Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#143 Jun 24, 2013
I am so disheartened, by how poorly NBC has handled this event....having admitting to having edited the 911 tape, to make George Zimmerman seem racist....even firing two of the employee's involved....You will now notice on their nightly news, they state that there is a pending lawsuit for this dirty trick.....but, they now contest these claims...lol...

“Come and get it! ”

Since: Jan 09

Traverse City

#144 Jun 24, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
I am so disheartened, by how poorly NBC has handled this event....having admitting to having edited the 911 tape, to make George Zimmerman seem racist....even firing two of the employee's involved....You will now notice on their nightly news, they state that there is a pending lawsuit for this dirty trick.....but, they now contest these claims...lol...
It's NBC. What'd you expect? Honesty?

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#145 Jun 24, 2013
Sneaky Pete wrote:
<quoted text>It's NBC. What'd you expect? Honesty?
No, and i understand that Sharpton is on the payroll, when not protesting......but the blatant proafrican-american angle is perhap's as disgusting as Fox and their politics....I guess sometimes, we all miss Harry Reasoner and simpler times...lol...
Oneal

Three Rivers, MI

#146 Jun 24, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
I am so disheartened, by how poorly NBC has handled this event....having admitting to having edited the 911 tape, to make George Zimmerman seem racist....even firing two of the employee's involved....You will now notice on their nightly news, they state that there is a pending lawsuit for this dirty trick.....but, they now contest these claims...lol...
You sure weren't disheartened when NBC, a national television network, admitted bias toward one political candidate over another.
http://www.wnd.com/2008/01/45446/

lol ...

Since: Mar 09

Grandville, MI

#147 Jun 24, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text>No, and i understand that Sharpton is on the payroll, when not protesting......but the blatant proafrican-american angle is perhap's as disgusting as Fox and their politics....I guess sometimes, we all miss Harry Reasoner and simpler times...lol...
What's odd is that they werent even going to press charges against Zimmerman at first.
The police thought it was a case of self defense. And then NBC and Al Sharpten got involved, and made a racial incident out of it.
Like most people,...I wasnt there, I didnt see it happen, and until someone comes forward as an eyewitness, I just dont see how they can convict Zimmerman.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#148 Jun 25, 2013
Gville Jim wrote:
<quoted text>What's odd is that they werent even going to press charges against Zimmerman at first.
The police thought it was a case of self defense. And then NBC and Al Sharpten got involved, and made a racial incident out of it.
Like most people,...I wasnt there, I didnt see it happen, and until someone comes forward as an eyewitness, I just dont see how they can convict Zimmerman.
....When the haze of BS, surrounding this case clears...it may turn out that, much like college exams....the police's first intent, is actually gonna be the final outcome.....it seem's the definition of, Self Defense.....at least, with everything I've seen so far....
bobolinq

Belmont, MI

#149 Jun 25, 2013
on its face the whole scene doesn't make any sense ...

regardless of martin's past behaviors, i believe he was not armed in any way; no gun, no knife, no club no anything more lethal than his fists, feet and teeth.

Zimmerman was ordered by police not to intercept, detain, hold, assault or in anyway interfere with Mr. martin's progress through the neighborhood, only observe him.

After that point it was all Zimmerman, 100%.

he chose to engage Martin in such a way as to provoke the altercation that led to martin's death.

anyway you look at it, Zimmerman willfully chose the terms of the confrontation.

had he never left his vehicle, had he obeyed the order not to engage we might not even be discussing anything about either of them; but he chose differently.

the responsibility for his actions and ultimate outcome lie squarely on his shoulders.
Magic Mouth

West Palm Beach, FL

#150 Jun 25, 2013
....you don't need to do that......
Rob

United States

#151 Jun 25, 2013
Magic Mouth wrote:
....you don't need to do that......
911 dispatchers are not in a position of authority. They at most suggest.
vox veritatis

Grand Rapids, MI

#152 Jun 25, 2013
bobolinq wrote:

Zimmerman was ordered by police not to intercept, detain, hold, assault or in anyway interfere with Mr. martin's progress through the neighborhood, only observe him.
The dispatcher (not the police) told Zimmerman not to follow Martin AFTER he was out of his truck (the rest of all that was never mentioned, but way to exaggerate there!) and had followed him for a distance. At that point, Martin told the dispatcher he was heading back to his truck.
For the encounter to have happened where it did, Martin would have had to double back.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#153 Jun 25, 2013
Magic Mouth wrote:
....you don't need to do that......
Yeah, well....what ya gonna do?.....

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

#154 Jun 25, 2013
vox veritatis wrote:
<quoted text>
The dispatcher (not the police) told Zimmerman not to follow Martin AFTER he was out of his truck (the rest of all that was never mentioned, but way to exaggerate there!) and had followed him for a distance. At that point, Martin told the dispatcher he was heading back to his truck.
For the encounter to have happened where it did, Martin would have had to double back.
This has nothing to do with the dispatcher. This has everything to do with being followed by someone packing a gun (I'd need to know where Zimmerman carried his weapon) and the realization of being followed. Once one establishes that fact (and we know Martin did), one is not required to retreat. There is no provision in the Statute as it stands that indicates one is not allowed to go on the Offensive. Martin was well within his "Rights" to pursue Zimmerman.
Unless you are not going to give Martin any of the same rights Zimmerman had. The Stand Your Ground law is poorly written and this case provides one example of something no one thought of.
I'm not arguing, I'm just sayin'.
pipedream

