[Cajuncowboy]

Well, I'm sure all the evidence will be out at some point since the case is now officially in the legal system.

But since I'm not in Florida, why should I wait before having an opinion about the basics of what occurred. Because while you and others are telling people to wait for all the facts to come out, you're also presenting alternative theories and speculating about what actually occurred, in the process not waiting for all the evidence to come out.

It's the nature of the beast for people to assume, conclude, and have opinions. However, but having a discussion about what occurred doesn't mean people AREN'T for more info to come out so they can know exactly what happened in this situation.

Really? I don't have an opinion on what happened. I think most reasonable wait until they KNOW what happened as opposed to jumping to conclusions with what the media tells them. So, in putting forth other possible scenarios doesn't indicate that is what I think happened, but what could have happened. Therefore, concluding that until that evidence is made public, developing an opinion, is just what certain people in the spotlight wanted to have happen.

That makes no logical sense whatsoever to have an opinion on the events.

[casmith07]

Really? I don't have an opinion on what happened.

Sure about that?

[Cajuncowboy]

Sure about that?

Positive.

I do have an opinion on those trying to make their stay in the spotlight linger due to this tragedy.

[casmith07]

Positive.

I do have an opinion on those trying to make their stay in the spotlight linger due to this tragedy.

OK, just checking.

[Cajuncowboy]

OK, just checking.

Thank you for checking, counselor.

:D

[Romo_To_Dez]

The prosecution will likely rely on friends/family of Trayvon to attempt to prove that it's his voice, as well as ear/eyewitnesses in the neighborhood.


Zimmerman's family claims that it's his voice. Whether they really believe that or not is another story

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Except that's not what happened. I'm not reaching for anything. If this guy killed Martin and it wasn't self defense, then he needs to pay the price. I am just trying to make sure that ALL the evidence is out before the guy is convicted.

It's all moot anyway since Martin and Zimmerman's lives are both over. Two lives went down that night.

except of course one is dead and the other is still alive

[casmith07]

Zimmerman's family claims that it's his voice. Whether they really believe that or not is another story

Of course his family claims that. What do you expect them to claim?

[Romo_To_Dez]

Of course his family claims that. What do you expect them to claim?


Yeah Like I said I think that it's Trayvon's. His family has made claims that are hard for me to believe. Like his father claims that Trayvon said that "You're going to die tonight" to Zimmerman or something like that.

My question why does someone just walking home suddenly decide that they are in the mood to kill unprovoked, if the claim is that Zimmerman was just walking back to his truck and Trayvon goes from walking home to deciding that he wants to kill for no reason.

[WoodysGirl]

Really? I don't have an opinion on what happened. I think most reasonable wait until they KNOW what happened as opposed to jumping to conclusions with what the media tells them. So, in putting forth other possible scenarios doesn't indicate that is what I think happened, but what could have happened. Therefore, concluding that until that evidence is made public, developing an opinion, is just what certain people in the spotlight wanted to have happen.

That makes no logical sense whatsoever to have an opinion on the events.However, you can conclude or reasonably discuss what is currently presented, which is what everyone is doing. And although you say you have no opinion, you're alternative theories always seem to lean that Martin was the aggressor, which leads me to believe you have an opinion about it, even if it's about blaming the media or blaming the ambulance chasing activists, etc. You have an opinion.

Ultimately, most shouldn't care about the media, the activists, nor the politics. You should care about the legal process running its course. And having an opinion about it doesn't mean you don't want to know all the facts at some point.

[casmith07]

Yeah Like I said I think that it's Trayvon's. His family has made claims that are hard for me to believe. Like his father claims that Trayvon said that "You're going to die tonight" to Zimmerman or something like that.

My question why does someone just walking home suddenly decide that they are in the mood to kill unprovoked, if the claim is that Zimmerman was just walking back to his truck and Trayvon goes from walking home to deciding that he wants to kill for no reason.

Hard question to answer, considering he was on his way home with candy and a soda.

[5Stars]

Hard question to answer, considering he was on his way home with candy and a soda.

My uncle was killed with some candy and a soda, so, it happens.

He walked in front of a bus, but, that's a different story.

[Hoofbite]

Yeah Like I said I think that it's Trayvon's. His family has made claims that are hard for me to believe. Like his father claims that Trayvon said that "You're going to die tonight" to Zimmerman or something like that.

My question why does someone just walking home suddenly decide that they are in the mood to kill unprovoked, if the claim is that Zimmerman was just walking back to his truck and Trayvon goes from walking home to deciding that he wants to kill for no reason.

His claim of walking back to his truck is complete BS, IMO.

[JonJon]

Yeah Like I said I think that it's Trayvon's. His family has made claims that are hard for me to believe. Like his father claims that Trayvon said that "You're going to die tonight" to Zimmerman or something like that.

My question why does someone just walking home suddenly decide that they are in the mood to kill unprovoked, if the claim is that Zimmerman was just walking back to his truck and Trayvon goes from walking home to deciding that he wants to kill for no reason.

Good point. It is also worth noting that even though Zimmerman is heard saying that Martin was checking him out (something that any logical person would probably do if they see someone following them and hear that person giving a description of them over the phone), Zimmerman also confirms that Martin tries to run. At which point Zimmerman says, "They always get away" and proceeds to follow him. Zimmerman confirms that he is indeed following Martin, and then is told, "We don't need you to do that" by the 911 dispatcher.

If Zimmerman returns to his car like he and his father claims, what logical since does it make for Martin to all of a sudden gets a surge of hostility and vigor, halt his fleeing, turn around and go back to kill Zimmerman with his bare hands?

[Cajuncowboy]

However, you can conclude or reasonably discuss what is currently presented, which is what everyone is doing. And although you say you have no opinion, you're alternative theories always seem to lean that Martin was the aggressor, which leads me to believe you have an opinion about it, even if it's about blaming the media or blaming the ambulance chasing activists, etc. You have an opinion.

Ultimately, most shouldn't care about the media, the activists, nor the politics. You should care about the legal process running its course. And having an opinion about it doesn't mean you don't want to know all the facts at some point.

I never said I didn't have an opinion on the media or the screwball activists.

