George Zimmerman declared not guilty of second-degree murder

[guitarfool2002]

http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/873103_Sex-offender--73--charged-in-kidnapping-and-sexual-assault-of-5-year-old-girl.html

Temar and his buddy Chris are legitimate heroes, the girl's family calls him "an angel" for doing what he (and they) did to save the girl.

They were alerted that a girl was missing, they went searching for her. The search went nowhere on foot, so they hopped on bikes, forming their own search party.

They saw a car driving suspiciously around their neighborhood, one that was out of place and driving in an odd manner. So they began following that car. That pursuit eventually led to making eye contact, startling the driver, and led to him pushing the girl out, which unfortunately did not save her from a vicious assault, but could have saved her life if not more suffering at the hands of this piece of sh*t sex offender guy...who is now in custody and won't be harming another little girl.

You're leaving a crucial bit out, which is that that Boggs and Garcia began following the man after spotting a girl "who matched the missing child's description." I assume the missing girl's description was more than simply "white female." I agree that this was indeed a courageous and heroic act by Boggs and Garcia and as a father of a nearly 3 year old girl, I am overjoyed that at the very least this girl was spared from what was probably a far worse and more grisly fate. But identifying a victim of a crime and proceeding is an altogether different kettle of fish than seeing a man walking in the rain and assuming from that that he's "up to know good." One is based on evidence, the other is based on paranoia.

I left nothing out. Read this from the original link:

They walked through some nearby woods and along a creek where they were told the girl might have gone.

When Boggs and his friends returned to Lancaster Arms on Jennings Drive, they saw more police officers and TV news crews.

"The whole block was filled," he said.

That's when, Boggs said, "I had the gut feeling that I was going to find the little girl."

A friend asked Boggs to hold his bike. Boggs figured the bike would help him search for the girl.

So he and another friend, Chris Garcia, rode on area streets — Michelle Drive, St. Phillips Drive, Gable Park Road — looking for her.

That's when a maroon car caught his eye. (He had gotten a bit ahead of Garcia.)

The car was on Gable Park and turned around when it got near the top of a hill toward Millersville Pike, where Boggs said several police officers were gathered with the kind of cart used to carry an injured football player off the field.

The driver, an older white man, then began quickly turning onto and out of side streets connecting to Gable Park, Boggs said.

The neighborhood is something of a maze; many of its streets are cul-de-sacs.

Boggs got close enough to the car to see a little girl inside. Garcia was nearby.

The driver looked at Boggs and Garcia, then stopped the car at Gable Park and Betz Farm Road and pushed the girl out of the car. The driver then drove off, Boggs said.

Boggs said he didn't see where the car went.

"She runs to my arms and said, 'I need to see my mommy,' " Boggs said.

(End Quote)


With that narrative, again copied directly from the initial newspaper link, Boggs and Garcia noticed the car driving suspiciously in the neighborhood, most obviously turning around to avoid an area where police had been set up as part of the search. The driver began turning down side streets, again something that looked suspicious, something that seemed out of place on those streets.

They saw the driver, after the car's actions caught their eye, and they escalated their observations and pursuit. They did not know the girl was in the car until they got close enough to the car to see her. As with most kids under 6, sometimes you cannot see them sitting in a car because they're not tall enough so you can see them through the window.

So the suspicion, the feeling that this driver wasn't acting normally in their neighborhood, and the decision to pursue the car and investigate further happened before they knew the little girl was in that car.

Again, that's in the first link. If the wording or the timeline is unclear, let's email the author for a clarification so we get it straight. But I did not in any way conveniently leave out a key part of the story, and it definitely doesn't change the outcome nor what I see as a takeaway from the whole thing.

The idea of following someone who seems to be out of place or acting suspicious in a neighborhood is not as unusual nor as barbaric a concept as I've seen some try to present it. In fact, in this case there were two teens who did take matters in their own hands and acted on the initial suspicion that something just wasn't right, and their actions - immediate gut-level decision making far beyond their years or experience - turned out to be correct and helped save a little girl and take a very bad person off their streets.

And the story again illustrates how the notion of closing the windows and doors and letting the authorities handle everything may seem like a good policy in theory but in practical application (i.e. reality), such a mentality may have cost a little girl her life if these two teenagers had instead decided to go back inside their apartment after they saw the authorities were "on the scene", and who knows where the driver who had the girl would have gone had he not been scared off by realizing the two teens had seen him with the girl.

