MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: 77ncaachamps on April 07, 2012, 04:57:42 PM
-
you better go back and review the real facts of the case-zimmerman did not chase tyvon. and zimmerman was getting the schmit knocked out of him. zimmerman also backed off after the 911 call and was going back to his car when trayvon suddenly re-appeared and the fight was on. trayvon wasn't the alter-boy he was first portrayed as and was much bigger than mr. zimmerman. did that give zimmerman the right to shoot/kill him? that's going to be the million dollar issue. i'm not going to touch the rest of your comments as i see they are already tainted by the racist and bised media. does duke lacrosse team ring any bells? yet this needs to be re-reviewed outside of the media, but the damage is already done. i hope justice prevails. the racist part? i know you did not call me a racist, but i was kinda responding to all the posts against me in one. skatman called me a "super racist" and southie says i'm "ignorant". i'm not arrogant, just standing up for myself. i don't think an english teacher is going to give south a passing grade for his argument, but that goes with the territory.
First, here are the facts:
On Feb 26th Trayvon was shot and killed by Zimmerman as he returned from a local 7-Eleven after buying a bag of Skittles and iced tea.
After that he was then spotted by Zimmerman while returning to his father's girlfriend's apartment inside their gated community when Zimmerman called 911, explaining that Trayvon, who was wearing a hoodie at the time, a pair of blue jeans, and red/white sneakers, looked suspicious.
Zimmerman then pursued Trayvon even after he was told not to by the 911 dispatcher.
When Zimmerman approached Trayvon, the two got into a scuffle, resulting in Trayvon taking a bullet to the chest at point blank range.
Zimmerman claimed that he shot Trayvon on the grounds of self-defense and has since been in hiding.
Anything else can distort these truths.
Second, it appears that the MU situation has been dealt with but not to everyone's liking.
Per Larry the AD: "We cooperated fully with the Milwaukee Police Department on its investigations, which resulted in the six underage citations and no additional citations. We referred the players involved to the university's student conduct system, as would be the case for any Marquette student. Individuals were disciplined as appropriate for a violation of team and departmental rules."
Done. And done. Move along everyone.
-
So says the guy who thinks every rap concert or evening at a hip-hop nightclub ends with "x" number of bullets flying ::)
firedude-"every"?? comprehension is important too. you guys are really trying hard to create something controversial here. whoa, can't say fried chicken and african american in the same sentence. linnsanity 101-chink in the armour-oh-oh. once again, it's content of the character not the color of the skin. can anyone say a few things without some type of veiled attempts at censorship or slapdown. i suggest ya'll re-read my stuff very slowly and if ya still see racism or prejudice, re-read again...
-
First, here are the facts:
On Feb 26th Trayvon was shot and killed by Zimmerman as he returned from a local 7-Eleven after buying a bag of Skittles and iced tea.
After that he was then spotted by Zimmerman while returning to his father's girlfriend's apartment inside their gated community when Zimmerman called 911, explaining that Trayvon, who was wearing a hoodie at the time, a pair of blue jeans, and red/white sneakers, looked suspicious.
Zimmerman then pursued Trayvon even after he was told not to by the 911 dispatcher.
When Zimmerman approached Trayvon, the two got into a scuffle, resulting in Trayvon taking a bullet to the chest at point blank range.
Zimmerman claimed that he shot Trayvon on the grounds of self-defense and has since been in hiding.
Anything else can distort these truths.
Second, it appears that the MU situation has been dealt with but not to everyone's liking.
Per Larry the AD: "We cooperated fully with the Milwaukee Police Department on its investigations, which resulted in the six underage citations and no additional citations. We referred the players involved to the university's student conduct system, as would be the case for any Marquette student. Individuals were disciplined as appropriate for a violation of team and departmental rules."
Done. And done. Move along everyone.
you better re-listen to the 911 tapes and not the ones offered/spliced up by nbc, cnn, msnbc, etc. my understanding is as you mention, except zimmerman, after speaking to the 911 operator, stopped pursuing trayvon and was going back to his truck where upon he was approached by trayvon-try this link. it's pretty detailed with maps and timelines
http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-back
-
People are confusing racism and prejudice. Racism denotes folks with power actively keeping others of different races from receiving certain rights, usually through acts or intimidation. While prejudice is people making negative statements or generating stereotypes about people from certain backgrounds, and drawing conclusions based on those false generalizations.
Language is important folks.
Stop being racist against me.
-
you better re-listen to the 911 tapes and not the ones offered/spliced up by nbc, cnn, msnbc, etc. my understanding is as you mention, except zimmerman, after speaking to the 911 operator, stopped pursuing trayvon and was going back to his truck where upon he was approached by trayvon-try this link. it's pretty detailed with maps and timelines
http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-back
No need to listen to the tapes.
The man was told not to pursue. He didn't.
Got beat up for not exercising common sense and killed a boy as a result.
Whatever happened to the days when fists would solve problems instead of guns?
Whatever happened to the days when words would solve problems instead of fists?
-
No need to listen to the tapes.
The man was told not to pursue. He didn't.
Got beat up for not exercising common sense and killed a boy as a result.
Whatever happened to the days when fists would solve problems instead of guns?
Whatever happened to the days when words would solve problems instead of fists?
i agree with you with fists or words being the better solution and not in that order, but again, please read the link i posted from waglist as that is what gives us the best clarification or evidence of what transpired at this point. now that may change some, but we should allow the courts to play this out properly without anyone else getting killed. no need to listen to the tapes?? i hope you never serve on jury duty for a case like this. you are denying both of these people due process-this is america-remember? not iran or syria or libya or....
-
i agree with you with fists or words being the better solution and not in that order, but again, please read the link i posted from waglist as that is what gives us the best clarification or evidence of what transpired at this point. now that may change some, but we should allow the courts to play this out properly without anyone else getting killed. no need to listen to the tapes?? i hope you never serve on jury duty for a case like this. you are denying both of these people due process-this is america-remember? not iran or syria or libya or....
I'm not on a jury hence I don't need to waste my time on a link. The facts will remain true: until the only living person actively engaged in the confrontation shows up in a court of law.
Now, if I *was* on a jury, this would all be presented to me...in a court of law...not in a court of public opinion...and I would give him the due process he deserves.
-
I'm not on a jury hence I don't need to waste my time on a link. The facts will remain true: until the only living person actively engaged in the confrontation shows up in a court of law.
Now, if I *was* on a jury, this would all be presented to me...in a court of law...not in a court of public opinion...and I would give him the due process he deserves.
nice
-
you better re-listen to the 911 tapes and not the ones offered/spliced up by nbc, cnn, msnbc, etc. my understanding is as you mention, except zimmerman, after speaking to the 911 operator, stopped pursuing trayvon and was going back to his truck where upon he was approached by trayvon-try this link. it's pretty detailed with maps and timelines
http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-back
Eye witness reports say that they heard a verbal argument before any scuffle broke out. Zimmerman initially claimed that he was jumped from behind and attacked without provocation. He later changed his story to Trayvon verbally confronted him about why he was being followed.
All the rest of this map making on the link you have is pure conjecture. 77ncaachamps spelled out the facts quite accurately.
-
First, here are the facts:
On Feb 26th Trayvon was shot and killed by Zimmerman as he returned from a local 7-Eleven after buying a bag of Skittles and iced tea.
After that he was then spotted by Zimmerman while returning to his father's girlfriend's apartment inside their gated community when Zimmerman called 911, explaining that Trayvon, who was wearing a hoodie at the time, a pair of blue jeans, and red/white sneakers, looked suspicious.
Zimmerman then pursued Trayvon even after he was told not to by the 911 dispatcher.
When Zimmerman approached Trayvon, the two got into a scuffle, resulting in Trayvon taking a bullet to the chest at point blank range.
Zimmerman claimed that he shot Trayvon on the grounds of self-defense and has since been in hiding.
Anything else can distort these truths.
77NC, I'm afraid a number of those "truths" aren't proven yet.
-
Eye witness reports say that they heard a verbal argument before any scuffle broke out. Zimmerman initially claimed that he was jumped from behind and attacked without provocation. He later changed his story to Trayvon verbally confronted him about why he was being followed.
All the rest of this map making on the link you have is pure conjecture. 77ncaachamps spelled out the facts quite accurately.
He also did not have any physical markings that would suggest he had been attacked and beaten up by Martin, like was reported, in the surveillance videos at the police station when he was brought in. Obviously he would have been cleaned up at the scene, but there still would have been bruises and scars. He was said to be bleeding from the back of his head. There are no marks on the back of his head.
-
God I don't know how I got sucked into this, but there are marks, wounds visible on the back of his head in the surveillance tapes shown recently.
-
Super bar?
-
Super bar?
This is definitely basketball related...
-
"you better re-listen to the 911 tapes and not the ones offered/spliced up by nbc, cnn, msnbc, etc."
Oh, that's right! The only real information you can believe in is FOX News right? I noticed you didn't mention them. Way to be an independent thinker. Just listen to one station and one "slanted" side of a story everyday. Then tell everyone that all the other media outlets are liberal. Yeah, I get it! It's called stupidity!
-
This is definitely basketball related...
the miami heat took a nice photo with all players, including d wade, wearing hoodies...
i do think this has a bit to do about what goose and others have talked about regarding buzz and mu admin. i think buzz is more than happy to take a kid who has some issues and try to make him a man. hence his tears and comments on mayo never being loved. i think it pisses buzz off when a catholic university doesn't allow him to do this. these kids aren't going to all of a sudden stop making mistakes, hell statistics show most grew up with one parent if they were lucky. so, while i believe buzz does everything he can to help them, it has to be heart breaking to him when his kids make mistakes, and it doesn't help if the university gets on his case about it rather than helping him develop his players off the court. the press release regarding the bar incident should be as simple as "we have a few players who made poor decisions, we love these kids and realize that kids make mistakes, and part of making mistakes is beind held accountable and correcting the mistake. we'll do everything we can as a university to ensure that these players grow from this situation by being held accountable for their actions." instead we have some who see it as a huge embarassment, which seems a double standard to me if they're not also embarassed of our number one booster.
-
you better re-listen to the 911 tapes and not the ones offered/spliced up by nbc, cnn, msnbc, etc. my understanding is as you mention, except zimmerman, after speaking to the 911 operator, stopped pursuing trayvon and was going back to his truck where upon he was approached by trayvon-try this link. it's pretty detailed with maps and timelines
http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-back
are you talking about the 911 tapes that prove it wasn't zimmerman screaming for help...
-
"you better re-listen to the 911 tapes and not the ones offered/spliced up by nbc, cnn, msnbc, etc."
Oh, that's right! The only real information you can believe in is FOX News right? I noticed you didn't mention them. Way to be an independent thinker. Just listen to one station and one "slanted" side of a story everyday. Then tell everyone that all the other media outlets are liberal. Yeah, I get it! It's called stupidity!
dude, sorry to tell ya, but fox news is one of the few that haven't formed an opinion. nbc is taking it up the uranus as we speak for their award winning manipulation. dan rather is breathing a sigh of relief right now as this bone-job is making him look like walter cronkite i'm talking about NEWS, not hannity or greta or o'reilly what i'm also gathering is from drudge and breitbart if that's o.k. with you. i am reading from many sources. the other "laim stream media outlets are liberal and that's a fact and a whole different argument, well, it's not really an argument.
-
Eye witness reports say that they heard a verbal argument before any scuffle broke out. Zimmerman initially claimed that he was jumped from behind and attacked without provocation. He later changed his story to Trayvon verbally confronted him about why he was being followed.
All the rest of this map making on the link you have is pure conjecture. 77ncaachamps spelled out the facts quite accurately.
is that right? pure? and tell your buddy wadesworld that he is dead wrong about zimmerman being free of any injuries-that's another boner nbc has fired their news guy over among other journalistic mal-integrities/malpratice if you will, but then again, not many standards left to be held to among the little 3 anymore
-
wyzgy were you there? Did you listen to what he said in the 911 call? "There's a real suspicious guy." OK... "This guy looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around looking about." I'm not sure about you, but nothing there seems very suspicious to me... "He's just staring, looking at all the houses." Again, I don't really think that's suspicious. Not sure about you, but when I go for walks I sometimes look at a few houses along the way. "Now he's just staring at me." If I was just walking around with a hood up in the rain and I saw somebody watching my every move on a phone I would probably stare at that person too. Again, what is out of the ordinary? "He's got his hand in his wasteband." Already setting himself up for his "self defense" theory, hoping he has some kind of weapon that he's threatening him with. "He's a black male." He already said that. Is that why he's suspicious? Because he's a black male? Otherwise why continue to bring it up? "He's got a button on his shirt." OH MY! "Something's wrong with him." What? How? Why? "Yup, he's coming to check me out." Again, if you're just walking down the street and some guy is watching your every step and on his cell phone, wouldn't you be a bit curious as to why that person was watching you so closely too? "He's got something in his hands. I don't know what his deal is." What deal? He's walking down the street with something in his hands. That made you suspicious and call the police? Yeesh. I can only imagine how many times people should've called the police on me then. "These pretty boys. They always get away." What?! Get away with what? He has yet to say what he is doing besides "acting suspicious" for "looking at the houses." "crap, he's running." I'd run too if I was 17 and a guy in his 30s was following me. When asked if he's following him he says "yeah" and then only says "okay" when told they don't need him too. How do we know he stopped following him? We don't know that. I can't really tell what he says after "Aww crap...," but I'm pretty sure it ends "I don't know where this kid is." This is well after the guy tells him specifically not to chase after the kid, but he clearly is still following him if he's disappointed he lost the kid. Then after setting up a place for him to meet the police he changes his mind and decides to have them call him when they get there to tell them where he is. Hmm...wonder why...maybe he continued to pursue the kid after being told not to do so? Otherwise he would be walking back to his truck or going to his house, both of which he knows where they are.
