Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« One And A Half Leaders | Main | I Almost Preferred No Explanation... »

April 25, 2012

Comments

Rick Ballard

Ishmael and Queequeg would be proud - solid strikes behind the flukes, there will be good blood in the next spout.

Jim Ryan

It doesn't look that bad, NLN. I think there needs to be caving in of the skull before a person can justifiably use lethal force to stop an attack. If part of your head is smashed in that's one thing. But just having it bashed real bad for a while isn't enough to just shoot someone. You need to say, "Okay, this person is smashing my head, but it's not that bad yet. If this guy so much as crosses one whit over the line to where my head is smashed in - not just smashed but in - then I'll go 'That's torn it!' and consider using lethal force. It's too cruel just to shoot people (especially black ones) and to think of the famous boxers who had broken noses and concussions - did they shoot anyone? Don't answer that! I know what you're thinking! The crime ones! But besides those, did they? No, they didn't. So, I'll look at the gentleman and say 'Buster, if you keep smashing my head, I'm probably going to get mad. I mean, okay, but a few more smashes and I'm going to be pretty ticked off and if you really really break my skull I'll be like." Is basically what you need to say. Unless you're Republican (violent, racist, anti-poor, everyone fend for himself, etc.)

narciso

'It's just a fleshwound' Jim, no worse than what Doug Piranha did on a daily basis.

Kathy Kattenburg

"as severe as he says they were"

"IF HE HAD THOSE INJURIES"

"But it doesn't matter what whe writes because it can change in the next sentence, then next minute or the next hour."

You are getting desperate, Boris. Those two phrases do not contradict each other.

NO_LIMIT_NIGGA

You tried that photo before and it's just as inadequate now as it was then. That photo is not only not any kind of proof of GZ's claimed injuries, it's laughable to say that it is. How do we know that's George Zimmerman from just a closeup of the back of the man's head? Is the blood real? When was the photo taken? Where was it taken? Who took it? How can you even have any trust at all in this photo, NO_LIMIT_NIGGA? DO you see that ABC NEWS EXCLUSIVE banner down there at the bottom. That means someone gave the photo to ABC News (and we don't even know who), and HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY TRUST ANY INFORMATION THAT COMES OUT OF THE MEDIA?

Try again. And again. And again. Throwing the same arguments and the same bullshit "evidence" that supposedly is such ironclad proof that GZ was being punched and pounded to death by TM that we don't even have to ask any questions, have a trial, or anything.

Jim Ryan

Exactly. Thousands of people die every day, but here's George Zimmerman getting all bent out of shape and shooting up anything that moves just because he gets his head smashed on the pavement for a while. A little perspective, George.

narciso

You got it, he would just come to your home, ask for a cup of tea, and then nail your head to the floor boards, and then talk about how Congee City, had never won the FA cup.

NO_LIMIT_NIGGA

I think there needs to be caving in of the skull before a person can justifiably use lethal force to stop an attack. If part of your head is smashed in that's one thing. But just having it bashed real bad for a while isn't enough to just shoot someone. You need to say, "Okay, this person is smashing my head, but it's not that bad yet. If this guy so much as crosses one whit over the line to where my head is smashed in - not just smashed but in - then I'll go 'That's torn it!' and consider using lethal force.

Well, Jim Ryan, now you're just being silly.

You need to understand that it's not even possible for you to actually suffer any injuries until after you've been put on trial and a jury renders its verdict.

Clarice

The Sanford Police Dept is known for the artistic head painting they do at crime scenes.

Listen guys, this is like wrestling a paraplegic.

NO_LIMIT_NIGGA

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/what-happened-trayvon-martin-explained

There is a lot of information on this page -- it's regularly updated with new information -- so if you're looking for stuff about the 911 tapes, you'll have to scroll down.
- Posted by: Kathy Kattenburg | April 27, 2012 at 09:22 PM

I posted a link to the most comprehensive source of information on the Trayvon Martin case that you will find anywhere on the Internet [an article at the Mother Jones website]
- Posted by: Kathy Kattenburg | April 27, 2012 at 11:08 PM

On the contrary, you posted a link to the far left wing Mother Jones site - about as trustworthy as a link to a Glenn Beck site would be.
Tom's blog here has been much more comprehensive, especially in its exhaustive debunking of the absolute merde you're still trying to shovel here.

- Posted by: NO_LIMIT_NIGGA | April 27, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Tom's site had an entire post on the topic here when the photo was released. Even Glenn Beck's site had an timely piece on the topic here.

In contrast, the Mother Jones source that Kathy relies on for all of her information doesn't bother to mention the photographic proof of the bloody head injuries Zimmerman sustained that ABC found. In fact, I didn't see anywhere on the entire Mother Jones site that even acknowledged the existence of that evidence.

Rick Ballard

Jim,

If you listen to the eyewitnesses statement concerning Zimmerman screaming as he lay pinned beneath Martin you might change your mind. The eyewitness was so concerned about Zimmerman's suffering that he actually called 911. In doing so he missed NO_LIMIT's crossing of the 9mm line beyond which no further damage could be inflicted but his account suggests a situation in which reasonable fear was appropriately reduced.

You also need to remember that this is now black on black - perhaps you just wouldn't understand?

narciso

THat's why I'm resorting to Python references,
pray I don't to Spinal Tap,

Jim Ryan

I think the eyewitness acted stupidly, Rick. Every time there's some disagreement about something, these people call 911. Or are we sure that he wasn't calling 911 because he feared Zimmerman might overreact to the beating and harm Martin? That might be reasonable.

NO_LIMIT_NIGGA

You tried that photo before and it's just as inadequate now as it was then.

I also linked to the police report, again, which still includes this information from officer Timothy Smith:

"While I was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe that his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and back of his head."

But yes, if you ignore the police reports, the witness statements, the photographic evidence, the video evidence, the statements and documents offered by O'Mara at the bond hearing, etc. I agree there is no evidence that Zimmerman was injured.

And really, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Jim Ryan

Martin was a cruel man, there's no getting around that. But he was fair. Has anyone said he wasn't fair? Zimmerman was racially profiling him, as has been established by the 911 transcript. He needed to be punished for that, perhaps not with a beating but just jailtime. But I admit Martin was a cruel man.

No matter how you slice it, Martin had Zimmerman dead to rights and was really giving him what he deserved. Then Zimmerman steered the situation out of control. These are the plain facts, there's no getting around it.