And there was another hypothetical x-factor involved that neither teenager seems to have had a cel phone, or if they did they didn't call police through 911 after seeing the suspicious car driving erratically. Perhaps if they had, they would have been advised to not follow the car in any way (in fact we can almost be certain that's what 911 dispatch would have told them), but to wait somewhere for police who would get the description of the car.

In a matter of seconds, the car could have made a certain turn and disappeared with the girl...the immediate reaction of these teens to follow it, acting on a gut instinct is amazing.

And the positive outcome is the best part of the story for all parties involved.

[Bean Bag]

Sorry, I worded that wrong...

I'm referring to the Affordable Care Act, which is defined as a Socailst policy.

You are correct, ObamaCare is a socialist policy... or it aims to get there.  Which is why the Heritage Foundation quickly abandoned the idea that Romney implemented in Mass (of which is nothing like ObamaCare).  Heritage realized the folly of the idea, since companies would just pay the fine and drop people from their plans (or cut back to part-time, so they aren't required to provide coverage anyway)...

Thus leaving millions and millions and millions and millions of uninsured people with the painful choice of either paying their own hefty Federal fine for being uninsured (the unconstitutional bit), buying an expensive evil private plan or just simply hop on the federal death panel plan.  And bingo... Social healthcare!  yeah!!!

[Chocolate Shake Man]

http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/873103_Sex-offender--73--charged-in-kidnapping-and-sexual-assault-of-5-year-old-girl.html

Temar and his buddy Chris are legitimate heroes, the girl's family calls him "an angel" for doing what he (and they) did to save the girl.

They were alerted that a girl was missing, they went searching for her. The search went nowhere on foot, so they hopped on bikes, forming their own search party.

They saw a car driving suspiciously around their neighborhood, one that was out of place and driving in an odd manner. So they began following that car. That pursuit eventually led to making eye contact, startling the driver, and led to him pushing the girl out, which unfortunately did not save her from a vicious assault, but could have saved her life if not more suffering at the hands of this piece of sh*t sex offender guy...who is now in custody and won't be harming another little girl.

You're leaving a crucial bit out, which is that that Boggs and Garcia began following the man after spotting a girl "who matched the missing child's description." I assume the missing girl's description was more than simply "white female." I agree that this was indeed a courageous and heroic act by Boggs and Garcia and as a father of a nearly 3 year old girl, I am overjoyed that at the very least this girl was spared from what was probably a far worse and more grisly fate. But identifying a victim of a crime and proceeding is an altogether different kettle of fish than seeing a man walking in the rain and assuming from that that he's "up to know good." One is based on evidence, the other is based on paranoia.

I left nothing out. Read this from the original link:

They walked through some nearby woods and along a creek where they were told the girl might have gone.

When Boggs and his friends returned to Lancaster Arms on Jennings Drive, they saw more police officers and TV news crews.

"The whole block was filled," he said.

That's when, Boggs said, "I had the gut feeling that I was going to find the little girl."

A friend asked Boggs to hold his bike. Boggs figured the bike would help him search for the girl.

So he and another friend, Chris Garcia, rode on area streets — Michelle Drive, St. Phillips Drive, Gable Park Road — looking for her.

That's when a maroon car caught his eye. (He had gotten a bit ahead of Garcia.)

The car was on Gable Park and turned around when it got near the top of a hill toward Millersville Pike, where Boggs said several police officers were gathered with the kind of cart used to carry an injured football player off the field.

The driver, an older white man, then began quickly turning onto and out of side streets connecting to Gable Park, Boggs said.

The neighborhood is something of a maze; many of its streets are cul-de-sacs.

Boggs got close enough to the car to see a little girl inside. Garcia was nearby.

The driver looked at Boggs and Garcia, then stopped the car at Gable Park and Betz Farm Road and pushed the girl out of the car. The driver then drove off, Boggs said.

Boggs said he didn't see where the car went.

"She runs to my arms and said, 'I need to see my mommy,' " Boggs said.

(End Quote)


With that narrative, again copied directly from the initial newspaper link, Boggs and Garcia noticed the car driving suspiciously in the neighborhood, most obviously turning around to avoid an area where police had been set up as part of the search. The driver began turning down side streets, again something that looked suspicious, something that seemed out of place on those streets.

They saw the driver, after the car's actions caught their eye, and they escalated their observations and pursuit. They did not know the girl was in the car until they got close enough to the car to see her. As with most kids under 6, sometimes you cannot see them sitting in a car because they're not tall enough so you can see them through the window.

So the suspicion, the feeling that this driver wasn't acting normally in their neighborhood, and the decision to pursue the car and investigate further happened before they knew the little girl was in that car.

