Weed, fights and guns: Trayvon Martin’s text messages released

[npgunner]

Today, virtually everyone has a cellphone and that can been hooked to Twitter/Facebook and other social media. For instance, a gang member can tweet, "ain't no POlice at liquor store on corner of ______ & ______" . Few minutes later, flash mob arrives. Or tweet, "white family stuck in traffic at ________ & ________ intersection"

They already do something like this in Chicago. Violent flash mobs in all areas of town ( rich, poor, black, white, tourist, etc.). Location gets tweeted, hundreds show up and beat the snot out of all involved, disappear before anyone of authority can arrest too many of them. Little report in the media, little done to qualm this from police.

[RichardR]

I was in college during the 1992 LA Riots after the trial of the police offcers accused of beating Rodney King. Over the last few days, I have been pulling up footage of the riots on You Tube. While I have no concern for rioting in most of Tennessee (Memphis, would be the only exception), I will be taking my family to St. Louis on Sunday and will be there until Wed.

Somethings I have thought about, in 1992, cell phones were rare, rioters/looters learned of the news on radio/TV. Today, virtually everyone has a cellphone and that can been hooked to Twitter/Facebook and other social media. For instance, a gang member can tweet, "ain't no POlice at liquor store on corner of ______ & ______" . Few minutes later, flash mob arrives. Or tweet, "white family stuck in traffic at ________ & ________ intersection"

Good points, I really do hope that that tree stops bearing it's poisonous fruit but I'm afraid it may be intentionally harvested before that happens.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

So if tweets, text messages, and internet happens to "cause" or "exacerbate" bad riots-- In the aftermath will "conservatives" agitate for more government control and oversight and surveillance of the internet, to "protect us" against internet-enabled bad guys?

[npgunner]

So if tweets, text messages, and internet happens to "cause" or "exacerbate" bad riots-- In the aftermath will "conservatives" agitate for more government control and oversight and surveillance of the internet, to "protect us" against internet-enabled bad guys?

True conservatives? No, but I'm sure the John McCain and RINO types sure will. Edited July 12, 2013 by npgunner

[RobertNashville]

Why should TM "run home"? He had absolutely no duty to retreat. Why does everyone keep saying he should run?

Zman said TM was running. What more do ya'll want?

I don't know...why do so many keep saying Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck; he had no duty to do so and in fact the argument can be made that as a neighborhood watch volunteer he had a duty to try and see where the thug was going/what he was up to.

 

But of course if you are a JFT aficionado that thought would never occur. 

[TMF]

I don't know...why do so many keep saying Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck; he had no duty to do so and in fact the argument can be made that as a neighborhood watch volunteer he had a duty to try and see where the thug was going/what he was up to.

.

And Treyvon had no duty to run away. He could have followed Zimmerman too, or even waited in the shadows to approach him and ask him what his problem was, right? For all we know that is what happened and Zimmerman threw the first punch. I'm not arguing whether he should be convicted, as I do not believe there is enough evidence to convict him of any crime here, but for many who keep saying that it has been proven as fact how it all went down are full of BS. There is only one person in the world who knows for sure.

One thing I know for sure, if HCP holders model their behavior after Zimmerman they have a much higher chance of finding themselves in a courtroom than the rest of us. Edited July 12, 2013 by TMF

[RobertNashville]

And Treyvon had no duty to run away. He could have followed Zimmerman too, or even waited in the shadows to approach him and ask him what his problem was, right? For all we know that is what happened...

That's certainly not what people who have been watching the testimony know.

 

More to the point, it's disingenuous for people to say Trayvon had no duty to go home (or do any of a number of other things he could have done such as calling 911 instead of the idiot girlfriend or at least something other than getting into a physical assault) but concurrently claim that Zimmerman "should have" stayed in his truck.as if staying in his truck would have been some magical pill to prevent all that  happened - once you start throwing conjecture into the mix there is zero reason to assume that Martin would have just walked home with his skittles and not still started an assault on Zimmerman.

 

Maybe Zimmerman should stayed in his truck...maybe Martin should have gone home (he certainly had plenty of time to do so) but neither did that...when you ignore all the media-manufactured garbage and innuendo what we are left with is that Martin violently attacked Zimmerman and put him in reasonable fear for his life an he defended his life with deadly force.

Edited July 12, 2013 by RobertNashville

[TripleDigitRide]

i wonder if Martin's parents arrived in court after OMara started his closing argument on purpose to make sure the jury noticed them?

As sneaky as the prosecution has been, I'd say that is quite plausible. 

[Guest Lester Weevils]

And Treyvon had no duty to run away. He could have followed Zimmerman too, or even waited in the shadows to approach him and ask him what his problem was, right? For all we know that is what happened and Zimmerman threw the first punch. I'm not arguing whether he should be convicted, as I do not believe there is enough evidence to convict him of any crime here, but for many who keep saying that it has been proven as fact how it all went down are full of BS. There is only one person in the world who knows for sure.

One thing I know for sure, if HCP holders model their behavior after Zimmerman they have a much higher chance of finding themselves in a courtroom than the rest of us.

 

Z desperately needs at least two guys on the jury, because apparently at least fifty percent of guys will get fixated and endlessly repeat the mantra, "But M punched Z in the nose!" regardless what other details are brought up. :)

Edited July 12, 2013 by Lester Weevils

[TMF]

That's certainly not what people who have been watching the testimony know.

