of course he does have that right.

He does not have the right to follow someone who is not commiting a crime and kill that person.

I think Zimmerman was quite skilled at neighborhood watch. He thought Martin looked suspicious. Was he right?:

"In October, a school police investigator said he saw Trayvon on the school surveillance camera in an unauthorized area “hiding and being suspicious.” Then he said he saw Trayvon mark up a door with “W.T.F” — an acronym for “what the f—.” The officer said he found Trayvon the next day and went through his book bag in search of the graffiti marker.

Instead the officer reported he found women’s jewelry and a screwdriver that he described as a “burglary tool,” according to a Miami-Dade Schools Police report obtained by The Miami Herald. Word of the incident came as the family’s lawyer acknowledged that the boy was suspended in February for getting caught with an empty bag with traces of marijuana, which he called “irrelevant” and an attempt to demonize a victim.

Trayvon’s backpack contained 12 pieces of jewelry, in addition to a watch and a large flathead screwdriver, according to the report, which described silver wedding bands and earrings with diamonds."

I'm sure the jewelry belonged to Trayvon. It definitely wasn't stolen. LOL. (He admitted it wasn't his but wouldn't say where he got it.)

http://exposethemedia.com/2012/04/21...nds-at-school/

It is a joke that you guys want to vilify Zimmerman and portray Martin as a model citizen. Here is a little more on Martin:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/26/th...artins-tweets/

you're kidding, right? what, did martin walk differently because of what happened back in october? are you suggesting zimmerman intrinsically knew that martin was some sort of bad seed because of how he moved going down the sidewalk?? lol


i tell you what, rupe. you go ahead and keep your opinion, and i'll keep mine. you obviously feel nothing untoward occurred, and there isn't a thing i could put up that would change that, so have at it.

The story isn't "left wing". It's about moronic armed vigilantes who broke the law and endangered fellow citizens. Yeah. That's illegal, and no, self-appointed armed vigilantes are not good.

Zimmerman did the same thing, played armed vigilante, and a kid, doing nothing illegal, is dead. Bending over backwards imagining blame scenarios where it's all the victims fault says alot.

You surely have to understand that nothing above matters one bit, because Zimmerman didn't know he was following a kid who had done these things. He was following a person walking. Not a kid who had been suspended, not a kid who had been caught with weed, just a black kid. Period.

And even if in some magical world he did know all of those things, it still wouldn't matter one bit, because he was not stealing things, dealing drugs, or doing anything at that moment. There's a reason that I'm not allowed to go out and confront and kill the person in my neighborhood who I know is dealing drugs while he's walking to take out his garbage. Because then I'm killing an unarmed guy taking out his garbage -- the fact that he's a drug dealer doesn't change one bit of that in the end and it's just revisionist garbage to suggest otherwise.

The fact that Trayvon Martin had been caught doing whatever (being a teenager, mostly) changes nothing, and it's pathetic to say it does. If you think the kid was a menace and you're glad he's dead, just say it, because that's the only way that ANY of the information above is at all relevant to the topic at hand -- that someone shot him dead while he was walking home.

Nobody is saying that it is ok to go out and kill an unarmed drug dealer. I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that it is ok to call the police on a suspicious person, and to follow that person until the police arrives. That is all I am suggesting.

There is no evidence that Zimmerman had any plans to harm Martin in any way.

There is no law against following somebody. I wouldn't like it if someone was following me. I would probably call the police if someone was following me. Martin should have probably called the police.

Zimmerman claims that Martin attacked him. So I can use all the same arguments that you guys have used. I will use a similar argument to yours: There's a reason why I'm not allowed to attack someone in my neighborhood if I think he is following me. I'm not allowed to punch him in the nose and bang his head against the pavement. Because then I'm attacking an unarmed guy for following me. The fact that he is following me doesn't change one bit of that in the end.

That is actually a good argument. I'm glad you came up with it for me.

To answer your question, no I'm not kidding. I think criminlas do often times behave differently.

I was walking my dog about 10 years ago and I saw a white guy walking around the neighborhood. I immediately thought there was something odd about this guy. I can't even tell you what it was . He was white and he looked like a criminal to me. I watched him for a few minutes and I realized he was going door to door. I think he had a clipboard with him. I can't remember. Anyway, he eventually came up to me and explained what he was doing. He told me that he had recently been released from prison (or jail, I don't remember) and he was going door to door trying to get donations for some program that helped at-risk youth. I ended up giving him $20.

