# Pro-Zimmerman Evidence Makes MSNBC Ignore Trayvon Martin Story…Even Though They Push



## Cowboy

Not surprising to me. 




> Exhibit A in this regard is MSNBC’s coverage of the Trayvon Martin case. Despite pushing the story very forcefully during the first two months that it became news (with Al Sharpton interviewing the grieving parents of the slain teen and Lawrence O’Donnell shouting insults and questions at an empty chair), now that new evidence is breaking that may lead to an acquittal of shooter George Zimmerman, MSNBC is behaving as though the story doesn’t exist. In fact, not a single one of its primetime anchors has covered the story _at all _since the release of the pro-Zimmerman evidence. Not Ed Schultz, not Lawrence O’Donnell, not even Al Sharpton.


 
Rest of the article here. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/med...yvon-martin-story-even-though-they-pushed-it/


----------



## tiredretired

Nothing to see here now folks.  Move along.


----------



## squerly

I sure hope Zimmerman walks.  It's bad enough that he'll probably be cleaned out fighting this in court, but iit would be horrible if he wound up being a sacrificial lamb for the asswipes that need some blood.


----------



## Catavenger

The media was sure quick to throw him to the wolves.


----------



## Kane

The question remains, tho, will MSNBC be covering the riots, looting and burning when Zimmerman is acquitted?  Will Al Sharpton find time during his 6:00PM slot to give us more of his mumbling, bigoted commentary?

Lean Forward, Baby.
.


----------



## nixon

Kane said:


> The question remains, tho, will MSNBC be covering the riots, looting and burning when Zimmerman is acquitted?  Will Al Sharpton find time during his 6:00PM slot to give us more of his mumbling, bigoted commentary?
> 
> Lean Forward, Baby.
> .



Don't have an answer . But as Rev. Al would say ... " resist We much ! "


----------



## Danang Sailor

If the ghost of Trayvon Martin were to appear before Al and Jesse and admit that he was the one who started the fight that
cost his life, and that Zimmerman should not be blamed, the two of them would still hurl their racist insults at him.  After all,
stirring that racist pot is how they keep themselves in the spotlight ... and make their fine livings.


----------



## Kane

Danang Sailor said:


> After all,
> stirring that racist pot is how they keep themselves in the spotlight ... and make their fine livings.



Which has always puzzled me.  Just who/how/what pays for their lavish lifestyle?


----------



## pirate_girl

Florida judge sets bond for George Zimmerman at $1 million in Trayvon Martin case.


----------



## nixon

^^ the judge also made it mandatory for Zimmerman to physically report in every 48 hours. I hope that they change the location of the reporting place every time . If not some asshat will try to become the local hero .


----------



## Doc

Will he even be able to make bail with it that high?


----------



## pirate_girl

Doc said:


> Will he even be able to make bail with it that high?


Bond set by a Florida court must be an amount that a defendant can pay,  because excessive bond is considered the same as denying bond. Given the  amount of money the defense website has raised, Zimmerman can afford  the $1 million, Lester wrote.  

While free on bail, Zimmerman cannot go to the airport, own a passport, drink alcohol or maintain a bank account.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...eorge-zimmerman-bond-20120705,0,5917803.story


----------



## nixon

Doc said:


> Will he even be able to make bail with it that high?



Unless I missed something , he only needs to pay 10% of that if he goes through a bail bondsman . He has that amount according to the msm .


----------



## Cowboy

nixon said:


> Unless I missed something , he only needs to pay 10% of that if he goes through a bail bondsman . He has that amount according to the msm .


 Which BTW was donated for a defense fund so he could get a fair trial, not for some fuckin judge to use as a bribe for his own agenda.


----------



## 300 H and H




----------



## nixon

Cowboy said:


> Which BTW was donated for a defense fund so he could get a fair trial, not for some fuckin judge to use as a bribe for his own agenda.



Actually he had about 200 k donated . Kind of seems as if the judge was making sure that he couldn't use public funds to defend himself .  They are going to make an example out of George , justice be damned .


----------



## 300 H and H

Just asking, but what is "public" about a private gift between individules? I belive that is what we're talking about. Nothing public about it.

Regards, Kirk


----------



## Cowboy

300 H and H said:


> Just asking, but what is "public" about a private gift between individules? I belive that is what we're talking about. Nothing public about it.
> 
> Regards, Kirk


 Exactly!  And WTF is up with the phone calls between husband and wife while he was incarcerated being made public unless it was for an alternative motive to further prosecute him. 

Seems odd to me that so many public officials that are up on REAL charges, their private jailhouse phonecalls are never brought to the medias attention , much less A FUCKIN JUDGE.


----------



## RedRocker

I never understood why they chained him up like Hannibal Lecter to drag him
in to court. Here's a guy that the police didn't even arrest since all the evidence and
eye witnesses backed his story and they chain him up like he killed ten cops. 
What a bunch of bullshit.


----------



## Kane

*                                                                                 George Zimmerman Bloody Face: Defense Team Releases Image From Night Of Shooting (PHOTO)                                     *

*The Huffington Post*                                          |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        By Danielle Cadet                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Posted: 12/03/2012  7:37 pm EST Updated: 12/04/2012  4:48 am EST                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   






George Zimmerman's defense team has released a photo of the  former neighborhood watchman that shows him with a bloodied face and  swollen nose, CNN reports.  According to Zimmerman's attorneys, the picture was taken the night of  the 28-year-old's fatal confrontation with Trayvon Martin.

  The photo, however, isn't a new one. It is, in fact, a much clearer  and higher quality version of a grainy, black and white image that was  included in a batch of previously unseen photos released by the Florida State Attorney's Office in May. 

_Editor's Note: Some viewers with a higher sensitivity may find this photo graphic._

  According to Zimmerman's defense site GZlegalcase.com,  the team gained access to this high-resolution digital file on Oct. 29.  The defense goes on to say that they plan to make all other public  documents related to the case available on the website. 

  The release of the photo comes less than a week after Zimmerman announced new efforts to amp up his fundraising by sending personally signed "thank you" cards to donors. The move drew criticism from some media outlets accusing Zimmerman of essentially selling his signature.  
  The latest updates in the case surfaced as another Florida shooting caught the nation's attention, bringing the state's controversial "Stand Your Ground" law  into the spotlight once again.  The slaying of 17-year-old Jordan  Davis, a black teen who was shot by Michael Dunn, a white man, after an  alleged confrontation over loud music has drawn comparisons to the Trayvon Martin case, despite significant differences.

  Zimmerman is awaiting his trial date on June 10, 2013  after being charged with second-degree murder for shooting 17-year-old  Martin. He has claimed self-defense and is pleading not guilty.
*See the photo below:*




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    photograph of George Zimmerman taken the night he shot and killed Trayvon Martin in Sanford, FL.

The gun George Zimmerman used to shoot Trayvon Martin can be seen in this evidence photo. 
George  Zimmerman's gun and clip can be seen in this evidence photograph taken  by Sanford police. Zimmerman shot and killed Martin after an altercation  with the unarmed teen, who was returning to the house where his father  was staying on February 26 after a trip to a nearby 7-Eleven.

