MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: ATL MU Warrior on July 19, 2013, 09:41:02 AM
-
Jim Brown is a bigoted animal unworthy of respect. His savagery crosses 5 decades. I am not sure what he has done for the black community other than beat senseless numerous black women. Musial, on the other hand, was the consummate gentleman. While both are at the pinnacle of accomplishment in their respective sports the character factor eliminates Brown from any "Greatest Ever" conversation.
I would write more but I need to get my hoodie out of the dryer and head down to the Outrage March taking place in downtown Seattle. Evidently our judicial system does not measure up in the eyes of some.
Jesus. What if it was your kid who got killed? And the guy who murdered him got off scott free? Would outrage be justified then?
-
nm.
Don't want to turn this thread into THAT discussion.
-
Back to the thread topic,
GQ's blog is critical of both JFB and Nick Young. I think JFB nailed the fit, but the everything put together is meh. GQ points out that a more stark contrast to the white jacket would have been more visually appealing (blue, black, red pants) Hell, I think a darker jacket and white pants would have been an improvement. Treading in the right direction.
http://www.gq.com/style/profiles/201307/the-best-and-worst-dressed-men-at-the-2013-espys#slide=2 (http://www.gq.com/style/profiles/201307/the-best-and-worst-dressed-men-at-the-2013-espys#slide=2)
-
The worst kind of racists are the ones that think that they aren't. I'm sure he'd be great buddies with Pat Buchanan.
Now this is an ironic post.
-
Jesus. What if it was your kid who got killed? And the guy who murdered him got off scott free? Would outrage be justified then?
Tragic? Yes. Heartbreaking? Absolutely. Was Zimmerman responsible for the death of a young man? No doubt. Murder? Not based on the evidence. And to say that Zimmerman got off "scott free" is a stretch. His life is forever altered in a most definite way. IMHO, had the prosecution charged him more reasonably the result (1-3 years in prison?) would have been better for everyone, including him. As it stands neither he nor the Martin family has a chance to put this tragedy behind them. Ever.
-
Tragic? Yes. Heartbreaking? Absolutely. Was Zimmerman responsible for the death of a young man? No doubt. Murder? Not based on the evidence. And to say that Zimmerman got off "scott free" is a stretch. His life is forever altered in a most definite way. IMHO, had the prosecution charged him more reasonably the result (1-3 years in prison?) would have been better for everyone, including him. As it stands neither he nor the Martin family has a chance to put this tragedy behind them. Ever.
Pretty much how I feel.
-
Tragic? Yes. Heartbreaking? Absolutely. Was Zimmerman responsible for the death of a young man? No doubt. Murder? Not based on the evidence. And to say that Zimmerman got off "scott free" is a stretch. His life is forever altered in a most definite way. IMHO, had the prosecution charged him more reasonably the result (1-3 years in prison?) would have been better for everyone, including him. As it stands neither he nor the Martin family has a chance to put this tragedy behind them. Ever.
But he still has a life. The same can't be said for the victim he gunned down.
-
Jim Brown is a bigoted animal unworthy of respect. His savagery crosses 5 decades. I am not sure what he has done for the black community other than beat senseless numerous black women. Musial, on the other hand, was the consummate gentleman. While both are at the pinnacle of accomplishment in their respective sports the character factor eliminates Brown from any "Greatest Ever" conversation.
I would write more but I need to get my hoodie out of the dryer and head down to the Outrage March taking place in downtown Seattle. Evidently our judicial system does not measure up in the eyes of some.
Apparently you didn't miss ANY of Fox News' coverage.
-
Tragic? Yes. Heartbreaking? Absolutely. Was Zimmerman responsible for the death of a young man? No doubt. Murder? Not based on the evidence. And to say that Zimmerman got off "scott free" is a stretch. His life is forever altered in a most definite way. IMHO, had the prosecution charged him more reasonably the result (1-3 years in prison?) would have been better for everyone, including him. As it stands neither he nor the Martin family has a chance to put this tragedy behind them. Ever.
Yes...you are correct in everything you say here.
-
Tragic? Yes. Heartbreaking? Absolutely. Was Zimmerman responsible for the death of a young man? No doubt. Murder? Not based on the evidence. And to say that Zimmerman got off "scott free" is a stretch. His life is forever altered in a most definite way. IMHO, had the prosecution charged him more reasonably the result (1-3 years in prison?) would have been better for everyone, including him. As it stands neither he nor the Martin family has a chance to put this tragedy behind them. Ever.
I agree, and I understand why Zimmerman wasn't convicted. But, I think some of the outrage is based upon the law being wrong, or at least written/interpreted poorly. People are mad because they can't understand how this is "legal".
Personally, I'm still not comfortable with citizens following (and ultimately engaging) other citizens while carrying firearms. It's just a bad idea all around.
This isn't a Charles Bronson movie.
-
I agree, and I understand why Zimmerman wasn't convicted. But, I think some of the outrage regarding the verdict is based upon the law being wrong, or at least written/interpreted poorly. People are mad because they can't don't understand how our this is "legal" system works.
Personally, I'm still not comfortable with undereducated citizens following (and ultimately engaging) other citizens while carrying firearms. It's just a bad idea all around.
This isn't a Charles Bronson Jeff Daniels movie.
FIFY
-
Apparently you didn't miss ANY of Fox News' coverage.
How do you feel about Nancy Grace's coverage on CNN?
-
FIFY
I understand how the legal system works completely.
But, I don't want armed citizens following me or my kids around my own neighborhood.
Therefore, I'm not sure I'm in favor of the current laws, or interpretation of those laws.
-
I understand how the legal system works completely.
But, I don't want armed citizens following me or my kids around my own neighborhood.
Therefore, I'm not sure I'm in favor of the current laws, or interpretation of those laws.
Put an end to gun culture and change your username. It influences me to purchase multiple firearms and ammunition. I am helpless against puns.
-
But, I don't want armed citizens following me or my kids around my own neighborhood.
If ever my neighborhood watch officer is following me and my kids around, he damn well better have a gun.... because it's not me he's following, it's the guy who's following me that he's following.
-
Tragic? Yes. Heartbreaking? Absolutely. Was Zimmerman responsible for the death of a young man? No doubt. Murder? Not based on the evidence. And to say that Zimmerman got off "scott free" is a stretch. His life is forever altered in a most definite way. IMHO, had the prosecution charged him more reasonably the result (1-3 years in prison?) would have been better for everyone, including him. As it stands neither he nor the Martin family has a chance to put this tragedy behind them. Ever.
Yep. And the problem is with this well reasoned line of thinking is that it gets the nuts on either end of the spectrum mad at you. Seriously, I said this same basic thing in response to a friend's Facebook post, and another friend of his called me a racist. OK...
-
Guys, guys, take it to another message board. This is the last thing we need to be discussing here.
-
Thibs said JFB is starting at SG next year. What are the chances Jimmy has a better year than D Wade? Pretty good I think.
-
Yep. And the problem is with this well reasoned line of thinking is that it gets the nuts on either end of the spectrum mad at you. Seriously, I said this same basic thing in response to a friend's Facebook post, and another friend of his called me a racist. OK...
People on (either) fringe are pretty much always angry and looking to get angrier. And once they've run the facts through their personal filters, the bigots on the other side appear obvious. the ones on their own side, not so much.
-
Thibs said JFB is starting at SG next year. What are the chances Jimmy has a better year than D Wade? Pretty good I think.
What is this post doin' in this thread?
-
Thibs said JFB is starting at SG next year. What are the chances Jimmy has a better year than D Wade? Pretty good I think.
Slim to none.
-
Thibs said JFB is starting at SG next year. What are the chances Jimmy has a better year than D Wade? Pretty good I think.
No chance. Wade had a "down" season last year and still went for 21-5-5 on 52% shooting. Wade should put up a similar line this season and while Butler's production will go up, I don't see him reaching All-Star level numbers.
That said, 2013-14 NBA Most Improved Player: Jimmy Butler
-
FIFY
HOF post
-
Really Keefe?
I was taking the piss out of Chico there. But I do stand by my comments about Jim Brown. The man is a brutal savage.
People in the States manufacture drama over events that would never register in other parts of the world. The whole Zimmerman-Martin circus is perhaps tragic but wholly unworthy of the attention it has received.
A sister and her husband are physicians and do a Médecins Sans Frontières gig every 5 years. As I was returning to the USAF they had just completed a stint at a refugee camp in Eritrea. Since I was in transition I took three months to work as an unpaid volunteer flying relief supplies from Europe to refugee camps in the Horn of Africa (Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya) for Oxfam. I have never seen such impoverishment and desperation. Every day in those camps dozens of children under the age of 10 die from lack of clean water. Malnourishment. Disease. Exposure.
I ask where is the anguish for the thousands of young African children dying every year? There is genuine tragedy of a far more horrific and greater scale than what happened in Florida. It is easy to pontificate while sipping chardonnay. Those with genuine concern about injustice would be in Somalia, Mumbai, the West Bank, or Nepal trying to right the wrongs rather than shaking one's fist at their 60" HDTV screen or seething with fury at how the pundits on Fox/CNN are so woefully ignorant.
My wife visited me during those 100 days and traveled to the camps. Her experience there led her eventually to the Gates Foundation where she worked clean water initiatives in the developing world (work that our daughter has continued.) It is easy to be an evangelical dogmatic from the comfort of suburban America. It is profoundly different to actually do something about it.
-
I was taking the piss out of Chico there. But I do stand by my comments about Jim Brown. The man is a brutal savage.
People in the States manufacture drama over events that would never register in other parts of the world. The whole Zimmerman-Martin circus is perhaps tragic but wholly unworthy of the attention it has received.
A sister and her husband are physicians and do a Médecins Sans Frontières gig every 5 years. As I was returning to the USAF they had just completed a stint at a refugee camp in Eritrea. Since I was in transition I took three months to work as an unpaid volunteer flying relief supplies from Europe to refugee camps in the Horn of Africa (Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya) for Oxfam. I have never seen such impoverishment and desperation. Every day in those camps dozens of children under the age of 10 die from lack of clean water. Malnourishment. Disease. Exposure.
I ask where is the anguish for the thousands of young African children dying every year? There is genuine tragedy of a far more horrific and greater scale than what happened in Florida. It is easy to pontificate while sipping chardonnay. Those with genuine concern about injustice would be in Somalia, Mumbai, the West Bank, or Nepal trying to right the wrongs rather than shaking one's fist at their 60" HDTV screen or seething with fury at how the pundits on Fox/CNN are so woefully ignorant.
My wife visited me during those 100 days and traveled to the camps. Her experience there led her eventually to the Gates Foundation where she worked clean water initiatives in the developing world (work that our daughter has continued.) It is easy to be an evangelical dogmatic from the comfort of suburban America. It is profoundly different to actually do something about it.
Your life experiences and your intellect invariably add needed perspective.
-
Slim to none.
Jimmy is young, healthy, on an uptick. Dwyane is none of the above. He'll almost certainly miss time due to injuries, so I don't think it's far fetched to think that Jimmy's numbers will be close to Dwyane's next year.
-
I ask where is the anguish for the thousands of young African American men children dying every year in this country at the hands of other African American men? There is genuine tragedy of a far more horrific and greater scale than what happened in Florida. It is easy to pontificate while sipping chardonnay.
FIFY
-
Jimmy is young, healthy, on an uptick. Dwyane is none of the above. He'll almost certainly miss time due to injuries, so I don't think it's far fetched to think that Jimmy's numbers will be close to Dwyane's next year.
The statement was a "better year" than DWade, but care to make it interesting?
I think that Jimmy will have a solid year, but Wade still has gas in the tank.
But honestly, just think how preposterous this argument would have sounded 4 years ago. Gotta love it.
-
What part needs further explanation, happy to provide it.
Help me understand...because he helped out certain communities, he gets a pass on beating women? Is that YOURposition, or are you saying certain communities give him a pass on being a violent, woman beating pig of a human being, because he helped those communities.
-
Help me understand...because he helped out certain communities, he gets a pass on beating women? Is that YOURposition, or are you saying certain communities give him a pass on being a violent, woman beating pig of a human being, because he helped those communities.
I'm saying there are certain folks that commit crimes in our society, or cheat on their spouses, or don't pay taxes, or fill in the blank societal no-no and they are given a pass. A chance to rehabilitate. A "oh that's just XX being XX". I can rattle off an amazing list as I'm sure you can as well.
There are other folks, that may commit those exact same crimes, may cheat on their spouses, or don't pay taxes, or have committed some other societal no-no and there is no pass. They are convicted in the court of public opinion on the spot, with never a chance for recovery or rehabilitation. No second chances. No reelection. Done. Toast.
My comments were in general, that some folks because of who they are, because media is in their corner (or on the flip side, not in their corner), etc, get a pass or a gentle slap on the hand.
-
The statement was a "better year" than DWade, but care to make it interesting?
I think that Jimmy will have a solid year, but Wade still has gas in the tank.
But honestly, just think how preposterous this argument would have sounded 4 years ago. Gotta love it.
I also think Wade has some gas in the tank. He'll average more points, assists and probably more rebounds per game than Butler. But if Jimmy plays 80 games and Dwyane plays 50 how do you judge "the better year"?
Your final thought is dead on - the idea that this would even be a matter for discussion 4 years ago was absurd. Go Dwyane, go Jimmy.
-
I'm saying there are certain folks that commit crimes in our society, or cheat on their spouses, or don't pay taxes, or fill in the blank societal no-no and they are given a pass. A chance to rehabilitate. A "oh that's just XX being XX". I can rattle off an amazing list as I'm sure you can as well.
There are other folks, that may commit those exact same crimes, may cheat on their spouses, or don't pay taxes, or have committed some other societal no-no and there is no pass. They are convicted in the court of public opinion on the spot, with never a chance for recovery or rehabilitation. No second chances. No reelection. Done. Toast.
My comments were in general, that some folks because of who they are, because media is in their corner (or on the flip side, not in their corner), etc, get a pass or a gentle slap on the hand.
I agree with your generalized comments whole heartedly. One of the biggest "communities" that is guilty of this, in my opinion is the media. A more recent example is the Martin/Zimmerman deal. Look at how certain groups lined up behind (fill in the blank), without regard to the facts, because it supported their narrative.
-
The statement was a "better year" than DWade, but care to make it interesting?
I think that Jimmy will have a solid year, but Wade still has gas in the tank.
But honestly, just think how preposterous this argument would have sounded 4 years ago. Gotta love it.
Well, it isn't really a discussion. One is a first ballot Hall-of-Famer nearing the end of his career whereas the other one is a serviceable NBA player who had a nice three week stretch during the Playoffs.
I know the Butler lovefest is out of control in this forum but let's see Jimmy get to the level of Wesley Matthews first before we start claiming he'll be better then the greatest talent to ever wear our jersey.
-
Well, it isn't really a discussion. One is a first ballot Hall-of-Famer nearing the end of his career whereas the other one is a serviceable NBA player who had a nice three week stretch during the Playoffs.
I know the Butler lovefest is out of control in this forum but let's see Jimmy get to the level of Wesley Matthews first before we start claiming he'll be better then the greatest talent to ever wear our jersey.
Well said.
If Butler puts up 13-5-2, it would be a huge step up for him.
If Wade puts up 18-4-4, people would be calling for him to retire.
-
JFB,don't get married for a while!!
-
Sorry for the 3-4 messages above that are JFB related. The topic split is a meat cleaver.
You can re-post in the JFB thread.
-
If ever my neighborhood watch officer is following me and my kids around, he damn well better have a gun.... because it's not me he's following, it's the guy who's following me that he's following.
I guess you feel this kind of tragedy can NEVER happen to you. Wake up dude. Anyone can be profiled.
-
Your life experiences and your intellect invariably add needed perspective.
I think we need Keefe to publish an autobiography so he can finally for once get off his chest how worldy and intellcatually superior he is to everyone. Hell, we might even be able to do it ourseleves by piecing together his posts on here.
-
I guess you feel this kind of tragedy can NEVER happen to you. Wake up dude. Anyone can be profiled.
Anyone can win the Powerball seventeen times in a row, too... that doesn't mean it's going to happen.
I've introduced myself to my neighbors, I don't attack people I don't know, I don't run from the authorities, and I don't walk around in strange neighborhoods. Suffice to say the chance of a tragedy like this happening to me is so infinitesimal, it might as well be a statistical impossibility.
-
I think we need Keefe to publish an autobiography so he can finally for once get off his chest how worldy and intellcatually superior he is to everyone. Hell, we might even be able to do it ourseleves by piecing together his posts on here.
Nice....
-
Anyone can win the Powerball seventeen times in a row, too... that doesn't mean it's going to happen.
I've introduced myself to my neighbors, I don't attack people I don't know, I don't run from the authorities, and I don't walk around in strange neighborhoods. Suffice to say the chance of a tragedy like this happening to me is so infinitesimal, it might as well be a statistical impossibility.
Who ran from authorities? Who was walking in strange neighborhoods?
I agree it is a statistical impossibility, cause you are white. To think, you don't ever walk in your aunt's hood or you won't defend yourself when attacked is silly.
Fact: in Florida, you can pick a fight, lose, then shoot the person who beats you and it is ok. period. I don't care about this instance. I can go to Florida, pick a fight and then shoot the other guy if they start kicking my ass. Who likes that idea?
-
Who ran from authorities? Who was walking in strange neighborhoods?
I agree it is a statistical impossibility, cause you are white. To think, you don't ever walk in your aunt's hood or you won't defend yourself when attacked is silly.
Fact: in Florida, you can pick a fight, lose, then shoot the person who beats you and it is ok. period. I don't care about this instance. I can go to Florida, pick a fight and then shoot the other guy if they start kicking my ass. Who likes that idea?
You obviously don't understand the Stand Your Ground law.
-
You obviously don't understand the Stand Your Ground law.
Pretty straightforward.
A stand-your-ground law is a type of self-defense law that gives individuals the right to use reasonable force to defend themselves without any requirement to evade or retreat from a dangerous situation. It is law in certain jurisdictions within the United States. The basis may lie in either statutory law and or common law precedents. One key distinction is whether the concept only applies to defending a home or vehicle, or whether it applies to all lawfully occupied locations. Under these legal concepts, a person is justified in using deadly force in certain situations and the "stand your ground" law would be a defense or immunity to criminal charges and civil suit. (From wiki, sue me)
We don't know all of the facts, but it is fairly certain the events below happened. All of the racial implications, dozens of 911 calls by GZ in the past, obsession with neighborhood watch, while somewhat relevant, are not deciding factors in this case.
1. GZ called police on TM because he looked suspicious.
2. TM noticed GZ following him, and tried to evade him.
3. Police said, don't leave your vehicle, let police handle it.
4. GZ left his vehicle anyway and confronted TM.
5. Unknown: Did TM run and attack GZ, did GZ pick a fight with TM???
6. Evidenced suggested GZ was getting beat up by TM.
7. GZ shot TM in the chest.
GZ had multiple opportunities to not escalate the situation, but he didn't. According to state law, it is not illegal to ignore police commands, have horribly poor judgement, and escalate situations while armed, thus not guilty.
-
Pretty straightforward.
A stand-your-ground law is a type of self-defense law that gives individuals the right to use reasonable force to defend themselves without any requirement to evade or retreat from a dangerous situation. It is law in certain jurisdictions within the United States. The basis may lie in either statutory law and or common law precedents. One key distinction is whether the concept only applies to defending a home or vehicle, or whether it applies to all lawfully occupied locations. Under these legal concepts, a person is justified in using deadly force in certain situations and the "stand your ground" law would be a defense or immunity to criminal charges and civil suit. (From wiki, sue me)
We don't know all of the facts, but it is fairly certain the events below happened. All of the racial implications, dozens of 911 calls by GZ in the past, obsession with neighborhood watch, while somewhat relevant, are not deciding factors in this case.
1. GZ called police on TM because he looked suspicious.
2. TM noticed GZ following him, and tried to evade him.
3. Police said, don't leave your vehicle, let police handle it.
4. GZ left his vehicle anyway and confronted TM.
5. Unknown: Did TM run and attack GZ, did GZ pick a fight with TM???
6. Evidenced suggested GZ was getting beat up by TM.
7. GZ shot TM in the chest.
GZ had multiple opportunities to not escalate the situation, but he didn't. According to state law, it is not illegal to ignore police commands, have horribly poor judgement, and escalate situations while armed, thus not guilty.
#3 and 4 are common misconceptions. At no point did the police tell Zimmerman to stay in his car. While he was on the line with the police dispatcher, he got out of his car and began following Martin. The dispatcher asked if he was following Martin and when he stated that he was, the dispatcher responded, "We don't need you to do that." During the trial, even Martin's lawyers acknowledged that there was no directive for Zimmerman to stay in his car.
Martin had minor scratch on his hand but no other injuries aside from the obvious. Therefore, it is unlikely that Zimmerman physically attacked Martin. Martin may have felt threatened and started a fight, but that we just don't know.
-
Who ran from authorities? Who was walking in strange neighborhoods?
I agree it is a statistical impossibility, cause you are white. To think, you don't ever walk in your aunt's hood or you won't defend yourself when attacked is silly.
Fact: in Florida, you can pick a fight, lose, then shoot the person who beats you and it is ok. period. I don't care about this instance. I can go to Florida, pick a fight and then shoot the other guy if they start kicking my ass. Who likes that idea?
Not sure I'm reading this right, are you suggesting TM was attacked? Are you also suggesting GZ picked a fight?
-
#3 and 4 are common misconceptions. At no point did the police tell Zimmerman to stay in his car. While he was on the line with the police dispatcher, he got out of his car and began following Martin. The dispatcher asked if he was following Martin and when he stated that he was, the dispatcher responded, "We don't need you to do that." During the trial, even Martin's lawyers acknowledged that there was no directive for Zimmerman to stay in his car.
Martin had minor scratch on his hand but no other injuries aside from the obvious. Therefore, it is unlikely that Zimmerman physically attacked Martin. Martin may have felt threatened and started a fight, but that we just don't know.
Correct analysis. It's amazing how effortlessly some ignore what the transcript says.
As for the question if Martin started the fight .. when Martin's "girlfriend" who he was on the phone with said she believed Martin threw the first punch .. only the most willing suspenders of disbelief can think otherwise.
-
#3 and 4 are common misconceptions. At no point did the police tell Zimmerman to stay in his car. While he was on the line with the police dispatcher, he got out of his car and began following Martin. The dispatcher asked if he was following Martin and when he stated that he was, the dispatcher responded, "We don't need you to do that." During the trial, even Martin's lawyers acknowledged that there was no directive for Zimmerman to stay in his car.
Martin had minor scratch on his hand but no other injuries aside from the obvious. Therefore, it is unlikely that Zimmerman physically attacked Martin. Martin may have felt threatened and started a fight, but that we just don't know.
+1. The State never entered any evidence that Zimmerman pursued or confronted Martin. Not only that, the state didn't even attempt to spin the transcript from the 911 call in the prosecution's favor.
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html
Dispatcher: "Are you following him?"
Zimmerman: "Yeah."
Dispatcher: "OK, we don't need you to do that."
Zimmerman: "OK."
Dispatcher: "Alright sir, what's your name."
Zimmerman: "George.... he ran"
Call me crazy, but when someone tells you that you don't need to follow someone you say "OK" and then you say "he ran," I'm pretty certain that a rational person would interpret that as the end of the pursuit right there. But there's more... just 12 lines later:
Dispatcher: "What's your apartment number"
Zimmerman: "It's a home, it's 1950, oh crap I don't want to give it all out, I don't know where this kid is."
It's kind of difficult to pursue someone when you don't know where that person is.
-
You obviously don't understand the Stand Your Ground law.
I'll be honest, I don't understand it at all.
In theory, I could take my gun, follow somebody around, and if that person attacks me, I can shoot them?
Is that right?
I know there is far more nuance in the Zimmerman case, but just from a big picture view, that's what it seems like.
Could I go out on Water St. and follow somebody around, get in a fight, and then shoot that person? Would that be "stand your ground"?
I'm not trying to be a smart ass, but I honestly don't know how to interpret it.
-
You obviously don't understand the Stand Your Ground law.
This wasn't a stand your ground case. The defense did not invoke it... for obvious reasons.
-
I'll be honest, I don't understand it at all.
In theory, I could take my gun, follow somebody around, and if that person attacks me, I can shoot them?
Is that right?
I know there is far more nuance in the Zimmerman case, but just from a big picture view, that's what it seems like.
Could I go out on Water St. and follow somebody around, get in a fight, and then shoot that person? Would that be "stand your ground"?
I'm not trying to be a smart ass, but I honestly don't know how to interpret it.
Historically, in order to use the argument of "self-defense" to justify a homicide of an attacker, you had to demonstrate that certain conditions existed, most commonly a) you attempted to retreat/avoid the situation and b) a threat of imminent danger to life/limb was present.
Before SYG, there was the "castle doctrine" which basically gives certain legal protections to a person using force in protecting their home/dwelling (their "castle") against an intruder (i.e. someone who is not invited and enters the home/dwelling illegally); most often, it is raised when the person uses deadly force against the intruder, but it can also be applicable even when no death or injury occurs. The basis of CD was that requiring a person who was already in his/her home to "retreat" was unreasonable.
SYG is similar to CD but SYG extends beyond the home/dwelling provided that he/she is in a place/location they are lawfully permitted to be and removes the duty to retreat/evade the situation.
Not every state has SYG or CD, and of those that do, the conditions/protections/etc. vary amongst them. Burdens of proof are different. What constitutes "deadly force" is different. To answer your question, though... Wisconsin does not have SYG, so what you portrayed in theory is not SYG. Though if you could justify following someone around and were subsequently attacked by that person, you might have a defense in a SYG state if you injured or killed the attacker (regardless of whether or not you used a gun).
-
Historically, in order to use the argument of "self-defense" to justify a homicide of an attacker, you had to demonstrate that certain conditions existed, most commonly a) you attempted to retreat/avoid the situation and b) a threat of imminent danger to life/limb was present.
Before SYG, there was the "castle doctrine" which basically gives certain legal protections to a person using force in protecting their home/dwelling (their "castle") against an intruder (i.e. someone who is not invited and enters the home/dwelling illegally); most often, it is raised when the person uses deadly force against the intruder, but it can also be applicable even when no death or injury occurs. The basis of CD was that requiring a person who was already in his/her home to "retreat" was unreasonable.
SYG is similar to CD but SYG extends beyond the home/dwelling provided that he/she is in a place/location they are lawfully permitted to be and removes the duty to retreat/evade the situation.
Not every state has SYG or CD, and of those that do, the conditions/protections/etc. vary amongst them. Burdens of proof are different. What constitutes "deadly force" is different. To answer your question, though... Wisconsin does not have SYG, so what you portrayed in theory is not SYG. Though if you could justify following someone around and were subsequently attacked by that person, you might have a defense in a SYG state if you injured or killed the attacker (regardless of whether or not you used a gun).
Alright, thanks for clarifying.
I guess the tricky part for me is the part highlighted in RED.
I just don't like the idea of armed civilians deciding who they should or shouldn't follow around. Too many bad things can happen, and the consequences of a firearm are instant, and often permanent.
-
I think the Bunk and Lester Freamon convey my views on this whole disgusting
and embarrassing episode.
http://www.youtube.com/v/e6r2a2PaQPI&fs=1&source=uds
-
This wasn't a stand your ground case. The defense did not invoke it... for obvious reasons.
Correct. Not sure why people keep bringing it up, it was never invoked. Didn't need to be, they could claim self defense, which they did, and got the verdict that was fairly obvious because it was so difficult for the prosecution to prove otherwise.
-
This wasn't a stand your ground case. The defense did not invoke it... for obvious reasons.
Correct. Not sure why people keep bringing it up, it was never invoked. Didn't need to be, they could claim self defense, which they did, and got the verdict that was fairly obvious because it was so difficult for the prosecution to prove otherwise.
I never said this was a SYG case. If you re-read the post I was responding to, Rawdog stated: "Fact: in Florida, you can pick a fight, lose, then shoot the person who beats you and it is ok. period. I don't care about this instance."
He was speaking in general terms and his "fact" was not factual.
-
I think the Bunk and Lester Freamon convey my views on this whole disgusting
and embarrassing episode.
http://www.youtube.com/v/e6r2a2PaQPI&fs=1&source=uds
Great show.
Makes you wonder where the folks that are pushing the race angle to their own benefit, why they do not scream at the top of their lungs about what's going on with members of the community. On the weekend news shows they were saying that over 50% of homicides in this country are committed by African Americans despite making up only 12.7% of the population. Talk about overindexing. An African American who is murdered...93% of the time it is at the hands of another African American. Staggering.
-
The juror who has spoken out claims that during deliberation they all discussed SYG at great length. Invoked or not, the jury considered it, and heavily so.
-
The flip side of the stand your ground law is some people's lives have been saved as a result. Not in this case with TM, but in other cases where the assailant was armed also, it has meant a fighting chance. I remember arguments like this on the Castle Doctrine...which allows deadly force if you home is invaded by someone to protect property. Lots of people hate that law, but how is a homeowner supposed to know if the invader is armed, what their intentions are, etc. For me that one is pretty simple...don't invade a home and you don't have to worry about getting killed by an armed homeowner.
-
The juror who has spoken out claims that during deliberation they all discussed SYG at great length. Invoked or not, the jury considered it, and heavily so.
I saw that...although it does raise the question of what they were discussing. They didn't have any instructions relating to SYG, so without more information from that juror, I can't help but wonder if they were talking about the actual SYG statute; their understanding of the actual statute; or something entirely different (e.g., self defense) that they referred to as SYG. I'm not saying they didn't talk about SYG, but over the years I've seen and heard jurors use legal terms that they had absolutely no idea what they were talking about (hell...I see a lot of lawyers doing it...and I'm sure I've done it plenty of times myself). Just because the juror said they talked about SYG, doesn't mean they actually talked about or considered that legal doctrine. I could definitely see a juror saying, "I think you've got a right to stand your ground...after all, if you fear for your life, you're allowed to protect yourself." A statement like that, which I've heard from people in personal conversations and read on message boards, shows that the person saying it is confusing two different legal concepts (SYG and self defense). The fact that a lot of people still think that the trial dealt with SYG (as opposed to the jurors discussing it -- which, as you mentioned, has been alleged) just shows that this is not an uncommon mistake.
-
The juror who has spoken out claims that during deliberation they all discussed SYG at great length. Invoked or not, the jury considered it, and heavily so.
So she took time out of negotiating her book deal to deliberate? Good for her.
-
Alright, thanks for clarifying.
I guess the tricky part for me is the part highlighted in RED.
I just don't like the idea of armed civilians deciding who they should or shouldn't follow around. Too many bad things can happen, and the consequences of a firearm are instant, and often permanent.
I trust that you are aware that George Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch program coordinator (captain, leader, whatever you want to call it) for his complex, and he was selected by the residents of the Retreat at Twin Lakes to that post. Is it that unreasonable to believe that most people in such a position in a similar locale would reasonably be expected to carry a weapon?
Also, let's not forget that the actual physical confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin lasted for more than 40 seconds... regardless of who instigated the fight or who was "winning" the fight, that's a long time to be fighting (as was acknowledged by the forensic expert). You don't go that long in a fight without firing a shot unless you've gone through your alternatives first.
This was not a case where someone went looking for a fight and fired shots only to later claim self-defense or SYG. This is a case where a neighborhood watch volunteer was on the lookout for and observed what he suspected was suspicious activity, a confrontation ensued, and the decision to discharge a firearm was, at most, a secondary consideration. These facts paint a much different picture than the one the media and the PPA are portraying based on speculation and unfounded beliefs.
Frankly, I have no problem with Zimmerman carrying a gun in this case... if Martin was the one carrying the gun, there would have been no outrage; but put the gun in the hand of someone who is actually trying to prevent rather than cause crime, and you have a full-blown media firestorm.
-
I trust that you are aware that George Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch program coordinator (captain, leader, whatever you want to call it) for his complex, and he was selected by the residents of the Retreat at Twin Lakes to that post. Is it that unreasonable to believe that most people in such a position in a similar locale would reasonably be expected to carry a weapon?
Also, let's not forget that the actual physical confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin lasted for more than 40 seconds... regardless of who instigated the fight or who was "winning" the fight, that's a long time to be fighting (as was acknowledged by the forensic expert). You don't go that long in a fight without firing a shot unless you've gone through your alternatives first.
This was not a case where someone went looking for a fight and fired shots only to later claim self-defense or SYG. This is a case where a neighborhood watch volunteer was on the lookout for and observed what he suspected was suspicious activity, a confrontation ensued, and the decision to discharge a firearm was, at most, a secondary consideration. These facts paint a much different picture than the one the media and the PPA are portraying based on speculation and unfounded beliefs.
Frankly, I have no problem with Zimmerman carrying a gun in this case... if Martin was the one carrying the gun, there would have been no outrage; but put the gun in the hand of someone who is actually trying to prevent rather than cause crime, and you have a full-blown media firestorm.
If you are carrying a firearm on neighborhood watch, you are doing it wrong.
Carry a flashlight. Wear bright colors. Carry a phone. Make yourself known, so the bad guys know you are around. Neighborhood watch is about presence and prevention. It's not about following or engagement.
So, the short answer is, no, I don't think Zimmerman needed to carry a firearm for his safety.
As far as your last statement, I don't really know what to say about that. I don't care about media, race, gender, conservative, liberal, etc.
Bottom line for me:
I don't like citizens carrying firearms and following other citizens around just in case that person MIGHT commit a crime. Regular people aren't trained for it, and a lot of bad things can happen.
-
Bottom line for me:
I don't like citizens carrying firearms and following other citizens around just in case that person MIGHT commit a crime. Regular people aren't trained for it, and a lot of bad things can happen.
(http://img.pandawhale.com/29490-Picard-applause-clapping-gif-s5nz.gif)
-
I trust that you are aware that George Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch program coordinator (captain, leader, whatever you want to call it) for his complex, and he was selected by the residents of the Retreat at Twin Lakes to that post. Is it that unreasonable to believe that most people in such a position in a similar locale would reasonably be expected to carry a weapon?
Also, let's not forget that the actual physical confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin lasted for more than 40 seconds... regardless of who instigated the fight or who was "winning" the fight, that's a long time to be fighting (as was acknowledged by the forensic expert). You don't go that long in a fight without firing a shot unless you've gone through your alternatives first.
This was not a case where someone went looking for a fight and fired shots only to later claim self-defense or SYG. This is a case where a neighborhood watch volunteer was on the lookout for and observed what he suspected was suspicious activity, a confrontation ensued, and the decision to discharge a firearm was, at most, a secondary consideration. These facts paint a much different picture than the one the media and the PPA are portraying based on speculation and unfounded beliefs.
Frankly, I have no problem with Zimmerman carrying a gun in this case... if Martin was the one carrying the gun, there would have been no outrage; but put the gun in the hand of someone who is actually trying to prevent rather than cause crime, and you have a full-blown media firestorm.
I would add that he was using the information he had to form his suspicions. People keep wanting to say that he profiled this kid because he was black. The information of all the robberies of the previous 9 months showed young, African American kids were committing them, including the break-in of his neighbor's place. So that's where his heightened sensitivities were, which only makes common sense.
Here's the deal in my situation. I'm the block captain for my neighborhood watch. Every month we get fliers from the police department to hand out to our street (each street has a captain). On that flier is a list of crimes committed in the previous month, what the status is, any identification of suspects, etc. So if the flier says there is a string of bike thefts of late and the suspects appear to be kids from the high school down the street, then people are going to make sure their bikes aren't out and they are keeping an eye out for high school age kids. We had an armed theft of one of the gas stations in town a few months ago and the camera got a shot of an African American male which was printed up in the flier for all of us. Just common sense. Is that profiling or just being smart and going with the information that is given to us (or to Zimmerman)?
-
I would add that he was using the information he had to form his suspicions. People keep wanting to say that he profiled this kid because he was black. The information of all the robberies of the previous 9 months showed young, African American kids were committing them, including the break-in of his neighbor's place. So that's where his heightened sensitivities were, which only makes common sense.
Here's the deal in my situation. I'm the block captain for my neighborhood watch. Every month we get fliers from the police department to hand out to our street (each street has a captain). On that flier is a list of crimes committed in the previous month, what the status is, any identification of suspects, etc. So if the flier says there is a string of bike thefts of late and the suspects appear to be kids from the high school down the street, then people are going to make sure their bikes aren't out and they are keeping an eye out for high school age kids. We had an armed theft of one of the gas stations in town a few months ago and the camera got a shot of an African American male which was printed up in the flier for all of us. Just common sense. Is that profiling or just being smart and going with the information that is given to us (or to Zimmerman)?
Young black male committed crime, therefore every young black male should be treated with suspicion? Ummm ... that's the very definition of profiling.
Just common sense? Here's what's common sense .... not confronting someone you suspect is a dangerous criminal who's walking away from you, especially after the police have told you not to confront the suspected dangerous criminal who's walking away from you.
The verdict was correct under the law, but it doesn't make George Zimmerman any less of an idiot who unnecessarily caused another person's death.
-
I was really hoping this thread was about the hilarious stupidity of Florida.
Florida Man Sets Library On Fire In Hope Firefighters Will Let Him Help Put It Out
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/strange/floriduh-blog/sfl-flduh-fake-firefighter-20130722,0,4007986.story?track=rss (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/strange/floriduh-blog/sfl-flduh-fake-firefighter-20130722,0,4007986.story?track=rss)
just one of many from the amazing Florida Man
https://twitter.com/_FloridaMan (https://twitter.com/_FloridaMan)
-
I would add that he was using the information he had to form his suspicions. People keep wanting to say that he profiled this kid because he was black. The information of all the robberies of the previous 9 months showed young, African American kids were committing them, including the break-in of his neighbor's place. So that's where his heightened sensitivities were, which only makes common sense.
Here's the deal in my situation. I'm the block captain for my neighborhood watch. Every month we get fliers from the police department to hand out to our street (each street has a captain). On that flier is a list of crimes committed in the previous month, what the status is, any identification of suspects, etc. So if the flier says there is a string of bike thefts of late and the suspects appear to be kids from the high school down the street, then people are going to make sure their bikes aren't out and they are keeping an eye out for high school age kids. We had an armed theft of one of the gas stations in town a few months ago and the camera got a shot of an African American male which was printed up in the flier for all of us. Just common sense. Is that profiling or just being smart and going with the information that is given to us (or to Zimmerman)?
When the police send out those fliers, do they encourage watch members to carry firearms and follow any suspicious characters they see?
-
Young black male committed crime, therefore every young black male should be treated with suspicion? Ummm ... that's the very definition of profiling.