Jim Ryan

Zimmerman: mentoring black youth. Should we be surprised that a child predator (a fact now established by the killing of Martin) will try to put himself in a situation where he has access to children? No, this guy was one bad apple, this Zimmerman. A killer. A child predator. Disgusting.

narciso

You're right, what was I thinking, the scary thing about that clip was the fool that didn't
get the joke,

Rick Ballard

Jim,

Very good points. We must allow, though, the possibility that Zimmerman had been exposed to typical Old Dead White Male thinking and, in the end, referred to Aristotle's famous "Or to take arms against a sea of troubles And by opposing end them." (That's a rough translation from the original archaic Belgian.)

If that be the case, then surely Zimmerman deserves an apology and reparations from every white man who still dares to breathe.

Clarice

Jim's on a roll, narciso.

Niters.

Jim Ryan

Has anyone noticed a parallel between what Zimmerman did and various other conservative historical atrocities? I remember reading about the atrocities committed against the Indians. Has anyone called Elizabeth Warren get her comment on the killing of Martin in light of its resemblance to the atrocities committed against her people?

narciso

That's what happens when you insist on Buddhism, 'a philosophy where everyone is in for themselves,' instead of joining 'the London Underground' the predecessor to the Occupy movement. But tomorrow is May Day
'down with the running dog capitalists'

narciso

Clearly, Jim, and can't the Salem Witch Trials
be considered the predecessor to the 'War on Women' and it all start with Tituba, it all makes sense now.

bgates

I'm concerned about the epidemic of police misconduct we've uncovered here. Every day, police across the country follow suspects, talk to them, place them under arrest, and even use physical force against them based on nothing more than themselves and other policemen observing and creating official reports about alleged "victims" "bleeding", when as we've all just learned the observations of a police officer have no more to do with determining the truth than a fart in the sunshine.

narciso

Truly, besides redistribution from the one percent to their proper owners, is only fair,
it is only false consciousness that convinces
the bourgeoisie, to rally against their own
class interests,

Rick Ballard

bgates,

The obvious failure of the police is merely a symptom of the far greater disease afflicting the general population. How much longer can we, as a society, endure if we continue to rely upon our lying eyes rather than wait for the issuance of a proper interpretation from a reliable and unbiased source such as Mother Jones? This reliance upon sensory input and ratiocination without appropriate filtration will be the end of us.

Kathy Kattenburg

"... just because he gets his head smashed on the pavement for a while."

1. When you put it that way -- "he GETS his head," etc. -- you make it sound like it's a proven fact. It isn't a proven fact. Zimmerman SAID he got his head smashed on the pavement." I know you accept his word on faith, with no proof or evidence-testing necessary, but I do not.

2. Look at it this way. IF Zimmerman did get his head smashed on the pavement," he will get a chance to argue that to a jury of his peers in a courtroom. Trayvon Martin, on the other hand, will not be in that courtroom to tell his side of the story. Me, I think George Zimmerman got the better part of the deal.

narciso

False consciousness, made this sad relic of the dependency process, ignore class and race
solidarity, despite his failed attempts to
join the local constabulary, he insisted on upholding the unjust system of property relations, and even now he hasn't learned his
lesson, despite possible immiseration,

narciso

Clearly he was replicating the pattern of criminality, disguised by the illegal and immoral Vietnam war, one might even consider
that condominium complex, a strategic hamlet
of sorts.

Beasts of England

KK@4:15 - 'Zimmerman had a concealed handgun and he shot to death a teenage boy who was unarmed, no weapon at all. Under those circumstances, there is enough probable cause to arrest Zimmerman, regardless of his self-defense claims.'

Mulligan, ma'am?

Beasts of England

Clarice@5:21 - 'Those Louboutins are in reaching distance.'

Will contribute to the cause. (kinda kidding...) Wish I knew how to load a picture - I would share a lovely one for you and Ignatz.

narciso

You're ignoring the greater economic forces, that determine social relations in this country, Beasts,

narciso

All right, that was quite painful, but I think I illustrated the absurdity of the whole exercise,

Beasts of England

Point made, narciso - on May Day, no less. How could I oppress so many? Guilt ensues.

Have Blue

The state must show beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is guilty.

They have admitted under oath in court that they do not have enough evidence to show even probable cause for the charge they made.

Have Blue

1. When you put it that way -- "he GETS his head," etc. -- you make it sound like it's a proven fact. It isn't a proven fact. Zimmerman SAID he got his head smashed on the pavement." I know you accept his word on faith, with no proof or evidence-testing necessary, but I do not.

There is Zimmerman's statement.

There is the statement (made under penalty of perjury) of a civilian eye witness who saw part of the attack.

There is the statement (made under yada yada yada)(not released to the public yet) of the first responder medic who treated Zimmerman. (This is referenced in the police report.)

There is the direct statement of the police officer in his report of Zimmerman's injuries.

There is the photo taken by a civilian which was released to the public. (Shown above.)

There are the photos taken by police at the scene. (One of these was referenced by an elderly, black, female neighbor of Zimmerman, who stated that police showed her a photo of Zimmerman with an obviously broken nose in order to verify his ID.)

There are Zimmerman's medical records (famously not checked by the very special Prosecutor) but offered by Zimmerman's lawyer at the bond hearing.

Any one have any other "Non-existent evidence" of injuries to Zimmerman to educate Kathy with?

Have Blue

The Sanford Police did a complete investigation and found no probable cause for any charges, even a mere reckless discharge of a firearm.

Now the state in the person of the very special Prosecutor wants the Sanford Police to be gagged by the court to prevent them from talking about the travesty of justice they have set up.

Will we see the police and detectives who investigated this case all called as defense witnesses?

Sara

Kathy: A cell phone certainly is a weapon. You can split someone's head with one, hit them in the eye with a cell in your hand and you can take out an eye, hit them in the mouth and they are likely to be swallowing their front teeth, hit them in the nose and you can break their nose.

Can you agree that the clock starts on this case the moment Trayvon punched George in the face and laid him out on the ground?

Oh, and somewhere at the top of the previous page you were saying George had no right to be watching out for his home community as a citizen or as a Watchman. This is bogus. Every citizen has the right to make a citizen's arrest and hold a suspect for the police. George wasn't trying to arrest Trayvon, he was trying to determine what a strange young man was doing wandering around in a sketchy manner. Trayvon was not a resident, he was there as a short term visitor, we do not even know for sure that he was staying there as it was his Dad's girlfriend's place. For all we know he was there just for the evening. In any event, any neighbor would have the right to question a person acting suspiciously and even more so in a complex that had suffered a rash of burglaries and home invasions by young blacks.