George Zimmerman photographed by police the night he shot and killed Trayvon Martin in a gated community in Sanford, FL. 
Cuts  can be seen on the face of George Zimmerman in this photo taken by  police on the night he shot and killed Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman claims  that Martin attacked him and banged his head repeatedly on the ground,  prompting Zimmerman to shoot the teenager in self-defense. 
Cuts  can be seen on the face of George Zimmerman in this photograph taken  the night he shot and killed Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman says he shot  Martin during an altercation in which Martin slammed his head repeatedly  into the ground. 

George Zimmerman, photographed by police on the night he shot Trayvon Martin in Sanford, FL.

Blood  can be seen on the head of George Zimmerman in this police photo taken  the night he shot and killed Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman claims he shot  Martin, an unarmed teenager, in self-defense.

Blood can be seen on the head of George Zimmerman in this police photo taken the night he shot and killed Trayvon Martin. 

Blood  and bruises can be seen on the head of George Zimmerman in this police  photo taken the night he shot and killed Trayvon Martin. 

In  this Feb. 27, 2012 image taken from a Sanford Police video posted on a  website called gzlegalcase.com by George Zimmerman'sdefense team,  Zimmerman speaks to investigators, (not shown) at the scene of Trayvon  Martin's fatal shooting a day later giving police a blow-by-blow account  of his fight with the teen. On the tape, Zimmerman did a reenactment of  the scuffle with Martin in the moments before he shot the 17-year-old  from Miami. (AP Photo/Sanford Police video via Zimmerman Defense Team)


----------



## RedRocker

So are you saying little Trayvon skipping along with his skittles 
did all that? You must be a racist!!!


----------



## Melensdad

Based on the early accounts of this story I've been a long believer that Zimmerman is being hung out to dry by the racist media and the Obama administration for political reasons.


----------



## FrancSevin

I do understand that if you are a black person in a white neighborhood, in  most cities you are percieved as the victim if you are shot, no matter what you were doing there.

That said;
I would like to know, it what state in our union, is it a legal requirement, that the person who is effectively trying to kill you, must have a gun in order for you to shoot them in self defense.

_"God created Mankind.  Sam Colt made us equal."
_ 
This is not the purpose of the second ammendment.  But, the 2nd does surve this purpose well.


----------



## Melensdad

FrancSevin said:


> I do understand that if you are a black person in a white neighborhood, in  most cities you are percieved as the victim if you are shot, no matter what you were doing there.
> 
> That said;*
> I would like to know, it what state in our union, is it a legal requirement, that the person who is effectively trying to kill you, must have a gun in order for you to shoot them in self defense.*
> 
> _"God created Mankind.  Sam Colt made us equal."
> _
> This is not the purpose of the second ammendment.  But, the 2nd does surve this purpose well.


 Heck of a good question.

I know that you can cross Indiana off that list.  We have no requirement to use "equal" force.  We have no law against using a "disparity" of force.  You threaten me and I feel honestly threatened then I can shoot and kill you.  You hit me then I can shoot and kill you.  You come at me with a knife and I can shoot and kill you.  etc etc etc...  This applies to all citizens on ANY PROPERTY WHERE THEY ARE LEGALLY ALLOWED TO BE as long as they are acting in an otherwise lawful manner.  So we are not required to be inside our homes, or on our property to protect ourselves.  We are legally allowed to protect NOT ONLY ourselves but also family, friends and strangers if we see a forceable felony, feel a credible threat, etc.  

Not sure I would defend a stranger, it could end up putting myself into a 'domestic' dispute where I don't know the whole story, there are other cases where I would probably just dial 9-1-1 and pray the police show up.


----------



## mak2

Bob, do you really think if someone hits you you can kill them?  

If you are 80 and a 17 year old huge kid is beating you, self defense would definately work in Indiana.  If a 90lb naked female (unarmed) was wailing on a 25 year  old male in good shape, definately not.  A reasonable person would have to feel his life is threatened.  A good example is getting in a bar fight.  If I am in a bar (not) drinking and someone punches me, I cannot turn around and blast him.  If I turn around and he is swinging a pool cue and he looks like he might physically be a threat, blast away.  I am all for everyone carrying firearms, I just believe in the utmost responbility going with that freedom to carry.  I followed this case pretty closely at first but have not read much about it lately. IIRC Zimmerman was in an SUV with a firearm, the police told him to stay there, then somehow the minor was banging Zimmermans head into the sidewalk so Z shot him.  I was not overly impressed at the time with who ever issued Zimmerman his weapon permit. 





Melensdad said:


> Heck of a good question.
> 
> I know that you can cross Indiana off that list.  We have no requirement to use "equal" force.  We have no law against using a "disparity" of force.  You threaten me and I feel honestly threatened then I can shoot and kill you.  *You hit me then I can shoot and kill you*.  You come at me with a knife and I can shoot and kill you.  etc etc etc...


----------



## Kane

Clearly, in the name of social tolerance, Zimmerman should have laid quietly and let the big kid consummate his stated intent to beat him to death.


----------



## mak2

Kane said:


> Clearly, in the name of social tolerance, Zimmerman should have laid quietly and let the big kid beat him to death.



Clearly in the name of good sense, he should have stayed in his SUV until the police got there.  Unless he was defending someone else, and I dont beleive I have heard that yet.


----------



## Kane

mak2 said:


> Clearly in the name of good sense, he should have stayed in his SUV until the police got there.  Unless he was defending someone else, and I dont beleive I have heard that yet.


Folks need to get over the fact the Zimmerman was 'out of the SUV'.  At a certain point in the interaction, it becomes irrelevant.  If George Zimmerman had stayed home it would not have happened.  If he was in New Zealand at the time it wouldn't have happened.

As it happened, he was being beat to death by a big, strapping kid, intent upon cracking his head open.


----------



## mak2

People dont need to get over the fact Z was out of the SUV, Z is just gonna have to explain it.  I really hope it turns out Z made all the right moves and is completely exonerated, but from the facts I have heard I dont see it.  If Z was defending himself it is still a shame Tyrone is dead, but not as big of one.  I dont see the big ongoing news story about this, the facts will be presented in trial, absolutely none of us know all the facts.


----------



## Kane

mak2 said:


> People dont need to get over the fact Z was out of the SUV, Z is just gonna have to explain it.  I really hope it turns out Z made all the right moves and is completely exonerated, but from the facts I have heard I dont see it.  If Z was defending himself it is still a shame Tyrone is dead, but not as big of one.  I dont see the big ongoing news story about this, the facts will be presented in trial, absolutely none of us know all the facts.


Actually, this is precisely the point of the thread.  The liberal media has withheld evidence in favor of making it a big deal.  A big racial injustice deal.  Which, bit by leaking bit, the evidence suggests it is not.


----------



## mak2

I had just thought about gun rights and stand your ground, now this is a race issue too?  





