Killers walk away everyday Bro, nothing shocking, no one would be writing on here about this ,if it was white on white, black on black,or black on white,ala the Kansas torching and no has ,BUT White on Black and its major news ,the hypocrisy stinks and yall are guilty of it.BTW news flash, he is still guilty of only defending himself legally, course nothing they release for evidence will convince any of yall it was and when they do, it will be riots in the streets, because thats what these attention freaks do best and yall feed it constantly ,you dont wanna do it yourself, but ya dont mind inciting others to do it .Nothing but a bunch of Rev Wright wanna be's.
Objectivly, I do not see how anyone knows enough about the case to form an opinion of whether Zim is guilty or not.
Those who have an opinion need to re-examine their own hearts as to their motives.
Now, if you are angry and upset because the legal system did not do their job, that is appropriate.
If you are angry and upset at Zim for instigating the incident, that is appropriate.
But, we do not know enough of the FACTS to find the man guilty or innocent, at this point.
If you have already decided, you need to examine your motives.
That's my two cents...
Killers walk away everyday Bro, nothing shocking, no one would be writing on here about this ,if it was white on white, black on black,or black on white,ala the Kansas torching and no has ,BUT White on Black and its major news ,the hypocrisy stinks and yall are guilty of it.BTW news flash, he is still guilty of only defending himself legally, course nothing they release for evidence will convince any of yall it was and when they do, it will be riots in the streets, because thats what these attention freaks do best and yall feed it constantly ,you dont wanna do it yourself, but ya dont mind inciting others to do it .Nothing but a bunch of Rev Wright wanna be's.
First of all, I'm not sure who all the "yous" and "yalls" are in your answer, but I can assure you that I and millions of other black people are not and will not be guilty of any of that. And if you're calling me a Rev Wright wannabe, it probably time for me to politely LOL and end this conversation.
Secondly, allow me to go on record and say that when they catch whoever torched the kid in Kansas, they absolutely should not let them walk and should punish them to the fullest extent of the law.
As to your declaration that "he is still guilty of only defending himself legally", my position is that based on what I heard on the 911 tape, I reject the claim that he was just a man who was going to be in his truck waiting on the police and not a man who was pursuing a teenager for no reason...after being told he shouldn't.
To me, based on what I heard, he was the one who was clearly angry that the kid was "getting away" (from what and for what, I do not know) and he was going to prevent that. He appears to me to be a man who was more aggressive than he should have been and likely more than he would have been if he didn't know he was armed (which Neighborhood Watch directives tell you not to be anyway.
What people are responding to is the notion that any citizen would feel they have the right to accost a teen for no reason at all (once again after having been directed to just meet the police if he was so concerned), kill the teen, and then walk away.
Some racial emotions come into play for some people when they consider how many stories we hear about where unarmed blacks are killed by the police themselves. This opens a new dimension in their minds where even wannabe police can kill an unarmed black teen and just walk away.
What do you suggest people tell their black teen sons to do when armed idiots start to follow them around the streets?
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
Objectivly, I do not see how anyone knows enough about the case to form an opinion of whether Zim is guilty or not.
Those who have an opinion need to re-examine their own hearts as to their motives.
Now, if you are angry and upset because the legal system did not do their job, that is appropriate.
If you are angry and upset at Zim for instigating the incident, that is appropriate.
But, we do not know enough of the FACTS to find the man guilty or innocent, at this point.
If you have already decided, you need to examine your motives.
That's my two cents...
aeg, I can respect that. Let me say once again for the record that I had questions from the moment that I heard about the story, but I did not form an opinion until I heard the 911 call for myself. If you check my conversations on line and in person, you will find that I expressed no opinion at all (even in the face of all the hysteria) until I heard the call.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
First of all, I'm not sure who all the "yous" and "yalls" are in your answer, but I can assure you that I and millions of other black people are not and will not be guilty of any of that. And if you're calling me a Rev Wright wannabe, it probably time for me to politely LOL and end this conversation.