Lastly, you said that GZ had no right to shoot Trayvon. Let me asked you this ... had GZ not acted to protect himself from grave bodily harm or death, would you say that Trayvon had the right to attack and kill or maim GZ, because that is what you are saying you preferred to happen. When it got down to a him or me moment, which one had the right?

Sara

Kathy: Why do you keep saying he called 911 to report a suspicious person? He did not. He called the nonemergency line, which is an entirely different number. I don't know about Sanford but out here it is a regular seven digit phone number.

You think I'm kidding.

A jury of Kathy's peers would look at George Zimmerman on the stand, see him appear uninjured, and determine, as a matter of fact, that the pictures, eyewitnesses, police and medical reports were a conspiracy to create a racist narrative.
=====================

Abadman not Abadan

"Funny, I thought it was guilt not innocence that required "UNAMBIGUOUS" proof."

Yeah, that's done in this antiquated, quaint little practice called A TRIAL.

You miss the point. You are presenting a narrative. Yes Zimmerman was armed and Martin was not. Yes Zimmerman followed Martin for some unknown amount if time. Yes Zimmerman shot Martin. That is about it. There is no unambiguous proof Zimmerman murdered Martin. There is a narrative Zimmerman murdered Martin.
You said yourself the skittles and tea do not really matter. They do not except to the narrative. Teenager and boy to describe Martin, relative size matters more but infantilizing Martin adds to the narrative. Murderer to describe Zimmerman... Narrative.

So it is funny, you require unambiguous proof beyond photos, police reports, and witness statements, that Zimmerman was injured. But have no unambiguous proof that Zimmerman is a murderer. Yet you continue to use the term. Shooting an unarmed man is not by definition murder.


The quaint little practice of A TRIAL (my you like to yell) is required to prove guilt not innocence hence the verdict not guilty as opposed to innocent. At any point in the process Zimmerman can be deemed not guilty or even innocent without a trial because innocence is the default position of our system.

So here you flip the whole thing around. Zimmerman's innocence must be proven unambiguously. This is not justice it is a lynching.

Jim Ryan

Okay, but there was no evidence evidence. Know what I mean? Like, "Okay, yup, he definitely got his head smashed" evidence.

Primitive JUSTICE.

Heh, Kathy would burn witches.
================

narciso

I was parodying this perspective earlier,


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/30/ows-leader-questions-representative-government-cites-marx

Kathy Kattenburg

"Why do you keep saying he called 911 to report a suspicious person? He did not. He called the nonemergency line, which is an entirely different number."

I keep saying that because that's how it's referred to in every piece of writing about the case.

Having said that, are you for real? I mean, WTF? What difference does it make which phone number it was? He said what he said whatever the number was.

You people are just unbelievable.

cathyf

This is a really small point, but Trayvon Martin was NOT unarmed. He had TWO arms, each one of which had a fist at the end, and each one of which which he was using to commit the crimes of assault and attempted murder.

Kathy Kattenburg

"At any point in the process Zimmerman can be deemed not guilty or even innocent without a trial because innocence is the default position of our system."

Okay, so what you appear to be suggesting, then, is that *anyone*, not just Zimmerman, can be deemed not guilty or innocent of any crime without any legal process. Innocent until proved guilty IS the default position of our society, but that principle is one piece of a legal process that seeks to determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether that person is guilty of said crime. It does not mean unilaterally and arbitrarily declaring that a person charged with a crime can just be declared innocent and released to go about their business. I mean, I'm assuming you would not have taken this attitude if the police or the prosecutor in the O.J. case had just dropped all charges because "at any point in the process" any person "can be deemed not guilty or even innocent without a trial because innocence is the default position of our system."

"Zimmerman's innocence must be proven unambiguously."

Actually, I never said that. You are either a liar or you can't read. I have disagreed with your assertions that Zimmerman's side of the story is the truth, and factual, without any physical evidence that UNAMBIGUOUSLY confirms that story. I used the word "ambiguous" about the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that you say exonerates Zimmerman. I did not use the word "unambiguous" to refer to Zimmerman's guilt or innocence.

"This is not justice it is a lynching."

Really. Has Zimmerman been found hanging from the branches of a tree? THAT would be a lynching. Only in the bizarro universe inhabited by Just One Minute readers does a trial by a jury of one's peers constitute a "lynching."

Annoying Old Guy

Ms. Kattenburg;

so what you appear to be suggesting, then, is that *anyone*, not just Zimmerman, can be deemed not guilty or innocent of any crime without any legal process

No. You're conflating "trial" and "legal process". Being investigate by the police and by the local prosecutor is part of the legal process.

The actual claim being made is that the legal process of police investigation and review by the local prosecutor was a legal process that determined insufficient evidence to support a trial.

As for unambiguous evidence, despite the massive repetition, you still don't seem aware that Zimmerman's self defense immunity requires only a "preponderance" of evidence that his story is accurate, not "unambiguous" or "beyond a reasonable doubt". The consensus here is that the preponderance standard is met because there is evidence supporting Zimmerman's story, and none that dispute it. In slim to none, slim is the preponderance.

NO_LIMIT_NIGGA

I keep saying that because that's how it's referred to in every piece of writing about the case.

Having said that, are you for real? I mean, WTF? What difference does it make which phone number it was? He said what he said whatever the number was.

In other words, Kathy's merely repeating the misinformation and disinformation that she's read in the left-wing echo chamber sources she's chosen to limit herself to.

And despite having her lies repeatedly pointed out to her (in this thread and others) she refuses to correct them, because to Kathy, WTF? What difference does it make whether she's spreading lies or telling the truth?

Kathy Kattenburg

"As for unambiguous evidence, despite the massive repetition, you still don't seem aware that Zimmerman's self defense immunity requires only a "preponderance" of evidence that his story is accurate, not "unambiguous" or "beyond a reasonable doubt". The consensus here is that the preponderance standard is met because there is evidence supporting Zimmerman's story, and none that dispute it. In slim to none, slim is the preponderance."

1. If the evidence claimed to support Zimmerman's self-defense claim is not convincing, is that okay, as long as there's a "preponderance" of unconvincing evidence?

2. That is a lie. The evidence that you say supports Zimmerman's claim that he had to kill Trayvon Martin to save his own life does not support Zimmerman's claim that he had to kill Trayvon Martin to save his own life.

"... and none that dispute it."

Not true. The fact that Martin was unarmed, and the bullet in his heart are two key pieces of evidence that dispute Zimmerman's claim. What Zimmerman said to the 911 dispatcher is also evidence that disputes his claim that Martin was the aggressor.

