• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Zimmerman trial

State Attorney Angela Corey fires information techonology director who raised concerns in Trayvon Martin case.
Yup- the guy who got all the info out of TM's phone, that FDLE was unable to recover- fired!

"State Attorney Angela Corey fired her office’s information technology director Friday after he testified last month about being concerned prosecutors did not turn over information to George Zimmerman’s defense team in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

According to the report, Ben Kruidbos received a scathing letter from State Attorney Angela Corey's office Friday morning, calling him untrustworthy and adding he "can never again be trusted to step foot in this office."

Kruidbos testified last month that he found embarrassing photos found on Trayvon's cellphone, including pictures of a clump of jewelry on a bed, underage nude females, marijuana plants and a hand holding a semiautomatic pistol. Defense attorneys allege that data wasn't turned over to them as part of the evidence exchange process, known as discovery.

Kruidbos said he became concerned that lead prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda might not have turned over Kruidbos’ report to defense attorneys. Kruidbos asked White in April for legal advice and described some contents of his report such as a photo of an African-American hand holding a gun, a photo of a plant resembling marijuana, and a text message referring to a gun transaction."
 
TM had a can of Arizona Ice Tea, which he could of used as a weapon. Which could explain the lack of bruising to TM knuckles.

There is blood evidence on both of them. It might not be a lot but there is some.

Regardless, GZ felt threatened and perhaps feared for his life. According to Florida law, the shooting was justified.

Race was brought into it within hours, media bias was blatant from the beginning. No charges were going to be brought against GZ until pressure was places upon authorities and politicians.

I must ask, where is the big media stories about the white guy who was attacked by a group of black teenagers, yelling this is for TM.

Or the black and black crimes in Chicago, where very young innocent children are being murdered.
 
beautifullywild77 said:
I must ask, where is the big media stories about the white guy who was attacked by a group of black teenagers, yelling this is for TM.
Click to expand...

There have been at least a dozen racially motivated attacks "for Trayvon." They don't get much media play because it isn't news.
 
Just a random from the Twitterverse:
Expand
Allen ‏@AllenBrewr 8m
Don't worry Trayvon. George Zimmerman can't hide.
Click to expand...

I really, really hope we can move on from this without politicizing/racial"izing" this court case. It seemed a pretty clear case of self defense, yet the verdict will serve to confirm the bias of those who believe court verdicts are determined by the race of the plaintiff and defendants. The media gave false information about this case and is culpable for all the anger of those that feel there was no "Justice for Trayvon."
 
I fully expect some manner of violence and disorder from this acquittal. And it will largely be from the public being mislead about the facts of this case.


I hope I'm wrong.
 
Do you think, though, that even if the public watched the trial open to close, the ones who were initially on TM's "side" would change their minds? I don't think many would.
 
I think you'd HAVE to! I mean, the defense doesn't even have a burden of proof, and *they* proved he was not guilty. It wasn't about following, or stand your ground or not saying a racial slur during the police non-emergency call. He claimed he was blind sided, knocked down, chest mounted and having his head slammed into the curb. GZ's injuries (such as a broken nose) matched up to that account. None of his testimony was marginal, it was all clear cut. You'd have to carry an AMAZING bias to let emotion, race, etc. override the facts. Except the media reporting that a poor unarmed kid with Skittles was trying to walk home, and the angel was followed by a murderer, who killed him and just got off the hook.
 
I think one important point brought out during the defense's closing statements was the fact that when Martin COULD have left the scene during the four minutes after Zimmerman lost sight of him, and Martin COULD have returned to where he was staying with his father, but he chose NOT to and obviously chose to instead return and confront Zimmerman. IF Martin was afraid of being followed by someone and had the opportunity to easily evade him, why would he have chosen to do that?