Anyway, the point was that right when I spotted this guy I thought there was something odd about him, even though he was wearing a dress shirt. And sure enough, the first thing he told me was that he had just gotten out of prison.

Oh my god.




Uncle.

In all seriousness, what I'm saying is true. You're not allowed to punch a guy in the nose and bang his head against the ground just because you think he's following you. You can't take the law into your own hands like that.

No, the point is that I am not even taking issue with your (ridiculous) idea that you think Zimmerman is a neato neighborhood watch guy just doing great justice for all of America and your false assertion that anyone is trying to talk about how Trayvon Martin is a model citizen -- whether he is or isn't matters not even the tiniest of bits.

I don't even care to have that tired argument. It's stupid.

In all seriousness, the point actually is that what Trayvon Martin did or didn't do in the years before that day are completely irrelevant to the one day that matters, because George Zimmerman had no way to know any of it, and therefore didn't consider him a threat because of those things. "Oh, but he's a bad kid" doesn't change anything about the fact that he wasn't being a bad kid that day.

His history before that is irrelevant. That's all.

I agree with you that whether Martin was a bad kid or not was irrelevant to the shooting part of the incident. I think the shooting part of the incident happened because Zimmerman was getting the crap beaten out of him by Martin.

The thing that keeps coming up in these debates is the question of why Zimmerman was suspicious of Martin in the first place. I would say there were two reasons. The first is that Zimmerman knew most people in the neighborhood and he didn't recognize Martin. The second was because Martin looked like a suspicious character to him.

You can argue that you don't think Martin is a suspicious looking character. It's just a matter of opinion. As I have said in previous posts, I think we all have come across people of all different races (white, black, hispanic, asian) that look suspicious to us. I think it's usually based on their demeanor. Age and sex are obviously factors too. Not too many of us would view a 75 year old woman as suspicious and/or dangerous.

When "Neighborhood Watch" Gets Out of Hand
 

I agree with the first part of the sentence, but not the second. If what you suggest is ok, why then did the police dispatcher specifically say to Z that "we don't need you to do that"?

Why is every organized neighborhood watch group in my area specifically instructed to observe and report suspicious activity, but never to follow and confront?

Someone either earlier in this thread or, possibly at another website, raised the issue that "following" a person under certain circumstances may constitute the criminal act of "menacing" in some jurisdictions.

It wasn't until it became apparent that Zimmerman was following Martin on foot that the dispatcher made the comment. He made the comment for obvious reasons. The police don't want people to put themselves into a dangerous situation. As I've said in previous posts, it is probably not a good idea to get out of your car and follow a person on foot.

I think it is relatively safe to follow a person in your car but even then, you should keep your distance. The police don't want you to end up in a confrontation with the suspect for the obvious reason, mainly that someone may end up getting hurt.

But the truth of the matter is, we have no evidence that Zimmerman planned to confront Trayvon. It appears that he followed him on foot simply so he wouldn't lose him. At some point, as we heard on the 911 tape, he totally lost him. Then at some point, he stumbled upon him. Once they release the interrogation interviews with Zimmerman, then we will see if I am right that Zimmerman ended up in close proximity to Martin by mistake. As I said in a previous post, I think it is likely that he never intended to get closer than within 50 yards or so but after he lost him and then went around a couple of corners, they ended up practically face to face. Now if it turns out that Zimmerman intentionally confronted Martin (purposely came up close to Martin in to engage him in a confrontation), then Zimmerman has more culpability for the incident than he would have if he stumbled upon Martin by accident, after turning a corner. With most of these laws, "intent" is very important. Even if Zimmerman did intentionally engage Martin in a verbal confrontation, if Zimmerman was attacked from behind while walking back to his car, after the verbal confrontation had ended, I think that severely lessens Zimmerman's culpability.

What you said about "menacing" may very well be true. But as you said, it is probably only under certain circumstances that it would constitute a criminal act. I highly doubt that the police are going to charge someone (who called the police) with menacing for temporarily following a person while they are waiting for the police to arrive.

My comment wasn't about it being a left-wing story. My comment was that I found it interesting that you seem to always post stories from left-wing sites. You constantly knock Fox News for being a partisan news source. Yet you seem to love partisan news sources. You love them as long as they have the same ideology as you.

