Post: #26

(03-24-2012 09:59 AM)Pilgrim37 Wrote:  Oh,and don't get me started on Florida's ,and the USA's gun laws in general!Want to stop so many shootings...get rid of so many guns!

Oh, because people didn't kill people before guns were invented?

Because criminals will abide by gun control laws while breaking laws against homicide, burglary and rape?

Here is a case from gun unfriendly New Jersey: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/04/man_fatally_stabs_exgirlfriend.html

Gun control worked. No one involved had a gun. A police station was nearby. A hospital was nearby. 911 was called. The woman even had a male to defend her. If shit is going to go down, this is a gun control advocate's wet dream.

But it didn't matter, innocent people were killed. If you ban guns, those with criminal intent will either procure a gun illegally (pretty much any crime one is looking to commit with a gun - armed robbery, rape, murder - carries a stiffer penalty than illegal possession of the gun, so if they are risking the greater criminal conviction, why would they give a shit about the lesser conviction?), or they will use whatever is at hand. Shall we outlaw knives? Bats? Pipes? Fists?

We cannot legislate away violence anymore than we can legislate away our sexual natures. But we can stop interfering with the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves.

Pilgrim, I don't mean to pick on you. The sad reality is that Americans grow up in a very anti-gun culture, so most Americans have a negative view of guns that is fueled by misinformation. This is pretty similar to how most guys grow up misinformed about women. Just as with women and relationships, one has to look past the pretty lies spewed by the gun control advocates and the overwhelmingly anti-gun media.

Here is an example of anti-gun propaganda: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s

To the uninformed viewer, this piece seems to make a compelling case. Skim through the comments - the commenters do a good job of pointing out all the ways this scenario was engineered to make the argument they were peddling. This is the case for pretty much every single anti-gun media piece I have seen - full of lies and distortions - but just like guys who grow up being told to be nice to girls and watching Hollywood movies where the nice guy gets the girl, if you hear a message often enough, without any exposure to the other side, you tend to believe it.

Post: #27

People (especially foreigners on this board) don't seem to understand how easy it is to get a gun illegally. Don't tell me I shouldn't be able to keep one in my car just because you don't think it's right. You can outlaw gun possession in every state tomorrow and it will still be no problem picking one up. Just like getting a weed sack.

Post: #28

(03-24-2012 12:41 PM)houston Wrote:  People (especially foreigners on this board) don't seem to understand how easy it is to get a gun illegally. Don't tell me I shouldn't be able to keep one in my car just because you don't think it's right. You can outlaw gun possession in every state tomorrow and it will still be no problem picking one up. Just like getting a weed sack.

The foreigner reply will be that you should outlaw all guns, so that there are no guns for the criminals to get. Aside from the absurdity of this point (crack and heroine are totally illegal, yet it's pretty easy to get them), my post above was making the point that you cannot legislate away violence.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. And they will do it with whatever implements they can get their hands on. Always have, always will. All you can do is allow citizens to defend themselves. An armed society (i.e., where the law abiding citizenry is armed) is a polite society. Why? Because there are two ways of getting what you want from another person - persuasion and force. If you're armed, people are effectively limited to persuasion as a means of getting what they want from you.

Kennesaw, GA exemplifies this point - gun ownership is mandatory there (well, not quite, but at the least, it is *highly* encouraged). Prior to this happening, the anti-gun crowd was warning of the mayhem that would result. Actual result? Less crime. Shocking only to those who believe the pretty lies about gun control. http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm

Post: #29

(03-24-2012 01:12 PM)assman Wrote:  

(03-24-2012 12:41 PM)houston Wrote:  People (especially foreigners on this board) don't seem to understand how easy it is to get a gun illegally. Don't tell me I shouldn't be able to keep one in my car just because you don't think it's right. You can outlaw gun possession in every state tomorrow and it will still be no problem picking one up. Just like getting a weed sack.

The foreigner reply will be that you should outlaw all guns, so that there are no guns for the criminals to get. Aside from the absurdity of this point (crack and heroine are totally illegal, yet it's pretty easy to get them), my post above was making the point that you cannot legislate away violence.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. And they will do it with whatever implements they can get their hands on. Always have, always will. All you can do is allow citizens to defend themselves. An armed society (i.e., where the law abiding citizenry is armed) is a polite society. Why? Because there are two ways of getting what you want from another person - persuasion and force. If you're armed, people are effectively limited to persuasion as a means of getting what they want from you.