Just common sense? Here's what's common sense .... not confronting someone you suspect is a dangerous criminal who's walking away from you, especially after the police have told you not to confront the suspected dangerous criminal who's walking away from you.
The verdict was correct under the law, but it doesn't make George Zimmerman any less of an idiot who unnecessarily caused another person's death.
I agree on some of your points, but do we know who confronted whom?
-
Young black male committed crime, therefore every young black male should be treated with suspicion? Ummm ... that's the very definition of profiling.
Just common sense? Here's what's common sense .... not confronting someone you suspect is a dangerous criminal who's walking away from you, especially after the police have told you not to confront the suspected dangerous criminal who's walking away from you.
The verdict was correct under the law, but it doesn't make George Zimmerman any less of an idiot who unnecessarily caused another person's death.
That's not treating EVERY young black male with suspicion. That's treating a person wandering around in the rain who fits the profile of suspects involved with break-ins in a specific neighborhood with suspicion. There's a HUGE difference that anyone with an open mind can understand.
Also, Zimmerman was never told by police not to confront Martin. He was told by police that they didn't need him to follow Martin and he then stopped following him. It is believed that Martin actually initiated the confrontation with Zimmerman.
Don't let facts get in the way of your outrage though.
-
That's not treating EVERY young black male with suspicion. That's treating a person wandering around in the rain who fits the profile of suspects involved with break-ins in a specific neighborhood with suspicion. There's a HUGE difference that anyone with an open mind can understand.
Good point. All husbands aren't under suspicion of wishing harm on their wives, but when a wife goes missing it's where the cops look first.
-
That's not treating EVERY young black male with suspicion. That's treating a person wandering around in the rain who fits the profile of suspects involved with break-ins in a specific neighborhood with suspicion. There's a HUGE difference that anyone with an open mind can understand.
Kid wasn't wandering. He was walking home from the store.
And how did he "fit the description"? He was young. And black.
Nice poisoning of the well there at the end though.
It is believed that Martin actually initiated the confrontation with Zimmerman.
Believed by who?
Think about what you're suggesting.
Zimmerman is stalking the kid around the neighborhood. He admits this.
The kid calls a friend and says some "creepy" guy is following him. This is not in dispute.
Zimmerman tells cops the kid ran away from him (i.e. the exact opposite of starting a confrontation).
Now, you believe that after those events, Martin - who had just ran away from Zimmerman - doubled back and pursued Zimmerman? That sounds credible to you?
Or is it perhaps more credible that it was the guy who had been stalking, the guy who had expressed unhappiness to police when Martin ran away from him, and the guy who cops described by police as "overzealous" ... that it was that guy who did the pursuing?
Don't let logic get in the way of your fantasy.
Oh, and for the record, I am indeed outraged when a person gets gunned down for no good reason.
-
Martin's girlfriend believed he began the assault, landing the first punch. Besides a video of the event, she is literally the best person on the planet to make that judgement.
Martin did not get "gunned down" for no good reason. Don't hit people.
-
Martin's girlfriend believed he began the assault, landing the first punch. Besides a video of the event, she is literally the best person on the planet to make that judgement.
Martin did not get "gunned down" for no good reason. Don't hit people.
Don't hit people, but it's TOTES KEWL to shoot people after being hit.
EDIT: If everyone was allowed to legally shoot people they got into a fight with,
this country's population would drop to ZERO, very quickly.
Good point. All husbands aren't under suspicion of wishing harm on their wives, but when a wife goes missing it's where the cops look first.
The police don't (usually) track the husbands down, confront them, then shoot them in the chest, though.
Young black male committed crime, therefore every young black male should be treated with suspicion?
I believe you've captured "America" well here.
I just don't like the idea of armed civilians morons with a double digit IQ and triple digit income deciding who they should or shouldn't follow around. Too many Of course bad things can will happen, and the consequences of a firearm are instant, and often permanent, but sadly par for the course in America.
Fixed.
And to say that Zimmerman got off "scott free" is a stretch. His life is forever altered in a most definite way. IMHO, had the prosecution charged him more reasonably the result (1-3 years in prison?) would have been better for everyone, including him. As it stands neither he nor the Martin family has a chance to put this tragedy behind them. Ever.
Man, if I could only get all of the citizens of the world together, to join hands and weep simultaneously for poor George Zimmerman. The floodgates are open here thinking that the guy might be persona non grata for the rest of his life...that, surely, is the REAL tragedy.
-
Martin did not get "gunned down" for no good reason. Don't hit people.
Yep, cause the completely reasonable and rational response to being punched is to open fire.
(http://becausemerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/pew-pew-pew.jpg)
-
Yep, cause the completely reasonable and rational response to being punched is to open fire.
(http://becausemerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/pew-pew-pew.jpg)
Remember, Martin was also armed with skittles...so it was a totally fair fight.
-
Don't hit people, but it's TOTES KEWL to shoot people after being hit.
Well, true, it's not so much the punch in the nose as it is the bashing of the skull on the sidewalk. That's where you cross the line from going to the hospital to .. a visit to the morgue.
-
If you are carrying a firearm on neighborhood watch, you are doing it wrong.
Carry a flashlight. Wear bright colors. Carry a phone. Make yourself known, so the bad guys know you are around. Neighborhood watch is about presence and prevention. It's not about following or engagement.
So, the short answer is, no, I don't think Zimmerman needed to carry a firearm for his safety.
As far as your last statement, I don't really know what to say about that. I don't care about media, race, gender, conservative, liberal, etc.
Bottom line for me:
I don't like citizens carrying firearms and following other citizens around just in case that person MIGHT commit a crime. Regular people aren't trained for it, and a lot of bad things can happen.
Listen -- 49 states and the Supreme Court say that citizens have the right to carry a firearm for safety. I'm not saying it's the most responsible thing to do, and I'm certainly not implying that everyone should carry a gun. But if a law-abiding citizen reasonably believes that he/she is safer with a gun, then I have no problem with that.
I wholeheartedly agree that people shouldn't carry guns "just in case" someone commits a crime... but George Zimmerman was carrying a gun for his own protection. If you don't agree with that concept, that is certainly your right, but the reality is that those laws are not going to change.
-
Yep, cause the completely reasonable and rational response to being punched is to open fire.
(http://becausemerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/pew-pew-pew.jpg)
What would be the completely reasonable and rational response to someone punching you and telling you "you're going to die tonight, m-fer" as they try to grab your gun?
-
What would be the completely reasonable and rational response to someone punching you and telling you "you're going to die tonight, m-fer" as they try to grab your gun?
I'd say that's an incredible and self-serving story, Mr. Zimmerman.
-
Well Lab Warrior, the 6 women on the jury didn't agree with your analysis that some racist, rednecked, "white Hispanic" pursued, confronted and murdered in cold blood an innocent kid for the sport of it. Of course, those women are probably all dimmed witted racists too. We need some brilliant guy like yourself with a monster IQ to lead a lynch mob over to GZ's place and right this wrong. That would be TOTES KEWL.
-
What would be the completely reasonable and rational response to someone punching you and telling you "you're going to die tonight, m-fer" as they try to grab your gun?
That's called "hearsay," especially since the person "alleged" to have said it is dead,
and the person who claimed he said it isn't.
Also, what would be the reasonable and rational response to some fat, slovenly toadie
following you around after purchasing iced tea and skittles?
-
Well Lab Warrior, the 6 women on the jury didn't agree with your analysis that some racist, rednecked, "white Hispanic" pursued, confronted and murdered in cold blood an innocent kid for the sport of it. Of course, those women are probably all dimmed witted racists too. We need some brilliant guy like yourself with a monster IQ to lead a lynch mob over to GZ's place and right this wrong. That would be TOTES KEWL.
You're correct, I mischaracterized. There were FIVE "dimmed" witted racists,
and one shrewd operator working on her book deal, and ringing Anderson Cooper
to schedule her post verdict interview. Gotta cash in on that dead kid. CHA CHING.
-
If you are carrying a firearm on neighborhood watch, you are doing it wrong.
Why?
To have a conceal permit, you have to be trained. That's a requirement I believe in every state. We can argue about the level of training, but there is some. As a Florida citizen, he has every right to carry that weapon. I have yet to see one study that shows in C&C jurisdictions that crime increases or discharge of guns is somehow elevated as a result. Maybe it is out there, but I would love to read it if so.
-
Well Lab Warrior, the 6 women on the jury didn't agree with your analysis that some racist, rednecked, "white Hispanic" pursued, confronted and murdered in cold blood an innocent kid for the sport of it. Of course, those women are probably all dimmed witted racists too. We need some brilliant guy like yourself with a monster IQ to lead a lynch mob over to GZ's place and right this wrong. That would be TOTES KEWL.
I know lab can defend himself, but I'm pretty sure he said exactly none of those things.
-
Young black male committed crime, therefore every young black male should be treated with suspicion? Ummm ... that's the very definition of profiling.
Just common sense? Here's what's common sense .... not confronting someone you suspect is a dangerous criminal who's walking away from you, especially after the police have told you not to confront the suspected dangerous criminal who's walking away from you.
The verdict was correct under the law, but it doesn't make George Zimmerman any less of an idiot who unnecessarily caused another person's death.
Yup, its profiling and it's also common sense. When a terrorist bomb goes off in the US, would you start with women, grandmas, Boy Scouts, Quakers, or someone from a certain religious persuasion? Of course there is profiling, it's called common sense. Pretty simple.
I agree that Zimmerman is partly at fault. What's also of common sense is not to attack someone, punch him to the point of breaking his nose, slam his head into the concrete and then be stunned that he has something to get you to stop it. Two wrongs. If GZ doesn't follow, probably nothing happens. If TM doesn't attack GZ, probably nothing happens. Both made choices.....unfortunately it tragically ended for one of them and for the other he has been viciously accused of racism, undergoing death threats, etc, etc.
-
Yep, cause the completely reasonable and rational response to being punched is to open fire.
(http://becausemerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/pew-pew-pew.jpg)
Punched, head slammed into concrete repeatedly, 40 seconds long (at least) confrontation.
He didn't get punched, and then shoot. You're not accurately portraying what happened per the witnesses, including TM's girlfriend, per the recording, per Mr. Goode, etc, etc.
Why do so many people make it sound like he just opened up and shot this guy. He didn't. Let's also remember that GZ called the cops...hardly something someone would do if they had the intent to kill someone that night. He also gave 6 voluntary statements to police...again, not the actions of someone that was on the prowl to hunt down someone. Don't punch, beat someone's head into the ground, get on top of them and assault them for 40+ seconds and you probably aren't going to get shot.
-
When the police send out those fliers, do they encourage watch members to carry firearms and follow any suspicious characters they see?
In California, they tell you to open your doors and just let them steal as much as they can and then send a thank you note to the governor.
-
I agree that Zimmerman is partly at fault. What's also of common sense is not to attack someone, punch him to the point of breaking his nose, slam his head into the concrete and then be stunned that he has something to get you to stop it. Two wrongs. If GZ doesn't follow, probably nothing happens. If TM doesn't attack GZ, probably nothing happens. Both made choices.....unfortunately it tragically ended for one of them and for the other he has been viciously accused of racism, undergoing death threats, etc, etc.
Yes, that's what I said. The verdict is correct AND George Zimmerman is an idiot whose actions caused an unnecessary death.
-
I'd say that's an incredible and self-serving story, Mr. Zimmerman.
It may be, but also throw in a broken nose, bashed head, and two eyewitness accounts that he was in a pound and ground stance......makes you wonder. I suspect the jury believed him. I suspect if the jury was able to see all the texts and videos on TM's phone, it would be even easier to believe him. Could GZ have made it up, sure...but he didn't make up a broken nose, a bashed head or two eyewitnesses viewing what they saw in the fight.
-
That's called "hearsay," especially since the person "alleged" to have said it is dead,
and the person who claimed he said it isn't.
Also, what would be the reasonable and rational response to some fat, slovenly toadie
following you around after purchasing iced tea and skittles?
Don't forget the tidbit about the kid looking into the windows of several homes, the rash of recent burglaries by suspects resembling the deceased. Doesn't make him guilty of anything, hardly....but it's also not like GZ said "Hey, I'm going after some guy tonight just because I want to". The 911 calls do plenty to tell of his intent.
-
Yes, that's what I said. The verdict is correct AND George Zimmerman is an idiot whose actions caused an unnecessary death.
You didn't finish it. Martin was ALSO an idiot whose actions caused his unnecessary death. That's the part I'm quibbling with. Don't attack Zimmerman, and you're alive. Very simple. Why are Martin's actions, the ones the ULTIMATELY led to the deathly action completely excused?
-
One problem comes down to asking the jury 'do you believe that the person legitimately feared for his/her life'. This is so subjective.
Perhaps Martin was standing his own ground. Creepy guy follows him, and he feels he has to defend himself. If he sees the gun, he feels even more threatened.
-
One problem comes down to asking the jury 'do you believe that the person legitimately feared for his/her life'. This is so subjective.
Perhaps Martin was standing his own ground. Creepy guy follows him, and he feels he has to defend himself. If he sees the gun, he feels even more threatened.
But what physical altercation did GZ start that would force TM to feel he needed to stand his ground? If he had the gun out...sure. Then again, if he had the gun out I would think a smart person would run and not take on the guy and punch him in the face. Bringing a fist to a gun fight isn't too smart.
-
But what physical altercation did GZ start that would force TM to feel he needed to stand his ground? If he had the gun out...sure. Then again, if he had the gun out I would think a smart person would run and not take on the guy and punch him in the face. Bringing a fist to a gun fight isn't too smart.
Well, you just called TM an idiot, and the one who caused his own death.
AMDG
-
But what physical altercation did GZ start that would force TM to feel he needed to stand his ground? If he had the gun out...sure. Then again, if he had the gun out I would think a smart person would run and not take on the guy and punch him in the face. Bringing a fist to a gun fight isn't too smart.
I'm not sure...lets ask TM...oh wait we can't, lets just take GZ's word for it.
A side question. If TM did attack GZ and GZ didn't have a gun, but instead beat TM to death with his fists, GZ would be in jail right now.
Since he had a gun, he could just take a mans life and receive no punishment.
-
I'm not sure...lets ask TM...oh wait we can't, lets just take GZ's word for it.
A side question. If TM did attack GZ and GZ didn't have a gun, but instead beat TM to death with his fists, GZ would be in jail right now.
Since he had a gun, he could just take a mans life and receive no punishment.
you are aware of the right to self defense?
-
are aware of the right to self defense?
If you incapacitate the attacker you are no longer acting in self defense, to beat a man to death you must first incapacitate them. At that point you are attacking a helpless individual and a self defense stance will almost assuredly fail.
-
Kid wasn't wandering. He was walking home from the store.
And how did he "fit the description"? He was young. And black.
Nice poisoning of the well there at the end though.
The neighborhood had some recent break-ins. The description of the break-in suspect was "young, black male." Martin was a young, black male and he was in the neighborhood. Therefore, Zimmerman thought he looked suspicious.
If the break-in suspect was an elderly Chinese woman and Zimmerman saw an elderly Chinese woman walking in the neighborhood and followed her, would that have been racial profiling also? Does that mean that all elderly Chinese women are suspicious?
-
If you incapacitate the attacker you are no longer acting in self defense, to beat a man to death you must first incapacitate them. At that point you are attacking a helpless individual and a self defense stance will almost assuredly fail.
with the adrenalin flowing and in the heat of the moment, an individual who feels his/her life is in jeopardy will probably do everything they can to insure that they totally incapacitate their attacker.
-
The neighborhood had some recent break-ins. The description of the break-in suspect was "young, black male." Martin was a young, black male and he was in the neighborhood. Therefore, Zimmerman thought he looked suspicious.
If the break-in suspect was an elderly Chinese woman and Zimmerman saw an elderly Chinese woman walking in the neighborhood and followed her, would that have been racial profiling also? Does that mean that all elderly Chinese women are suspicious?
If GZ thought he looked like he didn't belong, why didn't he just ask the kid if he lived in the neighborhood, instead of stalking him slowly with his hand probably on his weapon.
-
The neighborhood had some recent break-ins. The description of the break-in suspect was "young, black male." Martin was a young, black male and he was in the neighborhood. Therefore, Zimmerman thought he looked suspicious.
If the break-in suspect was an elderly Chinese woman and Zimmerman saw an elderly Chinese woman walking in the neighborhood and followed her, would that have been racial profiling also? Does that mean that all elderly Chinese women are suspicious?
And he was instructed to NOT follow the kid, and let police handle it. He didn't.
-
And he was instructed to NOT follow the kid, and let police handle it. He didn't.
Actually, as he was following TM, the police dispatcher told him that they didn't need him to do that and so he stopped.
-
If GZ thought he looked like he didn't belong, why didn't he just ask the kid if he lived in the neighborhood, instead of stalking him slowly with his hand probably on his weapon.
GZ thought TM looked like didn't belong so he called the police and tried to keep an eye on the suspicious person so that he could give the police his location once they arrived. Read the police dispatch transcript. Like it or not, it's all right there for you.
Also, if TM thought a "crazy-ass cracker" was following him, why didn't he ask why he was following him?
-
GZ thought TM looked like didn't belong so he called the police and tried to keep an eye on the suspicious person so that he could give the police his location once they arrived. Read the police dispatch transcript. Like it or not, it's all right there for you.
Also, if TM thought a "crazy-ass cracker" was following him, why didn't he ask why he was following him?
A kid drinking a soda/tea and eating skittles looks quite approachable. A reasonable person would ask if he lives around here.
A "crazy-ass cracker" with a hand on a gun...yeah no one will ask that person what they are doing. They would run (which TM did) and hope they can get away (he didn't).
I've read the dispatch report. GZ acted rashly ignored the advice of authorities and killed a kid. Those are the only facts of this case.
Now is he legally culpable, I don't know as I'm not an expert in Florida law. Is he morally responsible, absolutely.
-
Well, you just called TM an idiot, and the one who caused his own death.
AMDG
I'm trying to get to the root of who started it. The jury said after their verdict that they believe TM started a fight, pummelled GZ and eventually was shot in self defense. To me that's important.
I would assume he started the fight because he was bigger, younger, thought he could take this "cracker ass" (his words, not mine). I would think if he saw a gun, he would not have done this. Who knows...none of us. Can only go on witnesses and the evidence we have.
I've drawn my conclusions, similar to the jury's. Unfortunate result. Seems it could have been avoided with several decisions, each by both men....IMO.
-
If you incapacitate the attacker you are no longer acting in self defense, to beat a man to death you must first incapacitate them. At that point you are attacking a helpless individual and a self defense stance will almost assuredly fail.
The statute says if you fear for your life....it doesn't require you to be passed out after being beaten to death. Haven't we all gone through an episode where we thought we were going to drown, or in a car accident where it was a very close call....you get that panic where you think it's over. I see no difference. If you are getting your brains beat in and you feel like you're about to black out or one more blow is going to do it...I could easily see someone getting to that point and feeling like this is it, I'm about to die.
-
Actually, as he was following TM, the police dispatcher told him that they didn't need him to do that and so he stopped.
So he claims.
I think the evidence - outside of Zimmerman's self-serving statement - combined with a little common sense says otherwise.
According to what Zimmerman told police, he followed Martin until Martin ran away from him. We know that as this is happening, Martin is on the phone with a friend saying he's being followed. Zimmerman's 911 call ends and at some point shortly thereafter there's a confrontation, fight and Martin is shot.
What happened in the moments leading up to then is something we'll never know for certain, but this we do know: Up until and through the 911 call, Zimmerman - who, according to the cops who didn't want him charged, is an overzealous wannabe - is clearly the pursuer, and Martin is the one being pursued.
Now to believe Zimmerman's account, you'd have to believe that Martin - a kid with no violent history whatsoever -ran away scared from Martin, but then suddenly gained a ton of courage and doubled to back to instigate a violent confrontation.
Sorry, but that doesn't pass the stink test.
What does pass the stink test is that Zimmerman, the overzealous wannabe who was upset when TM ran away from him, continued to pursue the kid after the 911 call ended, caught up with him and a confrontation ensued.
-
And he was instructed to NOT follow the kid, and let police handle it. He didn't.
He was not breaking any law by doing so. Bad judgment, perhaps. Tired of waiting for the cops to arrive 10 minutes later...possibly. Did he think he could keep his distance, who knows. If he followed the dispatcher's instructions, kid is alive. If kid doesn't attack Zimmerman and beat him up, kid is alive. Two bad choices.
-
A kid drinking a soda/tea and eating skittles looks quite approachable. A reasonable person would ask if he lives around here.
A "crazy-ass cracker" with a hand on a gun...yeah no one will ask that person what they are doing. They would run (which TM did) and hope they can get away (he didn't).
I've read the dispatch report. GZ acted rashly ignored the advice of authorities and killed a kid. Those are the only facts of this case.
Now is he legally culpable, I don't know as I'm not an expert in Florida law. Is he morally responsible, absolutely.
Where are you getting this version of events? Nowhere does it say in any testimony that TM thought GZ had a gun, let alone a hand on it. Not to his "girlfriend", etc.
How do you know how approachable he was? This same "approachable" kid with some of the wonderful comments on his phone, videos, etc, in the rain, wearing a hoodie....maybe he was approachable, maybe he wasn't, but you can't assume that at all.
-
You didn't finish it. Martin was ALSO an idiot whose actions caused his unnecessary death. That's the part I'm quibbling with. Don't attack Zimmerman, and you're alive. Very simple. Why are Martin's actions, the ones the ULTIMATELY led to the deathly action completely excused?
C'mon Chicos. You're better than that.
I said I think the verdict was the correct one. In order to acquit, the jury had to find Zimmerman acted out of a reasonable fear for his life. Obviously if I think that, then I also obviously think Martin also was culpable in his death in that his actions were the cause of Zimmerman's fear for his life.
It shouldn't be that complicated for you.
If you want me to further condemn a dead kid, you're going to be disappointed.
Why focus on Martin's actions as ULTIMATELY leading to his death? Martin doesn't take any action if Zimmerman isn't stalking him. Don't stalk and confront a kid who's walking home from the store and minding his own business and maybe you don't get punched.
-
He was not breaking any law by doing so. Bad judgment, perhaps. Tired of waiting for the cops to arrive 10 minutes later...possibly. Did he think he could keep his distance, who knows. If he followed the dispatcher's instructions, kid is alive. If kid doesn't attack Zimmerman and beat him up, kid is alive. Two bad choices.
Yeah, but for the second bad choice to happen, the first one had to happen.
-
A kid drinking a soda/tea and eating skittles looks quite approachable. A reasonable person would ask if he lives around here.
A "crazy-ass cracker" with a hand on a gun...yeah no one will ask that person what they are doing. They would run (which TM did) and hope they can get away (he didn't).
I've read the dispatch report. GZ acted rashly ignored the advice of authorities and killed a kid. Those are the only facts of this case.
Now is he legally culpable, I don't know as I'm not an expert in Florida law. Is he morally responsible, absolutely.
OK so, you've obviously made up your mind and the actual facts of the case are not going to get in the way of that.
Martin was actually reaching towards his waist a lot and GZ thought he may have had a weapon. By your own definition, someone with a "hand on a gun" is not very approachable. If he was obviously eating Skittles and drinking iced tea, then he would have been much more approachable. At no point has anyone stated or even implied that GZ had "a hand on a gun" while tracking Martin. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that if he was clearly holding a gun, Martin would not have attacked him (as his gf stated he did) after Zimmerman stopped following him.
Based on your statements, there's no way you actually read the dispatch report.
-
I'm trying to get to the root of who started it. The jury said after their verdict that they believe TM started a fight, pummelled GZ and eventually was shot in self defense. To me that's important.
Except that's a bastardized version of what one juror said, and four of the other five jurors issued a statement saying they didn't agree with her.
-
It seemed like everyone else is making up there version of the events, so figured it was only fair for TM to have some made up to benefit him.
As I said. All that is known is that GZ chased TM, was told it was not necessary but pursued anyway. TM, who did nothing suspicious besides getting some food and a drink in the rain, ran away.
Shortly thereafter a fight started. We know nothing about who instigated it, who had the upper hand, or why it even started.
We know that GZ had minor injuries from the fight (as reported by a physician under oath). We know that the only finger prints on the gun were GZs. We know that TM was shot.
GZ acted rashly and an innocent kid lost his life.
-
OK so, you've obviously made up your mind and the actual facts of the case are not going to get in the way of that.
Martin was actually reaching towards his waist a lot and GZ thought he may have had a weapon. By your own definition, someone with a "hand on a gun" is not very approachable. If he was obviously eating Skittles and drinking iced tea, then he would have been much more approachable. At no point has anyone stated or even implied that GZ had "a hand on a gun" while tracking Martin. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that if he was clearly holding a gun, Martin would not have attacked him (as his gf stated he did) after Zimmerman stopped following him.
Based on your statements, there's no way you actually read the dispatch report.
Could you show us where Martin's friend ever said he attacked Zimmerman?
(Hint: she didn't)
But why bother letting the facts .... oh, never mind.
-
Could you show us where Martin's friend ever said he attacked Zimmerman?
(Hint: she didn't)
But why bother letting the facts .... oh, never mind.
Ask and you shall receive.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/17/rachel-jeantel-trayvon-martin-threw-first-punch/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/17/rachel-jeantel-trayvon-martin-threw-first-punch/)
-
OK so, you've obviously made up your mind and the actual facts of the case are not going to get in the way of that.
Martin was actually reaching towards his waist a lot and GZ thought he may have had a weapon. By your own definition, someone with a "hand on a gun" is not very approachable. If he was obviously eating Skittles and drinking iced tea, then he would have been much more approachable. At no point has anyone stated or even implied that GZ had "a hand on a gun" while tracking Martin. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that if he was clearly holding a gun, Martin would not have attacked him (as his gf stated he did) after Zimmerman stopped following him.
Based on your statements, there's no way you actually read the dispatch report.
Unless you are looking at different court transcripts, his gf did not say TM attacked him. Rather she says that he yelled to the guy, why are you following me. Shortly thereafter, he as yelling at GZ to "Get off, Get off", which would imply that GZ attacked TM and was on top during an altercation. A woman nearby heard TM cry out and saw GZ on top...do you ignore those accounts. Clearly, you've made up your mind and the actual facts of the case are not going to get in the way of that.
-
Ask and you shall receive.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/17/rachel-jeantel-trayvon-martin-threw-first-punch/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/17/rachel-jeantel-trayvon-martin-threw-first-punch/)
So in other words she never said it under oath, but thinks Trayvon may have thrown the first punch. And no facts are known about what transpired.
-
Lets look at other facts also. GZ carried his 9mm in a waistband concealed holster (in his back waistband). He claims that TM pinned him, broke his nose, had him on his back and was pounding his head into the pavement.
GZ then claims that TM saw the gun (which would have been against the ground under GZs body) and grabbed the grip/hammer. (note there are no finger prints or epidermal cells on the gun from anyone besides GZ). So it is impossible under GZs scenario to see the gun or reach the gun and the direct evidence indicates otherwise.
So further, a man nearly unconcious and presumably choking on his own blood (GZs words), was able to reach underneath his body (with a 170 lb kid on top of him), pull the gun from the holster, position it between their bodies (as he hit him dead center in the chest) and pull a trigger. All while TM is pounding his head into the ground and has the upper hand.
GZs story completely contradicts all the evidence collected. Anyone that is familiar with the type of holster/gun GZ had would agree that the more likely scenario is that GZ had the upper hand. Had TM pinned so that he had free access to the rear waistband holster, and with a free hand removed his gun from the holster and fired into TMs chest.
-
Ask and you shall receive.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/17/rachel-jeantel-trayvon-martin-threw-first-punch/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/17/rachel-jeantel-trayvon-martin-threw-first-punch/)
So, did you bother to listen to the entire interview, or did you just read the Washington Times headline?
Because had you listened to the interview you'd have heard say she believes TM threw a punch at Zimmerman only after Zimmerman grabbed him and tried to detain him.
So, tell me, if some strange man follows you around at night, confronts you then grabs you and then you take a swing at him ... are you the attacker?
Also, since you believe Rachel Jeantel here, I assume you believe her entire version of events, including her testimony that she heard Zimmerman confront TM and TM saying "get off, get off."
Watch it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/rachel-jeantel-huffpost-live-interview_n_3610921.html
-
Lets look at other facts also. GZ carried his 9mm in a waistband concealed holster (in his back waistband). He claims that TM pinned him, broke his nose, had him on his back and was pounding his head into the pavement.
GZ then claims that TM saw the gun (which would have been against the ground under GZs body) and grabbed the grip/hammer. (note there are no finger prints or epidermal cells on the gun from anyone besides GZ). So it is impossible under GZs scenario to see the gun or reach the gun and the direct evidence indicates otherwise.
So further, a man nearly unconcious and presumably choking on his own blood (GZs words), was able to reach underneath his body (with a 170 lb kid on top of him), pull the gun from the holster, position it between their bodies (as he hit him dead center in the chest) and pull a trigger. All while TM is pounding his head into the ground and has the upper hand.
GZs story completely contradicts all the evidence collected. Anyone that is familiar with the type of holster/gun GZ had would agree that the more likely scenario is that GZ had the upper hand. Had TM pinned so that he had free access to the rear waistband holster, and with a free hand removed his gun from the holster and fired into TMs chest.
How can you even try to have an intelligent discussion about this when you've already acknowledged making things up to bolster your viewpoint?
-
Interesting dialogue (video) on WSJ about exploitation of the story
http://live.wsj.com/video/opinion-why-are-black-leaders-exploiting-trayvon-martin/A884CEA7-F97C-4E2A-80FF-566B9FFB3BB4.html?mod=WSJ_article_outbrain&obref=obnetwork#!A884CEA7-F97C-4E2A-80FF-566B9FFB3BB4
-
How can you even try to have an intelligent discussion about this when you've already acknowledged making things up to bolster your viewpoint?
It was fairly obvious that my one post was tongue in cheek and meant to point out how we can all make crap up. Refer to my above post and tell me how GZs story is plausible. Also tell me how TM grabbed the gun without leaving any fingerprints or epitheleal cells.
-
So he claims.
I think the evidence - outside of Zimmerman's self-serving statement - combined with a little common sense says otherwise.
According to what Zimmerman told police, he followed Martin until Martin ran away from him. We know that as this is happening, Martin is on the phone with a friend saying he's being followed. Zimmerman's 911 call ends and at some point shortly thereafter there's a confrontation, fight and Martin is shot.
What happened in the moments leading up to then is something we'll never know for certain, but this we do know: Up until and through the 911 call, Zimmerman - who, according to the cops who didn't want him charged, is an overzealous wannabe - is clearly the pursuer, and Martin is the one being pursued.
Now to believe Zimmerman's account, you'd have to believe that Martin - a kid with no violent history whatsoever -ran away scared from Martin, but then suddenly gained a ton of courage and doubled to back to instigate a violent confrontation.
Sorry, but that doesn't pass the stink test.
What does pass the stink test is that Zimmerman, the overzealous wannabe who was upset when TM ran away from him, continued to pursue the kid after the 911 call ended, caught up with him and a confrontation ensued.
Maybe. Remember the one point of testimony by the police officer who tested GZ while questioning him and said "the entire assault was captured on video tape." GZ's response, "Thank God!". Of course nothing was captured on video tape, but GZ thought that was the case and thought the video would totally backup what he said. It was an interrogation technique by the officer.
I found this video does a nice job of going through a bunch of these items, point by point. Unemotional, methodic, etc. Interesting
https://www.youtube.com/v/bF-Ax5E8EJc
-
Yeah, but for the second bad choice to happen, the first one had to happen.
Doesn't particularly matter. They are two, distinct events. This is exactly what the defense argued, and they are correct. There was absolutely 0 wrong with what GZ did. He didn't break the law. Nothing. Even with the dispatcher says don't follow him, he does not have to obey, that is not a legal requirement. Zimmerman being punched...that's a crime. Zimmerman following Martin, not a crime.
-
Unless you are looking at different court transcripts, his gf did not say TM attacked him. Rather she says that he yelled to the guy, why are you following me. Shortly thereafter, he as yelling at GZ to "Get off, Get off", which would imply that GZ attacked TM and was on top during an altercation. A woman nearby heard TM cry out and saw GZ on top...do you ignore those accounts. Clearly, you've made up your mind and the actual facts of the case are not going to get in the way of that.
Whoa whoa whoa....you following the NBC edited transcripts here? LOL. I hope he sues them to kingdom come on that one.
The sworn testimony shows TM on top and each side said the person screaming out was by a different person. Experts said it was impossible to tell who was screaming out. The forensic expert said MARTIN was on top of GZ. The witnesses said TM on top of GZ. Where are you seeing GZ on top of TM?
http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/07/09/forensic-pathologist-says-trayvon-martin-was-on-top-of-zimmerman
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57592866-504083/george-zimmerman-trial-trayvon-martin-was-on-top-of-zimmerman-when-teen-was-shot-gunshot-wound-expert-testifies/
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/28/prosecution-witness-in-zimmerman-trial-testifies-martin-on-top-in-fight/
-
C'mon Chicos. You're better than that.
I said I think the verdict was the correct one. In order to acquit, the jury had to find Zimmerman acted out of a reasonable fear for his life. Obviously if I think that, then I also obviously think Martin also was culpable in his death in that his actions were the cause of Zimmerman's fear for his life.
It shouldn't be that complicated for you.
If you want me to further condemn a dead kid, you're going to be disappointed.
Why focus on Martin's actions as ULTIMATELY leading to his death? Martin doesn't take any action if Zimmerman isn't stalking him. Don't stalk and confront a kid who's walking home from the store and minding his own business and maybe you don't get punched.
Stalk....sorry, that's not what he was doing. Stalking is a legal term that does not hold true here, it is used as inflammatory language by those pushing that story. He was following him, he was not stalking him.
Why focus on Martin's actions....because his actions of assaulting someone led to his death. If he doesn't attack Zimmerman, he's still alive. How can you ignore Martin's actions?
-
I'd say that's an incredible and self-serving story, Mr. Zimmerman.
Evading my question isn't helping your argument... unless your answer would unequivocally help mine.
-
Whoa whoa whoa....you following the NBC edited transcripts here? LOL. I hope he sues them to kingdom come on that one.
The sworn testimony shows TM on top and each side said the person screaming out was by a different person. Experts said it was impossible to tell who was screaming out. The forensic expert said MARTIN was on top of GZ. The witnesses said TM on top of GZ. Where are you seeing GZ on top of TM?
http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/07/09/forensic-pathologist-says-trayvon-martin-was-on-top-of-zimmerman
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57592866-504083/george-zimmerman-trial-trayvon-martin-was-on-top-of-zimmerman-when-teen-was-shot-gunshot-wound-expert-testifies/
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/28/prosecution-witness-in-zimmerman-trial-testifies-martin-on-top-in-fight/
Selma Mora, another witness testified under Oath that GZ was on top. That was my reference to ignoring reports. I'm well aware others reported TM was on top, which is why there are no facts to the actual fight.
Given the where GZ had the gun, however, the two plausible ways he could have accessed the weapon were to have either had it drawn before the altercation or to have been on top. Of course since there were no witnesses at the time of the gunshot, we will never know.
-
Selma Mora, another witness testified under Oath that GZ was on top. That was my reference to ignoring reports. I'm well aware others reported TM was on top, which is why there are no facts to the actual fight.
Given the where GZ had the gun, however, the two plausible ways he could have accessed the weapon were to have either had it drawn before the altercation or to have been on top. Of course since there were no witnesses at the time of the gunshot, we will never know.
Don't you think it would have been important to state that two witnesses, including an expert said TM was on top? They were also under Oath.
Selma Mora also didn't see the fight, but Mr. Goode did see Martin on top in a pound and ground stance. Mora said AFTER she heard the shot she looked out her window and saw GZ on top of TM. Was he checking to see if he was alive? How hurt he was? Who knows, but that was post gunshot. By the way, you don't get the back of your skull bashed in without being on the bottom for at least some portion of time, which matches Goode and the forensic expert's testimony.
-
Given the where GZ had the gun, however, the two plausible ways he could have accessed the weapon were to have either had it drawn before the altercation or to have been on top.
Funny... that's not what the forensic analyst said. But never mind who should be considered the expert on such matters... Al Sharpton said it, so it must be true.
-
Funny... that's not what the forensic analyst said. But never mind who should be considered the expert on such matters... Al Sharpton said it, so it must be true.
Put that gun in the same holster in your back pants. Have a 170 lbs on your chest and see if you can pull that gun out. If you can, honestly ask yourself if you could have done that while someone is pounding your head against the concrete.
And Chicos, Selma reported that prior to the gunshot Zimmerman was on top in a "rider position". And the expert reported that TM was "likely" on top, based on how far his clothing was from his body. He admitted that other possibilities existed, including TM trying to pull away from GZ...
-
Put that gun in the same holster in your back pants. Have a 170 lbs on your chest and see if you can pull that gun out. If you can, honestly ask yourself if you could have done that while someone is pounding your head against the concrete.
And Chicos, Selma reported that prior to the gunshot Zimmerman was on top in a "rider position". And the expert reported that TM was "likely" on top, based on how far his clothing was from his body. He admitted that other possibilities existed, including TM trying to pull away from GZ...
Sure about that?
http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/people/witnesses/witness-16-files-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-case/
"She heard a kid crying (she sounds it out), and then she heard a shot, but was thinking maybe it was some kids playing. She went out to the porch. She saw a guy laying on the ground and could see another guy on top of him. She asked “what’s going on?” no answer, “what’s wrong with you, what’s going on?” The guy on top looked at her, and finally said “Call the police.” At that moment her roommate (Witness #5, Mary Cutcher) came back and told her to come inside. "
-
Put that gun in the same holster in your back pants. Have a 170 lbs on your chest and see if you can pull that gun out. If you can, honestly ask yourself if you could have done that while someone is pounding your head against the concrete.
And Chicos, Selma reported that prior to the gunshot Zimmerman was on top in a "rider position". And the expert reported that TM was "likely" on top, based on how far his clothing was from his body. He admitted that other possibilities existed, including TM trying to pull away from GZ...
Let me get this straight...
You believe that George Zimmerman called the police to report a suspicious person in his neighborhood then proceeded to attack that person, pin him to the ground and shoot him in the chest all while knowing that the police would be arriving any minute. That's what you think happened?
-
What Martin had was not actually tea but a Watermelon Juice Cocktail - something often used to make the Drank when used with Skittles and mixed with OTC cough syrup - of course that has no relation to their confrontation
(http://dustincavazos.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/arizona-watermelon_dustin-cavazos.jpg)
A kid drinking a soda/tea and eating skittles looks quite approachable. A reasonable person would ask if he lives around here.
