Enzyte Bob

Reynoldsburg, OH

#185 Jul 16, 2013
2/2

Columnist John Nolte from Bigjournalism.com (the people who caught NBC editing a tape to make Zimmerman appear racist) compiled a superb timeline of the media’s race-crime narrative, supplemented with links. Some highlights:

On March 13, 2012, Al Sharpton interviewed the Martin family’s attorney Benjamin Crump, who described Zimmerman as white and claimed that it was Zimmerman who approached Trayvon Martin. The Associated Press had also erroneously described Zimmerman, a Hispanic, as white.

On March 21, 2012, CNN falsely accused Zimmerman of muttering the word “coon” when he called authorities. That was false, but not corrected by CNN for two weeks, long after it had influenced the media angle that Zimmerman was motivated by racial hostility.

On March 22, 2012, when it became clear that Zimmerman was Hispanic (Latina mom, white dad), the New York Times used a new term to describe Zimmerman:“White Hispanic.” Talk about reaching. People would rightfully take umbrage if the Times described the President of the United States as a “White African American.”

Also on March 22nd, at a Florida rally designed to build racial tension and force an arrest of Zimmerman, Al Sharpton stated “Trayvon could have been any one of our sons…” One day later, President Barack Obama echoed that line:“If I had a son," said the president. "he would look like Trayvon.” The racial narrative was set in stone.

It was reinforced by NBC four days later, when it edited Zimmerman’s call to police to make him look like a racist. Here is what NBC reported Zimmerman said:

“This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”

Here’s the actual exchange between Zimmerman and the police dispatcher:

Zimmerman:“This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.”

Dispatcher:“OK, and this guy, is he black, white or Hispanic?”

Zimmerman:“He looks black.”

A few days after that, ABC claimed that Zimmerman wasn’t injured the night the shooting took place, airing a blurry video of Zimmerman at the police station and stating that “a police surveillance video taken the night Trayvon Martin was shot dead shows no blood or bruises on George Zimmerman.”

As Nolte pointed out, ABC didn’t even bother to enhance the video before running with the report.

A day after that, when ABC’s report was sweeping the nation, NBC’s Chris Matthews backed up ABC’s version, even though one of his Hardball guests pointed out, with pictures, that Zimmerman’s head did show cuts and bleeding.

On April 9th, PBS anchor Gwen Ifill, again described Zimmerman as “white” and that he shot Martin after a “disputed altercation.”

Two days later, Special Prosecutor Angela Corey charged Zimmerman with Second Degree Murder.

And you wonder why so many people still despise George Zimmerman?

Liberal Harvard Law professor, Alan Dershowitz, to his credit, says that Corey’s decision to charge Zimmerman with Murder 2 was outrageous, politically motivated, based on a false affidavit and worthy of disbarment. Even when Judge Debra Nelson allowed an eleventh-hour request by prosecutors to convict Zimmerman on lesser grounds of manslaughter, the jury still cleared him.

What happened that night in Sanford Florida is a tragedy that cost one young man his life and likely ruined the life of another. But as an African-American minister told me, this trial needed to be about truth, not race. For the media, which distorted George Zimmerman’s ethnicity, his words and his injuries, it was precisely the opposite.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#186 Jul 16, 2013
-The-Artist- wrote:
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2307 .601
Yep. That's part of the Castle Doctrine. It is an amendment to the common law of self defense.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#187 Jul 16, 2013
Enzyte Bob wrote:
Continued ...
Some states, like here in Ohio, have a DUTY TO RETREAT and require that you avoid the conflict and any potential deadly force outcome. It is best to withdraw, leaving the scene entirely. How far do you need to retreat? Until you can not retreat any farther, sometimes referred to as the “back-to-the-wall law”. This law becomes even more complex when we consider that in some cases it has been argued that the onslaught was so savage there wasn’t time to retreat, and even that turning ones back or leaving cover to escape would increase the victim’s vulnerability. As you can see this issue can get more complex as we get further into its examination.
==========
I don't think this would apply in the Zimmerman case, even if there was a duty to retreat, as his back was against the sidewalk and he couldn't retreat any further.
In Ohio, except for Castle Doctrine cases, the defendant also has to prove that he was not at fault for creating the situation giving rise to the affray. Zimmerman would have had some problems with that one.
Enzyte Bob

Reynoldsburg, OH

#188 Jul 16, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
How is a person expected to know about it if it's not documented?
Our laws descend from British Common Law, also known as case law or precedent, is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals. Civil law (codified/continental law) is set on statutes adopted through the legislative/parliamentary process and/or regulations issued by the executive branch on base of the parliamentary statutes.