My biggest problem with their timeline is it says that at 2:45 (it's really at 2:39) "He ran...Zimmerman stops and completes the 911 call."
They then completely ignore the "Aww crap, I don't wanna (it sounds like get the hell out, but I really can't tell what he mutters), I don't know where this kid is." This is at 3:38 in the tape, a minute after they claim he stopped pursuing the kid and started walking back to the truck. To me, it's pretty obvious that isn't what happened. He was still pursuing Martin a minute after they claim he stopped and lost him, which is why he said "I don't know where this kid is." Why is he still pursuing Martin? He claims to have stopped pursuing him, but he claimed that it was a minute before this even happened. Can we really trust that he stopped pursuing him at all?
He called the police because a black kid was walking around with his hood up in the rain carrying something in his hand and looking at houses. That is suspicious? That led him to believe he was up to no good and/or on drugs? That he needed to follow him to make sure he didn't do anything wrong? Didn't he do (more than) enough by getting the cops involved in something there was absolutely, positively no reason to get them involved in? Then the cops tell him to stop following the kid and he clearly did not do so for at least another minute, if at all?
I'm sorry, you can believe that article to be the Bible and write off any other story to be falsified, but based on what he is saying to the dispatcher it is extremely clear he had not stopped following Martin. I am sure he claimed he stopped following him within the investigation, but he never even tells the dispatcher that he actually did stop following him, he just says "OK." And again, why the "Aww crap...I don't know where this kid is" a minute later if he was not still following him?
-
all i'm saying wade is that i'm still gathering facts and listening to the evidence as it omes out. i hope this gets to the courts so all this stuff can be sorted out. you seem to use the word "clearly" a lot and then go on cataloging a lot of why/what if's. there are very few "clearlys here. you question the fact that trayvons movements were scrutinized so closely a lot. well, this was some type of gsted community that had a pretty active block watch thing going on. i'm going to go out on a limb here, but my thinking is that they've had a history of criminal activity in the area. did trayvon fit the description of someone possibly involved in any of their previous illicit activity? i will submit that zimmerman's actions did seem a little over zealous, but i've been fortunate not to have been robbed much, but did have a gun pointed at me by a car load of "african americans once. do i think all cars full of african am.'s have guns and are going to point them at me? nope. but i am slightly more vigilant/observant now. i also have certification for a conceal n carry and have experience with guns all my life. i would not have done/pursued trayvon as mr. zimmerman did, but i' haven't lived his life. our onceal n carry training tells us NOT to pursue, rather, escape potential danger at all costs. my whole point here is the media is doing this whole situation a huge diservice to advance an agenda. journalism has gone down the toilet like many other things in our society-happy thanksgiving-peace and love to all
-
-happy thanksgiving-peace and love to all
Perfect cherry on the cake of a crazy, incoherent wyzgy rambling.
-
There's plenty of room to feel that Zimmerman's side of events has some credibility. Very well could be justifiable self defense under Florida law. No need to demonize him until facts are presented and verified one way or another.
-
Perfect cherry on the cake of a crazy, incoherent wyzgy rambling.
in other words, it was too compliated fer ya-next time i'll write slower so you may comprende senor
-
There's plenty of room to feel that Zimmerman's side of events has some credibility. Very well could be justifiable self defense under Florida law. No need to demonize him until facts are presented and verified one way or another.
the most intelligent omment of day-summarizes my thoughts well-thank you
-
PS - Zimmerman is NOT traditional.
-
I see NBC got busted for lying in their reporting and editing Zimmerman's 911 call. They were exposed by some bloggers and I guess Fox News. NBC says it was a mistake, not intentional. How do you eliminate several sentences and say it wasn't intentional.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/08/us-usa-florida-shooting-nbc-idUSBRE83609U20120408
You have to wonder how often this stuff has gone on for years and years in with the media but back in the days when no one could hold them to the fire, it didn't matter. Even today they get away with so much BS. FOX does it, too, and they get called out on it. Troubling.
-
all i'm saying wade is that i'm still gathering facts and listening to the evidence as it omes out. i hope this gets to the courts so all this stuff can be sorted out. you seem to use the word "clearly" a lot and then go on cataloging a lot of why/what if's. there are very few "clearlys here. you question the fact that trayvons movements were scrutinized so closely a lot. well, this was some type of gsted community that had a pretty active block watch thing going on. i'm going to go out on a limb here, but my thinking is that they've had a history of criminal activity in the area. did trayvon fit the description of someone possibly involved in any of their previous illicit activity? i will submit that zimmerman's actions did seem a little over zealous, but i've been fortunate not to have been robbed much, but did have a gun pointed at me by a car load of "african americans once. do i think all cars full of african am.'s have guns and are going to point them at me? nope. but i am slightly more vigilant/observant now. i also have certification for a conceal n carry and have experience with guns all my life. i would not have done/pursued trayvon as mr. zimmerman did, but i' haven't lived his life. our onceal n carry training tells us NOT to pursue, rather, escape potential danger at all costs. my whole point here is the media is doing this whole situation a huge diservice to advance an agenda. journalism has gone down the toilet like many other things in our society-happy thanksgiving-peace and love to all
Fair enough. I don't mean to say that without a doubt Martin did not attack Zimmerman. Like you said, I think there are a lot of details that nobody really knows right now. I just wonder how you can offer that article and say that that is a much more factual timeline of the events than other articles, when they fail to account for what happened between the 2:45 mark on the call, when they claim he stopped pursuing Martin, and the end of the call 2 and a half minutes later. I should say it is "fairly clear" rather than definitely just "clear." I wasn't there and don't know with 100% certainty what happened; however, if he had stopped following Martin at 2:45 in the call, why does he need to say "Aww crap...I don't know where this kid is" a minute after that?
I understand your point. Maybe there were break-ins and problems going on in their neighborhood so they set something up. But I don't see, even if that is the case, based on what he says in his call to the police, what Martin did that was suspicious enough to warrant a call to the police. He says that he's "real suspicious," that he "looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something," and that "something's wrong with him," yet the details he provides suggest absolutely no reason to believe this. If he was walking around talking to himself, yelling, dancing and singing, or stumbling around all by himself then I could see how you could think someone was on drugs. But he says that he was "just walking around looking about" and "just staring, looking at all the houses."
I have been robbed and had a gun pushed up against my back and was told that the guy would "Blow [my] unnatural carnal knowledgeing brains out" if I didn't do exactly what I told him. What pissed me off was people asking me "Was he black?" after learning that I was the one working when we were robbed. Just because there was a robbery does not mean the person was black. Being black should not cause someone to call the police claiming that a person is suspicious. The guy was white and had a ski mask on. When I see someone with a ski mask on now does my heart start racing, even if wind chills are in the negatives and it makes no sense to worry? You bet. But even without the extreme temperatures, when I see a ski mask do I immediately think to call 911? Am I immediately suspicious that someone is up to no good, on drugs, or has something wrong with them? Hell no. There was absolutely no reason to believe that Martin had anything wrong with him or was on drugs or was very suspicious, unless Zimmerman was leaving a ton of details out when he called the police. There was no reason to follow Martin, and there was no reason to call the police. Regardless of whether Zimmerman had been held up a million times, robbed a million times, or never been harmed in his life. It was dumb and irrational.
-
PS - Zimmerman is NOT traditional.
Oh man, if wzgry finds out...
-
Am I immediately suspicious that someone is up to no good, on drugs, or has something wrong with them? Hell no. There was absolutely no reason to believe that Martin had anything wrong with him or was on drugs or was very suspicious, unless Zimmerman was leaving a ton of details out when he called the police. There was no reason to follow Martin, and there was no reason to call the police. Regardless of whether Zimmerman had been held up a million times, robbed a million times, or never been harmed in his life. It was dumb and irrational.
Disagree. You are in the minority then. When you hear of a terrorist attack, who do you think did it before anyone from the press tells us? Muslims. More often than not, that is the case. It's human nature.
You said if he was robbed a million times he shouldn't have thought that way? Again, human nature. Watch a person that has been bit by a dog and how they interact with dogs in the future (if they do at all). It's human nature to be hesitant, suspicious, untrusting based on your life's experiences. If this guy went through multiple robberies in his neighborhood he is going to be predisposed to thinking that might be happening again. It's easy to sit behind a keyboard after the fact and say that he shouldn't have been, but you are not living in the moment that he was.
All we know is there is a dead young man (though the press portrays him as a 12 year old with the photo they keep running). That is all we know. There are recordings that are inaudible, there are some witnesses saying one thing and other witnesses saying something else. We have news media outlets editing video and 911 calls to tell a version they want told.
-
I should've stayed away, but I just can't -
One of the reasons its so easy to condemn Zimmerman, based on what we actually know, is that the guy just couldn't mind his own damn business and now someone is dead. We know that Zimmerman was the first to begin any type of physical confrontation/odd interpersonal behavior when he started following Trayvon. At that point, doesnt Zimmerman become pretty unnatural carnal knowledgeing suspicious? The idea that following someone around isn't in itself an action potentially leading to self-defense seems like a problem here - ie if a physical scuffle did occur, I'm much more likely to defend Trayvon for fighting someone back that was following him around than I am to defend Zimmerman for either a) beginning to follow him or b) shooting him after the scuffle began. If you, as a nonsanctioned, self appointed arbiter of the law are going to begin to follow people around without provocation, getting your ass kicked comes with the territory.
-
I should've stayed away, but I just can't -
One of the reasons its so easy to condemn Zimmerman, based on what we actually know, is that the guy just couldn't mind his own damn business and now someone is dead. We know that Zimmerman was the first to begin any type of physical confrontation/odd interpersonal behavior when he started following Trayvon. At that point, doesnt Zimmerman become pretty fracking suspicious? The idea that following someone around isn't in itself an action potentially leading to self-defense seems like a problem here - ie if a physical scuffle did occur, I'm much more likely to defend Trayvon for fighting someone back that was following him around than I am to defend Zimmerman for either a) beginning to follow him or b) shooting him after the scuffle began. If you, as a nonsanctioned, self appointed arbiter of the law are going to begin to follow people around without provocation, getting your ass kicked comes with the territory.
Well put. I agree with all of this. There was no reason to follow Martin around, especially after the 911 dispatcher told him as much.
Disagree. You are in the minority then. When you hear of a terrorist attack, who do you think did it before anyone from the press tells us? Muslims. More often than not, that is the case. It's human nature.
You said if he was robbed a million times he shouldn't have thought that way? Again, human nature. Watch a person that has been bit by a dog and how they interact with dogs in the future (if they do at all). It's human nature to be hesitant, suspicious, untrusting based on your life's experiences. If this guy went through multiple robberies in his neighborhood he is going to be predisposed to thinking that might be happening again. It's easy to sit behind a keyboard after the fact and say that he shouldn't have been, but you are not living in the moment that he was.
All we know is there is a dead young man (though the press portrays him as a 12 year old with the photo they keep running). That is all we know. There are recordings that are inaudible, there are some witnesses saying one thing and other witnesses saying something else. We have news media outlets editing video and 911 calls to tell a version they want told.
I get your point. I think all people have preconceived notions about people based on a "group" they fall into (whether it is an age group like teenagers or racial group or gender group or whatever it may be). I definitely get that and am no Saint, I have those too. And I definitely overexaggerated by claiming even if he was robbed a million times he should not suspect foul play just because a guy has his hood up in the rain and is looking at houses with something in his hand. After a million times, I am sure I would become paranoid to the point that everything was suspicious. Having said that, I still have absolutely no idea (assuming that the linked article provides the entire 911 call, as it claims to) where he gets the idea that the kid is suspicious. Before following him, he tells the dispatcher that he is African American. I get that some people become suspicious based on just that, but to the point that they call the police? No. He told the police he had a hood up. It was raining out. When it's raining out and I have a hoody on I put my hood up. That's a pretty natural thing to do. No reason for suspicion. He tells the 911 dispatcher that he has something in his hand. Unless he thought it was a gun or knife or grenade or bat or club or whip or bomb or something that could cause harm to someone, again there is absolutely nothing suspicious about that. He claims something was wrong with him or that he was on drugs, but provides absolutely no detail as to what leads him to believe that. It makes no sense whatsoever. Based on the 911 call provided, I cannot find a single thing that would lead him to call the police, and then go on to follow him.
When I see someone with a ski mask on my heart starts racing not because I assume they are about to rob me or someone, but because it takes me back to being robbed. It is not something that I feel the need to call 911 for. And I get your point about terrorist attacks. I agree you would usually assume it is someone of Middle Eastern descent. But the big difference there is it is after the fact. If I see someone who looks Middle Eastern walking down the street, do I assume they are suspicious, a terrorist? Hell no. If Zimmerman had heard someone was just shot and then happened to see Martin walking right around where he heard about it, then maybe it seems a bit more suspicious.
-
On April 19, 1995, I immediately thought "angry white guy. Government hater."