Kane said:


> Actually, this is precisely the point of the thread.  The liberal media has withheld evidence in favor of making it a big deal.  A big *racial injustice deal.*  Which, bit by leaking bit, the evidence suggests it is not.


----------



## Kane

mak2 said:


> I had just thought about gun rights and stand your ground, now this is a race issue too?


Oh come on, mak2.  You heard of Al Sharpton going on for weeks until the 'evidence' shut him up?  Or how Eric Holder was going to personally look into the matter to ensure justice?  Where have you been?  Did you forget about posting crap in all of the other Zimmerman threads?  Look at the OP.

Don't play that weary game again.


----------



## mak2

I really havent thought much about this for a long time, and I dont hang out in the same right wing nut blogoshpere you do so I am sure you have heard many things I have not.  For the record I did not bring up race, once again, a conservative did.  I will not respond beyond this post so dont tell me to get back on topic.    Kane, you might be the biggest troll I have ran into on the internet.  





Kane said:


> Oh come on, mak2.  You heard of Al Sharpton going on for weeks until the 'evidence' shut him up?  Or how Eric Holder was going to personally look into the matter to ensure justice?  Where have you been?  Did you forget about posting crap in all of the other Zimmerman threads?
> 
> Don't play that weary game again.


----------



## Kane

mak2 said:


> I really havent thought much about this for a long time, and I dont hang out in the same right wing nut blogoshpere you do so I am sure you have heard many things I have not.  For the record I did not bring up race, once again, a conservative did.  I will not respond beyond this post so dont tell me to get back on topic.    Kane, you might be the biggest troll I have ran into on the internet.


mak2, you really need to look at the OP.  And stay with it.

The stuff I posted today was from the HuffPost, hardly RW blogoshere.  Speak to it and quit yipping at my ankles.


----------



## SShepherd

mak2 said:


> Bob, do you really think if someone hits you you can kill them?
> 
> If you are 80 and a 17 year old huge kid is beating you, self defense would definately work in Indiana. If a 90lb naked female (unarmed) was wailing on a 25 year old male in good shape, definately not. A reasonable person would have to feel his life is threatened. A good example is getting in a bar fight. If I am in a bar (not) drinking and someone punches me, I cannot turn around and blast him. If I turn around and he is swinging a pool cue and he looks like he might physically be a threat, blast away. I am all for everyone carrying firearms, I just believe in the utmost responbility going with that freedom to carry. I followed this case pretty closely at first but have not read much about it lately. IIRC Zimmerman was in an SUV with a firearm, the police told him to stay there, then* somehow the minor* was banging Zimmermans head into the sidewalk so Z shot him. I was not overly impressed at the time with who ever issued Zimmerman his weapon permit.


 another nice attempt to make the agressor the victum
http://sadhillnews.com/wp-content/u...eorge-zimmerman-photo-bias-sad-hill-news2.jpg

For instance, a few days before he was killed, Trayvon was suspended from school for ten days
 Miami Gardens teenager Trayvon Martin was suspended from school because he was caught with an empty plastic bag with traces of marijuana in it, the boy’s family attorney has confirmed.
According to the autopsy report, Martin's height was 5'11″ and his weight was 158 lbs.[

you probably have no justification to shoot someone if the punch you in a bar, but if you're in the parking lot and someone is pounding your head into the pavement-and you're in fear for your life you have ebery right to do anything you must to make the attack stop.
So, you were there and reviewed Zimmermans' CPL application ? You also took the time to review the credentials of the person who issued his permet?
" I was not overly impressed at the time with who ever issued Zimmerman his weapon permit"

I'm begining to think you should be in a different line of work.


----------



## SShepherd

mak2 said:


> People dont need to get over the fact Z was out of the SUV, Z is just gonna have to explain it. I really hope it turns out Z made all the right moves and is completely exonerated, but from the facts I have heard I dont see it. If Z was defending himself it is still a shame Tyrone is dead, but not as big of one. I dont see the big ongoing news story about this, the facts will be presented in trial, absolutely none of us know all the facts.


Tyrone? I find that a racist comment. Not all black men are named "Tyrone"


----------



## SShepherd

And sctually, NBC is guilty of being the first to use race as a way of sensationalizing the case. They edited the 911 call and photos.
I wouldn't be suprised of a mistrial is declared


----------



## Kane

The 'Stand Your Ground' issue will become moot.  But Zimmerman will be aquited under run-of-the-mill self defense protections.

And at that point, we can once again expect Al Sharpton and the like to instigate run-of-the-mill rioting, looting and burning in Stanford.  And Al will do this during the 6PM EST slot under the MSNBC journalistic protections.


----------



## RedRocker

If someone just wanted to punch me in a non lethal manner, I certainly wouldn't want to shoot them. I'll take a punch if I have to, but I would need some type of document guaranteeing it would just be one punch and not hard enough to do injury or permanent damage. Since most folks don't give punching people that much thought, I'm afraid my plan is to not let anyone get that close, if they proceed after I draw my weapon, then it's not going to be pretty. It doesn't take much to kill somebody with a blow to the head. Looks to me like Zimmerman gave it a fair amount of time before putting an end to the situation. IIRC, he followed little Trayvon, lost sight of him and was heading back to his truck when little Trayvon approached him and asked "you got a problem with me?" To which Zimmerman replied "no", Tray "you do now" and he started strumming his head. Eye witness backs up that he was getting his ass whipped and the cops didn't even pursue the matter until weeks later after his folks raised a stink and Al and the boys stepped in. If he's convicted of second degree murder then all hope is lost with our justice system, assuming my details are close to the truth. Win or lose, George is screwed, he needs to get a new identity and start over somewhere else if that's possible.


----------



## RedRocker

SShepherd said:


> And sctually, NBC is guilty of being the first to use race as a way of sensationalizing the case. They edited the 911 call and photos.
> I wouldn't be suprised of a mistrial is declared



Yep, the pic of him at 12 years old was a real piece of work along with the altered 911 tape. We all saw this cute little kid that looked like my grandson instead of a punk ass doped up thug.


----------



## mak2

Like I said before we will see at trial.  The dispatcher did tell Z to stay in his truck.  Z is an adult with a firearm and T is was a minor, now T is dead.  Z has a lot of explaining to do.  That is all.  Again, except for the right wing and left wing nuts, there is really not much to talk about untill it goes to court.    





RedRocker said:


> If someone just wanted to punch me in a non lethal manner, I certainly wouldn't want to shoot them. I'll take a punch if I have to, but I would need some type of document guaranteeing it would just be one punch and not hard enough to do injury or permanent damage. Since most folks don't give punching people that much thought, I'm afraid my plan is to not let anyone get that close, if they proceed after I draw my weapon, then it's not going to be pretty. It doesn't take much to kill somebody with a blow to the head. Looks to me like Zimmerman gave it a fair amount of time before putting an end to the situation. IIRC, he followed little Trayvon, lost sight of him and was heading back to his truck when little Trayvon approached him and asked "you got a problem with me?" To which Zimmerman replied "no", Tray "you do now" and he started strumming his head. Eye witness backs up that he was getting his ass whipped and the cops didn't even pursue the matter until weeks later after his folks raised a stink and Al and the boys stepped in. If he's convicted of second degree murder then all hope is lost with our justice system, assuming my details are close to the truth. Win or lose, George is screwed, he needs to get a new identity and start over somewhere else if that's possible.


