Skip to comments.Trayvon Martin's ten day suspension
Posted on 03/25/2012 9:35:41 PM PDT by Kazan
A twitter message, allegedly sent by Trayvon's older brother, suggests Trayvon was suspended for assaulting a bus driver.
Trayvon Martin was on a suspension from school when he was tragically shot last February 26th. His school, Dr. Micheal M. Krop Senoir High School, has not given any details. His family has also evaded the issue. According to the Kansas City Star, the length of the suspension was ten days. This suggests a very serious offense.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
You are a block from home and you keep walking. GZ's mistake of following does not justify TM's mistake of punching and jumping on GZ. Just because that was TM's last mistake doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake.
exactly....zimmerman didn’t listen to the dispatcher...and Martin didn’t listen to his girlfriend.
If either one had listened to common sense it would have been just another uneventful evening.
Schools get a lot of heat over having more black students getting disciplined than white students. As a result, while a school may suspend a white kid for handing out unlicensed Skittles, or drawing a picture of a gun (in order to get their numbers in balance), a black kid would have to do something very serious to get suspended.
works for me....
I wonder how many of these people in the mobs shown on TV in different cities ,if polled are ready to fight for this country as quickly.
Did this trason Guy live in the Gated Community?
If Zimmerman was beaten up,then it would seem to be a justifiable incident under the law.
From the MSM the story never comes out clear,always an angle, always an agenda.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.Translation: Zimmerman does not need to prove it was self defense. He can say he was defending himself and then stand mute and not say anything further. The State needs to show probable cause that it was NOT self defense before they can even arrest him, and then prove to the jury that it was NOT self defense.
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term criminal prosecution includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
That's it -- and it's only the first incident to be exploited of many to come. By the end of Summer, the media will be in full-blown hype mode to illustrate that, in addition to a war on women, there is a war on blacks in America.
Isn’t that pronounced “goal teef”?
Well, he might have had a little trouble getting someone to open the door to him. According to at least one of the police reports provided by the city a “black man” knocked at a woman’s door and when she didn’t he came back with another “black man” and knocked again and when she didn’t answer they went around to the patio, broke the glass door. At this point the woman ran up stairs and locked herself in her bedroom and called the police. By the time they arrived the house had been ransacked and many valuable items stolen. She was totally frighted because after she locked herself in the bedroom she could hear them ransacking the place and they even tried to get into her bedroom but desisted. How’s that getting scared to death.
That’s what I remember but may have some details wrong. If you wish I can look it up again and provide you links.
Yes, Martin went out looking for Treyvon...while on the phone with the police, telling them what he was doing. While he was told he “did not have to do that” he chose to anyway. This, by itself, would not have led to Treyvons death. When it got to the point of Zimmerman getting the crap beat out of him, on his back, the shooting was self defense. Period.
Once a story breaks, it takes 5 to 7 days for most Americans to get the 'rest of the story'. (1 to 3 if you hang around FR :-)
The innocent young teen is now known to be a gold-toothed, tattooed young wanna be gangsta known on his Facebook account as NO_LIMIT_NIGGA, who possibly was dealing in drugs. ( I'm not versed in the vernacular, but apparently the phrase 'no limit' has some kind of ties to gangs.)
His suspension for what was reported (at first) to be minor infraction turns out to be because he took a swing at a bus driver and he got sent to Daddy's house because of it.
Trayvon Martin was no saint, he was a punk who decided to tango with the wrong person.
The part that really burns me up is the guy who was just keeping an eye on his neighborhood is getting crucified by the same MSM that have been enabling the 'we're black and you owe us' mindset of Martin and people like him!
Big difference though, between following a guy and attacking him from behind and pummeling him to the ground. One is lawful and the second one is assault...
You really do have a tough time grasping simple concepts, don't you? The "whole bunch of assumptions" are that Zimmerman is an evil white racist gun owner who killed an innocent black child, and it is Bush's fault.
There are so many threads on this, I forgot that the examiner article is the lead on this thread.
this is true.
I’ve never said that I know what happened in the final altercation.
What I’m pointing out is that Zimmerman seemed to have a pattern prior to this night.
Other FReepers have posted about neighborhood watch...it doesn’t sound like you are supposed to “patrol” in the fashion Zimmerman had become accustomed to.
Why? Because it could lead to creating a situation that you cannot handle.
He could have just let the kid walk down the road back to the house.
According to published police records, Zimmerman lost the kid. He had no idea where the kid went....until said kid attacked him near his vehicle, got him to the ground and was beating him (as per on the record witness).
If the kid had lost Zimmerman, why not stay away and go home?
I repeat, it's not illegal to follow someone that is out of place in your neighborhood. It is illegal to attack someone when imminent threat to your safety is eliminated (meaning the kid had lost the guy, why go after him and beat him up?)
scroll down to report re victim named Bertalan,Oliva dated 8/3/2011. Address is 1840 Retreat View Circle. The Bertalan report has a good number of pages but the Narrative Section summarizes action.
“If the kid had lost Zimmerman, why not stay away and go home?”
True...Martin should have listened to his girlfriend. If he had, he’d be alive today.
“I repeat, it’s not illegal to follow someone that is out of place in your neighborhood.”
Well that’s just it isn’t it?
It may not be illegal, but it’s certainly not very smart.
Neighborhood watch does not tell their members to follow.
The dispatcher did not want him to follow.
Following someone can, in itself, frighten someone.
And then you have to define “out of place”
So Martin was visiting his father’s girlfriend’s house. He wasn’t “out of place” - he was a guest.
But, in Zimmerman’s eyes he most certainly was “out of place”
In the end...did Zimmerman find himself on the losing end of a physical altercation and have to fight back?
It looks that way.
The whole thing was completely avoidable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.