Kennesaw, GA exemplifies this point - gun ownership is mandatory there (well, not quite, but at the least, it is *highly* encouraged). Prior to this happening, the anti-gun crowd was warning of the mayhem that would result. Actual result? Less crime. Shocking only to those who believe the pretty lies about gun control. http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm

My point was the less guns the less shootings ,not just legally held guns.Of course criminals are not going to worry about having a gun legally!
But,even without ,the Uk has very strict gun control,but increasing use of firearms used by criminals.
Compare the UK rate to the US ...the answer is clear,if you tab the populations to comparable numbers!
Less general access to guns = less deaths by firearms

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mu...h-firearms

Post: #30

(03-24-2012 07:43 AM)joehoya Wrote:  I just want to add that I support "Stand your ground" laws. If someone attacks me, I should not have to run away. HOWEVER, I assume that if I am required to "stand my ground" and the incident results in the death of my attacker it will be thoroughly investigated to see if I used reasonable force.

If I am 240lbs and some guy with a gun or knife or some other weapon attacks me or attempts to rob me, I want the right to shoot that guy without having to run away. HOWEVER, I don't believe I have the right to shoot an UNARMED person that is 100lbs lighter than me. There has to be a concept of proportionate force.

Think about it. If I am at a club or a party and some dude pushes me on purpose that is an assault. Now do I have the right to respond to that assault by pulling out my glock and pumping a round in his chest because I was "Standing my ground" and "feared for my life"?

That's the rub. From what I've read, it really looks like the stand your ground law can only serve to protect people using disproportionate force. Figure the standard law is based on the castle doctrine, which lets you defend yourself in your home without having an obligation to retreat. Now this makes sense, on your property you have possessions that are vulnerable to theft if you're obliged to retreat.

The stand your ground basically extends that to being out in public, where there really isn't any justification not to retreat from a assailant aside from pride. Now, who's going to pull out a gun and blow away someone who shoves him? A person who thinks their manhood is at stake if they don't respond violently. A normal person will attempt to withdraw, and if they have a weapon they'll pull it to try and scare the assailant off, and fire if the assailant chases them. Normal self-defense laws allow for that. This is why Stand Your Ground is a bad law, it's only protecting hotheads.

Also, from the example of the guy in Iowa, I strongly suspect that if that had occurred in Florida he'd have been arrested regardless of Stand Your Ground. An unfortunate truth of our society is that our culture trains people to be suspicious of blacks, and the police are always going to act on that prejudice.

Post: #31

(03-24-2012 02:43 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  An unfortunate truth of our society is that our culture trains people to be suspicious of blacks, and the police are always going to act on that prejudice.

Right, and that's never going to change because there's a perpetual need for boogeymen for White America.

Their own country teaches them to fear everyone else while their own politicians strip away their constitutional freedoms, their own CEOs send their jobs to third world countries for cheaper labor, their own academic administrators water down their educations to the point where they don't learn shit and their degrees are worthless, their own bankers rob them of their retirements, I could go on all day.

Post: #32

(03-24-2012 02:34 PM)Pilgrim37 Wrote:  My point was the less guns the less shootings ,not just legally held guns.Of course criminals are not going to worry about having a gun legally!
But,even without ,the Uk has very strict gun control,but increasing use of firearms used by criminals.
Compare the UK rate to the US ...the answer is clear,if you tab the populations to comparable numbers!
Less general access to guns = less deaths by firearms

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mu...h-firearms

So being stabbed to death is better than being shot? Murder is murder, and someone intent on it will find a way to accomplish it, whether by gun, knife, icepick, whatever.

Post: #33

(03-24-2012 02:43 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  The stand your ground basically extends that to being out in public, where there really isn't any justification not to retreat from a assailant aside from pride. Now, who's going to pull out a gun and blow away someone who shoves him? A person who thinks their manhood is at stake if they don't respond violently. A normal person will attempt to withdraw, and if they have a weapon they'll pull it to try and scare the assailant off, and fire if the assailant chases them. Normal self-defense laws allow for that. This is why Stand Your Ground is a bad law, it's only protecting hotheads.

Scenario:
You are in the parking lot of the grocery store with your girlfriend. I see you from across the lot and call out 'hey asshole, I'm going to fuck you up', and pull a bat out of my car and start walking toward you (I'm 100 ft away at the time). So under the law you support, YOU, the innocent person, ARE REQUIRED to turn tail and run.

What happened to individual liberty?

Is that the society we want, where thugs and bullies can intimidate people into always retreating, knowing they have the weight of the law behind them?

