Cracker T-Shirt hits Florida streets in wake of teen death.

[cookie monster]

Originally Posted by cookie monster

I'm not so sure why everyone is just assuming Martin started the fight because he won. The only person claiming that Martin threw the first punch is the guy who's life depends on who threw the first punch. Is it that far fetched that he lied to protect himself? Who wouldn't? People will lie about having a few beers as to not lose a drivers license for 90 days, imagine what people are capable of saying when they have the next 40 years of ass-rape and laundry to look forward too?

The fact that the arresting officer doubted Zimmerman's side of the story and recommended charges tells me that Zimmerman was lying. The police are trained to make assumptions on truth or lies. A trained professional doesn't believe him. That should mean more I think.

Look at the past of both guys. Zimmerman had 2 altercations in his past logged on police reports. One was for putting hands on a woman, the other was for putting hands on a police officer who was removing his drunk friend from a bar. This doesn't make Zimmerman any kind of menace to society, but it does show in the past he as resorted to putting his hands on another person when things get heated.


Look at Martins past. He had been suspended three times from school. One was for truancy. The second for getting caught writing WTF with a sharpie on a friends locker. When school officials looked thru his bag for the sharpie, they found it, but also found a screwdriver and jewelry. He said he bought the jewelry from a friend. The police confiscated the screwdriver, checked if the jewelry had been stolen (it was not) and Martin was suspended for the graffiti and the screwdriver. Third time was for a plastic baggie that had marijuana residue in it.

Nothing in Martins past shows him to be a violent or aggressive person. He has never been in trouble for fighting, never been in trouble for back talking or being aggressive to wards a teacher. In fact during the 'screwdriver incident' Miami-Dade police have said Martin was quite co-operative when asked about the jewelry.

In my opinion it's the kid who got chased for doing nothing wrong that has the right to not run anymore and STAND HIS GROUND and confront aggression with aggression. Not the guy who confronts an innocent person and then kills him for losing the fight.


So looking at it like that, logic should tell you that if anyone was the aggressor, its the guy with a slight history of being aggressive who stopped his truck and chased a teenager, versus a kid with no history of violent or aggressive behavior who was walking to his dads house after buying candy.

Ps- this isn't a court of law, so I'm not basing anything I'm saying on law. Just right or wrong.

Originally Posted by Redtown

I thought you were done with this.

The word assumption was at the heart of your entire 10,000 word post. You were all fuked up then just as you still are. Numerous others have said you were all fuked up and even a cop said so.

Do you still want to go on with this? Or are you done now?

The heart of my entire post eh?

I don't think one person said I was "fuked up". They disagreed with the use of the word assumption, but most people agreed with the post in general.

Obviously you didn't bother to read my original post. It was much more about the past of both people involved and how one had no past history of violence and the other had a few instances of putting his hands on people, including a cop and a woman. Using this logic, I said it wasn't fair to just assume Martin started the fight.

The 'assumption' part came into play when I mentioned how the lead detective didn't believe Zimmermans story. It had very little to do with the point I was making.

If you thought I was done then why did you bother to call me a 14 year old girl? Why not just let it go like I was trying to do? My guess is because you get some weird thrill being a troll and picking fights on the internet.

Oh btw here you go, maybe this will help.. http://reviews.in.88db.com/index.php...s-a-techniques

[Redtown]

Originally Posted by cookie monster

The heart of my entire post eh?

I don't think one person said I was "fuked up". They disagreed with the use of the word assumption, but most people agreed with the post in general.

Obviously you didn't bother to read my original post. It was much more about the past of both people involved and how one had no past history of violence and the other had a few instances of putting his hands on people, including a cop and a woman. Using this logic, I said it wasn't fair to just assume Martin started the fight.

The 'assumption' part came into play when I mentioned how the lead detective didn't believe Zimmermans story. It had very little to do with the point I was making.

If you thought I was done then why did you bother to call me a 14 year old girl? Why not just let it go like I was trying to do? My guess is because you get some weird thrill being a troll and picking fights on the internet.