You said, "Bending over backwards imagining blame scenarios where it's all the victims fault says alot." My response to you is that bending over backwards imagining some type of negative intentions in order to vilify altruistic people (who were only trying to help their neighbors) says alot.

By the way, if you read the article about Zimmerman you would have noticed that his black neighbors defended him. In addition, you would have noticed that Zimmerman and a black friend of his opened up a business together. Zimmerman is such a racist that his business partner was black. LOL.

911 dispatcher:
Are you following him? [2:24]
Zimmerman:
Yeah. [2:25]

911 dispatcher:
OK.
We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]

Zimmerman:
OK. [2:28]

911 dispatcher:
Alright, sir, what is your name? [2:34]

Zimmerman:
George. He ran.


ok. 911 says don't follow. zimmerman at that point had lost him. why didn't he just go back to his vehicle, since he'd been told not to follow? but no, he ignored what he was told, and took things into his own hands.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/27/justic...ntent=My+Yahoo


hearing today regarding zimmerman criminal file and whether to unseal. however, zimmerman could well be sent back to jail as he didn't disclose the presence of over 200k in donations at the bond hearing.

The article doesn't say Zimmerman could be sent back to jail. He's not going to be sent back to jail. The prosecutor has not asked for him to be sent back to jail, but only for the bond to be raised. If the judge raises the bond by $100,000, then Zimmerman will have to reach into his donations and come up with some more money.

The same can be said for Martin. He shouldn't have taken the law into his own hands. If you see someone following you, you should call the police. You shouldn't punch them in the nose and start banging their head against the cement.

Who is a bigger vigilante?

A. A person who follows a person while they are waiting for the police to come.

or...

B. A person who punches someone in the nose and bangs their head against the cement in retaliation for being followed.

I've tried to post stories from Big Government or World Net Daily, but I find them woefully deficient, generally, in facts :rolleyes:

So if I can't find the original AP story, I'll post where I find it, be it Daily Beast or Daily Kos.

I figure most here are smart enough to pick out the factual parts of the story, and separate it from (and ignore if they wish) the opinion if it's there.

Zimmerman profiled a black kid and now that kid is dead because of Zimmerman, at his hand.

We'll see if the court feels there should be a punishment for that. I sure as hell hope so.

Edit: Breaking: CBS Evening News reports that Zimmerman lied to the court regarding how much money he had. They told the court the Zimmerman's couldn't raise bail, that's he's indigent, and the family couldn't make the $15,000 10% of bail.

Whoops. Turns out Zimmerman knew at that time he had over $150,000 cash in his account, raised from his "support me" website. He just wasn't telling anybody about it ... not his lawyer, not the judge.

The real George Zimmerman is a liar, apparently. Can we trust his story about what happened with Trayvon, when he lies to the judge at his bail hearing?

This is a big deal. He may have screwed himself with his lie.

I honestly don't know how big of a deal it is, but it obviously shows he's deceptive at best -- this section of an article on CNN made me laugh.

O'Mara could not explain why Zimmerman didn't disclose the funds, but said he didn't think his client had meant to deceive anyone.

"If that was an oversight by him, then it was. And quite honestly, with everything he's going through for the past several weeks, if that's the only oversight he's committed, we'll deal with it, Judge Lester will deal with it," he said.

I frequently forget about the $200,000 I have sitting around when people ask me about how much money I have.

Good one.

He set up a website to raise money for his defense, not a website to raise money for bail. He probably didn't think of that money as part of his net-worth. On his website, it said that any money raised would go towards his defense and for necessary living expenses.

Zimmerman probably didn't feel like he needed to disclose to the judge that money was being raised on this website. After all, what good does it do to raise money, if the judge is simply going to take all the money away (temporarily) and make you put it up for bail.

It seems like it would kind of be unfair to the donors for the judge to take away all the money they donated that was supposed to pay for Zimmerman's defense and his living expenses and make Zimmerman put it all up for bail.

Technically I guess Zimmerman should have disclosed it. I guess in the future if a guy is accused of a crime and he is going to raise money, he should wait until after the bail hearing to start raising the money. It seems pretty silly but I guess that's what you need to do. Otherwise, if you have already raised $150,000, the judge may make your bail $150,000 higher. It's better to wait until after the bail hearing to raise the money. Then you don't need to disclose it. You obviously couldn't disclose money that you hadn't made yet.