Some times statutes merely codify Common Law, other times it deviates.

Unless there is a statute addressing the matter, you always fall back on Common Law.

Courts alway interpret and apply both types of law.
Conservative

Springfield, OH

#189 Jul 16, 2013
This was not a case of "Stand Your Ground".

This was a case of "Self-Defense".

No one knows who started what. Speculation is not allowed in the courtroom. What they do know by eye-witnesses was Martin was on top, Beating Zimmerman and Zimmerman had several injuries. Other than the single gunshot, Martin had none.

A tragic event but the law was served.

You do not in any state have to retreat in a self-defense situation. Case in point, a man has an ax, do I have to calculate whether or not I can out run him. A robber has a gun, I have one also but is holstered, he looks a way long enough for me to draw my weapon, am I required to ask if he wants to give up?

“Hereeeeee'ssss UR Pizza”

Since: May 13

Columbus, OH

#190 Jul 16, 2013
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry kids, but I think Che is correct on this one:
Ohio has Duty to retreat,

unless you are in your Home, Car, or legally and with permission in the home or car of an immediate family member.
errr, no she is not.

Che's post and I quote, "You are wrong. There is a duty to retreat before using deadly force in Ohio".

In your home or vehicle there is NO DUTY TO RETREAT.

The statement made by Che in incorrect

“Hereeeeee'ssss UR Pizza”

Since: May 13

Columbus, OH

#191 Jul 16, 2013
is^^^^^

“Hereeeeee'ssss UR Pizza”

Since: May 13

Columbus, OH

#192 Jul 16, 2013
Conservative wrote:
This was not a case of "Stand Your Ground".
This was a case of "Self-Defense".
No one knows who started what. Speculation is not allowed in the courtroom. What they do know by eye-witnesses was Martin was on top, Beating Zimmerman and Zimmerman had several injuries. Other than the single gunshot, Martin had none.
A tragic event but the law was served.
You do not in any state have to retreat in a self-defense situation. Case in point, a man has an ax, do I have to calculate whether or not I can out run him. A robber has a gun, I have one also but is holstered, he looks a way long enough for me to draw my weapon, am I required to ask if he wants to give up?
Bingo
Conservative

Springfield, OH

#193 Jul 16, 2013
Free Pizza 4 U wrote:
<quoted text>
errr, no she is not.
Che's post and I quote, "You are wrong. There is a duty to retreat before using deadly force in Ohio".
In your home or vehicle there is NO DUTY TO RETREAT.
The statement made by Che in incorrect
Respectfully, not in a self-defense situation.
Conservative

Springfield, OH

#194 Jul 16, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
In Ohio, except for Castle Doctrine cases, the defendant also has to prove that he was not at fault for creating the situation giving rise to the affray. Zimmerman would have had some problems with that one.
Curious as to why you would believe that. There is no evidence or witnesses to anything prior to what the eye-witnesses testified to.

Would you as a defendant want a stream of witnesses for the prosecution testifying to what they THINK might have happened, they don't know but it could have been this way or based on what they heard reported on MSNBC? Would you simply like the evidence presented? What they do know.
Conservative

Springfield, OH

#196 Jul 16, 2013
WISE AMERICAN wrote:
<quoted text>
You whites are gullible to believe Zimmerman's story completely. He had options that he didn't take.
Why are you assuming most agreeing with the verdict here are white? Martin had options too. Go Home. Have you ever asked yourself why he didn't? Why didn't Martin call 911 to report a suspicious man following him if he was afraid?

To many questions but we only have the evidence not what we want or would like to believe at hand.

“Hereeeeee'ssss UR Pizza”

Since: May 13

Columbus, OH

#197 Jul 16, 2013
Conservative wrote:
<quoted text>
Respectfully, not in a self-defense situation.
I apologize, I may have read your post to fast.

My point was re Che's post where she claimed that "There is a duty to retreat before using deadly force in Ohio"

I was merely pointing out that there are scenarios in Ohio law where you have no duty to retreat.

ie, in your home or vehicle.
Conservative

Springfield, OH

#198 Jul 16, 2013
The jury did their duty. They took almost 16 hours before returning their verdict.