Again, that's in the first link. If the wording or the timeline is unclear, let's email the author for a clarification so we get it straight. But I did not in any way conveniently leave out a key part of the story, and it definitely doesn't change the outcome nor what I see as a takeaway from the whole thing.

The idea of following someone who seems to be out of place or acting suspicious in a neighborhood is not as unusual nor as barbaric a concept as I've seen some try to present it. In fact, in this case there were two teens who did take matters in their own hands and acted on the initial suspicion that something just wasn't right, and their actions - immediate gut-level decision making far beyond their years or experience - turned out to be correct and helped save a little girl and take a very bad person off their streets.

And the story again illustrates how the notion of closing the windows and doors and letting the authorities handle everything may seem like a good policy in theory but in practical application (i.e. reality), such a mentality may have cost a little girl her life if these two teenagers had instead decided to go back inside their apartment after they saw the authorities were "on the scene", and who knows where the driver who had the girl would have gone had he not been scared off by realizing the two teens had seen him with the girl.

And there was another hypothetical x-factor involved that neither teenager seems to have had a cel phone, or if they did they didn't call police through 911 after seeing the suspicious car driving erratically. Perhaps if they had, they would have been advised to not follow the car in any way (in fact we can almost be certain that's what 911 dispatch would have told them), but to wait somewhere for police who would get the description of the car.

In a matter of seconds, the car could have made a certain turn and disappeared with the girl...the immediate reaction of these teens to follow it, acting on a gut instinct is amazing.

And the positive outcome is the best part of the story for all parties involved.

Even the first link you posted omits the crucial information that is in the second link. Here is what the above is saying:

So he and another friend, Chris Garcia, rode on area streets — Michelle Drive, St. Phillips Drive, Gable Park Road — looking for her.

That's when a maroon car caught his eye. (He had gotten a bit ahead of Garcia.)
The car was on Gable Park and turned around when it got near the top of a hill toward Millersville Pike, where Boggs said several police officers were gathered with the kind of cart used to carry an injured football player off the field.

The driver, an older white man, then began quickly turning onto and out of side streets connecting to Gable Park, Boggs said.

The neighborhood is something of a maze; many of its streets are cul-de-sacs.

Boggs got close enough to the car to see a little girl inside. Garcia was nearby.

Here is what the second link says:

They said they saw a man in a maroon car with a little girl, who matched the missing child's description.

They followed the man on their bicycles until he let the little girl out of the car, they said.

Now the second article suggests outright that they saw the girl first and then followed the man. The first article that you rely on doesn't necessarily say that and is, in fact, constructed to suggest otherwise but reading it carefully appears to confirm what the second article suggests. Boggs was away from Garcia both when the car was spotted and when the girl was identified. The sex offender pushed the girl out when he saw both Boggs and Garcia. It seems to be fairly clear that they followed the car after confirming that this was indeed a criminal. The idea that this was done without the police is also a fantasy, since the police were already on the scene and it was indeed the police who apprehended the criminal not Boggs or Garcia. Again, what Boggs and Garcia did was heroic though I think you are manufacturing this to be something that it's not.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Sorry, I worded that wrong...

I'm referring to the Affordable Care Act, which is defined as a Socailst policy.

You are correct, ObamaCare is a socialist policy... or it aims to get there.  Which is why the Heritage Foundation quickly abandoned the idea that Romney implemented in Mass (of which is nothing like ObamaCare).  Heritage realized the folly of the idea, since companies would just pay the fine and drop people from their plans (or cut back to part-time, so they aren't required to provide coverage anyway)...

Thus leaving millions and millions and millions and millions of uninsured people with the painful choice of either paying their own hefty Federal fine for being uninsured (the unconstitutional bit), buying an expensive evil private plan or just simply hop on the federal death panel plan.  And bingo... Social healthcare!  yeah!!!

I will take a temporary break from my self-ban on communicating with you, only because you are dedicating yourself to lying in order to discredit my points.

Yare correct, ObamaCare is a socialist policy... or it aims to get there

How? Socialism is quite simply the common and egalitarian ownership of the means of production. How does a health care policy which works to empower the big six private insurance corporations "aim to get" to the point where the means of production are placed into the hands of the workers?

Which is why the Heritage Foundation quickly abandoned the idea that Romney implemented in Mass (of which is nothing like ObamaCare).  Heritage realized the folly of the idea, since companies would just pay the fine and drop people from their plans (or cut back to part-time, so they aren't required to provide coverage anyway)...

