Trayvon Martin

[Nordling]

It's not about open-mindedness. People, when they make decisions about where they work, where they publish, where they write, need to take personal responsibility. If Charles Manson started an online magazine, would you give veracity to ANYONE who contributed? Not saying Beck is anywhere close to Manson but I'm using hyperbole to make a point.

Whether we like it or not, folks will judge YOU by whom you keep company with.

That's an interesting concept, basically judging a book by it's cover. I believe it is more important to be open minded and judge people upon personal experience along with their conduct over time. What about all the waiters and waitresses, office or home cleaning people, the people that are washing dishes or asking if you want fries with that? How many formerly well compensated, well educated people are taking any job that helps pay the bills? I guess they should be pre-judged too. I happen to believe judging people because of their political affiliation is just as ignorant as judging somebody by their skin color or job position.

Not what I'm saying. That someone is a conservative, and I am a progressive does not make me throw out his opinions and beliefs...although anyone would be dishonest to say it doesn't color your interpretations.

For instance, I truly believe Barry Goldwater was a patriotic American and I valued his opinion on many subjects. But if Barry had chosen to write articles in a magazine or other publication whose owner/founder was certifiably insane, I would have lost almost all respect for the man. Vetting and sourcing people is NOT "judging a book by its cover." It's common sense. It's impossible to read people's minds, much less know what is in their heart...so we do have to judge them by behavior in part, a person's behavior will have an effect on how much we trust their word.

If you were a Harvard law school graduate, had a degree in engineering from MIT and ran a world renowned hospice for poor kids, yes, you'd take that into account...but if the same person started having a regular column in Stormfront, I'd not trust anything he said...because in spite of his education, he'd joined the dark side.

A good example of this is William Shockely, the inventor of the transistor. Brilliant scientist but an insane racist to the core. I might trust his knowledge of solid state components but would ignore anything he said about sociology, e.g.

 

[Bocefish]

If you were a Harvard law school graduate, had a degree in engineering from MIT and ran a world renowned hospice for poor kids, yes, you'd take that into account...but if the same person started having a regular column in Stormfront, I'd not trust anything he said...because in spite of his education, he'd joined the dark side.

I would, indeed. :lol: I don't trust much of anything the media says, that's my point about having an open mind instead of rushing to judgement.

 

[SweepTheLeg]

I don't trust anything the media says unless what they say can be used to back up my personal opinions on the matter

 

[Nordling]

If you were a Harvard law school graduate, had a degree in engineering from MIT and ran a world renowned hospice for poor kids, yes, you'd take that into account...but if the same person started having a regular column in Stormfront, I'd not trust anything he said...because in spite of his education, he'd joined the dark side.

I would, indeed. :lol: I don't trust much of anything the media says, that's my point about having an open mind instead of rushing to judgement.

:lol: You do know that that sentence is self-contradictory? "don't trust...anything...media/open mind." The point is, and I would hope that's what you mean is to remain skeptical, no matter who says something, but still, we all use an "order of trust." We tend to trust things more that agree with our pre-conceived notions of course, but more importantly we should set our trust based on the record of the source and does what they say match to some degree what you glean from other, "trusted" sources? If CNN or MSNBC says something, does it match what the CBO says about the same subject (in cases where that information is available)? And, of course does it "ring" true. Does what is being said even SOUND possible, e.g.?

 

[Anonymous]

@Bocefish It's funny that right after I posted that picture of him in the cap and gown, you went and posted the gold teeth pic. Not that I'm surprised. You seem to be on a mission to defend Mr. Zimmerman and make him appear to be the victim.

 

[Anonymous]

My biggest disappointment in this whole matter is how so very many people do not revere another person’s life. Death is final.

I know. That's why I'm sickened by some of the posts in this thread. I'm hearing a bunch of excuses for this Zimmerman guy, and people slamming the deceased boy. Some people would rather make a big fuss about how Trayvon allegedly posed in some photos. OMG, a 17-year old is posing with his middle finger in the air...how COULD he? :roll: And I'm not convinced that's even him in the photo. Not that it should matter anyway.

I bet if it was their son/brother/nephew/cousin/grandson who was gunned down, they (the Zimmerman defenders) would be singing a totally different tune.