----------



## Danang Sailor

FrancSevin said:


> I do understand that if you are a black person in a white neighborhood, in  most cities you are percieved as the victim if you are shot, no matter what you were doing there.
> 
> That said;
> I would like to know, it what state in our union, is it a legal requirement, that the person who is effectively trying to kill you, must have a gun in order for you to shoot them in self defense.
> 
> _"God created Mankind.  Sam Colt made us equal."
> _
> This is not the purpose of the second ammendment.  But, the 2nd does surve this purpose well.



A person must have reason to believe that his/her or the lives of others are in imminent danger.  A gun can certainly supply
that belief, but there is also the concept of "disparity of force".  If a 40 year old male not in tip-top shape, legally carrying a
concealed gun, is attacked by an eighteen year old male athlete, disparity of force is a legitimate defense should the 40
year old shoot and kill his attacker.  



mak2 said:


> Bob, do you really think if someone hits you you can kill them?
> 
> *If you are 80 and a 17 year old huge kid is beating you, self defense would definately work in Indiana.  If a 90lb naked female (unarmed) was wailing on a 25 year  old male in good shape, definately not.  A reasonable person would have to feel his life is threatened.*



A fine example of disparity of force.



> A good example is getting in a bar fight.  If I am in a bar (not) drinking and someone punches me, I cannot turn around and blast him.  If I turn around and he is swinging a pool cue and he looks like he might physically be a threat, blast away.  I am all for everyone carrying firearms, I just believe in the utmost responbility going with that freedom to carry.  I followed this case pretty closely at first but have not read much about it lately. IIRC *Zimmerman was in an SUV with a firearm, the police told him to stay there*, then somehow the minor was banging Zimmermans head into the sidewalk so Z shot him.  I was not overly impressed at the time with who ever issued Zimmerman his weapon permit.


According to the transcripts, Zimmerman was not told to stay in his car; he asked if the police wanted him to follow Martin
and they said "No".  Zimmerman stayed in the vehicle until Martin suddenly disappeared from view, at which point Z
got out to look around.  He did not see Martin until the guy jumped him, coming from a direction indicating he had
circled around.

Based on the information available, there is a high probability that disparity of force was a factor here.  It will be quite
interesting to see this play out in court.


----------



## mak2

I really had not thought about this for quite a while, why did it come up again, those pictures?  I think those might work against him.  I have been beat up worse than his face looks and still showed up for duty, and no, it wasnt some sailor that beat me up, I dont think.  I don't know, I just don't think it will come down to race deciding, or having any effect on  this issue.  Hopefully it will just be the facts of the case.   





Danang Sailor said:


> A person must have reason to believe that his/her or the lives of others are in imminent danger.  A gun can certainly supply
> that belief, but there is also the concept of "disparity of force".  If a 40 year old male not in tip-top shape, legally carrying a
> concealed gun, is attacked by an eighteen year old male athlete, disparity of force is a legitimate defense should the 40
> year old shoot and kill his attacker.
> 
> 
> 
> A fine example of disparity of force.
> 
> According to the transcripts, Zimmerman was not told to stay in his car; he asked if the police wanted him to follow Martin
> and they said "No".  Zimmerman stayed in the vehicle until Martin suddenly disappeared from view, at which point Z
> got out to look around.  He did not see Martin until the guy jumped him, coming from a direction indicating he had
> circled around.
> 
> Based on the information available, there is a high probability that disparity of force was a factor here.  It will be quite
> interesting to see this play out in court.


----------



## RedRocker

Oh, well if you've been beat up worse than that then Zimmerman is guilty!


----------



## Dargo

Kane said:


> The question remains, tho, will MSNBC be covering the riots, looting and burning when Zimmerman is acquitted?  Will Al Sharpton find time during his 6:00PM slot to give us more of his mumbling, bigoted commentary?
> 
> Lean Forward, Baby.
> .



If you have read the news lately, Dumbo Obama is literally meeting with Sharpton to ask about tax advice!!!  That would literally be a bad joke but it's actually true!  What have the "gimme" voters in our country done to us???


----------



## Dargo

RedRocker said:


> Oh, well if you've been beat up worse than that then Zimmerman is guilty!



A good friend of mine from high school was the lead man on our local SWAT team for ten years.  After identifying themselves with *a bullhorn* several times and stating that they were going to force entry, Scott (my hs buddy) was shot it the face and chest by a 12 gauge after his partner breeched the door.  His protective lexan face shield and body armor saved him and Scott shot the shooter, killing him.  In court they tried to say Scott shot him because he was black!  Gimme a break!!

Scott was acquitted.  However, one part that I found humorous (because I'm weird) was when Scott was asked under oath why he shot the perp 13 times.  Scott replied "Because my teammates dragged me away before I could reload".  (Talk about a true response!)

I wasn't there, I didn't see it happen, but IMHO, the media and black community tried and convicted Zimmerman *before* the facts ever started coming out.  Again, IMHO, Zimmerman will be convicted because a spineless judge will fear a race riot if Zimmerman isn't convicted; regardless of the evidence.


----------



## RedRocker

You might be right Dargo, seems like second degree murder will be hard to prove, makes me wonder if they did that intentionally. I guarantee if he is acquitted the mindless dumb asses will burn down their own town.


----------



## Kane

*George Zimmerman sues NBC and reporters*





George Zimmerman walks into his hearing at the Seminole County Courthouse on Oct. 19 in Sanford, Fla.(Photo: Getty Images

*Story Highlights*


Zimmerman is seeking an undisclosed amount of money
The lawsuit claims NBC edited his phone call to a dispatcher
Three TV station employees lost their jobs
9:41PM EST December  6. 2012 - ORLANDO,  Fla. (AP) — George Zimmerman sued NBC on Thursday, claiming he was  defamed when the network edited his 911 call to police after the  shooting of Trayvon Martin to make it sound like he was racist.

The  former neighborhood watch volunteer filed the lawsuit seeking an  undisclosed amount of money in Seminole County, outside Orlando. Also  named in the complaint were three reporters covering the story for NBC  or an NBC-owned television station.

The complaint said the airing  of the edited call has inflicted emotional distress on Zimmerman, making  him fear for his life and causing him to suffer nausea, insomnia and  anxiety.

The lawsuit claims NBC edited his phone call to a  dispatcher last February. In the call, Zimmerman describes following  Martin in the gated community where he lived, just moments before he  fatally shot the 17-year-old teen during a confrontation.

*STORY: *Photo shows Zimmerman after Trayvon killing

"NBC  saw the death of Trayvon Martin not as a tragedy but as an opportunity  to increase ratings, and so set about to create a myth that George  Zimmerman was a racist and predatory villain," the lawsuit claims.
NBC spokeswoman Kathy Kelly-Brown said the network strongly disagreed with the accusations made in the complaint.