Define quickly? A year into Romneycare, the Heritage Foundation wrote about how the new health care act was already showing signs of progress and gladly posted a video on their website in which Romney touted Heritage support in created the health care plan. Heritage only shifted gears on the idea when it became Obama's plan. But while it was up and running under Romney, they were supportive.

the idea that Romney implemented in Mass (of which is nothing like ObamaCare). 

Explain how it is different.

[FatherOfTheMan Sr101]

Socialsim: Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]

Okay, so I read this. So even if I hadn't known before, now I DEFINITELY do...

So right away, this is social ownership, as it forces EVERYONE to get healthcare from certain cooperative enterprises.

"A shared responsibility requirement, commonly called an individual mandate,[17][18] requires all individuals not covered by an employer sponsored health plan, Medicaid, Medicare or other public insurance programs, secure an approved private-insurance policy or pay a penalty, unless the applicable individual is a member of a recognized religious sect exempted by the Internal Revenue Service, or waived in cases of financial hardship."

It also forces business to provide healthcare to full time employees, so basically, the poor (the people largely considered to be benefiting from this) will actually be LOSING hours and jobs.

It controls production, owning the means of producing is a Marxist idea, however CONTROLLING it, is a socialist idea.  

EDIT:
Okay, I see people are backing me up here, just had to clarify why I believe it. I've got family in HR and government, so this is a pretty big thing for all of us right now.

EDIT AGAIN: worded badly...

[FatherOfTheMan Sr101]

How? Socialism is quite simply the common and egalitarian ownership of the means of production. How does a health care policy which works to empower the big six private insurance corporations "aim to get" to the point where the means of production are placed into the hands of the workers?

The government is nationalizing those six private insurance corporations. That is Socialism.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Socialsim: Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]

Okay, so I read this. So even if I hadn't known before, now I DEFINITELY do...

No, you DEFINITELY don't. What the above definition that you rely on fails to take into account is that people who have called themselves socialists operated in strict opposition to the principles of the theory as laid out by Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto. Marx specifically says that in a properly functioning socialist society, there can be no "state ownership" since there can be no political power in a socialist society. Indeed the definition of what socialism is has been perverted to the extent that it has, because the leading propaganda systems of the 20th Century, namely the United States and the Soviet Union had a vested interested in keeping the public confused on the matter. But if we are to agree that the definition of a philosophy is established by the philosopher (and why wouldn't you?) then we quite simply cannot by any means accept the above as a legitimate definition of the term.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

How? Socialism is quite simply the common and egalitarian ownership of the means of production. How does a health care policy which works to empower the big six private insurance corporations "aim to get" to the point where the means of production are placed into the hands of the workers?

The government is nationalizing those six private insurance corporations. That is Socialism.

You're telling me that WellPoint, Cigna and the others are now state owned? I'm sure that's news to their share holders. Perhaps you should break this news story that you entirely just made up to them.

That is Socialism.

Even if it were true (and it's not), it wouldn't be.

[guitarfool2002]

There are discrepancies between some of the national accounts of the story and the way the local paper of record for the area reported it - again, if clarification is needed to better put this article into context, email the reporter for that clarification. I'm not shaping it in any way other than what I'm reading, and maybe the first article(s) I read which were local did differ from what CNN or the AP wire services for example have posted.

Another article note the lines in bold:

Boggs said he and a friend were moving a couch in the neighborhood where the girl was abducted, when a man came up to them and asked if they'd seen the girl.

A short time later, Boggs, Garcia and about six of their friends "formed our own search party," Boggs said.

Boggs and Garcia rode their bikes on area streets — Michelle Drive, St. Phillips Drive, Gable Park Road — looking for the girl.

That's when a maroon car caught Boggs' eye, he said

The two teens followed the car, and Boggs spotted a girl inside with an elderly white man.

Boggs said the man looked at him and Garcia, stopped at Gable Park and Betz Farm roads and pushed the girl out of the car.

She ran into Boggs' arms, and he carried her home.

full article: http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/873231_Mother-of-abducted-5-year-old-says-girl-is--doing-pretty-well-.html#ixzz2ZPoHneu5

How much more clear does that need to be? Again, if the problem is in the wording, follow the newspaper link and email the reporter for a clarification if it means that much to this discussion.

And this is an interview with Temar himself, given to the newspaper where all those links came from. If the wording is in question, again it's something to take up with the reporter(s) writing it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd31e02l3jk

Temar's exact words:
"...and so I saw this, like, suspicious car, and I looked into the passenger seat and it was a little girl and I said I think that's her and so we followed it for about 5 minutes and then we noticed that it was her and so we chased it for like 15 minutes, chased the car for 15 minutes..."