A "crazy-ass cracker" with a hand on a gun...yeah no one will ask that person what they are doing. They would run (which TM did) and hope they can get away (he didn't).
I've read the dispatch report. GZ acted rashly ignored the advice of authorities and killed a kid. Those are the only facts of this case.
Now is he legally culpable, I don't know as I'm not an expert in Florida law. Is he morally responsible, absolutely.
-
What Martin had was not actually tea but a Watermelon Juice Cocktail - something often used to make the Drank when used with Skittles and mixed with OTC cough syrup
(http://dustincavazos.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/arizona-watermelon_dustin-cavazos.jpg)
The video I posted earlier gets into this quite a bit. He was making purple drank and a few other things. Even posted such on his Facebook page. Important because the side effects are irritability, panic, etc.
-
A kid drinking a soda/tea and eating skittles looks quite approachable.
I'm not really sure it matters, but he wasn't drinking or eating anything. Both products were unopened.
-
I'm not really sure it matters, but he wasn't drinking or eating anything. Both products were unopened.
It supports the notion that he didn't just have those products to innocently satisfy his sweet tooth.
-
Or it supports the notion that he didn't open them.
Of course every African American walking around with soda and candy is using it for purple drank, just like every white person with the sniffles buys Sudafed for cooking meth.
-
Or it supports the notion that he didn't open them.
Of course every African American walking around with soda and candy is using it for purple drank, just like every white person with the sniffles buys Sudafed for cooking meth.
Considering he made several posts on Facebook about making Lean/Purple Drank and Skittles and fruit juice cocktail are often used to do so, it's not unreasonable (or racist) to believe that's what he may have been up to.
-
Listen -- 49 states and the Supreme Court say that citizens have the right to carry a firearm for safety. I'm not saying it's the most responsible thing to do, and I'm certainly not implying that everyone should carry a gun. But if a law-abiding citizen reasonably believes that he/she is safer with a gun, then I have no problem with that.
I wholeheartedly agree that people shouldn't carry guns "just in case" someone commits a crime... but George Zimmerman was carrying a gun for his own protection. If you don't agree with that concept, that is certainly your right, but the reality is that those laws are not going to change.
You asked me if I thought the captain of a neighborhood watch should carry a gun.
No, I don't think they need it.
Neighborhood watch is about crime prevention, and I don't think we need to issue handguns for that.
Wear some sort of florescent uniform, carry big flashlights, a phone, work in pairs, etc. The point is to make potential criminals KNOW you are around, and you are watching.
-
Considering he made several posts on Facebook about making Lean/Purple Drank and Skittles and fruit juice cocktail are often used to do so, it's not unreasonable (or racist) to believe that's what he was up to.
Not racist. Retarded.
Hey George Zimmerman had a loaded gun and, when speaking of TM, said "these a-holes always get away with it."
It's not unreasonable, then, to believe was out to kill someone that night.
-
The video I posted earlier gets into this quite a bit. He was making purple drank and a few other things. Even posted such on his Facebook page. Important because the side effects are irritability, panic, etc.
Source?
Also, toxicology showed no evidence of codeine in TM's system ... so you're pretty much making stuff up. A recurring theme among some in this thread.
-
You asked me if I thought the captain of a neighborhood watch should carry a gun.
No, I don't think they need it.
Neighborhood watch is about crime prevention, and I don't think we need to issue handguns for that.
Wear some sort of florescent uniform, carry big flashlights, a phone, work in pairs, etc. The point is to make potential criminals KNOW you are around, and you are watching.
Experts: Neighborhood watches shouldn't be armed
(AP) ALLENTOWN, Pa. - Neighborhood watch groups were designed to be the eyes and ears of police — passively observing what they see and reporting back to law enforcement — not to enforce the law themselves.
Most neighborhood watches follow the rules, and confrontations are rare. But after the killing of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin in a Florida gated community, criminal justice experts say police departments and watch groups need to make sure volunteers do not take matters into their own hands.
"First thing: You do not engage. Once you see anything, a suspicious activity, you call the number that the police department has given you," said Chris Tutko, director of the Neighborhood Watch program at the National Sheriffs' Association, which launched the neighborhood watch concept 40 years ago as a response to rising crime.
Tutko said it's highly unusual, and highly discouraged, for a neighborhood watch to be armed.
"You do not carry a weapon during neighborhood watch," he said flatly. "If you carry a weapon, you're going to pull it."
Tens of thousands of watches have been formed across the United States over the decades. Some patrol gritty urban neighborhoods where volunteers walk a beat; others monitor sparsely populated areas with houses that are miles apart.
Regardless of location, the message from law enforcement is always the same: Do not intervene. Do not try to be a hero. Leave the crime-fighting to the police.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57402412/experts-neighborhood-watches-shouldnt-be-armed/
-
Why?
To have a conceal permit, you have to be trained. That's a requirement I believe in every state. We can argue about the level of training, but there is some. As a Florida citizen, he has every right to carry that weapon. I have yet to see one study that shows in C&C jurisdictions that crime increases or discharge of guns is somehow elevated as a result. Maybe it is out there, but I would love to read it if so.
Cops train, retrain and re-certify to stay on duty. They have a lot of hours invested in techniques, both physical and mental. This includes the use the deadly force and ultimately a firearm... and even they aren't perfect.
I don't like citizens following and ultimately engaging with "suspects" at all, and I ESPECIALLY don't like it with a firearm. They don't have the training for such situation. It's a bad idea.
-
Not racist. Retarded.
Hey George Zimmerman had a loaded gun and, when speaking of TM, said "these a-holes always get away with it."
It's not unreasonable, then, to believe was out to kill someone that night.
How is it retarded? Martin wrote on Facebook about making a concoction used to get high that often involved using fruit juice cocktail and Skittles. That night, he went to the store and bought fruit juice cocktail and Skittles. Maybe it was just an unfortunate coincidence but it still helps to support the notion that he was going to make Lean.
That is an unreasonable assumption. If he was out to kill someone that night, why did he call the cops and let them know where he was and ask that they call him when they arrive so he could meet them in a specific place?
-
How is it retarded? Martin wrote on Facebook about making a concoction used to get high that often involved using fruit juice cocktail and Skittles. That night, he went to the store and bought fruit juice cocktail and Skittles. Maybe it was just an unfortunate coincidence but it still helps to support the notion that he was going to make Lean.
That is an unreasonable assumption. If he was out to kill someone that night, why did he call the cops and let them know where he was and ask that they call him when they arrive so he could meet them in a specific place?
1. What's your source on the Facebook posting?
2. What's the relevance? We already know from the toxicology report he wasn't under the influence of any codeine-derived drug when he was killed, so why does it matter? Are you suggesting shooting him was more justified because he possessed Skittles? I suspect not. Rather, I suspect you're smearing the kid.
My Zimmerman example, as (intentionally) preposterous as it is, is no less unreasonable than your Skittles theory.
-
EVEN IF he were out to make drank, who cares?!? I honestly don't see how that has to do with anything.
Does it make him not as innocent as that 6th grade picture that they have of him in the AP all the time? Sure, but has no bearing on the facts of the case or what happened that night.
It seems like a lot of you guys are letting your frustration with the liberal media manifest itself as character attacks on Martin, which only leads to red herrings and idle chatter.
-
Let me get this straight...
You believe that George Zimmerman called the police to report a suspicious person in his neighborhood then proceeded to attack that person, pin him to the ground and shoot him in the chest all while knowing that the police would be arriving any minute. That's what you think happened?
No, I think GZ tried to physically detain TM (citizens arrest style). This is consistent with his GF's story. A fight broke out, likely rolling around in the grass, hence multiple different accounts of who was on top. GZ gained the upper hand, pulled his gun out and shot trayvon in the chest.
This is fully consistent with the reports and reconciles issues in GZs testimony.
-
No, I think GZ tried to physically detain TM (citizens arrest style). This is consistent with his GF's story. A fight broke out, likely rolling around in the grass, hence multiple different accounts of who was on top. GZ gained the upper hand, pulled his gun out and shot trayvon in the chest.
This is fully consistent with the reports and reconciles issues in GZs testimony.
This is not, however, fully consistent with the evidence. The only evidence I'm aware of that GZ was on top is after the shot was fired. Only one witness said that. Others said TM was on top, and the forensic evidence supported that witness testimony. I'm not aware of any evidence at all that GZ tried to detain TM. If you're aware of that, I'd be interested to hear who said that. Also, you keep suggesting (I think) that GZ had his gun in his waistband on the back. I'm not disputing this, but my understanding was that it was in the waistband on the side. Am I wrong on that?
-
Drank? Never heard of it before. Guess I don't get out much.
Is it kinda like wapatooli? ;)
-
EVEN IF he were out to make drank, who cares?!? I honestly don't see how that has to do with anything.
Does it make him not as innocent as that 6th grade picture that they have of him in the AP all the time? Sure, but has no bearing on the facts of the case or what happened that night.
It seems like a lot of you guys are letting your frustration with the liberal media manifest itself as character attacks on Martin, which only leads to red herrings and idle chatter.
Bingo. Too many people are focusing on conjecture, speculation, and tertiary details that fit their own agenda. But as they say, don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument.
-
just ask Johnny Jolly about the drank
Drank? Never heard of it before. Guess I don't get out much.
Is it kinda like wapatooli? ;)
-
This is not, however, fully consistent with the evidence. The only evidence I'm aware of that GZ was on top is after the shot was fired. Only one witness said that. Others said TM was on top, and the forensic evidence supported that witness testimony. I'm not aware of any evidence at all that GZ tried to detain TM. If you're aware of that, I'd be interested to hear who said that. Also, you keep suggesting (I think) that GZ had his gun in his waistband on the back. I'm not disputing this, but my understanding was that it was in the waistband on the side. Am I wrong on that?
It was reported that it was a rear-inside the wasteband holster. The gun was a Kel-Tec PF-9. Combined with the holster (leaves very little of the grip accessible) it is a very difficult draw.
GZ reenacted in a video how he pulled the gun, confirming he wore it in back and completely sticking his foot in his mouth. His reenactment is physically impossible. He claimed that TM reached between his (GZs) arm and body to reach the gun around his back. GZ pinned his (TMs) arm against his body. With the same arm (as is being used to pin TMs) he then grabs his gun from the holster. This is physically impossible. The motion required to pull the gun would release TMs arm. If TM was on top and aware of the gun, there is no way GZ can pull it without a fight over the gun, and no way GZ can get a shot off squarely in TMs chest.
It is very likely, that this story has changed. GZ routinely changed his story about the events (at least in the initial days following the altercation).
The transcript I read from Selma Mora said GZ was on top before the shot was fired. The forensic evidence also supported alternative theories as admitted by the expert. Trayvon's girlfriend testified that she thinks GZ tried to detain TM and TM resisted. That's what led to the comment some here are using that TM started the fight and she confirmed it.
-
Source?
Also, toxicology showed no evidence of codeine in TM's system ... so you're pretty much making stuff up. A recurring theme among some in this thread.
Watch the video...correct no codeine in his system. Marijuana yes, no codeine. Here is some of the stuff on his facebook page about lean. I wasn't making anything up.
"On June 27, 2011, Trayvon asks a friend online, "unow a connect for codien?" He tells the friend that "robitussin nd soda" could make "some fire ass lean." He says, "I had it before" and that he wants "to make some more." On the night of February 26, if Brandy had some Robitussin at home, Trayvon had just bought the mixings for one "fire ass lean" cocktail."
-
Cops train, retrain and re-certify to stay on duty. They have a lot of hours invested in techniques, both physical and mental. This includes the use the deadly force and ultimately a firearm... and even they aren't perfect.
I don't like citizens following and ultimately engaging with "suspects" at all, and I ESPECIALLY don't like it with a firearm. They don't have the training for such situation. It's a bad idea.
So you're calling TM a suspect?
-
EVEN IF he were out to make drank, who cares?!? I honestly don't see how that has to do with anything.
Does it make him not as innocent as that 6th grade picture that they have of him in the AP all the time? Sure, but has no bearing on the facts of the case or what happened that night.
It seems like a lot of you guys are letting your frustration with the liberal media manifest itself as character attacks on Martin, which only leads to red herrings and idle chatter.
Does it matter.....good question. If it affected his state of mind, then I would say yes. If he drank a bunch of alcohol 3 hours prior...would it matter? Would if GZ drank alcohol or purple drank 3 hours before hand? Would it matter? What if it was 2 hours?
I don't think it's as simple as "who cares"....it can matter.
Much of the frustration isn't just with the media, but the race hustlers in this country and the hypocrisy that they push. I think most of us have said this is a tragedy, preventable, but the racist angle isn't there, especially if people knew GZ's background. That was made up by the media and certain people that push this crap and that is incredibly unfortunate.
-
there wouldn't be any codeine in his system since he never made it home to fix up a batch
-
Drank? Never heard of it before. Guess I don't get out much.
Is it kinda like wapatooli? ;)
Purple Drank, Lean, Sizzurp.....all the same names.
-
So you're calling TM a suspect?
Generically, yes, because that is how Zimmerman incorrectly identified him... which again, leads me back to:
"I don't like untrained citizens carrying guns and following other citizens who MIGHT commit a crime".
-
Watch the video...correct no codeine in his system. Marijuana yes, no codeine. Here is some of the stuff on his facebook page about lean. I wasn't making anything up.
"On June 27, 2011, Trayvon asks a friend online, "unow a connect for codien?" He tells the friend that "robitussin nd soda" could make "some fire ass lean." He says, "I had it before" and that he wants "to make some more." On the night of February 26, if Brandy had some Robitussin at home, Trayvon had just bought the mixings for one "fire ass lean" cocktail."
Chico's .... can you please provide one reputable news source - i.e. not an anarchist Canadian blogger who's been accused of operating a cult and affiliates with Alex Jones and other conspiracy theorists - for the Facebook claims? I mean, I could make a youtube video claiming George Zimmerman once posted he hates black people. That doesn't make it true. The fact that your source is Stefan Molyneux, and you actually find it credible, makes me worry about you. Either you'll cite any nutjob if you think it'll make your case, or you actually believe what the guys is selling.
That said, I'm glad to see that you admit that your insertion of "purple drank" into the discussion and how it supposedly affects one's behavior was little more than a red herring. Could you explain why you thought it necessary to suggest that the drug may have factored in TM's actions that night when we both know he hadn't used the drug? Smear campaign, maybe?
As for the pot .... THC stays in one's system for up to 30 days and, according to the tox report, the level in TM's system were described as "trace amounts." Thus, not only is it extremely unlikely he used that night, it's extremely unlikely he'd used for many days prior to his death. So why insert it into the discussion? Pot had no role in what happened that night. Smear campaign, maybe?
-
Generically, yes, because that is how Zimmerman incorrectly identified him... which again, leads me back to:
"I don't like untrained citizens carrying guns and following other citizens who MIGHT commit a crime".
Problem with that then is everyone could be construed as a suspect. More importantly, if you are going to C&C the time you need it most is when you come across someone that is a problem...a "suspect". The cops arrive 10 minutes later, you can do something now. That's the choice. The difference here is GZ followed him, I get it. That's a "problem", even though not illegal. But if I'm in a mall and I'm carrying and all of a sudden shooting breaks out, that's when I want my gun most because calvary is going to take some time to arrive....time I may not have.
-
Jesus. What if it was your kid who got killed? And the guy who murdered him got off scott free? Would outrage be justified then?
Hmmmm..... "Murder"? He wasn't convicted.
-
Problem with that then is everyone could be construed as a suspect. More importantly, if you are going to C&C the time you need it most is when you come across someone that is a problem...a "suspect". The cops arrive 10 minutes later, you can do something now. That's the choice. The difference here is GZ followed him, I get it. That's a "problem", even though not illegal. But if I'm in a mall and I'm carrying and all of a sudden shooting breaks out, that's when I want my gun most because calvary is going to take some time to arrive....time I may not have.
If you want to conceal and carry for PERSONAL protection, fine. That's what it's for.
If somebody attacked George while he was sitting in his truck, he is welcome to discharge his weapon.
But, the minute he actively followed somebody, I don't like it. I don't know how the law should be written or interpreted, but I just don't like poorly trained citizens actively engaging other citizens (without cause).
Conceal and carry is for self defense. It is not for hunting down bad guys. This isn't a Charles Bronson movie. This is real life.
-
Hmmmm..... "Murder"? He wasn't convicted.
Neither was OJ.
Quick word association, what's the first word
that comes to mind when I mention OJ? I'll bet
the farm it's murder/murderer.
-
If your going to talk about possible drugs that may be in his system then at least get it right. Robitussin does not have codeine in it, it has dextromethorphan, often goes by the name DXM. It is a disociative anesthetic, and although it can cause paranoia, it would be unlikely to cause aggression or violent behavior. It is extremely commonly abused by youth as they view it as a safe drug.
Codeine would also not cause aggression or violent behavior. In fact both drugs would be more likely to make you passive and less likely to be involved in an altercation.
The talk of drugs here is irrelevant and serves no purpose but to drag the kids name through the mud. If he was bringing the concoction home to make a DXM cocktail, well that just makes him like probably 30-40% of youth. So are 30-40% of youth thugs that should be profiled and hunted down.
-
If you want to conceal and carry for PERSONAL protection, fine. That's what it's for.
If somebody attacked George while he was sitting in his truck, he is welcome to discharge his weapon.
But, the minute he actively followed somebody, I don't like it. I don't know how the law should be written or interpreted, but I just don't like poorly trained citizens actively engaging other citizens (without cause).
Conceal and carry is for self defense. It is not for hunting down bad guys. This isn't a Charles Bronson movie. This is real life.
and that's how the weapon was used, in self defense.
-
Neither was OJ.
Quick word association, what's the first word
that comes to mind when I mention OJ? I'll bet
the farm it's murder/murderer.
That's got to be the worst haiku ever on Scoop.
-
If your going to talk about possible drugs that may be in his system then at least get it right. Robitussin does not have codeine in it, it has dextromethorphan, often goes by the name DXM. It is a disociative anesthetic, and although it can cause paranoia, it would be unlikely to cause aggression or violent behavior. It is extremely commonly abused by youth as they view it as a safe drug.
Codeine would also not cause aggression or violent behavior. In fact both drugs would be more likely to make you passive and less likely to be involved in an altercation.
The talk of drugs here is irrelevant and serves no purpose but to drag the kids name through the mud. If he was bringing the concoction home to make a DXM cocktail, well that just makes him like probably 30-40% of youth. So are 30-40% of youth thugs that should be profiled and hunted down.
Codeine is the most common active ingredient in purple drank. Some will also try it with dextromethorphan, but that's not the original or most frequent method of making it.
http://www.narconon.org/drug-information/purple-drank.html
Beyond that, you're right. The drug talk is a red herring.
-
and that's how the weapon was used, in self defense.
No. Not to me.
Zimmerman actively followed/tracked another person (without identifying himself or his intentions) and eventually led to an altercation where he used his firearm.
I don't like that.
It's a BAD idea for citizens to act like that.
-
No. Not to me.
Zimmerman actively followed/tracked another person (without identifying himself or his intentions) and eventually led to an altercation where he used his firearm.
I don't like that.
It's a BAD idea for citizens to act like that.
Zimmerman or any citizen is not prohibited from keeping track of a stranger in their neighborhood and s not required to identify himself or his intentions. Following someone does not justify Martin's attack. If Martin felt threatened, he could have contacted the authorities or left the area. Instead, he decided to take matters into his own hands and initiated the attack. A foolish, macho, 17 year old male mistake. And Zimmerman defended himself in a legal manner.
-
Zimmerman Trayvon Martin or any citizen is not prohibited from keeping track of a stranger in walking home from the store through a neighborhood and s not required to identify himself or his intentions. Supposedly looking suspicious Following someone does not justify Martin's Zimmerman's attack. If Martin Zimmerman felt threatened, he could have contacted the authorities orand left the area. Instead, he decided to take matters into his own hands and initiated the attack. A foolish, macho, 17 year old male overzealous wannabe mistake. And Zimmerman defended himself in a legal manner killed someone as a result.
See ... I can speculate, too.
-
Zimmerman or any citizen is not prohibited from keeping track of a stranger in their neighborhood and s not required to identify himself or his intentions. Following someone does not justify Martin's attack. If Martin felt threatened, he could have contacted the authorities or left the area. Instead, he decided to take matters into his own hands and initiated the attack. A foolish, macho, 17 year old male mistake. And Zimmerman defended himself in a legal manner.
Martin was walking home. He wasn't out looking for Zimmerman.
Zimmerman armed himself, and went out looking for potential criminals. He followed, engaged, and ultimately fired upon an unarmed man.
I have a hard time calling that self defense. I know it's all "legal", but that's what I find concerning. I don't like the way the laws are written or interpreted.
-
Chico's .... can you please provide one reputable news source - i.e. not an anarchist Canadian blogger who's been accused of operating a cult and affiliates with Alex Jones and other conspiracy theorists - for the Facebook claims? I mean, I could make a youtube video claiming George Zimmerman once posted he hates black people. That doesn't make it true. The fact that your source is Stefan Molyneux, and you actually find it credible, makes me worry about you. Either you'll cite any nutjob if you think it'll make your case, or you actually believe what the guys is selling.
That said, I'm glad to see that you admit that your insertion of "purple drank" into the discussion and how it supposedly affects one's behavior was little more than a red herring. Could you explain why you thought it necessary to suggest that the drug may have factored in TM's actions that night when we both know he hadn't used the drug? Smear campaign, maybe?
As for the pot .... THC stays in one's system for up to 30 days and, according to the tox report, the level in TM's system were described as "trace amounts." Thus, not only is it extremely unlikely he used that night, it's extremely unlikely he'd used for many days prior to his death. So why insert it into the discussion? Pot had no role in what happened that night. Smear campaign, maybe?
He had marijuana in his system.....look at some of the side effects for marijuana, which include paranoia. Does that matter? Was he paranoid? Sure sounded like it with his girlfriend. Classic marijuana side effect.
The kid obviously made a LOT of dumb decisions, that's why it is relevant. Whether it's publicly stating his desire to make lean or purple drank, whether it's publicly posting videos trying to get an illegal gun, whether it's attacking GZ....all goes to his mental process and his ability to make rational decisions. So no, there is no red herring, it's a pattern of poor choices, poor behaviors...exactly the thing that led to his death because he though it would be a good idea to take on a crazy ass cracker when he was only 70 yards from his home and should have just gone home. Tragic, but that's all it would have taken.
Instead we have people here that are actually wanting others to believe that GZ called the cops before the incident and then intentionally shot this kid, and then asked one witness to call the cops again. That's really what we are being asked to believe, that GZ was so brilliantly smart that he would call the cops, stay on the phone with the cops, time it just right to kill this kid a minute before they arrive.....oh, and also be led to believe it was all on video tape where he would be exonnerated.
As for your reputable sources comment, I gave you what he said from his face book page.
June 11, 2012, Trayvon asks a friend online, "unow a connect for codien?" He tells the friend that "robitussin nd soda" could make "some fire ass lean." He says, "I had it before" and that he wants "to make some more."
Here's just ONE screenshot of his account...his words, not mine. This appeared in the NY Times online version, among many other places. No anarchist, just his words.....if the libertarian Canadian radio show host got it right (which he did), then that's all that needs to be said.
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&hl=en&biw=1024&bih=672&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=AUPwUbX6OsjwiwL9w4GoDw&q=trayvon+martin+twitter+screenshot+lean&oq=trayvon+martin+twitter+screenshot+lean&gs_l=img.3...14120.14725.0.14992.5.5.0.0.0.0.130.420.2j3.5.0....0...1c.1.22.img..5.0.0.kfajZ0XFrEM#biv=i%7C18%3Bd%7CxL0DOIVklFTXtM%3A
There are other screen shots of his other postings, photos, etc. Isn't it interesting that the media was able to post a nice shot of him when he was 12 years old, was able to edit Zimmerman's 911 call to make him look racist, posted a picture of GZ that made him look like the evil, plodding killer but all of these details were left out. Hmmm. One wonders if GZ had these facebook and twitter postings if the national media would carry them? One wonders if GZ openly talked about lean and purple drank, was high on marijuana if it would be reported that he was simply getting candy and ice tea (not Skittles and a specific drink to mix into a codeine cocktail). Yes, one wonders. ::)
-
others have posted that the amount in his system was very small likely from several days before type small, that would have not have made him paranoid, people only get paranoid if they are complaetely baked at the time
He had marijuana in his system.....look at some of the side effects for marijuana, which include paranoia. Does that matter? Was he paranoid? Sure sounded like it with his girlfriend. Classic marijuana side effect.
-
No. Not to me.
Zimmerman actively followed/tracked another person (without identifying himself or his intentions) and eventually led to an altercation where he used his firearm.
I don't like that.
It's a BAD idea for citizens to act like that.
IF what you're purporting is actually what had happened, then I don't think anyone would be disagreeing with you. The problem is the facts and the testimony do not support the implication you're making with reference to Zimmerman's mindset.
What if George Zimmerman wasn't carrying a gun. What if Zimmerman happened to be an elite MMA fighter and landed a blow that was either directly or indirectly fatal? Would you then argue that anyone with any sort of military, martial arts, boxing, or hand-to-hand combat training is not allowed to follow or observe a suspicious person in his/her neighborhood under any circumstances?
-
IF what you're purporting is actually what had happened, then I don't think anyone would be disagreeing with you. The problem is the facts and the testimony do not support the implication you're making with reference to Zimmerman's mindset.
What if George Zimmerman wasn't carrying a gun. What if Zimmerman happened to be an elite MMA fighter and landed a blow that was either directly or indirectly fatal? Would you then argue that anyone with any sort of military, martial arts, boxing, or hand-to-hand combat training is not allowed to follow or observe a suspicious person in his/her neighborhood under any circumstances?
That's what got Cameron Poe thrown in prison for protecting his pregnant wife, just sayin' :P
-
He had marijuana in his system.....look at some of the side effects for marijuana, which include paranoia. Does that matter? Was he paranoid? Sure sounded like it with his girlfriend. Classic marijuana side effect.
Yeah, dude, he was paranoid from the pot he smoked weeks ago. The fact a strange guy was following him at night had nothing to do with it.
And why do you continue to lie about him being high that night? The facts there are not in dispute, yet you continue to lie about it.
Whether it's publicly stating his desire to make lean or purple drank,
Still waiting for a legit source on that.
whether it's publicly posting videos trying to get an illegal gun, whether it's attacking GZ....all goes to his mental process and his ability to make rational decisions. So no, there is no red herring, it's a pattern of poor choices, poor behaviors...exactly the thing that led to his death because he though it would be a good idea to take on a crazy ass cracker when he was only 70 yards from his home and should have just gone home. Tragic, but that's all it would have taken.
You obviously don't know what a red herring is.
And, for the millionth time, there is no evidence outside of Zimmerman's statement (not that he would ever lie) that TM attacked anyone. All the circumstantial evidence - including Zimmerman's first 911 call - indicates TM was trying to evade Zimmerman, not engage him.
You have a terrible habit in this thread of making up facts.
Instead we have people here that are actually wanting others to believe that GZ called the cops before the incident and then intentionally shot this kid, and then asked one witness to call the cops again.
Uhhh ... who said that?
Here's just ONE screenshot of his account...his words, not mine. This appeared in the NY Times online version, among many other places. No anarchist, just his words.....if the libertarian Canadian radio show host got it right (which he did), then that's all that needs to be said.
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&hl=en&biw=1024&bih=672&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=AUPwUbX6OsjwiwL9w4GoDw&q=trayvon+martin+twitter+screenshot+lean&oq=trayvon+martin+twitter+screenshot+lean&gs_l=img.3...14120.14725.0.14992.5.5.0.0.0.0.130.420.2j3.5.0....0...1c.1.22.img..5.0.0.kfajZ0XFrEM#biv=i%7C18%3Bd%7CxL0DOIVklFTXtM%3A
There's no screenshot there about lean. Try again.
The only thing I've been able to find about this is a claim by a white supremacist who says he hacked TM's Facebook and found him talking about lean.
So, yeah, there's that.
There are other screen shots of his other postings, photos, etc. Isn't it interesting that the media was able to post a nice shot of him when he was 12 years old, was able to edit Zimmerman's 911 call to make him look racist, posted a picture of GZ that made him look like the evil, plodding killer but all of these details were left out. Hmmm. One wonders if GZ had these facebook and twitter postings if the national media would carry them? One wonders if GZ openly talked about lean and purple drank, was high on marijuana if it would be reported that he was simply getting candy and ice tea (not Skittles and a specific drink to mix into a codeine cocktail). Yes, one wonders. ::)
So, then, you are a conspiracy nut.
-
others have posted that the amount in his system was very small likely from several days before type small, that would have not have made him paranoid, people only get paranoid if they are complaetely baked at the time
Each person different, each person reacts differently. One beer puts some youngsters over the edge, to a big fat guy is does nothing. Recency, size of person, experience with the drug, etc, all factor into it.
Let's cut to the chase that if the same amount was found in GZ's system, it would be headline 1A.
-
That's what got Cameron Poe thrown in prison for protecting his pregnant wife, just sayin' :P
I was going to make a Con Air reference, but I didn't want to hijack the thread into a discussion as to why that movie almost killed Nic Cage's career.
-
Each person different, each person reacts differently. One beer puts some youngsters over the edge, to a big fat guy is does nothing. Recency, size of person, experience with the drug, etc, all factor into it.
Let's cut to the chase that if the same amount was found in GZ's system, it would be headline 1A.
No, Chico's, no.
A person who smoked pot several days ago is not walking around today feeling paranoid. It doesn't work that way. Stop making stuff up.
-
IF what you're purporting is actually what had happened, then I don't think anyone would be disagreeing with you. The problem is the facts and the testimony do not support the implication you're making with reference to Zimmerman's mindset.
What if George Zimmerman wasn't carrying a gun. What if Zimmerman happened to be an elite MMA fighter and landed a blow that was either directly or indirectly fatal? Would you then argue that anyone with any sort of military, martial arts, boxing, or hand-to-hand combat training is not allowed to follow or observe a suspicious person in his/her neighborhood under any circumstances?
I guess it depends how it all went down. I know you can't leave your fists at home, so it's hard to blame somebody for defending himself (with his fists). Plus, in theory, an MMA fighter or trained combat veteran would be far more trained for this scenario than George and his gun permit.
The whole thing starts (for me) with 2 things:
#1 Zimmerman actively decided to arm himself with a firearm, and go out looking for potential criminals.
#2 When Zimmerman saw what he erroneously considered a "suspect", he followed that "suspect" without identifying himself as the neighborhood watch and/or declaring his intentions. (no uniform, no bright yellow jacket, etc.)
I have a hard time calling it self defense, when he had a LOT of options to avoid engagement.
-
Martin was walking home. He wasn't out looking for Zimmerman.
Zimmerman armed himself, and went out looking for potential criminals. He followed, engaged, and ultimately fired upon an unarmed man.
I have a hard time calling that self defense. I know it's all "legal", but that's what I find concerning. I don't like the way the laws are written or interpreted.
Zimmerman observed a stranger in his neighborhood who eventually attacked him. I'd say he was lucky to be armed and Martin picked on the wrong guy.
-
See ... I can speculate, too.
Zimmerman didn't attack Martin because he looked suspicious, as you fantasize. He fought back to defend himself as has been established in a court of law. Your "speculation" is too cute by, well, a large margin.
-
Zimmerman didn't attack Martin because he looked suspicious, as you fantasize. He fought back to defend himself as has been established in a court of law. Your "speculation" is too cute by, well, a large margin.
No, that's not what's been established in a court of law.
Perhaps you should learn how the criminal justice system works before commenting on it.
-
Zimmerman observed a stranger in his neighborhood who eventually attacked him. I'd say he was lucky to be armed and Martin picked on the wrong guy.
The kid was local. Feet from his house. He's not a stranger in the neighborhood.
If George didn't know him, he should have clearly ID'd himself to the kid and declared his intentions. Cops do it everyday. They wear a uniform. They ride in a squad car. They wear a badge.
"Hey kid, I'm George, I'm with neighborhood watch, what are you doing out here? Do you live around here? Can I help you?"
The idea is crime PREVENTION, not criminal APPREHENSION.
-
No, that's not what's been established in a court of law.
Perhaps you should learn how the criminal justice system works before commenting on it.
I nominate Pakuni for Scoop's Semantic Watch Captain.
-
I nominate Pakuni for Scoop's Semantic Watch Captain.
You're abdicating?
-
The kid was local. Feet from his house. He's not a stranger in the neighborhood.
He was not local. He was "temporarily" staying there, I think with his aunt.
-
He was not local. He was "temporarily" staying there, I think with his aunt.
His parents are divorced. Mom lives near Miami, dad in Sanford. Mom had primary custody, but he wasn't a newcomer/stranger to Sanford.
-
"Hey kid, I'm George, I'm with neighborhood watch, what are you doing out here? Do you live around here? Can I help you?"
This sentence could have saved a young man's life.
But too bad, he got pissed at a stranger following him back to his aunts house, and he smoked weed 3 weeks before he died and he asked about drugs on his Facebook page months ago, so yeah, he is an idiot, and caused his own death.
-
The kid was local. Feet from his house. He's not a stranger in the neighborhood.
If George didn't know him, he should have clearly ID'd himself to the kid and declared his intentions. Cops do it everyday. They wear a uniform. They ride in a squad car. They wear a badge.
"Hey kid, I'm George, I'm with neighborhood watch, what are you doing out here? Do you live around here? Can I help you?"
The idea is crime PREVENTION, not criminal APPREHENSION.
+1
I gotta say, Guns is one of my favorite Scoopers--strives for objectivity and is always unassuming. I second every comment he has made so far.
-
His parents are divorced. Mom lives near Miami, dad in Sanford. Mom had primary custody, but he wasn't a newcomer/stranger to Sanford.
I never said he was a "newcomer". I never said he was a "stranger". I said he wasn't a local. He wasn't - I said he was staying there temporarily. He was. I said I thought it was with his aunt. If it was with his father I stand corrected on that minor, non germane point.
If you're to keep your position as self appointed volunteer semantic watch captain you'll have to do better.
-
No, that's not what's been established in a court of law.
Perhaps you should learn how the criminal justice system works before commenting on it.
No? Really? Let's see, he was charged with second degree murder and found not guilty, he could have been found guilty of manslaughter but wasn't, yet he killed someone. Hmm, sure sounds like the jury established that he killed Martin in, wait for it, self-defense!
-
No? Really? Let's see, he was charged with second degree murder and found not guilty, he could have been found guilty of manslaughter but wasn't, yet he killed someone. Hmm, sure sounds like the jury established that he killed Martin in, wait for it, self-defense!
Actually, all the verdict establishes is that the jury didn't feel that the state proved murder or manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
He was not local. He was "temporarily" staying there, I think with his aunt.
Well, it's not like the kid was in some random neighborhood across town walking around with no place to go.
He was walking home.
Now, there is no way for Zimmerman to know that, but that's exactly my point. He's not trained to follow and apprehend anybody. He mistakenly took Martin for a "suspect", and subsequently started a chain of events that led to a shooting.
-
Pakuni
(http://i41.tinypic.com/14smv5u.jpg)
(http://i39.tinypic.com/161ess2.jpg)
-
Conspiracy nut? Sorry, but when the media makes up a new term, "White Hispanic" because the original meme that he was white was disproved, that is their issue. When the media (two separate organizations) edit the 911 call to make GZ look like a racist by removing key sentences, that is on them. When the media says TM was simply getting candy and ice tea when it wasn't ice tea at all, but rather 2 of 3 ingredients for a drug concoction that his own tweets, his own facebook page said he had used, that's on the media. When the media portrays this kid with pictures as a 12 year old, a full 5 years and many pounds lighter, that is on the media.
Nothing to do with conspiracy, the media was a complete joke in this. If some of the evidence that was found on TM's phone, etc, was actually on GZ's, it would have been front and center. The media did everything the could to ignore a lot of crap and create crap against GZ. Hope he absolutely cleans their clock in his lawsuit(s) against them.
-
The kid was local. Feet from his house. He's not a stranger in the neighborhood.
If George didn't know him, he should have clearly ID'd himself to the kid and declared his intentions. Cops do it everyday. They wear a uniform. They ride in a squad car. They wear a badge.
"Hey kid, I'm George, I'm with neighborhood watch, what are you doing out here? Do you live around here? Can I help you?"
The idea is crime PREVENTION, not criminal APPREHENSION.
Lots of should haves. Agree. Not sure anyone said GZ didn't make a mistake(s). Of course, let's treat TM the same way.
"Hey man, why are you following me?
"Instead of....you got a problem with me.....well you do now?" Of course, that doesn't count because GZ said it and it cannot be corroborated so immediately the default is that he is a liar.
If he was out to apprehend, why wouldn't he just take his gun out right from the start and keep him at bay until the cops came?
Better yet, if he was feet from his house why didn't he go into it rather than attack GZ?
-
Well, it's not like the kid was in some random neighborhood across town walking around with no place to go.
He was walking home.
Now, there is no way for Zimmerman to know that, but that's exactly my point. He's not trained to follow and apprehend anybody. He mistakenly took Martin for a "suspect", and subsequently started a chain of events that led to a shooting.
A chain of events that stops if he isn't attacked by TM. It's not as if it was a chain of events that was a runaway train. He followed him, nothing illegal about it. He called the cops, ahead of time. Had a gun, nothing illegal about it. He was attacked (this is what the evidence shows, what the jury believes....Pakuni can say that's not the case, that's what REASONABLE people believe happened and stated in the jury deliberations). He fired in self defense.
Don't attack a guy feet from your home, don't break his nose, don't pummel his head into the concrete, and you are still alive. Bad decision.
-
Conspiracy nut? Sorry, but when the media makes up a new term, "White Hispanic" because the original meme that he was white was disproved, that is their issue. When the media (two separate organizations) edit the 911 call to make GZ look like a racist by removing key sentences, that is on them. When the media says TM was simply getting candy and ice tea when it wasn't ice tea at all, but rather 2 of 3 ingredients for a drug concoction that his own tweets, his own facebook page said he had used, that's on the media. When the media portrays this kid with pictures as a 12 year old, a full 5 years and many pounds lighter, that is on the media.
Nothing to do with conspiracy, the media was a complete joke in this. If some of the evidence that was found on TM's phone, etc, was actually on GZ's, it would have been front and center. The media did everything the could to ignore a lot of crap and create crap against GZ. Hope he absolutely cleans their clock in his lawsuit(s) against them.