-
I should've stayed away, but I just can't -
One of the reasons its so easy to condemn Zimmerman, based on what we actually know, is that the guy just couldn't mind his own damn business and now someone is dead. We know that Zimmerman was the first to begin any type of physical confrontation/odd interpersonal behavior when he started following Trayvon. At that point, doesnt Zimmerman become pretty fracking suspicious? The idea that following someone around isn't in itself an action potentially leading to self-defense seems like a problem here - ie if a physical scuffle did occur, I'm much more likely to defend Trayvon for fighting someone back that was following him around than I am to defend Zimmerman for either a) beginning to follow him or b) shooting him after the scuffle began. If you, as a nonsanctioned, self appointed arbiter of the law are going to begin to follow people around without provocation, getting your ass kicked comes with the territory.
This is my problem with everything. Based on Zimerman's actions, Trayvon would have been the one with a self-defense argument. Zimmerman looked like an aggressor by stalking him.
Even when the verbal argument ensued, Zimmerman could have ended it by just saying "Sorry for following you, we've had a lot of problems in the neighborhood lately and I haven't seen you around before. Are you new to the neighborhood."
Also, Zimmerman has a hero complex. It is well documented that he likes to insert himself into situations where he can act like an authority or legal figure. Those people psychologically want to get into confrontations and take positions that can get them in trouble. The fact that he chose to get a concealed carry license almost guaranteed (with his psychological disposition) that eventually he would draw it on someone.
-
Oh man, if wzgry finds out...
zimmerman is not traditional...what? as the media 'splained to us, he is your typical whitehispanic. that tells us all we need to know ?-(
thanks wade-i get a little more of where you're coming from now and i can empathize with your concerns as well as the others have helped fill in the blanks nicely, however, pt seems to be a little confused yet
-
Having said that, I still have absolutely no idea (assuming that the linked article provides the entire 911 call, as it claims to) where he gets the idea that the kid is suspicious. Before following him, he tells the dispatcher that he is African American. I get that some people become suspicious based on just that, but to the point that they call the police? No. He told the police he had a hood up. It was raining out. When it's raining out and I have a hoody on I put my hood up. That's a pretty natural thing to do. No reason for suspicion. He tells the 911 dispatcher that he has something in his hand. Unless he thought it was a gun or knife or grenade or bat or club or whip or bomb or something that could cause harm to someone, again there is absolutely nothing suspicious about that. He claims something was wrong with him or that he was on drugs, but provides absolutely no detail as to what leads him to believe that. It makes no sense whatsoever. Based on the 911 call provided, I cannot find a single thing that would lead him to call the police, and then go on to follow him.
You need to stay away from NBC News as you've been duped.
He got the idea the kid was suspicious because there has been numerous robberies in the neighborhood. That is why I said earlier we are all a product of our surroundings. If there are a bunch of robberies, then a number of people suddenly become suspicious if you are looking out for that kind of thing. In the last 15 months, 8 robberies in neighborhood all committed by young African Americans according to Frank Taffe who lives on the same street. On Feb 2nd, a 9th robbery was stopped by Zimmerman when he called police and an African American was arrested robbing the home of Frank Taffe.
On your next statement, he tells the dispatcher he is black ONLY after the dispatcher asks if he what race he is. This is why NBC news just fired their producer yesterday for editing the 911 call (I linked it earlier today) because NBC News would have you believe this guy just up and said "he's black". That's not how it went nor did they provide any context to the 9 previous robberies in the neighborhood. Context is important.
NBC News reported 911 call this way. "This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black." That is not how it went.
Actual 911 call:
Zimmerman: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.”
The dispatcher then asks: “OK, and this guy – is he white, black or Hispanic?”
Zimmerman: "He looks black"
Huge difference.
The media is a joke again in this example. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-911-call-manipulated-nbc-309258
I don't disagree with many of you that he had hero complex or probably went overboard, but some of you sure don't have all the facts in this case or the background. Probably because the news media in this country has done a horrific job of already trying this case and pronouncing him guilty, to the point of willfully manipulating 911 tapes and video footage. Beyond disturbing and deplorable.
-
On April 19, 1995, I immediately thought "angry white guy. Government hater."
On September 11th, I immediately thought Muslims.
When the sexual assault allegations against Marquette were levied against athletes of an unknown Marquette team (remember they didn't tell us what team), did you think men's basketball or one of the other teams like men's golf, women's soccer, men's track or tennis, women's volleyball, women's track, women's hoops, etc? I know what I thought and I suspect most in Milwaukee did as well.
-
You need to stay away from NBC News as you've been duped.
He got the idea the kid was suspicious because there has been numerous robberies in the neighborhood. That is why I said earlier we are all a product of our surroundings. If there are a bunch of robberies, then a number of people suddenly become suspicious if you are looking out for that kind of thing. In the last 15 months, 8 robberies in neighborhood all committed by young African Americans according to Frank Taffe who lives on the same street. On Feb 2nd, a 9th robbery was stopped by Zimmerman when he called police and an African American was arrested robbing the home of Frank Taffe.
On your next statement, he tells the dispatcher he is black ONLY after the dispatcher asks if he what race he is. This is why NBC news just fired their producer yesterday for editing the 911 call (I linked it earlier today) because NBC News would have you believe this guy just up and said "he's black". That's not how it went nor did they provide any context to the 9 previous robberies in the neighborhood. Context is important.
NBC News reported 911 call this way. "This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black." That is not how it went.
Actual 911 call:
Zimmerman: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.”
The dispatcher then asks: “OK, and this guy – is he white, black or Hispanic?”
Zimmerman: "He looks black"
Huge difference.
The media is a joke again in this example. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-911-call-manipulated-nbc-309258
I don't disagree with many of you that he had hero complex or probably went overboard, but some of you sure don't have all the facts in this case or the background. Probably because the news media in this country has done a horrific job of already trying this case and pronouncing him guilty, to the point of willfully manipulating 911 tapes and video footage. Beyond disturbing and deplorable.
bravo bravo!! i didn't think i had to go to the lengths you did hoops as i thought we had posters who were better informed. but i only watch fox news so that's where my credibility is shot(please-no pun intended) right off the bat(again no pun intended) i guess ya have to watch MessNBC for all you're fact based news ?-( and to get on the same wavelength as some on this board
-
Careful on the burglaries perpetrated by black youth. That is a postulation by the guy in the neighborhood watch who is friends with Zimmerman. Of the 9 burglaries there were two where there were witnesses (and an arrest was made for those two). Those were perpetrated by a black youth. The other 13, no one knows a thing about and the person interviewed on CNN along with Zimmerman just concluded that they all had to be committed by black youth with no evidence to support it.
-
You need to stay away from NBC News as you've been duped.
He got the idea the kid was suspicious because there has been numerous robberies in the neighborhood. That is why I said earlier we are all a product of our surroundings. If there are a bunch of robberies, then a number of people suddenly become suspicious if you are looking out for that kind of thing. In the last 15 months, 8 robberies in neighborhood all committed by young African Americans according to Frank Taffe who lives on the same street. On Feb 2nd, a 9th robbery was stopped by Zimmerman when he called police and an African American was arrested robbing the home of Frank Taffe.
On your next statement, he tells the dispatcher he is black ONLY after the dispatcher asks if he what race he is. This is why NBC news just fired their producer yesterday for editing the 911 call (I linked it earlier today) because NBC News would have you believe this guy just up and said "he's black". That's not how it went nor did they provide any context to the 9 previous robberies in the neighborhood. Context is important.
NBC News reported 911 call this way. "This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black." That is not how it went.
Actual 911 call:
Zimmerman: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.”
The dispatcher then asks: “OK, and this guy – is he white, black or Hispanic?”
Zimmerman: "He looks black"
Huge difference.
The media is a joke again in this example. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-911-call-manipulated-nbc-309258
I don't disagree with many of you that he had hero complex or probably went overboard, but some of you sure don't have all the facts in this case or the background. Probably because the news media in this country has done a horrific job of already trying this case and pronouncing him guilty, to the point of willfully manipulating 911 tapes and video footage. Beyond disturbing and deplorable.
I did not know about the background and the history of recent burglaries in the neighborhood, but I did listen to the entire police call, including Zimmerman only stating his race after being asked by the 911 dispatcher. Even now after being informed of the recent burglaries, a black youth walking around with a hood up in the rain (again, I put my hood up when it's raining and I have a hoody on, I think that's pretty natural if you don't have an umbrella) does not warrant a call to the police. Are black youths no longer allowed in the gated in community because there has been a history of recent burglaries? Police must be notified whenever a black youth enters the neighborhood? All black youth are then suspicious? That is racism at its finest and that is a complete joke. Listen to the entire 911 call and tell me where Zimmerman makes a legitimate case that Martin was acting suspiciously, like something was wrong with him, or where he seemed to be on drugs. Not once does he mention him yelling, stumbling, anything. He mentions what he's wearing and that something's in his hands, that he's just walking, that he's looking at houses, that he has his hood up in the rain. None of this would suggest that he was on drugs or that something was wrong with him. There was no reason to call the cops, beyond him being black, which is no reason to call the cops but apparently Zimmerman thought it was.
Careful on the burglaries perpetrated by black youth. That is a postulation by the guy in the neighborhood watch who is friends with Zimmerman. Of the 9 burglaries there were two where there were witnesses (and an arrest was made for those two). Those were perpetrated by a black youth. The other 13, no one knows a thing about and the person interviewed on CNN along with Zimmerman just concluded that they all had to be committed by black youth with no evidence to support it.
Thank you for the further background.
-
There was no reason to call the cops, beyond him being black, which is no reason to call the cops but apparently Zimmerman thought it was.
This hispanic guy Zimmerman is a knucklehead that called the cops every time the wind blew. This time, out of the many many many times he called the cops, the reason he was calling was because of a black kid. How many times did he call the cops because he saw something that most would think is a non-event and it involved a white guy? A hispanic chick? Whatever else? If you don't know, I think you're making things up.
Is there evidence to suggest Zimmerman was a loser and wannabe cop that acted like a dipsh1t frequently with his constant calls to 911? Yep. I'm not sure there is evidence that this particular call had much if anything to do with race. Do you believe if it was a hispanic or white kid that he would not have made the call and if so, what basis do you have for such a belief?
-
Careful on the burglaries perpetrated by black youth. That is a postulation by the guy in the neighborhood watch who is friends with Zimmerman. Of the 9 burglaries there were two where there were witnesses (and an arrest was made for those two). Those were perpetrated by a black youth. The other 13, no one knows a thing about and the person interviewed on CNN along with Zimmerman just concluded that they all had to be committed by black youth with no evidence to support it.
Nine burglaries in the same area in 15 months is pretty significant. That's going to have the neighborhood watch on edge. Four of the 9 confirmed young black males as the perpetrators, this according to the city of Sanford on their web site prior to this incident as part of their community reporting. The other 5 they did not know who was involved as you state. Of the 4 they do, 100% young black males. Again, human nature takes over.
This guy may be guilty of a lot of things but the police need the evidence to prove it. What isn't in dispute is many burglaries in the same small area, of those that happened 100% where a burglar could be identified were young black males. The caller stopped a burglary in process in February, a young black male and I'm sure he probably felt he could be hero again.
The way the media has reported this has been spectacularly poor. He may be guilty and if he is he will likely get his unless the evidence isn't there (not the first time guilty people have gotten off), but they've (the media) have taken every step possible to make sure he is portrayed in the worst light possible to the point of outright dishonesty and manipulation of videos, audio tapes, using photos from 8 years ago, etc. It's been very poor and too many Americans are duped because they don't challenge the media and get all the facts. We're force fed their crap and too many just nod and accept it.
-
Nine burglaries in the same area in 15 months is pretty significant. That's going to have the neighborhood watch on edge. Four of the 9 confirmed young black males as the perpetrators, this according to the city of Sanford on their web site prior to this incident as part of their community reporting. The other 5 they did not know who was involved as you state. Of the 4 they do, 100% young black males. Again, human nature takes over.
This guy may be guilty of a lot of things but the police need the evidence to prove it. What isn't in dispute is many burglaries in the same small area, of those that happened 100% where a burglar could be identified were young black males. The caller stopped a burglary in process in February, a young black male and I'm sure he probably felt he could be hero again.
The way the media has reported this has been spectacularly poor. He may be guilty and if he is he will likely get his unless the evidence isn't there (not the first time guilty people have gotten off), but they've (the media) have taken every step possible to make sure he is portrayed in the worst light possible to the point of outright dishonesty and manipulation of videos, audio tapes, using photos from 8 years ago, etc. It's been very poor and too many Americans are duped because they don't challenge the media and get all the facts. We're force fed their crap and too many just nod and accept it.
My apologies, the first interviews I had heard said only 2 were confirmed.
-
My only problem with this whole thing is the use of a firearm.
I don't think there is any way that I can justify Zimmerman shooting a 140 lb kid, no matter how everything went down.
Make a call to the cops? OK
Keep an eye on him and follow him? OK
Maybe even a physical altercation... I can understand how it happens. Zimmerman is trying to keep an eye on his neighborhood, which isn't a bad thing.
I'm not against citizens carrying guns per se, but one of the dangers is having a citizen unjustifiably use it. I don't know how I can justify following an unarmed HS kid, and ultimately shooting him.
-
My only problem with this whole thing is the use of a firearm.
I don't think there is any way that I can justify Zimmerman shooting a 140 lb kid, no matter how everything went down.
Make a call to the cops? OK
Keep an eye on him and follow him? OK
Maybe even a physical altercation... I can understand how it happens. Zimmerman is trying to keep an eye on his neighborhood, which isn't a bad thing.