NO_LIMIT_NIGGA

Not true. The fact that Martin was unarmed, and the bullet in his heart are two key pieces of evidence that dispute Zimmerman's claim.

It is a lie to say these two key pieces of evidence dispute Zimmerman's claim that Martin assaulted him, hit him in the face breaking his nose, then slammed his head repeatedly into the ground until Zimmerman finally shot Martin in self-defense.

Zimmerman did not claim that Martin used a weapon to break his nose or to bash his head against the sidewalk, nor did Zimmerman claim he did not use his gun shoot Martin because he was in fear for his life.

On the contrary, these "two key pieces of evidence" are perfectly consistent with Zimmerman's claim of self-defense, as is every other piece of evidence that is currently available for review.

Annoying Old Guy
If the evidence claimed to support Zimmerman's self-defense claim is not convincing, is that okay, as long as there's a "preponderance" of unconvincing evidence?

Yes, if there is no other evidence. What should be done, just make up stuff? Oh, wait, that is what you have been doing. Never mind!

NO_LIMIT explains the failure of your other point. I would just note that your "counter evidence" disputes all claims of self defense, including valid ones. However, it is in fact legal to use lethal force in self defense. If you don't like that get the laws changed.

I do find this a fascinating study in the type of thinking Kattenburg uses. I encounter it often elsewhere and I am trying to build a model of it. This data gathering experiment has been quite informative.

Kathy Kattenburg

"It is a lie to say these two key pieces of evidence dispute Zimmerman's claim that Martin assaulted him, hit him in the face breaking his nose, then slammed his head repeatedly into the ground until Zimmerman finally shot Martin in self-defense."

It is CLAIMED by Zimmerman that Martin did those things. And neither Zimmerman nor the police nor anyone else have provided evidence that CONVINCINGLY SHOWS that those claims are accurate.

And the fact that Martin was unarmed and Zimmerman was armed, plus the fact that Martin was only 17 and Zimmerman ten years older, casts doubt on Zimmerman's claims, especially since Zimmerman shot him using a weapon that Martin did not have. Zimmerman had the advantage in every way. THAT is why Zimmerman's claims for the kind of injuries he says Martin inflicted on him are so improbable. And as I said, no evidence has been presented to date that convincingly show Zimmerman's claims even MIGHT be true.

In particular, your reference to Martin have BROKEN ZIMMERMAN'S NOSE: There is no evidence AT ALL to date that supports that -- not even unconvincing evidence -- unless you believe that noses are located on the back of the head.

"However, it is in fact legal to use lethal force in self defense."

Again, and as I have said a zillion times, the fact that it's legal to use lethal force in self-defense is completely beside the point. THE CLAIM THAT THE LETHAL FORCE WAS USED IN SELF-DEFENSE MUST BE SUPPORTED BY CONVINCING EVIDENCE. The Florida law goes well beyond allowing lethal force in self-defense. The Florida law says that if one person kills another and says he did it in self-defense, out of a reasonable fear that he was in danger of death or severe bodily injury, all he has to do is tell the police that and he gets the get out of jail free card. Using lethal force in self-defense is one thing, and that principle was well-established in existing law before any Stand Your Ground law was passed. Using the argument that you acted in self-defense with no obligation to demonstrate that you did, and as long as you tell the police you acted in self-defense they have to take your word for it and let you go, is quite another.

Kathy Kattenburg

"Zimmerman did not claim that Martin used a weapon to break his nose or to bash his head against the sidewalk,

This is not the point. Even if there were NO evidence to dispute Zimmerman's claim (and there is such evidence, but EVEN IF there were not) you can't claim that I assaulted you, punched you in the nose, broke your nose, knocked you to the ground, and pounded your head into the pavement, and have that claim accepted, simply because there is no evidence to prove you didn't. You have to demonstrate, using credible evidence, that I *did* do those things to you.

"nor did Zimmerman claim he did not use his gun shoot Martin because he was in fear for his life."

I have no idea what this means. Zimmerman did not claim that he did not use his gun to shoot Martin because he was in fear for his life -- what does that mean?

NO_LIMIT_NIGGA

And the fact that Martin was unarmed and Zimmerman was armed, plus the fact that Martin was only 17 and Zimmerman ten years older, casts doubt on Zimmerman's claims,

This is a lie.

Can you point out where:
* Zimmerman claims Martin was armed?
* Zimmerman claims he was not armed?
* Zimmerman claims that Martin was not younger than he was?

Because unless Zimmerman actually made any of those claims, none of the bullshit you keep repeating casts any doubt whatsoever on Zimmerman's claims.

(I'll be over here continuing to point and laugh at you while you desperately crawl through the "comprehensive" Mother Jones website hoping to scrounge up a new set of talking points.)

NO_LIMIT_NIGGA

Kathy, I realize you're stupid and dishonest and unteachable, but I will still give you this bit of advice: when you screech XXXXX casts doubt on Zimmerman's claim!, then to be taken seriously there must have actually been a claim made by Zimmerman which is in opposition to whatever XXXXX is.

Kathy Kattenburg

"This is a lie.

Can you point out where:
* Zimmerman claims Martin was armed?
* Zimmerman claims he was not armed?
* Zimmerman claims that Martin was not younger than he was?"

Can you point out where:
* I said that Zimmerman claims Martin was armed?
* I said that Zimmerman claims he, Zimmerman, was not armed?
* I say that Zimmerman claims Martin was not younger than he was?

Where is the lie?

What casts doubt on Zimmerman's claims is that he has not provided, nor have the police provided, any convincing evidence to show that they are true.

"when you screech XXXXX casts doubt on Zimmerman's claim!, then to be taken seriously there must have actually been a claim made by Zimmerman which is in opposition to whatever XXXXX is."

Zimmerman has claimed that Martin assaulted him, punched him, broke his nose, knocked him to the ground, and pounded his head into the pavement. Yet he has provided no convincing evidence to show this actually happened, and the fact that Martin had no weapon and Zimmerman had a handgun, and that Martin was only a teenager and Zimmerman a fully grown adult, makes a reasonable person (which excludes you, of course) wonder whether it seems credible that Zimmerman was in such fear for his life that he had to shoot Martin. And in the absenc of ANY convincing evidence that Zimmerman is telling the truth, there is (was) probable cause to arrest him, file charges against him, and bring him to trial.

