OT Short of news in the UK

[krw]

Huh? How is the relevant to anything?

[krw]

No, the racists are demanding his head. We'll see if FL has a backbone.

[The Daring Dufas]

Me, I'm just sitting back and enjoying the circus of fools while the truth comes out one tiny bit at a time. I've been robbed at gunpoint by little "BLACK" angels so I'll withhold judgment until all the facts are revealed. Personally, I wouldn't hesitate to aim for the mouth of an attacker and perform a double tap no matter who's little angel it is.

TDD

[Han]

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:48qdnWByCOXk_-3SnZ2dnUVZ [e-mail]:

We'll likely never really know exactly what all happened, and what was in each person's mind. After all, Martin is dead. The only thing we know is that M was initially peacefully walking when Z decided to follow him. Then the 2 got into an argument, then into an "altercation" of some sort. Regrettably, one of them is dead now, the other scarred, mentally for life. No winners.

[HeyBub]

I have a right to be here and will defend that right, without retreating, using deadly force if necessary.

[HeyBub]

As long as you don't fall into the trap that every death is a tragedy. Some deaths are cause for celebration, revelry, and praise.

[trader4]

Then I hope you also realize that the guy receiving the pummeling has a right at some point to shoot you to end it.

[trader4]

Who punched who to start it may never be known. And I'd say it largely doesn't matter. If I get into an argument with you and strike you, you have a right to defend yourself. You can use reasonable force. But if it gets to the point that I'm on my back, nose broken, head cut open, you're on top, I'm yelling for help, do you think you have a right to just continue pummeling me? That I can't use deadly force to end a beating? Apparently you believe the rules of engagement only work in one direction. Clearly if someone is getting beaten up severly enough they have every right to use deadly force.

[trader4]

I call em as I see em. And seems the only one in this thread that doesn't think Sharpton is a skunk is you. Birds of a feather perhaps? Anyway, it's about the most positive thing I can say about him. I was trying to be nice.

=A0>Once again, your facts are in disarray.

Yes, I see it apparently was paid, but not by Sharpton. He got someone else to pay it for him after thumbing his nose at the courts and the plaintiff for years until it could no longer be avoided. Exactly what a skunk would do. And note my facts are NOT in error. I only asked the question if Sharpton ever paid the fine. The essential point here, which you fail to grasp, is that he was judged to have slandered Pagonas with his false accusations in the Brawley case. A case where withing days it was apparent to those of us with a brain that it looked like a fabrication.

I don't need to read the skunks mind. All of the above is right there in the public record. I watched it happen. And if Sharpton has ever apologized for what he did, please provide us with the reference.

The court finding that Sharpton slandered Pagonas and awarding damages totalling $350,000 against Sharpton and his cohorts speaks for itself. You can't be that dumb. We're supposed to be impressed by the fact that Sharpton's portion was only $65K?

Nice guy you are. Is that what you libs do? If I was suckered in by Brawley, as some suggest Sharpton was, and learned it was all a lie, I would quickly man up and apologize to those I falsely accused. And I would be done with Brawley. Had Sharpton done that, he never would have been sued. Instead, he doubled down and continued the lies. And you think that's cool? Birds of a feather....

Oh, please. Who was calling the press conferences? Who was shooting off their mouth on TV at every opportunity, if not Sharpton? He was at the very core of the whole thing. But thanks for showing the court thought so too.

And then of course you claim that he figured it out and just continued on with the lie. You think that's a cool strategy. To continue to defame someone. Sharpton ever apologize? I wonder what your opinion would be if it were say a white conservative that did something similar instead of a race-baiting skunk like Sharpton?

Your just too much. First you posted something to the effect that you don't care much for Sharpton. Then you mount an endless campaign to try to make what the skunk did right. But try as you might, that dog just won't hunt.

The rest of your verbose rant has been deleted to spare us all the boredom

[Jim Yanik]

Ed Pawlowski wrote in news: [e-mail]:

I never claimed he was. You suggested it. it's right here in the text above! just that the kid -could- easily outrun him if he was being "chased" as people are claiming.In fact,YOUR words were "slipped on wet grass RUNNING AFTER THE KID",so don't try to turn your words around on me.

"could have" doesn't cut it in a court of law. if anything,that absolves Zimmerman,as he's presumed to be innocent until PROVEN guilty. People are reversing that and making Zimmerman guilty until proven innocent,and that IS one intent of the Stand Your Ground law;to assure the presumption of innocence until there's proof the suspect committed a crime that they would be arrested for. Otherwise,it's "arrest 'em all and let the court sort it out",and the ODC's rights are violated.

Police had/have no evidence of Zimmerman confronting,provoking,or attacking Trayvon,and thus he was rightfully released. The investgation did continue,as police still have Zimmerman's gun held as evidence. charges can still be filed,if new evidence appears to show a crime was committed,but that is highly unlikely.