The demographics white hispanic and non-hispanic white have been being used long before GZ. It is the predominant way of distinguishing between individuals of hispanic origin and those that are not. The US census even used this breakdown. Google non-hispanic white and read up.
-
No, Chico's, no.
A person who smoked pot several days ago is not walking around today feeling paranoid. It doesn't work that way. Stop making stuff up.
Wasn't making anything up. Here you go
Medical examiner Shiping Bao told jurors that he had changed his opinion with regard to whether Martin’s marijuana level could have affected his physical or mental state on the night of the shooting. Bao initially concluded that the amount of THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) in Martin’s blood would not have had any effect on the 17-year-old.
However, during his testimony last week, Bao referenced Martin’s THC level, noting that “Marijuana could have no effect or some effect.”
In Zimmerman’s call to a non-emergency police line, he told a dispatcher that a person he was observing (who turned out to be Martin) appeared to be “on drugs.”
-
Lots of should haves. Agree. Not sure anyone said GZ didn't make a mistake(s). Of course, let's treat TM the same way.
"Hey man, why are you following me?
"Instead of....you got a problem with me.....well you do now?" Of course, that doesn't count because GZ said it and it cannot be corroborated so immediately the default is that he is a liar.
If he was out to apprehend, why wouldn't he just take his gun out right from the start and keep him at bay until the cops came?
Better yet, if he was feet from his house why didn't he go into it rather than attack GZ?
You are absolutely correct that there are mistakes on both parties. I wish Martin would have just walked home. I wish Martin would have called the cops so they could come out and straighten the whole thing out. I wish a lot of things happened differently.
But, I hold the neighborhood watch captain with the pistol more responsible than the unarmed kid walking home from the store.
As far as apprehension vs prevention, I guess we are getting into semantics. I can't put myself in Zimmerman's shoes, but based off of the police call(s), he want people CAUGHT. Now, I understand his frustration, but neighborhood watch isn't about "catching" people. It's about PREVENTION of crime.
For me, a guy walking around in plain clothes, in the dark, carrying a gun, isn't doing much to prevent crime. Wear a yellow jacket. Carry a huge flashlight, identify yourself, introduce yourself to people you don't recognize, etc. etc. Zimmerman wanted to make sure this kid was caught. He was trying to give the police his exact location and description. Again, Zimmerman isn't trained for this. Bad stuff can happen. Bad stuff did happen.
There is a reason why MU has "yellow jackets" out walking around on campus instead of students in plain clothes carrying guns.
Crime prevention is about visibility, observation and presence. I don't think an armed citizen in plain clothes following a "suspect" is crime prevention... it's a seen from a Charles Bronson movie.
-
Chicos, lets assume that TM did have drugs in his system that would make him paranoid.
Fact of the matter is, some dude got out of his car in the rain and stalked him through a neighborhood for no particular reason. Being afraid/concerned under this scenario is not paranoid, it is the prudent rational thing to think.
Also, Trayvon did ask Zimmerman why he was following him, right before the altercation occurred and shortly before Trayvon "hit the ground" as reported by his girlfriend.
Now just like everything else, none of this can be confirmed, but witnesses validate it (his girlfriend).
Oh wait that can't be right, because TM jumped out of non-existent bushes and surprised GZ.
-
The demographics white hispanic and non-hispanic white have been being used long before GZ. It is the predominant way of distinguishing between individuals of hispanic origin and those that are not. The US census even used this breakdown. Google non-hispanic white and read up.
I don't disagree with that, but it has not been used in reporting. That was the point. In fact one outlet did a search a about 6 months or so ago showing that the first time some of these news services had EVER used the term was in this case. Not one time prior had they ever done so and it coincidentally came after the same services claimed he was white, only to find out they were wrong.
A separate analysis done on the NY Times around their use of the term can be found here. It was the first time in the NY Times HISTORY they used the term White Hispanic about a specific individual. Amazing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/why-did-new-york-times-call-george-zimmerman-white-hispanic/2012/03/28/gIQAW6fngS_blog.html
Is the media going to now call our President a white African American?
Look, the media got burned bad in this one...very badly. The editing of the tapes was criminal and they will pay dearly as a result. The stirring up of the other crap most Americans can see through. It was disgusting.
-
Chicos, lets assume that TM did have drugs in his system that would make him paranoid.
Fact of the matter is, some dude got out of his car in the rain and stalked him through a neighborhood for no particular reason. Being afraid/concerned under this scenario is not paranoid, it is the prudent rational thing to think.
If he was so afraid of this "stalker", why did he attack him and not just go into his house a few feet away? Why didn't he seek the safety of his house....isn't that rational?
-
A chain of events that stops if he isn't attacked by TM. It's not as if it was a chain of events that was a runaway train. He followed him, nothing illegal about it. He called the cops, ahead of time. Had a gun, nothing illegal about it. He was attacked (this is what the evidence shows, what the jury believes....Pakuni can say that's not the case, that's what REASONABLE people believe happened and stated in the jury deliberations). He fired in self defense.
Don't attack a guy feet from your home, don't break his nose, don't pummel his head into the concrete, and you are still alive. Bad decision.
The chain of events doesn't even start if Zimmerman applies a tiny bit of common sense and self control. He's NOT TRAINED to identify and follow a "suspect". The second he took 1 step towards Martin, he was wrong. When he didn't immediately identify himself as neighborhood watch, he was wrong.
As far as "legal" or not, I know how/why Zimmerman was found not guilty. My problem is that I think the laws are poorly written/interpreted that it allows for untrained individuals to arm themselves and follow private citizens because somebody MIGHT commit a crime.
-
The chain of events doesn't even start if Zimmerman applies a tiny bit of common sense and self control. He's NOT TRAINED to identify and follow a "suspect". The second he took 1 step towards Martin, he was wrong. When he didn't immediately identify himself as neighborhood watch, he was wrong.
As far as "legal" or not, I know how/why Zimmerman was found not guilty. My problem is that I think the laws are poorly written/interpreted that it allows for untrained individuals to arm themselves and follow private citizens because somebody MIGHT commit a crime.
Absolutely doesn't matter. The jurors said the same thing. Two separate events. Should GZ have followed him, no. Him following him didn't lead to TM's death. TM could have gone into his house. Could have not attacked GZ. Could have run away. Etc, etc, etc. It was the act of attacking GZ that cost him his life. Two separate incidents.
-
If he was so afraid of this "stalker", why did he attack him and not just go into his house a few feet away? Why didn't he seek the safety of his house....isn't that rational?
For the 50th time. We don't know that he attacked GZ first, there is no evidence to support that assertion as contradicting reports exist. The contradictory reports are sufficient for reasonable doubt, but not proof in either direction.
Also, the fact of the matter is we will never know why he didn't just go into his house, as he was gunned down by GZ. For all we know GZ was reaching for his gun (note, I am not saying this occurred, just illustrating that we have no idea what happened).
-
You are absolutely correct that there are mistakes on both parties. I wish Martin would have just walked home. I wish Martin would have called the cops so they could come out and straighten the whole thing out. I wish a lot of things happened differently.
But, I hold the neighborhood watch captain with the pistol more responsible than the unarmed kid walking home from the store.
As far as apprehension vs prevention, I guess we are getting into semantics. I can't put myself in Zimmerman's shoes, but based off of the police call(s), he want people CAUGHT. Now, I understand his frustration, but neighborhood watch isn't about "catching" people. It's about PREVENTION of crime.
For me, a guy walking around in plain clothes, in the dark, carrying a gun, isn't doing much to prevent crime. Wear a yellow jacket. Carry a huge flashlight, identify yourself, introduce yourself to people you don't recognize, etc. etc. Zimmerman wanted to make sure this kid was caught. He was trying to give the police his exact location and description. Again, Zimmerman isn't trained for this. Bad stuff can happen. Bad stuff did happen.
There is a reason why MU has "yellow jackets" out walking around on campus instead of students in plain clothes carrying guns.
Crime prevention is about visibility, observation and presence. I don't think an armed citizen in plain clothes following a "suspect" is crime prevention... it's a seen from a Charles Bronson movie.
I agree with most of what you'v said here, but your last line -- and you've used it a couple of times now -- is one of the things that keeps getting under people's skin. You keep saying you don't like the way this went down..mistakes...carelessness...prevention...etc. And then you compare it to a well-known series of movies where the protagonist was a vigilante who was specifically out there hunting and killing people. That rubs a lot of people the wrong way. I think Zimmerman made some stupid mistakes that tragically led to the death of Martin. But, I don't think he set out to kill Martin and I think he acted in self defense. I think the prosecution's biggest mistake in the case was to try to make a case that Zimmerman wanted to kill Martin. I think if they'd have just focused their attention on manslaughter, they might have been able to get that conviction.
-
Actually, all the verdict establishes is that the jury didn't feel that the state proved murder or manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt.
a distinction without a difference.
-
For the 50th time. We don't know that he attacked GZ first, there is no evidence to support that assertion as contradicting reports exist. The contradictory reports are sufficient for reasonable doubt, but not proof in either direction.
Also, the fact of the matter is we will never know why he didn't just go into his house, as he was gunned down by GZ. For all we know GZ was reaching for his gun (note, I am not saying this occurred, just illustrating that we have no idea what happened).
Reasonable person standard. Reasonable people, the jurors of Florida, believe the is what happened. We have a defendant when told by police AFTER his statement that the entire thing was captured on video said, "THANK GOD!". This was going to prove his story.
This is what I find funny. Some of you basically calling this guy a liar, when it was he who called the cops in the first place. He is the one that was hoping like hell there was a video to back up his story.
Then I read wonderful hypothesis that seem to indicate that he had his gun out from the very beginning, or an intent to kill him from the start. If so, can someone explain to me why he let his face get bashed in and his skull smashed in before finally pulling the trigger? Again, reasonable person standard.
-
I agree with most of what you'v said here, but your last line -- and you've used it a couple of times now -- is one of the things that keeps getting under people's skin. You keep saying you don't like the way this went down..mistakes...carelessness...prevention...etc. And then you compare it to a well-known series of movies where the protagonist was a vigilante who was specifically out there hunting and killing people. That rubs a lot of people the wrong way. I think Zimmerman made some stupid mistakes that tragically led to the death of Martin. But, I don't think he set out to kill Martin and I think he acted in self defense. I think the prosecution's biggest mistake in the case was to try to make a case that Zimmerman wanted to kill Martin. I think if they'd have just focused their attention on manslaughter, they might have been able to get that conviction.
That's fair. I use the Bronson thing as an extreme comparison, and your right, the intent is different.
I don't think GZ set out to kill anybody. think he's a guy who was frustrated about the crime in his neighborhood. Instead of just calling the cops, he followed a kid because he didn't want the kid to "get away". He could have called out to TM, he could have ID'd himself to TM. But, he didn't.
That's an important distinction for me. I don't think Zimmerman did a good enough job of preventing an altercation. He engaged in an activity that started one.
-
Absolutely doesn't matter. The jurors said the same thing. Two separate events. Should GZ have followed him, no. Him following him didn't lead to TM's death. TM could have gone into his house. Could have not attacked GZ. Could have run away. Etc, etc, etc. It was the act of attacking GZ that cost him his life. Two separate incidents.
Well, for me, they aren't separate events.
I don't know exactly how the physical altercation occurred. I've never claimed to.
But, I know that Zimmerman actively made several poor decisions that led up to altercation with TM. If he had decided differently at any of those points, the altercation never occurs.
- Wear a yellow jacket
- don't follow a "suspect"
- ID yourself to strangers
- Call out to the "suspect"
- Stay in your car after you call the cops
- Work in pairs
- etc.
Just imagine if TM was a 17 year old girl. Does that change your opinion? Should a 17yr old girl be frightened of an unidentified man following her around?
-
GZ is a Neighborhood Watch member. He saw someone suspicious walking slowly in the rain, not a normal pace for a person wanting to not get wet. A watch person is on the lookout for his neighborhood and he had a permit for his gun. If TM had not confronted him it would not have gone down the way it did. Both made unfortunate decisions.
Shame on the media for lying to us by omission of key facts, exaggerating others and generally making this story something it was not.
-
That's fair. I use the Bronson thing as an extreme comparison, and your right, the intent is different.
I don't think GZ set out to kill anybody. think he's a guy who was frustrated about the crime in his neighborhood. Instead of just calling the cops, he followed a kid because he didn't want the kid to "get away". He could have called out to TM, he could have ID'd himself to TM. But, he didn't.
That's an important distinction for me. I don't think Zimmerman did a good enough job of preventing an altercation. He engaged in an activity that started one.
Zimmerman was out running errands when he noticed Martin wandering through the neighborhood, between houses, not on the sidewalk. He wasn't out "patrolling" the neighborhood that night. He just happened to see him from his car.
He also noticed, as he stated to the police dispatcher, that Martin was reaching in his waistband and later that he had something in his hands. For all Zimmerman knew, it was a weapon. Personally, if I thought there was even a slight chance that a suspicious-looking person was holding a gun, I would not approach him and announce to him that I was neighborhood watch. Hell, I wouldn't approach him at all. Would anyone on here?
I'm not trying to excuse the mistakes made by either party - just pointing out some facts.
In all honesty, I do think that if GZ was wearing a bright orange "Neighborhood Watch" vest, Martin would not have feared him and would have just gone home.
-
Zimmerman was out running errands when he noticed Martin wandering through the neighborhood, between houses, not on the sidewalk. He wasn't out "patrolling" the neighborhood that night. He just happened to see him from his car.
He also noticed, as he stated to the police dispatcher, that Martin was reaching in his waistband and later that he had something in his hands. For all Zimmerman knew, it was a weapon. Personally, if I thought there was even a slight chance that a suspicious-looking person was holding a gun, I would not approach him and announce to him that I was neighborhood watch. Hell, I wouldn't approach him at all. Would anyone on here?
I'm not trying to excuse the mistakes made by either party - just pointing out some facts.
In all honesty, I do think that if GZ was wearing a bright orange "Neighborhood Watch" vest, Martin would not have feared him and would have just gone home.
The knife cuts both ways though, right?
Imagine what TM thought when Zimmerman started following him between houses? Did Zimmerman reach for his waistband? Did TM think he had a gun? What was going through TM's mind?
If Zimmerman was afraid, imagine how TM felt.
AND, if Zimmerman thought the kid was too dangerous to approach, he shouldn't have gotten out of his truck.
-
The knife cuts both ways though, right?
Imagine what TM thought when Zimmerman started following him between houses? Did Zimmerman reach for his waistband? Did TM think he had a gun? What was going through TM's mind?
If Zimmerman was afraid, imagine how TM felt.
AND, if Zimmerman thought the kid was too dangerous to approach, he shouldn't have gotten out of his truck.
I agree.
Martin saw a "creepy-ass cracker" following him for reasons unknown and it scared him. Zimmerman saw a suspicious-looking person wandering through yards and was concerned. It's easy to sit back and say that GZ should have politely ID'd himself or that Martin should have just run home. In the moment, however, neither of them knew what the other was up to and none of us know what we would have done in a similar situation. Again, I agree with your notion that some sort of easily-visible neighborhood watch jacket/vest/tag would have been beneficial and possibly even life-saving (although it may not have been an option since GZ was just out running errands).
Zimmerman didn't approach Martin when he got out of his truck. He went to see where he went so that he could tell police where he was when they arrived.
-
Zimmerman didn't approach Martin when he got out of his truck. He went to see where he went so that he could tell police where he was when they arrived.
And for me, that's where the whole thing goes wrong.
I don't think Zimmerman had bad intentions, but he didn't have the proper self control to evaluate the situation and the potential risks/danger. He's not trained for these scenarios, so I wish he would have just stayed out of it.
The chain of events didn't begin with a physical altercation, it began when Zimmerman tried to track a "potentially dangerous suspect who might have a gun".
-
I agree.
Again, I agree with your notion that some sort of easily-visible neighborhood watch jacket/vest/tag would have been beneficial and possibly even life-saving (although it may not have been an option since GZ was just out running errands).
George remembered to bring his gun when he ran errands. Probably not too much to ask for him to throw in a flashlight and vest into his truck.
-
I agree.
Martin saw a "creepy-ass cracker" following him for reasons unknown and it scared him. Zimmerman saw a suspicious-looking person wandering through yards and was concerned. It's easy to sit back and say that GZ should have politely ID'd himself or that Martin should have just run home. In the moment, however, neither of them knew what the other was up to and none of us know what we would have done in a similar situation. Again, I agree with your notion that some sort of easily-visible neighborhood watch jacket/vest/tag would have been beneficial and possibly even life-saving (although it may not have been an option since GZ was just out running errands).
Zimmerman didn't approach Martin when he got out of his truck. He went to see where he went so that he could tell police where he was when they arrived.
I generally agree, but ....
None of us knows what happened between the time Zimmerman ended his 911 call and the confrontation between he and Martin.
Did Zimmerman continue to pursue Martin?
Did Martin, after running away, come back and confront Zimmerman?
Did they happen upon one another by chance?
We don't know. We have Zimmerman's account, but obviously he has pretty strong incentive to portray himself in the best possible light. And, IMO, the actions of both up to that point make me doubtful of his version because it would require a complete role reversal (i.e. scared teen suddenly becomes emboldened to hunt down GZ and assault him). But maybe that is what happened.
-
I generally agree, but ....
None of us knows what happened between the time Zimmerman ended his 911 call and the confrontation between he and Martin.
Did Zimmerman continue to pursue Martin?
Did Martin, after running away, come back and confront Zimmerman?
Did they happen upon one another by chance?
We don't know. We have Zimmerman's account, but obviously he has pretty strong incentive to portray himself in the best possible light. And, IMO, the actions of both up to that point make me doubtful of his version because it would require a complete role reversal (i.e. scared teen suddenly becomes emboldened to hunt down GZ and assault him). But maybe that is what happened.
Honest question: is it clear that he was a scared teen? I'm assuming that would come from the phone conversation from this friend, but I don't know. I can understand the whole, "wouldn't you be scared if some strange man was following/stalking/tracking/hunting/looking at/etc. you" theory, but I'm genuinely curious of there was actually evidence that he was scared (aside from the fact that he ran).
-
Honest question: is it clear that he was a scared teen? I'm assuming that would come from the phone conversation from this friend, but I don't know. I can understand the whole, "wouldn't you be scared if some strange man was following/stalking/tracking/hunting/looking at/etc. you" theory, but I'm genuinely curious of there was actually evidence that he was scared (aside from the fact that he ran).
Two pieces of evidence he was scared:
1. He ran
2. The testimony from the friend with whom he was speaking while being followed.
Honest follow up ... other than the aforementioned, what further evidence might you imagine to indicate he was scared, or at least apprehensive, about being followed by a stranger?
-
And for me, that's where the whole thing goes wrong.
I don't think Zimmerman had bad intentions, but he didn't have the proper self control to evaluate the situation and the potential risks/danger. He's not trained for these scenarios, so I wish he would have just stayed out of it.
The chain of events didn't begin with a physical altercation, it began when Zimmerman tried to track a "potentially dangerous suspect who might have a gun".
I can't really argue with that. I think GZ got caught up in the moment and truly believed that he was going to play an integral role in arresting the person who had been breaking into homes in his neighborhood. I don't think he necessarily went about things in the right fashion, but he wasn't completely wrong either, if that makes sense.
George remembered to bring his gun when he ran errands. Probably not too much to ask for him to throw in a flashlight and vest into his truck.
I'd be willing to bet that there's a significantly higher number of people who keep guns in their cars than you and I realize. I happen to know 2 of those people and I never would have guessed it had they not told me.
-
Reasonable person standard. Reasonable people, the jurors of Florida, believe the is what happened. We have a defendant when told by police AFTER his statement that the entire thing was captured on video said, "THANK GOD!". This was going to prove his story.
This is what I find funny. Some of you basically calling this guy a liar, when it was he who called the cops in the first place. He is the one that was hoping like hell there was a video to back up his story.
Then I read wonderful hypothesis that seem to indicate that he had his gun out from the very beginning, or an intent to kill him from the start. If so, can someone explain to me why he let his face get bashed in and his skull smashed in before finally pulling the trigger? Again, reasonable person standard.
Reasonable people concluded that there was not definitive evidence to convict for murder or manslaughter, not that they believed GZs version of the events.
Fact of the matter is, GZ changed his story several times. His final story does not line up with concrete evidence (see his video reenactment), so either he is a liar or he doesn't really remember how the whole thing went down and his mind is filling in gaps. I tend to believe the latter. PTSD will help you fill in the gaps and if you are traumatized from a particular action, lets say killing someone, you mind will fill in gaps with information that makes you feel better about your action.
The comment that his hand was on his gun the entire time, was my poke at you guys making stuff up. I thought it was clear (and later flat out said it)...the internet is not a great venue for subtle tricks of the English language.
GZ didn't let his face get bashed in and his skull smashed. Medical experts confirmed his injuries were minor. Your reading into the story what you want to see.
Phone conversation confirms GZ caught up to TM. TM asked "Why are you following me". Phone conversation indicates TM hit the ground (this would imply that GZ tried to detain/restrain TM). What happens next is anyones guess.
Using a reasonable person standard, I would assume that GZ at this point is already reaching for his gun. As he believes he is detaining a criminal. Fight ensues, GZ takes some licks, kills TM.
If you think GZ was acting as a reasonable person at any point in the story, then I really don't want to live in your neighborhood.
-
I can't really argue with that. I think GZ got caught up in the moment and truly believed that he was going to play an integral role in arresting the person who had been breaking into homes in his neighborhood. I don't think he necessarily went about things in the right fashion, but he wasn't completely wrong either, if that makes sense.
I'd be willing to bet that there's a significantly higher number of people who keep guns in their cars than you and I realize. I happen to know 2 of those people and I never would have guessed it had they not told me.
Absolutely, people keep guns in their cars. But how many of them conceal carry in a rear inside the waistband holster when they are out running errands. Even then, how many of them remember to arm themselves when they get out of their car (to determine what street they are on) to report to the police.
I'll note that it is kind of odd, that the reason GZ got out of his car was to be able to report to police his location. Turns out he was on his own street on the dog walk that he uses everyday. Seems like the reason he got out of his car was not to determine his location.
-
Two pieces of evidence he was scared:
1. He ran
2. The testimony from the friend with whom he was speaking while being followed.
Honest follow up ... other than the aforementioned, what further evidence might you imagine to indicate he was scared, or at least apprehensive, about being followed by a stranger?
Number 2 is what I was really asking about. I didn't know if there was testimony that he told his friend that he was scared. I didn't hear all of her testimony and I haven't read the transcript. Obviously, running is evidence that he was scared. It is circumstantial and could just also be seen as evidence of other things.
-
This is much more about politics than justice or a search for the truth. Both "sides" have a false narrative they're trying to push - neighborhoods overrun by violent packs of young black men or a racist America where it's open season on young black men. Initially, the local authorities filed NO charges against their civilian "watch commander". Pretty amazing. After the media, the NAACP and our justice department put on the pressure a special counsel decided to charge Zimmerman with 2nd degree MURDER. Equally amazing. This was a tragedy where mistakes by both parties resulted in a horrific outcome. George Zimmerman should shoulder considerable blame/responsibility for his part. And some punishment. Anyone so far to the right not to see that needs an adjustment to their prescription. But he isn't a murderer, and anyone so far to the left to believe he is needs a similar adjustment.
-
This is much more about politics than justice or a search for the truth. Both "sides" have a false narrative they're trying to push - neighborhoods overrun by violent packs of young black men or a racist America where it's open season on young black men. Initially, the local authorities filed NO charges against their civilian "watch commander". Pretty amazing. After the media, the NAACP and our justice department put on the pressure a special counsel decided to charge Zimmerman with 2nd degree MURDER. Equally amazing. This was a tragedy where mistakes by both parties resulted in a horrific outcome. George Zimmerman should shoulder considerable blame/responsibility for his part. And some punishment. Anyone so far to the right not to see that needs an adjustment to their prescription. But he isn't a murderer, and anyone so far to the left to believe he is needs a similar adjustment.
It may not be court-order and it may not be enough in some people's mind, but George Zimmerman is mostly definitely facing a "punishment" for his actions.
-
I can't really argue with that. I think GZ got caught up in the moment and truly believed that he was going to play an integral role in arresting the person who had been breaking into homes in his neighborhood. I don't think he necessarily went about things in the right fashion, but he wasn't completely wrong either, if that makes sense.
I'd be willing to bet that there's a significantly higher number of people who keep guns in their cars than you and I realize. I happen to know 2 of those people and I never would have guessed it had they not told me.
Yea, I agree with this.
As far as the firearm, I only make the comment because there is a lot more work and responsibility to carrying a firearm, and he was willing to do that... it's not unreasonable to ask that he keep a vest and flashlight in his car if he was really interested in PREVENTING crime.
But, crime prevention isn't very satisfying. Apprehension provides instant gratification.
-
It may not be court-order and it may not be enough in some people's mind, but George Zimmerman is mostly definitely facing a "punishment" for his actions.
I don't disagree, but a year or two in the joint would have ultimately served justice, Zimmerman and the Martin family better.
-
But, crime prevention isn't very satisfying. Apprehension provides instant gratification.
Crime "prevention" only works in the moment. The minute the police presence, neighborhood watch folks, etc. are gone the criminal is back in business. Apprehension leads to (hopefully) incarceration, erasing the possibility of crime perpetrated by that individual for a much longer time.
-
Crime "prevention" only works in the moment. The minute the police presence, neighborhood watch folks, etc. are gone the criminal is back in business. Apprehension leads to (hopefully) incarceration, erasing the possibility of crime perpetrated by that individual for a much longer time.
To me, prevention/presence can last a lot longer.
In general, most thefts and crime are based upon opportunity and ease. If there are people walking around a neighborhood being vigilant, if people put there stuff away and lock their doors, etc. etc. it goes a long way to prevent criminal activity.
Apprehension takes a bad guy off of the street, but it doesn't do a ton to prevent crime in the future (another guy could take his place, or he could eventually come back).
Anyways, my point is that prevention isn't very glamorous and takes hours of time (boring).
Apprehension includes a rush of adrenaline and immediate satisfaction.
-
To me, prevention/presence can last a lot longer.
In general, most thefts and crime are based upon opportunity and ease. If there are people walking around a neighborhood being vigilant, if people put there stuff away and lock their doors, etc. etc. it goes a long way to prevent criminal activity.
Apprehension takes a bad guy off of the street, but it doesn't do a ton to prevent crime in the future (another guy could take his place, or he could eventually come back).
Anyways, my point is that prevention isn't very glamorous and takes hours of time (boring).
Apprehension includes a rush of adrenaline and immediate satisfaction.
My personal belief is that there is a middle ground between prevention and apprehension: observation. I believe that this was what Zimmerman had in mind that night -- try to keep an eye on Martin until the cops arrived. Once he lost sight of him, I think this included looking around for him. Others obviously think he had different plans that night. Only one person knows for sure.
-
To me, prevention/presence can last a lot longer.
In general, most thefts and crime are based upon opportunity and ease. If there are people walking around a neighborhood being vigilant, if people put there stuff away and lock their doors, etc. etc. it goes a long way to prevent criminal activity.
Wow. It's your fault, you didn't lock the door. If only women didn't wear short skirts they wouldn't get raped.
Sorry, I think the only solution is getting robbers, rapists, etc. off the street - something you can't do unless you "apprehend" them.
-
Wow. It's your fault, you didn't lock the door. If only women didn't wear short skirts they wouldn't get raped.
Sorry, I think the only solution is getting robbers, rapists, etc. off the street - something you can't do unless you "apprehend" them.
Woah. I think we got off track, Lenny.
I believe in apprehension 100%.
I'm just saying that if you have some minor burglaries and whatnot in your area, prevention goes a long ways.
-
My personal belief is that there is a middle ground between prevention and apprehension: observation. I believe that this was what Zimmerman had in mind that night -- try to keep an eye on Martin until the cops arrived. Once he lost sight of him, I think this included looking around for him. Others obviously think he had different plans that night. Only one person knows for sure.
Yea, that's fair.
Again, I don't think George was out for murder, but I think he made a lot of bad decisions and created a situation that didn't need to happen.
-
a distinction without a difference.
Or not.
http://voices.suntimes.com/early-and-often/zimmerman-juror-from-chicago-goes-public-george-zimmerman-got-away-with-murder/
-
If you think GZ was acting as a reasonable person at any point in the story, then I really don't want to live in your neighborhood.
I think you would love to live in my neighborhood. Though you will be a minority, just as I am....which I love, but some people don't like that. Safe place, good folks, honest and hard working, don't put up with BS from vandals, teens, etc. Neighborhood watch here works great, plus a committed police department that aggressively polices.
I did enjoy your comment that I'm reading into the story what I want to see......I'd ask if you are doing the same. :D
-
Well, for me, they aren't separate events.
I don't know exactly how the physical altercation occurred. I've never claimed to.
But, I know that Zimmerman actively made several poor decisions that led up to altercation with TM. If he had decided differently at any of those points, the altercation never occurs.
- Wear a yellow jacket
- don't follow a "suspect"
- ID yourself to strangers
- Call out to the "suspect"
- Stay in your car after you call the cops
- Work in pairs
- etc.
Just imagine if TM was a 17 year old girl. Does that change your opinion? Should a 17yr old girl be frightened of an unidentified man following her around?
It wasn't a 17 year old girl. I'd expect a 17 year old girl to act with more brains than TM and go inside the house, or call the cops, neither of which TM did.
I have to ask, why all of a sudden is GZ creepy? Because TM said so? Isn't that just as much profiling as those claiming GZ profiled TM?
As mentioned earlier, I'm the block captain for my neighborhood, we never work in pairs and certainly don't have yellow jackets, or anything of the kind. This isn't public safety at MU. We're private citizens, who work, go to our kids school and sporting functions, etc. I tend to walk my dog with me when I cruise the neighborhood....if you saw my dog she would try to lick an assailant to death, not a viscious bone in her body. We act on the rule of whether you see something suspicious, go ahead and report it. We're fortunate to have the police station about 1/2 mile away, so they are there in no time. In other parts of the country, they don't have that benefit. We have very low crime in my neighborhood, other areas not so lucky. So I think you're painting too broad a brush. Not all places or situations are equal. Some have higher crime, less police presence, bad response times, and few volunteers (neighborhood watch).
-
It wasn't a 17 year old girl. I'd expect a 17 year old girl to act with more brains than TM and go inside the house, or call the cops, neither of which TM did.
I have to ask, why all of a sudden is GZ creepy? Because TM said so? Isn't that just as much profiling as those claiming GZ profiled TM?
As mentioned earlier, I'm the block captain for my neighborhood, we never work in pairs and certainly don't have yellow jackets, or anything of the kind. This isn't public safety at MU. We're private citizens, who work, go to our kids school and sporting functions, etc. I tend to walk my dog with me when I cruise the neighborhood....if you saw my dog she would try to lick an assailant to death, not a viscious bone in her body. We act on the rule of whether you see something suspicious, go ahead and report it. We're fortunate to have the police station about 1/2 mile away, so they are there in no time. In other parts of the country, they don't have that benefit. We have very low crime in my neighborhood, other areas not so lucky. So I think you're painting too broad a brush. Not all places or situations are equal. Some have higher crime, less police presence, bad response times, and few volunteers (neighborhood watch).
I never described GZ as creepy.
As far as my female analogy, I'm merely trying to illustrate that an adult male following a teenager in the dark (in the teen's own neighborhood) can be seen as threatening/scary. Can we agree on that?
As far as the jackets/flashlight/work in pairs stuff, well, I bring all of those up because they are viable options for crime prevention before you decide that you need a firearm for protection. If your neighborhood watch is effective without those items, then that's great. If crime picks up in your area, I would suggest jackets and flashlights before I'd recommend a pistol.
-
I'd love to hear a sociologist talk about, not their opinion of the case, but rather, an opinion on the two sides of this case and why it appears impossible to coalesce around a truth of the matter.
What I mean by that is .. there are two camps. Speaking from "my" camp, I believe there is a likely, logical conclusion to the event that occurred. I've debated 4-5 people I have enormous intellectual respect for, people who I generally agree with, and I've had little luck convincing them of what I'm certain is the conclusion .. the lack of success -- or even "understanding" is enormously befuddling. I keep asking myself "Really?" -- (which is likely what they are saying about my position.)
What I mean by that is .. like taxation, immigration, abortion, gay marriage, whatever, while I have an opinion, I can see why others could have the opposite. It doesn't befuddle me at all. The divisions in the Zimmerman case baffle me .. each of us likely imagines it may be something akin to conversations 500 years ago about whether the earth was round or not (with their side claiming 'round.')
I imagine which side you're on shows insight into a some sociological genome class we each belong to.
-
Just returned from several weeks abroad and the local paper waiting for me on the driveway. Front page article caught my eye as there seems to be a surge of burglaries in the neighborhood and authorities are asking for people to be on the lookout for "suspicious" persons and to notify them.....
-
I'd love to hear a sociologist talk about, not their opinion of the case, but rather, an opinion on the two sides of this case and why it appears impossible to coalesce around a truth of the matter.
What I mean by that is .. there are two camps. Speaking from "my" camp, I believe there is a likely, logical conclusion to the event that occurred. I've debated 4-5 people I have enormous intellectual respect for, people who I generally agree with, and I've had little luck convincing them of what I'm certain is the conclusion .. the lack of success -- or even "understanding" is enormously befuddling. I keep asking myself "Really?" -- (which is likely what they are saying about my position.)
What I mean by that is .. like taxation, immigration, abortion, gay marriage, whatever, while I have an opinion, I can see why others could have the opposite. It doesn't befuddle me at all. The divisions in the Zimmerman case baffle me .. each of us likely imagines it may be something akin to conversations 500 years ago about whether the earth was round or not (with their side claiming 'round.')
I imagine which side you're on shows insight into a some sociological genome class we each belong to.
Remember the disconnect over the OJ verdict? White America watched in stunned disbelief as black America celebrated the acquittal of a guy who committed a brutal, horrific double murder. Much of that disconnect came from diametrically opposing views of our legal/justice system. In a community where the police are mistrusted (sometimes for good reasons) it wasn't a stretch to think they planted evidence.
Fast forward to Zimmerman/Martin. The role one feels race played in the confrontation (from 0-10) informs one's opinion on whether you view it as tragedy or murder.
-
Remember the disconnect over the OJ verdict? White America watched in stunned disbelief as black America celebrated the acquittal of a guy who committed a brutal, horrific double murder. Much of that disconnect came from diametrically opposing views of our legal/justice system. In a community where the police are mistrusted (sometimes for good reasons) it wasn't a stretch to think they planted evidence.
Fast forward to Zimmerman/Martin. The role one feels race played in the confrontation (from 0-10) informs one's opinion on whether you view it as tragedy or murder.
To the discredit of my brain cells, I don't recall much about the OJ verdict's controversy .. I can't recall debating it with anyone 18 years ago. Admittedly, my universe is mostly caucasian, and perhaps 18 years has changed those caucasians to be more sensitive to race issues (??).
As for race being a/the factor in whether you view it as a murder or something else .. I think that statement should be refined a bit. I think most believe race is a factor, I do. One side believes something along the lines of "yes, it's intolerable prejudice and race" versus the other side of "yes, it's justifiable profiling we all do."
-
I never described GZ as creepy.
As far as my female analogy, I'm merely trying to illustrate that an adult male following a teenager in the dark (in the teen's own neighborhood) can be seen as threatening/scary. Can we agree on that?
As far as the jackets/flashlight/work in pairs stuff, well, I bring all of those up because they are viable options for crime prevention before you decide that you need a firearm for protection. If your neighborhood watch is effective without those items, then that's great. If crime picks up in your area, I would suggest jackets and flashlights before I'd recommend a pistol.
But you have to also flip that and look at it from the other angle. There were a bunch of crimes in the neighborhood caused by male youths, African Americans. Not 17 year old girls. I get where you are going with this, but in this situation GZ highly unlikely to follow a girl because she didn't fit the description of what was going on.
-
But you have to also flip that and look at it from the other angle. There were a bunch of crimes in the neighborhood caused by male youths, African Americans. Not 17 year old girls. I get where you are going with this, but in this situation GZ highly unlikely to follow a girl because she didn't fit the description of what was going on.
My point is that he shouldn't be following ANYBODY. Doesn't matter what they look like.
He's not trained for it.
He's not dressed for it.
He didn't ID himself.
There was an altercation.
A kid is dead.
-
I'd love to hear a sociologist talk about, not their opinion of the case, but rather, an opinion on the two sides of this case and why it appears impossible to coalesce around a truth of the matter.
What I mean by that is .. there are two camps. Speaking from "my" camp, I believe there is a likely, logical conclusion to the event that occurred. I've debated 4-5 people I have enormous intellectual respect for, people who I generally agree with, and I've had little luck convincing them of what I'm certain is the conclusion .. the lack of success -- or even "understanding" is enormously befuddling. I keep asking myself "Really?" -- (which is likely what they are saying about my position.)
What I mean by that is .. like taxation, immigration, abortion, gay marriage, whatever, while I have an opinion, I can see why others could have the opposite. It doesn't befuddle me at all. The divisions in the Zimmerman case baffle me .. each of us likely imagines it may be something akin to conversations 500 years ago about whether the earth was round or not (with their side claiming 'round.')
I imagine which side you're on shows insight into a some sociological genome class we each belong to.
I wholeheartedly agree, from a sociology/psychology standpoint this case is fascinating. I'm sure people will be studying it for years.
-
My point is that he shouldn't be following ANYBODY. Doesn't matter what they look like.
He's not trained for it.
He's not dressed for it.
He didn't ID himself.
There was an altercation.
A kid is dead.
I understand it completely. Just to play what if scenario since that is thrown around here. Say GZ followed a different guy he found to be suspicious and actually watched him break into a home and attempt to kill someone. He had a choice to make, seconds to make it, to go in and do something about it or wait for the cops to arrive. He goes in, kills the suspect, saves a life. Good thing or bad thing?
-
I understand it completely. Just to play what if scenario since that is thrown around here. Say GZ followed a different guy he found to be suspicious and actually watched him break into a home and attempt to kill someone. He had a choice to make, seconds to make it, to go in and do something about it or wait for the cops to arrive. He goes in, kills the suspect, saves a life. Good thing or bad thing?
GZ saves an innocent life = good thing.
GZ takes an innocent life = bad thing.
-
I understand it completely. Just to play what if scenario since that is thrown around here. Say GZ followed a different guy he found to be suspicious and actually watched him break into a home and attempt to kill someone. He had a choice to make, seconds to make it, to go in and do something about it or wait for the cops to arrive. He goes in, kills the suspect, saves a life. Good thing or bad thing?