My guess is that Martin circled back in a tactical flanking maneuver to try to catch Zimmerman by surprise, and the attack was therefore premeditated. Then Zimmerman got sucker punched by Martin and was on the ground before he could get his wits about him. That is what a sucker punch DOES to a victim. In a fight, landing a punch like that is an enormous advantage. It had to be completely unexpected by Zimmerman otherwise his gun wouldn't have still been in his holster when he hit the ground. It would have been in his hand with him ready to defend himself with it. Had Martin then simply run away at that point, having landed that blow to Zimmerman's face, then that night probably would have turned out a lot different for the both of them.

But no, it didn't happen that way, now did it? Martin was apparently interested in inflicting even more damage upon Zimmerman, and Zimmerman had every right to be in fear for his life. Because under those circumstances his life WAS in jeopardy. He was apparently at Martin's complete mercy, unable to stop the attack for 40 to 45 seconds. That doesn't sound like much, but count out 40 seconds and think about having your head pounded onto the concrete and ground during that time and see what you think about it. I'm actually amazed that Zimmerman didn't lose consciousness.

Had Zimmerman NOT had a gun on him, well, there's a real good chance that this whole thing would have been just barely a blurb in the local Sanford newspaper about a man named George Zimmerman being murdered by an unknown assailant. This sort of incident is EXACTLY what having a LEGALLY concealed weapon and the right to self defense is all about.

And I am glad that the jury paid attention to the FACTS presented by the evidence and didn't let the emotional content that the prosecution was trying to capitalize on to sway their decision. This was a very unfortunate experience for all involved, but two wrongs wouldn't have made a right.
 
I just don't understand people. I don't understand why some of my friends, who I _know_ are very intelligent, well-read people, can't see this case for what it is. They just must not have watched the trial. Or paid attention to what the law is. And is not. Interestingly, all my friends who are now saying "Justice for Trayvon" are all of the Democratic persuasion. THEY are the ones who are continually dividing the country and pushing their Collective White Guilt agenda.
 
beautifullywild77 said:
T
I must ask, where is the big media stories about the white guy who was attacked by a group of black teenagers, yelling this is for TM.

Or the black and black crimes in Chicago, where very young innocent children are being murdered.
Click to expand...

Because those guys are arrested immediately when they admit to it! :nope:
 
In Florida, you're allowed to use deadly force to protect yourself if you believe you are in danger or death of great bodily harm. You are not supposed to get arrested unless the president of the united states puts political pressure on the police department to do so, and the department of justice funds protests because you haven't been arrested.
 
I'm honestly curious about castle doctrine, stand your ground and duty to retreat in Florida, because it seems like there is no duty to retreat. Is that right? That a person in fear of an attack is not obligated to retreat from the situation and instead is justified in using deadly force if they believe their life is in danger?
 
Nanci said:
I just don't understand people. I don't understand why some of my friends, who I _know_ are very intelligent, well-read people, can't see this case for what it is.


They just must not have watched the trial. Or paid attention to what the law is. And is not. Interestingly, all my friends who are now saying "Justice for Trayvon" are all of the Democratic persuasion. THEY are the ones who are continually dividing the country and pushing their Collective White Guilt agenda.
Click to expand...

Have you tried asking them?

Without passing judgement?
 
What about if you're being followed by a person with a gun? Apparently you are not allowed to protect yourself.
 
Nova_C said:
I'm honestly curious about castle doctrine, stand your ground and duty to retreat in Florida, because it seems like there is no duty to retreat. Is that right? That a person in fear of an attack is not obligated to retreat from the situation and instead is justified in using deadly force if they believe their life is in danger?
Click to expand...

That's exactly the problem with the law. Some armed man can follow me, grab me, and if I fight back, he can shoot me. Lovely, eh?
 
What if you had four minutes to run away, if you were so afraid, but instead you circled back and attacked? How did you know he had a gun, x-ray vision? Do you know how many fellow Floridians carry guns, legally? What if you were a 17 year old who had looked into purchasing a gun illegally, but I guess that didn't work out. Luckily, you could still kill with your fists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top