Again...they spotted a suspicious car acting/driving erratically, got closer to the car and saw a girl, according to Boggs he said he thought it was her and they followed for 5 minutes, *then* they noticed it was her and chased the car for 15 minutes before the guy let the girl out of the car.

When they saw a little girl, the instinct was it was the same girl. But at that point what if it were a grandfather with his granddaughter in the car? It could have been someone other than the missing girl.

The point where they thought it was her led them to follow for 5 minutes, the point where they noticed it was her (Boggs' own words) led to them giving chase for 15 minutes.

I'll stand by my opinion that had they called police after that initial "thought" that it was her, prior to them following for 5 minutes, they would have been advised to stay where they were and officers would come to get the description according to standard procedure. Instead after it seems they noticed or confirmed it was the missing girl, they gave chase for 15 minutes.

So you have two teens on bikes chasing a guy in a car with a kidnapped girl around a neighborhood full of cul-de-sacs, side streets, and the like...with a heavy police presence and various TV news crews helping in the search in that general area, and...wait for it...

(I need to put this in caps for emphasis, no offense intended) ...TWO KIDS FOLLOWED THIS CAR ON BIKES FOR 20 MINUTES AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD BEING SEARCHED AND NO POLICE WERE THERE TO EITHER NOTICE THIS "CHASE" OR TAKE ACTION TO HELP SAVE THE GIRL

The kids saved the girl, no police were there. Temar carried her back to where the police were staged for the search, again they were nowhere significant around either Temar and Chris or the kidnapper with the girl in his car for 20 minutes during the search.

So taking action on their own initiative and going on their gut instinct to follow the car when police were simply not there nor able to help for 20 minutes as they chased the car directly saved the little girl and helped police later apprehend the kidnapper, who got away despite the heavy presence of police in that area that day.

And I do think, opinion only, that the way a lot of outside observers think "calling the police" is sufficient enough for people faced with these split-second decisions in abnormal situations does not always work for every situation as much as some think it does or should work in theory, and people like Temar and his friend on bikes managed to do what the police were not there to do and somehow did not observe despite being in that same general area searching the perimeter for the girl...for 20 minutes as the teens gave chase.

And the procedure on the books had Temar or Chris called 911 to report this would have had the 911 dispatcher telling them not to follow the car, and to stay where they are and wait for police. At that point, not only the car and driver would have gotten away but the missing girl would have still been in the car as he got away. Seconds matter in these cases, again these kids specifically Temar Boggs who acted immediately, are real heroes.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd31e02l3jk

Temar's exact words:
"...and so I saw this, like, suspicious car, and I looked into the passenger seat and it was a little girl and I said I think that's her and so we followed it for about 5 minutes and then we noticed that it was her and so we chased it for like 15 minutes, chased the car for 15 minutes..."

Again...they spotted a suspicious car acting/driving erratically, got closer to the car and saw a girl, according to Boggs he said he thought it was her and they followed for 5 minutes, *then* they noticed it was her and chased the car for 15 minutes before the guy let the girl out of the car.

When they saw a little girl, the instinct was it was the same girl. But at that point what if it were a grandfather with his granddaughter in the car? It could have been someone other than the missing girl.

Again, though, isn't this circumstance a bit more obvious than simply a guy walking in the rain looking around? Do you honestly think that both are equally suspicious cases?

[guitarfool2002]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd31e02l3jk

Temar's exact words:
"...and so I saw this, like, suspicious car, and I looked into the passenger seat and it was a little girl and I said I think that's her and so we followed it for about 5 minutes and then we noticed that it was her and so we chased it for like 15 minutes, chased the car for 15 minutes..."

Again...they spotted a suspicious car acting/driving erratically, got closer to the car and saw a girl, according to Boggs he said he thought it was her and they followed for 5 minutes, *then* they noticed it was her and chased the car for 15 minutes before the guy let the girl out of the car.

When they saw a little girl, the instinct was it was the same girl. But at that point what if it were a grandfather with his granddaughter in the car? It could have been someone other than the missing girl.

Again, though, isn't this circumstance a bit more obvious than simply a guy walking in the rain looking around? Do you honestly think that both are equally suspicious cases?