Well, I'll defer to law enforcement professionals, who tell me that it's never a good idea to follow or engage a "suspect". Too many things can go wrong, especially with a firearm involved.
Observe. Report. Don't follow. Don't engage.
I don't expect the neighborhood watch to get into a gunfight and save me from a break-in and murder. That's just not realistic to me.
-
My favorite scenario change is .. everything is the same but the final 5 seconds. Upon crashing Zimmerman's skull into the sidewalk for the 18th time, Martin knocks him out. Police roll up 60 seconds later to find the 911 caller, unconscious, in a pool of blood. Martin is caught. What happens next?
-
My favorite scenario change is .. everything is the same but the final 5 seconds. Upon crashing Zimmerman's skull into the sidewalk for the 18th time, Martin knocks him out. Police roll up 60 seconds later to find the 911 caller, unconscious, in a pool of blood. Martin is caught. What happens next?
I'm sure he'd get what this woman got. You know, because he can claim he was standing
his ground and defending himself, and the law is adjudicated the same for every race, creed,
and ethnicity in Florida.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57434757-504083/fla-woman-marissa-alexander-gets-20-years-for-warning-shot-did-she-stand-her-ground/
-
It may not be court-order and it may not be enough in some people's mind, but George Zimmerman is mostly definitely facing a "punishment" for his actions.
How? And, is the punishment worthy of his actions? Doubt it.
-
I'm sure he'd get what this woman got. You know, because he can claim he was standing
his ground and defending himself, and the law is adjudicated the same for every race, creed,
and ethnicity in Florida.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57434757-504083/fla-woman-marissa-alexander-gets-20-years-for-warning-shot-did-she-stand-her-ground/
Christ, not this story. Get the facts before you post.
She left the argument, found a gun in the garage, then went back inside, fired the gun at the guy, and the bullet ricocheted.
Trying to pull of some mental gymnastics to make this an equivalent story is total BS.
-
My favorite scenario change is .. everything is the same but the final 5 seconds. Upon crashing Zimmerman's skull into the sidewalk for the 18th time, Martin knocks him out. Police roll up 60 seconds later to find the 911 caller, unconscious, in a pool of blood. Martin is caught. What happens next?
Well, that's tough.
I think it would really depend upon Martin's story.
Ironically, his story could be similar to Zimmerman's, could it?
"I was walking home from the store. A guy started following me. He didn't say anything, and I couldn't get away. I hid, and I thought I saw a gun. He didn't ID himself, and I had never seen him before. I didn't think I could make it home without being seen (he'd already followed me), so I hid and then attacked."
For the record, I don't think this is a particularly good excuse for what happened, but it would be interesting to hear what was going through TM's head.
-
Well, I'll defer to law enforcement professionals, who tell me that it's never a good idea to follow or engage a "suspect". Too many things can go wrong, especially with a firearm involved.
Observe. Report. Don't follow. Don't engage.
I don't expect the neighborhood watch to get into a gunfight and save me from a break-in and murder. That's just not realistic to me.
Person just died as a result when they could have been saved because of that inaction.
I totally get where you are coming from. These are complex issues.
I've put this scenario to people many times and I know exactly where I come down on that 10 times out of 10.
You're in a theatre in Colorado, all of a sudden some guy whips out an assault rifle and starts shooting up the place. Do you hope someone in that theatre is carrying and concealing to give you that chance at survival or are you hoping that the police get there in the next 10 minutes and he hasn't killed you in that 10 minutes?
-
A new one, in New Orleans. I mentioned a few pages ago about the Castle Doctrine, will be interesting to see where this one goes.
Shooter is white, kid is 14 and black.
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/07/marigny_homeowner_shooting.html
Kid is out at 2:00am (WTF) and a "professional thief" as described by his older brother. Homeowner shoots kid. Castle Doctrine?
Many more facts need to come out, but I'm guessing this might be part deux.
-
You're in a theatre in Colorado, all of a sudden some guy whips out an assault rifle and starts shooting up the place. Do you hope someone in that theatre is carrying and concealing to give you that chance at survival or are you hoping that the police get there in the next 10 minutes and he hasn't killed you in that 10 minutes?
I'm not against conceal and carry, but we all need to understand that guns are instantaneous and the bullets can't be taken back. Mistakes will happen, and it will be tragic.
There are no free lunches.
-
I'm not against conceal and carry, but we all need to understand that guns are instantaneous and the bullets can't be taken back. Mistakes will happen, and it will be tragic.
There are no free lunches.
We are in agreement...human beings involved, there will be mistakes. There are a lot of people that are absolutely 100% against conceal and carry, and in that situation they are dead. They believe in the tooth fairy, etc that strong gun laws will keep guns out of the hands of criminals (you know, just like strong drug laws prevent drugs in this country ::) )
-
A new one, in New Orleans. I mentioned a few pages ago about the Castle Doctrine, will be interesting to see where this one goes.
Shooter is white, kid is 14 and black.
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/07/marigny_homeowner_shooting.html
Kid is out at 2:00am (WTF) and a "professional thief" as described by his older brother. Homeowner shoots kid. Castle Doctrine?
Many more facts need to come out, but I'm guessing this might be part deux.
I'm completely for conceal and carry, but there is an extreme amount of responsibility that comes with carrying a firearm. Extreme responsibility requires extreme punishment if one makes a mistake. Lives are on the line. GZs actions cost a loss of life. He deserves extreme punishment.
As for the case above, it is actually tougher than the GZ case. Personally, I think the guy should go to jail for 2nd degree murder. To some extent same reason as GZ. He did not identify himself, he came out with a gun with the intention of shooting someone if they were there. Alternatively, he could have yelled at the kid, turned on the light anything, he was looking to apprehend, which is not the common citizens domain.
He shot an unarmed kid, whose only crime was perhaps trespassing. Growing up we used to cut through peoples yards (sometimes even late at night)...kids pulling pranks (i.e. throwing someones phone over a fence)...lots of scenarios besides a crime. Can't just shoot first and ask questions later.
I realize in this case that the kid was likely up to no good. Still better to lose a worthless possession than to take a mans life.
-
Well, that's tough.
I think it would really depend upon Martin's story.
Ironically, his story could be similar to Zimmerman's, could it?
"I was walking home from the store. A guy started following me. He didn't say anything, and I couldn't get away. I hid, and I thought I saw a gun. He didn't ID himself, and I had never seen him before. I didn't think I could make it home without being seen (he'd already followed me), so I hid and then attacked."
That may indeed be his story.
The end result would be .. the 911 caller GZ would be a victim, Martin would be booked for aggravated assault & battery. There'd be rallies to take back our streets, a fund would be set up for Martin's medical bills, etc.
5 seconds different.
-
I'm completely for conceal and carry, but there is an extreme amount of responsibility that comes with carrying a firearm. Extreme responsibility requires extreme punishment if one makes a mistake. Lives are on the line. GZs actions cost a loss of life. He deserves extreme punishment.
As for the case above, it is actually tougher than the GZ case. Personally, I think the guy should go to jail for 2nd degree murder. To some extent same reason as GZ. He did not identify himself, he came out with a gun with the intention of shooting someone if they were there. Alternatively, he could have yelled at the kid, turned on the light anything, he was looking to apprehend, which is not the common citizens domain.
He shot an unarmed kid, whose only crime was perhaps trespassing. Growing up we used to cut through peoples yards (sometimes even late at night)...kids pulling pranks (i.e. throwing someones phone over a fence)...lots of scenarios besides a crime. Can't just shoot first and ask questions later.
I realize in this case that the kid was likely up to no good. Still better to lose a worthless possession than to take a mans life.
GZ's actions didn't cost a kid his life. He defended himself, an action he would not have had to take if he wasn't getting his head bashed in.
On this second case, there are laws for this. We'll see how this goes and if the Castle Doctrine applies. At what point are you allowed to defend your property and who gets define "worthless possession"?
-
GZ's actions didn't cost a kid his life.
They most certainly did. If GZ does what he was told to do (return to his car, don't pursue) the kid is alive today.
-
They most certainly did. If GZ does what he was told to do (return to his car, don't pursue) the kid is alive today.
If TM doesn't pound GZ's head into the ground, TM is alive today even though GZ didn't return to the car. It took more than the action of GZ being there to cost TM his life. Two separate incidents...linked, of course. But the second action had to happen as well. Without the pounding of the head, TM is alive today.
Otherwise, we can play this game forever. If TM isn't out late at night in the rain buying skittles and Arizona drink to make some Lean, he's alive today. If there weren't burglaries for the past few months committed by young black males, GZ isn't following TM because he isn't suspicious...thus alive today. Etc, etc, etc.
-
I have been reading this thread over the past week or so and it has been pretty interesting with the thoughts of each poster and reactions to not only the verdict, but to each person's perception as to what predicated the event. As a former homicide investigator who has seen his share of crime scenes, I was going to give my take, but held back because some will never change their thoughts about the gun issue and combined that with the racial implications with the case, it is a never ending discussion.
I believe Chicos started bringing up other cases in which guns/race reaction/self defense have been incorporated and I just wanted to bring up a case which occurred alittle more than three months ago. Some may remember this case, other may not and can google it if you want to learn more.
On the morning of 3/21/13 in Brunswick, Georgia, Sherry West, a white female was walking back from the Post Office with her one year old baby in a stroller. She was approached by two black males, one of whom was armed with a handgun. One of the suspects told her "give me your money or I'll kill you and your baby" She told them "I don't have any money" The suspect then shot her in the leg, shot at her head, in which a bullet grazed her forehead and he then shot the baby, sitting in the stroller in the face, killing him.
The police conducted their investigation, which lead to the arrest of two teenagers, ages 17 and 15. Subsequent investigation lead to the arrest of the mother and aunt of one of the suspects for tampering with evidence. An arrest of a sister for throwing the murder weapon in a lake, and the arrest of the Brunswick City Commissioner for witness tampering.
The above case is just a horrible act of violence and made the national news for a day or so. Then it disappeared. There were no protests on gun violence, no national media ramifications on race involved in the case, etc., etc. My point being is that each case is selective in nature and the timing with national media is such a precise issue. The Zimmerman case was the result of the perfect storm with the media and its coverage.
Keep up the vibrant thought exchanges you guys have been going through, most of you are "standing your ground" on your views and arguments can go on forever.
-
GZ's actions didn't cost a kid his life. He defended himself, an action he would not have had to take if he wasn't getting his head bashed in.
On this second case, there are laws for this. We'll see how this goes and if the Castle Doctrine applies. At what point are you allowed to defend your property and who gets define "worthless possession"?
This couldn't be more wrong. The fact that you would say (and seriously believe it) is incomprehensible to me. GZ's actions absolutely cost TM his life. You have twisted it in your mind to blame TM (surprise) when that is total BS. Nothing would have happened had GZ not started the entire incident.
-
This couldn't be more wrong. The fact that you would say (and seriously believe it) is incomprehensible to me. GZ's actions absolutely cost TM his life. You have twisted it in your mind to blame TM (surprise) when that is total BS. Nothing would have happened had GZ not started the entire incident.
That's your opinion. The jurors in their deliberation said the same thing. Two separate incidents. Just because GZ shows up, doesn't mean he was going to kill him. Quite the opposite. The fight led to the death. It can be incomprehensible to you all you want, but a separate incident had to happen and to deny that is silly.
If TM goes into his house 30 feet away, he isn't dead. If the fight doesn't happen, he isn't dead. Etc. It's like the morons out there that say "such and such missed a layup at the end of the game and we lost by 1 point..he cost us the game". No he didn't. He was just one part of a series of plays that happened an entire game. Make 2 more free throws, you win. Play better defense, you win. Make another shot at any other time in 39 minutes and 59 seconds, you win. That's just one play. It's a series of actions.
GZ was there, should have gone back to his car, but didn't legally have to. Linkage...of course. Does TM die if the fight doesn't happen. NO. Thus, ANOTHER action had to happen. It's a series of actions that had to happen, not just one. Don't go out in rain to get your jonesing on to get high on your drug cocktail, you aren't dead. Don't bash a guy's head into the cement, you aren't dead.
-
That's your opinion. The jurors in their deliberation said the same thing. Two separate incidents. Just because GZ shows up, doesn't mean he was going to kill him. Quite the opposite. The fight led to the death. It can be incomprehensible to you all you want, but a separate incident had to happen and to deny that is silly.
If TM goes into his house 30 feet away, he isn't dead. If the fight doesn't happen, he isn't dead. Etc. It's like the morons out there that say "such and such missed a layup at the end of the game and we lost by 1 point..he cost us the game". No he didn't. He was just one part of a series of plays that happened an entire game. Make 2 more free throws, you win. Play better defense, you win. Make another shot at any other time in 39 minutes and 59 seconds, you win. That's just one play. It's a series of actions.
GZ was there, should have gone back to his car, but didn't legally have to. Linkage...of course. Does TM die if the fight doesn't happen. NO. Thus, ANOTHER action had to happen. It's a series of actions that had to happen, not just one. Don't go out in rain to get your jonesing on to get high on your drug cocktail, you aren't dead. Don't bash a guy's head into the cement, you aren't dead.
I notice that all of your above scenarios cconveniently begin AFTER GZ started following TM. That is not in dispute. It is THE ACTION that leads to all possible outcomes. It was initiated by GZ. TM is dead. GM started that chain of events. Those are the facts.
Nice comment again about TM getting high. No wonder you are arguing so vehemently...it is who you are.
-
The above case is just a horrible act of violence and made the national news for a day or so. Then it disappeared. There were no protests on gun violence, no national media ramifications on race involved in the case, etc., etc. My point being is that each case is selective in nature and the timing with national media is such a precise issue. The Zimmerman case was the result of the perfect storm with the media and its coverage.
I may be reading this wrong, but I get the sense you think it is a perfect storm and just happened to have all the ducks in a row. To me, it was pushed as a racial issue when there never was a racial issue. Then the media and their counterparts ginned that up to the extreme. Let's not forget this was not a media event for quite some time until a few individuals decided to make it about race, then it took off.
Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law Professor and very left wing guy came right out from day one and said this case never should have brought forward, much to angst of some of his pals on that side. This was a circus perpetuated by some that didn't understand the law, wanted to make it a racial case and the media was absolutely willing to carry that water as a partner. So much so that they were willing to edit 911 tapes, put out photographs of the victim from years earlier as if he was some 10 year old kid, put out false information on what he was purchasing at the store and what it was used for, willing to create a new term of "white hispanic" (first time in NY Times history they had used that term to identify an individual.
More than a perfect storm...a manufactured storm.
-
If someone pushes me off a cliff, that has ropes and trees along the way. And I try to grab the ropes and trees that could have saved my life, is it no longer the guys fault that pushed me off the cliff.
Afterall they are distinctly different events separated in time. My falling to my death could have been avoided if I merely grabbed a rope or a tree. The actions that initiated the process can not be blamed as they are dependent on my failures to save my own life.
Reduction ad absurdum.
-
I may be reading this wrong, but I get the sense you think it is a perfect storm and just happened to have all the ducks in a row. To me, it was pushed as a racial issue when there never was a racial issue. Then the media and their counterparts ginned that up to the extreme. Let's not forget this was not a media event for quite some time until a few individuals decided to make it about race, then it took off.
Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law Professor and very left wing guy came right out from day one and said this case never should have brought forward, much to angst of some of his pals on that side. This was a circus perpetuated by some that didn't understand the law, wanted to make it a racial case and the media was absolutely willing to carry that water as a partner. So much so that they were willing to edit 911 tapes, put out photographs of the victim from years earlier as if he was some 10 year old kid, put out false information on what he was purchasing at the store and what it was used for, willing to create a new term of "white hispanic" (first time in NY Times history they had used that term to identify an individual.
More than a perfect storm...a manufactured storm.
Yes, it was a perfect manufactured storm and yes, the stars were aligned with the media. If Zimmerman had not racially quoted himself on the non-emergency call he made, non issue. And Chicos, not only Martin's photo, but Zimmerman's prior arrest photo from five years earlier, which was the comparison photo utilized by the media.
-
If someone pushes me off a cliff, that has ropes and trees along the way. And I try to grab the ropes and trees that could have saved my life, is it no longer the guys fault that pushed me off the cliff.
Afterall they are distinctly different events separated in time. My falling to my death could have been avoided if I merely grabbed a rope or a tree. The actions that initiated the process can not be blamed as they are dependent on my failures to save my own life.
Reduction ad absurdum.
If a guy pushes you off a cliff and you fall to your death, you died because the guy pushed you off the cliff in the first place. Whatever else happens along the way only happens because the guy pushed you...he initiated the events that cost you your life.
That is what I am arguing. Are you arguing otherwise or agreeing with me?
-
If a guy pushes you off a cliff and you fall to your death, you died because the guy pushed you off the cliff in the first place. Whatever else happens along the way only happens because the guy pushed you...he initiated the events that cost you your life.
That is what I am arguing. Are you arguing otherwise or agreeing with me?
We're in agreement. Argument was for Chicos, who refuses to acknowledge that a precipitating event is responsible for downstream outcomes.
-
We're in agreement. Argument was for Chicos, who refuses to acknowledge that a precipitating event is responsible for downstream outcomes.
Every event has influence on downstream outcomes. Getting up in the morning and boarding the plane that crashes has influence, but not as much as the pilot coming in too low.
-
Every event has influence on downstream outcomes. Getting up in the morning and boarding the plane that crashes has influence, but not as much as the pilot coming in too low.
Understood, but in this instance the precipitating event had direct repercussions on the outcome and influenced the event.
In your scenario getting up in the morning and not boarding the plane, would not have affected the outcome. Thus it is not a precipitating event and does not fit in Chico's argument.
Had GZ not followed TM, the downstream events would not have occurred. Thus, it does constitute a precipitating event as it is directly coupled to the outcome. Since, his decision was made in poor judgement he is then at the least morally culpable for the outcome (if not legally culpable...jury said no).
My reduction ad absurdum was to illustrate that Chicos attempt to separate the events is not accurate as treatment of similar precipitating events would be absurd, thus his logic is flawed.
A simpler type of reduction related to your plane concept above would be as follows. A mechanic gets drunk before going to work, he subsequently makes an error when fixing the altimeter, making it appear as if the plane is 1000 ft higher than it should be. His supervisor checks his work, but misses the error. Coming in for landing, the pilot fails to realize that he is lower than the instruments are reporting and subsequently approaches too low, resulting in a crashed landing.
Under Chicos logic, the mechanic is not culpable as, others mistakes should have remedied his error. Such an argument is absurd, as the mechanic being drunk on the job and performing shoddy work is the negligent act. His supervisor also shares culpability, but that doesn't absolve the mechanic of his wrong doings.
Hence, reduction ad absurdum.
-
I think GZ is 98% responsible for the events. IMO, he is a coward and a wannabe who combined those two character flaws for a tragic outcome. However, based on my admittedly limited understanding of how the Florida laws are written, I don't blame the jury for acquitting him.
-
I notice that all of your above scenarios cconveniently begin AFTER GZ started following TM. That is not in dispute. It is THE ACTION that leads to all possible outcomes. It was initiated by GZ. TM is dead. GM started that chain of events. Those are the facts.
Nice comment again about TM getting high. No wonder you are arguing so vehemently...it is who you are.
It doesn't matter. You're taking the "well he hit me first" mode my kids take. He followed him....that is not a crime. He can be there all he wants. The next action is a whole new action.
Did some of you guys not take logic at MU...I thought it was a requirement.
If GZ didn't follow, TM doesn't die? Really? That's absurd. If the two don't get tangled up, then yes he doesn't die, but the act of following him did not kill him. The fight did, which was a separate incident. An incident that also could have been avoided...TM could have gone home. TM could have not crushed the guy's nose and head in. TM could have run. GZ could have gotten into the car. GZ could have walked away. Lots of could haves, but him being there is only one phase that could have had many different outcomes, most of which have TM living.
-
Did some of you guys not take logic at MU...I thought it was a requirement.
If GZ didn't follow, TM doesn't die? Really? That's absurd. If the two don't get tangled up, then yes he doesn't die, but the act of following him did not kill him.
This is possibly the funniest thing I have ever read.
-
It doesn't matter. You're taking the "well he hit me first" mode my kids take. He followed him....that is not a crime. He can be there all he wants. The next action is a whole new action.
Did some of you guys not take logic at MU...I thought it was a requirement.
If GZ didn't follow, TM doesn't die? Really? That's absurd. If the two don't get tangled up, then yes he doesn't die, but the act of following him did not kill him. The fight did, which was a separate incident. An incident that also could have been avoided...TM could have gone home. TM could have not crushed the guy's nose and head in. TM could have run. GZ could have gotten into the car. GZ could have walked away. Lots of could haves, but him being there is only one phase that could have had many different outcomes, most of which have TM living.
My guess would be that you did not take logic anywhere. We will agree to disagree on this one.
I will say in reference to the sociology comments earlier that I think the predominant issue determining which side people are on is who they can most relate to, GZ or TM.
No one wants to feel guilty, so if they relate to GZ, he acted rationally and defended himself. If you relate to or can relate to TM, then he was murdered as no one wants to get stalked and gunned down.
I will say that, what is known is that Trayvon did ask GZ why he was following him. We do not know what GZ said back to him, before the fight broke out. So Trayvon was not looking for a fight, prior to GZs response...have to ask yourself, if you believe Trayvon started the fight (which there is not concrete data for), what did GZ say that incensed him so much, we'll never know as the only other witness is dead.
-
The sociological question is indeed interesting.
I think people relate what happened to their own experiences.
I used to work at a department store in high school and one of the security guys was a wannabe cop. Sometimes, I used to help him out with shoplifters and potential shoplifters. It's almost as if he would get giddy when he thought someone was going to steal something. Just like GZ, this guy took CJ classes, too. Not sure if he went on police ride-a-longs like GZ, but I wouldnt put it past him.
Wannabe cops find the adrenaline of chasing down the bad guy exhilarating.
Such experience is probably more than a marginal part of the reason why I find myself on the "TM side" of the argument. Though I hate that there are even "sides" to this case.
-
It doesn't matter. You're taking the "well he hit me first" mode my kids take. He followed him....that is not a crime. He can be there all he wants. The next action is a whole new action.
Did some of you guys not take logic at MU...I thought it was a requirement.
If GZ didn't follow, TM doesn't die? Really? That's absurd. If the two don't get tangled up, then yes he doesn't die, but the act of following him did not kill him. The fight did, which was a separate incident. An incident that also could have been avoided...TM could have gone home. TM could have not crushed the guy's nose and head in. TM could have run. GZ could have gotten into the car. GZ could have walked away. Lots of could haves, but him being there is only one phase that could have had many different outcomes, most of which have TM living.
Thank you for agreeing with me. Nobody has said that the act of following is what killed him. The act of following is however, what set off the entire chain of events that ultimately led to TM's death. As a result, if GZ doesn't follow him, the entire chain of events never happens and TM is still alive. There are no subsequent actions if that first action is not taken so your argument, while hysterical, is ridiculous. Of course there are multiple possible outcomes, but they all start from one point, one action, which is GZ following TM.
As far as the "he hit me first" comment, WTF does that have to do anything? I'm not trying to justify TM's actions. I am not defending him. So, again, throwing this little nugget into the conversation serves zero purpose other than you trying to make yourself feel superior to someone (it's what my kids do...). Classy guy that Chicos.
Gotta run. It's been fun. ::)
-
This is possibly the funniest thing I have ever read.
+1
-
As far as the "he hit me first" comment, WTF does that have to do anything?
Many people, including myself, find this to be central to the entire event. There are about a billion verbal arguments that happen on this planet each day. Converting the verbal argument into a physical one does indeed boil down to who hit whom first. While people want to hear justifying circumstances, there never is one. That being said, society does want to hear that pseudo justifying circumstance to know whose "side" they will agree with.
Society is mostly OK with beating the pulp out of a child molester caught in the act .. justice has been served, as they have preyed on victims, they have now been caught and punishment has begun.
This concept is similar to how each of us views George Zimmerman. If you think his actions of eagerly patrolling, profiling and following pique your righteous indignation, you turn a blind eye to Trayvon Martin starting a fight, smashing GZ's skull. If you think GZ's actions as a conscientious neighborhood watcher are valid, you side with him.
-
Many people, including myself, find this to be central to the entire event. There are about a billion verbal arguments that happen on this planet each day. Converting the verbal argument into a physical one does indeed boil down to who hit whom first. While people want to hear justifying circumstances, there never is one. That being said, society does want to hear that pseudo justifying circumstance to know whose "side" they will agree with.
Society is mostly OK with beating the pulp out of a child molester caught in the act .. justice has been served, as they have preyed on victims, they have now been caught and punishment has begun.
This concept is similar to how each of us views George Zimmerman. If you think his actions of eagerly patrolling, profiling and following pique your righteous indignation, you turn a blind eye to Trayvon Martin starting a fight, smashing GZ's skull. If you think GZ's actions as a conscientious neighborhood watcher are valid, you side with him.
Problem here is, outside of GZ's self-serving statement, there's zero evidence Trayvon Martin "started a fight." In fact, the testimony from the girl Martin was on the phone with indicates otherwise. Who's telling the truth? I suspect we'll never know. Both sides obviously have incentive to make the other look like the aggressor. Of course, we do know that GZ was following TM, causing TM - by GZ's own account - to run away. Does it make sense that TM would run away .... and then go start a fight?
Regardless, seems like plenty of arguments here are based on a quite possibly false premise.
Oh, and let's not get overly dramatic about "smashing skulls." The ME who examined Zimmerman's injuries testified they were "insignificant." He had two small cuts on his head. There was no smashed skull.
-
Problem here is, outside of GZ's self-serving statement, there's zero evidence Trayvon Martin "started a fight." In fact, the testimony from the girl Martin was on the phone with indicates otherwise. Who's telling the truth? I suspect we'll never know. Both sides obviously have incentive to make the other look like the aggressor. Of course, we do know that GZ was following TM, causing TM - by GZ's own account - to run away. Does it make sense that TM would run away .... and then go start a fight?
Regardless, seems like plenty of arguments here are based on a quite possibly false premise.
Totally agree. There are a lot of people here taking what they think happened and then justifying their side of the argument. The fact of the matter is that the ONLY person alive that knows what happened has a lot invested. We can speculate all day as to who started the fight, and who seemed suspicious, and what should have happened.
The fact of the matter is that someone is dead. And someone else is not, and is responsible for that person's death. I think the burden of proof of the accused should be IMMENSE.
-
Indeed, absent a video with what happened, we are left to hypothesize the most likely scenario.
That Martin's girlfriend, on the phone with him seconds before the incident, thinks Martin threw the first punch should be overwhelming evidence to all. She is simply the best human being on the planet to judge her close friend, his past behavior, his state of mind at that exact moment, and his predicted actions.
She thinks he threw the first punch, and any theory counter to that is possible, but far, far less likely.
-
Indeed, absent a video with what happened, we are left to hypothesize the most likely scenario.
That Martin's girlfriend, on the phone with him seconds before the incident, thinks Martin threw the first punch should be overwhelming evidence to all. She is simply the best human being on the planet to judge her close friend, his past behavior, his state of mind at that exact moment, and his predicted actions.
She thinks he threw the first punch, and any theory counter to that is possible, but far, far less likely.
That is hardly "overwhelming" evidence. It is circumstantial based on an assumption.
-
That is hardly "overwhelming" evidence. It is circumstantial based on an assumption.
True. Based on the assumptions of the best person to make them. You are correct, I shouldn't have used the phrase "evidence."
-
Indeed, absent a video with what happened, we are left to hypothesize the most likely scenario.
That Martin's girlfriend, on the phone with him seconds before the incident, thinks Martin threw the first punch should be overwhelming evidence to all. She is simply the best human being on the planet to judge her close friend, his past behavior, his state of mind at that exact moment, and his predicted actions.
She thinks he threw the first punch, and any theory counter to that is possible, but far, far less likely.
Honestly, I don't know how the prosecution didn't get that tossed out. It is entirely speculative. Unless she heard TM say over the phone to her, "I'm going to jump this crazy cracker." or something along those lines.
-
Many people, including myself, find this to be central to the entire event. There are about a billion verbal arguments that happen on this planet each day. Converting the verbal argument into a physical one does indeed boil down to who hit whom first. While people want to hear justifying circumstances, there never is one. That being said, society does want to hear that pseudo justifying circumstance to know whose "side" they will agree with.
Society is mostly OK with beating the pulp out of a child molester caught in the act .. justice has been served, as they have preyed on victims, they have now been caught and punishment has begun.
This concept is similar to how each of us views George Zimmerman. If you think his actions of eagerly patrolling, profiling and following pique your righteous indignation, you turn a blind eye to Trayvon Martin starting a fight, smashing GZ's skull. If you think GZ's actions as a conscientious neighborhood watcher are valid, you side with him.
The only way you can think this entire episode boils down to TM "started a fight" and is to blame for his own death is to willfully ignore the sequence of events that led up to that point and their impact on TM's subsequent behavior.
TM wouldn't have needed to "start a fight" had GZ not initiated the entire sequence of events by following him around in the rain. Hell, maybe TM felt threatened enough that he believed he was acting in self-defense. Who knows? If he did, I wouldn't blame him because I am pretty sure I would feel the same way.
-
Indeed, absent a video with what happened, we are left to hypothesize the most likely scenario.
That Martin's girlfriend, on the phone with him seconds before the incident, thinks Martin threw the first punch should be overwhelming evidence to all. She is simply the best human being on the planet to judge her close friend, his past behavior, his state of mind at that exact moment, and his predicted actions.
She thinks he threw the first punch, and any theory counter to that is possible, but far, far less likely.
Why do you guys keep trotting out the "first punch" thing out of context?
Her full statement was that she thought TM threw the first punch ONLY AFTER Zimmerman grabbed him and tried to detain him.
Watch the interview in which she stated that here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/rachel-jeantel-huffpost-live-interview_n_3610921.html
I don't know about you, but if I'm walking home at night and some strange guy starts following me, and keeps following me after I run away, and then he grabs and tries to restrain me, there's a pretty good chance he's getting punched. And I would be well within my rights to punch him.
And since you think Rachel Jeantel is "the best human being on the planet to judge her close friend, his past behavior, his state of mind at that exact moment, and his predicted actions" do you not agree?
Here are some more statements from "the best human being on the planet to judge her close friend, his past behavior, his state of mind at that exact moment, and his predicted actions"
- Jeantel testified Wednesday that her friend's last words were "Get off! Get off!" before Martin's phone went silent.
- “No sir, he would not allow me on the phone with him if he was about the have a fight,” Jeantel answered. (My edit: That's weird, because every time I'm about to jump somebody and smash his skull, I make sure I'm on the phone while doing it. Who needs two hands in a fight?)
- During their conversation, Trayvon said a "creepy" man was staring at him and wanted to get away, Jeantel said. Later, the man began following Trayvon, so the teen ran through the gated community to try to get away, Jeantel said. Trayvon was out of breath when he told Jeantel he had lost the man. Shortly after, Trayvon told Jeantel the man was back and behind him, she said. "I told him, 'You better run,' " Jeantel said. Within moments she heard two voices. Jeantel recalled Trayvon saying, "Why are you following me?" She continued, "Then I heard a hard-breathing man say, 'What are you doing around here?' "
-
Honestly, I don't know how the prosecution didn't get that tossed out. It is entirely speculative. Unless she heard TM say over the phone to her, "I'm going to jump this crazy cracker." or something along those lines.
She never testified about who she thought threw the first punch. It's something she said in an interview after the trial.
But, as I point out above, it's being quoted here completely out of context.
-
Why do you guys keep trotting out the "first punch" thing out of context?
Her full statement was that she thought TM threw the first punch AFTER Zimmerman grabbed him and tried to detain him.
Watch here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/rachel-jeantel-huffpost-live-interview_n_3610921.html
I don't know about you, but if I'm walking home at night and some strange guy starts following me, and keeps following me after I run away, and then he grabs and tries to restrain me, there's a pretty good chance he's getting punched. And I would be well within my rights to punch him.
And since you think Rachel Jeantel is "the best human being on the planet to judge her close friend, his past behavior, his state of mind at that exact moment, and his predicted actions" do you not agree?
Here are some more statements from "the best human being on the planet to judge her close friend, his past behavior, his state of mind at that exact moment, and his predicted actions"
- Jeantel testified Wednesday that her friend's last words were "Get off! Get off!" before Martin's phone went silent.
- “No sir, he would not allow me on the phone with him if he was about the have a fight,” Jeantel answered. (My edit: That's weird, because every time I'm about to jump somebody and smash his skull, I make sure I'm on the phone while doing it. Who needs two hands in a fight?)
- During their conversation, Trayvon said a "creepy" man was staring at him and wanted to get away, Jeantel said. Later, the man began following Trayvon, so the teen ran through the gated community to try to get away, Jeantel said. Trayvon was out of breath when he told Jeantel he had lost the man. Shortly after, Trayvon told Jeantel the man was back and behind him, she said. "I told him, 'You better run,' " Jeantel said. Within moments she heard two voices. Jeantel recalled Trayvon saying, "Why are you following me?" She continued, "Then I heard a hard-breathing man say, 'What are you doing around here?' "
Jesus. I didn't watch a minute of the trial and haven't really read anything about it other than this thread (sad I know) but WTF? If the above is accurate I believe TM was well within his rights to try beat the living daylights out of GZ. I certainly would have. What a screwed up situation.
-
If that statement is accurate, TM was standing his ground against an unknown, creepy stalker.
-
I'm also curious why some here are so keen on believing GZ on his version of the events.
This is a man who:
Was arrested for battery of a law enforcement officer.
Had a restraining order against him for domestic violence.
Conspired with his wife to commit fraud in regards to their assets.
Even his recent "heroic" effort in rescuing the car crash is turning out to be a fraud as the officer on the scene may have called GZ to get to the scene of the accident to help. He arrived after everyone was out of the car with a fire extinguisher, sprayed it on the car...got in and left.
Now, his own account of the TM incident has changed several times and his current version of the events contradict his re-enactment of the crime. Yet some here are willing to believe everything he says as fact and disregard others testimony as not accurate or trustworthy.
Moreover, people are willing to ignore GZs violent past, but want to drag TM down for possible prior drug use that would have nothing to do with the current incident.
-
I'm also curious why some here are so keen on believing GZ on his version of the events.
This is a man who:
Was arrested for battery of a law enforcement officer.
Had a restraining order against him for domestic violence.
Conspired with his wife to commit fraud in regards to their assets.
Even his recent "heroic" effort in rescuing the car crash is turning out to be a fraud as the officer on the scene may have called GZ to get to the scene of the accident to help. He arrived after everyone was out of the car with a fire extinguisher, sprayed it on the car...got in and left.
Now, his own account of the TM incident has changed several times and his current version of the events contradict his re-enactment of the crime. Yet some here are willing to believe everything he says as fact and disregard others testimony as not accurate or trustworthy.
Moreover, people are willing to ignore GZs violent past, but want to drag TM down for possible prior drug use that would have nothing to do with the current incident.
you are aptly named on this board. Only better name would be oblivious.
-
Is something he said inaccurate? If not, why is it ok to examine the history of the deceased and not the history of the shooter?
-
you are aptly named on this board. Only better name would be oblivious.
Instead of unproductive name calling, would you care to address the comment. All the items I posted are fact (with the exception of the recent hero case as that is too new). Granted, GZ did agree to a plea deal of resisting arrest, instead of assault on an officer. Personally I think they are irrelevant as the key issue to me is:
He got out of the car and chased a kid. Everything thereafter hinges upon that event, which was a rash, ill-advised act that led to the loss of a life.
I address the comments on GZ, for those that focus on his recounting of the events as material fact.
-
My guess would be that you did not take logic anywhere. We will agree to disagree on this one.
I will say in reference to the sociology comments earlier that I think the predominant issue determining which side people are on is who they can most relate to, GZ or TM.
No one wants to feel guilty, so if they relate to GZ, he acted rationally and defended himself. If you relate to or can relate to TM, then he was murdered as no one wants to get stalked and gunned down.
I will say that, what is known is that Trayvon did ask GZ why he was following him. We do not know what GZ said back to him, before the fight broke out. So Trayvon was not looking for a fight, prior to GZs response...have to ask yourself, if you believe Trayvon started the fight (which there is not concrete data for), what did GZ say that incensed him so much, we'll never know as the only other witness is dead.
Took it, got an A. I think you guys missed a key lesson in logic class about series of events that happen and the many forks in the road at each subsequent event.
For you to say Trayvon was not looking for a fight...how do you know? It's amazing the leaps of faith you take. According to GZ, he was looking for a fight. Does that testimony benefit GZ, it sure does. Are you discounting it simply because it doesn't fit your idea of events? What if what GZ says is absolutely true, that TM said you are going to pay tonight. If that is true, he most certainly was looking for a fight.
I'll remind you for the 10th time, the cops told GZ the whole thing was on video tape and GZ said THANK GOD because he thought it was going to exonerate him. This was not a man worried because he thought a video, if it existed, would back him up 100%.
-
This is possibly the funniest thing I have ever read.
Glad you are amused.
GZ doesn't follow TM, he doesn't die..... Half truth. It was a leading event, but didn't cause him to die. Took another event, a fight, likely started by the Trayvon (that's what GZ said, that's what the jurors believed)...don't get into the fight, go to your home, run away, etc...you aren't dead. Pretty simple. Every event has a preceding event. The preceding event leads to the following events, but there is always a chance to go down the other fork in the road, or the other actions.
Ray Allen hits a tie breaking 3, but it doesn't happen without a great rebound by Bosch and a pass to him. That doesn't happen without a James 3 pointer prior to that. Series of events. TM, you are living if you don't get into a fight with GZ and pound his head into the concrete and break his nose. Can't get any more simple that that. It took MORE than GZ being there to lead to his death, a lot more.
-
Took it, got an A. I think you guys missed a key lesson in logic class about series of events that happen and the many forks in the road at each subsequent event.
For you to say Trayvon was not looking for a fight...how do you know? It's amazing the leaps of faith you take. According to GZ, he was looking for a fight. Does that testimony benefit GZ, it sure does. Are you discounting it simply because it doesn't fit your idea of events? What if what GZ says is absolutely true, that TM said you are going to pay tonight. If that is true, he most certainly was looking for a fight.
I'll remind you for the 10th time, the cops told GZ the whole thing was on video tape and GZ said THANK GOD because he thought it was going to exonerate him. This was not a man worried because he thought a video, if it existed, would back him up 100%.
Chicos, serious question.
What if (if) it's true that GZ physically started the altercation by trying to restrain TM. Would this alter your opinion at all?