Grand Blanc, MI

#155 Jun 25, 2013
vox veritatis wrote:
<quoted text>
way to exaggerate there!
lol Wow.. You're so knowledgeable. Guess that means we can expect to hear your riveting, first hand testimony eh big mouth?
Phil

Oxford, MI

#156 Jun 25, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>This has nothing to do with the dispatcher. This has everything to do with being followed by someone packing a gun (I'd need to know where Zimmerman carried his weapon) and the realization of being followed. Once one establishes that fact (and we know Martin did), one is not required to retreat. There is no provision in the Statute as it stands that indicates one is not allowed to go on the Offensive. Martin was well within his "Rights" to pursue Zimmerman.
Unless you are not going to give Martin any of the same rights Zimmerman had. The Stand Your Ground law is poorly written and this case provides one example of something no one thought of.
I'm not arguing, I'm just sayin'.
Your funny, pursue, stand your ground. Your knowledge of the law is comical. Oh yes the law says you can kill someone for following you. Maybe you should smoke another one.

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

#157 Jun 25, 2013
Phil wrote:
<quoted text>
Your funny, pursue, stand your ground. Your knowledge of the law is comical. Oh yes the law says you can kill someone for following you. Maybe you should smoke another one.
Lethal force is allowed under the Stand Your Ground law as it stands. It's the very Statute Zimmerman is trying to hide behind.

Total fail...
Phil

Oxford, MI

#158 Jun 25, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>Lethal force is allowed under the Stand Your Ground law as it stands. It's the very Statute Zimmerman is trying to hide behind.

Total fail...
Lethal force just for someone following you? You are funny! Lol

Total fail..

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

#159 Jun 25, 2013
Phil wrote:
<quoted text>
Lethal force just for someone following you? You are funny! Lol
Total fail..
Yes, if one feels or determines they are in danger. The proof of danger is not clearly defined. That's one of the weaknesses or loopholes in the law as it stands.

This information has been plastered all over the news since this situation happened. Why do you think Florida is looking at the Stand Your Ground laws even now?? They fully realize there's a huge problem.
Unless you also feel Martin had no rights to defend himself once he realized he was being followed? He was required to run away or ignore those facts? He was just to assume Zimmerman was a "good guy"??
If Martin felt he was in danger he had every right to use lethal force. Read the law.

Since: Mar 09

Grandville, MI

#160 Jun 25, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, if one feels or determines they are in danger. The proof of danger is not clearly defined. That's one of the weaknesses or loopholes in the law as it stands.
This information has been plastered all over the news since this situation happened. Why do you think Florida is looking at the Stand Your Ground laws even now?? They fully realize there's a huge problem.
Unless you also feel Martin had no rights to defend himself once he realized he was being followed? He was required to run away or ignore those facts? He was just to assume Zimmerman was a "good guy"??
If Martin felt he was in danger he had every right to use lethal force. Read the law.
I agree with you that Matin had every right to defend himself. But from what has been said, Zimmerman was walking back to his truck when he was attacked by Martin. And if that is in fact true, then Zimmerman would be the one being attacked, and was defending himself.
On the news tonight they showed some of the pictures used in the courtroom, and they showed Zimmermans bloody face, and the wounds on the back of his head from being slammed against the sidewalk.
The "stand your ground" law could apply to both, it just depends on who you believe.
Zimmerman claims that he was headed back to his truck, when Martin attacked him from behind. If that is indeed the case, Zimmerman had every right to defend himself.
It's just too bad that there are no eye witness's that saw what happened, and can give some more information on this.
As it stand right now NBC news is being sued because they have admitted to "doctoring" the 911 phone call, and Trayvon's own father said that the cries for help on the 911 tape were not those of his son.
It just makes me wonder. Initially, the police were not going to charge Zimmerman at all. But then the media got involved, and tried to make a big racial issue out of it.
As for me,... I tend to agree with the local law enforcements initial decision. Justifiable homicide.
It's really sad that a young man died like that, but I just dont think that they can convict Zimmerman of second degree murder in this without ant eye witness to prove that Zimmerman was not defending himself.

“Come and get it! ”

Since: Jan 09

Traverse City

#161 Jun 25, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
Yes, if one feels or determines they are in danger. The proof of danger is not clearly defined.
Yes, and Zimmerman felt he was in grave danger from this thug so he shot and killed him. Big deal, let's move on.

Since: Mar 09

Grandville, MI

#162 Jun 25, 2013
Sneaky Pete wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, and Zimmerman felt he was in grave danger from this thug so he shot and killed him. Big deal, let's move on.
Agreed.
But then,... the liberal media got involved,.. had to make a race issue out of it, NBC changed the 911 call to make it look so,... so now, even after the local law enforcement decided not to charge Zimmerman,... we need to spend hundreds of thousands on a trial.
Go figure.
Just think,... they could use that money to pay for the Obama African safari vacation!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Grand Rapids Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Back in Iraq. WMD's? oil? 5 hr No_More_Dems 106
WLLA channel 64 - off the air? (Feb '12) 7 hr glassy girl 8
Obama and cocaine addicts 15 hr Leroy 11
go blue goes black Tue Idea Maker 68
Crowd Walks Out On Obama Tue no_more_dems 6
Watch Racebaiter Oprah Wigout On Guest's Opinion Tue Eldasha 54
How bad are grand rapids roads Tue a commenter 3
Grand Rapids Dating
Find my Match

Grand Rapids Jobs

Grand Rapids People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Grand Rapids News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Grand Rapids

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]