As for the 'fire if the assailant chases them', that's a great way for bystanders to get shot. If you are going to shoot, best to shoot while you are standing and have a good view of the target, not when you are running and trying to shoot from behind you, when you cannot possibly get a good sight picture.

Post: #34

(03-24-2012 07:31 AM)joehoya Wrote:  

(03-24-2012 07:02 AM)Pilgrim37 Wrote:  No doubt a tragic case,and the guy should be arrested but what about the right for two guys to walk home after a drink without getting shot...where were the rallies and protests at those innocents?
Non existent!

We all have prejudice it seems,doesn't matter what colour...acting before knowing the full facts seems to be a habit too!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...orida.html

The distinction between the case you linked to and this one is important. In fact, it highlights why people are so angry about this crime. In the case you mentioned the assailant WAS ARRESTED AND IS CURRENTLY ON TRIAL FOR MURDER. The police made AGGRESSIVE efforts to find and arrest the person guilty of that crime.

Now, what if in the story you linked to, the assailant was questioned, told the police that he was just defending himself when he shot those two tourists because he thought they were going to rob him, and the police ACCEPTED HIS CLAIMS AND DID NOT ARREST HIM? That sounds absurd, doesn't it?

THIS IS THE ISSUE. It is not just the fact that some trigger happy fool shoots a 17 year old kid. That shit happens. It is that the police accepted his claim of self defense at face value and made no attempts to do a more thorough investigation.

Underlying the whole investigation is the direct implication that it is reasonable for a 240lb man to stalk an unarmed 140lb black teenager in a hoodie confront him, then SHOOT HIM, because he was "in fear for his life".

The fact that the police so readily accepted his claims is the most appalling part of this story. I am absolutely certain that if the family had not pressed the issue and alerted the media the police would have just written this off as another accidental, yet JUSTIFIABLE shooting.

This is a protest about the SYSTEM. There are always going to be hotheads (whether they are racists or not) who are going to act irrationally and shoot innocent people. However, when the system PROTECTS those hotheads it validates those behaviors.

Good point Joe... I think this dudes post hits the nail right on the thread. Where was the investigation into this and why did they not challenge his account of the story ?? I think the police dept in this city Botched the handling of this, and some of the officers need to be reprimanded (if not sent to Siberia or Alaska) for their handling of the situation. Good thing they are now investigating this on all levels.. I hope this Zimmerman guy gets the book thrown at him !!

Post: #35

Although I agree that you need some sort of background checking to sell guns , the incident in Toulose this week just proved that people will always find a way to get guns , even in a country where gun ownership is strongly restricted IMO (i.e. France)

Post: #36

(03-24-2012 04:05 PM)assman Wrote:  

(03-24-2012 02:34 PM)Pilgrim37 Wrote:  My point was the less guns the less shootings ,not just legally held guns.Of course criminals are not going to worry about having a gun legally!
But,even without ,the Uk has very strict gun control,but increasing use of firearms used by criminals.
Compare the UK rate to the US ...the answer is clear,if you tab the populations to comparable numbers!
Less general access to guns = less deaths by firearms

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mu...h-firearms

So being stabbed to death is better than being shot? Murder is murder, and someone intent on it will find a way to accomplish it, whether by gun, knife, icepick, whatever.

I think I was talking about guns!
Less guns = less shootings
It's a fact!

Post: #37

(03-24-2012 06:54 PM)Pilgrim37 Wrote:  

(03-24-2012 04:05 PM)assman Wrote:  

(03-24-2012 02:34 PM)Pilgrim37 Wrote:  My point was the less guns the less shootings ,not just legally held guns.Of course criminals are not going to worry about having a gun legally!
But,even without ,the Uk has very strict gun control,but increasing use of firearms used by criminals.
Compare the UK rate to the US ...the answer is clear,if you tab the populations to comparable numbers!
Less general access to guns = less deaths by firearms

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mu...h-firearms

So being stabbed to death is better than being shot? Murder is murder, and someone intent on it will find a way to accomplish it, whether by gun, knife, icepick, whatever.

I think I was talking about guns!
Less guns = less shootings
It's a fact!

No, not true. Its not the guns, its the people pulling the trigger. Guns control is stiffest in places like DC and Chicago, both of which still have plenty of gun violence and murders.

Post: #38

The thing about this case that is baffling is that Zimmerman has had his own issues with the police, yet they also seem to have enabled him continuously, especially just prior to the shooting. It has been proposed that he may have been a police informant of some kind, explaining why they're reluctant to arrest him up to this point.