Oh btw here you go, maybe this will help.. http://reviews.in.88db.com/index.php...s-a-techniques

Right, you're wrong.

[flex_buff_chest]

Originally Posted by hi_from_ca

I saw that many times growing up. It meant my brother and his buddy had been in a fight, not that they'd fought each other. Oh, yeah, assumptions...

Can you elaborate? I believe that Police Officers are often trained to make assumptions. A good deal of them will be correct as well. I'm not bagging it but that's just how I see it.

[cookie monster]

Originally Posted by Redtown

Right, you're wrong.

How can I be wrong? You admitted you never read it, lol.

Have you gotten your daily dose of troll yet, so the grown-ups can have a real conversation?

[Redtown]

Originally Posted by cookie monster

Ok, ok I get it, lol. I was using assumption as the police don't know for sure if someone is guilty, but thru probable cause, they assume they have enough evidence to arrest or detain.

It was more in the line of not knowing 100%, but making a reasonable deduction based on information available at the time of arrest. An assumption of guilt.

I get I picked the wrong word, lol, I just don't want people to think I'm a total idiot.

Originally Posted by cookie monster

How can I be wrong? You admitted you never read it, lol.

Have you gotten your daily dose of troll yet, so the grown-ups can have a real conversation?

Done yet?

[cookie monster]

Originally Posted by Redtown

Done yet?

Sure. You are clearly the master of your own delusional world and there is no room for normal people. Enjoy it, before they guys in butterfly nets come to take you away.

You know damn well that you were saying my point was wrong and not talking about the fact that I chose the wrong word.

It's fine. I don't think you really care either way, so yes I am done trying to be rational with an irrational person. It doesn't take long to figure out who's worth responding to and who's not.

[Redtown]

Originally Posted by cookie monster

Sure.

Good.

[BobNystromOwnsU]

Here are some excerpts from Sanford, Fl's neighborhood watch manual.

It's really just common sense, but it just shows you wrong Jorge was about how he did his job:

here are some of the VERY clear rules from the exact Sanford Florida handbook that Mr Zimmerman had to start his watch program:

You will add your “eyes and ears” to
those of the Police Department which
cannot be everywhere, all the time, by
keeping a watchful eye and open ear to
what is happening in your
neighborhood. You will extend their
ability to provide security by reporting
anything unusual or suspicious, 24 hours
a day, seven days a week, so they can
follow up on your leads. What you will
not do is get physically involved with
any activity you report or
apprehension of any suspicious
persons. This is the job of the law
enforcement agency.

10. Remember always that your
responsibility is to report crime. Do
not take any risks to prevent a
crime or try to make an arrest.
The responsibility for
apprehending criminals belongs
to the police department.

You can read the rest here:

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigati...amHandbook.pdf

Also, some stuff from the sheriff's department handbook on nieghborhood watch:

DO NOT ATTEMPT TO APPREHEND A PERSON COMMITTING A CRIME OR TO INVESTIGATE A SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY.

Patrol members should be trained by law enforcement. It
should be emphasized to members that they do not possess
police powers and they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles. They should also be cautioned to alert police or deputies when encountering strange activity. MEMBERS SHOULD NEVER CONFRONT SUSPICIOUS PERSONS WHO COULD BE ARMED AND DANGEROUS.

The purpose of community patrol is to observe and report
only. Patrol members should not leave their vehicle or
become involved with a suspect.

Patrol members should not challenge anyone. The patrol’s
visual presence should be a deterrent to most criminal
activity.

4. A patrol team should consist of two people: a driver and an
observer in the patrol vehicle or two neighbors walking
together. A vehicle may be marked with a removable sign.

5. The purpose of community patrol is to observe and report
only. Patrol members should not leave their vehicle or
become involved with a suspect.

6. Patrol members do not possess police powers. Each member
is liable as an individual for civil and criminal charges
should he exceed his authority.

7. Patrol members should not challenge anyone. The patrol’s
visual presence should be a deterrent to most criminal
activity. If a suspicious situation continues, patrol members
should call law enforcement professionals and request
assistance.