Huh? I'm sorry, where was the reliable testimony of the witness who saw it from beginning to end? If I show a video of someone getting their ass kicked you're gonna think the kicker is the bad guy and the guy getting kicked is the victim. The first part of that video may well be the "victim" attempting to rob the "bad guy".

I'm not arguing guilt or innocence here, I'm telling you that you don't know how it started and neither does anyone else, unless you have been promoted to an all-seeing being status we are not aware of. Edited July 12, 2013 by TMF

[Joseg]

What a difference, a professional lawyer (O'Mara) vs a hired lawyer(DLR) that the state went fishing for hoping he would get some airtime to make him famous. Calm, composed demeanor, not the screaming and yelling antics of the Prosecution. 

 

And the parts that sucks is that Prosecution gets the last say..

[Mike.357]

 

 

And the parts that sucks is that Prosecution gets the last say..

 

 

 

I venture that if Martin had killed Zimmerman there would be no issue with the prosecution getting the last word.

[RichardR]

So if tweets, text messages, and internet happens to "cause" or "exacerbate" bad riots-- In the aftermath will "conservatives" agitate for more government control and oversight and surveillance of the internet, to "protect us" against internet-enabled bad guys?

My guess would be only if "the scattered, sporatic, unorganized resistance" tries to use it to organize themselves in defense of their family's, homes, or communities, I doubt it'll be switched off before then.

[RobertNashville]

Huh? I'm sorry, where was the reliable testimony of the witness who saw it from beginning to end? If I show a video of someone getting their ass kicked you're gonna think the kicker is the bad guy and the guy getting kicked is the victim. The first part of that video may well be the "victim" attempting to rob the "bad guy".

I'm not arguing guilt or innocence here, I'm telling you that you don't know how it started and neither does anyone else, unless you have been promoted to an all-seeing being status we are not aware of.

I know what the evidence shows; I see no need to guess at what happened.

 

If you want to assume things, then assume things but there is zero evidence to think that what happened is any different than what Zimmerman says happened. which means Martin violently attacked Zimmerman and than Zimmerman made a good SD shoot. That is what the facts, evidence and testimony shows to pretty much anyone who has watch the trial.

if you just want to argue what Zimmerman should have done go ahead but doing so without applying the same level of "should have" to Martin is just a biased and worthless endeavor.

Edited July 12, 2013 by RobertNashville

[tnhawk]

As sneaky as the prosecution has been, I'd say that is quite plausible. 

When you don't have evidence to make your case, you use anything available.

[npgunner]

Possible closing line:
Trayvon Martin might not have been shot
If he had just gone home to smoke some more pot

[TMF]

[
I know what the evidence shows; I see no need to guess at what happened.

There is absolutely zero evidence that tells us definitively how this started. You're being disingenuous to suggest that you're doing anything other than "guessing".

[Guest nra37922]

I have this bad feeling that GZ is going to get shafted. Best case is a hung jury as I doubt that all of them will all agree on a not guilty verdict, though they should based on evidence. 

[mikegideon]

There is absolutely zero evidence that tells us definitively how this started. You're being disingenuous to suggest that you're doing anything other than "guessing".

 

If it weren't for guessing, there would be no trial.

[TMF]

if you just want to argue what Zimmerman should have done go ahead but doing so without applying the same level of "should have" to Martin is just a biased and worthless endeavor.

You must be kidding... really I don't see how you wrote that sentence with a straight face.

Everyone here is doing the exact thing you're saying, only opposite, suggesting that Treyvon could have done a number of things differently. My post was to point out how that goes both ways. I'm sorry you did not pick up on that subtly, I thought it was obvious.

At any rate, this isn't a website aimed at 17 year old, intercity black youths. It is a firearms website with the majority of members carrying firearms. To not point out Zimmerman's stupid behavior is, well stupid.

[TMF]

If it weren't for guessing, there would be no trial.

Well it seems it went that way.

[RobertNashville]

There is absolutely zero evidence that tells us definitively how this started. You're being disingenuous to suggest that you're doing anything other than "guessing".

There is rarely 100% perfect knowledge of anything; that's why we use a system where we, hopefully, don't need to resort to guessing.  If we always had to have perfect knowledge we would either never be able to find anyone guilty of anything (or just assume guilt simply because someone has been charged).

That's why I don't need to guess; not any more.  We have Zimmerman's recounting of events with no credible evidence or facts to show it's wrong combined with a ####load of evidence and facts and testimony (a good bit of which provided by the prosecution's own witnesses) that support Zimmerman's recounting of events.

 

At this point, there is no reason to not believe Zimmerman unless a person just doesn't want to believe him.

Edited July 12, 2013 by RobertNashville

[RichardR]

At this point, there is no reason to not believe Zimmerman unless a person just doesn't want to believe him.

Agreed, I'd go so far as to say that was the case with regards to the initial findings of the original investigation as well.

[TMF]

At this point, there is no reason to not believe Zimmerman unless a person just doesn't want to believe him.

Well, I don't believe him because he has shown himself to be a liar. I have no reason to believe him. There are lots of people on the Internet that are full of sh*t and don't believe. Do I need to justify all my reasons for not believing someone? Once again, I'm not on the jury. Jurors decide based on evidence and testimony backed by evidence or other testimony. It doesn't matter how trustworthy Zimmerman is or not for them. For me, I don't believe him. Is that okay with you? Edited July 12, 2013 by TMF

[npgunner]

Alternative closing remark (focus on innocence):

Ladies of the jury, it's clear the facts show
Zimmerman is innocent, and free he should go