Secondly, allow me to go on record and say that when they catch whoever torched the kid in Kansas, they absolutely should not let them walk and should punish them to the fullest extent of the law.
As to your declaration that "he is still guilty of only defending himself legally", my position is that based on what I heard on the 911 tape, I reject the claim that he was just a man who was going to be in his truck waiting on the police and not a man who was pursuing a teenager for no reason...after being told he shouldn't.
To me, based on what I heard, he was the one who was clearly angry that the kid was "getting away" (from what and for what, I do not know) and he was going to prevent that. He appears to me to be a man who was more aggressive than he should have been and likely more than he would have been if he didn't know he was armed (which Neighborhood Watch directives tell you not to be anyway.
What people are responding to is the notion that any citizen would feel they have the right to accost a teen for no reason at all (once again after having been directed to just meet the police if he was so concerned), kill the teen, and then walk away.
Some racial emotions come into play for some people when they consider how many stories we hear about where unarmed blacks are killed by the police themselves. This opens a new dimension in their minds where even wannabe police can kill an unarmed black teen and just walk away.
What do you suggest people tell their black teen sons to do when armed idiots start to follow them around the streets?
They already have the killers in kansas, my point is no one is writing about them, because they werent the right color and i cant believe you can make up your mind on a very subjective phone call, more than one has indicated he was walking away and he was attacked by trayvon thats why he got shot and also what would i suggest he have done? answer the questions thats what ,why are you here? answer, im visiting my friends down the street at this addy, not do you have a problem, well you do now.There will be major egg on some faces when the details come out, for some on here and i will say i told ya so . The preponderance of evidence says, so far, according to the law, he is innocent at this point.
Wher is the outrage on this ? A lot of attention put on the Martin case, but none hardly on the case of John Sanderson, a 21 year old Mississippi State University student killed by three black men in a dorm he was visiting. There is a real double standard in the media and in the so-called racial equality mouthpieces. Thanks UT we could blow this site up with these incidents, but no one cares to write about that, only the white on black because thats another reason to riot
They already have the killers in kansas, my point is no one is writing about them, because they werent the right color and i cant believe you can make up your mind on a very subjective phone call, more than one has indicated he was walking away and he was attacked by trayvon thats why he got shot and also what would i suggest he have done? answer the questions thats what ,why are you here? answer, im visiting my friends down the street at this addy, not do you have a problem, well you do now.There will be major egg on some faces when the details come out, for some on here and i will say i told ya so . The preponderance of evidence says, so far, according to the law, he is innocent at this point.
The last I saw, they were still looking for the Kansas suspects...and unless I'm thinking of the wrong case, I didn't think the boy was killed. Either way, if they do have the suspects, I say good...now don't let them go.
I have explained ad nauseam my impression of the phone call. I do not see how you can be so adamant about your position when none of the actual evidence seems as definitive as you. If Zimmerman's 911 call was, "There is a man chasing me and I am afraid, please send help", I would say you have all the reason in the world to be as definitive as you are. As it is, I don't see how, "These ******, they always get away" and"*****, he's running", gives you this clear cut position. When he followed this up not by saying "Yes, I'll be at my truck by the clubhouse", but by saying "have the police call me when they get here so I can tell them where I am", it seals in my mind that he had not changed his mind about giving chase.
And for the record, I will not be teaching any children to engage any stranger in any conversation of any kind when they are being followed for no reason unless they are an official of some capacity.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
From what I have seen so far, In my opinion, Zimmerman is guilty. He went too far. I have managed Citizen On Patrol groups for two different cities. The first thing that struck me is that he was armed. I have never allowed anyone "on patrol" to be armed. I don't care if they had a permit or not. It was against the rules and you would be removed from my group if you were caught carrying. This case is a prime example why I had the rule. It presents a question that has to be answered. Would Zimmerman have approached Martin if he was NOT armed ? I think we all know the answer. So in being armed, he felt a sense of securtiy that allowed him to take his job to another level. By not carrying you react more conservatively and revert to doing your job; record and report.