Kathy Kattenburg

"Kathy, I realize you're stupid and dishonest and unteachable, but I will still give you this bit of advice:"

Wow, I really must be getting under your skin if you're calling me stupid, dishonest, and unteachable. Consider for a microsecond the possibility that in reality, it's the reverse.

Ignatz

Off

NO_LIMIT_NIGGA

Chocolate Easter bunnies are delicious, which casts doubt on Zimmerman's claim that dinosaurs are cool.

Over 1 million people live in New York City, which casts doubt on Zimmerman's claim that California has the best surf spots.

Dick Clark recently died, which casts doubt on Zimmerman's claim that the Packers deserved to win the Superbowl.

etc.

Kathy Kattenburg

I know, Ignatz. I forgot to put in end bold code in one comment, and then in the next comment I posted, the bold was still there, even though it was a new comment and there was no code that I could see.

But, now, I just Previewed this one, and it looks okay.

Kathy Kattenburg

"Over 1 million people live in New York City"

Over 8 million people live in New York City.

NO_LIMIT_NIGGER

roflmao

About the level of response I would expect from someone whose earlier complaint was along the lines of "You know nothing of the Socratic method! All you do is keep asking me questions!"

Ignatz

--I know, Ignatz. I forgot to put in end bold code in one comment, and then in the next comment I posted, the bold was still there, even though it was a new comment and there was no code that I could see.--

An open tag stays open through new comments until it's closed.
No biggie.

Ignatz

--But, now, I just Previewed this one, and it looks okay.--

Sorry I missed this comment.
Your new one was OK cause I closed the open tag with the "Off" comment.
If you leave a tag open just make a new comment such as "Off" and insert three or four closed tags just to ensure they're all turned off.

jimmyk

Wow, still going. KK is like the everready bunny, only not as smart.

The evidence that you say supports Zimmerman's claim that he had to kill Trayvon Martin to save his own life does not support Zimmerman's claim that he had to kill Trayvon Martin to save his own life.

1. Please point to a source that shows that Zimmerman claimed he had to kill Trayvon to save his own life. Hint for the retarded: That is not the standard for self-defense immunity. As I told you once before, to prevent "great bodily harm" or "the commission of a forcible felony" is all that is required.

2. Given that standard, no such claim is necessary for Zimmerman's defense.

you can't claim that I assaulted you, punched you in the nose, broke your nose, knocked you to the ground, and pounded your head into the pavement, and have that claim accepted, simply because there is no evidence to prove you didn't. You have to demonstrate, using credible evidence, that I *did* do those things to you.

You mean like a police report that Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose, the back of the head, and appeared to have been lying on his back? The eyewitness that had Zimmerman on the ground yelling for help, getting beaten up by the guy who ended up dead? The photograph of Zimmerman bleeding from the back of the head?

Give it up already, it's gotten really boring. Every post you make only further demonstrates your stupidity, viz:

"Over 1 million people live in New York City"

Over 8 million people live in New York City.

I guess math isn't your strong point either. What is?

Kathy Kattenburg

"Sorry I missed this comment.
Your new one was OK cause I closed the open tag with the "Off" comment."

Oh my gosh really? I never knew that. I thought your OFF was just a reminder to turn off the bold.

Thank you for the tip!

Kathy Kattenburg

""Over 1 million people live in New York City"

Over 8 million people live in New York City.

I guess math isn't your strong point either. What is?"

LOL! The ability to read? Or maybe just the ability to absorb basic facts?

Ahhhh wait a minute. I think I know what this is about.

"The New York City metropolitan area has over 8 million people."

Better?

Kathy Kattenburg

"You mean like a police report that Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose, the back of the head, and appeared to have been lying on his back? The eyewitness that had Zimmerman on the ground yelling for help, getting beaten up by the guy who ended up dead? The photograph of Zimmerman bleeding from the back of the head?"

I told you what is wrong about what you've written above about 57 zillion times, in this thread alone. If you didn't get the memo those first 57 zillion times, you won't get it the 57 zillionth and one time, either.

Kathy Kattenburg

"Please point to a source that shows that Zimmerman claimed he had to kill Trayvon to save his own life. Hint for the retarded: That is not the standard for self-defense immunity. As I told you once before, to prevent "great bodily harm" "

Or to prevent great bodily harm. I've said "to save his own life or avoid great bodily harm." I have used those words, maybe less than 57 zillion times -- oh, let's say 7 zillion times. If I type "to save his own life" and neglect to add "or grave bodily harm" one time, it doesn't mean you have somehow caught me in a lie or an inconsistency. And it also doesn't follow that because "grave bodily harm is also part of the standard, that Zimmerman had to kill Martin to avoid that. Regarding the "forcible felony" part, please provide a link to the FL statute so I can check whether those words are actually there. I don't really know what a "forcible felony" would be unless it's any use of force whatsoever.

Sara

It is CLAIMED by Zimmerman that Martin did those things. And neither Zimmerman nor the police nor anyone else have provided evidence that CONVINCINGLY SHOWS that those claims are accurate.

But there is such evidence. There is a police report detailing Zimmerman's injuries, there is an eye witness who saw Martin inflicting such injuries on Zimmerman, their are photos of the injuries, and a doctor's report on treating such injuries, and there is the sound of Zimmerman screaming for help on an actual 911 call, made during the attack by Martin on Zimmerman.

Also, there is a difference between calling 911 and getting a police dispatcher who is going to immediately take action on a legitimate emergency, such as dispatching officers to the scene and a non-emergency line where in many jurisdictions (don't know about Sandford) these lines are manned by civilian dispatchers and are really nothing more than information lines and not likely to generate a call for officers to respond quickly, if at all.

And Kathy, you do realize that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove a crime was committed by the person charged beyond a reasonable doubt. When a defendant claims self defense, he has a burden by preponderance to show that he was acting in fear of death or grave bodily injury.

There is no dispute that Zimmerman shot Trayvon, he admits it and there are witnesses to confirm this. The dispute is whether this shooting was a crime. Zimmerman disputes it was a crime as he had no other choice at the time he pulled the trigger. The police and the DA agreed that he had no other choice and therefore there was no crime.

Enter the mob and Corey and suddenly it is they who are claiming that the police, the DA, the witnesses, the evidence and Zimmerman are all wrong, yet it is they who refuse to present ANY evidence to support their claim. Their lack of evidence has convinced you, but it doesn't convince those who actually think the law is the law.

boris

"I don't really know what a "forcible felony" would be ..."

Pretty sure rape would qualify. How severe do the injuries have to be to use a gun to stop a rape?