I don't however have an opinion on what happened. Simply presenting different scenarios doesn't mean I think Martin was the aggressor. You read way too much into things. But to derive an opinion, which is the act of arriving at a conclusion, based on skimpy evidence and not being privy to all the facts is simply ridiculous.

Now, discussing the events is certainly within reason. But yes, I do have an opinion on the jokers who are exploiting Martin's death for their own gains.

[Romo_To_Dez]

His claim of walking back to his truck is complete BS, IMO.


Where Trayvon's body was found will be key. Also there is a "New" Witness that says that she thinks that it was Zimmerman on top of Trayvon at the time of the fight and that Zimmerman shot him and then got up.

Conflicting witnesses but enough for Zimmerman to have to face a judge and jury

[cajuncocoa]

How is the legal system not a watered down version of revenge? Revenge would be having Zimmerman run for his life or fight for his life only to be shot and really outside of crazy extremist, no one wants that.

Wanting Zimmerman to be held accountable for what he did isn't anymore vengefull than any other criminal trial.You seem to be taking my comment personally, and there is no need for that. If you want the facts -- and a fair trial -- and for Zimmerman to be held accountable IF he is guilty of acting in a way that cannot be justified as self-defense, then we both want the same thing.

But some I know think they already know all there is to know, and have thought so from the very beginning -- in spite of the additional facts and corrections that have been released since the story broke.

[cajuncocoa]

except of course one is dead and the other is still aliveNot a life I would wish to have.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Not a life I would wish to have.

true enough but still fatso is alive and the innocent teenager isn't so to say two lives ended that night is a bit of a stretch (imagine Cajun's reaction if I had wrote that the Manson family girls' lives ended the night they killed Tate).

[cajuncocoa]

true enough but still fatso is alive and the innocent teenager isn't so to say two lives ended that night is a bit of a stretch (imagine Cajun's reaction if I had wrote that the Manson family girls' lives ended the night they killed Tate).
It's always a good sign when one descends to ad hominem attacks. :rolleyes:

[Cajuncowboy]

true enough but still fatso is alive and the innocent teenager isn't so to say two lives ended that night is a bit of a stretch (imagine Cajun's reaction if I had wrote that the Manson family girls' lives ended the night they killed Tate).

They did. Do you ever know anything that you are trying to talk about?

[Cajuncowboy]

It's always a good sign when one descends to ad hominem attacks. :rolleyes:

That's the way he rolls. Ignoring him is probably the best for everyone on the board. Some of the things he has said personally to people are beyond reason.

[cajuncocoa]

They did. Do you ever know anything that you are trying to talk about?
Yes, and I'm sure you realize that the Manson family have already been on trial and have been sentenced. Zimmerman has yet to stand trial. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

[Cajuncowboy]

Yes, and I'm sure you realize that the Manson family have already been on trial and have been sentenced. Zimmerman has yet to stand trial. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

I don't know. Seems some people want Zimmerman killed right now. Skip the evidence, the trial, the sentencing and get right to the execution.

I would rather wait for the evidence and the wheels of justice to turn before I formulate an opinion about what happened.

[Romo_To_Dez]

I don't know. Seems some people want Zimmerman killed right now. Skip the evidence, the trial, the sentencing and get right to the execution.

I would rather wait for the evidence and the wheels of justice to turn before I formulate an opinion about what happened.


There are people on both sides doing that. People attacking and bashing Trayvon's character and some going as far as to say that Trayvon deserved to die or that Zimmerman is a "Hero" for killing him and keeping the streets safe.

I don't want Zimmerman killed if he is guilty he should get time in prison

[BrAinPaiNt]

Yes, and I'm sure you realize that the Manson family have already been on trial and have been sentenced. Zimmerman has yet to stand trial. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

It is rare for individuals to believe innocent until proven guilty for ALL cases they have ever talked about.

I can guarantee you that most times people form opinions on someone's guilt or innocence without a court decision and sometimes even after a court's decision they still don't believe the verdict is correct.

I would lay down money that there are people here who would say innocent until proven guilty in some cases but if I laid out some things from various situations in the past there is no way they would stick with the innocent until proven mantra because they already think a person is guilty.

Innocent until proven guilty mantra more often than not is only used when someone feels about a person involved before the case.

Again it is pretty rare, or at least uncommon, for most to use the innocent until proven guilty mantra for ALL cases.

[casmith07]

It is rare for individuals to believe innocent until proven guilty for ALL cases they have ever talked about.

I can guarantee you that most times people form opinions on someone's guilt or innocence without a court decision and sometimes even after a court's decision they still don't believe the verdict is correct.

I would lay down money that there are people here who would say innocent until proven guilty in some cases but if I laid out some things from various situations in the past there is no way they would stick with the innocent until proven mantra because they already think a person is guilty.

Innocent until proven guilty mantra more often than not is only used when someone feels about a person involved before the case.

Again it is pretty rare, or at least uncommon, for most to use the innocent until proven guilty mantra for ALL cases.

Good ole Casey Anthony.

[MetalHead]

The law agrees.

Also, there was a timeline on television while I was watching CNN yesterday, basically breaking down the phone calls Martin made to his girlfriend, 911 calls, to the shooting, to the police arriving and taking Zimmerman in.

All of that time, plus the arrival at the police station, etc. leaves a time of about 4 to 5 minutes where Zimmerman would've received medical treatment from paramedics on the scene. If he had a busted nose and a gash on the back of his head gushing blood...you'd need more than 5 minutes to stop all of the bleeding.

He probably would have also had blood on his shirt.

I do not watch any lame stream media regarding this case,because:

-NBC doctored the 911 call.Fact
-ABC showed a poorly layered video of GZ arriving at the police station looking unhurt.Fact
-Everybody and their uncle kept showing outdated pictures of both parties involved.
-The media kept calling Zimmerman a "white hispanic".There's no such thing.That would make Obama a "white black".Think about it.
-The true untold story of both parties involved.A 28 year old family man who mentored black kids vs a 17 year old who had been suspended 3 times by his school district.Character does matter.
-This happened back in February.A month later all the rage?...why?.There were 40 shootings in Chicago on St Patrick's weekend.Ten dead including a six year old girl...why isn't this news?...does not fit the narrative?
-92.2% of black male murders are commited by...black males.Does not fit the narrative?
-Daniel Adkins,of Phoenix was murdered under the same "Stand your ground" premise.The gunman is a black man.Does not fit the narrative?

