Trayvon Martin Shooting Death Sparks Outrage on Social Media

Mar 22, 2012 Full story: Wall Street Journal 66,084

Social media has put the spotlight on the story Trayvon Martin , an unarmed African-American teenager who was shot to death last month by a neighborhood watch captain in Florida.

Full Story
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#47230 Jan 4, 2013
zazz wrote:
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>There is no speculation. That's your opinion trying to trump the facts.
<quoted text>
Obviously she does. She's been explaining that over and over and over to no avail. She's also been explaining that the trial will deal with facts, not opinions, again to no avail.
Here are the undisputed facts:

Zim called 911 to report a suspicious male not familiar to him

After the attack, witnesses told police it was Martin on top of Zimmerman who was screaming for help.

Autopsy reports show no evidence of physical altercations on Martins' body outside of the bullet wound.

Paramedic reports show that they treated a wound in the back of Zim's head, a broken nose and both eyes.

Martin's doctor confirmed those wounds.

Self-defense is described as protecting yourself from an attacker--not beating your attacker after he was unable to further attack. Beating your supposed attacker the way Martin did was beyond self-defense. It was physical assault.

There are absolutely no witnesses that can state they seen Zim attack Martin.

Now. The rest of the story has to be nurtured from the facts presented above. It's all here-say from that point. There were only two witnesses that can say what actually happened behind the houses during the attack, and one of those witnesses is dead.

It's apparent who suffered the most physical injuries before the gunshot. It's documented. It's proof. There is no possible way for a prosecutor to convince a jury that the event took place in reverse of the undisputed evidence. Again, in our country, a person charged with a crime is innocent unless a prosecutor can provide real evidence (not assumptions) that the person charged with the crime is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#47232 Jan 4, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
GW inherited a slight recession and battled against the worst attack on our soil in history. He still managed to reduce unemployment and create a thriving economy.
lol! He "battled?"

Son, in August 2001, bushie was at his ranch all month. he returned to "work" less than two weeks before that faithful day.

And Condi Rice claimed that was bushies idea of being at "battlestations."

Besides, bushies was reading books to kids at the time.

He really was missing the boat since he inherited such a good thing from Clinton.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#47233 Jan 4, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Here are the undisputed facts:
Zim called 911 to report a suspicious male not familiar to him
After the attack, witnesses told police it was Martin on top of Zimmerman who was screaming for help.
Autopsy reports show no evidence of physical altercations on Martins' body outside of the bullet wound.
Paramedic reports show that they treated a wound in the back of Zim's head, a broken nose and both eyes.
Martin's doctor confirmed those wounds.
Self-defense is described as protecting yourself from an attacker--not beating your attacker after he was unable to further attack. Beating your supposed attacker the way Martin did was beyond self-defense. It was physical assault.
There are absolutely no witnesses that can state they seen Zim attack Martin.
Now. The rest of the story has to be nurtured from the facts presented above. It's all here-say from that point. There were only two witnesses that can say what actually happened behind the houses during the attack, and one of those witnesses is dead.
It's apparent who suffered the most physical injuries before the gunshot. It's documented. It's proof. There is no possible way for a prosecutor to convince a jury that the event took place in reverse of the undisputed evidence. Again, in our country, a person charged with a crime is innocent unless a prosecutor can provide real evidence (not assumptions) that the person charged with the crime is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Good. Then your witnesses can also say that Zimmerman shot Martin in self defense.

Can I see your undisputed report from these witnesses son? After all, how could they possibly miss that muzzle flash, right?

And it also would appear you skipped that whole segment of Martin running away from Zimmerman, with Zimmerman giving change with a loaded weapon.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#47234 Jan 4, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>Good. Then your witnesses can also say that Zimmerman shot Martin in self defense.
Can I see your undisputed report from these witnesses son? After all, how could they possibly miss that muzzle flash, right?
And it also would appear you skipped that whole segment of Martin running away from Zimmerman, with Zimmerman giving change with a loaded weapon.
Totally irrelevant. It doesn't matter what took place before the shooting. What matters is what led to the shooting in the first place, and it wasn't because Zim chased Martin for less than ten seconds.