On another note: The day that Sharpton, Jackson and any other person or group, that enjoys pulling the race card, gives this much hype about a black kid killing another black kid, I will give them some respect. Until then, they are worse than Zimmerman in my opinion. They have done nothing since the day they were born to bring an end to racism. Nothing.
Interviewer: "How do we fight racism in America today?" Morgan Freeman: "Stop talking about it."
__________________ You can't reach the world with your talents. People are sick and tired of religious talents. People need a Holy Ghost annointed church with real fruits to reach out and touch their lives. ~ Pastor Burrell Crabtree
In fact I think that the insinuation of "hateful" Pentecostals is coming mostly from the fertile imaginations of bitter, backslidden ex Apostolics who are constantly trying to find a way to justify their actions. ~ strait shooter
From what I have seen so far, In my opinion, Zimmerman is guilty. He went too far. I have managed Citizen On Patrol groups for two different cities. The first thing that struck me is that he was armed. I have never allowed anyone "on patrol" to be armed. I don't care if they had a permit or not. It was against the rules and you would be removed from my group if you were caught carrying. This case is a prime example why I had the rule. It presents a question that has to be answered. Would Zimmerman have approached Martin if he was NOT armed ? I think we all know the answer. So in being armed, he felt a sense of securtiy that allowed him to take his job to another level. By not carrying you react more conservatively and revert to doing your job; record and report.
On another note: The day that Sharpton, Jackson and any other person or group, that enjoys pulling the race card, gives this much hype about a black kid killing another black kid, I will give them some respect. Until then, they are worse than Zimmerman in my opinion. They have done nothing since the day they were born to bring an end to racism. Nothing.
Interviewer: "How do we fight racism in America today?" Morgan Freeman: "Stop talking about it."
Chris Tutko, the director of Neighborhood Watch for the National Sheriffs' Association said that Zimmerman broke a cardinal rule by carrying a gun and that there was no need to carry a gun.
However, even though Police departments and sheriff's offices advise trained volunteers never to carry weapons, Zimmerman didn't break the law by carrying a gun. He had a concealed weapons permit.
The last I saw, they were still looking for the Kansas suspects...and unless I'm thinking of the wrong case, I didn't think the boy was killed. Either way, if they do have the suspects, I say good...now don't let them go.
I have explained ad nauseam my impression of the phone call. I do not see how you can be so adamant about your position when none of the actual evidence seems as definitive as you. If Zimmerman's 911 call was, "There is a man chasing me and I am afraid, please send help", I would say you have all the reason in the world to be as definitive as you are. As it is, I don't see how, "These ******, they always get away" and"*****, he's running", gives you this clear cut position. When he followed this up not by saying "Yes, I'll be at my truck by the clubhouse", but by saying "have the police call me when they get here so I can tell them where I am", it seals in my mind that he had not changed his mind about giving chase.
And for the record, I will not be teaching any children to engage any stranger in any conversation of any kind when they are being followed for no reason unless they are an official of some capacity.
This is probably good advice, but when you hear Zimmerman screaming for help in the 911 call, you know that Trayvon was not afraid of him or he wouldn't have engaged in an altercation alone with Zimmerman. And if Zimmerman started that, clearly, Trayvon got the upperhand. So, he wasn't a wimpy, unafraid, little child the media purports him to be. When the truth of Trayvon came out, the opinion polls changed where they weren't as favorable to arresting Zimmerman.
You still have to prove that Zimmerman followed Trayvon. Just because he said some few choice words about someone he viewed as suspicious, because of the history of the break-ins in that neighborhood, isn't enough evidence. If a bunch of skateboarders were looting the area, he probably would have said the same thing about them.
I also listened to the CNN video trying to develop the idea that Zimmerman called Trayvon a "Coon" and I disagree as the second part of the word comes across too hard and sharp to be the letter "n". The letter "n" has a much softer sound. He also didn't instigate the race issue in his 911 call. The Dispatch asks him about race. So, I find it hard to believe the guy is racist. Opinionated on the history of who had been robbing his neighborhood, young black men, yes, but not racist.
Linear Mode