Shame on the AG Eric Holder for not prosecuting the New Black Panther Party.They committed a felony by placing a bounty on a US citizen.

Shame on Spike Lee and Roseanne Barr for posting on twitter what they presumed to be Zimmerman's home address.

There are extraordinary circumstances in life when a man has to take another's life.In GZ's case he has already been judged and convicted.

Even if he is acquitted,his life is over.

I wonder if Daniel Adkins' shooter agrees...oh wait...it does not fit the narrative.

[cajuncocoa]

It is rare for individuals to believe innocent until proven guilty for ALL cases they have ever talked about.

I can guarantee you that most times people form opinions on someone's guilt or innocence without a court decision and sometimes even after a court's decision they still don't believe the verdict is correct.

I would lay down money that there are people here who would say innocent until proven guilty in some cases but if I laid out some things from various situations in the past there is no way they would stick with the innocent until proven mantra because they already think a person is guilty.

Innocent until proven guilty mantra more often than not is only used when someone feels about a person involved before the case.

Again it is pretty rare, or at least uncommon, for most to use the innocent until proven guilty mantra for ALL cases.

Yes, I realize that, but I'm not just talking about people expressing verbal opinions. Rarely does it get to the point where the accused is threatened with life-threatening bodily harm (NBP bounty) before the trial even begins.

[cajuncocoa]

Good ole Casey Anthony.
Did someone put a bounty on Casey Anthony's head?

[BrAinPaiNt]

Good ole Casey Anthony.

There are other examples from the past that lead me to believe that just waiting for all the evidence, innocent until proven guilty does not apply to all cases from people because I have seen the exact opposite where people have already formed an opinion of someone being guilty of something and they will not budge on that even after some may have been found innocent in a court of law.

Now I am not saying that people don't have the right to feel someone is innocent or guilty before or after a trial...I think that is pretty human and pretty common. The point I make is that it is rare for someone to think innocent until proven guilty for ALL cases. And although those that won't preach the mantra of innocent until proven guilty for ALL cases, they sure will bring it out for those that they have formed opinions on already even if they claim they have not.

[casmith07]

Even if he is acquitted,his life is over.


He should have stayed in his truck and let the police handle the situation.

He has nobody to blame for any consequences of this case but himself, regardless of the outcome.

[casmith07]

Yes, I realize that, but I'm not just talking about people expressing verbal opinions. Rarely does it get to the point where the accused is threatened with life-threatening bodily harm (NBP bounty) before the trial even begins.

"Citizen's Arrest" ≠ "Life-Threatening Bodily Harm".

[cajuncocoa]

There are other examples from the past that lead me to believe that just waiting for all the evidence, innocent until proven guilty does not apply to all cases from people because I have seen the exact opposite where people have already formed an opinion of someone being guilty of something and they will not budge on that even after some may have been found innocent in a court of law.

Now I am not saying that people don't have the right to feel someone is innocent or guilty before or after a trial...I think that is pretty human and pretty common. The point I make is that it is rare for someone to think innocent until proven guilty for ALL cases. And although those that won't preach the mantra of innocent until proven guilty for ALL cases, they sure will bring it out for those that they have formed opinions on already even if they claim they have not.
You're missing the point: how many of those people had a bounty put on their head before the trial? Or even after, if they were found not guilty (contrary to public opinion)?

[cajuncocoa]

"Citizen's Arrest" ≠ "Life-Threatening Bodily Harm".
http://ironicsurrealism.com/files/2012/04/new-black-panthers-george-zimmerman-dead-or-alive-poster-march-2012.jpg

What part of "Dead or Alive" are you not understanding?

[Cajuncowboy]

There are people on both sides doing that. People attacking and bashing Trayvon's character and some going as far as to say that Trayvon deserved to die or that Zimmerman is a "Hero" for killing him and keeping the streets safe.

I don't want Zimmerman killed if he is guilty he should get time in prison

I have not heard or seen anything like that at all. And if they are they are knuckleheads.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Yes, I realize that, but I'm not just talking about people expressing verbal opinions. Rarely does it get to the point where the accused is threatened with life-threatening bodily harm (NBP bounty) before the trial even begins.

There are threats against people and their families for a multitude of reasons and some that have nothing to do with a law case, shooting, killing death.

Coaches and players get death threats from people because a player did not make a catch or a tackle or a coach did not call a play or made a decision that was not well received.

Heck there have been times on this very forum where posters have wished death or hurt on people before the trials.

There are also many polarizing public figures that have gotten death threats over the years and were not accused of any crime.

And finally I will say that many times when one guy shoots someone that is unarmed and that person was not on their property, was not stealing from them...they usually go to trial for shooting the person. If not for the public outcry in this situation one guy would be dead and the other guy would not have to go to trial because the police department and legal department did not even take him to trial. That was the main reason for most of the initial and continued outrage over this situation. The shooter in this case was not even going to be sent to trial to see if he was innocent or guilty.

[Cajuncowboy]

http://ironicsurrealism.com/files/2012/04/new-black-panthers-george-zimmerman-dead-or-alive-poster-march-2012.jpg

What part of "Dead or Alive" are you not understanding?

This didn't seem to matter last night and it doesn't matter tonight. As Burm said earlier, it doesn't fit their narrative.

[cajuncocoa]

There are threats against people and their families for a multitude of reasons and some that have nothing to do with a law case, shooting, killing death.

Coaches and players get death threats from people because a player did not make a catch or a tackle or a coach did not call a play or made a decision that was not well received.

Heck there have been times on this very forum where posters have wished death or hurt on people before the trials.

There are also many polarizing public figures that have gotten death threats over the years and were not accused of any crime.

And finally I will say that many times when one guy shoots someone that is unarmed and that person was not on their property, was not stealing from them...they usually go to trial for shooting the person. If not for the public outcry in this situation one guy would be dead and the other guy would not have to go to trial because the police department and legal department did not even take him to trial. That was the main reason for most of the initial and continued outrage over this situation. The shooter in this case was not even going to be sent to trial to see if he was innocent or guilty.