As witness "John" stated, he seen Martin on top of Zim beating the hell out of him. He ran home to call cops, and that's when he "heard" the gunshot and took note of Martin on the ground. He didn't see the gunshot nor who attacked who.

The rest has to be concluded by the jury based on evidence and police interviews of the witnesses. That's what I mean by empirical evidence vs assumptions. The judge or jury has to examine the undisputed evidence and make a decision from there.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#47236 Jan 4, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Totally irrelevant. It doesn't matter what took place before the shooting. What matters is what led to the shooting in the first place, and it wasn't because Zim chased Martin for less than ten seconds.
As witness "John" stated, he seen Martin on top of Zim beating the hell out of him. He ran home to call cops, and that's when he "heard" the gunshot and took note of Martin on the ground. He didn't see the gunshot nor who attacked who.
The rest has to be concluded by the jury based on evidence and police interviews of the witnesses. That's what I mean by empirical evidence vs assumptions. The judge or jury has to examine the undisputed evidence and make a decision from there.
lol! Here's what you stated son....

"Zim called 911 to report a suspicious male not familiar to him..."

At this point, Martin was already fleeing from Zimmerman. You might say it was previous to the event. But you're also claiming it's part of the event, while leaving out important details at the same time.

You need to pick your battles instead of being selective of the "fight" son. That's out of your control. You can't have it both ways.

As for your explanation, I'd still like to see your source. Clearly, since you're selective of facts.....
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#47237 Jan 4, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! Here's what you stated son....
"Zim called 911 to report a suspicious male not familiar to him..."
At this point, Martin was already fleeing from Zimmerman. You might say it was previous to the event. But you're also claiming it's part of the event, while leaving out important details at the same time.
You need to pick your battles instead of being selective of the "fight" son. That's out of your control. You can't have it both ways.
As for your explanation, I'd still like to see your source. Clearly, since you're selective of facts.....
And what source do you speak of? What selective facts? Facts are facts, they are not selective. Only assumptions and speculations are selective. Details are either selective or facts.

There are two events that took place that night that are in question: one is Zim running after Martin AFTER Martin took off first. Zimmerman did not chase him. The other event was separate; the attack that took place that led to the shooting.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#47240 Jan 4, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
And what source do you speak of? What selective facts? Facts are facts, they are not selective. Only assumptions and speculations are selective. Details are either selective or facts.
There are two events that took place that night that are in question: one is Zim running after Martin AFTER Martin took off first. Zimmerman did not chase him. The other event was separate; the attack that took place that led to the shooting.
I don't know. It's your claim.

As for the events, Zimmerman stalked Martin with a loaded weapon.

As for your proclaimed "attacked," we already know Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. Again, that's not in question.

And trust me, they are not "separate" as you claim.

“JUSTICE DENIED, AGAIN!!!”

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#47241 Jan 4, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
GW inherited a slight recession and battled against the worst attack on our soil in history. He still managed to reduce unemployment and create a thriving economy.
Shrub inherited the best economy we had seen for decades. He gave his crones tax breaks and effed up the economy in untold ways and not only the USA suffered, the world economy suffered. Not to worry, Obama is leading us out of it.

http://metricmash.com/unemployment.aspx...

“JUSTICE DENIED, AGAIN!!!”

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#47242 Jan 4, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
And what source do you speak of? What selective facts? Facts are facts, they are not selective. Only assumptions and speculations are selective. Details are either selective or facts.
There are two events that took place that night that are in question: one is Zim running after Martin AFTER Martin took off first. Zimmerman did not chase him. The other event was separate; the attack that took place that led to the shooting.
Actually, it's the poster who is selective with the facts he posts. Get it?

“JUSTICE DENIED, AGAIN!!!”