Gus

I think we should SMASH male troll Kathy Kittykattenburgermeistermeisterburgers fat head into the pavement as a test.
Like the TOOTSIE POP commercial, how many SMASHES does KITTYKATHY take before she reaches for her .9mm Samsung cell phone or her Ipad to call the Police.

MJW

Ahhhh wait a minute. I think I know what this is about.

I don't think you know what it's about. The fact that over 8 million people live in New York City doesn't contradict the fact that over 1 million people live in New York City. In fact, it pretty much proves it.

Kathy Kattenburg

"Please point to a source that shows that Zimmerman claimed he had to kill Trayvon to save his own life."

Oh and I forgot to address this. Zimmerman said he feared for his own life and that's why he shot Martin. If Zimmerman did not feel that his life was in danger, or that he had to kill Trayvon to save his own life, then why did he kill him?

"Hint for the retarded: That (i.e., to save one's life) is not the standard for self-defense immunity."

Hint for the *retarded*? Okay. I'd thought of using that word several times in this thread, but I thought it would be crossing a line because of the implied insult to people who actually are mentally challenged. But maybe I was wrong about that.

But whatever.... You are mistaken if you intend to say that saving one's life is not the standard for self-defense immunity. I said this before. And before. And before. The entire point of these Stand Your Ground and/or Your Home Is Your Castle laws is that THEY REMOVE THE DUTY TO RETREAT if there is a reasonable possibility that you can. The regular self-defense immunity that has ALWAYS existed in homicide cases does not allow people to shoot anyone they please for any reason they please and then claim they had to do it to avoid death or severe bodily harm. That is essentially what the FL Stand Your Ground law allows people to do.

And of course, beyond the above, there is also the point, which I also have mentioned before, that Trayvon Martin had the same right to use lethal force in defense of his life or to prevent grave bodily harm that Zimmerman had. And considering that Zimmerman was the one who picked the fight by following Martin in the first place when he wasn't doing anything wrong or illegal (and when according to neighborhood watch guidelines, he wasn't even supposed to follow or confront), Martin's right to defend himself is if anything even clearer. And I don't see the logic of saying that Zimmerman had the right to kill Trayvon Martin in self-defense but Trayvon Martin did not have the right to use non-lethal force (punching, hitting, etc. -- IF HE DID DO THAT) to defend HIMself. I don't know why you all think the right of self-defense only went one way in this case.

Kathy Kattenburg

OFF

MJW

Two dropped tags in a row? Bad Kathy!

jimmyk

Nor does the additional information content of "over 8 million" versus "over 1 million" alter in any way NO_LIMIT's point.

From the Florida statute: "Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault... and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

Oops.

Kathy Kattenburg

I know, MJW. Mea culpa. I was very annoyed with myself when I saw that.

Kathy Kattenburg

Umm, the link to the statute, jimmyk?

Gus

KattyKlownburg is a guy. I mean Umm KattyKlownburg is a guy.

Sara

Kathy, Kathy: It was Martin who approached Zimmerman. It was Martin who was the aggressor. It was Martin who attacked without provocation. It was Martin!

Why can you not get that one simple fact thru the mist of your mind?

Zimmerman was not in the act of "following" at the time of attack.

And had Martin not died, he would be in jail right now facing charges of assault and battery and Zimmerman would have been the prosecution's chief witness to prove the case against Martin.

Also, George Zimmerman had two rights here that Martin did not enjoy. First, GZ lived in the complex, TM did not, and GZ was appointed by his neighbors to be the Neighborhood Watch Captain to look out for their safety and the safety of their homes. TM was the interloper. It was GZ's responsibility to "watch" the TMs who came on the premises acting suspiciously. As both a resident, a watch captain, and a private citizen, GZ had every right to question TM's presence there. Had TM not been a punk, he would have introduced himself and explained he was visiting the home of his Dad's girlfriend. Instead, he chose to commit a felony and attack GZ.

Can you explain why TM did not just go on back to his Dad's girlfriend's place instead of backtracking around and attacking GZ?

jimmyk

please provide a link to the FL statute

Ever use google?

That is essentially what the FL Stand Your Ground law allows people to do.

To summarize: "I haven't seen the statute, but I'm going to tell you what it does anyway."

Bwa-ha-ha!

Incidentally, the "b" tag does not transform falsehoods into truths, notwithstanding how you seem to be using it.

Annoying Old Guy

Ms. Kattenburg;

Wow, I really must be getting under your skin if you're calling me "a goddamn fucking FOOL".

Self-awareness - it's not for the proglodyte mind.

Kathy Kattenburg

"Why can you not get that one simple fact thru the mist of your mind?"

Because it's not what the evidence we have shows to be true. That's why.

"TM was the interloper. It was GZ's responsibility to "watch" the TMs who came on the premises acting suspiciously."

No, TM was not an "interloper." He was staying with one or more family members who lived in that complex, and he did belong there.

The "TMs"? You mean young black males?

And since you emphasize so strongly GZ's "responsibilities" as a neighborhood watch volunteer, it's curious to me why you apparently do not feel it was incumbent on GZ, as a neighborhood watch volunteer, to follow, observe, and respect the guidelines for neighborhood watch volunteers -- two of which were that volunteers were not supposed to carry concealed handguns, or any weapons, in the course of their duties; and that volunteers were not supposed to follow or directly approach people they thought were "suspicious." They were supposed to call the police and let them take care of it.

The guidelines about not carrying a weapon and not approaching people they thought might be suspicious is crucially important, because neighborhood watch volunteers are NOT police authorities. They do not have police authority. They do not wear uniforms or badges. And because they do not wear uniforms or badges, and are not police authorities, they are not outwardly identifiable as anything other than ordinary persons, civilians, strangers who have no more right or authority to enforce the law than anyone else.

This being the case, Trayvon Martin would have had NO REASON ON EARTH to think GZ was anything other than what he appeared to be: a total stranger, first following him, then confronting him and asking him questions about who he was -- questions that, as a stranger with no particular authority Martin would have had every reason and right to consider none of his business to ask.

"As both a resident, a watch captain, and a private citizen, GZ had every right to question TM's presence there."

No, as a private citizen GZ had no right whatsoever to approach anyone for the purpose of asking them why they were there.

"Had TM not been a punk, he would have introduced himself and explained he was visiting the home of his Dad's girlfriend."

That is outright total garbage bullshit. What, is this the antebellum South, when black persons were not allowed to walk around in public without proper identification? Trayvon Martin had absolutely no obligation to "introduce himself" or explain to a *total stranger* -- not a police officer, a TOTAL STRANGER -- why he was there or where he was going.