"There was no intent to portray Mr. Zimmerman unfairly," she said. "We intend to vigorously defend our position in court."

Three employees of the network or its Miami affiliate lost their jobs because of the changes.

Zimmerman  is charged with second-degree murder but haos pleaded not guilty,  claiming self-defense under Florida's "stand your ground law."

The  call viewers heard was trimmed to suggest that Zimmerman volunteered to  police, with no prompting, that Martin was black: "This guy looks like  he's up to no good. He looks black."

But the portion of the tape  that was deleted had the 911 dispatcher asking Zimmerman if the person  who had raised his suspicion was "black, white or Hispanic," to which  Zimmerman responded, "He looks black."


----------



## Melensdad

I was just about to post the info about the new lawsuit.

I think its great.  When the media is so biased that they are no longer "news reporters" but rather are "cause advocates" and they destroy the lives of people by omitting key facts to turn public opinion against someone then they need to be held to task for their actions.

I hope Zimmerman ends up with a big payout and a seat on the board of directors for NBC/Universal when this lawsuit is settled.


----------



## mak2

Even if he unjustly killed a kid?  





Melensdad said:


> I was just about to post the info about the new lawsuit.
> 
> I think its great.  When the media is so biased that they are no longer "news reporters" but rather are "cause advocates" and they destroy the lives of people by omitting key facts to turn public opinion against someone then they need to be held to task for their actions.
> 
> I hope Zimmerman ends up with a big payout and a seat on the board of directors for NBC/Universal when this lawsuit is settled.


----------



## Melensdad

mak2 said:


> Even if he unjustly killed a kid?



IF its true that he is guilty, which the evidence suggests he is not . . . but going with your presumption, even if that is true, there is no question that NBC/MSNBC are guilty of LIABLE against George Zimmerman.  It will be difficult to prove damages for a monetary court award but the case of liable is pretty much a slam dunk.  

NBC can be liable AND Zimmerman can be guilty.  They are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## Kane

mak2 said:


> Even if he killed a _big, strapping_ kid _intent on cracking open his skull_?


Fixed it for ya'.


----------



## RedRocker

I would think that three people getting fired over doing what Zimmerman claims kinda negates the "we're not guilty" stance NBC is taking. By firing the people that did it implicates them don'tcha think?


----------



## RedRocker

Quote:
 	 	 		 			 				 					Originally Posted by *mak2* 

 
_Even if he killed a big, strapping kid intent on cracking open his skull?_




Kane said:


> Fixed it for ya'.



mak is still stuck on the pic of little Trayvon at twelve years old, they should get sued over that little piece of misinformation as well.


----------



## mak2

I hope Z wins both cases.  I hope he really did have a reason to fear for his life and he really did shoot the kid in self defense, but none of us will know that until court.  I am a proponet of stand your ground so I dont want to see that change.  I also believe MSNBC or NBC, whichever one it was, from what I heard, did try to make it a racially motivated shooting.  So they are probably guilty, but again we will have to wait until decided by a court.  Besides, if NBC loses and news agencies held to a higher standard and are sued for inaccurate reporting, Fox wont last 6 months.


----------



## RedRocker

How bout an example of Fox News putting out a false story.


----------



## mak2

No, I am not.  I have a 17 year old that is 6'2" at home.  I am stuck on when you carry a firearm you have ultimate responsiblity.  If you can avoid killing someone with it, that is your responsiblity.  A guy that shoots a minor, under any circustances has and should have a lot of explaining to do.  In my opinion the only reason the right wing hacks are so proZ is because the kid is black and NBC tried to make it a black vs gun laws issue.  You guys have no more of an idea wether he did it or not than I do.  You just mindlessly defend him because it is the "right (wing)" thing to do.  





RedRocker said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mak2*
> 
> 
> _Even if he killed a big, strapping kid intent on cracking open his skull?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mak is still stuck on the pic of little Trayvon at twelve years old, they should get sued over that little piece of misinformation as well.


----------



## mak2

Election polls.  I was sure Romeny would win by 5-8 from listening to Fox.





RedRocker said:


> How bout an example of Fox News putting out a false story.


----------



## RedRocker

mak2 said:


> Election polls.  I was sure Romeny would win by 5-8 from listening to Fox.



So you're saying they lied about the polls, or the polls were wrong?
If that's the best you have to compare to a news organization that 
splices a 911 call to alter it's meaning, then you don't have an argument.
 As far as "backing Z all the way", all the evidence backs his story, the cops that investigated the shooting bought his story, it was a done deal till his parents got the race pimps involved. They post a pic of a little 12 year old kid, alter the tape, and all you libs jump on the racist band wagon to hang his ass! If the facts as I know them showed otherwise, I'd be calling for "Z's" head, but so far I don't see it. Maybe you should take another look at his face, would you let somebody pound your head on the pavement? I think he was being kind to let it go that far, one good smack and you're a dead man.


----------



## Kane

p





mak2 said:


> In my opinion the only reason the right wing hacks are so proZ is because the kid is black and NBC tried to make it a black vs gun laws issue.  You guys have no more of an idea wether he did it or not than I do.  You just mindlessly defend him because it is the "right (wing)" thing to do.


There yo go again, mak2.

"Us guys" are making assertions based upon the available evidence.  "You guys" are making assertions based upon the story you would like to hear; i.e. *'Racist White Man With Big Bad Gun Murders Poor Little Black Boy In Cold Blood'.
* 
Yet you refuse to acknowledge the evidence to the contrary, in fact make it up to suit your story. Usual form for the progressives and the progressive media.


----------



## mak2

Fox News lied about the polling results and intentionally inaccurately informed people who watched them about the projected results of the election.  This was in an attempt to aid Romney during the election.   Fox had an agenda.  Period. 

I am not "all you libs", when I say something about all you conservobots youall get all worked up, I am very pro gun.  I am just not a mindless political hack. 

If you would really shoot someone for one good smack, please dont carry a gun.  You wont get out of it in court, no matter what the right wing fox reality of the week is.  





RedRocker said:


> So you're saying they lied about the polls, or the polls were wrong?
> If that's the best you have to compare to a news organization that
> splices a 911 call to alter it's meaning, then you don't have an argument.
> As far as "backing Z all the way", all the evidence backs his story, the cops that investigated the shooting bought his story, it was a done deal till his parents got the race pimps involved. They post a pic of a little 12 year old kid, alter the tape, and all you libs jump on the racist band wagon to hang his ass! If the facts as I know them showed otherwise, I'd be calling for "Z's" head, but so far I don't see it. Maybe you should take another look at his face, would you let somebody pound your head on the pavement? I think he was being kind to let it go that far, one good smack and you're a dead man.