Post: #39

Zimmerman's police issues were blown out of proportion (like everything else in this case). He had an ex that wanted nothing to do w/him, but everyone here knows how crazy chicks are so who knows what the real story was. He owed his credit card company money - no surprise, he certainly doesnt seem like the high earning type. As far as him calling the police 40 something times, yeah, he did, but that was over the course of 11 years. Thats basically once every 3 months, not a lot for a neighborhood watchman to be calling police in a high crime area.

I could be completely wrong here, but from what I've read and compiled you're not getting the whole truth from the media. First of all little Trayvon was 6'3. Secondly, he was in Orlando, not Miami where he lived, because he was suspended from school for 5 days, although the family attorneys have sealed the reason behind the suspension. Move along - nothing to see here. Thirdly, there was an eye witness who called police who said Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman punching him and Zimmerman was yelling for help, and that Zimmerman had grass stain on the back of his shirt, a broken nose, and needed stitches. Looked like little Trayvon put down the skittles and iced tea long enough to dish out an ass kicking. Lastly, the media reported that Zimmerman called him a 'fucking coon.' Listen to the tape yourself - it sounds an awful lot like 'fucking punk' moreso then anything else...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1lbdMMcBL8

Post: #40

(03-24-2012 09:46 PM)Brian Wrote:  Zimmerman's police issues were blown out of proportion (like everything else in this case). He had an ex that wanted nothing to do w/him, but everyone here knows how crazy chicks are so who knows what the real story was. He owed his credit card company money - no surprise, he certainly doesnt seem like the high earning type. As far as him calling the police 40 something times, yeah, he did, but that was over the course of 11 years. Thats basically once every 3 months, not a lot for a neighborhood watchman to be calling police in a high crime area.

I could be completely wrong here, but from what I've read and compiled you're not getting the whole truth from the media. First of all little Trayvon was 6'3. Secondly, he was in Orlando, not Miami where he lived, because he was suspended from school for 5 days, although the family attorneys have sealed the reason behind the suspension. Move along - nothing to see here. Thirdly, there was an eye witness who called police who said Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman punching him and Zimmerman was yelling for help, and that Zimmerman had grass stain on the back of his shirt, a broken nose, and needed stitches. Looked like little Trayvon put down the skittles and iced tea long enough to dish out an ass kicking. Lastly, the media reported that Zimmerman called him a 'fucking coon.' Listen to the tape yourself - it sounds an awful lot like 'fucking punk' moreso then anything else...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1lbdMMcBL8

The larger point is that Zimmerman doesn't have the authority to stop, question and detain individuals. He called it in and was instructed to leave Trayvon alone. If someone other than a cop attempts to stop you from going on your way, isn't it within the realm of possibility that you might respond in a hostile manner to that person? Zimmerman created the very circumstances by which he then claimed to have acted in "self defense." He was looking to get it on, and made sure he created the circumstances where he could pull his weapon and squeeze. That's the issue here. It doesn't really matter why this kid was suspended from school. He wasn't bothering anyone when Zimmerman accosted him. It was Zimmerman that was the threat to Trayvon, not the other way around.

Post: #41

(03-24-2012 10:54 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

(03-24-2012 09:46 PM)Brian Wrote:  Zimmerman's police issues were blown out of proportion (like everything else in this case). He had an ex that wanted nothing to do w/him, but everyone here knows how crazy chicks are so who knows what the real story was. He owed his credit card company money - no surprise, he certainly doesnt seem like the high earning type. As far as him calling the police 40 something times, yeah, he did, but that was over the course of 11 years. Thats basically once every 3 months, not a lot for a neighborhood watchman to be calling police in a high crime area.

I could be completely wrong here, but from what I've read and compiled you're not getting the whole truth from the media. First of all little Trayvon was 6'3. Secondly, he was in Orlando, not Miami where he lived, because he was suspended from school for 5 days, although the family attorneys have sealed the reason behind the suspension. Move along - nothing to see here. Thirdly, there was an eye witness who called police who said Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman punching him and Zimmerman was yelling for help, and that Zimmerman had grass stain on the back of his shirt, a broken nose, and needed stitches. Looked like little Trayvon put down the skittles and iced tea long enough to dish out an ass kicking. Lastly, the media reported that Zimmerman called him a 'fucking coon.' Listen to the tape yourself - it sounds an awful lot like 'fucking punk' moreso then anything else...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1lbdMMcBL8