 

[Nordling]

Yeah, it surprises me to see someone say, "all the information isn't in yet so we shouldn't jump to conclusions," then they jump to their own conclusions. lol

 

[Jupiter551]

That's an interesting concept, basically judging a book by it's cover. I believe it is more important to be open minded and judge people upon personal experience along with their conduct over time. What about all the waiters and waitresses, office or home cleaning people, the people that are washing dishes or asking if you want fries with that? How many formerly well compensated, well educated people are taking any job that helps pay the bills? I guess they should be pre-judged too. I happen to believe judging people because of their political affiliation is just as ignorant as judging somebody by their skin color or job position.

Yeah but look at all these guys, yourself included it seems, saying it was somehow excusable to KILL a minor if he dresses a certain way, or gets a tattoo.

I don't know if that's his twitter or his facebook or he had gold-capped teeth or he used a screwdriver to break in places last year...

I do know it has NOTHING to do with shooting him, and has nothing to do with the likelihood of him supposedly attacking Mr Zimmerman from behind and then supposedly trying to beat him to death with his bare hands.

The kid (yes, kid) had no history of violence, hell had NO criminal history at all, and was walking home from a 711.

It's character assassination, and it's also based on race - if it was some white kid in an oversized basketball singlet, pants around his hips, listening to rap and even maybe dealing a little pot - it'd just be a matter of eyes rolling "oh he'll grow out of it, it's just a phase". Black kid does it and suddenly he's made out to be some kind of hardcore gangster.

 

[Bocefish]

Yeah but look at all these guys, yourself included it seems, saying it was somehow excusable to KILL a minor if he dresses a certain way, or gets a tattoo.

Look at these guys? Somehow now I consider it excusable to KILL a minor because of the way he dresses or gets a tattoo?

 

[Jupiter551]

Yeah but look at all these guys, yourself included it seems, saying it was somehow excusable to KILL a minor if he dresses a certain way, or gets a tattoo.

Look at these guys? Somehow now I consider it excusable to KILL a minor because of the way he dresses or gets a tattoo?

well I said it seems because you're bringing up his clothes, twitter etc - all stuff that bear no relation to the shooting

 

[Bocefish]

Yeah but look at all these guys, yourself included it seems, saying it was somehow excusable to KILL a minor if he dresses a certain way, or gets a tattoo.

Look at these guys? Somehow now I consider it excusable to KILL a minor because of the way he dresses or gets a tattoo?

well I said it seems because you're bringing up his clothes, twitter etc - all stuff that bear no relation to the shooting

Now I'm accused of killing a minor because he dressed a certain way. Where did I bring up the clothes he was wearing???

 

[Anonymous]

Where did I bring up the clothes he was wearing???

Right after I posted a beautiful childhood pic of him in his cap and gown, you had to be nasty and post a pic (on page 8 of this thread) of "Trayvon" wearing gold teeth and talking about how he allegedly had tattoos. No, they're not clothes. But they are accessories. I'm not even sure what the purpose was of you posting that picture. It's like you're intentionally being nasty and disrespectful. You're telling everybody to not rush to judgement, yet you're being very disrespectful towards a dead child. I posted the cap and gown pic just because I thought it was adorable seeing him in his earlier years. You posted that other pic (right after my post) because.....?

And, by the way, even Stevie Wonder can see that the kid in the "Wrong Trayvon" pic is someone different. Especially in the bottom picture. But I guess one might try to say that all of us "coons" look alike, right? :roll: No, that last remark's not directed at you, Bocefish. At least I HOPE you wouldn't think like that.....

 

[Harvrath]

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/30/george-zimmermans-brother-speaks-out-defends-sibling/

According to Zimmerman's brother and father, Trayvon was infact trying to kill Zimmerman and was reaching or had reached Zimmerman's firearm.

 

[Nordling]

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/30/george-zimmermans-brother-speaks-out-defends-sibling/

According to Zimmerman's brother and father, Trayvon was infact trying to kill Zimmerman and was reaching or had reached Zimmerman's firearm.

Key words: BROTHER and FATHER.

Of COURSE they're going to try to defend their son/brother! Neither of them were at the scene. Their testimony is without merit.

 

[Jupiter551]

I like how, while fighting for his life and having his head slammed into the pavement, with so little room to jam the gun that the shell can't even eject from the breach, the guy has enough time and control of the situation to flip the safety off.

 

[Harvrath]

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/30/george-zimmermans-brother-speaks-out-defends-sibling/

According to Zimmerman's brother and father, Trayvon was infact trying to kill Zimmerman and was reaching or had reached Zimmerman's firearm.

Key words: BROTHER and FATHER.

Of COURSE they're going to try to defend their son/brother! Neither of them were at the scene. Their testimony is without merit.

They were relaying George's words which have merit. Unless you contend guilty until proven innocent and the accused has no right to have their side told?

Zimmerman's account is so far consistent with his injuries, with several eyewitness accounts, and the state his handgun was found in. Nothing so far is consistent with the theory that Zimmerman walked up, drew his handgun and fired.

I like how, while fighting for his life and having his head slammed into the pavement, with so little room to jam the gun that the shell can't even eject from the breach, the guy has enough time and control of the situation to flip the safety off.

Zimmerman's handgun doesn't have a manual safety. Pull the trigger with a round in the chamber and it goes off. It is Double Action Only and its trigger pull is 5 pounds which is a safe position. This is something you would know if you bothered to do research instead of jumping to conclusions.

 

[LovinLeanne]

For all we know it's the fact that he felt vindicated that the law was on his side that he had the nerve to be chasing and then wrestling and shooting a person just walking around.

I just listened to a report on a study that drew a related conclusion. It showed that people who are armed have a tendency to be more suspicions of others being armed. I don't remember if they became more aggressive or not.

Certainly not everyone but yeah, I believe that some folks who carry heat are a little anxious to put it to use.

Well this is just my opinion but I think parties being armed actually causes aggression to escalate to the point where someone does something stupid and someone else ends up dead.

Here in Australia we have our share of fistfights, but most of the time both parties end up walking away feeling a little sillier. If they had guns in their belts though...who knows.

Like what crime was this Zimmerman jackass even trying to prevent? A break-in? Carrying a gun to deter break-ins? Dunno what it's like there but over here if a thief breaks in all they want is a few valuables and get the fuck out, not to murder the homeowner for a dvd player or whatever it is that's feared. On the other hand, if I were a thief living in a country where a homeowner could shoot me just for being there (despite the morality of being a thief, compared to death that;s kinda beside the point) you're damn right I'd carry a gun and if the homeowner pulled one on me I'd probably use it. Not because I'm a bloodthirsty psychopath but because if I don't he probably will.

See how that works? You have a gun so now I need a gun, and since I have a gun you need a law that says it's okay to shoot without provocation and if we're both carrying and one or both of us looks the wrong way at the other the end result is this :violence-pistoldouble: :violence-rambo:

I understand you guys are very protective of your gun laws, but what is the use of allowing CONCEALED weapons? Having a gun for your own self-defense on your property I can understand but what the hell would you want to go around carrying a concealed weapon for? If someone mugs you, and they have a gun or a knife you're as likely to get yourself killed drawing a weapon as you are likely to kill them. Just hand over your cellphone and wallet and let the police handle it. A few items aren't worth your life - or his.

Most of us (those in my community) have concealed weapons permits because we do not want to be driving around with our handguns/riffles/shot guns ect on our dashes. Prefer people to not see them. I of course live in country area where shit like this never happens and homicides maybe 1 every 5-10 years this man stalked that boy and I hope they hang his ass.

 

[LadyLuna]

One thing I'm still not clear on:

Why is it okay that Zimmerman approached this kid in the first place?

He was told that he didn't need to approach, and we all know that once you've alerted police to the fact that there might be a problem with another person, you're supposed to follow at a safe distance until they get there... that's supposed to just be "make sure you know where he is if his position changes so we can find him once we get to the area"

My argument here is that while Zimmerman's life might have been in danger when he pulled the trigger, he's the one who sparked the actions that put his life in danger. If he had not provoked Trayvon in the first place, Trayvon would not have attacked. Whether or not Trayvon actually DID attack is a moot point- Trayvon is dead because he was provoked into attacking someone who had a gun. I don't see how that's Trayvon's fault.