This is so outrageously, heinously racist that I almost cannot contain myself, I'm so angry. So I'll stop here.

Abadman not Abadan

"It does not mean unilaterally and arbitrarily declaring that a person charged with a crime can just be declared innocent and released to go about their business.".

Actually it does. See Eric Holder, the New Black Panthers, and voter intimidation in Philly.

Which shows why integrity is so important in our legal system and why the lack of as with Mr. Holder is so troubling.

"Zimmerman's innocence must be proven unambiguously."

Actually, I never said that. You are either a liar or you can't read. I have disagreed with your assertions that Zimmerman's side of the story is the truth, and factual, without any physical evidence that UNAMBIGUOUSLY confirms that story. I used the word "ambiguous" about the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that you say exonerates Zimmerman. I did not use the word "unambiguous" to refer to Zimmerman's guilt or innocence.

If Zimmerman's side of the story needs unambiguous physical evidence to prove it is true and factual it seems to me you are tying "unambiguous" to his guilt or innocence. Calling Zimmerman a murderer also seems to imply you feel he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Or are you going to deny
you called him a murderer? I am a lying liar after all.

I do not believe I have made any assertions about the truth or validity of Zimmerman's statement. I have made reference to several pieces of evidence, which include reports and witness statements admissible in court of law, to try to meet your request for unambiguity in evidence that supports Mr. Zimmerman's position. As has been pointed out many times to you Zimmerman's story does not need to be true, just plausible.

Like it or not the onus is on you to support your statement he is a murderer, something you are unable or unwilling to do. What kind of a monster would label a man a murderer without unambiguous physical evidence? This is your standard after all?

You need to explain why the injuries Zimmerman sustained, no matter how slight are inconsistent with his story. Multiple sources say they were there. Pretending they do not exist is not an explanation. It is not our job to prove they were there it is yours to prove they were not.

Finally, a determination was made on the ability of the state to prove Zimmerman's guilt. Then the mob descended, which you have chosen to be a part of. Many people, including honest members of the left, are concerned this has become less about justice and more about appeasing the mob. If the first prosecutor was correct in his assessment of the available evidence and Zimmerman goes free, you and your ilk will still have taken his life.

So while literally the term lynching may be incorrect the image of a mob of self righteous, cowardly, bullies taking another man's life is certainly apt.

And yes I know that I am more of a coward than you will ever be. Please find comfort in the fact that somehow I find the strength to carry on.

Kathy Kattenburg

"If Zimmerman's side of the story needs unambiguous physical evidence to prove it is true and factual it seems to me you are tying "unambiguous" to his guilt or innocence."

No, it only means that we don't accept the claims of people accused of crimes at face value, or on faith. We need evidence, and if the evidence does not show what it needs to show to support the defendant's claims, then it's not enough to give the defendant a get out of jail free card.

"Calling Zimmerman a murderer also seems to imply you feel he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Or are you going to deny
you called him a murderer?"

No, I'm not going to deny I called him a murderer, because I did. Obviously, I have my personal opinions about Zimmerman's guilt or innocence, and obviously I have strong feelings for TM's parents as well as for the young man himself, but I recognize that those are opinions, which cannot and should not be confused with what has yet to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. I have my opinions about what Zimmerman did, but I'm also the one here who is saying he has the right to a fair trial, and that Trayvon Martin and his parents deserve that legal process no less than Zimmerman.

"As has been pointed out many times to you Zimmerman's story does not need to be true, just plausible."

But it's not. That's the point here. And even if the evidence is plausible, it's still only evidence, which has to be tested in court against the prosecution's evidence and the results of eyewitness and expert witness testimony. Throughout this debate, all of you seem to be confusing the concept of evidence with the concept of a trial to legally evaluate the evidence on both sides.

"Like it or not the onus is on you to support your statement he is a murderer, something you are unable or unwilling to do."

I am not interested in supporting an argument that Zimmerman is a murderer, because I recognize that that is MY OPINION, which is not legally relevant. It's just my opinion, and I *do* say it's an opinion. You, on the other hand, have opinions just as strong on the other side, and somehow believe your opinions to be fact. They're not.

My interest here is to argue and support my assertion that there was probable cause to arrest GZ for homicide, and that the evidence on both sides should be evaluated at a trial by a jury of his peers. That is all I am saying.

"You need to explain why the injuries Zimmerman sustained, no matter how slight are inconsistent with his story."

That's an easy explanation. Because if his injuries were slight or minor, how could they possibly support the story he's telling that TM was brutally, savagely beating him to death? Does it not matter to you that a person is killed by someone who said he was forced to kill him to avoid being killed himself, or to avoid grave bodily harm, and then the evidence he shows to support that story indicates that his injuries were only very slight or minor? Doesn't that bother you, to know that maybe GZ did NOT have to kill TM? I mean, I'm just blown away by you saying, essentially, what difference does it make if TM didn't really seriously hurt GZ, GZ still had a right to kill him. It's so dismissive and contemptuous of the worth and value of a human life.

"Multiple sources say they were there. Pretending they do not exist is not an explanation. It is not our job to prove they were there it is yours to prove they were not."

Well, first of all, we're not in court you know. We're having a debate on a political blog. Your obligation to support your argument that GZ is totally exonerated by the available evidence is just as real as my obligation to support my argument that it isn't.

This is why there needs to be a trial. Because THAT'S where the evidence and witnesses need to be examined and evaluated.

Second, I am not pretending they don't exist. I am saying they do not support the conclusion they purport to support. And I don't know who or what you mean by "multiple sources." The one eyewitness I am aware of who saw part of what was going on, could not say definitively that TM was doing to GZ what GZ said he was doing. All they saw was someone in a red jacket on top, and TM was wearing a red jacket. Just from that you don't know if TM had punched GZ and broken his nose and pounded his head on the pavement.

So if these "multiple sources" you refer to but do not identify include GZ's father and brother and family friend, none of whom were present when the shooting occurred, then what those "multiple sources" say is not dispositive. I mean, it's part of the evidence that could be brought to court, but it only speaks to GZ's character, not to what actually happened or how it happened.

"Finally, a determination was made on the ability of the state to prove Zimmerman's guilt. Then the mob descended, which you have chosen to be a part of."

Your first sentence, I'm not sure what you mean to say there, it's very vague, but what happened is that the police decided they had probable cause to charge GZ with homicide after questioning him for several hours and from their examination of the crime scene, and then the prosecutor told the police to drop the charges and let GZ go. And the reasons given for that were very suspect. GZ told them he killed TM in self-defense and they just accepted that on its face. They said GZ "had a squeaky clean record," which is not true, and even they now have indicated that was a mistake and they're not sure how it happened.