The larger point is that Zimmerman doesn't have the authority to stop, question and detain individuals. He called it in and was instructed to leave Trayvon alone. If someone other than a cop attempts to stop you from going on your way, isn't it within the realm of possibility that you might respond in a hostile manner to that person? Zimmerman created the very circumstances by which he then claimed to have acted in "self defense." He was looking to get it on, and made sure he created the circumstances where he could pull his weapon and squeeze. That's the issue here. It doesn't really matter why this kid was suspended from school. He wasn't bothering anyone when Zimmerman accosted him. It was Zimmerman that was the threat to Trayvon, not the other way around.

apparently Trayvon was a threat because he broke his nose and basically kicked his ass.
Here's the thing - neither one of us have any fucking idea what happened up until that point. For all you know Zimmerman said "excuse me young man, i am with the neighborhood watch, i dont recognize you and you look lost, can i help you find your way" and Trayvon didnt like being questioned and started throwing punches.

Post: #42

This is what happens when assholes with domineering wives want to play cop.

Post: #43

(03-24-2012 11:27 PM)Brian Wrote:  apparently Trayvon was a threat because he broke his nose and basically kicked his ass.
Here's the thing - neither one of us have any fucking idea what happened up until that point. For all you know Zimmerman said "excuse me young man, i am with the neighborhood watch, i dont recognize you and you look lost, can i help you find your way" and Trayvon didnt like being questioned and started throwing punches.

Let's get off the neighborhood watch tip because there was never an officially registered and established neighborhood watch group in that complex.

All that noise is just a diversion so people, including the authorities, who really want Zimmerman to be on the right side of this issue can pretend that he was acting with some authority and in some official capacity under that authority.

Even if there had been a group, neighborhood watch is not the police. No one has any obligation to stop, answer questions, or show identification because someone who claims to be neighborhood watch asks them to do so.

It's funny that when people want to deflect from the real issues, they go to the old tried and true, "we have no idea what happened or what was said", well yes, so using your train of thought, I could say Zimmerman could have called the kid an "n-word" and provoked a fight.

If you assert that you nor any else knows what happened because they weren't there, then you can't insert any scenario as to what could have happened. And it's no coincidence that when people do in fact do that, they usually insert one tve contrasts hat fits the narrative they'd like to support, even when the facts of the situation contrast that narrative.

Post: #44

(03-24-2012 11:43 PM)jariel Wrote:  

(03-24-2012 11:27 PM)Brian Wrote:  apparently Trayvon was a threat because he broke his nose and basically kicked his ass.
Here's the thing - neither one of us have any fucking idea what happened up until that point. For all you know Zimmerman said "excuse me young man, i am with the neighborhood watch, i dont recognize you and you look lost, can i help you find your way" and Trayvon didnt like being questioned and started throwing punches.

Let's get off the neighborhood watch tip because there was never an officially registered and established neighborhood watch group in that complex.

All that noise is just a diversion so people, including the authorities, who really want Zimmerman to be on the right side of this issue can pretend that he was acting with some authority and in some official capacity under that authority.

Even if there had been a group, neighborhood watch is not the police. No one has any obligation to stop, answer questions, or show identification because someone who claims to be neighborhood watch asks them to do so.

It's funny that when people want to deflect from the real issues, they go to the old tried and true, "we have no idea what happened or what was said", well yes, so using your train of thought, I could say Zimmerman could have called the kid an "n-word" and provoked a fight.

If you assert that you nor any else knows what happened because they weren't there, then you can't insert any scenario as to what could have happened. And it's no coincidence that when people do in fact do that, they usually insert one tve contrasts hat fits the narrative they'd like to support, even when the facts of the situation contrast that narrative.

see, what makes me think that a certain narrative is more apt to fit then others is that the people who have the most information - the police and law enforcement folks - haven't pressed any charges.

Post: #45

Post: #46

"apparently Trayvon was a threat because he broke his nose and basically kicked his ass..."

By this reasoning, anyone that possesses the ability to fight and/or defend themselves constitutes an ever-present threat. You're conveniently ignoring facts that we DO know - Zimmerman was instructed by the PD NOT to approach Trayvon, and he still did. It doesn't matter how polite he may have been. Just as Trayvon may have been a stranger to Zimmerman, the reverse was also true. He could very well have felt threatened by having Zimmerman approach him when he was simply walking home from the store. If he had been left to go on his way, he'd be alive right now. Community watchmen and unarmed security guards are instructed to observe and report what they see to the police, and you only act if you yourself are threatened. The fact that Zimmerman got licensed to carry a firearm doesn't change that. It isn't his place to play cop. He wouldn't have gotten his ass beat if he had left the kid alone.