I'm not against citizens carrying guns per se, but one of the dangers is having a citizen unjustifiably use it. I don't know how I can justify following an unarmed HS kid, and ultimately shooting him.
Really? Here's a "hypothetical" set of circumstances for you. A 140 lb. person has punched you, knocked you down, may have broken your nose and is on top of you smashing your head into the ground....and you cannot justify defending yourself by any means necessary in this set of circumstances? What has to happen to you before you would use a firearm to defend yourself, your family, your property?
-
Really? Here's a "hypothetical" set of circumstances for you. A 140 lb. person has punched you, knocked you down, may have broken your nose and is on top of you smashing your head into the ground....and you cannot justify defending yourself by any means necessary in this set of circumstances? What has to happen to you before you would use a firearm to defend yourself, your family, your property?
Maybe use my 50lb weight advantage to get the kid off of me.
-
Really? Here's a "hypothetical" set of circumstances for you. A 140 lb. person has punched you, knocked you down, may have broken your nose and is on top of you smashing your head into the ground....and you cannot justify defending yourself by any means necessary in this set of circumstances? What has to happen to you before you would use a firearm to defend yourself, your family, your property?
If somebody busted into my house, and I couldn't escape, the use of deadly force is certainly acceptable.
If follow/track a kid (who is allegedly 100lbs smaller than me) in an open area, even if he gets the jump on me, I think it's safe to say I can escape by hitting/pushing back and then running.
George Zimmerman is a pretty big dude. I think it's reasonable to assume he could have pushed the kid off and escaped if Martin was attacking him.
-
If somebody busted into my house, and I couldn't escape, the use of deadly force is certainly acceptable.
If follow/track a kid (who is allegedly 100lbs smaller than me) in an open area, even if he gets the jump on me, I think it's safe to say I can escape by hitting/pushing back and then running.
George Zimmerman is a pretty big dude. I think it's reasonable to assume he could have pushed the kid off and escaped if Martin was attacking him.
I think you misjudge how quickly things can happen when one fear and adrenaline kick in. A good rule of thumb, if you don't want to be harmed stay out of harm's way. If you threaten and then attack someone you may not like the response.
-
My only problem with this whole thing is the use of a firearm.
I don't think there is any way that I can justify Zimmerman shooting a 140 lb kid, no matter how everything went down.
He was 6'2'' but only 140 pounds? Right.
-
I think you misjudge how quickly things can happen when one fear and adrenaline kick in. A good rule of thumb, if you don't want to be harmed stay out of harm's way. If you threaten and then attack someone you may not like the response.
Agree 100%, which is why Zimmerman shouldn't have tracked the kid through the neighborhood. Call the authorities, observe from a distance.
-
I think you misjudge how quickly things can happen when one fear and adrenaline kick in. A good rule of thumb, if you don't want to be harmed stay out of harm's way. If you threaten and then attack someone you may not like the response.
Oh, also, I agree, and that's why cops get a ton of training. Private citizens probably aren't equipped/trained to handle this kind of stuff, which is why they shouldn't seek it out. When it lands in your living room, it's one thing. When you follow/track people in your neighborhood, the situations get complicated.
-
He was 6'2'' but only 140 pounds? Right.
Teenagers are never awkwardly growing into their bodies at this age.
-
Sure. Doesn't everyone know a 6'2'' 17 year old who is 3+ standard deviations away from the median weight for his age and height?
I guess asking for a source is too much to ask for, too?
-
Sure. Doesn't everyone know a 6'2'' 17 year old who is 3+ standard deviations away from the median weight for his age and height?
I guess asking for a source is too much to ask for, too?
When I started college, at age 17, I was 6'1'' 150 lbs.....I am now 6'6'' 240.
-
Sure. Doesn't everyone know a 6'2'' 17 year old who is 3+ standard deviations away from the median weight for his age and height?
I guess asking for a source is too much to ask for, too?
The family's lawyer (I believe) said 140lbs, so take that for what it is worth.
It could be closer to 150lbs, or maybe even 160lbs. If there is a court case, physical stature will definitely come in to play.
The use of deadly force instead of running away is still a problem for me... but that's just my opinion.
-
Agree 100%, which is why Zimmerman shouldn't have tracked the kid through the neighborhood. Call the authorities, observe from a distance.
He probably thought by the time the police got there, this guy would be gone. In hindsight, would have been the right thing to do, but that isn't what he did.
The prosecutor today said they are not bringing this to the grand jury. Now the people that are upset about what they perceive to be vigilante justice will they persuade those pushing for more vigilante justice to back down? The New Black Panthers, for example. Rhetoric is high right now. I hope they can tone this down. I have zero doubts that Mr. Eric Holder will insert himself into all this. Watch and see.
-
He probably thought by the time the police got there, this guy would be gone. In hindsight, would have been the right thing to do, but that isn't what he did.
The prosecutor today said they are not bringing this to the grand jury. Now the people that are upset about what they perceive to be vigilante justice will they persuade those pushing for more vigilante justice to back down? The New Black Panthers, for example. Rhetoric is high right now. I hope they can tone this down. I have zero doubts that Mr. Eric Holder will insert himself into all this. Watch and see.
Holder is already involved. He ordered the FBI to conduct an investigation to ascertain if there were any Civil Rights/Hate Crimes violations.
-
He probably thought by the time the police got there, this guy would be gone. In hindsight, would have been the right thing to do, but that isn't what he did.
But whose fault is that?
I don't know what is going to happen legally, but I don't like private citizens tracking/following other private citizens, especially while carrying a firearm, and then claiming self defense. Seems like too much gray area.
-
Sure. Doesn't everyone know a 6'2'' 17 year old who is 3+ standard deviations away from the median weight for his age and height?
I guess asking for a source is too much to ask for, too?
When I was a soph in HS I was 6' and 135lbs. Entered college at 6'4" and 175lbs. Now, I am 6'6" and 225lbs.
Finding it difficult to understand why his reported height/weight is so hard for you to believe.
-
Holder is already involved. He ordered the FBI to conduct an investigation to ascertain if there were any Civil Rights/Hate Crimes violations.
Only the beginning. This will be a political rallying cry. Never let a crisis go to waste and they will play this for every mile they can get. Holder will get more involved.
-
He probably thought by the time the police got there, this guy would be gone. In hindsight, would have been the right thing to do, but that isn't what he did.
The prosecutor today said they are not bringing this to the grand jury. Now the people that are upset about what they perceive to be vigilante justice will they persuade those pushing for more vigilante justice to back down? The New Black Panthers, for example. Rhetoric is high right now. I hope they can tone this down. I have zero doubts that Mr. Eric Holder will insert himself into all this. Watch and see.
Who are these people who you claim are upset? The Martin family said they were not surprised at all by this development, and did not expect the grand jury to bring charges. As for the 2nd half of your statement, shouldn't the highest ranked law enforcement official play some kind of role in case that has garnered the attention of tens of millions of people, as well as provide support for a local department that may not have the resources necessary to investigate it fully?
But hey, I imagine you would rather have an AG that would fire US Attorneys based off of perceived political leanings, not believe in the writ of habeas corpus, and eavesdrop on your cell phone conversations without a warrant.
-
Only the beginning. This will be a political rallying cry. Never let a crisis go to waste and they will play this for every mile they can get. Holder will get more involved.
Bottom line now is that the prosecutorial case will now be decided by two people.
Special Prosecutor Angela Corey will make her decision whether or not to file local charges, probably by Weds. If she does file charges, then Holder and DOJ will wait until the outcome of the local case to make a decision on the Civil Rights violations. Usually if the subject in a local case is found not guilty, then DOJ will immediately files charges if deemed appropriate by the Attorney General. Due to the extensive media coverage and political nature of this case, if Zimmerman is found guilty on the local charges, Zimmerman would be charged federally in addition. Thats if the facts warrant it. Holder will rely upon the reports written by the FBI, the United States Attorneys Office in Orlando and the Deputy AG, Civil Rights Division.
-
This hispanic guy Zimmerman is a knucklehead that called the cops every time the wind blew. This time, out of the many many many times he called the cops, the reason he was calling was because of a black kid. How many times did he call the cops because he saw something that most would think is a non-event and it involved a white guy? A hispanic chick? Whatever else? If you don't know, I think you're making things up.
Is there evidence to suggest Zimmerman was a loser and wannabe cop that acted like a dipsh1t frequently with his constant calls to 911? Yep. I'm not sure there is evidence that this particular call had much if anything to do with race. Do you believe if it was a hispanic or white kid that he would not have made the call and if so, what basis do you have for such a belief?
it must have been the "hoodie"? ya know, i understand that some of this clothing thing-pants down, hoodie, cap on sideways, tats the usual " gangsta ghetto getup" is how they roll. however, somone needs to tell them that this stuff screams other messages outside their element-sad to say, but it congers up fears. i get it though; in their element, that is what is in and if they don't get with the "program" they get chastised for being "white" or acting white. or being in a different gang... like studying hard, working hard, getting good grades. it ruins it for the rest of them. if a girl goes out wearing a see-thru shirt sans underwear, and a thong hanging out does she deserve to be violated? absolutely not, but there are some knuckleheads that will try to make it consensual, whether she wants it or not, right. unfortunately, image is one of the first chances ya have to make a first impression. and that can be a tough one to turn around in the time you have out on the streets
-
it must have been the "hoodie"? ya know, i understand that some of this clothing thing-pants down, hoodie, cap on sideways, tats the usual " gangsta ghetto getup" is how they roll. however, somone needs to tell them that this stuff screams other messages outside their element-sad to say, but it congers up fears. i get it though; in their element, that is what is in and if they don't get with the "program" they get chastised for being "white" or acting white. or being in a different gang... like studying hard, working hard, getting good grades. it ruins it for the rest of them. if a girl goes out wearing a see-thru shirt sans underwear, and a thong hanging out does she deserve to be violated? absolutely not, but there are some knuckleheads that will try to make it consensual, whether she wants it or not, right. unfortunately, image is one of the first chances ya have to make a first impression. and that can be a tough one to turn around in the time you have out on the streets
Just to be clear, you are talking about black people right?
-
it must have been the "hoodie"? ya know, i understand that some of this clothing thing-pants down, hoodie, cap on sideways, tats the usual " gangsta ghetto getup" is how they roll. however, somone needs to tell them that this stuff screams other messages outside their element-sad to say, but it congers up fears. i get it though; in their element, that is what is in and if they don't get with the "program" they get chastised for being "white" or acting white. or being in a different gang... like studying hard, working hard, getting good grades. it ruins it for the rest of them. if a girl goes out wearing a see-thru shirt sans underwear, and a thong hanging out does she deserve to be violated? absolutely not, but there are some knuckleheads that will try to make it consensual, whether she wants it or not, right. unfortunately, image is one of the first chances ya have to make a first impression. and that can be a tough one to turn around in the time you have out on the streets
For a dude who claims he isn't racist, you are trying real hard not to prove it.
-
He probably thought by the time the police got there, this guy would be gone. In hindsight, would have been the right thing to do, but that isn't what he did.
The prosecutor today said they are not bringing this to the grand jury. Now the people that are upset about what they perceive to be vigilante justice will they persuade those pushing for more vigilante justice to back down? The New Black Panthers, for example. Rhetoric is high right now. I hope they can tone this down. I have zero doubts that Mr. Eric Holder will insert himself into all this. Watch and see.
The reason that it isn't going to a grand jury is because the DA will file the charges herself. The only way it would go to a grand jury is if she didn't file charges and needed political cover.
-
ZFB's "friend" tommy was 3'4" 82 lbs at age 8. Now 12, tommy is 4"10 and 127 lbs. People grow.
Who cares? If a flippin midget sucker punches me and pins me down and starts wailing on me, I might pull the nina out and get biz. word
-
Nine burglaries in the same area in 15 months is pretty significant.
Maybe they need better gates in said gated community.
-
Regardless of race, you have to ask yourself this:
Are you comfortable with private citizens carrying firearms, following other private citizens, and then claiming self defense when they use his/her firearm against an unarmed citizen?
I'm just not comfortable with that. By that logic, the entire state of Florida is a Charles Bronson movie waiting to happen.
Might be cool.
-
Regardless of race, you have to ask yourself this:
Are you comfortable with private citizens carrying firearms, following other private citizens, and then claiming self defense when they use his/her firearm against an unarmed citizen?
I'm just not comfortable with that. By that logic, the entire state of Florida is a Charles Bronson movie waiting to happen.
Might be cool.
I am comfortable with all of the above when it is, indeed, self defense. Aren't you?
-
Regardless of race, you have to ask yourself this:
Are you comfortable with private citizens carrying firearms, following other private citizens, and then claiming self defense when they use his/her firearm against an unarmed citizen?
I'm just not comfortable with that. By that logic, the entire state of Florida is a Charles Bronson movie waiting to happen.
Might be cool.
Following others with guns is not good.
Claiming self defense when using a firearm against an unarmed citizen if you are physically attacked and in fear for your life might be just fine. (i.e., if it's self defense, it's self defense.)
-
Following others with guns is not good.
Claiming self defense when using a firearm against an unarmed citizen if you are physically attacked and in fear for your life might be just fine. (i.e., if it's self defense, it's self defense.)
Yeah, I tend to think the burden to prove it was self-defense gets a little heavier when you were following someone with a gun after the police told you not to do so.
-
I guess it's hard for me to buy "self defense" when the person actively puts themselves in the situation.
- If you break into my house and corner me, and I shoot, it's self defense.