 

[Nordling]

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/30/george-zimmermans-brother-speaks-out-defends-sibling/

According to Zimmerman's brother and father, Trayvon was infact trying to kill Zimmerman and was reaching or had reached Zimmerman's firearm.

Key words: BROTHER and FATHER.

Of COURSE they're going to try to defend their son/brother! Neither of them were at the scene. Their testimony is without merit.

They were relaying George's words which have merit. Unless you contend guilty until proven innocent and the accused has no right to have their side told?

Zimmerman's account is so far consistent with his injuries, with several eyewitness accounts, and the state his handgun was found in. Nothing so far is consistent with the theory that Zimmerman walked up, drew his handgun and fired.

I like how, while fighting for his life and having his head slammed into the pavement, with so little room to jam the gun that the shell can't even eject from the breach, the guy has enough time and control of the situation to flip the safety off.

Zimmerman's handgun doesn't have a manual safety. Pull the trigger with a round in the chamber and it goes off. It is Double Action Only and its trigger pull is 5 pounds which is a safe position. This is something you would know if you bothered to do research instead of jumping to conclusions.

Several eyewitnesses? I've only heard of one who claims Trayvon was on top; the rest either couldn't tell or say Zimmerman was on top. And, yes, Zimmerman has a right to give his side...but why is he doing it second hand--through a fake "friend," lawyer, father, and brother? And if it's true that he was "out of breath and ALMOST UNCONSCIOUS" while someone was SITTING on top of him smacking his head against CONCRETE and yet he was able to somehow reach into a waistband holster, pull out a pistol, fire it once, killing the guy on TOP of him who ends up FACE DOWN IN THE GRASS WITH HIS FEET POINTING AT THE SIDEWALK?!

Zimmerman better stay in hiding a little longer--until he can make up a story that even makes sense.

 

[Nordling]

Two forensic voice experts says screaming is not Zimmerman's

Tom Owen, forensic consultant for Owen Forensic Services LLC and chair emeritus for the American Board of Recorded Evidence, used voice identification software to rule out Zimmerman. Another expert contacted by the Sentinel, utilizing different techniques, came to the same conclusion. [...]

Owen, a court-qualified expert witness and former chief engineer for the New York Public Library's Rodgers and Hammerstein Archives of Recorded Sound, is an authority on biometric voice analysis — a computerized process comparing attributes of voices to determine whether they match. [...]

"I took all of the screams and put those together, and cut out everything else," Owen says.

The software compared that audio to Zimmerman's voice. It returned a 48 percent match. Owen said to reach a positive match with audio of this quality, he'd expect higher than 90 percent.

"As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it's not Zimmerman," Owen says, stressing that he cannot confirm the voice as Trayvon's, because he didn't have a sample of the teen's voice to compare.

more
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...cation-expert-reasonable-scientific-certainty

 

[Jupiter551]

Zimmerman's handgun doesn't have a manual safety. Pull the trigger with a round in the chamber and it goes off. It is Double Action Only and its trigger pull is 5 pounds which is a safe position. This is something you would know if you bothered to do research instead of jumping to conclusions.

I don't need to research handguns to know that a fight - however it started - with an unarmed minor doesn't ever need to end with a bullet.

There's lots of speculation and few verified facts, however we do know that Zimmerman pursued the kid, was suspicious of the kid, was armed, believed the kid was on drugs or in some other way irrational, asked police to attend the scene before any apparent reason to do so.

Motive; compare the two. A 17 year old on the phone to his girlfriend after getting some skittles and ice tea from a 711 on his way back home to watch the rest of the game, and the self-appointed neighbourhood watch guy who was rejected from the police force, has a prior arrest for assaulting an officer, is walking around and pursuing people he feels are up to no good while carrying a loaded gun and telling the dispatcher "these guys always get away" right before getting out and following him.

Out of these two, which is more likely to attack? The kid talking to his girlfriend or the armed vigilante who is suspicious enough to have already called police (hell, he thinks he's some kind of deputy himself apparently).

Presumption of innocence? After an unarmed kid got fatally shot, there is no question who shot him. Where was Trayvon's presumption of innocence when he was walking around minding his own business? Zimmerman was armed and pursuing him with an assumption of guilt - he was suspicious enough to have called police.

Is it really so inconceivable that someone who calls police to respond to someone walking down the street at night is also unable to judge when a person is presenting a threat to life?

All the family want, and what they should absolutely get, is a thorough investigation. Not the kind of bullshit whitewashing that occurred with the lead investigator being blocked from arrest by the state attorney.

Even you, staunchly defending everything the guy has said and done Harvrath, must surely admit that any suspicious death deserves a thorough and open investigation - and that what little investigation there was needs to be reviewed. Police certainly have the capability to reconstruct the crime scene, witnesses or not, and having done so the lead investigator claimed Zimmerman's account didn't add up.

 

[Harvrath]

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/30/george-zimmermans-brother-speaks-out-defends-sibling/

According to Zimmerman's brother and father, Trayvon was infact trying to kill Zimmerman and was reaching or had reached Zimmerman's firearm.

Key words: BROTHER and FATHER.

Of COURSE they're going to try to defend their son/brother! Neither of them were at the scene. Their testimony is without merit.

They were relaying George's words which have merit. Unless you contend guilty until proven innocent and the accused has no right to have their side told?

Zimmerman's account is so far consistent with his injuries, with several eyewitness accounts, and the state his handgun was found in. Nothing so far is consistent with the theory that Zimmerman walked up, drew his handgun and fired.

I like how, while fighting for his life and having his head slammed into the pavement, with so little room to jam the gun that the shell can't even eject from the breach, the guy has enough time and control of the situation to flip the safety off.

Zimmerman's handgun doesn't have a manual safety. Pull the trigger with a round in the chamber and it goes off. It is Double Action Only and its trigger pull is 5 pounds which is a safe position. This is something you would know if you bothered to do research instead of jumping to conclusions.

Several eyewitnesses? I've only heard of one who claims Trayvon was on top; the rest either couldn't tell or say Zimmerman was on top. And, yes, Zimmerman has a right to give his side...but why is he doing it second hand--through a fake "friend," lawyer, father, and brother? And if it's true that he was "out of breath and ALMOST UNCONSCIOUS" while someone was SITTING on top of him smacking his head against CONCRETE and yet he was able to somehow reach into a waistband holster, pull out a pistol, fire it once, killing the guy on TOP of him who ends up FACE DOWN IN THE GRASS WITH HIS FEET POINTING AT THE SIDEWALK?!

Zimmerman better stay in hiding a little longer--until he can make up a story that even makes sense.

So, I take it you think this was an execution and Trayvon did nothing wrong whatsoever and is completely innocent in the entire affair? Then why was the Lead Investigator pushing for a Manslaughter Charge and not a Murder Charge. And the violation that Zimmerman is claimed to have committed is 'Unnecessary Killing To Prevent Unlawful Act' which means that Trayvon was engaged in unlawful behavior? And as for the Lead Investigator wanting charges, I chalk it up to the subjective nature of 'Reasonable Fear' and Self-Defense laws and the Lead Investigator Covering His Ass because he just knew this event was going to go national and wanted to come out smelling like roses.

Three things allowed Zimmerman to produce his weapon. Adrenaline is a hell of a drug, fight for your life is a hell of a way to get your mind focused and drawing your handgun is a simple act requiring no complex brain activity. I'm a permit holder, I handle my carry gun every single day. I take it out of my holster several times a day. I try to get a range session four times a year. I'm more familiar with my gun than a camgirl is with her sextoys. At a certain point, it is automatic and can be done in your sleep.

So, why was Trayvon found face-down in a position inconsistent with Zimmer's story? You are assuming a single gun-shot wound to the chest killed or incapacitated him instantly. Bullets are rarely instantly fatal, case in point Baby Face Nelson took several .45 caliber slugs to the stomach and chest from FBI Thompson Sub Machine Guns at The Battle of Barrington, but was able to limp over to FBI agents about a hundred feet a way, confirm his kills, limp back and didn't die for a few more hours. So, Trayvon gets shot, tries to stand, staggers and collapses face down in the position he was found in. A buddy of mine pulled the heart out of a buck. The buck ran about a hundred yards after he shot it. The Buck's heart was ripped apart by a .30-06 hollowpoint passing through it.

 

[LadyLuna]

I'm more familiar with my gun than a camgirl is with her sextoys.

So you've stuck your gun in every hole in your body (or at least attempted to), you know what it tastes like, smells like, and how long you can stand to have it in your various holes? You know how to clean it to the point where you won't get a UTI from putting it near your urinary tract? You know exactly how long it's safe to put it in your body for, and exactly when you'll have to throw it out because no amount of cleaning is going to get it clean enough for internal use?

 

[Bocefish]

1998 FLORIDA STATUTES
CHAPTER 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102.


If Trayvon Martin started the fight, as Zimmerman claims, and knocked Zimmerman down with the first punch, then continued to beat Zimmerman and bang his head on the pavement (which the injuries support), Zimmerman could easily have feared for his life. That being the case, when he drew his weapon and fired it would have been self-defense. That is the law in most states, and it was the law in Florida before there was a Stand Your Ground law.

If, on the other hand, Zimmerman started the fight but then Martin got the upper hand, once Zimmerman was on the ground, yelling for help and having his head beaten on pavement while he was being pummeled (supported by witnesses who identified Zimmerman as the one on the ground), Trayvon Martin at that point became the aggressor. George Zimmerman became the victim, and again, if he felt his life was in danger, could then have used deadly force. This is a part of self defense laws that people don’t seem to understand. You may use force, even deadly force in proper circumstances, to defend yourself, but only to the point that the threat is neutralized. Even if Zimmerman had followed Martin and attacked him first, once Zimmerman was no longer fighting back and not posing a threat to Martin, Martin was required to stop his beating and slamming of Zimmerman’s head on the pavement. He clearly did not, and thus would have become the aggressor at that point.
So even in the “George Zimmerman is the racial profiler who attacked Trayvon Martin for no reason” scenario, George Zimmerman still shot him in self defense.

The Stand Your Ground law only takes away the “duty to retreat,” which prosecutors are well known for abusing by charging people (especially shooters) who used deadly force to defend themselves or others with things like manslaughter by claiming that force was unnecessary because “you could have run.” Stand Your Ground has no application here. Zimmerman was on his back being beaten. How exactly would he have exercised a “duty to retreat” even if there had been one? Before Stand Your Ground, Zimmerman’s shooting was still permissible because retreat was not possible.

 

[SweepTheLeg]

So if only Trayvon had a gun, he could have defended himself and shot Zimmerman to death it'd have been okay BUT by using his bare hands defending himself against a man with a gun he was supposed to know when to stop? What was it that Harvath wrote? Adrenaline is a hell of a drug. And clearly he didn't have too much of an upper hand or the situation neutralized if Zimmerman was able to shoot and kill him.

 

[LadyLuna]

Some eye witnesses say Zimmerman was on top. Some say Zimmerman was on the ground. So we obviously can't go by what the eyewitnesses say.

Throwing out the eye witnesses, and anyone who wasn't there, what we have is:

-Zimmerman pursued Trayvon
-Zimmerman had a head wound and some grass stains
-Trayvon died of a bullet wound from Zimmerman's gun

There is no one arguing that Zimmerman didn't shoot Trayvon. Therefore, Zimmerman is NOT INNOCENT. The argument is currently whether or not Trayvon was innocent. Why the hell should a kid who's dead have to prove that he's innocent before his killer goes to jail?

All I see this being is an argument of how much jail time Zimmerman should get- Manslaughter or Murder?

EDITED TO ADD:

And those saying teh "bounty on Zimmerman's head" is overkill would be right if it were a bounty on his head. There's no bounty on his HEAD, there's a bounty on his CAPTURE. The difference in wording is important- they're not calling for Zimmerman's death, they're calling for evidence which leads to his arrest.

If they want to pay to get to the bottom of the truth, what's wrong with that?

 

[LadyLuna]

Double post cause I'mma switch sides for a moment:

It's a dark night. You're in your SUV, on the lookout for the fucker that keeps breaking into people's houses. You see someone walking alone down the street. He's eating something small and round out of a bag, and has something that looks like it could be used to break a window, and he's on the cell phone.