11. Patrol members do not carry weapons.

13. Patrol members should take notes of suspicious situations
on log sheets. The notes may become evidence if a situation
becomes a criminal matter. A copy of the notes could
be turned over to the Block Captain and the original kept by
the patrol member. (The notes may be needed later for the
patrol member to refresh his memory.)

Jorge had no clue what he was doing, and look what happened. He didn't even know the simplelest of rules. Rules that are common sense (to people who have common sense.)

[Redtown]

Originally Posted by BobNystromOwnsU

Here are some excerpts from Sanford, Fl's neighborhood watch manual.

It's really just common sense, but it just shows you wrong Jorge was about how he did his job:






You can read the rest here:

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigati...amHandbook.pdf

Also, some stuff from the sheriff's department handbook on nieghborhood watch:



Jorge had no clue what he was doing, and look what happened. He didn't even know the simplelest of rules. Rules that are common sense (to people who have common sense.)

There you have it. The full and entire story of what happened. Obviously Trevon did nothing to provoke Zimmerman.

[BobNystromOwnsU]

Also, did anybody notice he never mentioned to the 911 operator he was armed and the 911 operator still told him he didn't need him to follow Martin?

You couldn't do your job any worse. It's like going to work at Taco Bell with a pasta strainer.

Good job, Jorge.

[cookie monster]

Originally Posted by Redtown

There you have it. The full and entire story of what happened. Obviously Trevon did nothing to provoke Zimmerman.

Who's Trevon?

If going to besmirch a dead kids name, can you at least have decency to spell it right?

[pmcginty]

Originally Posted by BobNystromOwnsU

Here are some excerpts from Sanford, Fl's neighborhood watch manual.

It's really just common sense, but it just shows you wrong Jorge was about how he did his job:







You can read the rest here:

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigati...amHandbook.pdf

Also, some stuff from the sheriff's department handbook on nieghborhood watch:



Jorge had no clue what he was doing, and look what happened. He didn't even know the simplelest of rules. Rules that are common sense (to people who have common sense.)

what did he supposedly do that was contrary to the sanford handbook?

according to the bolded and enlarged text it seems that you surmise that zimmerman either attempted to apprehend or confront martin. zimmermans story is he was following at a distance and had even lost sight of martin and was heading back to his suv when he was confronted by martin who then turned it physical. did he try to apprehend him at some point that i don't know about?

[BobNystromOwnsU]

Originally Posted by pmcginty

what did he supposedly do that was contrary to the sanford handbook?

according to the bolded and enlarged text it seems that you surmise that zimmerman either attempted to apprehend or confront martin. zimmermans story is he was following at a distance and had even lost sight of martin and was heading back to his suv when he was confronted by martin who then turned it physical. did he try to apprehend him at some point that i don't know about?

He followed him after he was asked not to. What was he following hom for.

As for him saying he doubled back and was jumped by Martin? That's his word, which at this point is not vey reliable. In his own words on the 911 call, he followed Martin after being asked not to. Those are his words on tape as he is doing it. Against their wishes. So he was so fired up, he chased the kid down, but then gave up, and the kid jumps out of nowhere and beats him down? Ehhhh. I'm not buying that. Why did he run, then sneak attack him? Doesn;t make much sense. Regardless, that's besides the point. he chased him down against policy and against the wishes of the people he was "working" for.

he's not supposed to follow him, even at a distance. It doesn't say, go ahead and follow him at a good distance.

[Redtown]

Originally Posted by BobNystromOwnsU

He followed him after he was asked not to.

Here is where we can all stop reading this garbage. Bob thinks that Zimmerman should have obeyed a 911 operator.

Bob thinks a 911 operator has authority to tell Zimmerman not to follow. That is just plain stupid. Bob's opinion and description of events are not very reliable.

[BobNystromOwnsU]

PMC,

Do you think Jorge would change how he did this if he could go back and do it again?

Ask yourself that.