Then you have what happened that night in and of itself. When people see that a man with a handgun killed a teenager with no weapon at all and there was no obvious crime or illegal act taking place to explain the shooting, then people are going to get angry. That is not "a mob." That is a public outcry, public outrage, created by the objective facts of how the case was handled -- and particularly in the context of dozens, at least, of similar incidents following the passage of Stand Your Ground, IN ALMOST ALL OF WHICH the persons shot to death were black -- not because some cabal of evil, sinister media monsters stirred them up.

"Many people, including honest members of the left, are concerned this has become less about justice and more about appeasing the mob."

LOL. "Honest" because they agree with you -- if they even exist at all. "Honest members of the left" is pretty vague. Not to mention that just as many people on the other side, if not more, are appalled at how Trayvon Martin is being turned into a villain and Zimmerman into a folk hero, and at the outright racism shown by many of GZ's supporters.

"If the first prosecutor was correct in his assessment of the available evidence and Zimmerman goes free, you and your ilk will still have taken his life."

How obscene. No one will have taken his life. His life will still be his. Trayvon Martin is the one who's dead. God. Just despicable.

"So while literally the term lynching may be incorrect the image of a mob of self righteous, cowardly, bullies taking another man's life is certainly apt."

No, it's not. Angry but peaceful protestors drawing attention to what they feel is a grave injustice is not a lynch mob. Indeed, what's going on around this case is much more reminiscent of the days when black people could be killed with impunity no matter how barbaric the behavior, if the accused killers were white, they would always be acquitted, or never brought to trial at all. If this case is like anything at all, it's like that, not a lynch mob. There is no "bullying" going on in these peaceful protests and nobody has taken GZ's life. I mean, really, I cannot even begin to express my disgust when Trayvon Martin is dead in his grave and I'm being told it's the man who shot him who's "lost his life."

boris

Credible information available to the public indicates Trayvon, at 6'2" and 170lb, knocked GZ down and banged his head on concrete causing bleeding injuries on both sides of his head. The issue is not whether Kaka believes GZ was actually afraid for his life, she has no way of knowing that. The legal standard is whether a reasonable person would consider their personal safety in jeopardy given that one or two more blows could easily render them senseless or dead, and give their attacker access to a lethal weapon in their possesion.

Regardless of what Kaka thinks of the individuals in this case, any reasonable person in that situation has a right to self defense. The police who arrived within minutes or seconds, were perfectly capable of determining that GZ was in the situation described based on apparent injuries, physical evidence, and witness statements.

It is Kaka's obvious and apparent high emotions of displaced anger and disgust that forces her to rage on and on and on here. Keep digging Kaka and you may someday find the pea that's making you so uncomfortable.

In the meantime I am quite satisfied to be blissfully unaware of her Emperor's new logic.

Kathy Kattenburg

"Keep digging Kaka and you may someday find the pea that's making you so uncomfortable."

Oh, I found that "pea" a long time ago. It's called callous indifference. And I can deal with the discomfort. It's the price for having a conscience.

Strawman Cometh

KK,
Don't be so hard on yourself. No one, no one here anyway, would describe you as indifferent.
In any case, certainly not as regards Trayvon. Though you do seem less than sympathetic to the plight of GZ, so nevermind. All-in-all, I'm not sure you understand the lesson of that fable, or anything else.

Ignatz

By my calculations this thread will die a merciful natural death in about two and a half hours.

If it doesn't I intend to stand my ground and put it out of its misery with my Para Ordnance .45.
I suspect even Angela Corey would no bill me if I'm forced to.

Kathy Kattenburg

"Though you do seem less than sympathetic to the plight of GZ, so nevermind."

I actually do feel sympathy for him. I just feel that when an unarmed minor is killed for no apparent reason, there needs to be accountability.

Chubby

((It's the price for having a conscience. ))

I guess it will be later rather than sooner that you deal with your insufferable conceit problem

narciso

Maybe they never intended it to get this far,
like Brian De Palma's 'Redacted' that claimed
the lives of US servicemen in Germany, was the Bounty on Zimmerman, the tweeting of the
supposed address, and that of his parents, they just wanted an arrest, that was necessary
in order to strip the civil immunity, Burnside
his part, with the voice and text transcription, ABC with their own Minitrue
footwork,

Beyonder blue pale.

Heh, 'no apparent reason'. There is no accounting for that conscience.
============

xyz

KK, I suggest you read the following release if you haven't.

Why was George Zimmerman labeled as "squeaky clean" when in fact he has a prior arrest history?
In one of the initial meetings with the father of the victim the investigator related to him the account that Mr. Zimmerman provided of the incident. At that time the investigator said that Mr. Zimmerman portrayed himself to be "squeaky clean". We are aware of the background information regarding both individuals involved in this event. We believe Mr. Martin may have misconstrued this information.
http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf

boris

"It's the price for having a conscience"

It isn't "conscience" that drives you to rage at a person who at great personal cost defended himself from an attacker. Apparently you have feelings of great hostility toward citizens who watch out for themselves and neighbors working with, rather than depending on, government law enforcement.

But keep digging princess Kaka, that pea is bound to be down there somewhere as I'm sure the Emperor's new logic has informed you already.

narciso

I've linked her tacit acceptance of the slandering of Admiral McRaven, and the whole
JSOC, about two years before the May takedown of Bin Laden,

Kathy Kattenburg

"It isn't "conscience" that drives you to rage at a person who at great personal cost defended himself from an attacker."

At great personal cost? He's alive with barely a scratch, and his attacker is dead as a doornail.

Keep on with this obscene comparison, Boris. I will call you on it, and anyone else who makes this obscene comparison, every time I see this obscene comparison, for as long as I see this obscene comparison, until I don't see this obscene comparison any longer, or until Tom shuts down the comments -- whichever comes first.

Chubby

Mr. Zimmerman's less than squeaky clean background came to the fore at his recent bail hearing, and the judge flicked it off as totally inconsequential.

boris

"He's alive with barely a scratch"

At the scene he was in tears and since then had to go into hiding and cast his fate on protection from bounty hunters. You are some piece of work princess. Trayvon chose his fate, GZ did not.

Chubby

((You are some piece of work princess. ))

only kaka has a conscience, you know. only kaka is decent, upright, good, strong, righteous, and just. only what kaka knows is the truth.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame