[Normal]

In Florida, you don't have to prove you felt your life was in danger. The state has to prove you did not feel threatened, or that you didn't fear for your own safety or the safety of others. This is so if you use your firearm in self defense. The case is already closed before it is opened.

[Bay Kid]

Nothing good happens after midnight.

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Wrong! Trayvon Martin Shooting Fast Facts | CNN

Transcripts of Calls in the George Zimmerman Case

Twelve people, the jury, who saw and heard ALL the evidence vs what the media wanted everyone to hear. Naturally the jury was wrong! Lets do away with trial by your peers and have trial by the biased, profit driven media.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

Twelve people, the jury, who saw and heard ALL the evidence vs what the media wanted everyone to hear. Naturally the jury was wrong! Lets do away with trial by your peers and have trial by the biased, profit driven media.

Twist twist twist.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Wrong! Trayvon Martin Shooting Fast Facts | CNN

Transcripts of Calls in the George Zimmerman Case

Miss this part? Where once the dispatcher realizes Zimmerman is following Martin, and asks "Are you following and tells him "We don't need you to do that", Zimmerman follows their instructions and say he'll return to his truck and wait for the police...


"Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah.

Dispatcher: Okay, we don't need you to do that.

Zimmerman: Okay."


And this part? Where the dispatcher asks, multiple times, where Martin is and where he's going? Any reasonable person would see that as a request to follow said person...

"Dispatcher: Just let me know if he does anything, okay?

Zimmerman: How long until you get an officer over here?

Dispatcher: Yeah, we've got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does anything else.

Zimmerman: Okay. These ******** they always get away. When you come to the clubhouse, you come straight in, and make a left. Actually, you would go past the clubhouse.

Dispatcher: So, it's on the left-hand side from the clubhouse?

Zimmerman: No, you go in, straight through the entrance, and then you make a left-- you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. ****, he's running.

Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?

Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.

Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?"


Then this part

"Dispatcher: All right, George. We do have them on the way. Do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?

Zimmerman: Yeah.

Dispatcher: All right, where you going to meet with them at?

Zimmerman: If they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the clubhouse. And uh, straight past the clubhouse, and make a left. And then they go past the mailboxes, that's my truck.."

And this?

"Dispatcher: Okay, do you want to just meet with them right near the mailboxes then?

Zimmerman: Yeah, that's fine.

Dispatcher: All right, George. I'll let them know to meet you around there okay?"

Now... Which part of that shows "he was looking for a fight"?

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Wrong! Trayvon Martin Shooting Fast Facts | CNN

Transcripts of Calls in the George Zimmerman Case

And you're using CNN???

They had him pegged as a murderer form day one... Evidence be damned...

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

And you're using CNN???

They had him pegged as a murderer form day one... Evidence be damned...

He did murder him. Whether it was justified or not is another matter.

[Rainger99]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

He did murder him. Whether it was justified or not is another matter.

It is correct to say that he killed him. In order to be murder, it has to be an unlaw killing.

The Florida statutes state:

782.04 Murder.—
(1)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being:
1. When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being;

If it is justified, it wouldn't be unlawful so it would not be murder.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

He did murder him. Whether it was justified or not is another matter.

No, he killed him... The is a significant difference...

[affald]

The fact that even that ridiculous organization that calls itself the viIIage new$ does not even comment on the long violent criminal record of the man rightfully shot to death, speaks volumes of the non freedom of speech our press is pressured to follow by the powers that be.

If a typical villager were the shot man, we would know every speeding ticket, jay walking ticket received as well as what he paid for his house.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by affald

The fact that even that ridiculous organization that calls itself the viIIage new$ does not even comment on the long violent criminal record of the man rightfully shot to death, speaks volumes of the non freedom of speech our press is pressured to follow by the powers that be.

If a typical villager were the shot man, we would know every speeding ticket, jay walking ticket received as well as what he paid for his house.

The "powers that be" have decided that the BEST course of action is to stay as quiet as possible, silence the event, downplay it, and hope it goes away. The less the media knows the better - which is also a main tenant of all fascist policy. The last thing wanted is that Al Sharpton gets wind of this shooting and IF he sees a racist component, he then decides to visit this area with the intent of bringing some sunshine through media exposure to this situation.
..........We live here and we know NOTHING about what really went on that night. The only thing that we know is that SOMETHING very BAD went on in OUR backyard and it is STINKING UP the neighborhood.