We also must remember the jury was selected by the Defense AND the Prosecution.
Conservative

Springfield, OH

#199 Jul 16, 2013
Free Pizza 4 U wrote:
<quoted text>
I apologize, I may have read your post to fast.
My point was re Che's post where she claimed that "There is a duty to retreat before using deadly force in Ohio"
I was merely pointing out that there are scenarios in Ohio law where you have no duty to retreat.
ie, in your home or vehicle.
No need to apologize. We are here to express opinions though some are questionable but certainly yours is not one in question.

Your point was correct I may not have fashioned my response correctly. Self-defense is universal.
They cannot kill a Spook

Detroit, MI

#200 Jul 16, 2013
Enzyte Bob wrote:
Continued ...
Some states, like here in Ohio, have a DUTY TO RETREAT and require that you avoid the conflict and any potential deadly force outcome. It is best to withdraw, leaving the scene entirely. How far do you need to retreat? Until you can not retreat any farther, sometimes referred to as the “back-to-the-wall law”. This law becomes even more complex when we consider that in some cases it has been argued that the onslaught was so savage there wasn’t time to retreat, and even that turning ones back or leaving cover to escape would increase the victim’s vulnerability. As you can see this issue can get more complex as we get further into its examination.
==========
I don't think this would apply in the Zimmerman case, even if there was a duty to retreat, as his back was against the sidewalk and he couldn't retreat any further.
You do realize that Ohio legislature passed what was.called.the.Castle.doctrine a.few.years ago. You don't have to retreat in your home garage fenced.yard etc. It also applies to boats RVs and cars.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#201 Jul 16, 2013
Enzyte Bob wrote:
Continued ...
Some states, like here in Ohio, have a DUTY TO RETREAT and require that you avoid the conflict and any potential deadly force outcome.
It would seem to a reasonable person that such an important concept would be codified into the law. Just seeking documentation.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#202 Jul 16, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep. That's part of the Castle Doctrine. It is an amendment to the common law of self defense.
The 2008 legislation didn't change any rights, it only switched the burden of proof from the defense to the prosecution in those cases.

And I was mistaken about the burden of proof being unusual in Florida. It seems that it's unusual in Ohio, as I've recently discovered that Ohio is the only state that doesn't require the prosecution to disprove a claim of self defense (outside of home (or substitute for home... tent, hotel room, etc.) and car).

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#203 Jul 16, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
It's documented. One needs to know how to do legal research.
Where is it "documented" in such a way that the average citizen would know about it? I suspect that if it was, you'd have replied with the supporting information.
Wait what

Dublin, OH

#205 Jul 16, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is it "documented" in such a way that the average citizen would know about it? I suspect that if it was, you'd have replied with the supporting information.
Here, too:

http://www.ohioccds.com/wp-content/uploads/20...

Since: Jan 12

Columbus, OH

#206 Jul 16, 2013
Enzyte Bob wrote:
Jury Instruction:
JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE
The killing of a human being is justifiable and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon George Zimmerman, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which George Zimmerman was at the time of the attempted killing.
=========
Salient points:
1. The killing of a human being is justifiable and lawful if;
2. Necessarily done
3. While resisting an attempt to murder or COMMIT A FELONY upon George Zimmerman
======
Assault is a felony;
No proof was shown that Zimmerman started the altercation.
No proof that he didn't start the fight because Martin can't testify to that. The evidence shows that Zimmerman got the worst of the fight, that doesn't mean he didn't start the fight. Shoving someone hard is considered assault. The police chief who cut Zimmerman loose, botched the case from the beginning. No blood alcohol or drug testing was ever taken from Zimmerman. The cops all knew him and seen a black 'unknown' male laying dead, seen Zimmerman bloody nose...and case closed. Ohh, the burglar was finally bagged by George, the son of judge Zimmerman.

This case stinks to high heaven.

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.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What do FEMINISTS think about Brucine Jenner? 2 hr Linda 7
Poll Should President Obama go to Baltimore to fix t... 3 hr Linda 7
Freddie Gray riots in Baltimore 3 hr Duke for Mayor 198
News Food pantry leaving gentrified Short North 3 hr Linda 6
Hooters Columbus locations closing due to defla... 3 hr Linda 201
Interesting that Baltimore happened on Obama's ... 3 hr REAL American 4
Watching the KENTUCKY DERBY 11 hr Seriouslady 7
More from around the web

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]