The fact that something happens many times doesn't make it right. Shouldn't we strive to do better?

[Cajuncowboy]

There are threats against people and their families for a multitude of reasons and some that have nothing to do with a law case, shooting, killing death.

Coaches and players get death threats from people because a player did not make a catch or a tackle or a coach did not call a play or made a decision that was not well received.

Heck there have been times on this very forum where posters have wished death or hurt on people before the trials.

There are also many polarizing public figures that have gotten death threats over the years and were not accused of any crime.

And finally I will say that many times when one guy shoots someone that is unarmed and that person was not on their property, was not stealing from them...they usually go to trial for shooting the person. If not for the public outcry in this situation one guy would be dead and the other guy would not have to go to trial because the police department and legal department did not even take him to trial. That was the main reason for most of the initial and continued outrage over this situation. The shooter in this case was not even going to be sent to trial to see if he was innocent or guilty.

Wow! Pretty cool Brain. Can you tell us exactly which date were you in the prosecutors office when they made this decision to not prosecute?

You know they weren't gathering evidence in the interim so I am sure you can tell us when that was made clear to you during your visit with them.

[Romo_To_Dez]

He should have stayed in his truck and let the police handle the situation.

He has nobody to blame for any consequences of this case but himself, regardless of the outcome.


For whatever reason he did rush to judgment on Trayvon and assumed that Trayvon was doing something wrong or about to break the law.


There's nothing wrong with wanting to keep you Neighborhood safe, however I don't think that you should try to follow or pursue a "Suspicious" person unless that person is currently in the act of assaulting/hurting someone then you should wait for the cops.

[BrAinPaiNt]

The fact that something happens many times doesn't make it right. Shouldn't we strive to do better?

We should strive to better. Two wrongs don't make a right. And saying I will wait for the evidence and what happened to innocent until proven guilty mantra said by some when I have seen the exact opposite in other cases proves my point that I was making that it is rare for a person to believe that in all cases and more common for them to use those mantras in cases that better fit whatever views they have aka preconceived notion if someone is innocent or guilty already.

[Cajuncowboy]

We should strive to better. Two wrongs don't make a right. And saying I will wait for the evidence and what happened to innocent until proven guilty mantra said by some when I have seen the exact opposite in other cases proves my point that I was making that it is rare for a person to believe that in all cases and more common for them to use those mantras in cases that better fit whatever views they have aka preconceived notion if someone is innocent or guilty already.

Got an example of this?

[Romo_To_Dez]

I have not heard or seen anything like that at all. And if they are they are knuckleheads.


There have been comments like this on the related Youtube videos and on News Articles by Zimmerman supporters. Yes that does make them knuckleheads.

[casmith07]

http://ironicsurrealism.com/files/2012/04/new-black-panthers-george-zimmerman-dead-or-alive-poster-march-2012.jpg

What part of "Dead or Alive" are you not understanding?

Clearly an extremely poor photoshop job.

[Cajuncowboy]

Clearly an extremely poor photoshop job.

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

[Hoofbite]

I really think Zimmerman did himself a favor by getting a new lawyer.

I've seen some of the things his new lawyer said and this guy appears much more responsible and capable.

His old guy just seemed like a scumbag.

In the most recent clip I have seen the media was asking him about using Trayvon's mom's statement about "accident" against her in the future and he flat out said he wouldn't even think about using the mother a deceased child's word against her like that.

Had Zimmerman kept his same guy, I think he digs a hole that Zimmerman wouldn't have been able to get out of.

[Cajuncowboy]

There have been comments like this on the related Youtube videos and on News Articles by Zimmerman supporters. Yes that does make them knuckleheads.

There is no need to make stuff up. If there are facts then that's one thing. Making stuff up to attack their character is another.

[casmith07]

I really think Zimmerman did himself a favor by getting a new lawyer.

I've seen some of the things his new lawyer said and this guy appears much more responsible and capable.

His old guy just seemed like a scumbag.

In the most recent clip I have seen the media was asking him about using Trayvon's mom's statement about "accident" against her in the future and he flat out said he wouldn't even think about using the mother a deceased child's word against her like that.

Had Zimmerman kept his same guy, I think he digs a hole that Zimmerman wouldn't have been able to get out of.

He probably is a good defense attorney. Any good defense attorney's first job is to ensure his or her client receives all proper due process of the law.

He also, from those statements, seems as if he is a straight shooter, which is good for all parties involved.

[Romo_To_Dez]

http://ironicsurrealism.com/files/2012/04/new-black-panthers-george-zimmerman-dead-or-alive-poster-march-2012.jpg (http://ironicsurrealism.com/files/2012/04/new-black-panthers-george-zimmerman-dead-or-alive-poster-march-2012.jpg)

What part of "Dead or Alive" are you not understanding?


I don't agree with the Bounty and don't understand why it's legal for people to put a Bounty on someone's head like this. I haven't heard about any arrests for the BP putting out this Bounty

[Cajuncowboy]

I don't agree with the Bounty and don't understand why it's legal for people to put a Bounty on someone's head like this. I haven't heard about any arrests for the BP putting out this Bounty

Eric Holder would have to do this as it would be a Federal case. And since he doesn't investigate anything the black Panthers do, he won't.

[Romo_To_Dez]

There is no need to make stuff up. If there are facts then that's one thing. Making stuff up to attack their character is another.


You think that I'm making this up or are you talking about them?

[The30YardSlant]

I don't agree with the Bounty and don't understand why it's legal for people to put a Bounty on someone's head like this. I haven't heard about any arrests for the BP putting out this Bounty

It ISN'T legal, and if anyone else did it they would be arrested.

[casmith07]

I don't agree with the Bounty and don't understand why it's legal for people to put a Bounty on someone's head like this. I haven't heard about any arrests for the BP putting out this Bounty

It's not the Black Panther Party. There is no such thing as "New Black Panthers" -- just a group of boneheads trying to make a name for themselves.

Further, a statement was released about the $10K reward for citizens arrest, stating that if anyone attempted to take part in any vigilante justice, criminal charges would result.