----------



## RedRocker

Sounds like your opinion, lifting Mitt in the polls is an advantage how? I wanted Barry to lead in the polls in hopes some of his bots would stay home thinking it was in the bag.
You say they lied, so far you're the only person I've heard claim that. Do you have a link to some story or is this just your opinion. I mean if a poll said 48% and Fox said 51% then there should be something in print about it.
 You can be a lib with a gun and a mindless political hack, all you libs project your own shit on us anyway, starting with the world famous "racist" bullshit as well as "mindless hack". Did it ever occur to you that everything you believe is wrong? Probably not, it's a trait of a mindless hack. 
Anybody that looks at Z's pic and thinks he was not defending himself should reconsider who is being spoon fed the media's bullshit and who of the two of us is a mindless hack incapable of rational thought.


----------



## mak2

Listen to yourself man.  





RedRocker said:


> Sounds like your opinion, lifting Mitt in the polls is an advantage how? I wanted Barry to lead in the polls in hopes some of his bots would stay home thinking it was in the bag.
> You say they lied, so far you're the only person I've heard claim that. Do you have a link to some story or is this just your opinion. I mean if a poll said 48% and Fox said 51% then there should be something in print about it.
> You can be a lib with a gun and a mindless political hack, all you libs project your own shit on us anyway, starting with the world famous "racist" bullshit as well as "mindless hack". Did it ever occur to you that everything you believe is wrong? Probably not, it's a trait of a mindless hack.
> Anybody that looks at Z's pic and thinks he was not defending himself should reconsider who is being spoon fed the media's bullshit and who of the two of us is a mindless hack incapable of rational thought.


----------



## RedRocker

Great reply, I'll leave it with you man.


----------



## mak2

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/12/fox-news-puts-karl-rove-on-the-bench.html?imw=Y

According to multiple Fox sources, Ailes has issued a new directive to his staff: He wants the faces associated with the election off the air — for now. For Karl Rove and Dick Morris — *a pair of pundits perhaps most closely aligned with Fox’s anti-Obama campaign *— Ailes’s orders mean new rules. Ailes’s deputy, Fox News programming chief Bill Shine, has sent out orders mandating that producers must get permission before booking  Rove or  Morris. Both pundits made several appearances in the days after the election, but their visibility on the network has dropped markedly. *Inside Fox News, Morris’s Romney boosterism and reality-denying predictions became a punch line.* At a rehearsal on the Saturday before the election, according to a source, anchor Megyn Kelly chuckled when she relayed to colleagues what someone had told her: “I really like Dick Morris. *He’s always wrong but he makes me feel good*.”


----------



## Doc

I suppose Anti Obama and Pro Romney mean the same.   Rove and Morris were calling for a Romney win and even went so far as to say landslide.

But the Fox polls had it very close.  Within the margin of error.  I've seen nothing about them altering the poll numbers.   Like someone else said, I see no advantage to saying your candidate is ahead if he is not.


----------



## mak2

Ok doc, Fox allowed hours of reporting about something they knew was wrong, so wrong in fact appearently it became a joke in the break room but no, they did nothing that was not completely honest.  It is Fox you know.  


Doc said:


> I suppose Anti Obama and Pro Romney mean the same.   Rove and Morris were calling for a Romney win and even went so far as to say landslide.
> 
> But the Fox polls had it very close.  Within the margin of error.  I've seen nothing about them altering the poll numbers.   Like someone else said, I see no advantage to saying your candidate is ahead if he is not.


----------



## mak2

I am sure you guys really understand this and aer just in denial because it is Fox News, but just in case.  There are also studies that have trouble with the chicken or the egg thing, but the bandwagon effect is pretty universally accepted.  And Fox believed in it enough to attempt to further its Romney agenda with dishonest poll results and made up (aka not true) presidential inaction on Bengahzi, oh yea, and Obama's Katrina. 

http://researchdmr.com/Why_Are_Polls_Self_Fulfilling_Prophecies

Psychologists have long observed that people often conform to majority opinion. Bandwagon
effects are common in the political domain where people easily learn about prevailing public
opinion via ubiquitous polling data


----------



## Melensdad

This thread is about Zimmerman vs NBC.

Lets all get back on topic.  No need to rehash Romney media coverage.


----------



## mak2

Doc's fault, I will report him next time.





Melensdad said:


> This thread is about Zimmerman vs NBC.
> 
> Lets all get back on topic.  No need to rehash Romney media coverage.


----------



## Doc

mak2 said:


> Doc's fault, I will report him next time.


What a tattle tale you are.   

All I said is that the polls were not falsified as you said.   No one brought up truth in reporting until you jumped tracks to that.


----------



## mak2

Sure, it is always someone else's fault.  (pretending I am modding at the other place) I ought to give a week off.  But since you own the place I guess not.  


Doc said:


> What a tattle tale you are.
> 
> All I said is that the polls were not falsified as you said.   No one brought up truth in reporting until you jumped tracks to that.


----------



## EastTexFrank

mak2 said:


> If you would really shoot someone for one good smack, please dont carry a gun.  You wont get out of it in court, no matter what the right wing fox reality of the week is.



Maybe not where you live Mak but down in Texas you certainly will and why???  Because you never know that it will begin and end with only "one good smack" without being followed by another and then another and then another.  That's why!!! 

Your logic reminds me of a T-shirt I once saw, "Explain to me how it's morally more superior to be found in a alley, raped and strangled by your pantyhose than it is to be explaining to the police how you shot the scumbag 6 times".


----------



## mak2

I am not anti gun, I believe if all responsible adults in America were trained and armed this country would be a lot better place so spare me the tee shirt logic.  At one point in life I was very well trained in the use of deadly force.  To shoot (at) someone is to intend to kill them.  Not even talking about state law, which we will get back to in a minute, morally and ethically I would have to fear for my life or the life of others (or grievous bodily injury)  before I killed someone.  And fearing for your life is not actually really good enough in court, later you will be held to the "reasonable person" standard. SO you cant say the guy snuck up behind you in a bar and goosed you so you shot him.  You also cannot shoot someone to protect property, except as I was trained, F18's or some other piece of military equipment my life might later depend on.  If someone you don't know is in your house fire away, but you are doing that because his mere presence uninvited in your house put you in fear of you life, not to protect your silverware.  In my case at that time I could shoot a prisoner that was fleeing but only as a last resort, in other words, if they have their handcuffs on I was in trouble.  And if they didn't, I was in trouble so I probably better not have to shoot anyone.  I believe at some other point on this forum we discussed this topic and I said something about a 18 year old beating an 80 year old guy in a wheel chair, the 80 year old guy should fire away.  Now if the 18yo is 160lbs and 5'6 and you are 30yo and bigger and meaner and he is unarmed, it will not  be a good shooting almost no matter what.  I have often used this to demonstrate this point, several years ago Mike Tyson got the road rage and stopped at a stop sign, walked back to the car screaming in his mousey voice about kicking the other drivers ass.  By the time he got close enough to punch me, I would have been out of ammo and no court would have ever convicted me of anything, obviously I would reasonably be afraid for my life.  If he was 5'4" and 130lb and not armed no way would I get out of killing him.  Now, back to state law, I believe Indiana law is a lot like Florida, we don't even have to back down.  But morally and ethically killing someone should be the last resort and to protect life and limb.   If you think otherwise I dont think you should carry a weapon.  