-
Took it, got an A. I think you guys missed a key lesson in logic class about series of events that happen and the many forks in the road at each subsequent event.
For you to say Trayvon was not looking for a fight...how do you know? It's amazing the leaps of faith you take. According to GZ, he was looking for a fight. Does that testimony benefit GZ, it sure does. Are you discounting it simply because it doesn't fit your idea of events? What if what GZ says is absolutely true, that TM said you are going to pay tonight. If that is true, he most certainly was looking for a fight.
I'll remind you for the 10th time, the cops told GZ the whole thing was on video tape and GZ said THANK GOD because he thought it was going to exonerate him. This was not a man worried because he thought a video, if it existed, would back him up 100%.
We know, because he ran from GZ and had thought he had gotten away, only GZ apparently chased him down. Not an amazing leap of faith to think that a guy running away from a pursuer is not looking for a fight.
And to your more recent post. TM did run away, see above. The jurors didn't necessarily believe GZ, just that it was possible GZ was telling the truth (the whole reasonable doubt thing). That is why a lot of us, including myself have said that we don't know if he was legally guilty of murder (reasonable doubt), but at the very least morally culpable.
As one of the jurors has already commented (who though GZ was guilty), he has to answer to a far higher power for that.
You seem to be more than willing to attack TM, drag him through the mud and paint him in the worst possible lights, but I have not seen you even for a second turn any attention to GZ.
I don't discount any of GZ's testimony as to me it doesn't matter (I think there are a lot of issues with it and personally believe that he is lying...as his story doesn't match up with the timelines or locations that can be confirmed).
Simple facts. GZ got out of his car, pursued TM while armed. TM ran to try to get away. GZ caught back up to him. At this point TM legitimately can fear for his own life (strange man chasing him through an apartment complex), he tried to run once and failed. Regardless of what transpired after that, GZ had engaged himself in a situation he should not have been involved in. Because of that reason at the very least he is morally culpable for TMs death.
Even if we assume the worst possible scenario for TM (GZs account), TM still had reasonable concern for his own safety (strange man chasing him through an apartment complex). Because of that no stories matter. GZ pursued TM, TM died, GZ morally or legally culpable for the death. That simple.
-
Chicos, serious question.
What if (if) it's true that GZ physically started the altercation by trying to restrain TM. Would this alter your opinion at all?
Potentially. Totally depends on what manner we are talking about. If he said, I called the cops 10 minutes ago and they are on their way, stay here...does that count as restraining him? If that's what happened and TM said pound sand and attacked him, then it doesn't change my opinion one iota.
If, on the other hand, he had his gun drawn and said wait here until the cops come and TM felt his life was in danger, then yes that would change my POV. Of course if that was the case, you have to wonder why GZ would let himself get his nose broken and his head mashed in while having it drawn.
Lots of ifs and buts in this case.
Don't go out at night to get your ingredients for your purple drank \ lean, you are still alive.
Don't get into a fight with GZ, you're still alive.
Etc, etc Many things had to happen. The mere act of GZ following him was not the ultimate action point that led to his death, and that was what Alan Dershowitz said, that's what the jury said. That's why he is a free man.
-
We know, because he ran from GZ and had thought he had gotten away, only GZ apparently chased him down. Not an amazing leap of faith to think that a guy running away from a pursuer is not looking for a fight.
And to your more recent post. TM did run away, see above. The jurors didn't necessarily believe GZ, just that it was possible GZ was telling the truth (the whole reasonable doubt thing). That is why a lot of us, including myself have said that we don't know if he was legally guilty of murder (reasonable doubt), but at the very least morally culpable.
As one of the jurors has already commented (who though GZ was guilty), he has to answer to a far higher power for that.
You seem to be more than willing to attack TM, drag him through the mud and paint him in the worst possible lights, but I have not seen you even for a second turn any attention to GZ.
I don't discount any of GZ's testimony as to me it doesn't matter (I think there are a lot of issues with it and personally believe that he is lying...as his story doesn't match up with the timelines or locations that can be confirmed).
Simple facts. GZ got out of his car, pursued TM while armed. TM ran to try to get away. GZ caught back up to him. At this point TM legitimately can fear for his own life (strange man chasing him through an apartment complex), he tried to run once and failed. Regardless of what transpired after that, GZ had engaged himself in a situation he should not have been involved in. Because of that reason at the very least he is morally culpable for TMs death.
Even if we assume the worst possible scenario for TM (GZs account), TM still had reasonable concern for his own safety (strange man chasing him through an apartment complex). Because of that no stories matter. GZ pursued TM, TM died, GZ morally or legally culpable for the death. That simple.
Yes, one of the 6 said this...the only one that said this. She was the lone holdout. Or as she labeled herself, "I was going to be the hung jury".
GZ not legally culpable, that's already over unless this administration is going to continue to disembowel the constitution and now go for double jeopardy. Nothing would surprise me.
Morally culpable, I'll let God answer that. That simple.
We don't know if Martin ran from Zimmerman. His girlfriend on the phone said he did, but since she wasn't there we don't know. See how fun this game is? We can call her into question just like we call the others into question. Of course this same woman has had a few changes to her story since last year.
What about his story doesn't match with the timelines? He said TM was on top, a witness confirms this. He said he was punched in the nose, he was. He said his head got slammed into the ground repeatedly, it did. He called the cops and stayed on the phone with them. He also said once he shot him, he got on top of TM to secure him, which jives with the woman witness who claimed this after she came to the porch after the shot. Everything lines up with what he said. I'm curious what differences you see.
In the meantime, here's what a cop (who questioned GZ) said (does this for a living, trying to discern what is truthful and what is false). He was trying to determine whether the statements were true or not from GZ when questioning him.
At one point during his interview with Zimmerman, Serino bluffed that he may have video of the incident shot on Martin’s cellphone.
"I believe [Zimmerman’s] words were, 'Thank God, I was hoping somebody would videotape it,'" said Serino. "Either he was telling the truth or he was a complete pathological liar. One of the two."
Serino says nothing indicated to him that Zimmerman was a liar.
"You think he was telling the truth?" asked O'Mara.
"Yes," said Serino.
-
Instead of unproductive name calling, would you care to address the comment. All the items I posted are fact (with the exception of the recent hero case as that is too new). Granted, GZ did agree to a plea deal of resisting arrest, instead of assault on an officer. Personally I think they are irrelevant as the key issue to me is:
He got out of the car and chased a kid. Everything thereafter hinges upon that event, which was a rash, ill-advised act that led to the loss of a life.
I address
you don't like unproductive name calling, then ask if those who disagree with you ever took logic. You state that GZ chased after Martin with no way to really know if he did. You bring up Zimmerman's arrest record and plea deal while also stating that they are irrelevant. You wrongly state that all downstream events hinge on an event that is unprovable and even if it was would not not necessarily constitute cause and effect. I will say this about your obliviousness, though, you are persistent and I am impressed.
-
Florida Man arrested for kidnapping neighbor's dog. Having sex with it in his trailer.
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2013-07-26/story/st-johns-sex-predator-charged-having-sex-neighbors-dog (http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2013-07-26/story/st-johns-sex-predator-charged-having-sex-neighbors-dog)
-
Florida Man arrested for kidnapping neighbor's dog. Having sex with it in his trailer.
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2013-07-26/story/st-johns-sex-predator-charged-having-sex-neighbors-dog (http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2013-07-26/story/st-johns-sex-predator-charged-having-sex-neighbors-dog)
Now that is a Florida story.
-
Don't go out at night to get your ingredients for your purple drank \ lean, you are still alive.
Don't get into a fight with GZ, you're still alive.
Etc, etc Many things had to happen. The mere act of GZ following him was not the ultimate action point that led to his death, and that was what Alan Dershowitz said, that's what the jury said. That's why he is a free man.
Don't be "suspicious" and unknown to George Zimmerman, you are still alive.
Guess you're right.All TM's fault.
I agree with you (and Dershowitz) that given Florida law acquittal was the only logical verdict for 2nd degree murder or manslaughter, but your blame the victim mantra is ridiculous. I think that a person in this country ought to be able to assume that going to a convenience store for soda and candy shouldn't result in being profiled and pursued by an armed fellow citizen. I further think that when an armed fellow citizen decides (contrary to police instructions) to pursue a fellow citizen who has done nothing wrong other than being black and a stranger, the armed fellow citizen bears the responsibility for and is the primary cause if the other guy ends up shot dead.
-
Florida.
http://www.pnj.com/article/20130728/NEWS11/307280027/Deputies-shoot-at-man-in-his-yard?nclick_check=1
-
Don't be "suspicious" and unknown to George Zimmerman, you are still alive.
Guess you're right.All TM's fault.
I agree with you (and Dershowitz) that given Florida law acquittal was the only logical verdict for 2nd degree murder or manslaughter, but your blame the victim mantra is ridiculous. I think that a person in this country ought to be able to assume that going to a convenience store for soda and candy shouldn't result in being profiled and pursued by an armed fellow citizen. I further think that when an armed fellow citizen decides (contrary to police instructions) to pursue a fellow citizen who has done nothing wrong other than being black and a stranger, the armed fellow citizen bears the responsibility for and is the primary cause if the other guy ends up shot dead.
Thank you. TM is to blame for his own death because he had the temerity to leave his house at night? Jesus H...that's a great line of reasoning.
-
Florida.
http://www.pnj.com/article/20130728/NEWS11/307280027/Deputies-shoot-at-man-in-his-yard?nclick_check=1
Now that's a story that Chicos can get behind. Job well done, right CBB? After all, he was out of his house at night...
-
Now that's a story that Chicos can get behind. Job well done, right CBB? After all, he was out of his house at night...
He claims he was getting cigarettes out of his car, but I read somewhere on the Internets that some people hollow those out and fill them with weed. Guy clearly was a drug dealer who deserves whatever he got.
-
I think that a person in this country ought to be able to assume that going to a convenience store for soda and candy shouldn't result in being profiled and pursued by an armed fellow citizen. I further think that when an armed fellow citizen decides (contrary to police instructions) to pursue a fellow citizen who has done nothing wrong other than being black and a stranger, the armed fellow citizen bears the responsibility for and is the primary cause if the other guy ends up shot dead.
Nicely stated.
Let's not get distracted by a bunch of speculative details (facebook posts by TM, calls to the cops by GZ, Liberal media, conservative media, etc.)
Look at the BIG picture of what happened, and ask yourself if you are comfortable with that happening in your neighborhood.
-
Florida Man Crashes Car Three Times In One Night Of Drunk Driving
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/troopers-drunk-driver-flees-after-crashing-three-t/nY6P6/ (http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/troopers-drunk-driver-flees-after-crashing-three-t/nY6P6/)
-
Florida Man Crashes Car Three Times In One Night Of Drunk Driving
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/troopers-drunk-driver-flees-after-crashing-three-t/nY6P6/ (http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/troopers-drunk-driver-flees-after-crashing-three-t/nY6P6/)
I see I'm not the only one who follows @FloridaMan.
-
Florida.
http://www.pnj.com/article/20130728/NEWS11/307280027/Deputies-shoot-at-man-in-his-yard?nclick_check=1
GUHHHhhhhhh, seriously, ladies and gentlemen, FLORIDA!
(http://artstg.icbdr.com/sites/all/files/ron%20swanson%20i%20hate%20everything.gif)
Don't be "suspicious" and unknown to George Zimmerman, you are still alive.
Guess you're right.All TM's fault.
I agree with you (and Dershowitz) that given Florida law acquittal was the only logical verdict for 2nd degree murder or manslaughter, but your blame the victim mantra is ridiculous. I think that a person in this country ought to be able to assume that going to a convenience store for soda and candy shouldn't result in being profiled and pursued by an armed fellow citizen. I further think that when an armed fellow citizen decides (contrary to police instructions) to pursue a fellow citizen who has done nothing wrong other than being black and a stranger, the armed fellow citizen bears the responsibility for and is the primary cause if the other guy ends up shot dead.
Yeah, I don't think this paragraph can possibly be be written better.
All that's missing is the mike dropping.
(I'm still not going to feel empathy for George Zimmerman, though.)
I see I'm not the only one who follows @FloridaMan.
The scary thing about that twitter handle, is that it is a pretty active account.
There's always something f***ed up, disgusting, or soul crushing occurring in
that state. It's like the collective awfulness of America has been funneled
southward into one giant colostomy bag.
-
Yeah, I don't think this paragraph can possibly be be written better.
All that's missing is the mike dropping.
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/e95bd2a317c632ad00fce24bbf9385ca/tumblr_mloa08X1v91rq3i3ro1_500.gif)
-
I agree with you (and Dershowitz) that given Florida law acquittal was the only logical verdict for 2nd degree murder or manslaughter, but your blame the victim mantra is ridiculous. I think that a person in this country ought to be able to assume that going to a convenience store for soda and candy shouldn't result in being profiled and pursued by an armed fellow citizen. I further think that when an armed fellow citizen decides (contrary to police instructions) to pursue a fellow citizen who has done nothing wrong other than being black and a stranger, the armed fellow citizen bears the responsibility for and is the primary cause if the other guy ends up shot dead.
The problem with your paragraph is that it's incredibly oversimplified and factually incorrect.
Martin wasn't profiled only because he was "black and a stranger." He was profiled because he fit the description of the person/people responsible for break-ins in the area and because he was walking through yards at a slow pace in the rain while looking into houses. It's very reasonable that a neighborhood watch volunteer would contact the authorities and try to keep an eye on that person. Did GZ eventually go too far? Maybe, maybe not. However, in terms of profiling, he did nothing wrong.
Also, the police did not instruct GZ to stay in his car and refrain from following Martin. The police dispatcher told him that they didn't need him to follow Martin and even testified that when he asked where TM was going, GZ may have interpreted that as a request to get out of his car and see where he went. Whatever the case, police dispatchers do NOT give orders.
Does this absolve GZ from all blame? Of course not. He still made his fair share of mistakes. I'm just pointing out that the case is not nearly as cut and dry as you made it out to be.
Playing devil's advocate, what would you think if someone were to post...
In a neighborhood that has recently experienced a series of break-ins, I think that a person ought to be able to assume that notifying the police of suspicious activity should not result in having his life put in danger.
Would you agree with that? If not, why?
-
The problem with your paragraph is that it's incredibly oversimplified and factually incorrect.
Martin wasn't profiled only because he was "black and a stranger." He was profiled because he fit the description of the person/people responsible for break-ins in the area
Wasn't black and stranger the description he fit? I guess I left out young.
-
and because he was walking through yards at a slow pace in the rain while looking into houses. It's very reasonable that a neighborhood watch volunteer would contact the authorities and try to keep an eye on that person. Did GZ eventually go too far? Maybe, maybe not. However, in terms of profiling, he did nothing wrong.
Also, the police did not instruct GZ to stay in his car and refrain from following Martin. The police dispatcher told him that they didn't need him to follow Martin and even testified that when he asked where TM was going, GZ may have interpreted that as a request to get out of his car and see where he went. Whatever the case, police dispatchers do NOT give orders.
Does this absolve GZ from all blame? Of course not. He still made his fair share of mistakes. I'm just pointing out that the case is not nearly as cut and dry as you made it out to be.
You may be right that GZ had reasons to be suspicious, but I'm unaware that TM walking slowly and looking into houses are "established facts". Rather, I think they are part of GZ's statement, which may or may not be factual.
What should he have done? Called the police, listened to the dispatcher and let the cops do what they do. Arming yourself and pursuing someone who has done nothing but arouse your suspicion is a bad idea. Period. In this case it was lethal.
-
The problem with your paragraph is that it's incredibly oversimplified and factually incorrect.
Martin wasn't profiled only because he was "black and a stranger." He was profiled because he fit the description of the person/people responsible for break-ins in the area and because he was walking through yards at a slow pace in the rain while looking into houses. It's very reasonable that a neighborhood watch volunteer would contact the authorities and try to keep an eye on that person. Did GZ eventually go too far? Maybe, maybe not. However, in terms of profiling, he did nothing wrong.
Also, the police did not instruct GZ to stay in his car and refrain from following Martin. The police dispatcher told him that they didn't need him to follow Martin and even testified that when he asked where TM was going, GZ may have interpreted that as a request to get out of his car and see where he went. Whatever the case, police dispatchers do NOT give orders.
Does this absolve GZ from all blame? Of course not. He still made his fair share of mistakes. I'm just pointing out that the case is not nearly as cut and dry as you made it out to be.
Playing devil's advocate, what would you think if someone were to post...
In a neighborhood that has recently experienced a series of break-ins, I think that a person ought to be able to assume that notifying the police of suspicious activity should not result in having his life put in danger.
Would you agree with that? If not, why?
What the hell does it matter...police vs. dispatcher? He was advised to not follow. Period.
-
You may be right that GZ had reasons to be suspicious, but I'm unaware that TM walking slowly and looking into houses are "established facts". Rather, I think they are part of GZ's statement, which may or may not be factual.
What should he have done? Called the police, listened to the dispatcher and let the cops do what they do. Arming yourself and pursuing someone who has done nothing but arouse your suspicion is a bad idea. Period. In this case it was lethal.
Bingo again.
We can avoid the whole race issue all together.
Citizen's shouldn't arm themselves and trail "suspects" because they aren't trained to do so. Doesn't matter what description the "suspect" matches.
Crime fighting isn't a good DIY project*. Leave it to the professionals.
*EDIT: Crime prevention is a great DIY project, but leave apprehension/fighting to the pros.
-
Playing devil's advocate, what would you think if someone were to post...
In a neighborhood that has recently experienced a series of break-ins, I think that a person ought to be able to assume that notifying the police of suspicious activity should not result in having his life put in danger.
Would you agree with that? If not, why?
I would agree with that. And of course merely notifying the police wouldn't have put GZ in any danger. Lot's of "what ifs" but the sine qua non of the whole situation is Zimmerman's pursuit. Unnecessary, unwarranted, it set off a chain of events that ended in death.
-
Just so we're clear about the whole rash of break-ins by young black men business .... three over 14 months by known black offenders. Five others with no clear suspect.
City officials posted police reports to the city website detailing eight burglary reports in the neighborhood in the 14 months prior to Martin's February 26 death.
In three of those incidents, black males were implicated by witnesses or arrests. A fourth incident was less clear.
A homeowner who reported that someone had broken into her home and had stolen a video game console referred police to a black man who had previously visited her home asking for her son.
Police do not list that man as a suspect in their report.
In the other four incidents, there were no witnesses or suspects, according to police reports.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/03/justice/florida-teen-shooting-burglaries
-
I see I'm not the only one who follows @FloridaMan.
Everyone needs to follow @_FloridaMan.
Florida Man Left 6-Year-Old Son In Crashed Car Because He Thought His Driver's License Was Suspended. It Wasn't
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/man-arrested-after-crashing-car-with-son-in-back-s/nY4bB/ (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/man-arrested-after-crashing-car-with-son-in-back-s/nY4bB/)
The scary thing about that twitter handle, is that it is a pretty active account.
There's always something f***ed up, disgusting, or soul crushing occurring in
that state. It's like the collective awfulness of America has been funneled
southward into one giant colostomy bag.
Florida is the worst state in America. Florida Man is the proof.
-
Wasn't black and stranger the description he fit? I guess I left out young.
You also left out that he was slowly walking in the rain through people's yards. If a young, black stranger was quickly walking down the sidewalk, I doubt that GZ would have thought twice about it.
I would agree with that. And of course merely notifying the police wouldn't have put GZ in any danger. Lot's of "what ifs" but the sine qua non of the whole situation is Zimmerman's pursuit. Unnecessary, unwarranted, it set off a chain of events that ended in death.
According to GZ, whose account many are quick to write-off of a lie, he got out of his car to see if he could determine which direction TM had run (which means he wasn't "pursuing" him). After not locating him, he returned to his vehicle when TM confronted him and punched him in the face. If that was actually what happened, was GZ still to be blamed for getting out of his car?
-
You also left out that he was slowly walking in the rain through people's yards. If a young, black stranger was quickly walking down the sidewalk, I doubt that GZ would have thought twice about it.
According to GZ, whose account many are quick to write-off of a lie, he got out of his car to see if he could determine which direction TM had run (which means he wasn't "pursuing" him). After not locating him, he returned to his vehicle when TM confronted him and punched him in the face. If that was actually what happened, was GZ still to be blamed for getting out of his car?
He supposedly got out of his car to find out what street he was on to provide that information to the dispatcher. Note, he was on his own street, on the precise dog walk that he walked everyday (pretty forgetful fella).
GZ didn't say TM was looking into houses, he said on the recording that he was looking around. More specifically, GZ said TM was looking at him, just staring at GZ. Pretty reasonable thing to do when a stranger is stalking you.
GZ admits TM is running away. Just after commenting these f'n a-*** always get away. You can hear GZ running after him i.e. chasing him. The dispatcher asks if he is chasing him. He says yes. There is no debate that TM tried to run away.
If your hypothetical was true, I would have less issue with it. However, it isn't true as GZs own recorded phone call to 911 disproves it.
As far as returning to his car and getting jumped from the bushes. These issues contradict his own re-enactment of the events, as there were no bushes and there were inconsistencies with the locations he claimed to have been in.
-
Quick question, for those that may know more about this...not trying to insinuate anything just curious.
It was known that GZ had done ride-alongs and was friendly with the Sanford police department. I know at one point they claimed there were no records of who he would have done ride-alongs with.
Did they ever try to compel that information, or do they really not have such information.
-
Quick question, for those that may know more about this...not trying to insinuate anything just curious.
It was known that GZ had done ride-alongs and was friendly with the Sanford police department. I know at one point they claimed there were no records of who he would have done ride-alongs with.
Did they ever try to compel that information, or do they really not have such information.
Relevancy?
-
He supposedly got out of his car to find out what street he was on to provide that information to the dispatcher. Note, he was on his own street, on the precise dog walk that he walked everyday (pretty forgetful fella).
GZ didn't say TM was looking into houses, he said on the recording that he was looking around. More specifically, GZ said TM was looking at him, just staring at GZ. Pretty reasonable thing to do when a stranger is stalking you.
GZ admits TM is running away. Just after commenting these f'n a-*** always get away. You can hear GZ running after him i.e. chasing him. The dispatcher asks if he is chasing him. He says yes. There is no debate that TM tried to run away.
If your hypothetical was true, I would have less issue with it. However, it isn't true as GZs own recorded phone call to 911 disproves it.
As far as returning to his car and getting jumped from the bushes. These issues contradict his own re-enactment of the events, as there were no bushes and there were inconsistencies with the locations he claimed to have been in.
You are lying.
-
Florida Man arrested for kidnapping neighbor's dog. Having sex with it in his trailer.
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2013-07-26/story/st-johns-sex-predator-charged-having-sex-neighbors-dog (http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2013-07-26/story/st-johns-sex-predator-charged-having-sex-neighbors-dog)
I think we should start one of these threads for every state. Who is up for starting Illinois next? I'm happy to do California, but think Illinois deserves the attention.
-
Don't be "suspicious" and unknown to George Zimmerman, you are still alive.
Guess you're right.All TM's fault.
I agree with you (and Dershowitz) that given Florida law acquittal was the only logical verdict for 2nd degree murder or manslaughter, but your blame the victim mantra is ridiculous. I think that a person in this country ought to be able to assume that going to a convenience store for soda and candy shouldn't result in being profiled and pursued by an armed fellow citizen. I further think that when an armed fellow citizen decides (contrary to police instructions) to pursue a fellow citizen who has done nothing wrong other than being black and a stranger, the armed fellow citizen bears the responsibility for and is the primary cause if the other guy ends up shot dead.
Never said it was ALL TM's fault. I said several actions had to happen. GZ being there alone doesn't lead to his death. Big difference.
That's wonderful you think that.
I also think that in this country you are allowed to make citizens arrests, you are allowed to protect your property, you're also allowed to protect yourself if injury is upon you. So saws the laws created by various localities, states, and by the feds. Now, in some cases the laws aren't uniform. I'd advise definitely knowing the laws in your specific area.
Tragedy that the young man died. Shame he didn't just go into the home. More of a shame that he attacked GZ (if we think GZ's account is accurate, which I have no reason not to believe it since everything he told the cops has checked out thus far). He deserves the right as a citizen of this country not to have his face beat in, to live in a neighborhood that isn't robbed constantly and to do something about it if he wishes, etc.
To each their own.
-
What the hell does it matter...police vs. dispatcher? He was advised to not follow. Period.
And legally, as stated in the court, he had no obligation to follow those instructions. Period. Nevertheless, also stated that the dispatcher told him to return to his car which GZ said he was doing when TM came out to him and started the "what's your problem". So let's say GZ's account is correct, and he was returning to his car. Let's say TM jumped him, is he supposed to let himself get his head beat into the concrete until he passes out and potentially dies until the cops arrive, or is he allowed to defend himself?
The court has spoken.
-
Everyone needs to follow @_FloridaMan.
Florida Man Left 6-Year-Old Son In Crashed Car Because He Thought His Driver's License Was Suspended. It Wasn't
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/man-arrested-after-crashing-car-with-son-in-back-s/nY4bB/ (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/man-arrested-after-crashing-car-with-son-in-back-s/nY4bB/)
Florida is the worst state in America. Florida Man is the proof.
I got Illinois as worst.....for any number of reasons....proof is on the tube every day. California a close second.
-
You also left out that he was slowly walking in the rain through people's yards. If a young, black stranger was quickly walking down the sidewalk, I doubt that GZ would have thought twice about it.
According to GZ, whose account many are quick to write-off of a lie, he got out of his car to see if he could determine which direction TM had run (which means he wasn't "pursuing" him). After not locating him, he returned to his vehicle when TM confronted him and punched him in the face. If that was actually what happened, was GZ still to be blamed for getting out of his car?
I know, that's what I find comical. GZ is lying, but some of these guys hold up his girlfriend's testimony as if coming from the pages of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, despite the fact she was proven to lie on several occasions....her age, the fact she said she was in the hospital during the funeral, etc. I guess the benefit of the doubt only goes to one side, despite absolute proof of lies. Even the prosecutors admitted she lied...but we're supposed to believe TM was running, because she said so. Interesting how posters here attack others and claim GZ is lying, with no proof (just a gut), but will defend others known to have lied because it benefits their outlook of the case. Interesting.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/06/prosecutors-admit-trayvon-martins-girlfriend-lied-under-oath/
-
The court has spoken.
One court has spoken. Sadly, you never know if others will also speak (with a much different result) with some of the folks currently in Washington.
-
Now that's a story that Chicos can get behind. Job well done, right CBB? After all, he was out of his house at night...
Don't speak for me ATL, based on what was reported, no it's not job well done and not ok. I'd like to see the police video, which many municipalities are forced to use now. I know here in Los Angeles they are. Should clear it up pretty quickly. On the surface, sounds like the cops f'd up and this guy is going to get a big check as a result.
Or we can talk about stories like this...where's George Zimmerman (or the cops) when you need them.
http://gothamist.com/2013/07/20/2nd_suspect_arrested_for_raping_thr.php
-
Ummm .... Chico's .... you know Zimmerman told the 911 dispatcher TM was running, don't you? His own statement confirms her testimony on that issue. In your rush to character assasinate you aren't even bothering to deal with the known facts.
You're beyond any semblance of rationality at this point.
-
You are lying.
Listen to the recording of his 911 call. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj7qEcD8R-8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj7qEcD8R-8)
Indicating that he is running occurs around 2:14.
Unless you are talking about the bushes...if so look at the T intersection where he says the encounter occurred (no bushes), of course that is a good 20-30 yards from where the body was found. Here is a video of GZs reenactment. The body was found 20-30 yards down between the houses from the T-intersection. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VakGZgJxTi4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VakGZgJxTi4)
Look, the one thing that is absolutely clear is that we essentially know nothing about what actually occurred. There is about a 3 minute time span that can not be accounted for in everyones story.
-
I just hope Illinois is able to correct their Stand Your Ground laws...you know the ones strengthened in 2004 by someone who co-sponsored the bill (SB 2386) in the state Senate that won overwhelmingly.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/23/did-obama-vote-for-a-stand-your-ground-b
As for the Florida law.... “African Americans benefit from Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground” self-defense law at a rate far out of proportion to their presence in the state’s population, despite an assertion by Attorney General Eric Holder that repealing ’stand your ground’ would help African Americans.”
A third of Florida’s Stand Your Ground claims in homicide cases are made by African-Americans, a rate nearly double the black percentage of the state’s population. The majority of those claims have been successful, a success rate that exceeds that of Florida whites."
-
Ummm .... Chico's .... you know Zimmerman told the 911 dispatcher TM was running, don't you? His own statement confirms her testimony on that issue. In your rush to character assasinate you aren't even bothering to deal with the known facts.
You're beyond any semblance of rationality at this point.
Plenty rationale Pakuni. Just like the jury. You're right, he does say on the transcript he is running. See, he's not a liar. I'm still waiting to hear from any of you what he said that was a lie. We know she has lied, where exactly has he lied or is it just your "gut feeling"? And please don't lecture me on facts, when you have implied GZ is lying without any factual information to back it up. Comments like "that's an incredible self-serving story Mr. Zimmerman". Or "Yep, cause the completely reasonable and rational response to being punched is to open fire" and completely leaving out his head being bashed into the ground. Or this one "Except that's a bastardized version of what one juror said, and four of the other five jurors issued a statement saying they didn't agree with her." Four of five jurors did NOT say they didn't agree with her on that comment, they said she doesn't speak for all of them. Huge difference.
So I'll ask again, where is GZ lying...where is the proof that he is?
-
Look, the one thing that is absolutely clear is that we essentially know nothing about what actually occurred. There is about a 3 minute time span that can not be accounted for in everyones story.
And yet despite this we have people saying he (GZ) lied, he started the fight, he had his gun out before TM went after him, we have theories that he was holding him until the cops arrived, we have theories that he was intent on killing him no matter what. This is why he was acquitted, because we don't know. Reasonable doubt personified.
All we know are the facts.
Kid used Purple Drank or Lean. Went to store at night in rain and bought two of the three products for Lean.
We know he smoked marijuana earlier (not weeks earlier as one poster said here) and the medical examiner said it could have or could not have influenced him. (unlike posters here saying it had absolute no effect)
We know by his texts, emails, etc that he was looking to purchase a gun and got into several recent fights
We know the neighborhood was robbed 8 times in the previous 15 months. 8, in a small geographic area. Perpetuated by young African American males. (this according to Zimmerman's African American neighbor) http://the-american-journal.com/zimmerman-neighbors-fear-black-youth/
We know one robbery was actually thwarted (Feb 2) by a Zimmerman call to cops
Despite the 8 known robberies, neighbors said dozens of others were committed, not all reported to the police.
We know GZ called the cops the night of incident, stayed on with the cops on the phone.
We know he said TM was on top, which a witness confirmed
We know he said he as on top of TM after he shot him, which another witness confirmed
We know his head was bashed and his nose broken
We know one 17 year old is dead. We know one 29 year old was convicted by the media and many of the citizenry before a trial (Duke Lacrosse case anyone)
We know one "white Hispanic" said he feared for his life and has injuries to prove it to his nose and face
We know he gave 6 statements to police without a lawyer and fully cooperated at every turn
We know when interviewed by police they claimed the entire episode was on video that GZ was relieved and said "Thank God" because he was certain the video would put to rest his need to fire
We know the jury found him not guilty.
We know a lot of people that have no idea about the law or the case claim it was unjust and even foolishly claim Stand your Ground law is in effect, when it was not even part of the defense's claims
We know GZ will have to look over his shoulder the of his life.
We know some, including some here, will say he lied without one shred of evidence that he did
-
Plenty rationale Pakuni. Just like the jury. You're right, he does say on the transcript he is running. See, he's not a liar. I'm still waiting to hear from any of you what he said that was a lie. We know she has lied, where exactly has he lied or is it just your "gut feeling"? And please don't lecture me on facts, when you have implied GZ is lying without any factual information to back it up. Comments like "that's an incredible self-serving story Mr. Zimmerman". Or "Yep, cause the completely reasonable and rational response to being punched is to open fire" and completely leaving out his head being bashed into the ground. Or this one "Except that's a bastardized version of what one juror said, and four of the other five jurors issued a statement saying they didn't agree with her." Four of five jurors did NOT say they didn't agree with her on that comment, they said she doesn't speak for all of them. Huge difference.
So I'll ask again, where is GZ lying...where is the proof that he is?
I'm not going to call GZ a liar, but there are discrepancies to his statements.
1. What happened in the missing 3 and a half minutes from when he got off his phone to when he was reportedly attacked 30 feet from the end of his phone call. He said he walked back to his car. Should have only taken him about 40 seconds to reach it.
2. How did Trayvon punch him, while covering his mouth, while reaching for a gun. I haven't see detailed photos of TM, but I never heard about his third arm.
3. How did they get to where the body was found (20-30 yards away) from where in the video he says he was attacked.
4. How did his car end up facing west, when his description of the evening has him approaching from that direction.
5. How can you know nothing about the stand-your-ground law if your professor admits it was covered in a class you attended.
6. Did you forget about the $150k and your second passport? http://gawker.com/5915713/george-zimmermans-lawyer-admits-his-client-lied-about-his-finances (http://gawker.com/5915713/george-zimmermans-lawyer-admits-his-client-lied-about-his-finances)
These are a few, there are more.
You comments to his girlfriend lying. Largely are in reference to why she didn't go to the funeral. Completely immaterial to the case. Just like GZ and his wife talking in code to hide their assets. Not important, as they are not directly related to the events of the evening.
-
95 year old man killed by police in Illinois. 95 years old...wrong or right? Who knows...if this happened in Florida I wonder the response.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-autopsy-bean-bag-rounds-fired-by-police-killed-park-forest-man-95-20130728,0,5356856.story
-
I'm not going to call GZ a liar, but there are discrepancies to his statements.
1. What happened in the missing 3 and a half minutes from when he got off his phone to when he was reportedly attacked 30 feet from the end of his phone call. He said he walked back to his car. Should have only taken him about 40 seconds to reach it.
2. How did Trayvon punch him, while covering his mouth, while reaching for a gun. I haven't see detailed photos of TM, but I never heard about his third arm.
3. How did they get to where the body was found (20-30 yards away) from where in the video he says he was attacked.
4. How did his car end up facing west, when his description of the evening has him approaching from that direction.
5. How can you know nothing about the stand-your-ground law if your professor admits it was covered in a class you attended.
6. Did you forget about the $150k and your second passport? http://gawker.com/5915713/george-zimmermans-lawyer-admits-his-client-lied-about-his-finances (http://gawker.com/5915713/george-zimmermans-lawyer-admits-his-client-lied-about-his-finances)
These are a few, there are more.
You comments to his girlfriend lying. Largely are in reference to why she didn't go to the funeral. Completely immaterial to the case. Just like GZ and his wife talking in code to hide their assets. Not important, as they are not directly related to the events of the evening.
You've already said he lied, too late not to call him a liar. Pakuni has insinuated the same.
My comments about his girlfriend are that she claimed she was 16, she was 18 at the time and now 19. Yes, about the funeral, but also about the letter and what she left out of her original statements only to have them come out in testimony like "crazy ass cracker". She has 4 or 5 of them.
There is a lot of stuff I can't remember that my professors taught, how is that unusual?
As for the street signs, I find that totally reasonable. My wife and I were talking about this today how the street one over to us neither of us could remember the name of it yet we take it everyday for 5+ years. You just do it by habit and it's this tiny street we are on for maybe 8 houses before turning. If someone put a gun to my head or a cop asked what the name of that street was, I'd get it wrong.
His car, who knows. Was it moved? Did he get confused on his direction and stated it wrong in the first place?
Your 3rd arm explanation is cute, but I think the defense took that nonsense to hole pretty strong. Read the transcript.
-
About what the other juror really said
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/did_george_zimmerman_get_away_with_murder_no_juror_b29_is_being_framed.html
Love the mainstream media in this country ::)
-
95 year old man killed by police in Illinois. 95 years old...wrong or right? Who knows...if this happened in Florida I wonder the response.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-autopsy-bean-bag-rounds-fired-by-police-killed-park-forest-man-95-20130728,0,5356856.story
For Illinois vs Florida, that's pretty weak.
I present you with this:
Florida Man Seen Masturbating Outside Woman's House Three Times; Claims He Was Just Urinating Behind Bushes
http://www.wpbf.com/news/south-florida/Palm-Beach-County-News/melchisedech-isoph-arrested-accused-of-repeatedly-masturbating-outside-womans-house/-/8815578/21165030/-/e2d2lw/-/index.html (http://www.wpbf.com/news/south-florida/Palm-Beach-County-News/melchisedech-isoph-arrested-accused-of-repeatedly-masturbating-outside-womans-house/-/8815578/21165030/-/e2d2lw/-/index.html)
-
I think we should start one of these threads for every state. Who is up for starting Illinois next? I'm happy to do California, but think Illinois deserves the attention.
Florida Man Charged After 3-Year-Old Found Home Alone With Live Grenade, Machine Guns And Arsenal Of Ammunition
http://www.wsvn.com/news/articles/local/21011241617529/man-charged-after-leaving-child-home-alone-with-weapons/ (http://www.wsvn.com/news/articles/local/21011241617529/man-charged-after-leaving-child-home-alone-with-weapons/)
-
We're in agreement. Argument was for Chicos, who refuses to acknowledge that a precipitating event is responsible for downstream outcomes.
Show me where I ever said that. In fact, I said the opposite. It was a contributing factor, a linkage event. However another even had to happen for him to die. Please, stop making stuff up.
True or false, GZ's act ALONE of following TM that night meant he was going to die?
True or false, it took another action in ADDITION to him following him that ultimately led to his death?
Of course they are linked, never said otherwise. But doing A, doesn't mean B happens. B happened because of decisions made that could have been made differently and no one dies.
-
Drunk, Shirtless Florida Man Arrested For Pooping On Sidewalk Outside Gas Station
http://www.wpbf.com/news/south-florida/Palm-Beach-County-News/scott-cassidy-arrested-after-defecating-on-sidewalk-deputies-say/-/8815578/20998464/-/b7bgcmz/-/index.html (http://www.wpbf.com/news/south-florida/Palm-Beach-County-News/scott-cassidy-arrested-after-defecating-on-sidewalk-deputies-say/-/8815578/20998464/-/b7bgcmz/-/index.html)
-
And yet despite this we have people saying he (GZ) lied, he started the fight, he had his gun out before TM went after him, we have theories that he was holding him until the cops arrived, we have theories that he was intent on killing him no matter what. This is why he was acquitted, because we don't know. Reasonable doubt personified.
All we know are the facts.