- If I see you on the street and think you might steal something, chase you down the street and shoot you when you fight back, I don't know about that. Couldn't I have just stayed in my house? I was not under attack. There was no immediate danger or threat until I sought it out.
This an armed adult (with no police training) trailing an unarmed 17 year old in a relatively open area, I just don't know that I like a "self defense" claim.
Zimmerman had a million different ways to defend himself before he shot the kid. Keeping his distance and staying in his car is #1.
Private citizens are not trained to track and apprehend potential criminals.
-
I am comfortable with all of the above when it is, indeed, self defense. Aren't you?
nope. Its not self defense when you start stalking people while armed with a firearm. If I'm being stalked by someone with a gun, I think I'm the one that has a right to self defense - not him.
If I know someone is following me w/ a weapon, I am comfortable with the idea that I should be able to shoot them in self defense, arent you? If so, you have a major philosophical issue here. You can't have a shootout where both people are legal and legitimate in their use of deadly force as self defense.
-
I guess it's hard for me to buy "self defense" when the person actively puts themselves in the situation.
- If you break into my house and corner me, and I shoot, it's self defense.
- If I see you on the street and think you might steal something, chase you down the street and shoot you when you fight back, I don't know about that. Couldn't I have just stayed in my house? I was not under attack. There was no immediate danger or threat until I sought it out.
This an armed adult (with no police training) trailing an unarmed 17 year old in a relatively open area, I just don't know that I like a "self defense" claim.
Zimmerman had a million different ways to defend himself before he shot the kid. Keeping his distance and staying in his car is #1.
Private citizens are not trained to track and apprehend potential criminals.
Maybe I've missed it, but has there ever been any report that Zimmerman tried to apprehend Martin? Not being sarcastic -- honest question.
Moving on to a more general question (i.e., not intended to specifically relate to Zimmerman/Martin): twice in this thread you've indicated that it would be OK for a private citizen to call the cops and try to keep an eye on someone:
Make a call to the cops? OK
Keep an eye on him and follow him? OK
Call the authorities, observe from a distance.
So, given the fact that you seem to think that it would be OK for a private citizen to call the cops and try to follow and keep an eye on a person, why do you think that a person doing exactly that should not be able to defend himself if the person he is trying to observe places him in fear for his life?
I'm asking a general question that, admittedly, is coming in a thread about a very specific situation. I'll take no opinion on whether or not my question applies to the Zimmerman/Martin case. I was just curious how you moved from saying that it was OK to call the cops and try to follow and keep an eye on someone, to later say that you're not comfortable if that person defends himself.
-
nope. Its not self defense when you start stalking people while armed with a firearm. If I'm being stalked by someone with a gun, I think I'm the one that has a right to self defense - not him.
If I know someone is following me w/ a weapon, I am comfortable with the idea that I should be able to shoot them in self defense, arent you? If so, you have a major philosophical issue here. You can't have a shootout where both people are legal and legitimate in their use of deadly force as self defense.
I guess we'll see what the actual evidence shows.
-
Maybe I've missed it, but has there ever been any report that Zimmerman tried to apprehend Martin? Not being sarcastic -- honest question.
I don't know that, and you're right, I don' think we can assume that.
Moving on to a more general question (i.e., not intended to specifically relate to Zimmerman/Martin): twice in this thread you've indicated that it would be OK for a private citizen to call the cops and try to keep an eye on someone:
So, given the fact that you seem to think that it would be OK for a private citizen to call the cops and try to follow and keep an eye on a person, why do you think that a person doing exactly that should not be able to defend himself if the person he is trying to observe places him in fear for his life?
I'm asking a general question that, admittedly, is coming in a thread about a very specific situation. I'll take no opinion on whether or not my question applies to the Zimmerman/Martin case. I was just curious how you moved from saying that it was OK to call the cops and try to follow and keep an eye on someone, to later say that you're not comfortable if that person defends himself.
Fair points. For me it comes down to the use of a firearm by a untrained private citizen who inserted himself into a situation.
#1 Neighborhood watch? Great idea. Go in pairs, wear neon clothing, flashlights, etc. Make sure everybody sees you and knows what you are doing.
#2 Observe and Report from a distance. Good idea. Keep a safe distance. Don't engage. Don't put yourself in harms way. Stay in your car, or your home if you see something suspicious. Call your neighbors and have then watch as well.
#3 Get gun and secretly follow people around your neighborhood? I just don't like it. Too many things can go wrong. What if the bullet missed and hit a bystander? Is that still covered under self defense?
-
Fair points. For me it comes down to the use of a firearm by a untrained private citizen who inserted himself into a situation.
#1 Neighborhood watch? Great idea. Go in pairs, wear neon clothing, flashlights, etc. Make sure everybody sees you and knows what you are doing.
#2 Observe and Report from a distance. Good idea. Keep a safe distance. Don't engage. Don't put yourself in harms way. Stay in your car, or your home if you see something suspicious. Call your neighbors and have then watch as well.
#3 Get gun and secretly follow people around your neighborhood? I just don't like it. Too many things can go wrong. What if the bullet missed and hit a bystander? Is that still covered under self defense?
Is there are any responsibility on Martin in your opinion?
-
Is there are any responsibility on Martin in your opinion?
Better question, what responsibility do you think falls on Martin in this case?
-
Better question, what responsibility do you think falls on Martin in this case?
Impossible to know until all the facts are made public. Clearly, he may bear responsibility.
-
Impossible to know until all the facts are made public. Clearly, he may bear responsibility.
chicken
-
Is there are any responsibility on Martin in your opinion?
Well, we don't know exactly what happened, so it's speculative:
- If he did "attack" Zimmerman, then certainly he holds some responsibility for a physical altercation. If he were alive, the authorities could determine who started it, how it started, and what it was about. It might be Martin's fault, unfortunately he's not here to answer the question.
Ultimately, it's hard for me to justify deadly force used by a private citizen following an unarmed teenager at 7pm at night.
I know not everybody will agree with me on that, and that's fine.
-
Well, we don't know exactly what happened, so it's speculative:
- If he did "attack" Zimmerman, then certainly he holds some responsibility for a physical altercation. If he were alive, the authorities could determine who started it, how it started, and what it was about. It might be Martin's fault, unfortunately he's not here to answer the question.
Ultimately, it's hard for me to justify deadly force used by a private citizen following an unarmed teenager at 7pm at night.
I know not everybody will agree with me on that, and that's fine.
unarmed is a subjective term. at my age any 17 year old male is bigger, stronger and poses a significant threat. if jumped I would certainly do everything in my power to defend myself. especially if I had been knocked down, had my nose broken and was being wailed on. so would you. your problem seems to be less with a person defending themselves and more with possessing a firearm.
-
The main thing here that seems to be going unmentioned, is that the NRA writes crappy laws. Maybe Zimmerman will be justified when all is said and done. Maybe he could prove self-defense in any of the other 48 or so states that have longstanding self-defense laws based on the facts in this particular case. However, this is a backward and terrible law and will lead to more avoidable nonsense like this. In almost any other state, Zimmerman would be sitting in jail right now awaiting trial and his lawyers would be working on proving that he had a legitimate reason to kill this kid, then he should be set free if the facts indicate he acted in self-defense; that's how it should work. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Under this law "stand your ground" law, it can be difficult to determine which party is standing their ground.
Am I the only one that could see this Zimmerman guy taking karate classes with a bunch of little kids and dressing up like spiderman in his mom's basement practicing his kicks? If you're going to be a 28 year old adult in the business of making citizens arrests, I would hope you would either know how to fight or choose your battles more wisely. This goofball was walking around like Billy the Kid, and caught a beating by a kid 11 years younger. (Yeah, I've seen the pictures of the kid, he may be 6'2'' and act hard on facebook, but I've also seen the pictures of Zimmerman, a fat creep, who also likes to act hard, and clearly outweighs Martin.) Kids who looks like Martin walk by my place every day and it really doesn't bother me. You know what would bother me? A guy who looks like Zimmerman following me around like a pedophile.
-
The main thing here that seems to be going unmentioned, is that the NRA writes crappy laws. Maybe Zimmerman will be justified when all is said and done. Maybe he could prove self-defense in any of the other 48 or so states that have longstanding self-defense laws based on the facts in this particular case. However, this is a backward and terrible law and will lead to more avoidable nonsense like this. In almost any other state, Zimmerman would be sitting in jail right now awaiting trial and his lawyers would be working on proving that he had a legitimate reason to kill this kid, then he should be set free if the facts indicate he acted in self-defense; that's how it should work. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Under this law "stand your ground" law, it can be difficult to determine which party is standing their ground.
Am I the only one that could see this Zimmerman guy taking karate classes with a bunch of little kids and dressing up like spiderman in his mom's basement practicing his kicks? If you're going to be a 28 year old adult in the business of making citizens arrests, I would hope you would either know how to fight or choose your battles more wisely. This goofball was walking around like Billy the Kid, and caught a beating by a kid 11 years younger. (Yeah, I've seen the pictures of the kid, he may be 6'2'' and act hard on facebook, but I've also seen the pictures of Zimmerman, a fat creep, who also likes to act hard, and clearly outweighs Martin.) Kids who looks like Martin walk by my place every day and it really doesn't bother me. You know what would bother me? A guy who looks like Zimmerman following me around like a pedophile.
You're prepubescent?
-
unarmed is a subjective term. at my age any 17 year old male is bigger, stronger and poses a significant threat. if jumped I would certainly do everything in my power to defend myself. especially if I had been knocked down, had my nose broken and was being wailed on. so would you. your problem seems to be less with a person defending themselves and more with possessing a firearm.
I don't have a problem with firearms in the least, but I do think that when the Police tell you to stop following someone, and that you still follow that person, that the burden falls on you should that person attack you. You have been warned to stay away from a potentially dangerous situation...and you chose not to.
If Martin would have jumped Zimmerman when he was just walking down the street minding his own business, I would feel differently - but even then I have a problem with a deadly force response.
-
I don't have a problem with firearms in the least, but I do think that when the Police tell you to stop following someone, and that you still follow that person, that the burden falls on you should that person attack you. You have been warned to stay away from a potentially dangerous situation...and you chose not to.
If Martin would have jumped Zimmerman when he was just walking down the street minding his own business, I would feel differently - but even then I have a problem with a deadly force response.
Following a person is not a crime and does not justify an attack whether you are warned or not. I agree it could be dangerous, however but only if the person you are following has malicious intent. Are you saying Martin had such intent? If so, that would tend to justify Zimmerman's concerns about him being in the neighborhood and would make it a good idea to watch him.
-
unarmed is a subjective term. at my age any 17 year old male is bigger, stronger and poses a significant threat. if jumped I would certainly do everything in my power to defend myself. especially if I had been knocked down, had my nose broken and was being wailed on. so would you. your problem seems to be less with a person defending themselves and more with possessing a firearm.
Yes, the firearm and use the deadly force the issue for me.
I own a 1911. I love shooting it a the range. I own several rifles and shotguns as well (most inherited). I'm not against firearms, or even hand guns specifically.
I'm against private, untrained citizens following/stalking other citizens and discharging said firearm and calling it self defense.
Police are trained to use the appropriate amount of force. There are protocols. They often patrol in pairs, they are in uniform, they have clearly marked squad cars, etc. Everybody knows who they are, and knows what they are doing.
Zimmerman was not a cop, and I have trouble taking his word that using his gun was his only option.
-
You're prepubescent?
Sorry, just don't like strange dudes with cheesy mustaches following me around. Not when I was prepubescent, not when I was 17, not now.
-
Yes, the firearm and use the deadly force the issue for me.
I own a 1911. I love shooting it a the range. I own several rifles and shotguns as well (most inherited). I'm not against firearms, or even hand guns specifically.
I'm against private, untrained citizens following/stalking other citizens and discharging said firearm and calling it self defense.
Police are trained to use the appropriate amount of force. There are protocols. They often patrol in pairs, they are in uniform, they have clearly marked squad cars, etc. Everybody knows who they are, and knows what they are doing.
Zimmerman was not a cop, and I have trouble taking his word that using his gun was his only option.
No one wants poorly trained folks carrying any more than they want 8 year olds driving 4,000 lb. vehicles. Point is, you don't know about his level of training and you certainly don't know whether or not it was self defense.
-
Following a person is not a crime and does not justify an attack whether you are warned or not. I agree it could be dangerous, however but only if the person you are following has malicious intent. Are you saying Martin had such intent? If so, that would tend to justify Zimmerman's concerns about him being in the neighborhood and would make it a good idea to watch him.
Why is having person A following person B while packing heat only dangerous if person B has malicious intent? He's not the one chasing people around with guns. It seems person A's intent is already far more malicious than person B's.
-
Following a person is not a crime and does not justify an attack whether you are warned or not. I agree it could be dangerous, however but only if the person you are following has malicious intent. Are you saying Martin had such intent? If so, that would tend to justify Zimmerman's concerns about him being in the neighborhood and would make it a good idea to watch him.
I never said following someone "is a crime." I said that when Police warn you to stay out of a *potentially* dangerous situation, and you choose to enter that situation, the burden of responsibility for what occurs during that situation switches more toward you.
And it very well may be what Zimmerman did was justified, again not all of the details are out. I am just saying that it sounds like Zimmerman needs to address a few things...why did he ignore the police? Why did he respond at a level of violence higher than what Martin was engaged in? And if he cannot adequately address these, he deserved punishment because a life was lost.
