quote:

Originally posted by Norman Conquest:
I agree with Mark.I am not a "racist",although I will say that the spoutings of Jesse + Al + their ilk is definately driving me in that direction.The point here (other than a dead 17 year old) is had the person been white it would have never even made the news.Equal rights are not special rights.

and the shooting was rightous regardless of what color his skin happened to be..................

i wonder how obama liked the thursday night man-boys time.............

I have absolutely no idea if this is real or 100% baloney, but if it is valid it's a pretty interesting bit of information:

http://theconservativetreehous...redictable-violence/

Three pages, most posts trying to defend the actions of a man who was the agressor in this situation. He got out of his vehicle and approached his victim. There is no "Stand your ground" defense.

Sam, I make no determination on who was the aggressor, and neither should you unless you were there. That is why we have our legal system. all we both know is second hand knowledge at best, and virtually all of it supplied by someone trying to profit from the situation either by selling newspapers or gathering votes, or by racking up more legal fees.

However, it is a known fact by everyone that who, NBC I think?, purposefully edited the 911 tape from the very beginning to get a public reaction, I do find it interesting that he did not purchase an "ice tea" at all, but a different drink. Heck, if TM had bought a pepsi and it was said to be coke it would have all sorts of corrections and right away. so don't you find it interesting that of the two items he purchased, one of them is continually mis-identified? And if the press screws up half of what his last purchase was, why would you believe ANYONE who claims that he was either the aggressor OR the victim?

In case anyone wonders, the top picture is one of the crime scene photos.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com...6090406.photogallery

it is image #50

NBC did a dramitic edit to the tape, they did not edit the fact that a 911 operator told him not to confront his "suspect".

Everyone wants to believe that he was safe because "stand your ground" is a good law. Using it as his defense isn't.

The media has distorted both parties in this but the unedited 911 call speaks for itself.

Sam I am not going to argue with you about what may or may not have happened. As I said that is for the courts to decide and not really anyone else. You are free to form your own opinion but my opinion is that since you were not there the opinion you have is not yours anyway but what someone is wanting you to think. If you feel otherwise you are deluding yourself because neither you nor I were there.

My point here is that the press is even mistaken in what beverage was purchased! Do you not think it odd that Trayvon Martin goes to the 7-11 and purchases 2 items, and the press repeatedly gets the beverage wrong? Does that not seem either extremely odd or extremely incompetent?

quote:

My point here is that the press is even mistaken in what beverage was purchased! Do you not think it odd that Trayvon Martin goes to the 7-11 and purchases 2 items, and the press repeatedly gets the beverage wrong? Does that not seem either extremely odd or extremely incompetent?

My theory is that this isn't a case of a mistake, oddness or incomptence; it's more likley a case of political correctness running amok. The journalists probably wanted to avoid the old-fashioned stereotype of associating Black people and watermelons.

Sam;

As Mark succuinctly stares-we are all simply disgesting what the media and a bit of official Sanford PD info there is.

So, we are not able to state the facts of the event, only the facts of what has been stated about the event.

Anyway, I am not familiar with all the media fodder, but as I recall an account stated Z dismounted and moved to a location where he could see where the "suspect" disappeared to (the area between the two buildings) Z did not walk up to M and start a conversation or anything else per any reports I have read or heard. Sources state that Z was returning to his vehicle when M rapidly approached him from the opposing side of the building and confronted Z as he neared his SUV, have you not seen these reports?


Under most state laws concerning justifiable use of force, even an intitial aggressor regains the right to self defense if he break off his efforts and retreats, and is then subsequently attacked by the initial subject of his attack, or any other actor....

Not saying this means anything to this conversation, but it would be a factor in law... (if FL statue so defines).

quote:

Originally posted by Sam:
.....they did not edit the fact that a 911 operator told him not to confront his "suspect".

Not true: The 911 operator said "we don't need you to do that", which wasn't a directive not to do so.

Andrew, you may have read something that I haven't as I have not read everything that has been released.

Odd, I do agree with the wording that you have posted.

The bottom line is an armed citizen called 911 and decided to act like law enforcement.

I am pro self defense but I don't agree that this was self defense. In my opinion he put himself in a situation he should not have, then shot his way out of it. I started out in his favor but after a day I couldn't agree with him anymore.

quote:

The bottom line is an armed citizen called 911 and decided to act like law enforcement

No a LEO would have directly confronted him maybe doing a terry frisk, getting ID and the reason he was there.