Kid used Purple Drank or Lean. Went to store at night in rain and bought two of the three products for Lean.
We know he smoked marijuana earlier (not weeks earlier as one poster said here) and the medical examiner said it could have or could not have influenced him. (unlike posters here saying it had absolute no effect)
We know by his texts, emails, etc that he was looking to purchase a gun and got into several recent fights
We know the neighborhood was robbed 8 times in the previous 15 months. 8, in a small geographic area. Perpetuated by young African American males. (this according to Zimmerman's African American neighbor) http://the-american-journal.com/zimmerman-neighbors-fear-black-youth/
We know one robbery was actually thwarted (Feb 2) by a Zimmerman call to cops
Despite the 8 known robberies, neighbors said dozens of others were committed, not all reported to the police.
We know GZ called the cops the night of incident, stayed on with the cops on the phone.
We know he said TM was on top, which a witness confirmed
We know he said he as on top of TM after he shot him, which another witness confirmed
We know his head was bashed and his nose broken
We know one 17 year old is dead. We know one 29 year old was convicted by the media and many of the citizenry before a trial (Duke Lacrosse case anyone)
We know one "white Hispanic" said he feared for his life and has injuries to prove it to his nose and face
We know he gave 6 statements to police without a lawyer and fully cooperated at every turn
We know when interviewed by police they claimed the entire episode was on video that GZ was relieved and said "Thank God" because he was certain the video would put to rest his need to fire
We know the jury found him not guilty.
We know a lot of people that have no idea about the law or the case claim it was unjust and even foolishly claim Stand your Ground law is in effect, when it was not even part of the defense's claims
We know GZ will have to look over his shoulder the of his life.
We know some, including some here, will say he lied without one shred of evidence that he did
You keep bringing up TM's past to paint a picture of who he is and explain how he might have acted.
Can you complete the same exercise for GZ?
Is it fair to paint him as a wannabe cop and assume that it influenced how he acted?
-
You keep bringing up TM's past to paint a picture of who he is and explain how he might have acted.
Can you complete the same exercise for GZ?
Is it fair to paint him as a wannabe cop and assume that it influenced how he acted?
Is being a wannabe cop the same as wanting to be a drug dealer and trying to score that stuff? Could it have influenced him...sure, probably. Comes down to whether that was a negative influence or not.
People can do the exercise if they wish, I'm not against people wanting to make their neighborhoods better, trying to take them back from the nonsense that goes on in some places. Put another way, I'm going to have a lot more support for a wannabe cop then someone that is looking to get a gun illegally, had stolen property in his school locker (which the school district relabeled to prevent his expulsion), publicly couldn't wait to score more drugs. If that makes me a bad guy, so be it, but I'd rather support someone with the better intentions.
-
For Illinois vs Florida, that's pretty weak.
I present you with this:
Florida Man Seen Masturbating Outside Woman's House Three Times; Claims He Was Just Urinating Behind Bushes
http://www.wpbf.com/news/south-florida/Palm-Beach-County-News/melchisedech-isoph-arrested-accused-of-repeatedly-masturbating-outside-womans-house/-/8815578/21165030/-/e2d2lw/-/index.html (http://www.wpbf.com/news/south-florida/Palm-Beach-County-News/melchisedech-isoph-arrested-accused-of-repeatedly-masturbating-outside-womans-house/-/8815578/21165030/-/e2d2lw/-/index.html)
I pulled up one story in the last 24 hours. I'm sure I could invest some time in it. For now, Illinois might want to fix their bond rating, the Chicago murder situation, and a whole slew of other issues. Maybe even elect a governor that can stay out of prison.
-
Is being a wannabe cop the same as wanting to be a drug dealer and trying to score that stuff? Could it have influenced him...sure, probably. Comes down to whether that was a negative influence or not.
People can do the exercise if they wish, I'm not against people wanting to make their neighborhoods better, trying to take them back from the nonsense that goes on in some places. Put another way, I'm going to have a lot more support for a wannabe cop then someone that is looking to get a gun illegally, had stolen property in his school locker (which the school district relabeled to prevent his expulsion), publicly couldn't wait to score more drugs. If that makes me a bad guy, so be it, but I'd rather support someone with the better intentions.
Let's talk about this objectively (if we can).
In theory a "wannabe cop" could be quite dangerous. If that person isn't trained properly, but feels empowered to participate in events that should be left to law enforcement, that could cause some serious trouble.
Now, by that same token, a "troubled youth" could also be dangerous. No doubt.
My point is, you seem to only focus on TM's issues, but I haven't heard you ever mention GZ's possible shortcomings. If you want to get into the speculative minutia, then let's get into it.
With this said, I think a better course of action is to step away from the minutia and look at the big picture of what happened, and see how you feel about it.
How would you feel if an unarmed member of your family was followed, engaged, and ultimately shot? Are you ok with untrained citizens participating is such activities?
-
I pulled up one story in the last 24 hours. I'm sure I could invest some time in it. For now, Illinois might want to fix their bond rating, the Chicago murder situation, and a whole slew of other issues. Maybe even elect a governor that can stay out of prison.
Florida Man Hospitalized After Tapping Favorite Alligator On The Nose During Feeding Demonstration
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/south-florida-man-attacked-by-alligator-during-demonstration/-/1637132/21095606/-/h73jeyz/-/index.html (http://www.clickorlando.com/news/south-florida-man-attacked-by-alligator-during-demonstration/-/1637132/21095606/-/h73jeyz/-/index.html)
-
Florida Man Not Guilty Of Killing Unarmed Teen Who Beat Him In Fight
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/13/justice/zimmerman-trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 (http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/13/justice/zimmerman-trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)
-
And yet despite this we have people saying he (GZ) lied, he started the fight, he had his gun out before TM went after him, we have theories that he was holding him until the cops arrived, we have theories that he was intent on killing him no matter what. This is why he was acquitted, because we don't know. Reasonable doubt personified.
All we know are the facts.
Kid used Purple Drank or Lean. Went to store at night in rain and bought two of the three products for Lean.
We know nothing. We know he bragged about it online. Yet, he had none in his blood. Strange. Didn't you know that everything children post online is true!
We know he smoked marijuana earlier (not weeks earlier as one poster said here) and the medical examiner said it could have or could not have influenced him. (unlike posters here saying it had absolute no effect)
You've never smoked weed before, clearly. The expert has to qualify his statement only to cover his own professional ass. You know, NEVER SPEAK IN ABSOLUTES.
We know by his texts, emails, etc that he was looking to purchase a gun and got into several recent fights
I don't see the relevance, if he has his parents permission, it is legal for TM to own a gun in FL
We know the neighborhood was robbed 8 times in the previous 15 months. 8, in a small geographic area. Perpetuated by young African American males. (this according to Zimmerman's African American neighbor) http://the-american-journal.com/zimmerman-neighbors-fear-black-youth/
Varying numbers
We know one robbery was actually thwarted (Feb 2) by a Zimmerman call to cops
One in which he didn't chase down the suspicious person and shoot them in the chest.
Despite the 8 known robberies, neighbors said dozens of others were committed, not all reported to the police.
Hearsay.
We know GZ called the cops the night of incident, stayed on with the cops on the phone.
We also know GZ ignored their specific instructions.
We know he said TM was on top, which a witness confirmed
Lmao, conflicting testimony in the dark from some distance. You cherry pick worse than anyone I've seen here except maybe Lab Warrior.
We know he said he as on top of TM after he shot him, which another witness confirmed
Again, it was dark. I'd be willing to bet that most people can't tell which person was on top from across the street in the dark.
We know his head was bashed and his nose broken
We know GZ sustained minor injuries that he did not immediately go to the hospital for.
We know one 17 year old is dead. We know one 29 year old was convicted by the media and many of the citizenry before a trial (Duke Lacrosse case anyone)
We know that one 17 year old is dead because a 29 year old shot him. The burden of proof for the 29 year old to prove it was self defense should be EXTREME.
We know one "white Hispanic" said he feared for his life and has injuries to prove it to his nose and face
This is where it all gets hazy. Sure he was beat up, but no injury caused to him was anywhere near life threatening. Could GZ have felt afraid for his life? I guess. But if he was willing to pursue a person that he suspected as a ROBBER in the NIGHT who he believe to be ARMED, how can he possibly say he was afraid when TM was on top beating him?
We know he gave 6 statements to police without a lawyer and fully cooperated at every turn
We know his statements contained gross inconsistencies between them, and the facts obtained from the scene. Cooperation does not equal honesty.
We know when interviewed by police they claimed the entire episode was on video that GZ was relieved and said "Thank God" because he was certain the video would put to rest his need to fire
Of course he would say that. Anyone would say that. His relief was in line with his thought process at the time, which could have been that he thought he did the right thing... even though it may have been the wrong thing.
We know the jury found him not guilty.
We do know the jury found him not guilty based on the way the law is interpreted as written in the state of Florida.
We know a lot of people that have no idea about the law or the case claim it was unjust and even foolishly claim Stand your Ground law is in effect, when it was not even part of the defense's claims
Namely, you. You are not a lawyer, nor are you even remotely close to a lawyer. The number of things that you point out as evidence are incorrect, hearsay, and circumstantial on a completely regular basis. So please, stop masquerading as a lawyer.
We know GZ will have to look over his shoulder the of his life.
Probably. He killed someone.
We know some, including some here, will say he lied without one shred of evidence that he did
Shouldn't his statements be examined? Perhaps we should take all murder suspects at their word.
Chicos, just stop. You aren't a legal expert, or even a legal novice, so stop trying to pass yourself off as Matlock.
-
Florida Man Sips Beer As He Wanders Naked Through Neighborhood; Says He Didn't Know He Had No Clothes On |
http://www.abc-7.com/story/22830542/man-wanders-naked-in-port-charlotte-neighborhood (http://www.abc-7.com/story/22830542/man-wanders-naked-in-port-charlotte-neighborhood)
-
Let's talk about this objectively (if we can).
In theory a "wannabe cop" could be quite dangerous. If that person isn't trained properly, but feels empowered to participate in events that should be left to law enforcement, that could cause some serious trouble.
Now, by that same token, a "troubled youth" could also be dangerous. No doubt.
My point is, you seem to only focus on TM's issues, but I haven't heard you ever mention GZ's possible shortcomings. If you want to get into the speculative minutia, then let's get into it.
With this said, I think a better course of action is to step away from the minutia and look at the big picture of what happened, and see how you feel about it.
How would you feel if an unarmed member of your family was followed, engaged, and ultimately shot? Are you ok with untrained citizens participating is such activities?
Guns, I don't agree with your middle of the ground take on things 99% of the time, but in this thread, I wish we could all be more like you. You've made perfect points with every post. Thank you for your thoughts here.
-
Guns, I don't agree with your middle of the ground take on things 99% of the time, but in this thread, I wish we could all be more like you. You've made perfect points with every post. Thank you for your thoughts here.
Hooray, finally, my level headed approach to the internet is paying off!
I promise to be more controversial and snarky about regular basketball topics. ;D
-
And yet despite this we have people saying he (GZ) lied, he started the fight, he had his gun out before TM went after him, we have theories that he was holding him until the cops arrived, we have theories that he was intent on killing him no matter what. This is why he was acquitted, because we don't know. Reasonable doubt personified.
All we know are the facts.
Kid used Purple Drank or Lean. Went to store at night in rain and bought two of the three products for Lean.
We know nothing. We know he bragged about it online. Yet, he had none in his blood. Strange. Didn't you know that everything children post online is true!
He admitted to using it in the past. He didn't have it in his blood because he was likely on his way home to make it. Not surprising.
We know he smoked marijuana earlier (not weeks earlier as one poster said here) and the medical examiner said it could have or could not have influenced him. (unlike posters here saying it had absolute no effect)
You've never smoked weed before, clearly. The expert has to qualify his statement only to cover his own professional ass. You know, NEVER SPEAK IN ABSOLUTES.
The expert CHANGED his testimony because he knows his initial comments were wrong. That's the only reason he changed it. When GZ said he looked like he was on drugs...he was. And for people here to say that it had ZERO impact and was taken weeks before, is garbage. They don't know that. What level of impact, we won't know, but it was in his system and some people are impacted more than others.
We know by his texts, emails, etc that he was looking to purchase a gun and got into several recent fights
I don't see the relevance, if he has his parents permission, it is legal for TM to own a gun in FL
The relevance is that he wanted to purchase it ILLEGALLY.
We know the neighborhood was robbed 8 times in the previous 15 months. 8, in a small geographic area. Perpetuated by young African American males. (this according to Zimmerman's African American neighbor) http://the-american-journal.com/zimmerman-neighbors-fear-black-youth/
Varying numbers
Correct. Enough that the neighborhood got together and put this watch together. Interesting how many minorities in that neighborhood continue to back GZ.
We know one robbery was actually thwarted (Feb 2) by a Zimmerman call to cops
One in which he didn't chase down the suspicious person and shoot them in the chest.
All situations are different, but you are correct. Just as some crimes by police are stopped by a phone call, and some by a bullet. Every situation is different. My guess is that in the one thwarted on Feb 2nd, the suspect didn't bash Zimmerman's skull into the ground or break his nose.
Despite the 8 known robberies, neighbors said dozens of others were committed, not all reported to the police.
Hearsay.
Not hearsay. Some of the residents said they didn't bother to report them to the police.
We know GZ called the cops the night of incident, stayed on with the cops on the phone.
We also know GZ ignored their specific instructions.
He followed some, not others. Claimed to be going back to the car as instructed. He was under zero obligation to follow those orders
We know he said TM was on top, which a witness confirmed
Lmao, conflicting testimony in the dark from some distance. You cherry pick worse than anyone I've seen here except maybe Lab Warrior.
Conflicting testimony? Absolutely not the case. No conflicting testimony. Mr. Good said TM was on top. The female witness said GZ was on top AFTER the shot was fired. The sound of the shot drew her to her porch. Nothing conflicting at all. No cherry picking. Try again or simply apologize. ;D
We know he said he as on top of TM after he shot him, which another witness confirmed
Again, it was dark. I'd be willing to bet that most people can't tell which person was on top from across the street in the dark.
Under oath, both witnesses said they made a positive ID. They were there, you weren't. They are able to discern what their abilities are. If that was in question, the attorneys and the jury would bring that up.
We know his head was bashed and his nose broken
We know GZ sustained minor injuries that he did not immediately go to the hospital for.
We know he had a broken nose and was repeatedly having his head smashed in. We know blood from the nose was going into his mouth and making it difficult for him to breathe. If one continues to let someone bash your head in, you risk further damage, severe damage and even death. Under law, he is allowed to protect himself from that further pounding.
We know one 17 year old is dead. We know one 29 year old was convicted by the media and many of the citizenry before a trial (Duke Lacrosse case anyone)
We know that one 17 year old is dead because a 29 year old shot him. The burden of proof for the 29 year old to prove it was self defense should be EXTREME.
Just as the burden of proof that he had intent to shoot him should be extreme. Couldn't be proven. Easy acquittal. Sorry you don't like the outcome, we have a jury system in this country that uses a heavy burden to prove someone of guilt for good reason.
We know one "white Hispanic" said he feared for his life and has injuries to prove it to his nose and face
This is where it all gets hazy. Sure he was beat up, but no injury caused to him was anywhere near life threatening. Could GZ have felt afraid for his life? I guess. But if he was willing to pursue a person that he suspected as a ROBBER in the NIGHT who he believe to be ARMED, how can he possibly say he was afraid when TM was on top beating him?
Who is being Matlock now? Can you show me where he thought he was armed? Maybe he did, only thing I read is that he said he had something in his hand, but couldn't identify it. That's a leap to say he was armed. Again, maybe he did say it, but I'd like a link.
We know he gave 6 statements to police without a lawyer and fully cooperated at every turn
We know his statements contained gross inconsistencies between them, and the facts obtained from the scene. Cooperation does not equal honesty.
GROSS INCONSISTENCIES? Can you outline them for us. Even far left websites mostly have said SLIGHT inconsistencies that are often the case with people trying to remember traumatic events. Sure you aren't sexing up the term gross inconsistencies here for points and not reality? Cooperation does not always equal honesty, but its normally a pretty decent indicator according to law enforcement.
We know when interviewed by police they claimed the entire episode was on video that GZ was relieved and said "Thank God" because he was certain the video would put to rest his need to fire
Of course he would say that. Anyone would say that. His relief was in line with his thought process at the time, which could have been that he thought he did the right thing... even though it may have been the wrong thing.
Anyone would say that in hindsight if they had time to think about it. When the cop was asked in his professional experience if he thought GZ was lying. The cop said NO.
We know the jury found him not guilty.
We do know the jury found him not guilty based on the way the law is interpreted as written in the state of Florida.
Would you have liked them to apply the law of Wisconsin or Michigan instead?
We know a lot of people that have no idea about the law or the case claim it was unjust and even foolishly claim Stand your Ground law is in effect, when it was not even part of the defense's claims
Namely, you. You are not a lawyer, nor are you even remotely close to a lawyer. The number of things that you point out as evidence are incorrect, hearsay, and circumstantial on a completely regular basis. So please, stop masquerading as a lawyer.
I'm not a lawyer, never claimed to be one. I laid out what was factual, not necessarily what is admissable. I don't see where you refuted any of it. If anything, I was able to refute some of your comments and accusations here.
We know GZ will have to look over his shoulder the of his life.
Probably. He killed someone.
In self defense. Something he is allowed to legally do
We know some, including some here, will say he lied without one shred of evidence that he did
Shouldn't his statements be examined? Perhaps we should take all murder suspects at their word.
Of course they should be examined. Why is the presumption that anything and everything he says is a lie?
-
Chicos. Two things. Quit saying you are just reporting facts. Your facts have counter evidence and witnesses that report the opposite of your facts.
Second. Since you are not an expert in pharmacology and illicit drugs, do not say that TM was on drugs, thereby confirming GZs impressions.
The medical examiner is not an expert on pharmacology nor illicit drugs, and frankly is not qualified to make statements as to the effect of the detected marijuana levels. I assure you if the prosecution had known before the hearing that he was going to change his story, they would have had an actual expert lined up to refute his statements.
I will say, that the amount of marijuana in his system, given that it represented drugs taken at best a day before, was not sufficient to illicit any impairment.
-
Forgetful
The refuting witnesses and conflicting testimony you refer to were obviously not credible enough to convince a jury. And one need not be an expert in anything to state the facts. Similiarly, how do you know that the drugs in his system had no effect on his actions?
Enquiring minds want to know
-
Forgetful
The refuting witnesses and conflicting testimony you refer to were obviously not credible enough to convince a jury. And one need not be an expert in anything to state the facts. Similiarly, how do you know that the drugs in his system had no effect on his actions?
Enquiring minds want to know
First, refuting witnesses and conflicting testimony were not sufficient to convict without a reasonable doubt. That does not make the opposing view a fact.
As for the latter. The fact is that there was 1.5 ng/ml of THC in his system. That does not make it fact that he was under the influence of marijuana. A typical marijuana user can have baseline THC levels exceeding 15 ng/ml, even when they haven't used marijuana recently. The medical examiner was stating a hypothesis, because frankly he wasn't qualified to provide an answer.
For the enquiring minds, lets just say we all have our areas of expertise, mine aptly positions me to specify as an expert on this issue. Unlike others around here, I do not like to post/boast about my personal/professional life.
-
More credible is still more credible. Refuting testimony doesn't mean that it was the truth and it was sketchy and dubious. And I was stunned when allen dershowitz stated that the prosecutors should be impeached for bringing the case in the first place.
-
More credible is still more credible. Refuting testimony doesn't mean that it wasn't the truth and it was sketchy and dubious. And I was stunned when allen dershowitz stated that the prosecutors should be impeached for bringing the case in the first place.
Fixed a typo (I think). You are right. It is an unknown. But the fact that the truth is unknown means that Chicos statements are not fact, they are one possible version of the events. Distinctly different than fact.
That was my point. He keeps stating...the facts are....rather than one possible scenario.
I've stated numerous times that I do not think there was sufficient evidence presented in court to convict based on Florida law. That is different than GZ being at fault for his death. I believe that if they bring a civil case against GZ that the Martin family would win.
-
Florida Man Taken To Police Station For Driving Without A License, Urinates On X-Ray Machine, Detention Officer
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20130729/ARTICLES/130729606/1150/news09?Title=Police-say-man-relieved-himself-on-jail-machine-staffer (http://www.gainesville.com/article/20130729/ARTICLES/130729606/1150/news09?Title=Police-say-man-relieved-himself-on-jail-machine-staffer)
-
Hooray, finally, my level headed approach to the internet is paying off!
I promise to be more controversial and snarky about regular basketball topics. ;D
Guns, I'm pretty much with you all the way on this case. You dissected a complex, emotion filled situation and came to logical conclusions. To think that a guy who wouldn't take his foot off of first base until the ball had been at the backstop for 5 years when pondering the worth of a basketball coach can be quick, decisive and accurate is an inspiration to lollygaggers everywhere! :)
-
Fixed a typo (I think). You are right. It is an unknown. But the fact that the truth is unknown means that Chicos statements are not fact, they are one possible version of the events. Distinctly different than fact.
That was my point. He keeps stating...the facts are....rather than one possible scenario.
I've stated numerous times that I do not think there was sufficient evidence presented in court to convict based on Florida law. That is different than GZ being at fault for his death. I believe that if they bring a civil case against GZ that the Martin family would win.
+1 exactly.
-
Guns, I'm pretty much with you all the way on this case. You dissected a complex, emotion filled situation and came to logical conclusions. To think that a guy who wouldn't take his foot off of first base until the ball had been at the backstop for 5 years when pondering the worth of a basketball coach can be quick, decisive and accurate is an inspiration to lollygaggers everywhere! :)
HA! Thanks.
Well, I love Buzz. The whole "5 years" thing is an effort to be fair to him. If he struggled or if he was great, I would have said the same thing. I promise. Hell, I said the same thing about Vander. I say the same thing about Juan. Maybe I'm just more patient than most.
Anyways, for the most part, the discussion in this topic has been pretty good. My only issue is some people are getting into too many speculative "facts", which I think creates needless debate.
Stick to the big picture, and I think it creates a better discussion about crime prevention and self defense vs crime fighting and engagement.
-
And yet despite this we have people saying he (GZ) lied, he started the fight, he had his gun out before TM went after him, we have theories that he was holding him until the cops arrived, we have theories that he was intent on killing him no matter what. This is why he was acquitted, because we don't know. Reasonable doubt personified.
All we know are the facts.
Kid used Purple Drank or Lean. Went to store at night in rain and bought two of the three products for Lean.
We know he smoked marijuana earlier (not weeks earlier as one poster said here) and the medical examiner said it could have or could not have influenced him. (unlike posters here saying it had absolute no effect)
We know by his texts, emails, etc that he was looking to purchase a gun and got into several recent fights
We know the neighborhood was robbed 8 times in the previous 15 months. 8, in a small geographic area. Perpetuated by young African American males. (this according to Zimmerman's African American neighbor) http://the-american-journal.com/zimmerman-neighbors-fear-black-youth/
We know one robbery was actually thwarted (Feb 2) by a Zimmerman call to cops
Despite the 8 known robberies, neighbors said dozens of others were committed, not all reported to the police.
We know GZ called the cops the night of incident, stayed on with the cops on the phone.
We know he said TM was on top, which a witness confirmed
We know he said he as on top of TM after he shot him, which another witness confirmed
We know his head was bashed and his nose broken
We know one 17 year old is dead. We know one 29 year old was convicted by the media and many of the citizenry before a trial (Duke Lacrosse case anyone)
We know one "white Hispanic" said he feared for his life and has injuries to prove it to his nose and face
We know he gave 6 statements to police without a lawyer and fully cooperated at every turn
We know when interviewed by police they claimed the entire episode was on video that GZ was relieved and said "Thank God" because he was certain the video would put to rest his need to fire
We know the jury found him not guilty.
We know a lot of people that have no idea about the law or the case claim it was unjust and even foolishly claim Stand your Ground law is in effect, when it was not even part of the defense's claims
We know GZ will have to look over his shoulder the of his life.
We know some, including some here, will say he lied without one shred of evidence that he did
Chicos:
You forgot to list one important "we know."
We know -- because the recording of the 9-1-1 call was released -- that GZ kept pursuing TM even though he was told repeatedly not to do so. Had GZ simply listened to the trained 9-1-1 operator, TM would still be alive and GZ would not have to "look over his shoulder for the rest of his life."
You can be sure that this "we know" will be an important part of the civil suit the family could (and probably should) take against GZ.
BTW, were I on the jury, I also would have found GZ not guilty. There was significant doubt and the prosecution had a poor presentation.
-
Chicos. Two things. Quit saying you are just reporting facts. Your facts have counter evidence and witnesses that report the opposite of your facts.
Second. Since you are not an expert in pharmacology and illicit drugs, do not say that TM was on drugs, thereby confirming GZs impressions.
The medical examiner is not an expert on pharmacology nor illicit drugs, and frankly is not qualified to make statements as to the effect of the detected marijuana levels. I assure you if the prosecution had known before the hearing that he was going to change his story, they would have had an actual expert lined up to refute his statements.
I will say, that the amount of marijuana in his system, given that it represented drugs taken at best a day before, was not sufficient to illicit any impairment.
Show me the counter evidence...by all means. Every time you have done it so far, it has been easily dismissed. Like your claim a witness saw GZ on top. You keep forgetting to mention this was AFTER the gun fired, not prior. Little pesky details like that.
The blood evidence says he was on drugs...I don't need to be in pharmacology. The medical examiner is an expert in determining what toxicology is in the system and can express an opinion on a number of things to determine if it had an impact in death. For you to say he isn't qualified to make those statements is quite remarkable. Not only is he qualified, it was admitted as evidence. His expert opinion is just that, an expert opinion.
So I'm not to play pharmacology expert yet in your last line you do the very thing you accuse me of. Got it. LOL
-
Chicos:
You forgot to list one important "we know."
We know -- because the recording of the 9-1-1 call was released -- that GZ kept pursuing TM even though he was told repeatedly not to do so. Had GZ simply listed to the trained 9-1-1 operator, TM would still be alive and GZ would not have to "look over his shoulder for the rest of his life."
You can be sure that this "we know" will be an important part of the civil suit the family could (and probably should) take against GZ.
BTW, were I on the jury, I also would have found GZ not guilty. There was significant doubt and the prosecution had a poor presentation.
When was GZ "told repeatedly" not to pursue TM? Based on the 911 call, the dispatcher told GZ that he didn't need him to follow TM and at that point, GZ stopped following him. Did he chase after him once the call ended? We don't know for sure. According to GZ's story, he didn't but, again, we don't know that.
This post shows one of the primary issues with this case. The things that people claim to "know" are often incorrect and, in many cases, it's because of what has been reported by the media.
-
Chicos:
You forgot to list one important "we know."
We know -- because the recording of the 9-1-1 call was released -- that GZ kept pursuing TM even though he was told repeatedly not to do so. Had GZ simply listed to the trained 9-1-1 operator, TM would still be alive and GZ would not have to "look over his shoulder for the rest of his life."
You can be sure that this "we know" will be an important part of the civil suit the family could (and probably should) take against GZ.
BTW, were I on the jury, I also would have found GZ not guilty. There was significant doubt and the prosecution had a poor presentation.
We also know from that same 9-1-1 call that when asked to stop he said "OK" and tried to return to his car when the incident happened.
I'm sure GZ will be sued, we'll see where that goes. Just as GZ is suing the media in his lawsuits for the purposeful editing they did to injure him.
Should be fun to watch.
The prosecution was poor because there is no evidence to support their claim. As Dershowitz said, the special prosecutor should be on charges for manipulating the original charge to the judge and should be disbarred for it. Furthermore, he believes GZ has a defamation case now against the state of Florida. The jury spoke, but she's running around calling him a murderer. I hope he cleans their clocks.
-
When was GZ "told repeatedly" not to pursue TM? Based on the 911 call, the dispatcher told GZ that he didn't need him to follow TM and at that point, GZ stopped following him. Did he chase after him once the call ended? We don't know for sure. According to GZ's story, he didn't but, again, we don't know that.
This post shows one of the primary issues with this case. The things that people claim to "know" are often incorrect and, in many cases, it's because of what has been reported by the media.
Exactly. It fits in with the GROSS INCONSISTENCIES nonsense that was stated yesterday. He was not repeatedly asked not to pursue, he was told "you don't need to do that". Amazing how the little acorn becomes the mighty oak so quickly. And now I read that a medical examiner's expert opinion on toxicology should be ignored. Classic.
-
Guns, I'm pretty much with you all the way on this case. You dissected a complex, emotion filled situation and came to logical conclusions. To think that a guy who wouldn't take his foot off of first base until the ball had been at the backstop for 5 years when pondering the worth of a basketball coach can be quick, decisive and accurate is an inspiration to lollygaggers everywhere! :)
I find this typical of your nonsense. I said I would FULLY judge him after 5 years, but said repeatedly each year "so far so good". Would you like the 1000's of posts saying that very thing?
The reason for this is simple, there are carcasses of coaches all over the landscape that had solid first couple of years and they burned out by year 4, 5, 6.
Not surprising from you.....and how that comparison of a coaches success has to do with a self defense case is a wild stretch even by your standards.
-
While we continue to go in circles, literally read page 3 of this thread, people are
(http://media.tumblr.com/f5daa67e185e74fdc772feda299fe2eb/tumblr_inline_mfdlagCF9q1qg13d8.jpg)
saying the exact same thing.
Now some, have brought up race, media, and the like, and I think it has relevance to the thread...curious to hear folks thoughts on this article.
http://gawker.com/video-of-violent-rioting-surfers-shows-white-culture-o-954939719
-
We also know from that same 9-1-1 call that when asked to stop he said "OK" and tried to return to his car when the incident happened.
I think that the truth lies somewhere in the middle here. I've listened to the 911 call and read the transcript (http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html). It is absolutely not true that Zimmerman was "told repeatedly" not to follow Martin. That's simply not true. As MM pointed out, he was told that the (i.e., the police) did not need him to do that. And it seems clear (to me at least - but this is not "fact") that Zimmerman stopped running after the 911 dispatcher told him that. I say this because the sound of wind on the phone stopped and Zimmerman caught his breath again.
That said, he also initially told the dispatcher that he would meet the police by the mailboxes which is where he was parked. Then, he changed his mind and asked if the police could call him when they arrived so he could tell them where he was. This clearly suggests (again, not a "fact") that Zimmerman changed his mind about going back to his truck. The timeline also suggests that Zimmerman wasn't just going back to his truck.
My personal theory about what happened is that Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin and wanted to find him. Rather than going back to his truck, he continued to walk around the area. Again, in my opinion, Zimmerman wanted to observe...not apprehend. I also think that rather than going home, Martin chose to confront the person following him, which led to a fight and, tragically, Martin's death. I am not presenting these things as facts. These are my beliefs about what happened based upon the facts that I have seen and heard.
Another thing about the 911 call that has bothered me: someone on here (I don't really remember who) has said that it seems odd that Zimmerman did not know what street he was on and that it was his own street. Not true. Read the transcript. He knew the street name (the one he lives on) and provided it. He even provided the street address for the clubhouse. He said he didn't know the address where his truck was parked, which was not his street. It's not clear from the transcript whether he knew the street name, but I think he didn't. Honestly, I don't find that too odd. I know the main streets in my neighborhood, but not the other streets -- even lost of the ones I walk my dog on.
-
(http://media.tumblr.com/f5daa67e185e74fdc772feda299fe2eb/tumblr_inline_mfdlagCF9q1qg13d8.jpg)
I'd appreciate it if you not post my picture on the Intertubes. Pretty uncool, dude.
-
I'd appreciate it if you not post my picture on the Intertubes. Pretty uncool, dude.
Whatever you say.
Signed,
(http://0-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/m/image/1349/01/1349015354383.png)
-
http://gawker.com/video-of-violent-rioting-surfers-shows-white-culture-o-954939719
Well authored irony is so delicious.
-
I find this typical of your nonsense. I said I would FULLY judge him after 5 years, but said repeatedly each year "so far so good". Would you like the 1000's of posts saying that very thing?
The reason for this is simple, there are carcasses of coaches all over the landscape that had solid first couple of years and they burned out by year 4, 5, 6.
Not surprising from you.....and how that comparison of a coaches success has to do with a self defense case is a wild stretch even by your standards.
Whoa.
First, I wasn't talking to you. Butt out.
Second, the person to whom I was speaking has a sense of humor and took it in the good natured, it's a joke way it was intended (did you see the smiley face?).
You want to talk typical? Fine. Yours was a typical post - angry, humorless, self righteous. Have a nice day.
-
911 transcript....here you go. Maybe there are others out there.
GZ was repeatedly asked not to follow him.
LOL. New definition of repeatedly is now ONCE.
Asked one time and in this manner "we don't need you to do that".
http://misterbillohno.newsvine.com/_news/2013/07/10/19392176-transcript-of-george-zimmerman-911-call
Earlier in this thread I believe it was Forgetful or someone else that stated GZ claimed the guy was armed. Really? Not in this call he didn't. He said he has something in his hands, but wasn't sure what it is. Can the person who claimed GZ stated TM was armed please provide evidence of this?
-
http://gawker.com/video-of-violent-rioting-surfers-shows-white-culture-o-954939719
This riot happened over the weekend here in the O.C. It was a bit crazy. One of my employees is married to the head video guy at Vans, the title sponsor of the surfing event. They were caught up in it. One of the rioters was a OC Fireman from Fullerton, he's been suspended and I would guess much bigger issues await him. There are elements of the surfing culture that has done this for years. We would surf at our high school on dawn patrol in the early hours, shower up and then go to school. Invariably there was often some fight between the locals who claimed they owned that beach and outsiders. Or some other BS going one. 15 to 25 year old boys\men...testosterone pumping through....what are the odds. ::)
As for the thread keep going on....when you have TM folks saying that GZ thought TM was armed, that GZ was told multiple times not to go after him, that GZ was on top, marijuana has no impact, he smoked it weeks ago, blah blah blah and they all turn out to be untrue, well someone has to bring in some facts into the discussion. And yes, I made an error as well, as Pakuni correctly pointed out. I'm just as guilty.
-
As for the thread keep going on....when you have TM folks saying that GZ thought TM was armed, that GZ was told multiple times not to go after him, that GZ was on top, marijuana has no impact, he smoked it weeks ago, blah blah blah and they all turn out to be untrue, well someone has to bring in some facts into the discussion. And yes, I made an error as well, as Pakuni correctly pointed out. I'm just as guilty.
But, here's the problem, arguing over the tiny details doesn't change the big picture, does it?
Do we want citizens arming themselves and following around other citizens, and then claiming self defense when something goes wrong?
Should MU students carry firearms and follow around local teens to prevent crime? What about local Milwaukee residents following around UWM students on the eastside because college kids cause a lot of property damage/crime?
Zimmerman is "not guilty". Fine.
But, think about what that means in the big picture. Think about it from a public safety perspective. Think about your own family. Think about your own neighborhood. Are we ok with this type of action?
-
I just re-read the transcript. I apologize for saying the dispatcher repeatedly told GZ not to pursue TM. I was wrong. The dispatcher told GZ once and GZ said OK. Again, I do not like being inaccurate, so again, I apologize.
GZ also said TM ran away and that he (GZ) would meet the cops when they arrive. Would it be wrong to assume that GZ then, in fact, did pursue TM instead of waiting for the cops, given what happened next?
Anyway, I'm embarrassed that I screwed up with my first post and, as I said, I would have agreed with the jury due to reasonable doubt. So I'll hang up and listen now ...
-
But, here's the problem, arguing over the tiny details doesn't change the big picture, does it?
Do we want citizens arming themselves and following around other citizens, and then claiming self defense when something goes wrong?
Should MU students carry firearms and follow around local teens to prevent crime? What about local Milwaukee residents following around UWM students on the eastside because college kids cause a lot of property damage/crime?
Zimmerman is "not guilty". Fine.
But, think about what that means in the big picture. Think about it from a public safety perspective. Think about your own family. Think about your own neighborhood. Are we ok with this type of action?
While I generally agree with you, I think the part of your post that I highlighted is important. What is "this type of action?" Some on this board think it is hunting Martin with gun drawn. Others think it is pursuing Martin with an intent to apprehend. Others think it is trying to observe Martin so that information on his whereabouts can be given to police. Others think that it is dutifully returning to his truck after the 911 dispatcher told him that he didn't need to follow Martin.
I'm not OK with two of those things. I am OK with two of those things. So, in order to come to some sort of an agreement over whether we are OK with this type of action, it might be necessary to discuss the type of action we're talking about.
-
I just re-read the transcript. I apologize for saying the dispatcher repeatedly told GZ not to pursue TM. I was wrong. The dispatcher told GZ once and GZ said OK. Again, I do not like being inaccurate, so again, I apologize.
GZ also said TM ran away and that he (GZ) would meet the cops when they arrive. Would it be wrong to assume that GZ then, in fact, did pursue TM instead of waiting for the cops, given what happened next?
I think it's hard to say, and it certainly depends on what you mean by "pursue." The fact that he did not go back to his truck absolutely could mean that he was trying to chase and/or capture Martin (if that's what you mean by "pursue"). It could also mean that he was trying to walk around and figure out where Martin went so he could relate that information to police (if that's what you mean by "pursue"). At the time he hung up with the 911 dispatcher, he did not know where Martin was. This was just after Martin had run away. Somehow, despite the fact that Martin had run and Zimmerman didn't know where he was, the two ended up together. Only one person on earth knows how they got back together again. Some on this board are not inclined to believe him. Others on this board do believe him.
-
While I generally agree with you, I think the part of your post that I highlighted is important. What is "this type of action?" Some on this board think it is hunting Martin with gun drawn. Others think it is pursuing Martin with an intent to apprehend. Others think it is trying to observe Martin so that information on his whereabouts can be given to police. Others think that it is dutifully returning to his truck after the 911 dispatcher told him that he didn't need to follow Martin.
I'm not OK with two of those things. I am OK with two of those things. So, in order to come to some sort of an agreement over whether we are OK with this type of action, it might be necessary to discuss the type of action we're talking about.
And therein lies the rub.
I've said this before (yes, stunningly, things are getting repetitive around here ... maybe we should take on a fresh topic like the Indiana coach or keefe), but nobody, other than GZ, truly knows what happened between the time the 911 call ended and the confrontation began. Did Zimmerman continue to pursue and finally confront Martin? Did Martin approach him? Beats me.
