Excusing Trayvon

When it comes to young Black kids, arrests are NOT the criteria to determine records of stealing. Stealing records of them routinely get covered up (unfairly to non-blacks who DO get arrested). In Trayvon's case, anybody who at this point is still unaware of Trayvon's burglary (or at least possession of stolen jewelry) record, and the ensuing police coverup of it, is probably unqualified for this thread.

On October 21st 2011 a burglary took place a few blocks from Krop Senior High School where Trayvon Martin attended. The stolen property outlined in the Miami-Dade Police Report (PD111021-422483) matches the descriptive presented by SRO Dunn in his School Police report 2011-11477.

 

He doesn't need to give you that evidence (or any evidence). Burden of evidence was on the prosecution. And they didn't have any.

That is a racist thing to say. You talk very racistly.

Yes. Don't you know the basic facts of this case ?

 

What we know is that Z followed Martin, in accordance with standard and prescribed state of Florida security procedural policy, which trumps NW and local police, who often get it wrong when it comes to security, which they are not professionals of. By acting properly, Z dis NOT unnecessarily create a situation were a conflict or violence was more likely, and how a kid ended up unnecessarily dead, has never been determined, but it looks quite like Martin may have been the cause of it.

 

Which was obvious from before the trial began, which is why the charge never should have been made, and the people of Florida should sue Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and whatever other race hustlers were involved in creating this fiasco, and big waste of Florida treasury money.

 

That's not a reason for requiring a law abiding citizen to retreat. Shooting in self-defense without retreating, IS responsible. And yes, it would be dumb to say just cause you got into a fight, you have a right to do anything you want to the other guy. But nobody is saying that, including Unifier whose post you quoted.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/trayvon-martin-texts-reveal-fighting-drug-use-19249306

 

Martin deserved to be shot because he was sitting on GZ and pounding on him. TM would not allow GZ to flee. (As confirmed by the wounds and the distance of the gun shot)
Those details matter a great deal.

 

While I agree with the sentiment and facts I wish to correct something in that Trevon did not 'deserve' to be shot but rather left Zimmerman with no other option but to use whatever force he could to stop the assault. If Zimerman had a secret punch or Ju Jitsu move I'm sure he would have used it and then we could say Teyvon 'deserved' to be the victim of that counter.

 

This was also supported by the fact that the police report from the incident listed Zimmerman as white.

 

Police reports NO ONE has ever been able to produce.

Weird, huh?

 

Oh for gods sake will you cut it out with this "professional security" baloney? Zimm WASN'T professional security he was NW.

 

Trayvon was a violent punk that left George no option but to cap his ass. All the spin by the liberals is just BS and a phony scandal.

 

That's it? AN ABC report showing one pic with glass of red liquid and nothing else?

 

No, it really does not.

 

I'm invoking rule 10 on you. Produce these "reports" or shut up.

 

http://www.google.com/

 

I searched the net and found nothing, only references to them. Produce the actual reports or shut your pie hole.

Here we have people making conclusions about their contents and have NEVER SEEN THEM. They just read something in a winger blog and repeat it ad nauseam like parrots.

 

The 'facts' according to the only man left standing............as he killed the other witness.

 

Here's the problem. The person attempting to break the law is the aggressor. According to your logic, in order for the law abiding citizen not to be punished like the would-be criminal, he must run away. Which ends the conflict. And thus the would-be criminal faces no consequences for encroaching on the innocent law abiding citizen because the crime has now been diffused before it could occur. So it actually makes more sense to be the criminal than the law abiding citizen. Because the aggressor doesn't have to run away. Only the victim does. Do you see the problem with that?

The truth is that you guys are just soft, and it hurts your feelings to see bad guys get hurt. So you try to rob the innocent of their right to defend themselves. That's all it boils down to.

 

Well if you think saying 'c--ns' is not racist then you live where it is normal to be racist.

Yes. The law has spoken. And I'm quite sure you always agree with the law. Right?

 

pssst.....its already been shown and proven by the FBI that Zimmerman never once used a racial slur....in other words, he never said what you are implying he said.

 

You are mistaken. It's neither your responsibility nor your right to enforce the law. Private citizens have neither the training, nor the resources, nor the experience to do so safely.

If you are confronted with suspected criminal activity you have many resources to rely on. You may call upon law enforcement, you may take civil action, you may even defend yourself violently — if you have no other recourse. But if you choose a violent response when other options exist there are legal consequences to your failing to handle the situation safely, to your choosing violence. And there should be.

The problem with stand your ground is it claims you should not be held accountable for the consequences of your failure to handle the situation safely. It argues you can take any action you choose in response to a crime, even taking someone's life. And that shouldn't be the case.

Stand your ground invites good intentioned soft headed people to jump into situations they cannot possibly handle when they should better rely on screened, trained, equipped experts in law enforcement. And that invitation is going to get some killed. Again.​

 

However, the voice guy the State actually wanted to use, said, George did not say coon. So.....