Post: #47

(03-25-2012 11:19 AM)Timoteo Wrote:  "apparently Trayvon was a threat because he broke his nose and basically kicked his ass..."

By this reasoning, anyone that possesses the ability to fight and/or defend themselves constitutes an ever-present threat. You're conveniently ignoring facts that we DO know - Zimmerman was instructed by the PD NOT to approach Trayvon, and he still did. It doesn't matter how polite he may have been. Just as Trayvon may have been a stranger to Zimmerman, the reverse was also true. He could very well have felt threatened by having Zimmerman approach him when he was simply walking home from the store. If he had been left to go on his way, he'd be alive right now. Community watchmen and unarmed security guards are instructed to observe and report what they see to the police, and you only act if you yourself are threatened. The fact that Zimmerman got licensed to carry a firearm doesn't change that. It isn't his place to play cop. He wouldn't have gotten his ass beat if he had left the kid alone.

the police didnt instruct Zimmerman to do anything. A 911 operator isnt a cop. and little harmless Trayvon wouldnt have gotten shot if he hadnt shot of his mouth or punched the guy who asked him what he was doing and committed felony assault. i highly doubt the conversation went like this:

Zimmerman - hey, what are you doing?
Trayvon - i'm visiting my father, i just went to go get some skittles and an iced tea.
my dad lives over there.
Zimmerman starts shooting.

Does the fact that this guy had been playing "deputy dawg" for 10 years now and never had a gun incident maybe wonder what happened here that prompted it?

Post: #48

(03-25-2012 05:46 PM)Brian Wrote:  the police didnt instruct Zimmerman to do anything. A 911 operator isnt a cop. and little harmless Trayvon wouldnt have gotten shot if he hadnt shot of his mouth or punched the guy who asked him what he was doing and committed felony assault. i highly doubt the conversation went like this:

Zimmerman - hey, what are you doing?
Trayvon - i'm visiting my father, i just went to go get some skittles and an iced tea.
my dad lives over there.
Zimmerman starts shooting.

Does the fact that this guy had been playing "deputy dawg" for 10 years now and never had a gun incident maybe wonder what happened here that prompted it?

An attitude like yours will remain prevalent as long as people of this society believe that Blacks must be subservient to everyone else.

You never knew Trayvon Martin, thus it obvious the young man never did anything to you personally, yet the vitriol that you continue to use against him is deafening, even though it is in the form of words on a screen.

Post: #49

There's a 911 recording of a call made by a neighbour....Trayvon is heard yelling for help just before shots ring out

Brian's attitude is plain scary

Post: #50

(03-25-2012 06:36 PM)bigxxx Wrote:  There's a 911 recording of a call made by a neighbour....Trayvon is heard yelling for help just before shots ring out

Brian's attitude is plain scary

No, what you are stating is false. The statement of the witness who called 911 stated that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman and that it was Zimmerman was was screaming for help.



Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/st...n-03232012

Updated: Friday, 23 Mar 2012, 6:19 PM EDT
Published : Friday, 23 Mar 2012, 5:47 PM EDT

ORLANDO - A witness we haven't heard from before paints a much different picture than we've seen so far of what happened the night 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was shot and killed.

The night of that shooting, police say there was a witness who saw it all.

Our sister station, FOX 35 in Orlando, has spoken to that witness.

What Sanford Police investigators have in the folder, they put together on the killing of Trayvon Martin few know about.

The file now sits in the hands of the state attorney. Now that file is just weeks away from being opened to a grand jury.

It shows more now about why police believed that night that George Zimmerman shouldn't have gone to jail.

Zimmerman called 911 and told dispatchers he was following a teen. The dispatcher told Zimmerman not to.

And from that moment to the shooting, details are few.

But one man's testimony could be key for the police.

"The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: 'help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911," he said.

Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.

The witness only wanted to be identified as "John," and didn't not want to be shown on camera.

His statements to police were instrumental, because police backed up Zimmerman's claims, saying those screams on the 911 call are those of Zimmerman.

"When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point," John said.

Zimmerman says the shooting was self defense. According to information released on the Sanford city website, Zimmerman said he was going back to his SUV when he was attacked by the teen.

Sanford police say Zimmerman was bloody in his face and head, and the back of his shirt was wet and had grass stains, indicating a struggle took place before the shooting.