[Taltarzac725]

Not sure if it was bad or not. And the Lady Lake PD is doing the right thing and waiting out with the investigation. These things take a lot of time especially if they have not identified the people who were shooting outside of Applebee's. It would be valuable to know what was going on out there and how the slain man was connected to these men or women or both.

Did he come into Applebee's to avoid them and prevent himself from getting shot? Or did he come into Applebee's to do harm to the people in there? Was he reaching for his phone? Was he even armed? And what did the shooter know about any of this?

The person who let him in probably had some idea.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

The "powers that be" have decided that the BEST course of action is to stay as quiet as possible, silence the event, downplay it, and hope it goes away. The less the media knows the better - which is also a main tenant of all fascist policy. The last thing wanted is that Al Sharpton gets wind of this shooting and IF he sees a racist component, he then decides to visit this area with the intent of bringing some sunshine through media exposure to this situation.
..........We live here and we know NOTHING about what really went on that night. The only thing that we know is that SOMETHING very BAD went on in OUR backyard and it is STINKING UP the neighborhood.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Not sure if it was bad or not. And the Lady Lake PD is doing the right thing and waiting out with the investigation. These things take a lot of time especially if they have not identified the people who were shooting outside of Applebee's. It would be valuable to know what was going on out there and how the slain man was connected to these men or women or both.

Did he come into Applebee's to avoid them and prevent himself from getting shot? Or did he come into Applebee's to do harm to the people in there? Was he reaching for his phone? Was he even armed? And what did the shooter know about any of this?

The person who let him in probably had some idea.

Agree.

Remember back in the day, when “Uncle Walter” Cronkite was The Most Trusted Man In America? Things were different then. Three major networks reporting pretty much the same news in pretty much the same way five days per week for 1/2 hour each evening (an hour, later on, with MacNeil - Lehrer), with the punditry and opinionizing saved for Sunday mornings. There was news; short, sweet, and (we assumed) factual. There were the opinion shows on Sunday. And never the twain shall meet. Things were pretty clear.

Not so, today. Today there are dozens of “news” printers and broadcasters all vying for she same dollar, tailoring their product to this or that demographic or political point of view to the extent that virtually no domestic news outlet can be trusted for “just the facts”. Virtually everything is colored, spun, twisted and sensationalized to keep and satisfy their patrons as well as to attract more to their particular brand of “news”. I have no problem imagining that any one particular story can be disseminated by, say, five different outlets, and depending on the political slant of the outlet as well as how the story is phrased and spun, listeners or viewers can walk away with five totally different emotional reactions to the story that are more or less independent of the facts. A good example of this might be a story about a retiring member of Congress. Same story. Same facts. Same everything except for maybe two words. One story is about the “venerable statesman “ retiring from a lifetime of public service. The other concerns the same person, same facts, etc. but describes him as an “aging politician”. Dunno about the rest of you, but “venerable statesman” conjures up, for me anyway, a mental image of maybe Winston Churchill. “Aging politician”? Teddy Kennedy.

So too with these “stories” about shootings, often no more than wild conjecture based on very little few if any facts, but designed and spun to appeal to a certain demographic and thus guarantee and/or boost patronage. I recall many of them back in Minnesota. George Floyd. BLM. The “mostly peaceful” (gotta love that one!) demonstrations. Media had the population so stirred up that there were very few people who DIDN’T claim to know the story—but the “story” they knew was the one that they chose to listen to, and thus believe. INFORMATION didn’t matter. What mattered was VALIDATION. And you could pick and choose to find a source that validated any point of view that you might have.

Kudos to Lady Lake PD for handling this shooing in the way that they’re doing. Low-key. Get the facts first. Don’t sensationalize. Remember that this is a legal process, NOT a soap opera, no matter how many of us see it as a soap opera.

Come to think of it, shouldn’t ALL news be disseminated in that way?

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

Agree.

Remember back in the day, when “Uncle Walter” Cronkite was The Most Trusted Man In America? Things were different then. Three major networks reporting pretty much the same news in pretty much the same way five days per week for 1/2 hour each evening (an hour, later on, with MacNeil - Lehrer), with the punditry and opinionizing saved for Sunday mornings. There was news; short, sweet, and (we assumed) factual. There were the opinion shows on Sunday. And never the twain shall meet. Things were pretty clear.