EastTexFrank said:


> Maybe not where you live Mak but down in Texas you certainly will and why???  Because you never know that it will begin and end with only "one good smack" without being followed by another and then another and then another.  That's why!!!
> 
> Your logic reminds me of a T-shirt I once saw, "Explain to me how it's morally more superior to be found in a alley, raped and strangled by your pantyhose than it is to be explaining to the police how you shot the scumbag 6 times".


----------



## mak2

If you are interested this is a pretty good article.

http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?p=23805



EastTexFrank said:


> Maybe not where you live Mak but down in Texas you certainly will and why???  Because you never know that it will begin and end with only "one good smack" without being followed by another and then another and then another.  That's why!!!
> 
> Your logic reminds me of a T-shirt I once saw, "Explain to me how it's morally more superior to be found in a alley, raped and strangled by your pantyhose than it is to be explaining to the police how you shot the scumbag 6 times".


----------



## SShepherd

*The 2012 Florida Statutes*
*



*

*Title XLVI*
CRIMES*Chapter 776 *
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE*View Entire Chapter*[SIZE=-1]776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.— (1) *A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if*: (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1](2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if: (a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]*(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.*[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](5) As used in this section, the term: (a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=-1][/SIZE]
http://www.criminaldefenseattorneytampa.com/FloridaDefenses/DeadlyForceSelfDefense.aspx

The defendant must be judged by the circumstances in which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. Although the danger need not be actual, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonable person who is cautious and prudent acting under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. 

The defendant has no duty to retreat from a place where he has a right to be and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent great bodily harm or death to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
*Presumption of Fear in Self-defense Cases*
When the defendant was in a dwelling, home, or occupied vehicle where he had a right to be, he is presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another if the alleged victim unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, home or occupied vehicle. Under the circumstances, the defendant has no duty to retreat. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter another's dwelling, home or occupied vehicle is presumed to have an intent to commit an unlawful violence act.


----------



## SShepherd

BTW.
Disparity of Force is a legal argument which is used as to justify ones actions for using lethal force. when claiming there was a "disparity of force" involved in your decision to defend yourself using lethal force, you must still be in a state of *fear of immediate and otherwise unavoidable death or serious crippling injury* at the time of the incident... and a reasonable man of the same physical capacity as you, in the same situation must share your same conclusion

There is no such thing as a _"disparity of force law."_


----------



## mak2

Are you pointing out it is a double edged sword that can cut both ways?  In big dogs example, that is exactly why he cant shoot the little old unarmed lady and get away with it, but I could shoot mike tyson repeatedly.  Pardon the analogy using another tool of deadly force.  





SShepherd said:


> BTW.
> Disparity of Force is a legal argument which is used as to justify ones actions for using lethal force.


----------



## SShepherd

mak2 said:


> Are you pointing out it is a double edged sword that can cut both ways? In big dogs example, that is exactly why he cant shoot the little old unarmed lady and get away with it, but I could shoot mike tyson repeatedly. Pardon the analogy using another tool of deadly force.


we both know that everything will be thrown at a person in court to question the use of deadly force, in the end what going to count is how well you can defend that you felt you were in fear of death or great bodily harm.( or someone elses).
Here's a situation to consider;

You're a 30yr old man, attacked by a 17yr old (in some states 17 is legally an adult- I'm throwing that out because you repeatedly use the term "minor') .. The 17yr old sucker punches the 30yr old and knocks him to the ground, is the 30yr old justified in using lethal force?


----------



## mak2

If the 17 year old is unarmed and the 30 year old otherwise has the means to resist.  No.  The use of deadly force would not be warranted. Think about it, if it was there would be shoot outs in bars all the time, I mean even more than there is now. I was sitting in a bar probably about 10 years ago and some dumb ass thought I was looking at his woman (I was), and when I was not looking at him (probably at his woman) he punched me in the back of the head. Do you think I should have shot him, I was packing at the time. 





SShepherd said:


> we both know that everything will be thrown at a person in court to question the use of deadly force, in the end what going to count is how well you can defend that you felt you were in fear of death or great bodily harm.( or someone elses).
> Here's a situation to consider;
> 
> You're a 30yr old man, attacked by a 17yr old (in some states 17 is legally an adult- I'm throwing that out because you repeatedly use the term "minor') .. The 17yr old sucker punches the 30yr old and knocks him to the ground, is the 30yr old justified in using lethal force?


----------



## SShepherd

mak2 said:


> If the 17 year old is unarmed and the 30 year old otherwise has the means to resist. No. The use of deadly force would not be warranted. Think about it, if it was there would be shoot outs in bars all the time, I mean even more than there is now. I was sitting in a bar probably about 10 years ago and some dumb ass thought I was looking at his woman (I was), and when I was not looking at him (probably at his woman) he punched me in the back of the head. Do you think I should have shot him, I was packing at the time.


 Oh it wouldn't?
"has the means to resist" isn't in the law. Oddly, you make too many assumptions on info that isn't there. All that the person has to prove (to a jury) that they were in fear of losing their life OR great bodily harm. Perhaps the 30yr old has a heart condition, what then? A weapon ultimatly has no bearing on a lethal force defence.
I'm curious why you keep bringing up a bar ? I'm not going to armchair quarterback what happened. Obviously you weren't in fear of great bodily harm or death- so then obviously no. You seem to be interjecting alot of your own ideas into what defines justifiable into the discussion and it's honestly irrelevant unless it directly applies to you (you answerd your own example in the bar). You can't use your own feelings of "badassery" in judging what someone else should have done or felt in a situation.
A 30yr old hemopheliac with a heart condition might not feel the same


----------



## mak2

A bar is generally the only place I ever have trouble with people, once at the Indy 500 and at a couple of sporting events when drinking amatures are drinking to excess, otherwise it almost never happens. Of course you can add in other factor and change the answer.  If I am out at the mall and some guy jumps me and I have some bleeding dyscraisa, it would probably be justified to shoot him right off the bat, because if he hits me anywhere I might bleed to death.  I was just trying to discuss everyday events and trying to think about it and get others to.  I should have know it was too argumentative a place to try it.  Nevermind, go shoot a kung fu old lady.  Have fun.  





SShepherd said:


> Oh it wouldn't?
> "has the means to resist" isn't in the law. Oddly, you make too many assumptions on info that isn't there. All that the person has to prove (to a jury) that they were in fear of losing their life OR great bodily harm. Perhaps the 30yr old has a heart condition, what then? A weapon ultimatly has no bearing on a lethal force defence.
> I'm curious why* you keep bringing up a bar ?* I'm not going to armchair quarterback what happened. Obviously you weren't in fear of great bodily harm or death- so then obviously no. You seem to be interjecting alot of your own ideas into what defines justifiable into the discussion and it's honestly irrelevant unless it directly applies to you (you answerd your own example in the bar). You can't use your own feelings of "badassery" in judging what someone else should have done or felt in a situation.
> A 30yr old hemopheliac with a heart condition might not feel the same


----------



## SShepherd

mak2 said:


> A bar is generally the only place I ever have trouble with people, once at the Indy 500 and at a couple of sporting events when drinking amatures are drinking to excess, otherwise it almost never happens. Of course you can add in other factor and change the answer. If I am out at the mall and some guy jumps me and I have some bleeding dyscraisa, it would probably be justified to shoot him right off the bat, because if he hits me anywhere I might bleed to death. I was just trying to discuss everyday events and trying to think about it and get others to.* I should have know it was too argumentative a place to try it.* Nevermind, go shoot a kung fu old lady. Have fun.