Temar's quote "so I saw this, like, suspicious car" is a point to consider around the term "profiling", a term which I think too often gets a negative connotation attached to it - in some cases it is a valid negative connotation but when the entire process of seeing something suspicious and acting on it from a gut-level reaction is being called out as reckless or even considered a bad course of action in general, it's important to note that the process itself isn't as flawed as the cases where individuals have taken their reactions too far, or acted for the wrong reasons.

For a teenager to observe and react as he did is still incredible to me. Those entering the field of law enforcement, military, criminal justice and similar fields are given intense training and psychological screening based around these actions and reactions. This is basically a kid who isn't old enough to vote seeing something that struck him as suspicious and acting on his instincts.

Anyone is free to consider this story and interpret it any way they choose, I'm suggesting the fact that a teenager in effect "profiled" a car in his neighborhood which seemed suspicious to him, which eventually led to those suspicions being confirmed as he was able to see that the girl was in this suspicious car, is the kind of immediate reaction which saved the girl. The reaction of seeing something suspicious and acting on it based on an initial feeling or profile of that something (in this case a car driving erratically in a neighborhood) is not in itself a dangerous or negative thing. In this case, it was the key to saving the girl.

They saw something suspicious with the car (in law enforcement terms they profiled the car, really), acted on it, and those reactions and suspicions were confirmed. Just because cases do not always work out that way, or some profile for the wrong reasons or react to produce a deliberately negative end result, does not mean that the practice of seeing something that looks suspicious (profiling) and acting on it based on a feeling that "something just isn't right about this..." is wrong and should always be discouraged.

And I'll repeat again, the fact that there were no police there around the teens on bikes and this car for 20 minutes as the chase ensued through this neighborhood despite the area being the subject of an intensive search operation with heavy police and emergency response shows that calling the police is not always the ultimate solution in these situations.

This whole scenario ended well, however I can't help but think the potential was also there for something to go horribly wrong had as much as one variable been changed. And that variable could have been a decision to call 911 and wait somewhere rather than follow, or ignore that initial profile these teens seem to have made of that car as suspicious, and ignore it rather than looking further at that car.

[Bean Bag]

I will take a temporary break from my self-ban on communicating with you,...

I want flowers first...

...only because you are dedicating yourself to lying in order to discredit my points.

[Heysaboda]

As to your second point, I am not necessarily suggesting that Zimmerman was bloodthirsty. Nevertheless, despite calling the police, he was certainly happy to try to take matters into his own hands as he continued to pursue Martin even after the police told him not to so he was certainly prepared to take action with or without the police.

You're over-looking an important fact.  He took "matters into his own hands" because Trayvon was on top of him, beating his head into the ground.  Would Zimmerman still be happily firing away at Trayvon had he not been attacked?  Doubtful.  But thanks for proving my initial point!

No, wrong again.  Zimmerman "took matters into his own hands" when he left the comfort of his SUV with a loaded gun.  He had no business doing that.  If the fat bloated  Zimmerman STAYS in the vehicle no one dies.  What PART of this don't we understand?  Hmmm?  GEEZ

[Heysaboda]

Serious question for you. How would you suppose that he be tried? Do you really think that one defense witness made all the difference? When everyone cried foul that Zimmerman was not arrested and insisted that he be put on trial, I was crying right along. That day came and a jury accquitted him of the crime. We have to be satisfied that he was put through the justice system. We should not be acting like vigilantes and exact our own justice or revenge because we did not agree with the outcome.

Well, a good prosecutor could/should have tried him for manslaugter only and not grandstanded by piling on murder 2.

Granted, the "kill and carry" law in FLORI-DUH imposes problems.

[Heysaboda]

Maybe this is a matter of debate, but to me, when you walk around your neighbourhood with loaded gun, it suggests to me that you do intend to use it whether you call the police or not. Personally, I think the call was more of a matter of, "I just wanted to call you so that we're clear that I am saying in advance that this guy I am about to shoot is suspicious looking, therefore under the laws of this state I am legally within my rights to do what I'm about to do." Without that call, there would have been far more question as to whether Zimmerman suspected there to be an unlawful threat so it certainly worked in Zimmerman's favour. But, I am well aware that that's interpretation on my part. But it is as much an interpretation as your own statements regarding the police call.

This point is completely unassailable by any reasonable person!   

[Heysaboda]

First, some good news: There is a teen from the Lancaster area named Temar Boggs who is being hailed rightfully so as a hero for something he and a friend had done.
This is the story of what he did, with links to the follow-ups:
http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/872026_Lancaster-teen-Temar-Boggs-hailed-as-a-hero-in-5-year-old-s-abduction.html

To sum up, he and a friend were helping move a couch in an apartment complex when a man asked if they had seen a little girl who had been missing from the area.