It's no more wrong than the smear campaign against the victim, who is deceased, in which people attempted to post "thuggish" images of him, all of which weren't even of the correct boy. There are supreme idiots on both sides of the emotional spectrum of this thing. The only objectivity will be in the courtroom at trial.

[Cajuncowboy]

You think that I'm making this up or are you talking about them?

Whoever "they" are.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Wow! Pretty cool Brain. Can you tell us exactly which date were you in the prosecutors office when they made this decision to not prosecute?

You know they weren't gathering evidence in the interim so I am sure you can tell us when that was made clear to you during your visit with them.

It is just amazing how they did not decide to put him on trial until it blew up in the media due to public outrage...just pure coincidence.

[Romo_To_Dez]

I really think Zimmerman did himself a favor by getting a new lawyer.

I've seen some of the things his new lawyer said and this guy appears much more responsible and capable.

His old guy just seemed like a scumbag.

In the most recent clip I have seen the media was asking him about using Trayvon's mom's statement about "accident" against her in the future and he flat out said he wouldn't even think about using the mother a deceased child's word against her like that.

Had Zimmerman kept his same guy, I think he digs a hole that Zimmerman wouldn't have been able to get out of.


Zimmerman's New Lawyer is much better than the other two that he had. It worked out better for Zimmerman that they "Dropped" him as their client

[Romo_To_Dez]

Whoever "they" are.

Okay I understand

[Cajuncowboy]

It's not the Black Panther Party. There is no such thing as "New Black Panthers" -- just a group of boneheads trying to make a name for themselves.

Further, a statement was released about the $10K reward for citizens arrest, stating that if anyone attempted to take part in any vigilante justice, criminal charges would result.

Oh for God's sake.

And there was no KKK. Just a bunch of boneheads trying to make a name for themselves.

How utterly ridiculous.

[Cajuncowboy]

It is just amazing how they did not decide to put him on trial until it blew up in the media due to public outrage...just pure coincidence.

Right. Because you are a trained investigator.

[casmith07]

Oh for God's sake.

And there was no KKK. Just a bunch of boneheads trying to make a name for themselves.

How utterly ridiculous.

Read it on the "real" Black Panther Party's website.

Some snippets:

An Open Letter From the Dr. Huey P. Newton Foundation. In response to numerous requests from individual's seeking information on the "New Black Panthers," the Dr. Huey P. Newton Foundation issues this public statement to correct the distorted record being made in the media by a small band of African Americans calling themselves the New Black Panthers. As guardian of the true history of the Black Panther Party, the Foundation, which includes former leading members of the Party, denounces this group's exploitation of the Party's name and history. Failing to find its own legitimacy in the black community, this band would graft the Party's name upon itself, which we condemn.

Their alleged media assault on the Ku Klux Klan serves to incite hatred rather than resolve it. The Party's fundamental principle, as best articulated by the great revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara, was: "A true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love." The Black Panthers were never a group of angry young militants full of fury toward the "white establishment." The Party operated on love for black people, not hatred of white people.

Furthermore, this group claims it would "teach" the black community about armed self-defense. The arrogance of this claim is overwhelmed by its reactionary nature.

Rather than appropriating the Party's name, however, groups that purport to represent African Americans ought to follow the Party's true historical example. In the absence of such commitment, the Foundation denounces the usurpation of the Black Panther Party name by this questionable band of self-appointed leaders.

[Cajuncowboy]

Read it on the "real" Black Panther Party's website.

Some snippets:

An Open Letter From the Dr. Huey P. Newton Foundation. In response to numerous requests from individual's seeking information on the "New Black Panthers," the Dr. Huey P. Newton Foundation issues this public statement to correct the distorted record being made in the media by a small band of African Americans calling themselves the New Black Panthers. As guardian of the true history of the Black Panther Party, the Foundation, which includes former leading members of the Party, denounces this group's exploitation of the Party's name and history. Failing to find its own legitimacy in the black community, this band would graft the Party's name upon itself, which we condemn.

Their alleged media assault on the Ku Klux Klan serves to incite hatred rather than resolve it. The Party's fundamental principle, as best articulated by the great revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara, was: "A true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love." The Black Panthers were never a group of angry young militants full of fury toward the "white establishment." The Party operated on love for black people, not hatred of white people.

Furthermore, this group claims it would "teach" the black community about armed self-defense. The arrogance of this claim is overwhelmed by its reactionary nature.

Rather than appropriating the Party's name, however, groups that purport to represent African Americans ought to follow the Party's true historical example. In the absence of such commitment, the Foundation denounces the usurpation of the Black Panther Party name by this questionable band of self-appointed leaders.

There is so much BS in that statement that it is hard to not laugh especially the bold parts.

Anyway, They can say what they want. They may not be affiliated with the old guys but they are the new guys. And they have made their presence felt. And their poster did say dead or alive.

[WoodysGirl]

I really think Zimmerman did himself a favor by getting a new lawyer.

I've seen some of the things his new lawyer said and this guy appears much more responsible and capable.

His old guy just seemed like a scumbag.

In the most recent clip I have seen the media was asking him about using Trayvon's mom's statement about "accident" against her in the future and he flat out said he wouldn't even think about using the mother a deceased child's word against her like that.

Had Zimmerman kept his same guy, I think he digs a hole that Zimmerman wouldn't have been able to get out of.
I agree. I was just reading up on him in this article - http://news.yahoo.com/zimmerman-attorney-casey-anthony-commentator-201549716.html

I think the attorneys for both sides will help calm the rhetoric that's been flowing. At least, I hope so.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Got an example of this?

An example of what specifically...that people think that some are guilty before a trial and still think they are guilty after a trial that finds them not guilty?

[cowboy_ron]

It is just amazing how they did not decide to put him on trial until it blew up in the media due to public outrage...just pure coincidence.
That D.A. is sooo self promoting

[BrAinPaiNt]

Right. Because you are a trained investigator.

I am not a trained investigator, I am not a cop, I am not a neighborhood watchman, I am not a prosecutor, I am not a judge....I am just a person with an opinion that does not mesh with yours but I am also not going to trot out that innocent until proven guilty line for ALL cases.