I'm not saying Zimmerman was right to shoot Trayvon, but I can see how when you're already looking for someone suspicious, that might look sketchy. Never mind that the things he saw were actually a bag of skittles and a soda- he wouldn't know that from his SUV. All he would know is something vaguely brick-shaped and something small from a bag.

 

[SweepTheLeg]

you stay in the SUV keep following him call the cops if you're that nervous this is the guy that is breaking into people's houses and worst that happens is this kid gets upset that a cop showed up to ask him questions of why he's doing there and what he's doing tonight. Once Zimmerman got out of his SUV and take business into his own hands though, what was Trayvon supposed to do? Okay Mr. Man with the gun take me into jail.

 

[Nordling]

Okay, Mr. Harvrath, we've got a Superman who takes a 9mm slug in the chest, then gets up and takes a bit of a walk, then gets tired and lies down, face down in the grass.

This is commonly called "horseshit."

I'd like to see a scientific confirmation of any case where a deer with a "shattered heart" continues to run around, also. I suggest your buddy is full of beans.

Legendary deaths of mobsters doesn't count as scientific evidence either. Do you also believe John Dillinger's dick is on display at the Smithsonian?

I still want to know how a man who'd "out of breath and ALMOST unconscious," lying on his back with someone sitting on his chest, beating his head against the sidewalk, somehow is able to reach around to his waistband, pull out a pistol, and somehow get it into position to accurately fire it into his assailant's chest who's SITTING ON HIM! According to Zimmerman's shill brother, this is what happened...and continued to happen--the beating--for "about a minute." Wow! They were BOTH SUPERMEN!

 

[Harvrath]

Okay, Mr. Harvrath, we've got a Superman who takes a 9mm slug in the chest, then gets up and takes a bit of a walk, then gets tired and lies down, face down in the grass.

This is commonly called "horseshit."

I'd like to see a scientific confirmation of any case where a deer with a "shattered heart" continues to run around, also. I suggest your buddy is full of beans.

Legendary deaths of mobsters doesn't count as scientific evidence either. Do you also believe John Dillinger's dick is on display at the Smithsonian?

I still want to know how a man who'd "out of breath and ALMOST unconscious," lying on his back with someone sitting on his chest, beating his head against the sidewalk, somehow is able to reach around to his waistband, pull out a pistol, and somehow get it into position to accurately fire it into his assailant's chest who's SITTING ON HIM! According to Zimmerman's shill brother, this is what happened...and continued to happen--the beating--for "about a minute." Wow! They were BOTH SUPERMEN!

Nordling, Hollywood is not a good source of information regarding anything in life.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf This is put out by the FBI. Handgun Wounding, Factors and Effectiveness.

Physiologically, no caliber or bullet is certain to incapacitate any individual unless the brain is hit. Psychologically, , some individuals can be incapacitated by minor or small caliber gun wounds. Those individuals who are stimulated by fear, adrenaline, drugs, alcohol and/or sheer will and survival determination may not be incapacitated even if mortally wounded. Emphasis added by me.

Is the FBI suddenly talking horse-shit? Look up the 1986 Miami Shoot-out. In short, one of the bad-guys was shot multiple times with handguns, including a round that stopped within an inch of his heart, had a collapsed lung containing over a liter of his own blood and was able to continue to fight for a couple of minutes and only stopped when a bullet bruised his spinal cord. The FBI lost 2 of 8 agents and most of the agents were armed with 9mms or revolvers in .38 Special or .357 Magnum. Following the incident, the FBI switched to 10mm Auto which is far more powerful because they thought the handgun calibers currently fielded did not have the stopping power..

Now, as for the ground-fight itself. Ludicrous. Boxers routinely take more punishment to the brain and continue to fight0. The history of war is littered with men who suffered far worse injuries and staying functional; Audie Murphy, Rodger Young and John Levitow being examples. First you claim one gun shot wound has to render Trayvon incapacitated despite zero evidence supporting said conclusion other than Hollywood fantasy about how guns operate and now you claim that Zimmerman's injuries should have rendered him unconscious and because he wasn't rendered unconscious he is therefore lying.

What is next? Cops beat Zimmerman up to cover for him?