By the way, for all we know Zimmerman didn't even have access to the money at the time of the bail hearing. Was the money already in Zimmerman's bank account? We don't know the answer to this. His website went through Paypal. I don't know exactly how that works. When somebody donates money to you through Paypal, how long before you actually have your hands on that money?

Did Zimmerman have internet access in jail? When was last the time he checked his website to see how much had been raised? The bail hearing was on a Friday. Maybe Zimmerman had no internet access from jail and hadn't checked his website in several days.

No matter what, we know that Zimmerman knew his website had raised some money. He obviously should have disclosed that. But if he had no access to check the site from jail and if he hadn't checked it in several days, for all we know there might have only been $25,000 in there the last time he had checked it. The bottom line is that he should have disclosed it. But I can understand why he didn't.

His website said it was for his defense and "living expenses." Bail is part of his legal fees.

Zimmerman apparently was given over $200,000 by his supporters. His bail was 10%, or $15,000. Zimmerman lied to the judge. The judge may or may not punish him for lying to the court.

The reason they say it costs 10% is because that is how much a bail company will charge you. If your bail is $150,000, if you can come up with $15,000, a bail company will pay the rest. The problem is that you don't get your $15,000 back. The bail company keeps it. That is what they charge you. If you have $150,000, you are better off putting the whole thing up yourself because you get the whole thing back. You save $15,000.

I doubt there will be any serious punishment from the judge. My guess is that the only punishment may be having the bail amount raised higher.

Ah, I see! I didn't know it worked like that ... thanks.

I think his defense lawyer is doing a great job - seriously. Got permission for Zimmerman to wear a suit in court, instead of prison garb; got permission for Zimmerman to make a public apology to the family ... he's doing a good job.

Even if the judge doesn't punish Zimmerman, geesh, it goes to his honesty. And the judge refused a press coverage info freeze. So I guess they think they can still find a jury there? We'll see.

Practically every defendant will try to "play poor" at the bail hearing because the lower your net worth, the lower your bail will be. I doubt there has ever been a defendant who overstated his net worth. They all understate it.

And if a defendant had some money that he thought nobody knew about, I highly doubt he would disclose it.

As Brian said, omitting $150,000 in cash is hardly a minor omission. But as I said in my previous post, we don't know the last time Zimmerman had checked his website, so we don't know if he knew how much was in there. I would have to think that someone knew how much was in there, whether it be his wife, his parents or whoever.

I guess the question is who knew what, when? O'Mara may have asked Zimmerman if he had any money when they first met. I assume Zimmerman told him he did not, and Zimmerman may have had very little money at the time. The bail hearing was around 12 days after they first met. How much of the $150,000 was raised during that 12 days? I don't know if O'Mara then asked Zimmerman the same question again before the bail hearing. O"Mara may have had no idea that Zimmerman raised $100,000 or whatever the amount was during that 12 day period.

I'm sure somebody knew how much money was in there (on the day of the bail hearing), but we don't know who knew. The one thing we know for sure is that Zimmerman knew there was at least some money in there, even if he thought it was far less than $150,000.

I'm obviously not a criminal defense lawyer, so I don't know if it is a big deal for a defendant to lowball his net worth, whether it is a major lowball or a minor lowball. It might be one of those things where you don't have anything to lose by lowballing. It might be one of those things where the worst thing that can happen to you if you get caught is that they raise your bail. I guess the judge probably has the authority to revoke the bail entirely, but I don't know if that is common or not. I certainly wouldn't expect that in this case because the prosecutor did not ask for the bail to be revoked.

According to O"Mara, practically all the money is still in the Paypal account. They have closed the account and are waiting for Paypal to send them the money by check. I guess it takes at least a few days for them to send you a check.

I think this gives Zimmerman a little bit of wiggle room. He can say that he hadn't gotten the money yet, so he didn't feel that he had to disclose money that he wasn't going to receive until a later date.

lowballing= lying. never a good idea to lie to the judge.

3 NBC employees lose jobs after edits of 911 recording in Trayvon Martin shooting
Published: Friday, May 04, 2012, 4:02 PM

NEW YORK (AP) — Three employees of NBC or an NBC-owned television station have now lost their jobs because of editing changes to a call made to police by George Zimmerman on the night he shot Trayvon Martin.