Nor are you a federal prosecutor...yet you seem to know what some will or will not do. :D

[casmith07]

There is so much BS in that statement that it is hard to not laugh especially the bold parts.

Anyway, They can say what they want. They may not be affiliated with the old guys but they are the new guys. And they have made their presence felt. And their poster did say dead or alive.

You're not paying attention.

There IS an official Black Panther Party. They are historical, back to 1966.

The "New Black Panthers" are in no way affiliated with the other group. They are attempting to capitalize on the name in an attempt to do who knows what, but it's certainly not their mission to do exactly what is stated above.

You're coming off as extremely close-minded right now. It's not a good look for you.

[casmith07]

I agree. I was just reading up on him in this article - http://news.yahoo.com/zimmerman-attorney-casey-anthony-commentator-201549716.html

I think the attorneys for both sides will help calm the rhetoric that's been flowing. At least, I hope so.

You're so much more optimistic than me :D

[The30YardSlant]

It's not the Black Panther Party. There is no such thing as "New Black Panthers" -- just a group of boneheads trying to make a name for themselves.

Let's not pretend that violence hasnt always been a staple of the Black Panthers. It was founded as an aggressive militant group which clashed with law enforcement on a regular basis in the 60s and 70s and were responsible for numerous deaths in cities such as Oakland and San Francisco. They were denounced by many civil rights acitivists in the late 60s and mainstream black Americans had disowned them by the late 70s.

The only difference between the real black panthers and these "new" black panthers is national relevancy.

[WoodysGirl]

You're so much more optimistic than me :D
What can I say? I'm a glass half-full kinda gal. :)

I don't do negativity well, so I don't dwell on it.

[casmith07]

What can I say? I'm a glass half-full kinda gal. :)

I don't do negativity well, so I don't dwell on it.

Send some of that my way - I need to use it to get myself on the WG Path to Success.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Let's not pretend that violence hasnt always been a staple of the Black Panthers. It was founded as an aggressive militant group which clashed with law enforcement on a regular basis in the 60s and 70s and were responsible for numerous deaths in cities such as Oakland and San Francisco. They were denounced by many civil rights acitivists in the late 60s and mainstream black Americans had disowned them by the late 70s.

Let's not pretend you completely missed what he posted and decided to act like he posted that the black panther party was never violent. Instead of him explaining that the new black panther party has NOTHING to do with the old.

[casmith07]

Let's not pretend you completely missed what he posted and decided to act like he posted that the black panther party was never violent. Instead of him explaining that the new black panther party has NOTHING to do with the old.

Missed or deliberately overlooked?

[The30YardSlant]

Let's not pretend you completely missed what he posted and decided to act like he posted that the black panther party was never violent. Instead of him explaining that the new black panther party has NOTHING to do with the old.

The point is there is no inherent difference, it's just that fewer people care now. They were a detriment to society then, they are a less significant detriment now.

[BrAinPaiNt]

The point is there is no inherent difference, it's just that fewer people care now. They were a detriment to society then, they are a less significant detriment now.

No...that was not the point he was making...that is the point you were trying to make in arguing a point he never made.

[Cajuncowboy]

I am not a trained investigator, I am not a cop, I am not a neighborhood watchman, I am not a prosecutor, I am not a judge....I am just a person with an opinion that does not mesh with yours but I am also not going to trot out that innocent until proven guilty line for ALL cases.

Nor are you a federal prosecutor...yet you seem to know what some will or will not do. :D

LOL!

Geez.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Missed or deliberately overlooked?

Deliberately overlooked without a doubt...and I think we both know why.

[Cajuncowboy]

You're not paying attention.

There IS an official Black Panther Party. They are historical, back to 1966.

The "New Black Panthers" are in no way affiliated with the other group. They are attempting to capitalize on the name in an attempt to do who knows what, but it's certainly not their mission to do exactly what is stated above.

You're coming off as extremely close-minded right now. It's not a good look for you.

WTH difference does it make if they are the old guys trying to get onto heaven now or new black panthers? They still put a bounty on his head.

Talk about being closed minded. That suit seems to fit you right now.

[The30YardSlant]

Missed or deliberately overlooked?

What you posted was ideologically false, the "New Black Panthers" are using the same blueprint that was used until the original movement fell apart in the 80s.

Painting EITHER group as anything less than a societal cancer or that one is appreciably different from the other is simply wrong.

[casmith07]

What you posted was ideologically false, the "New Black Panthers" are using the same blueprint that was used until the original movement fell apart in the 80s.

Painting EITHER group as anything less than a societal cancer or that one is appreciably different from the other is simply wrong.

Deliberately overlooked, as I thought. Next.

[Cajuncowboy]

Let's not pretend you completely missed what he posted and decided to act like he posted that the black panther party was never violent. Instead of him explaining that the new black panther party has NOTHING to do with the old.

Again, does it really matter? It's their name. So what. They are who they are. They are nationwide. It's not a couple of guys in a garage somewhere.

[The30YardSlant]

Deliberately overlooked without a doubt...and I think we both know why.

:laugh2:

You've spent years insinuating that I'm some sort of a racist then play dumb when called on it, and it never ceases to amuse me. It's funny considering you've closed threads and banned posters for doing the same.

Keep it civil, huh?

[Cajuncowboy]

:laugh2:

You've spent years insinuating that I'm some sort of a racist then play dumb when called on it, and it never ceases to amuse me. It's funny considering you've closed threads and banned posters for doing the same.

Keep it civil, huh?

I've been accused of it as well. Some people need to seriously look in the mirror. I don't sweat it anymore. It used to really tick me off. But I know who I am and who my friends are and what I support. So it doesn't mean anything to me.

[casmith07]

Again, does it really matter? It's their name. So what. They are who they are. They are nationwide. It's not a couple of guys in a garage somewhere.

Of course it matters. Just like flying a Confederate flag is what it is, right?

[BrAinPaiNt]

Again, does it really matter? It's their name. So what. They are who they are. They are nationwide. It's not a couple of guys in a garage somewhere.

I was not arguing that they are a hunky dory group with the best intentions for all.

I was only making the point that 30yardslant made a silly argument about a point that casmith never made.