-
I never said following someone "is a crime." I said that when Police warn you to stay out of a *potentially* dangerous situation, and you choose to enter that situation, the burden of responsibility for what occurs during that situation switches more toward you.
And it very well may be what Zimmerman did was justified, again not all of the details are out. I am just saying that it sounds like Zimmerman needs to address a few things...why did he ignore the police? Why did he respond at a level of violence higher than what Martin was engaged in? And if he cannot adequately address these, he deserved punishment because a life was lost.
Oh, the responsibility switches "more" to him. Why did he respond at a level of violence higher than what Martin was engaged in? He probably felt as thought Martin was engaged in a level of violence that was life threatening and he responded in kind.
-
Oh, the responsibility switches "more" to him. Why did he respond at a level of violence higher than what Martin was engaged in? He probably felt as thought Martin was engaged in a level of violence that was life threatening and he responded in kind.
Impossible to know until all the facts are made public.
-
Oh, the responsibility switches "more" to him. Why did he respond at a level of violence higher than what Martin was engaged in? He probably felt as thought Martin was engaged in a level of violence that was life threatening and he responded in kind.
Possibly...that is why I said it may have been justified.
-
Why is having person A following person B while packing heat only dangerous if person B has malicious intent? He's not the one chasing people around with guns. It seems person A's intent is already far more malicious than person B's.
Point is, that when following a person can become a dangerous situation to the follower if the followee has malicious intent. Following, in and of itself, is not a crime and does not justify an attack. And no one has said that anyone was chasing someone with a gun. Chasing implies that zimmerman was running after martin waving a gun around. these facts do not currently exist in evidence.
-
For a dude who claims he isn't racist, you are trying real hard not to prove it.
if i knew how to add reinko's quote, i would, but his is taken into account here along with southie's
what the he** is the matter with you guys. you both are just dying to find something racist here. talk about trolling. medication check? do your prisms see anything but race in everything?? if you would have read my earlier comments, i am a content of ones character guy-period. i see white dudes walking around with hoodies and tatted all up and they look like fools to me, however, they might be great people. same goes for blacks, asian, martian, indonesian, what ever the f they are. you guys are the problem with our society-you can't even discuss this schmit without race and then you get the beat down. giving reinko a little benefit of the doubt, he sounds confused and just wants verification- just to be clear reinko, no, i'm not talking about just blacks. i'm talking about people who make bad decisions
-
What if the followed felt threatened, chose to stand his ground against the follower by turning and confronting the follower, who in turn felt threatened because his underlying assumptions were buttressed, and chose to shoot the followed?
-
if i knew how to add reinko's quote, i would, but his is taken into account here along with southie's
what the he** is the matter with you guys. you both are just dying to find something racist here. talk about trolling.
This is what you said:
"i get it though; in their element, that is what is in and if they don't get with the "program" they get chastised for being "white" or acting white. or being in a different gang... like studying hard, working hard, getting good grades. it ruins it for the rest of them. "
And you think *I* am the one that sees race in everything? I want you to find one post where I brought up race. Just one.
-
I mostly agree with 2002 here - armed private citizens cruising the streets (well meaning or not) are an accident waiting to happen. This tragedy is proof of that. And no matter how this plays out people will feel that justice has not been served - and they'll have a point.
That said, I'm troubled by more than the horrible personal tragedy here. Not by hustlers like Al Sharpton leading rallies and encouraging the kind of rush to judgement he favors with an African American victim but rails against when an African American stands accused. Not by the simplistic musings of Geraldo Rivera, essentially blaming Trayvon because of his choice of clothing. That kind of stuff is noise and old news. The big "back story" here is NBC news splicing tapes to intentionally misconstrue what happened that night. That's downright chilling to me, and I assume to all regardless of political stripe. Their attempt to excuse it as an "accident" is especially cynical. I don't consider myself naive, and am well aware that opinion often creeps into "hard news" on the left and right, but this is beyond the pale.
-
What if the followed felt threatened, chose to stand his ground against the follower by turning and confronting the follower, who in turn felt threatened because his underlying assumptions were buttressed, and chose to shoot the followed?
that's a lot of what ifs'. Hey what if monkeys flew out of his butt, broke zimmerman's nose, knocked zimmerman down, grabbed zimmerman's gun and shot martin? I mean, way if? any hypothetical is only that, a hypothetical. why don't we all just wait for the facts before finding anyone guilty of anything?
-
Martin's girlfriend, the one he was talking to on the phone while walking home, said that he mentioned being followed. It seems like a reasonable extrapolation. Of course, a lot of this thread has been "what ifs?" At the end of the day, we aren't any closer to an answer.
-
This is what you said:
"i get it though; in their element, that is what is in and if they don't get with the "program" they get chastised for being "white" or acting white. or being in a different gang... like studying hard, working hard, getting good grades. it ruins it for the rest of them. "
And you think *I* am the one that sees race in everything? I want you to find one post where I brought up race. Just one.
that was just one example b/c trayvon is/was black, but overall i am referring to anyone who dresses "stupidly" you are trying very hard to paint me as a racist b/c i am one of the few who'll step out of "politically correct" boundries/traps ya'll set up. as i've said more than a few times, i'm a character guy and i've just hired a minority to work with me.
-
Martin's girlfriend, the one he was talking to on the phone while walking home, said that he mentioned being followed. It seems like a reasonable extrapolation. Of course, a lot of this thread has been "what ifs?" At the end of the day, we aren't any closer to an answer.
then why speculate?
-
that was just one example b/c trayvon is/was black, but overall i am referring to anyone who dresses "stupidly" you are trying very hard to paint me as a racist b/c i am one of the few who'll step out of "politically correct" boundries/traps ya'll set up. as i've said more than a few times, i'm a character guy and i've just hired a minority to work with me.
Well if that's the case, my bad.
-
then why speculate?
I know. It's because that's what we do!
-
I know. It's because that's what we do!
C'mon, you can't start quoting your own posts to try to win an argument. :P
-
then why speculate?
Yeah, good call. I am the first one in this thread to speculate. ::)
-
...but I do think that when the Police tell you to stop following someone, and that you still follow that person...
It is my understanding that this, like a whole lot of other things relating to this case, is in dispute.
-
Point is, you don't know about his level of training and you certainly don't know whether or not it was self defense.
I do not want private citizens taking firearms and following/stalking citizens (presumably unarmed) and then claiming self defense.
That's all I know.
-
Well if that's the case, my bad.
now that we've got that settled, thank you, but the coloreds did start all this ya know ;D
-
Point is, that when following a person can become a dangerous situation to the follower if the followee has malicious intent. Following, in and of itself, is not a crime and does not justify an attack. And no one has said that anyone was chasing someone with a gun. Chasing implies that zimmerman was running after martin waving a gun around. these facts do not currently exist in evidence.
I think there are two issues here where we will have to agree to disagree. One is from a danger perspective, the other is semantic.
-
It is my understanding that this, like a whole lot of other things relating to this case, is in dispute.
As in a 911 dispatcher is not a police officer.
-
Who are these people who you claim are upset? The Martin family said they were not surprised at all by this development, and did not expect the grand jury to bring charges. As for the 2nd half of your statement, shouldn't the highest ranked law enforcement official play some kind of role in case that has garnered the attention of tens of millions of people, as well as provide support for a local department that may not have the resources necessary to investigate it fully?
But hey, I imagine you would rather have an AG that would fire US Attorneys based off of perceived political leanings, not believe in the writ of habeas corpus, and eavesdrop on your cell phone conversations without a warrant.
The racial hustlers like Al Sharpton, J. Jackson, the New Black Panthers, and those that prey on this kind of stuff. That is who is upset. Just read their comments and watch their actions.
For the AG, I find that all AG's do the bidding of their political beliefs and that of their bosses (the President), whether they are conservative or liberal. This is not an ideological point I was making as I believe both sides pull this kind of stuff. What bothers me is that politics will intersect with this more than it should. Will Holder get involved with a white kid gunned down in the streets of D.C., Chicago, LA? Why or why not? It happens every day. What about a Hispanic kid killed by African Americans? Isn't he the AG for all people? Bush's AG, Reagan's AG, no different. I would love to have the AG actually answer to the judicial branch and not the executive branch. In my ideal world that is what would happen. The AG is a political animal and should not be.
Not sure what you mean by the eavesdropping of phone conversations as both the current and past administration has allowed that to happen. Now we have a ruling that the American gov't can kill American citizens at a moment's notice if they believe they are enemies of this country. No trial, nothing. That's only in the last 2 years. That is chilling.
US Can Kill US Citizens Without Trial says Eric Holder
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/05/us-targeted-killings-eric-holder_n_1320515.html
-
I should say it is "fairly clear" rather than definitely just "clear." I wasn't there and don't know with 100% certainty what happened; however, if he had stopped following Martin at 2:45 in the call, why does he need to say "Aww crap...I don't know where this kid is" a minute after that?
Your question made me curious because I had never listened to Zimmerman's 911 call, so I listened to the call and read the transcript. In my personal opinion (your mileage may vary), the answer to this question is very simple: the dispatcher had just asked Zimmerman if he lived in the neighborhood and what his apartment number was. Zimmerman responded, "It's a home. It's 1950...oh crap...I don't want to give it all out, I don't know where the kid is." In other words, he was preparing to give his address to the 911 dispatcher, but didn't want to do that because he did not want Martin to overhear his address if he was nearby. I think the part that you left out (as indicated by your use of the ellipsis) was pretty important context that provided what seems to be a fairly reasonable explanation for the "I don't know where the kid is" comment.
-
As in a 911 dispatcher is not a police officer.
Not sure exactly what you mean.
It's my understanding that he claims he stopped chasing Martin when the dispatcher told him to do so. I think this is one of many facts that is disputed.
-
I'm not going to speculate who did what but I do wonder if this case would even be a blip on the national news radar if the initial, knee-jerk, fact-lacking report would have been, "A hispanic man shot a black, trouble-making teenager after being attacked by him" as opposed to "A white man with a criminal record shot a black teenager for wearing a hoodie at night."
-
I'm not going to speculate who did what but I do wonder if this case would even be a blip on the national news radar if the initial, knee-jerk, fact-lacking report would have been, "A hispanic man shot a black, trouble-making teenager after being attacked by him" as opposed to "A white man with a criminal record shot a black teenager for wearing a hoodie at night."
I completly agree, it kinda bothers me how much attention this is getting and how much the race card is being played when in fact it was two minorities involved.
Also there were 5 killings in Chicago this past Easter weekend with another 23 wounded from gun shot wounds. No one hears about that, but this stuff happens every day.
-
My only problem with this whole thing is the use of a firearm.
I don't think there is any way that I can justify Zimmerman shooting a 140 lb kid, no matter how everything went down.
None of us were there and we need to let the facts come out, the ones that aren't edited or manipulated by NBC and others.
One comment I would like to make is on the weight of the kid. You and others continue to bring this up. In the BBC this morning, they mentioned Zimmerman is 5'9", he's a little guy. Martin is 6'3". Zimmerman may weigh more, but if Martin has 6 inches on him he also has leverage. It's the first time I have seen any report mentioning the height of those involved. If you're a little guy at 5'9" and you have a 6'3" guy on top of you slamming your head against the pavement and breaking your nose, then I can see pulling a gun.
The problem as I see it is that he could have avoided the entire thing by not following him, but he chose not to do that. His legal right. If he was attacked and the guy was that much bigger, it does not surprise me that he would act in self defense, if this is how it went down.
From the BBC: "Sanford police briefly detained, but did not charge Zimmerman in the shooting. The 5'9", 28 year-old Zimmerman has claimed self-defense, saying Martin had attacked him and he feared for his well-being as the 6'3" Martin pounded his head on the ground after knocking him off his feet with a sucker punch."
-
Martin's attorney, Crump, coming hot with the rhetoric yesterday if Zimmerman isn't charged. The rhetoric is quite dangerous. He stated there would pandemonium if he was not charged. Does he mean riots in the streets, anger, what? Some are speculating he is trying to incite a riot, but I don't agree necessarily with that charge. It is dangerous, however, to make a comment like that when you have groups like the New Black Panthers that have publicly stated they want blood. Troubling rhetoric. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/suited-booted-and-armed-unbelievable-audio-from-the-new-black-panthers/
Here is the comment
Crump (Martin family attorney) expressed confidence that Corey would eventually charge Zimmerman, but when queried by the BBC that Corey could indeed choose to not prosecute Zimmerman, Crump said,"She could, yeah she could. And I think if she did that (decided to not prosecute Zimmerman)it would be pandemonium. There would be outrage all over America and all over the world."
-
I'm not going to speculate who did what but I do wonder if this case would even be a blip on the national news radar if the initial, knee-jerk, fact-lacking report would have been, "A hispanic man shot a black, trouble-making teenager after being attacked by him" as opposed to "A white man with a criminal record shot a black teenager for wearing a hoodie at night."
Exactly. Racism is an every day issue in this country, but the focal point of the discussion shouldn't be one case in which facts are unknown and information is made up / misreported. That doesn't help anyone.
-
Agreed Jay Bee. Racism is an ongoing struggle and this is just the latest foci in that struggle. We could be discussing Tulsa. We could be discussing the racist taunt on the hacked highway sign in Detroit. We could be discussing any number of white-on-white/black-on-black/hispanic-on-hispanic/Korean-on-Korean crimes that occur on a daily basis. We could be discussing any of the other innumerable ills in this country, from gas prices, to the deficit, to...... Somehow, this one has become a focal point.