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#47243 Jan 4, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Totally irrelevant. It doesn't matter what took place before the shooting. What matters is what led to the shooting in the first place, and it wasn't because Zim chased Martin for less than ten seconds.
As witness "John" stated, he seen Martin on top of Zim beating the hell out of him. He ran home to call cops, and that's when he "heard" the gunshot and took note of Martin on the ground. He didn't see the gunshot nor who attacked who.
The rest has to be concluded by the jury based on evidence and police interviews of the witnesses. That's what I mean by empirical evidence vs assumptions. The judge or jury has to examine the undisputed evidence and make a decision from there.
Your first paragraph is almost correct.

The fact that Zimmerman chased Trayvon at all will be a turning point in the trial.

“JUSTICE DENIED, AGAIN!!!”

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#47244 Jan 4, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! Here's what you stated son....
"Zim called 911 to report a suspicious male not familiar to him..."
At this point, Martin was already fleeing from Zimmerman. You might say it was previous to the event. But you're also claiming it's part of the event, while leaving out important details at the same time.
You need to pick your battles instead of being selective of the "fight" son. That's out of your control. You can't have it both ways.
As for your explanation, I'd still like to see your source. Clearly, since you're selective of facts.....
She doesn't quite comprehend the "selective" word. Not yet.

“JUSTICE DENIED, AGAIN!!!”

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#47245 Jan 4, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know. It's your claim.
As for the events, Zimmerman stalked Martin with a loaded weapon.
As for your proclaimed "attacked," we already know Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. Again, that's not in question.
And trust me, they are not "separate" as you claim.
Indeed they are not. Corey will prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

“JUSTICE DENIED, AGAIN!!!”

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#47246 Jan 4, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
And what source do you speak of? What selective facts? Facts are facts, they are not selective. Only assumptions and speculations are selective. Details are either selective or facts.
There are two events that took place that night that are in question: one is Zim running after Martin AFTER Martin took off first. Zimmerman did not chase him. The other event was separate; the attack that took place that led to the shooting.
Don't forget Zimmerman made sure he disconnected from LE before he chased Trayvon down.

And shot him to death.

He couldn't pass his criminal justice classes but he must have learned a little bit.

Since: Apr 12

Truth's Door

#47247 Jan 4, 2013
zazz wrote:
Our wonderful president has so many fans on Topix I thought I would share this with you.

President Obama is the first president since Dwight Eisenhower to receive more than 51% of the popular vote per CBS news.
God Bless our President

Since: Apr 12

Truth's Door

#47248 Jan 4, 2013
zazz wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, chased after him with a loaded weapon. With one thing in mind.

Corey knows this and will prove it in court.
AMEN!!!

Since: Apr 12

Truth's Door

#47249 Jan 4, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>Here are the undisputed facts:

Zim called 911 to report a suspicious male not familiar to him

After the attack, witnesses told police it was Martin on top of Zimmerman who was screaming for help.

Autopsy reports show no evidence of physical altercations on Martins' body outside of the bullet wound.

Paramedic reports show that they treated a wound in the back of Zim's head, a broken nose and both eyes.

Martin's doctor confirmed those wounds.

Self-defense is described as protecting yourself from an attacker--not beating your attacker after he was unable to further attack. Beating your supposed attacker the way Martin did was beyond self-defense. It was physical assault.

There are absolutely no witnesses that can state they seen Zim attack Martin.

Now. The rest of the story has to be nurtured from the facts presented above. It's all here-say from that point. There were only two witnesses that can say what actually happened behind the houses during the attack, and one of those witnesses is dead.

It's apparent who suffered the most physical injuries before the gunshot. It's documented. It's proof. There is no possible way for a prosecutor to convince a jury that the event took place in reverse of the undisputed evidence. Again, in our country, a person charged with a crime is innocent unless a prosecutor can provide real evidence (not assumptions) that the person charged with the crime is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Your timetable is wholly and indisputably insufficient and lacking in key "undisputed facts".

You went from Thug Zimmerman "called 911" and straight to "After the attack".

HA

Don't you think you missed a few Facts? C'mon man, if you gonna put together a timetable of "undisputed facts," at least you can be more precise.

Tell ya what...

I'm gonna give your imprecise self another chance. Rewrite that mess and next time also remember that "undisputed facts" do NOT include your opinions.