[Jim Yanik]

gonjah wrote in news:TP6dnSz0PaWue_LSnZ2dnUVZ [e-mail]:

We have physical EVIDENCE that Zimmerman was punched,evidence and and witness testimony that Trayvon was ON TOP of Zimmerman. We have a report that Zimmerman was going back to his vehicle.

AFAIK,we have NO evidence or witness testimony of any physical contact on Trayvon. I agree that we have no way of knowing how the fight started,but in that case,the presumption of innocence is Zimmerman's. Innocent until PROVEN guilty.

you folks have to PROVE Z started or provoked a fight,nullifying his right of self-defense. you can't.

that Z followed Trayvon is not -proof- of any provocation.

[Jim Yanik]

gonjah wrote in news:T6KdnbXqGeJzdfLSnZ2dnUVZ [e-mail]:

Police report said ONE shot,the officer that took custody of and cleared the weapon found the magazine full. that leaves the round in the chamber. Plus,I imagine police found a single ejected casing,and there was only one gunshot wound to Trayvon,according to the police report.

witness testimony had Trayvon on top of Zimmerman,who was yelling for help,and then the witness heard the gunshot while dialing 911.

would Trayvon have attacked a guy who had a gun -in his hand-? Or would he have backed away,or held up his hands?

[Jim Yanik]

Ed Pawlowski wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Again the point ZOOMED way over your head. If you attack someone,there's a chance they may have a gun,and you could get shot.(or a knife,stun gun,etc,and the weapon used on you) If you don't attack anyone,you don't get harmed as a result. Or,put another way,your right to swing your fist ends where my right to not be struck begins. In a state that allows lawful concealed carry,and also has a "Stand your Ground law,the chances are higher.

with concealed carry,you DON'T KNOW who's carrying a gun,and thus would not have any reason to shoot first,because gunshots draw attention that an attacker doesn't want.

also,it's well established that concealed carry permit holders are not any threat to other lawful citizens. They are not the ones to fear,unless you're attacking or threatening them.

[Jim Yanik]

George wrote in news: [e-mail]:

you can find links to official police reports,etc, on the Wiki page for Trayvon Martin. there's a great deal of information there.

since NO ONE was present at the actual scene of the shooting,no one has "personal knowledge" of the circumstances.

I live only 15 miles away from Sanford,and read the Orlando Sentinel daily,FWIW..... :-) I'm actually familiar with Sanford,and know what their crime is like.

we ALL have to go by the physical evidence and witness statements,and minding the presumption of innocence for Mr.Zimmerman,the accused. it's "innocent until PROVEN guilty",not "assumed guilty until proven innocent".

that is MY and many other peoples biggest complaint about this,the automatic presumption of guilt on Mr.Z.

[Jim Yanik]

William Malcolm wrote in news: [e-mail]:

I haven't heard of that one,it's new to me. If true,police would have requested(seized?) it as evidence,or gotten a copy for evidence.

few surveillance cams are good at night or at longer ranges,however.nor do they usually do audio.

[Jim Yanik]

Ed Pawlowski wrote in news: [e-mail]:

We will probably never know who "started it",or if there was "provocation" that nullifies Mr.Z's self-defense claim,and that means Zimmerman goes free,as he has the presumption of innocence.

Following is not "provocation",nor is asking a few questions.

One thing; gated communities,especially those that have neighborhood watches,need to post signs stating that non-residents are subject to surveillance,stop and question by official watch members. I believe that gated communities are a sort of private property,as they are not open to the general public,but a sort of private club,limiting a visitors rights. And as a "private property",owners-residents have a right to stop and ask what a "trespasser" is doing there. IANAL,however.

It's a shame that people have to live in gated communities,behind bars,to have a little security.

BTW,there are some parts of Sanford where bars on windows and doors is common.

[Attila.Iskander]

Tasers don't often work There are multiple incidents where an individual was fired on by more than one Taser, and wasn't stopped.

Apparently with the new data out, the only "vigilantes" around here are the idiots, like you, spouting ignorant cant

Here's a clue

6'2" High School football player How would you like being on the ground being pounded by such ??

[krw]

You're assuming a lot, which you can't back up.

[Ed Pawlowski]

Guns misfire too, or are carelessly amed in a fast moving situation.

?

There is some new data, but not a full investigation yet. There is nothing out there that yet allows for a conclusion. Fragments are net telling the entire story yet. >

Maybe Z deserved itm maybe not. That is the main probllem here, we don't know what led up to that. Was the kid defending himself? Was he provoked? Pushed and shoved? Called names? Threatened? Was the controntation started by Trayvon or Zimmerman? Once we have those answers, we can draw a conclusion. Until then, it is conjecture and opinion. That is why we have investigations done. We need ALL the facts.

[gonjah]

You have to ask?