Lilia Luciano, an NBC News correspondent based in Miami, is no longer working at the network, spokeswoman Amy Lynn said. Her departure came as a result of an investigation into her March 20 "Today" show report on the Martin case.

Each of the reports on either "Today" or NBC's Miami station WTVJ involve editing of Zimmerman's phone call to a dispatcher that emphasizes his identification of Martin as a black male. Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer in Sanford, Fla., is charged with second-degree murder in the death of 17-year-old Martin, a case that has increased racial tensions.

In the report involving Luciano, audio of the police phone call was edited to insert a reference to Martin's race that had been made later in the conversation.

Last month, a NBC News producer was fired in connection with a March 27 "Today" show report where a tape of the call was edited to suggest that Zimmerman volunteered to police that "this guy looks like he's up to no good. He's black."

The broadcast portion of the audio had deleted a part of the conversation where the police dispatcher asked Zimmerman about whether a suspicious male he was reporting was "black, white or Hispanic." Zimmerman answered, "he looks black."

Lynn said Friday that NBC News' investigation into the reports has ended.

In an investigation about a separate incident, reporter Jeff Burnside of WTVJ lost his job because of a March 19 report on the dispatcher's call that similarly edited out the dispatcher's question that prompted Zimmerman's characterization of Martin as black, said Matt Glassman, spokesman for the NBC-owned station.

The WTVJ report did not air on any other NBC stations, he said.

Last week, WTVJ aired an apology to its viewers for the report on some of its newscasts, and posted it on the station's website. The statement said that "an error in editorial judgment was made in which a question from the operator was deleted which could have created the impression that Mr. Zimmerman's statement may have been singling out Trayvon Martin because of his race.

"We take this incident very seriously and apologize to our viewers," WTVJ said. "After conducting an extensive investigation, we are putting a more stringent editorial process in place to ensure this does not happen again."

NBC News did not immediately respond to questions about whether the "Today" show has addressed the misleading reports on the air, or whether there are any plans to do so.

Brent Bozell, founder of the conservative media watchdog the Media Research Center, said NBC still has not come clean.

"The truth has been withheld from NBC's own viewers now for more than one month," he said. "Do the network executives at NBC think that this is acceptable?"

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Zimmerman Medical Report Released:

http://news.yahoo.com/abc-news-exclu...opstories.html

Saw that report on ABC eve news...The medical report was done the morning after...the video shot of him the nite of the shooting show no head wound and no blood...:zz::zz:

I have to disagree with you there. I think you could clearly see the wounds on the back of his head on the enhanced video.

so voice experts have determined the voice yelling for help in the 911 call was NOT zimmermans voice.

Get ready to spend some time in prison, murderer.

Police report will clearly show what he looked like. Pretty cut and dry if you ask me.

All that will matter in the end is the ME report on Martin, was the shot fired from 6" or 4' (distances are estimated). That will determine in the minds of the jury what was happening 6" they were fighting and not guilty, 4' he shot the kid to kill him and guilty.

I thought I read that there were powder burns found on the victim's body or clothing, so the question is moot, no?

I do agree with you that IF the prosecution has evidence to suggest the shot came from a distance, their case would be winnable. As it is, Z walks.

I did not read that anywhere if it was made available but I pretty much stopped following closely shortly after the charges were filed. At that point I figured he would walk.

I think this could be spun either way. Playing devil's advocate, if a person has been involved in a physical confrontation with another, and the two become separated (perhaps by the first person either throwing the second backward, or by the first person retreating) but the second person charges, does the first person wait for more physical contact before shooting or does he shoot while the second person charges?

Just thayin, it could be manipulated both ways, and undoubtably would be.

George Zimmerman took a gun and followed an innocent man, Trayvon Martin. That's why Martin is dead by Zimmerman's gun, and everyone here knows it. When does the trial start, have they picked a day yet?

Agree... 4 Feet could mean you shot someone rushing to attack you where 6 inches could be an execution.

Everyone here has an opinion. As to Zimmerman's guilt or innocence as charged, I for one would like to hear the facts as they are presented in a trial, before I give mine.

I don't know, and am in no hurry to see the riots which (in my opinion) will ensue when the verdict is announced, no matter what the verdict might be.