While you're poring over the facts in the boatload of evidence, let us know what doc Lindzee has to say about the Thug's head injuries. I'm only interested in two key words in her report of his day-after examination that are, indeed, FACTS.

Let us know about how the Thug misled the court and silently sat by while his wifey flat-out LIED to the judge. That goes to his credibility.

Now, that ought to be enough to get you started on your rewrite. Feel free to consult me if you run into any problems. I'll set you straight.

But you already know that.

If you don't, you should.

“JUSTICE DENIED, AGAIN!!!”

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#47251 Jan 4, 2013
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
Yea says Zim is guilty with ZERO evidence………..LOL
Post 47036 here……http://www.topix.com/for um/us/politics/TKPEED6J6ONM651 R6/p1975
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
Only in your dreams..........
.
.
.
.
Prove that Zim attacked the perp.....
The 911 tape supports the fact Zim had a right to follow the perp.........215 suspect.......so the act of following the perp is not going to be a issue for the jury.....
For a conviction you will need to convince a jury that a big, strong, scary looking, drug using, foul mouthed foot ball playing tough guy did not attack Zim..........
But Zim attacked some skinny puny little boy..........But this boy was able to toss Zim on his back withe a single blow to Zims nose that broke it and blackened both eyes and then Zims head bounced on the ground at least three times
Then the poor kid fell down on his knees.......A inch from the gun.....
Then the evil monster security meanie killed the poor boy in cold blooded murder..........
Even a all black jury would be tough on believing that whopper
Unless you have something that proves another reality??
Zimmerman killed him with his loaded weapon. I'd say that's about as clear a definition as one can get.
yea wrote.
We all know Zimmerman left his vehicle with a loaded weapon and specifically stalked Martin. After all, there was no one else there.
Not only that, but he left his vehicle against NW rules, against LE monthly instructions and against the dispatcher saying "we don't need you to do that".

The jury will have no problem discerning his motive.

“as you would have others...”

Since: Mar 09

United States

#47253 Jan 4, 2013
Be Truthful, Zazz, and Yeah: I was reading a blog from a while ago, and someone brought up a good point. I'm interested in your all's insights...While Robert Zimmerman was defending Zimmerman, and retelling what Zimmerman told him (quotes and all), Robert never once mentioned Martin going for the gun. He said Martin saw the gun, and that's when he threatened Zimmerman's life, but he never said Zimmerman told him Martin reached for the gun.

“JUSTICE DENIED, AGAIN!!!”

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#47254 Jan 4, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! I already have son. But since it your mind, you lie doesn't count, well, there's not much I can do!
Tell you what, in the previous post you claimed I said Zimmy's is guilt. Post the entry number so we can all see what you're talking about.
Remember son. You're claiming I said he's guilty. I'm going out on a limb here just for you and say it's murder since that's what we're talking about. You have this penchant for changing the subject when you're caught in your trap so I just want to be clear.
Until then, I believe we can call you a LIAR, right?
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you asking me to post a link where you said Zim is going to jail???
Just let me know..........Happy to help out..........LOL
You poor mentally deficient creature. She is asking you to point to a post where she said he is guilty. You can't do that so you attempt to divert attention elsewhere.

Mentally deficient. Not your fault. Genes.
Mike

Zephyrhills, FL

#47255 Jan 4, 2013
WHATS A TRAYVON?????

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.

Violent Crime Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Teen's Shooting Highlights Racial Tension 50 min That Girl 53 2,784
Man pleads guilty to rape, murder of teen in Ci... 1 hr SMG 1
Murder Trial Date set for Franklin County Woman (Dec '13) 14 hr Justice 61
Norwalk Shooting Leaves One Dead (Jan '13) 18 hr Chingones 13 8
Philadelphia's Broaster brothers charged in all... (Nov '12) 22 hr Hitta 19
Santa Ana jury convicts two men of gang-related... (Jul '07) 22 hr South Side 1,091
OBAMA backs RACE-BASED DISCIPLINE POLICIES for ... Wed Wifey Beeter-Smac... 1
•••

Violent Crime People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••