Great story, but you realzie that if Zimmerman saw this going on he would have assumed Temar was stealing the couch and shot him.  Just sayin'.

oh ok I'll stop now

[Bean Bag]

Well, a good prosecutor could/should have tried him for manslaugter only and not grandstanded by piling on murder 2.

Bingo!

Wait... as was pointed out, the prosecutor was pretty experienced.  They were experienced enough to at least know what you know, for example.  So... there's that fact.  Any other theories on why this was brought to trial as it were?   

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Temar's quote "so I saw this, like, suspicious car" is a point to consider around the term "profiling",

Again, you're cutting off the quote at a very convenient spot. He did not just see a suspicious car but a little girl inside it at a time when a little girl went missing. Therefore, given the evidence of the time, Boggs and Garcia could have objectively said without being at all questioned, that they could have been looking at a crime. George Zimmerman, on the other hand, could not say that because under no circumstance could a person simply walking and looking around be a crime. Boggs and Garcia had every reason to follow the car - not out of paranoia but because there was actually a valid reason to assume a crime was taking place. If the standard is that one should be suspicious when a little girl in a community goes missing and you see a person behaving erratically with a little girl with him, then I'd be on board. However, if the standard is that one should be suspicious because you see a person walking at night, then I'm not. And I find it nothing short of astonishing that anyone should correlate both of those reactions.

[Heysaboda]

Sorry, I worded that wrong...

I'm referring to the Affordable Care Act, which is defined as a Socailst policy.

You are correct, ObamaCare is a socialist policy... or it aims to get there.  Which is why the Heritage Foundation quickly abandoned the idea that Romney implemented in Mass (of which is nothing like ObamaCare).  Heritage realized the folly of the idea, since companies would just pay the fine and drop people from their plans (or cut back to part-time, so they aren't required to provide coverage anyway)...

Thus leaving millions and millions and millions and millions of uninsured people with the painful choice of either paying their own hefty Federal fine for being uninsured (the unconstitutional bit), buying an expensive evil private plan or just simply hop on the federal death panel plan.  And bingo... Social healthcare!  yeah!!!

Well perhaps “socialism” as defined by that nutjob Michele Bachmann…… "She and her ilk" aren’t interested in facts or real discussions.  They are all in the pay of the Koch Brothers.  They are the Real Opressors!

GEEZ

[Awesoman]

It is a country of people who have largely been conditioned, mostly through state and media propaganda, to be constantly afraid. From an outsider's perspective, the level of fear that emanates from the country is bizarre and would be amusing if it weren't so consistently dangerous.

Ironically, you could very well make the same case with just about any country.  Except maybe Canada.  :-)

That's entirely untrue. The United States is unique in constructing since WWII a forever-changing enemy that is out to destroy American life as we know it - from the trumped up fear mongering that surrounded Cold War propaganda to the weapons of mass destruction of Saddam Hussein, the US citizen has been made to live in fear of a largely manufactured threat. Despite the fact that the US has a larger military facility than just about every country in the world combined, they nevertheless feel in danger by countries like Grenada, whose population at the time was roughly 100,000. Reagan justified his illegal attack on Nicaragua on the grounds that they were a two-days drive from Texas and therefore could very easily undermine security. Illegal wars were essentially fought out by the pretense that the target of the war would get us eventually so we just had to get them first. And this goes on and on - today, illegal domestic spying is carried out in the name of preventing possible threats from outsiders. Gun culture too is driven by this same notion of fear - fear of both the criminal element and fear of a tyrannical government.

Someone above suggested that this type of fear is healthy. I would put it in slightly different terms - it is not so much healthy but rather crucial for those who are in power so that they can maintain that power. For just about everyone else it is both dangerous and disempowering.

So you're telling me that countries like Afghanistan, North Korea and Iran have open and honest media and governments that don't use propaganda on their own people???

[Heysaboda]

Has anyone here seen the Godfrey Cambridge film The Watermelon Man?

He plays the lead character, a white bigot who one day wakes up and discovers his skin color has turned black.  The next day, gets up to work. Things start out well at first, until he is accused of "stealing something" while trying to eat at a restaurant for whites only. The policeman assumes that, since he is a black man, he must have stolen something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watermelon_Man_(film)

[Chocolate Shake Man]

It is a country of people who have largely been conditioned, mostly through state and media propaganda, to be constantly afraid. From an outsider's perspective, the level of fear that emanates from the country is bizarre and would be amusing if it weren't so consistently dangerous.