-
wzgry, Zimmerman has ditched town and lost his legal team... not looking good for your racial mountain top.
-
Interesting read.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/stand-your-ground-laws-contd/
"When Zimmerman made the fateful decision to disregard the police dispatcher’s statement to await the arrival of the police and not to follow his “suspect,” he was acting outside and beyond the Stand Your Ground law. Other legal principles enter the picture and those principles run against Zimmerman. By following Martin, Zimmerman’s actions set up the perilous confrontation. Consequently, he will likely be seen as an aggressor in the eyes of the law. Even if Martin threw the first punch, that punch will likely be considered the result of Zimmerman’s provocation. Since Martin was unarmed, a gunshot in response to non-deadly force (fisticuffs) will probably be deemed beyond the bounds of normal self-defense. (The Florida legal system will have to consider all of the available evidence and ultimately determine Zimmerman’s legal responsibility.)"
-
Interesting read.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/stand-your-ground-laws-contd/
"When Zimmerman made the fateful decision to disregard the police dispatcher’s statement to await the arrival of the police and not to follow his “suspect,” he was acting outside and beyond the Stand Your Ground law. Other legal principles enter the picture and those principles run against Zimmerman. By following Martin, Zimmerman’s actions set up the perilous confrontation. Consequently, he will likely be seen as an aggressor in the eyes of the law. Even if Martin threw the first punch, that punch will likely be considered the result of Zimmerman’s provocation. Since Martin was unarmed, a gunshot in response to non-deadly force (fisticuffs) will probably be deemed beyond the bounds of normal self-defense. (The Florida legal system will have to consider all of the available evidence and ultimately determine Zimmerman’s legal responsibility.)"
Seems reasonable.
-
Interesting read.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/stand-your-ground-laws-contd/
"When Zimmerman made the fateful decision to disregard the police dispatcher’s statement to await the arrival of the police and not to follow his “suspect,” he was acting outside and beyond the Stand Your Ground law. Other legal principles enter the picture and those principles run against Zimmerman. By following Martin, Zimmerman’s actions set up the perilous confrontation. Consequently, he will likely be seen as an aggressor in the eyes of the law. Even if Martin threw the first punch, that punch will likely be considered the result of Zimmerman’s provocation. Since Martin was unarmed, a gunshot in response to non-deadly force (fisticuffs) will probably be deemed beyond the bounds of normal self-defense. (The Florida legal system will have to consider all of the available evidence and ultimately determine Zimmerman’s legal responsibility.)"
This seems correct to me, but obviously we'll have to see how this plays out.
-
On MSNBC’s “Hardball,” Dershowitz said of the affidavit: “It’s irresponsible and unethical, and not including the material that favors the defendant, unless it’s not true. But if it’s true, as we now have learned from other information, that the grass stains are in back of Zimmerman’s shirt, that there were bruises on his head, you must put that in an affidavit. The affidavit has to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”
Dershowitz also said that everything in the affidavit is consistent with a defense of self-defense. “A good judge will throw this out,” Dershowitz said.
-
On MSNBC’s “Hardball,” Dershowitz said of the affidavit: “It’s irresponsible and unethical, and not including the material that favors the defendant, unless it’s not true. But if it’s true, as we now have learned from other information, that the grass stains are in back of Zimmerman’s shirt, that there were bruises on his head, you must put that in an affidavit. The affidavit has to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”
Dershowitz also said that everything in the affidavit is consistent with a defense of self-defense. “A good judge will throw this out,” Dershowitz said.
Yea, I saw this too. He might be right. I'm no lawyer.
Truthfully, I'm just glad he was charged so at least the facts can be discussed in a court of law instead of just conjecture in the media and a police interview.
If it was really self defense, then so be it... but I would like a jury or at least a judge to help decide that.
-
On MSNBC’s “Hardball,” Dershowitz said of the affidavit: “It’s irresponsible and unethical, and not including the material that favors the defendant, unless it’s not true. But if it’s true, as we now have learned from other information, that the grass stains are in back of Zimmerman’s shirt, that there were bruises on his head, you must put that in an affidavit. The affidavit has to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”
Dershowitz also said that everything in the affidavit is consistent with a defense of self-defense. “A good judge will throw this out,” Dershowitz said.
If the judge throws this case out, she better have her belongings packed and get a police escort to the airport to start her new life in an unknown location.
-
Yea, I saw this too. He might be right. I'm no lawyer.
Truthfully, I'm just glad he was charged so at least the facts can be discussed in a court of law instead of just conjecture in the media and a police interview.
If it was really self defense, then so be it... but I would like a jury or at least a judge to help decide that.
No comment on whether this was self defense or not since I have no idea, but...
Am I to understand that if you, or say, your son was involved in an altercation that resulted in a death you would prefer charges, jail and a trial to a finding of self defense or insufficient evidence for trial by the DA? Interesting.
-
No comment on whether this was self defense or not since I have no idea, but...
Am I to understand that if you, or say, your son was involved in an altercation that resulted in a death you would prefer charges, jail and a trial to a finding of self defense or insufficient evidence for trial by the DA? Interesting.
Wait, in your scenario, is my son the one who was shot, or the one who did the shooting?
-
Wait, in your scenario, is my son the one who was shot, or the one who did the shooting?
pretty clear that your son is the shooter in the scenario.
-
pretty clear that your son is the shooter in the scenario.
Where's Amo during all of this?
-
Well, certainly Zimmerman isn't happy that he is in jail when he claims it was self defense.
Unfortunately, that's how the law works. If you are charged with a major felony, you are going to spend some time in the slammer before/during your trial (depending upon bail, etc.).
My point was, I'm glad that the facts/findings are going to be laid out in public record for everybody to see. It ultimately might not provide Martin's family with the justice they are looking for, but at least the facts are going to be laid out in front of our eyes.
How we all interpret those facts will certainly differ.
-
My point was, I'm glad that the facts/findings are going to be laid out in public record for everybody to see. It ultimately might not provide Martin's family with the justice they are looking for, but at least the facts are going to be laid out in front of our eyes.
And my point is if the facts warrant a charge of second degree murder I'm with you on arrest, incarceration and trial. If the facts indicate otherwise and the DA is caving to a lynch moblike hysteria, not so much. As to the justice the Martin family is looking for, I believe Trayvon's Mom is on record calling this an accident.
-
If the judge throws this case out, she better have her belongings packed and get a police escort to the airport to start her new life in an unknown location.
You are probably right, but that also would a terrible reaction. We have a country of laws and the courts are there for a reason. We can't riot every time we don't like a ruling.
-
You are probably right, but that also would a terrible reaction. We have a country of laws and the courts are there for a reason. We can't riot every time we don't like a ruling.
But people will. It seems like more and more people don't care that change is actually enacted, but simply that they were "heard" for a brief moment in time.
-
And my point is if the facts warrant a charge of second degree murder I'm with you on arrest, incarceration and trial. If the facts indicate otherwise and the DA is caving to a lynch moblike hysteria, not so much. As to the justice the Martin family is looking for, I believe Trayvon's Mom is on record calling this an accident.
I think Trayvon's mom later changed her phrasing and claimed it wasn't an accident. Either way, you know the parents are not happy with a police report written up that basically says "Self defense. Case closed."
I don't want BS charges against Zimmerman, but I'm glad a DA/judge/jury are looking at it rather than just the police department.
If he's not guilty, it'll get proven and he can go go home.
-
If the judge throws this case out, she better have her belongings packed and get a police escort to the airport to start her new life in an unknown location.
You are probably right, but that also would a terrible reaction. We have a country of laws and the courts are there for a reason. We can't riot every time we don't like a ruling.
This is why its entirely counterproductive to have judges elected, rather than appointed. But thats a separate soapbox.
-
I think Trayvon's mom later changed her phrasing and claimed it wasn't an accident. Either way, you know the parents are not happy with a police report written up that basically says "Self defense. Case closed."
I don't want BS charges against Zimmerman, but I'm glad a DA/judge/jury are looking at it rather than just the police department.
If he's not guilty, it'll get proven and he can go go home.
Sorry to nitpick, but no way this was going away with a police report. The DA makes the call, and my point was that, given the circumstances (race, rallies, etc.) they were going to charge this guy even if evidence was exculpatory. Too much pressure, political and otherwise, not to.
-
Sorry to nitpick, but no way this was going away with a police report. The DA makes the call, and my point was that, given the circumstances (race, rallies, etc.) they were going to charge this guy even if evidence was exculpatory. Too much pressure, political and otherwise, not to.
Fair enough.
For me, personally, I was curious as to why he wasn't initially charged. It might be self defense, but given that it's not a clear cut case, I'm glad it's going to court. Let's hash this thing out.
I'm not interested in the politics involved, I'm just interested in the facts. The news stations have certainly provided some, but it's probably muddied the water more than anything else.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/george-zimmerman-charged-2nd-degree-murder-trayvon-martin-143832017.html
http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2012-04/69353440.pdf
Pretty interesting. If all of this is true, I'm not sure there is any chance at all Zimmerman can claim self defense.
Profiling Martin. Chasing Martin when he ran. Disregarding the dispatcher who told him not to follow Martin. Zimmerman was the one who confronted Martin, not the other way around like some people have stated. Martin was the one who was crying for help.
I have no idea how the legal process works, but this was an affidavit. These are confirmed statements by oath.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/george-zimmerman-charged-2nd-degree-murder-trayvon-martin-143832017.html
http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2012-04/69353440.pdf
Pretty interesting. If all of this is true, I'm not sure there is any chance at all Zimmerman can claim self defense.
Profiling Martin. Chasing Martin when he ran. Disregarding the dispatcher who told him not to follow Martin. Zimmerman was the one who confronted Martin, not the other way around like some people have stated. Martin was the one who was crying for help.
I have no idea how the legal process works, but this was an affidavit. These are confirmed statements by oath.
Here's how it works with charging documents and the process:
Usually when a case like this is investigated, the Detective assigned the case will get the facts, then present the case to a States Attorney who will either authorize or decline issuing an arrest warrant. If authorized, the Detective will write an affidavit supporting the probable cause, repeat probable cause, and then accompany the affidavit with an arrest warrant. It is then reviewed by a Magistrate Judge for review and signing and yes, the Detective will be under oath.
In the Zimmerman case, it is apparent the probable cause was either not there, as determined by the police or further investigation was deemed appropriate when presented to the States Attorney. Based upon the media aspect, the police were taken out of the equation and a Special Prosecutor was appointed. Following her review it was determined enough probable cause was there to issue an arrest warrant. Zimmerman was charged through the use of an "information", which is basically an arrest warrant, but the affidavit was probably written by a prosecutor, not a police officer since that is how it works.
Zimmerman was arrested based upon the "information" and was brought before a Magistrate Judge. The charges as detailed in the "information" were read, plead not guilty and bond set.
Now, the state has a pre-determined time frame (not familiar what Florida law is), which could be like 14-20 days, for the Prosecutor to do one of two things:
1) Present the case to a Grand Jury for formal charges or
2) Conduct a Preliminary Hearing, which is an open court setting before the Judge in which the facts of the case are brought forth utilizing witnesses, etc. Preliminary Hearings are usually never conducted, only on TV.
If indicted by the Grand Jury, the Preliminary Hearing is not required.
Once indicted, the subject will again appear before a District/County Judge, not a Magistrate Judge this time and the new charges will be read. Another bond hearing based upon the new charges and a trial date will be set.
Hope this assists you in the process.
-
Fair enough.
For me, personally, I was curious as to why he wasn't initially charged. It might be self defense, but given that it's not a clear cut case, I'm glad it's going to court. Let's hash this thing out.
I'm not interested in the politics involved, I'm just interested in the facts. The news stations have certainly provided some, but it's probably muddied the water more than anything else.
Really? The NRA may disagree.
-
Really? The NRA may disagree.
You and I have had this conversation already in this thread. We'll have to agree to disagree re: self defense.
In my personal opinion, the minute you put on a gun and start silently following somebody, it isn't an open and shut case of self defense.
Zimmerman might end of being not guilty if his story is accurate, but again, I'm glad there is going to be a court case to determine everything that happened.
-
You and I have had this conversation already in this thread. We'll have to agree to disagree re: self defense.
In my personal opinion, the minute you put on a gun and start silently following somebody, it isn't an open and shut case of self defense.
Zimmerman might end of being not guilty if his story is accurate, but again, I'm glad there is going to be a court case to determine everything that happened.
Understood. But, then please don't say that you're not interested in the politics involved, because you clearly are/were.
-
Understood. But, then please don't say that you're not interested in the politics involved, because you clearly are/were.
Honestly, I'm not. I don't think I ever mentioned anything here that is even remotely political. Feel free to quote anyplace that I did.
Feel free to PM me if you would like to discuss further.