THAT was my point. I know that it is hard for you to believe that someone can make a specific point and not automatically mean that are in cahoots with other parts of things.

You are drawing conclusions about points that were never made to fit some argument that you want when it does not exist. Not quite as bad as 30yard but still in the same way.

My point was...again...that 30yards argument was made against a point that casmith never made....end of story.

[Cajuncowboy]

Of course it matters. Just like flying a Confederate flag is what it is, right?

Why does it matter? Does it matter if they are old guys or new guys? The bounty is out there anyway. Think the bullet cares?

[Heisenberg]

I equate the New Black Panther party with other groups like Westboro Baptist Church. They're very small organizations that have no real significance other than the fact they seem to have a knack for drawing attention on occasion.

Stop paying attention to them and any power they have is gone.

[Cajuncowboy]

I was not arguing that they are a hunky dory group with the best intentions for all.

I was only making the point that 30yardslant made a silly argument about a point that casmith never made.

THAT was my point. I know that it is hard for you to believe that someone can make a specific point and not automatically mean that are in cahoots with other parts of things.

You are drawing conclusions about points that were never made to fit some argument that you want when it does not exist. Not quite as bad as 30yard but still in the same way.

My point was...again...that 30yards argument was made against a point that casmith never made....end of story.

Why are you replying to my post on the NBP with that? Has nothing to do with my point.

[The30YardSlant]

I've been accused of it as well. Some people need to seriously look in the mirror. I don't sweat it anymore. It used to really tick me off. But I know who I am and who my friends are and what I support. So it doesn't mean anything to me.

His modus operandi is to either play dumb or avoid the post like the plague. I don't care if he thinks I'm a racist, but I would like to see him have the stomach and integrity to come out and say it and to not hide behind his status on this board.

[Cajuncowboy]

I equate the New Black Panther party with other groups like Westboro Baptist Church. They're very small organizations that have no real significance other than the fact they seem to have a knack for drawing attention on occasion.

Stop paying attention to them and any power they have is gone.

Can't stomach either group but one is just demonstrating and one is issuing bounties and threatening people a polling stations.

They aren't the same.

[casmith07]

I equate the New Black Panther party with other groups like Westboro Baptist Church. They're very small organizations that have no real significance other than the fact they seem to have a knack for drawing attention on occasion.

Stop paying attention to them and any power they have is gone.

A voice of reason and critical thought emerges. Heisenberg, you put it better than I've been trying to explain it.

[The30YardSlant]

Of course it matters. Just like flying a Confederate flag is what it is, right?

Poor comparison, seeing as the Conferderate flag never at any point stood for what people who want it gone believe it did. There are not different possible meanings of it's symbolism, only the one that is and the one that people with an agenda want it to be. The Black Panthers have ALWAYS stood for violent militant action against the establishment, thus they truly "are what they are". Calling the New Black Panthers different from the old is like putting a new set of tires on a '64 Mustang and calling it a Volkswagon.

[The30YardSlant]

I equate the New Black Panther party with other groups like Westboro Baptist Church. They're very small organizations that have no real significance other than the fact they seem to have a knack for drawing attention on occasion.

Stop paying attention to them and any power they have is gone.

Westboro Baptist is sick, twisted and offensive to every physical sense.

The New Black Panthers are issuing bounties, promoting violence and intimidating voters.

They are NOT the same thing. One is legally doing things that they deserve to rot in Hell for, the other is doing illegal things and getting away with them because nobody has the stomach to charge them.

Yes, both derive their power from public attention. the difference is that ignoring somebody who threatens the physical well-being of others only works up until the point where they carry out the violent act.

[Manwiththeplan]

Poor comparison, seeing as the Conferderate flag never at any point stood for what people who want it gone believe it did.

Not to go off topic, but what exactly does it stand for? And please don't say freedom.

[casmith07]

Poor comparison, seeing as the Conferderate flag never at any point stood for what people who want it gone believe it did.

Of course it didn't.

Westboro Baptist is sick, twisted and offensive to every physical sense.

The New Black Panthers are issuing bounties, promoting violence and intimidating voters.

They are NOT the same thing.

Of course they aren't.

[BrAinPaiNt]

His modus operandi is to either play dumb or avoid the post like the plague. I don't care if he thinks I'm a racist, but I would like to see him have the stomach and integrity to come out and say it and to not hide behind his status on this board.

I am pretty sure I have said it in the past.

[casmith07]

Not to go off topic, but what exactly does it stand for? And please don't say freedom.

"State's rights."

And for the Daily Double: The only "state's right" in contention that was desired to be abolished by the Union, yet retained by the Confederacy, was this?

[The30YardSlant]

Not to go off topic, but what exactly does it stand for? And please don't say freedom.

It stands for the Confederate States of America.

[Manwiththeplan]

"State's rights."

And for the Daily Double: The only "state's right" in contention that was desired to be abolished by the Union was this?

And WTH does it have to be an "agenda" for someone to have a problem the confederate flag?

[casmith07]

And WTH does it have to be an "agenda" for someone to have a problem the confederate flag?

Your guess is equally as good as mine.

[Manwiththeplan]

It stands for the Confederate States of America.

and what did the confederate states of america stand for?

[cajuncocoa]

Good grief.

[casmith07]

It stands for the Confederate States of America.

Stood*.

[The30YardSlant]

Of course it didn't.



Of course they aren't.

Funny how you left off the valid reasoning for both. :laugh2:

If you believe that showing up with offensive signs and placing a price on another human's head are equivalent then I have nothing but pity for whatever twisted sense of morality you apparently hold so dear.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Can't stomach either group but one is just demonstrating and one is issuing bounties and threatening people a polling stations.

They aren't the same.

The only thing that they have in common is that they are loud, seek attention, not large in number and are complete nippleheads.

However as you pointed out...one is making threats of violence or other illegal activities and the other wants violence against or other illegal activities against them so they can sue. So they are very different and over all not a good comparison.

[Cajuncowboy]

"State's rights."

And for the Daily Double: The only "state's right" in contention that was desired to be abolished by the Union, yet retained by the Confederacy, was this?