 
Riiight, it's because we don't agree with your opinion. What a surprise


----------



## EastTexFrank

mak2 said:


> I am not anti gun, I believe if all responsible adults in America were trained and armed this country would be a lot better place so spare me the tee shirt logic.  At one point in life I was very well trained in the use of deadly force.  To shoot (at) someone is to intend to kill them.  Not even talking about state law, which we will get back to in a minute, morally and ethically I would have to fear for my life or the life of others (or grievous bodily injury)  before I killed someone.  And fearing for your life is not actually really good enough in court, later you will be held to the "reasonable person" standard. SO you cant say the guy snuck up behind you in a bar and goosed you so you shot him.  You also cannot shoot someone to protect property, except as I was trained, F18's or some other piece of military equipment my life might later depend on.  If someone you don't know is in your house fire away, but you are doing that because his mere presence uninvited in your house put you in fear of you life, not to protect your silverware.  In my case at that time I could shoot a prisoner that was fleeing but only as a last resort, in other words, if they have their handcuffs on I was in trouble.  And if they didn't, I was in trouble so I probably better not have to shoot anyone.  I believe at some other point on this forum we discussed this topic and I said something about a 18 year old beating an 80 year old guy in a wheel chair, the 80 year old guy should fire away.  Now if the 18yo is 160lbs and 5'6 and you are 30yo and bigger and meaner and he is unarmed, it will not  be a good shooting almost no matter what.  I have often used this to demonstrate this point, several years ago Mike Tyson got the road rage and stopped at a stop sign, walked back to the car screaming in his mousey voice about kicking the other drivers ass.  By the time he got close enough to punch me, I would have been out of ammo and no court would have ever convicted me of anything, obviously I would reasonably be afraid for my life.  If he was 5'4" and 130lb and not armed no way would I get out of killing him.  Now, back to state law, I believe Indiana law is a lot like Florida, we don't even have to back down.  But morally and ethically killing someone should be the last resort and to protect life and limb.   If you think otherwise I dont think you should carry a weapon.



Enough of your hypothetical nonsense.  Mak, we discussed this way back when the jogger in Florida shot the 18-year old who slugged him in the face.  You put forward the exact same arguments and crap then. No charges were ever brought against the jogger.  You were wrong then and you are wrong now.  The law is what it is and not what you want it to be.  

Now, if it makes you feel morally superior to allow an assailant to strike you 2, 3, 4 or 5 times before you retaliate then go ahead bro'.  That is your choice but it is not what the law states.  The judge isn't going to convict Zimmerman because he offended Mak's moral principles.  He'll get convicted if and only if it is proved that he has broken the law.  

Zimmerman will get convicted if it can be shown that he somehow intimidated TM into attacking him or that TM felt in fear of his life and was in fact defending himself as best he could when he was shot.  If the prosecution can't prove that then Zimmerman was defending himself against an attack and will walk.  Now, that may offend your moral beliefs and sensibilities but ... tough, learn to live with it.


----------



## FrancSevin

EastTexFrank said:


> Enough of your hypothetical nonsense. Mak, we discussed this way back when the jogger in Florida shot the 18-year old who slugged him in the face. You put forward the exact same arguments and crap then. No charges were ever brought against the jogger. You were wrong then and you are wrong now. The law is what it is and not what you want it to be.
> 
> Now, if it makes you feel morally superior to allow an assailant to strike you 2, 3, 4 or 5 times before you retaliate then go ahead bro'. That is your choice but it is not what the law states. The judge isn't going to convict Zimmerman because he offended Mak's moral principles. He'll get convicted if and only if it is proved that he has broken the law.
> 
> Zimmerman will get convicted if it can be shown that he somehow intimidated TM into attacking him or that TM felt in fear of his life and was in fact defending himself as best he could when he was shot. If the prosecution can't prove that then Zimmerman was defending himself against an attack and will walk. Now, that may offend your moral beliefs and sensibilities but ... tough, learn to live with it.


 
YEP!

well said sir.


----------



## Dargo

mak2 said:


> I am not anti gun, I believe if all responsible adults in America were trained and armed this country would be a lot better place so spare me the tee shirt logic.  At one point in life I was very well trained in the use of deadly force.  To shoot (at) someone is to intend to kill them.  Not even talking about state law, which we will get back to in a minute, morally and ethically I would have to fear for my life or the life of others (or grievous bodily injury)  before I killed someone.  And fearing for your life is not actually really good enough in court, later you will be held to the "reasonable person" standard. SO you cant say the guy snuck up behind you in a bar and goosed you so you shot him.  You also cannot shoot someone to protect property, except as I was trained, F18's or some other piece of military equipment my life might later depend on.  If someone you don't know is in your house fire away, but you are doing that because his mere presence uninvited in your house put you in fear of you life, not to protect your silverware.  In my case at that time I could shoot a prisoner that was fleeing but only as a last resort, in other words, if they have their handcuffs on I was in trouble.  And if they didn't, I was in trouble so I probably better not have to shoot anyone.  I believe at some other point on this forum we discussed this topic and I said something about a 18 year old beating an 80 year old guy in a wheel chair, the 80 year old guy should fire away.  Now if the 18yo is 160lbs and 5'6 and you are 30yo and bigger and meaner and he is unarmed, it will not  be a good shooting almost no matter what.  I have often used this to demonstrate this point, several years ago Mike Tyson got the road rage and stopped at a stop sign, walked back to the car screaming in his mousey voice about kicking the other drivers ass.  By the time he got close enough to punch me, I would have been out of ammo and no court would have ever convicted me of anything, obviously I would reasonably be afraid for my life.  If he was 5'4" and 130lb and not armed no way would I get out of killing him.  Now, back to state law, I believe Indiana law is a lot like Florida, we don't even have to back down.  But morally and ethically killing someone should be the last resort and to protect life and limb.   If you think otherwise I dont think you should carry a weapon.



If I were a prosecutor, I could punch holes in your theory easier than I could a wet paper bag.  I submit this 5'6" 135 pound guy who won't even look into an opponent's eyes in a stare down.  Unless you are armed and get to your weapon quickly, I guarantee he would literally easily kill you in 30 seconds or so. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMj5HKdFvYI"]Little Jose Aldo[/ame]  And, guess what; there are thousands like him out there.  You underestimate them and you're dead.  How do you know who is walking up to attack you?


----------