Not so, today. Today there are dozens of “news” printers and broadcasters all vying for she same dollar, tailoring their product to this or that demographic or political point of view to the extent that virtually no domestic news outlet can be trusted for “just the facts”. Virtually everything is colored, spun, twisted and sensationalized to keep and satisfy their patrons as well as to attract more to their particular brand of “news”. I have no problem imagining that any one particular story can be disseminated by, say, five different outlets, and depending on the political slant of the outlet as well as how the story is phrased and spun, listeners or viewers can walk away with five totally different emotional reactions to the story that are more or less independent of the facts. A good example of this might be a story about a retiring member of Congress. Same story. Same facts. Same everything except for maybe two words. One story is about the “venerable statesman “ retiring from a lifetime of public service. The other concerns the same person, same facts, etc. but describes him as an “aging politician”. Dunno about the rest of you, but “venerable statesman” conjures up, for me anyway, a mental image of maybe Winston Churchill. “Aging politician”? Teddy Kennedy.

So too with these “stories” about shootings, often no more than wild conjecture based on very little few if any facts, but designed and spun to appeal to a certain demographic and thus guarantee and/or boost patronage. I recall many of them back in Minnesota. George Floyd. BLM. The “mostly peaceful” (gotta love that one!) demonstrations. Media had the population so stirred up that there were very few people who DIDN’T claim to know the story—but the “story” they knew was the one that they chose to listen to, and thus believe. INFORMATION didn’t matter. What mattered was VALIDATION. And you could pick and choose to find a source that validated any point of view that you might have.

Kudos to Lady Lake PD for handling this shooing in the way that they’re doing. Low-key. Get the facts first. Don’t sensationalize. Remember that this is a legal process, NOT a soap opera, no matter how many of us see it as a soap opera.

Come to think of it, shouldn’t ALL news be disseminated in that way?

They are talking the high road at Lady Lake PD.

My high school teacher's daughter was murdered on my birthday of 2-24 back in 1976 while I was a Junior at Earl Wooster HS in Reno, Nevada. Us students in her English classes were suspects and media was very much involved with this case as her husband was an English teacher at another high school in Reno, NV and the victim-- Michelle Mitchell-- was a 19 year old nursing student at the University of Nevada, Reno.

I had gone into libraries to help my fellow Earl Wooster HS students and myself cope with the investigation but could find NOTHING useful and starting planning on how I could do something about that niche of offering useful information.

They "solved" the murder in 1979 but wound up getting the wrong person which was discovered in a DNA test in 2014 of a cigarette that had been in evidence. Or, something like that. Turned out it was a SF area serial killer, Rodney Halbower, who had killed Michelle Mitchell. He had been in prison for a long time in Oregon for the rape of woman.

Paula Zahn did a program on the whole mess a few years ago interviewing the detective in charge of some of it. Her birthday is also 2-24. The murder of Michelle Mitchell was about twenty feet from the University of Nevada, Reno campus in a garage.

[Pairadocs]

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

Twelve people, the jury, who saw and heard ALL the evidence vs what the media wanted everyone to hear. Naturally the jury was wrong! Lets do away with trial by your peers and have trial by the biased, profit driven media.

The unsettling truth is, it appears we are headed in that very direction, from the pre trial by media headlines, to the prosecutors elected by WE the people and, in most cases, pay far more than most citizens ever hope to make in a year, and then, outright refuse to do their job (how does it go when a clerk at Walmart goes to work and then just outright refuses to do his/her responsibilities because they disagree with some of the assigned duties ?), to the ever growing number of law school students who violently object to presentation of various points of view in classes and special speakers, to reduction in police forces, the growing forces to completely do away with jails and prisons (?), to the willingness of public officials on all levels to bow to the loudest, most violent or vocal protests, it's not a optimistic picture. Problem is, most people see each of these trends as individual entities, without considering the what the total will mean to our whole system of justice ! Are we slowly being moved, in micro steps, toward a system of guilty until proven innocent in a court ? Are we moving away from a "jury of peers" to a more stream lined system of trial before a judge only ? And the final truth is, none of these (and MANY other outcomes) are ever considered as the average American heads to the polls. Many consider what they, or their families, have always been in relation to political party, others just don't ever look at the picture painted by the "gathering clouds". Back to 911, people were MORE than willing to give up substantial personal rights in exchange for 100% (?) safety ! Same as cell phones slowly progressed to personal tracking devices; people are actually anxious to download hundreds of "apps" to their phones in exchange for a 10% discount at stores, or a one time coupon for an item. It's really amazing what trinkets (a free medium fries) people will accept in exchange for liberty and personal rights ! It's a Mystery....