Ironically, you could very well make the same case with just about any country.  Except maybe Canada.  :-)

That's entirely untrue. The United States is unique in constructing since WWII a forever-changing enemy that is out to destroy American life as we know it - from the trumped up fear mongering that surrounded Cold War propaganda to the weapons of mass destruction of Saddam Hussein, the US citizen has been made to live in fear of a largely manufactured threat. Despite the fact that the US has a larger military facility than just about every country in the world combined, they nevertheless feel in danger by countries like Grenada, whose population at the time was roughly 100,000. Reagan justified his illegal attack on Nicaragua on the grounds that they were a two-days drive from Texas and therefore could very easily undermine security. Illegal wars were essentially fought out by the pretense that the target of the war would get us eventually so we just had to get them first. And this goes on and on - today, illegal domestic spying is carried out in the name of preventing possible threats from outsiders. Gun culture too is driven by this same notion of fear - fear of both the criminal element and fear of a tyrannical government.

Someone above suggested that this type of fear is healthy. I would put it in slightly different terms - it is not so much healthy but rather crucial for those who are in power so that they can maintain that power. For just about everyone else it is both dangerous and disempowering.

So you're telling me that countries like Afghanistan, North Korea and Iran have open and honest media and governments that don't use propaganda on their own people???

No. I'm telling you that the level of fear in relation to the level of threat is unique to the United States. I'm not certain how paranoid people who live in Afghanistan, North Korea, and Iran are, but they certainly live under a much higher threat of danger than people who live in United States do.

[Awesoman]

No, wrong again.  Zimmerman "took matters into his own hands" when he left the comfort of his SUV with a loaded gun.  He had no business doing that.  If the fat bloated  Zimmerman STAYS in the vehicle no one dies.  What PART of this don't we understand?  Hmmm?  GEEZ

Again, since it didn't register for you the first time around, it is not illegal to carry a gun.  There are millions of responsible gun-owners out there that probably never have had to use one to defend themselves.  Zimmerman broke no laws having a gun on him.  And again, there is no evidence anywhere in this case that Zimmerman had any initial intent of shooting Trayvon.  Evidence does however conclude that it was Trayvon that started the violence; he threw the first punch and broke Zimmerman's nose.  It was only after this happened that the gun actually came into play.  

And before it is disputed, I'm not exactly criticizing Trayvon for trying to defend himself.  However it turned out his decision to confront Zimmerman with violence turned out to be a fatal one for him.

[drbeachboy]

Serious question for you. How would you suppose that he be tried? Do you really think that one defense witness made all the difference? When everyone cried foul that Zimmerman was not arrested and insisted that he be put on trial, I was crying right along. That day came and a jury accquitted him of the crime. We have to be satisfied that he was put through the justice system. We should not be acting like vigilantes and exact our own justice or revenge because we did not agree with the outcome.

Well, a good prosecutor could/should have tried him for manslaugter only and not grandstanded by piling on murder 2.

Granted, the "kill and carry" law in FLORI-DUH imposes problems.

If you have a license to carry, then you absolutely can. Many people in fact do. You can't try people for being stupid if it did not break the law. Juries cannot convict on stupidness and bad judgment, you have to know that. Also, manslaughter was on the table as the lesser crime and they still failed to convict on that, as well. The rules or instructions are very rigid and they are that way for a reason. Enough people are already convicted of crimes that they did not commit. If it happens that way now, can you imagine what would happen if they lowered the standard? It's a very scary thing in my mind.

[Heysaboda]

Again, since it didn't register for you the first time around, it is not illegal to carry a gun.  There are millions of responsible gun-owners out there that probably never have had to use one to defend themselves.  Zimmerman broke no laws having a gun on him.  And again, there is no evidence anywhere in this case that Zimmerman had any intent of shooting Trayvon.  Evidence does however conclude that it was Trayvon that started the violence; he threw the first punch and broke Zimmerman's nose.  It was only after this happened that the gun actually came into play.  

And before it is disputed, I'm not exactly criticizing Trayvon for trying to defend himself.  However it turned out his decision to confront Zimmerman with violence turned out to be a fatal one for him.

Yes AM, agreed, I did see your post & it's NOT illegal to carry a gun.  (Perhaps I was overly snarky.)

But, in most states manslaughter is a crime.  I find it odd that Mr. Martin was not allowed to "stand his ground".  He was, afterall, being persued and harrassed by a suspect (GZ) with unknown intentions.  The State and the Prosecutor blew this one.  My guess is they didn't want to win.