-
wzgry, Zimmerman has ditched town and lost his legal team... not looking good for your racial mountain top.
what's a racial "mountain top"??? i'll have to ask my son who is majoring in psych and sociology? but i'm pretty sure that isn't a term used very widely by those studies so i am going to have to axk you to 'splain that one to me while i go do a googler on it. ya sure that is the correct spelling or are you leaving something out here. i'm gonna need all the info i can garner here
-
If the judge throws this case out, she better have her belongings packed and get a police escort to the airport to start her new life in an unknown location.
if the judge throws this out, get ready for the nuclear version of rodney king riots. i think florida will break off at the pan handle and sink. picture rodney king riots, devil's night riots in detroit, greece riots, france unrest, occupier mayhem all wrapped in one big clusterfudge
-
And my point is if the facts warrant a charge of second degree murder I'm with you on arrest, incarceration and trial. If the facts indicate otherwise and the DA is caving to a lynch moblike hysteria, not so much. As to the justice the Martin family is looking for, I believe Trayvon's Mom is on record calling this an accident.
might be safer in there except for the big guys looking at your arse like it's a porkchop
-
i think they should have just charged him with manslaughter. it might upset the new black panthers as they won't be happy until they execute him as they will probably try themselves. but with manslaughter, they have more leeway to allow the charges to stick. 2nd degree could get a little dicey and more of a chance he gets off completely. if that happens, i'm going to alaska for about 2-3 weeks
-
New evidence comes to the public light today
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-case-exclusive-photo-shows-bloodied-back/story?id=16177849#.T5FQs9lWBIQ
-
i think they should have just charged him with manslaughter. it might upset the new black panthers as they won't be happy until they execute him as they will probably try themselves. but with manslaughter, they have more leeway to allow the charges to stick. 2nd degree could get a little dicey and more of a chance he gets off completely. if that happens, i'm going to alaska for about 2-3 weeks
Start packing. I agree with you. Charging as she did, the prosecutor set the table for Rodney King/LA all over again when he is acquitted. All these folks who have been claiming they they just wanted to see him charged and tried, will suddenly be claiming that the justice system didn't work. Something tells me we ain't seen nothin yet.
-
New evidence comes to the public light today
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-case-exclusive-photo-shows-bloodied-back/story?id=16177849#.T5FQs9lWBIQ
Glad this is out there, but it doesnt change a ton for me. I never really doubted that there was some kind of physical confrontation - but I think there are a lot of angles that will make this as much a question of law even more than a question of fact.
Say for instance that Zimmerman followed Trayvon in a way that was obvious to Trayvon he was being followed. At that point, does Zimmerman's guilt or innocence depend on who touched who first? Seems kind of weird in that if Trayvon touched Zimmerman first, his intuition as to why to do so would be exactly right - he was being followed by a man with a weapon who wasnt afraid to use it.
Slightly changing it, what if Trayvon approached Zimmerman and Zimmerman made first physical contact, at which point he was overpowered, then legitimately was in fear for his life? Do his actions leading up to that point rule out any possible self defense from that point forward? Raises interesting questions in a one-on-one context, and in a context where someone would come to the aid of the person who was not the aggressor (ie in this hypo, Trayvon) as well. You could say that Trayvon's menacing approach of Zimmerman was an aggressor behavior, but you'd get laughed out of a courtroom when you're defending the man with the gun who took the initiative to follow in the first place.
I'm not so much trying to speculate as to what exactly happened in this case, more just pointing out that there are some interesting (and at this point problematic) gray areas in the intersection between the Stand Your Ground Law and normal self defense.
-
Glad this is out there, but it doesnt change a ton for me. I never really doubted that there was some kind of physical confrontation - but I think there are a lot of angles that will make this as much a question of law even more than a question of fact.
Say for instance that Zimmerman followed Trayvon in a way that was obvious to Trayvon he was being followed. At that point, does Zimmerman's guilt or innocence depend on who touched who first? Seems kind of weird in that if Trayvon touched Zimmerman first, his intuition as to why to do so would be exactly right - he was being followed by a man with a weapon who wasnt afraid to use it.
Slightly changing it, what if Trayvon approached Zimmerman and Zimmerman made first physical contact, at which point he was overpowered, then legitimately was in fear for his life? Do his actions leading up to that point rule out any possible self defense from that point forward? Raises interesting questions in a one-on-one context, and in a context where someone would come to the aid of the person who was not the aggressor (ie in this hypo, Trayvon) as well. You could say that Trayvon's menacing approach of Zimmerman was an aggressor behavior, but you'd get laughed out of a courtroom when you're defending the man with the gun who took the initiative to follow in the first place.
I'm not so much trying to speculate as to what exactly happened in this case, more just pointing out that there are some interesting (and at this point problematic) gray areas in the intersection between the Stand Your Ground Law and normal self defense.
If I carry a gun, get in a fight on Water St., and shoot the dude who is kicking my ass, is that self defense?
Probably depends upon the altercation leading up to it, and who threw the first punch.
-
Two people who both made seriously poor decisions with disastrous results
-
He should go to jail. He killed an unarmed kid for no reason after stalking the kid around his neighborhood with a gun on him.
I would not want that dude living in my neighborhood. That's for sure. What's he gonna do? Follow me around if he doesn't like the way I'm walking around? Eff that.
-
He should go to jail. He killed an unarmed kid for no reason after stalking the kid around his neighborhood with a gun on him.
I would not want that dude living in my neighborhood. That's for sure. What's he gonna do? Follow me around if he doesn't like the way I'm walking around? Eff that.
This is mostly how I feel as well.
-
He killed an unarmed kid for no reason after stalking the kid around his neighborhood with a gun on him.
You know that, how?
-
He should go to jail. He killed an unarmed kid for no reason after stalking the kid around his neighborhood with a gun on him.
I would not want that dude living in my neighborhood. That's for sure. What's he gonna do? Follow me around if he doesn't like the way I'm walking around? Eff that.
No reason at all? Are you in law enforcement in Florida that you know all the details? Were you there? There is nothing illegal will following someone around. Now, if I'm following you around and then you attack me and beat my head into the concrete, if I feel you are about to knock me out or kill me, I will do whatever I have to.
He got himself into trouble by following the guy, but if his story is correct that he was then attacked and beaten the way he was, what is he supposed to do? Just let him bash his skull in and die from blunt force trauma to the head?
-
He got himself into trouble by following the guy, but if his story is correct that he was then attacked and beaten the way he was, what is he supposed to do? Just let him bash his skull in and die from blunt force trauma to the head?
Or go to jail for killing someone. Those are the options with which he left himself.
-
now that the legal process has started, i just wish al sharpton, jesse jackson, louis farakan. spike lee. mike tyson, the lame-stream media and all the rest of the "spokespeople" for the africanamericans would throw away the vitriole and call off their people and call for calm and let the process play our civilly. i thought most of these people were against the death penalty,,,and that was after a trial. not before. plus they are beating up any caucasion they feel like, just wait until they throw the verdict out, if i had a store in any african region-i'm either getting a bunch of guard dogs or i'm emptying out the store and closing up. it's gonna be a free for all making the rodney king riots look like civility. oh, and another observation-they are beating up white people, wasn't george zimmerman a hispanic?? problem is we are all people, some are just more equal than others..............
-
now that the legal process has started, i just wish al sharpton, jesse jackson, louis farakan. spike lee. mike tyson, the lame-stream media and all the rest of the "spokespeople" for the africanamericans would throw away the vitriole and call off their people and call for calm and let the process play our civilly. i thought most of these people were against the death penalty,,,and that was after a trial. not before. plus they are beating up any caucasion they feel like, just wait until they throw the verdict out, if i had a store in any african region-i'm either getting a bunch of guard dogs or i'm emptying out the store and closing up. it's gonna be a free for all making the rodney king riots look like civility. oh, and another observation-they are beating up white people, wasn't george zimmerman a hispanic?? problem is we are all people, some are just more equal than others..............
If someone looked up the word, "rambling", this is the picture they would see
(http://www.muscoop.com/avs/avatar_2817.png)
-
Or go to jail for killing someone. Those are the options with which he left himself.
Or go free because of Florida's Stand Your Ground law.
-
Or go free because of Florida's Stand Your Ground law.
or be acquitted of all charges because it was self defense. Or have the case thrown out entirely by the judge for improper charges.
-
I had an interesting conversation with a friend about this.
What if Trayvon was a girl? (race doesn't matter in this scenario)
A neighborhood watch commander starts following her through a neighborhood. She hides and eventually attacks him with some sort of improvised weapon (rock, keys, etc).
She hits him in the head and he shoots her during the altercation.
Now, we don't know exactly why she hid and attacked (she died), and he claims he was following her as part of neighborhood watch (same police phone calls as zimmerman case).
Does that make a difference?
-
I had an interesting conversation with a friend about this.
What if Trayvon was a girl? (race doesn't matter in this scenario)
A neighborhood watch commander starts following her through a neighborhood. She hides and eventually attacks him with some sort of improvised weapon (rock, keys, etc).
She hits him in the head and he shoots her during the altercation.
Now, we don't know exactly why she hid and attacked (she died), and he claims he was following her as part of neighborhood watch (same police phone calls as zimmerman case).
Does that make a difference?
Hmmm....I guess a more vulnerable figure would elicit more sympathy than, in some cases, Trayvon's maleness has generated. But, I'd have to say if she attacked him and he felt that his life was at stake, then the use of deadly force in defense of his life is justified.
-
Hmmm....I guess a more vulnerable figure would elicit more sympathy than, in some cases, Trayvon's maleness has generated. But, I'd have to say if she attacked him and he felt that his life was at stake, then the use of deadly force in defense of his life is justified.
I think the problem in both scenarios is that we don't know how/why the altercation began. If the girl was attacking because she thought he was a stalker/rapist, it would be hard to argue against that. Same goes for Trayvon.
Unfortunately, in both cases, only one person survived, and now we are left to put together the pieces based upon his testimony and some fuzzy evidence from 911 calls.
-
I think the problem in both scenarios is that we don't know how/why the altercation began. If the girl was attacking because she thought he was a stalker/rapist, it would be hard to argue against that. Same goes for Trayvon.
Unfortunately, in both cases, only one person survived, and now we are left to put together the pieces based upon his testimony and some fuzzy evidence from 911 calls.
Until the details are known it is impossible to place blame regardless of the gender or race of either party.
-
I had an interesting conversation with a friend about this.
What if Trayvon was a girl? (race doesn't matter in this scenario)
A neighborhood watch commander starts following her through a neighborhood. She hides and eventually attacks him with some sort of improvised weapon (rock, keys, etc).
She hits him in the head and he shoots her during the altercation.
Now, we don't know exactly why she hid and attacked (she died), and he claims he was following her as part of neighborhood watch (same police phone calls as zimmerman case).
Does that make a difference?
It would make a significant difference because you'd be hard-pressed to find a person who'd believe that a 28-year-old man in good physical condition was being overpowered by a 17-year-old girl. The shooter would also likely be viewed as a molester/rapist because he was following around a teenage girl, regardless of whether or not she fit the description of a person who had recently burglarized the neighborhood.
-
It would make a significant difference because you'd be hard-pressed to find a person who'd believe that a 28-year-old man in good physical condition was being overpowered by a 17-year-old girl. The shooter would also likely be viewed as a molester/rapist because he was following around a teenage girl, regardless of whether or not she fit the description of a person who had recently burglarized the neighborhood.
Agree. We live in the real world, and it would be easy to portray the man as some sort of stalker and say that the teenaged girl hit him out of fear. Jury would have a tough time believing self defense for a dude that was following a girl.
But, it's the same scenario that we have going with Trayvon. Did Trayvon lash out at Zimmerman out of fear? If Trayvon was really scared, why didn't he just run? Who was pleading/screaming on the 911 calls? Did Zimmerman shoot for self defense, or anger after Trayvon hit him?
It will be interesting to see how the forensics play out.
-
Until the details are known it is impossible to place blame regardless of the gender or race of either party.
Legally, you are correct.
However, as I've said before, I just don't like Zimmerman's whole act, and I think this whole thing is easily preventable with a little more common sense and less gun play.
- wear a yellow jacket and clearly identify yourself to everybody you see
- work in pairs
- use large flashlights so everybody in the neighborhood sees you out walking around
- don't go against dispatcher's instructions
etc. etc.
BUT, we've already gone around and around on that stuff.
It's all about the legality now.
-
Legally, you are correct.
However, as I've said before, I just don't like Zimmerman's whole act, and I think this whole thing is easily preventable with a little more common sense and less gun play.
- wear a yellow jacket and clearly identify yourself to everybody you see
- work in pairs
- use large flashlights so everybody in the neighborhood sees you out walking around
- don't go against dispatcher's instructions
etc. etc.
BUT, we've already gone around and around on that stuff.
It's all about the legality now.
Common sense? Don't you think that's asking a little too much?
-
Common sense? Don't you think that's asking a little too much?
Plenty of things in this world that are legal, but aren't good common sense.
But, I suppose if they can prove your lack of common sense led to a death, that is illegal... but it's not murder... which opens up a whole different can of worms.
-
I had an interesting conversation with a friend about this.
What if Trayvon was a girl? (race doesn't matter in this scenario)
A neighborhood watch commander starts following her through a neighborhood. She hides and eventually attacks him with some sort of improvised weapon (rock, keys, etc).
She hits him in the head and he shoots her during the altercation.
Now, we don't know exactly why she hid and attacked (she died), and he claims he was following her as part of neighborhood watch (same police phone calls as zimmerman case).
Does that make a difference?
What if Zimmerman was a girl? And/or African American? And what if Trayvon was "half white", as some media reports describe Zimmerman? And isn't that descriptiion in and of itself an interesting topic for discussion? My guess is if any component of this story change people's narratives change with it.
-
What if Zimmerman was a girl? And/or African American? And what if Trayvon was "half white", as some media reports describe him? And isn't that descriptiion in and of itself an interesting topic for discussion? My guess is if any component of this story change people's narratives change with it.
Absolutely. If Zimmerman was an old lady out on neighborhood watch, it makes a difference.