You have an extremely poor grasp of American history. Slavery was a component of what was going down but it was the tariffs that were going to be levied on the south that brought this whole thing to a boiling point in addition to the concern about slavery being allowed in any new territories.

The flag itself however wasn't a flag of the southern states. It was a battle flag. The flag of the southern states was very similar to the existing US flag and had three bars of red and white with stars in a circle on a field of blue.

[Heisenberg]

Funny how you left off the valid reasoning for both. :laugh2:

If you believe that showing up with offensive signs and placing a price on another human's head are equivalent then I have nothing but pity for whatever twisted sense of morality you apparently hold so dear.

I can print bounty signs right here at home, but it doesn't mean I have any power.

Again, they're both just groups of idiots that we're giving too much credit to. They have no power that we don't give by paying attention to them.

[casmith07]

Funny how you left off the valid reasoning for both. :laugh2:

If you believe that showing up with offensive signs and placing a price on another human's head are equivalent then I have nothing but pity for whatever twisted sense of morality you apparently hold so dear.

I wasn't aware that we were all of a sudden demanding "valid reasoning" around here for anything, after reading many of your recent posts in the thread.

And also, you're again attempting to state that I made a point that I did not. At no point, in this lifetime nor the previous one, have I condoned placing a bounty on anyone's head, be it for a citizen's arrest, capture, kidnapping, murder, mutilation, or any other otherwise unlawful activity. But somewhere between me posting a simple explanation of the differences between two organizations, one of which is legitimate, the other of which has been condemned and is certainly not legitimate, you seem to think that this is the case.

What's even worse, is that it took not one, but at least two posts for BP to point out that which I have again pointed out -- the fact that you're attempting to draw conclusions about something that I did not say by making miraculous logical leaps of faith.

Why is that? Please explain it to me - with valid reasoning - as you now so prudently and so suddenly demand.

[The30YardSlant]

Stood*.

Does the original American flag not stand for America? Does the hammer and sickle not stand for the Soviet Union?

It represents a significant period in history for the states that flew it. Despite what you and the modern American history narrative would have everyone believe, the Confederate States of America are not a synonym for slavery nor was slavery the only or even the most significant driving force behind the civil war.

The Confederate flag stands for racism to those who want it to stand for racism, as if those who claim such things are actually naive enough to believe the millions who own and even fly one are outspoken racists.

[casmith07]

I can print bounty signs right here at home, but it doesn't mean I have any power.

Again, they're both just groups of idiots that we're giving too much credit to. They have no power that we don't give by paying attention to them.

Say it again, with gusto.

[Cajuncowboy]

The only thing that they have in common is that they are loud, seek attention, not large in number and are complete nippleheads.

However as you pointed out...one is making threats of violence or other illegal activities and the other wants violence against or other illegal activities against them so they can sue. So they are very different and over all not a good comparison.

Geez! Did you just agree with me?

Man, now I gotta go rethink my position.


:D

[casmith07]

Does the original American flag not stand for America? Does the hammer and sickle not stand for the Soviet Union?

It represents a significant period in history for the states that flew it. Despite what you and the modern American history narrative would have everyone believe, the Confederate States of America are not a synonym for slavery nor was slavery the only or even the most significant driving force behind the civil war.

The Confederate flag stands for racism to those who want it to stand for racism, as if those who claim such things are actually naive enough to believe the millions who own and even fly one are outspoken racists.

There is no such thing as the Confederate States of America.

[The30YardSlant]

I can print bounty signs right here at home, but it doesn't mean I have any power.

No, but handing them out in public would get YOU arrested.

Again, they're both just groups of idiots that we're giving too much credit to. They have no power that we don't give by paying attention to them.

I agree up until the point when someone takes them up on their offer. Westboro Baptist, sick as they are, won't be killing anyone anytime soon.

[Cajuncowboy]

I can print bounty signs right here at home, but it doesn't mean I have any power.

Again, they're both just groups of idiots that we're giving too much credit to. They have no power that we don't give by paying attention to them.

So you could print up a sign with a bounty on it against an individual and it's okay by you?

You know that is illegal. It's called issuing a contract on someone.

[casmith07]

You have an extremely poor grasp of American history. Slavery was a component of what was going down but it was the tariffs that were going to be levied on the south that brought this whole thing to a boiling point in addition to the concern about slavery being allowed in any new territories.


Why even discuss it when you confirm it for us?

[casmith07]

So you could print up a sign with a bounty on it against an individual and it's okay by you?

You know that is illegal. It's called issuing a contract on someone.

Nope. But I'll spare you a lesson in contract law.

[The30YardSlant]

There is no such thing as the Confederate States of America.

There is no such thing as the Soviet Union anymore either, that doesn't change the fact that this...

http://www.world-free-printable-flags.com/images/flag-of-soviet-union.png

Stands for the Soviet Union.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Geez! Did you just agree with me?

Man, now I gotta go rethink my position.


:D

I can be open minded...sometimes.:D

[Cajuncowboy]

I wasn't aware that we were all of a sudden demanding "valid reasoning" around here for anything, after reading many of your recent posts in the thread.

And also, you're again attempting to state that I made a point that I did not. At no point, in this lifetime nor the previous one, have I condoned placing a bounty on anyone's head, be it for a citizen's arrest, capture, kidnapping, murder, mutilation, or any other otherwise unlawful activity. But somewhere between me posting a simple explanation of the differences between two organizations, one of which is legitimate, the other of which has been condemned and is certainly not legitimate, you seem to think that this is the case.

What's even worse, is that it took not one, but at least two posts for BP to point out that which I have again pointed out -- the fact that you're attempting to draw conclusions about something that I did not say by making miraculous logical leaps of faith.

Why is that? Please explain it to me - with valid reasoning - as you now so prudently and so suddenly demand.

neither is a legitimate organization. Hate never is.

[Cajuncowboy]

Why even discuss it when you confirm it for us?

Way to ignore the ENITRE post that proves your small amount of knowledge on the subject.

[WoodysGirl]

This thread has completely jumped the shark and now has nothing to do with George Zimmerman nor Trayvon Martin. So I'm going to spare us all the continuing off-topic rhetoric of a current event and close the thread.


*Closed*

If you have questions, then PM me.