-
While I generally agree with you, I think the part of your post that I highlighted is important. What is "this type of action?" Some on this board think it is hunting Martin with gun drawn. Others think it is pursuing Martin with an intent to apprehend. Others think it is trying to observe Martin so that information on his whereabouts can be given to police. Others think that it is dutifully returning to his truck after the 911 dispatcher told him that he didn't need to follow Martin.
I'm not OK with two of those things. I am OK with two of those things. So, in order to come to some sort of an agreement over whether we are OK with this type of action, it might be necessary to discuss the type of action we're talking about.
That's fair.
And, in actually, I'd argue that we are all closer to a similar opinion, but do the the nature of message boards, it appears like we (the royal "we") are MILES apart.
I think your earlier post regarding what PROBABLY happened is pretty accurate.
I don't know if I've read anybody say that Zimmerman hunted TM down. Maybe some extremists on (insert media) have said that, but I don't know if anybody here has said that.
Again, I understand the "not guilty" verdict, but I also understand the confusion and anger that other people are feeling, especially his family and friends.
-
That's fair.
And, in actually, I'd argue that we are all closer to a similar opinion, but do the the nature of message boards, it appears like we (the royal "we") are MILES apart.
I think your earlier post regarding what PROBABLY happened is pretty accurate.
I don't know if I've read anybody say that Zimmerman hunted TM down. Maybe some extremists on (insert media) have said that, but I don't know if anybody here has said that.
Again, I understand the "not guilty" verdict, but I also understand the confusion and anger that other people are feeling, especially his family and friends.
I agree with you.
As for your highlighted comment, I was very taken aback by the prosecutor's comment in the closing argument that "George Zimmerman didn't need to kill Trayvon Martin; he wanted to kill him." (Paraphrasing, but close.) I think that it was this attitude -- unsupported by the evidence in my opinion -- that caused them to overcharge Zimmerman and quite possibly resulted in his full acquittal (even for manslaughter). It was a horrible tragedy that could have been avoided many times over if people had made different and better decisions.
I personally found it disgusting that the prosecution charged him with a crime that they could never prove, that was not supported by the evidence, and that was largely the result of political pressure. Believe me, it's not common that I find myself in agreement with Alan Dershowitz.
-
I agree with you.
As for your highlighted comment, I was very taken aback by the prosecutor's comment in the closing argument that "George Zimmerman didn't need to kill Trayvon Martin; he wanted to kill him." (Paraphrasing, but close.) I think that it was this attitude -- unsupported by the evidence in my opinion -- that caused them to overcharge Zimmerman and quite possibly resulted in his full acquittal (even for manslaughter). It was a horrible tragedy that could have been avoided many times over if people had made different and better decisions.
I personally found it disgusting that the prosecution charged him with a crime that they could never prove, that was not supported by the evidence, and that was largely the result of political pressure. Believe me, it's not common that I find myself in agreement with Alan Dershowitz.
I'm not a lawyer, I don't know all of the finer details of the law or even every detail of this case. It seems like manslaughter to me, but I'm not a pro.
I'm guessing political pressure influenced the DA, but like I said, I'm not an expert, so I don't have a great feel for the specifics.
-
I think that the truth lies somewhere in the middle here. I've listened to the 911 call and read the transcript (http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html). It is absolutely not true that Zimmerman was "told repeatedly" not to follow Martin. That's simply not true. As MM pointed out, he was told that the (i.e., the police) did not need him to do that. And it seems clear (to me at least - but this is not "fact") that Zimmerman stopped running after the 911 dispatcher told him that. I say this because the sound of wind on the phone stopped and Zimmerman caught his breath again.
That said, he also initially told the dispatcher that he would meet the police by the mailboxes which is where he was parked. Then, he changed his mind and asked if the police could call him when they arrived so he could tell them where he was. This clearly suggests (again, not a "fact") that Zimmerman changed his mind about going back to his truck. The timeline also suggests that Zimmerman wasn't just going back to his truck.
My personal theory about what happened is that Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin and wanted to find him. Rather than going back to his truck, he continued to walk around the area. Again, in my opinion, Zimmerman wanted to observe...not apprehend. I also think that rather than going home, Martin chose to confront the person following him, which led to a fight and, tragically, Martin's death. I am not presenting these things as facts. These are my beliefs about what happened based upon the facts that I have seen and heard.
Another thing about the 911 call that has bothered me: someone on here (I don't really remember who) has said that it seems odd that Zimmerman did not know what street he was on and that it was his own street. Not true. Read the transcript. He knew the street name (the one he lives on) and provided it. He even provided the street address for the clubhouse. He said he didn't know the address where his truck was parked, which was not his street. It's not clear from the transcript whether he knew the street name, but I think he didn't. Honestly, I don't find that too odd. I know the main streets in my neighborhood, but not the other streets -- even lost of the ones I walk my dog on.
I believe I was the one that said this. I will clarify a bit. His actions don't support him trying to determine the address where he was parked. In his reenactment, he points to the houses on his left saying he had to go to the street opposite since those houses were pointing away from him. So he went after where TM went, to a different street (the street he lived on) to get an address.
His car was directly parked next to the front of a house (address visible from car), that he had reported to police recently, for windows being suspiciously open (afraid someone broke in). If he wanted to give them the address of where he was (and no longer remembered it) he could have read it off the house from his car. If he didn't know the street name, he would have had to go in the opposite direction of TM to get the street name. This he would have known as he just drove from that direction. There is no way to get the street name by going to a completely different street.
His actions reflect chasing after Trayvon, (his voice is stained from running) and he admits to following TM. This was also when he uttered the famous phrase...F'n A$$---- always get away.
-
His actions reflect chasing after Trayvon, (his voice is stained from running) and he admits to following TM. This was also when he uttered the famous phrase...F'n A$$---- always get away.
True, but this was all before the dispatcher told him that they didn't need him to follow TM, at which point GZ stopped following him. He may or may not have tried to chase him again after hanging up with the dispatch. Only GZ knows that.
-
I believe I was the one that said this. I will clarify a bit. His actions don't support him trying to determine the address where he was parked. In his reenactment, he points to the houses on his left saying he had to go to the street opposite since those houses were pointing away from him. So he went after where TM went, to a different street (the street he lived on) to get an address.
His car was directly parked next to the front of a house (address visible from car), that he had reported to police recently, for windows being suspiciously open (afraid someone broke in). If he wanted to give them the address of where he was (and no longer remembered it) he could have read it off the house from his car. If he didn't know the street name, he would have had to go in the opposite direction of TM to get the street name. This he would have known as he just drove from that direction. There is no way to get the street name by going to a completely different street.
His actions reflect chasing after Trayvon, (his voice is stained from running) and he admits to following TM. This was also when he uttered the famous phrase...F'n A$$---- always get away.
Please listen to the 911 call and/or read the transcript. Zimmerman uttered the infamous "these pretty boys always get away" comment before he left the car and started following Martin. Also, Zimmerman left the car when Martin started running. You can clearly hear the car door open and the beeping (probably because either the lights were on or the keys were in the ignition). There is nothing in the 911 call that suggests that Zimmerman left his car to look for an address. He was talking to the dispatcher and left his car to follow Martin when Martin started to run. Yes, his voice was strained from running at one point, but by the end of the 911 call he has clearly stopped running and his voice is no longer strained.
Like I mentioned in another post, I believe that Zimmerman did not go back to his car (although he was not told to do so). I think he was looking for Martin in the neighborhood.
But, what was said during the 911 call is one of the few "facts" that we have in this case. It doesn't do anyone any good to misrepresent what was said in that call (e.g., repeatedly told to return to his car; when he uttered the infamous comment; he left the car to check an address that he clearly could have seen from his car; etc.). To the extent Zimmerman later said he left his car to check an address, the 911 call shows that this is incorrect. Whether it's because he's lying, or because he's mistaken, people can form their own opinions. But it's clear from the 911 tape that Zimmerman wasn't trying to hide the fact that he was following Martin.
-
But, here's the problem, arguing over the tiny details doesn't change the big picture, does it? Yes, it does, IMO, because it distorts the reality of what was decided. It's a HUGE difference of one's perception if a guy is casually asked not to pursue TM vs REPEATEDLY being told. Huge difference. When GZ says the guy is on drugs and people here are saying he wasn't or no way he could be influenced by them when that is false, of course it makes a difference. When someone says GZ though the guy was armed when there is no evidence in the transcripts to support this, that makes a difference. We view things based on those inputs and if those inputs are distorted, either through not knowing or purposely to distort, it does make a difference IMO.
Do we want citizens arming themselves and following around other citizens, and then claiming self defense when something goes wrong? Again, he was asked to stop following him and he obliged. I get your premise, but let's not make this out to be GZ was following every singe person he suspected. He happened to do it in this one situation and when asked to stop, he did. I do get your overall point, but I also get the argument that in some areas of this country it takes 10, 15, 20 minutes for a cop to get there. I'm ok with someone at least keeping an eye on them. Then we get into the issue of define "keeping an eye on him"
Should MU students carry firearms and follow around local teens to prevent crime? What about local Milwaukee residents following around UWM students on the eastside because college kids cause a lot of property damage/crime? If policing in that area is fine, then no. If I lived in Detroit, I would have no problem with it. I don't if you realize this, but there are actually private security firms now in Detroit that you can pay for to respond because they will get there faster than the Detroit cops get there. So to answer your question, it all depends on the circumstances. If your neighborhood is being run over by criminals and police aren't impactful, I have no problem with it.
Zimmerman is "not guilty". Fine.
But, think about what that means in the big picture. Think about it from a public safety perspective. Think about your own family. Think about your own neighborhood. Are we ok with this type of action? Again, totally depends. If my family is in jeopardy because it takes cops to get there 20 minutes, or in Detroit where sometimes they don't even bother to arrive unless a fatality is involved, I would be negligent (in my mind) to not consider arming them and myself and I am perfectly fine with that action. It comes down to the situation. I don't think it is an all or nothing proposition, and common sense usually prevails
-
I forgot I was discussing law with a guy who works for DirecTV. My mistake.
I 100% regret getting into a legal conversation with you, Chicos.
-
Again, totally depends. If my family is in jeopardy because it takes cops to get there 20 minutes, or in Detroit where sometimes they don't even bother to arrive unless a fatality is involved, I would be negligent (in my mind) to not consider arming them and myself and I am perfectly fine with that action. It comes down to the situation. I don't think it is an all or nothing proposition, and common sense usually prevails
#1 I assume these private security agencies train their people before they just send them out with a gun, right? If you want to hire well trained private security, go for it. MU has their own. They seem to be just fine.
#2 Do you think the thefts and burglaries (non-violent variety) call for citizens to arm themselves and walk around their neighborhood (in plain clothes and follow people without identifying themselves)?
Realistically, everybody tolerance for crime is going to vary, and that's where I think the danger is. Honestly, if somebody wants to steal my bike from my garage, go ahead. I'm not going to buy a gun and patrol my block. I'm not willing to shoot somebody over $500. I'll get a new bike. I'll get better locks. I get a motion light. I'll ask MPD to increase their patrol.
Now, that doesn't mean "Joe-psycho" down the street won't go buy a pistol, and try to "bust" criminals (if somebody stomps on his grass). In theory, it's all good (this guy is keeping an eye out for us!)... but in practice, an overzealous citizen with a firearm is quite dangerous.
You want to carry a firearm. Fine. But, you better make sure that you do EVERYTHING you can to AVOID using it. I'm just not sure that GZ did that. To me, he created a situation that required him to use it, and I'm just not OK with that.
-
The solution to Detroit's problems .... more people with guns!
-
The solution to Detroit's problems .... more people with guns!
In addition to more people with guns, if Detroit could force all young, suspicious looking (aka black), hoodie-wearing, obviously high (at least to the guy following them around in the dark...in the rain), Lean-addicted, illegal firearm seeking, violent members of the community to remain indoors when it's dark out, they might have something.
-
You rightly got bent out of shape when I misrepresented the 9-1-1 dispatcher as telling GZ multiple times to stop following TM. Truth is, it was only once, and I apologized for saying otherwise.
You also are making a leap, however, when you say: "Again, he was asked to stop following him and he obliged."
We know GZ said he would stop following. We know GZ said TM was running away. We know GZ didn't stay put. And we know that somehow, GZ and TM ended up together. That suggests that either TM circled back and confronted GZ or that GZ continued his pursuit and found his man, igniting the confrontation. Either could be true.
We simply do not know if GZ obliged or if he didn't. Don't state it as fact.
-
Please listen to the 911 call and/or read the transcript. Zimmerman uttered the infamous "these pretty boys always get away" comment before he left the car and started following Martin. Also, Zimmerman left the car when Martin started running. You can clearly hear the car door open and the beeping (probably because either the lights were on or the keys were in the ignition). There is nothing in the 911 call that suggests that Zimmerman left his car to look for an address. He was talking to the dispatcher and left his car to follow Martin when Martin started to run. Yes, his voice was strained from running at one point, but by the end of the 911 call he has clearly stopped running and his voice is no longer strained.
Like I mentioned in another post, I believe that Zimmerman did not go back to his car (although he was not told to do so). I think he was looking for Martin in the neighborhood.
But, what was said during the 911 call is one of the few "facts" that we have in this case. It doesn't do anyone any good to misrepresent what was said in that call (e.g., repeatedly told to return to his car; when he uttered the infamous comment; he left the car to check an address that he clearly could have seen from his car; etc.). To the extent Zimmerman later said he left his car to check an address, the 911 call shows that this is incorrect. Whether it's because he's lying, or because he's mistaken, people can form their own opinions. But it's clear from the 911 tape that Zimmerman wasn't trying to hide the fact that he was following Martin.
In the 911 call I hear f'n a$$--- and I'm not the only one to hear that. It occurs at about 1:37 of the 911 call and is clear as day. There are some edited (not explicit) versions out there for the kiddos. Your right though that was before he got out of the car...never heard the car door before. You are right that he doesn't say he was looking for an address in the 911 call. He says that in his re-enactment of the events (I posted the video for this a few pages ago). His story has changed a bit as things have progressed.
I'll add that the other large discrepancy he has is his statement that he had got on top of TM after shooting him to apprehend him and pulled his arms out wide. The medical examiner said this could not be true as TM was incapable of moving and his body was found with his hands underneath him (I believe it was underneath, it wasn't as GZ had said).
-
In the 911 call I hear f'n a$$--- and I'm not the only one to hear that. It occurs at about 1:37 of the 911 call and is clear as day.
You're absolutely right, and I don't disagree with that. I didn't type "pretty boys" or anything of that nature -- must have been a filter. My point was the timing...not what was said.
In my opinion, most of the discrepancies that I've heard about in Zimmerman's comments (including the two you pointed out in your post) are pretty minor and not surprising -- even from a person who is trying to truthfully recall events.
-
Evidently trying to set up a neighborhood watch program in the Dallas area. Must be a neighborhood in need of some protection.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/31/us/texas-zimmerman-traffic-violation/index.html?hpt=hp_c2 (http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/31/us/texas-zimmerman-traffic-violation/index.html?hpt=hp_c2)
-
You're absolutely right, and I don't disagree with that. I didn't type "pretty boys" or anything of that nature -- must have been a filter. My point was the timing...not what was said.
In my opinion, most of the discrepancies that I've heard about in Zimmerman's comments (including the two you pointed out in your post) are pretty minor and not surprising -- even from a person who is trying to truthfully recall events.
Your right, somewhere early in this thread I talked about GZ likely having PTSD, which would cloud his recollection of the events (often biasing yourself towards things that make the event less traumatic). Because of that, we can't take everything GZ says as fact. He may not try to lie, but he does not necessarily recall the events correctly.
My issues are more with chicos referring to lots of things as fact. Including TM being 'high' on drugs. I am an expert in pharmacology and the medical examiner is incorrect. But for people that don't want to take my word for it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/opinion/reefer-madness-an-unfortunate-redux.html?_r=2& (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/opinion/reefer-madness-an-unfortunate-redux.html?_r=2&)
This expert from columbia agrees.
-
The solution to Detroit's problems .... more people with guns!
Well a certain political philosophy has permeated there for 40+ years and hasn't improved the situation, maybe it's time for a new philosophy. At the very least when you read stories from law abiding citizens that watch criminals literally walk onto their porch and steal stuff in broad daylight knowing the cops will never come, what is the law abiding citizen supposed to do? Why shouldn't they have the ability to at least fight back, or put the perception of it.
I don't understand this idea that we go meek, just cower and let ourselves be overrun in those situations. A person should have the right to defend his home, his family and his own life. Fortunately most state laws agree.
-
You rightly got bent out of shape when I misrepresented the 9-1-1 dispatcher as telling GZ multiple times to stop following TM. Truth is, it was only once, and I apologized for saying otherwise.
You also are making a leap, however, when you say: "Again, he was asked to stop following him and he obliged."
We know GZ said he would stop following. We know GZ said TM was running away. We know GZ didn't stay put. And we know that somehow, GZ and TM ended up together. That suggests that either TM circled back and confronted GZ or that GZ continued his pursuit and found his man, igniting the confrontation. Either could be true.
We simply do not know if GZ obliged or if he didn't. Don't state it as fact.
Fair enough...though my point with obliged is that he said OK and was willing to acknowledge the request. He says that he was trying to do just that and going to his car. For some reason, and only those here can answer this, they seem to think that GZ's answers are false, or misleading, or an intentional liar whenever his statements come up. I'm not sure why, but I suspect strongly it has to do with their disagreement in how this whole thing went down so they are prejudiced to think he is a liar or his version couldn't possibly be truthful.
-
Your right, somewhere early in this thread I talked about GZ likely having PTSD, which would cloud his recollection of the events (often biasing yourself towards things that make the event less traumatic). Because of that, we can't take everything GZ says as fact. He may not try to lie, but he does not necessarily recall the events correctly.
My issues are more with chicos referring to lots of things as fact. Including TM being 'high' on drugs. I am an expert in pharmacology and the medical examiner is incorrect. But for people that don't want to take my word for it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/opinion/reefer-madness-an-unfortunate-redux.html?_r=2& (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/opinion/reefer-madness-an-unfortunate-redux.html?_r=2&)
This expert from columbia agrees.
I don't think I said he was high on drugs, but said he could be influenced by them? I can't remember anymore. :D I can have an alcohol buzz and not be considered drunk (legally), yet still influenced by them...correct?
My issue is people here saying he was absolutely not influenced when they don't know that. As someone in pharma you should know that better than anyone. We all know a drug can come on the market that behaves one way for 99.9% of the population but for 0.1% it acts differently and can cause major issues. Just as TCP, or alcohol or any other chemical of the sort acts differently potentially with different people. Their size, weight, how much they consumed, the grade of it, etc, all can play a role.
Because of the side effects of the drug, some people can react paranoid or other irrational behavior. The judge let it in.
As for the person's expertise, in the eyes of the court he is considered an expert witness and testified as such.
I also wonder how bias Dr. Hart is when he makes statements like this. Says Hart: “If Trayvon was a white kid, we wouldn’t be here talking about drugs. George Zimmerman would have long been in jail.” Sounds like Dr. Hart made up his mind long before the trial or any evidence, so I do wonder if he is answering this with that predisposed idea. Dr. Hart's background may have an impact on that bias as well, afterall we are all products of our environment. http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2013/06/ivy_league_professor_wants_all_drugs_legalized_mocks_marijuana_use.php
Dr. Hart is a controversial person to be certain, including injecting people with crack cocaine. He believes legalization of ALL DRUGS should be pursued. He may be right, he may be wrong, but he is certainly controversial and one wonders what agenda he might bring. "Everything that we have been told about drugs, by the government, the cops, our teachers, our parents, it is all wrong according to Hart."
"Marijuana -- I just don't get it," Hart states, "It's not that good, and then it has these potential negative consequences. There are far better drugs, and I just don't get -- I think that people do it because of the chicness or the forbidden-fruit bullcrap."
No, really, he recommends a nice spike of heroin or snort of meth instead. You know, because of the "potential negative consequences" of pot. He does admit that heroin and meth might not be a good choice if you "have to go to work the next day and get some sleep". For that, he offers cocaine as a much better alternative to cannabis.
I'm guessing there is a reason why the prosecution didn't use Hart as a witness, based on his comments.
-
Evidently trying to set up a neighborhood watch program in the Dallas area. Must be a neighborhood in need of some protection.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/31/us/texas-zimmerman-traffic-violation/index.html?hpt=hp_c2]http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/31/us/texas-zimmerman-traffic-violation/index.html?hpt=hp_c (http://2[/url)
I guess you missed the bit about the massive number of death threats he has received before, during and after the trial. He's a fool if he didn't carry. I see he told the cop immediately about it, again being forthright with law enforcement.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2382127/The-moment-George-Zimmerman-pulled-cops-Texas-speeding-Sunday--told-GUN-going-particular.html
-
I don't think I said he was high on drugs, but said he could be influenced by them? I can't remember anymore. :D I can have an alcohol buzz and not be considered drunk (legally), yet still influenced by them...correct?
My issue is people here saying he was absolutely not influenced when they don't know that. As someone in pharma you should know that better than anyone. We all know a drug can come on the market that behaves one way for 99.9% of the population but for 0.1% it acts differently and can cause major issues. Just as TCP, or alcohol or any other chemical of the sort acts differently potentially with different people. Their size, weight, how much they consumed, the grade of it, etc, all can play a role.
Because of the side effects of the drug, some people can react paranoid or other irrational behavior. The judge let it in.
As for the person's expertise, in the eyes of the court he is considered an expert witness and testified as such.
I also wonder how bias Dr. Hart is when he makes statements like this. Says Hart: “If Trayvon was a white kid, we wouldn’t be here talking about drugs. George Zimmerman would have long been in jail.” Sounds like Dr. Hart made up his mind long before the trial or any evidence, so I do wonder if he is answering this with that predisposed idea. Dr. Hart's background may have an impact on that bias as well, afterall we are all products of our environment. http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2013/06/ivy_league_professor_wants_all_drugs_legalized_mocks_marijuana_use.php
Dr. Hart is a controversial person to be certain, including injecting people with crack cocaine. He believes legalization of ALL DRUGS should be pursued. He may be right, he may be wrong, but he is certainly controversial and one wonders what agenda he might bring. "Everything that we have been told about drugs, by the government, the cops, our teachers, our parents, it is all wrong according to Hart."
"Marijuana -- I just don't get it," Hart states, "It's not that good, and then it has these potential negative consequences. There are far better drugs, and I just don't get -- I think that people do it because of the chicness or the forbidden-fruit bullcrap."
No, really, he recommends a nice spike of heroin or snort of meth instead. You know, because of the "potential negative consequences" of pot. He does admit that heroin and meth might not be a good choice if you "have to go to work the next day and get some sleep". For that, he offers cocaine as a much better alternative to cannabis.
I'm guessing there is a reason why the prosecution didn't use Hart as a witness, based on his comments.
This is classic you. My degree is in Biomedical sciences, forgetful is a pharmacologist, but you know more about how drugs interact with the body than either of us.
CLASSIC.
-
I don't think I said he was high on drugs, but said he could be influenced by them? I can't remember anymore. :D I can have an alcohol buzz and not be considered drunk (legally), yet still influenced by them...correct?
Actually, there was at least one instance where you said exactly this. On this one you are actually talking about GM as though he were TM...but you still claim it as if it were a fact that TM was high.
There are other screen shots of his other postings, photos, etc. Isn't it interesting that the media was able to post a nice shot of him when he was 12 years old, was able to edit Zimmerman's 911 call to make him look racist, posted a picture of GZ that made him look like the evil, plodding killer but all of these details were left out. Hmmm. One wonders if GZ had these facebook and twitter postings if the national media would carry them? One wonders if GZ openly talked about lean and purple drank, was high on marijuana if it would be reported that he was simply getting candy and ice tea (not Skittles and a specific drink to mix into a codeine cocktail). Yes, one wonders. ::)
Here are some where you state as fact that TM was making Lean...that's 100% pure conjecture, not fact. You rail against others when they do this, yet it's no problem for the great Chicos, right?
Otherwise, we can play this game forever. If TM isn't out late at night in the rain buying skittles and Arizona drink to make some Lean, he's alive today. If there weren't burglaries for the past few months committed by young black males, GZ isn't following TM because he isn't suspicious...thus alive today. Etc, etc, etc.
GZ was there, should have gone back to his car, but didn't legally have to. Linkage...of course. Does TM die if the fight doesn't happen. NO. Thus, ANOTHER action had to happen. It's a series of actions that had to happen, not just one. Don't go out in rain to get your jonesing on to get high on your drug cocktail, you aren't dead. Don't bash a guy's head into the cement, you aren't dead.
This one may win the prize for disparaging a dead person. TM wanted to be a drug dealer??? Wow. Sad. Pathetic.
Is being a wannabe cop the same as wanting to be a drug dealer and trying to score that stuff? Could it have influenced him...sure, probably. Comes down to whether that was a negative influence or not.
Stop being so damn self-righteous. You are acting in exactly the same way (making things up) as those you are trying to condemn.
-
Actually, there was at least one instance where you said exactly this. On this one you are actually talking about GM as though he were TM...but you still claim it as if it were a fact that TM was high.
Here are some where you state as fact that TM was making Lean...that's 100% pure conjecture, not fact. You rail against others when they do this, yet it's no problem for the great Chicos, right?
This one may win the prize for disparaging a dead person. TM wanted to be a drug dealer??? Wow. Sad. Pathetic.
Stop being so damn self-righteous. You are acting in exactly the same way (making things up) as those you are trying to condemn.
Are you unfamiliar with Chico's work on this board?
We actually share some very similar views on this topic and I still find a lot of his posts to be insufferable.
-
Are you unfamiliar with Chico's work on this boards?
LOL! Good one. ;D
I am familiar, but still find it galling I guess.
-
Florida Man Arrested For Barking At Police Dog
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/7/21/4542752/antonio-morrison-arrest-florida-football (http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/7/21/4542752/antonio-morrison-arrest-florida-football)
-
We actually share some very similar views on this topic and I still find a lot of his posts to be insufferable.
Ditto.
-
Well a certain political philosophy has permeated there for 40+ years and hasn't improved the situation, maybe it's time for a new philosophy. At the very least when you read stories from law abiding citizens that watch criminals literally walk onto their porch and steal stuff in broad daylight knowing the cops will never come, what is the law abiding citizen supposed to do? Why shouldn't they have the ability to at least fight back, or put the perception of it.
I don't understand this idea that we go meek, just cower and let ourselves be overrun in those situations. A person should have the right to defend his home, his family and his own life. Fortunately most state laws agree.
If people want to arm themselves and sit on their front porch, go for it. Nobody here has said they shouldn't or can't.
I personally have implied/said that I'm not comfortable with people arming themselves, following "suspects", and then claiming self defense from an unarmed "suspect". It's not a good plan... for anybody.
-
Well a certain political philosophy has permeated there for 40+ years and hasn't improved the situation, maybe it's time for a new philosophy. At the very least when you read stories from law abiding citizens that watch criminals literally walk onto their porch and steal stuff in broad daylight knowing the cops will never come, what is the law abiding citizen supposed to do? Why shouldn't they have the ability to at least fight back, or put the perception of it.
I don't understand this idea that we go meek, just cower and let ourselves be overrun in those situations. A person should have the right to defend his home, his family and his own life. Fortunately most state laws agree.
Exactly who has advanced this little gem? Nobody.
Another complete fabrication. Surprising.
-
Well a certain political philosophy has permeated there for 40+ years and hasn't improved the situation, maybe it's time for a new philosophy.
No, Chico's, Detroit's woes are not the fault of a certain political philosophy. Detroit's woes are primarily the result of the decline/migration of the auto industry and massive white flight sparked by the 1967 riots, as well as a host of other complex factors.
Must you offer a knee-jerk "blame the liberals!" to everything?
At the very least when you read stories from law abiding citizens that watch criminals literally walk onto their porch and steal stuff in broad daylight knowing the cops will never come, what is the law abiding citizen supposed to do? Why shouldn't they have the ability to at least fight back, or put the perception of it.
I don't understand this idea that we go meek, just cower and let ourselves be overrun in those situations. A person should have the right to defend his home, his family and his own life. Fortunately most state laws agree.
So your solution is to shoot thieves? Is that a serious suggestion on your part? Explain to me how that revives Detroit.
And, no, Chico's, there are no state laws that say you're allowed to shoot someone for stealing something off your patio.
And, no, Chico's, not a single person here has suggested a person doesn't have the right to defend his family's or his own life.
-
Exactly who has advanced this little gem? Nobody.
Another complete fabrication. Surprising.
A person shouldn't have the right to defend himself, his family and his property?
-
No, Chico's, Detroit's woes are not the fault of a certain political philosophy. Detroit's woes are primarily the result of the decline/migration of the auto industry and massive white flight sparked by the 1967 riots, as well as a host of other complex factors.
Must you offer a knee-jerk "blame the liberals!" to everything?
So your solution is to shoot thieves? Is that a serious suggestion on your part? Explain to me how that revives Detroit.
And, no, Chico's, there are no state laws that say you're allowed to shoot someone for stealing something off your patio.
And, no, Chico's, not a single person here has suggested a person doesn't have the right to defend his family's or his own life.
Why did the auto industry decline? Why was there massive white flight?
-
Why did the auto industry decline? Why was there massive white flight?
Read a book.
Cliff's notes ...
1. The Detroit auto industry decline began in the late 50s/early 60s when several smaller companies shut down and larger companies began moving production elsewhere in search of lower-priced labor. Things got worse in the 70s when American auto companies failed to keep up with international competitors and changing consumer demands (such as the smaller, more fuel-efficient - and, not to mention, better designed and engineered - vehicles coming out of Japan).
2. White flight began slowly when the auto makers began following newly built highways out of town, but accelerated greatly after massive riots in 1967. And, to be clear, while it was primarily whites who fled, many in Detroit's black middle class - which was substantial in the 60s - left as well.
-
Read a book.
Cliff's notes ...
1. The Detroit auto industry decline began in the late 50s/early 60s when several smaller companies shut down and larger companies began moving production elsewhere in search of lower-priced labor. Things got worse in the 70s when American auto companies failed to keep up with international competitors and changing consumer demands (such as the smaller, more fuel-efficient - and, not to mention, better designed and engineered - vehicles coming out of Japan).
2. White flight began slowly when the auto makers began following newly built highways out of town, but accelerated greatly after massive riots in 1967. And, to be clear, while it was primarily whites who fled, many in Detroit's black middle class - which was substantial in the 60s - left as well.
What does this have to do with Jimmy Butler's t-shirt selection? Wait, have we moved off that topic?
-
Read a book.
Cliff's notes ...
1. The Detroit auto industry decline began in the late 50s/early 60s when several smaller companies shut down and larger companies began moving production elsewhere in search of lower-priced labor. Things got worse in the 70s when American auto companies failed to keep up with international competitors and changing consumer demands (such as the smaller, more fuel-efficient - and, not to mention, better designed and engineered - vehicles coming out of Japan).
2. White flight began slowly when the auto makers began following newly built highways out of town, but accelerated greatly after massive riots in 1967. And, to be clear, while it was primarily whites who fled, many in Detroit's black middle class - which was substantial in the 60s - left as well.
Read, unions and liberal policies. That Cliffy enough for ya'?
-
Read, unions and liberal policies. That Cliffy enough for ya'?
So liberal policies were responsible for making crapty, overpriced and over-sized cars that nobody wanted?
The marketplace changed, Detroit was slow to evolve/react.
The UAW has had some major issues, and that has certainly contributed to Detroit's current condition.
But, let's not get carried away.
-
Read, unions and liberal policies. That Cliffy enough for ya'?
Is that what Fox News told you?
Obviously unions are to blame for management decisions and the substandard work of designers and engineers. Everybody knows that.
-
Read, unions and liberal policies. That Cliffy enough for ya'?
Pretty convenient. Fits your narrative, and ideology nicely.
-
Pretty convenient. Fits your narrative, and ideology nicely.
You guys really think you'll get McDonald's to double up your wages?
-
A person shouldn't have the right to defend himself, his family and his property?
Apparently you didn't notice the part that I bolded??
-
For those of you who know nothing of Michigan politics.....The Michigan constitution prohibits counties or municipalities from charging an additional sales tax, a la Cook County/Chicago. In exchange, money from sales tax is supposed to return to the municipalities via a revenue sharing formula. That formula got changed in the late 90's, and less and less money has been returned to the municipalities. Detroit has suffered close to a billion dollar hit over the last 15 years, do to the diminished revenue sharing. My city has been shorted nearly $50 million over that time. I am not saying that there hasn't been massive corruption in Detroit. There has been. What I am saying is that there are more factors at work. If the state had lived up to its obligations, Detroit would be in bad shape, but not bankrupt. The current mayor, Dave Bing, is a good man who deserved better.
As far as the US auto industry, the unions have made some poor choices. But their poor choices are peanuts compared to the idiocy, paternalism, nepotism, short-sightedness, inability to read markets, embarrassingly bad engineering, poorly chosen cost cutting decisions that have come from the top down. Whereas I hold GZ 98% responsible for the events in Florida, I hold the auto industry's top management 85% responsible for the state it was in 6 years ago.
-
LOL! Good one. ;D
I am familiar, but still find it galling I guess.
I wonder how you would feel if you had people putting death threats on you and your family, if you would find it galling.
-
This is classic you. My degree is in Biomedical sciences, forgetful is a pharmacologist, but you know more about how drugs interact with the body than either of us.
CLASSIC.
Classic is not reading what I said. I merely gave you what some of the experts have said are possible. Strange that you only want to listen to "your experts". Classic. :D
-
Unions and "liberal" economic policies (eg, unions, minimum wage) have hurt Detroit economically, no doubt. However, this is the nature of all cities and urban areas. But what makes Detroit different?
Clearly it's the auto-industry, and production more generally. The high interest rates of the 80s (fighting inflation) got the dollar to an extremely high level. This absolutely KILLED the US production hubs (since US exports became very expensive). It took a huge hit on rustbelt cities. Detroit especially. In fact, not only is Detroit in steep decline, but so is Cleveland, Toledo, Buffalo, and even the Pittsburgh MSA lost population from 2000 Census to the 2010 Census.
Additionally, the advancement of technology has meant that manufacturing jobs have become relatively high tech, often requiring at least an associates degree. Detroit's workforce, similar to the workforces of all rusbelt economies, is trained in a skill set that is no longer in demand, or at least, not as much as it used to be. "Creative destruction" manifested, basically.
-
Actually, there was at least one instance where you said exactly this. On this one you are actually talking about GM as though he were TM...but you still claim it as if it were a fact that TM was high.
Here are some where you state as fact that TM was making Lean...that's 100% pure conjecture, not fact. You rail against others when they do this, yet it's no problem for the great Chicos, right?
This one may win the prize for disparaging a dead person. TM wanted to be a drug dealer??? Wow. Sad. Pathetic.
Stop being so damn self-righteous. You are acting in exactly the same way (making things up) as those you are trying to condemn.
Disparaging a dead person...I'm only going on what he wrote in his own posts, his own emails and tweets that he wanted to score some of this stuff and sell it. If that bothers you, too bad.
It's not 100% conjecture that he was making Lean in the past, what is conjecture is whether he was this time around. I guess I'm able to connect a few dots...let's see....used Lean in the past, on the web saying he wants to score some more, goes to a store at night in the rain to get 2 of the 3 ingredients needed to make what he had been talking about recently. Could be a coincidence....or not. You believe one thing, I tend to believe he didn't bother to make all the Lean comments just for giggles. Throw in that he had marijuana in his system (you can label that as you wish...high, not high, whatever), and yes he is certainly someone that deserves the benefit of the doubt in this area. I'm sure you are going to give it to him. God Bless You.
-
Classic is not reading what I said. I merely gave you what some of the experts have said are possible. Strange that you only want to listen to "your experts". Classic. :D
Do you take yourself seriously? You refuse to acknowledge anyone's point of view and yet you expect people to acknowledge yours? You gripe on hypocrisy all the time, yet you are the biggest hypocrite on the board.
-
Disparaging a dead person...I'm only going on what he wrote in his own posts, his own emails and tweets that he wanted to score some of this stuff and sell it. If that bothers you, too bad.
It's not 100% conjecture that he was making Lean in the past, what is conjecture is whether he was this time around. I guess I'm able to connect a few dots...let's see....used Lean in the past, on the web saying he wants to score some more, goes to a store at night in the rain to get 2 of the 3 ingredients needed to make what he had been talking about recently. Could be a coincidence....or not. You believe one thing, I tend to believe he didn't bother to make all the Lean comments just for giggles. Throw in that he had marijuana in his system (you can label that as you wish...high, not high, whatever), and yes he is certainly someone that deserves the benefit of the doubt in this area. I'm sure you are going to give it to him. God Bless You.
Only the mighty Chicos is ABLE to connect a few dots. Hysterical.
At least please refrain from judging others for connecting the dots when that is what you yourself have FINALLY admitted to doing.
-
No, Chico's, Detroit's woes are not the fault of a certain political philosophy. Detroit's woes are primarily the result of the decline/migration of the auto industry and massive white flight sparked by the 1967 riots, as well as a host of other complex factors.
Must you offer a knee-jerk "blame the liberals!" to everything?
So your solution is to shoot thieves? Is that a serious suggestion on your part? Explain to me how that revives Detroit.
And, no, Chico's, there are no state laws that say you're allowed to shoot someone for stealing something off your patio.
And, no, Chico's, not a single person here has suggested a person doesn't have the right to defend his family's or his own life.
I'm quite aware of the auto industry impact. I spent the first four years out of college working with GM, Ford, Caterpillar, Detroit Diesel, Cummins, etc, in the engine oil testing industry with Lubrizol, OHT, SWrI, and others. Spent more time in Warren, Dearborn, Grand Haven, Battle Creek, Muskegon, Southfield, etc, each month than I care to remember. Most of what you are talking about happened many years ago but the policies in play to revive have failed miserably. Why the white flight? Why the decline of the auto industry and what policies led to that? Some simple mathematics going on....when you have 1000's of dollars in a vehicle more than your competitors that are allocated for benefits and wages that your competitors do not have, you are forced to do one of two things. Raise the price of your vehicles and build a quality car or keep the prices flat and skimp on the quality. We all know what happened. This is business 101.
I can read a book, too....many of them on this very subject. Currently reading Detroit Autopsy. Already read Escape from Detroit as well as the Rise and Fall of Detroit. What gets me is the inability to even for one second take a step back and maybe say the policies didn't work, haven't worked and try something different. But instead, when you need to milk it for all its worth to keep the votes coming in and you have your citizenry totally reliant on your services (as depleted as they are), there is no incentive to do so. The definition of insanity is repeating the same exercise again and again.
And Pakuni, there are laws in some states that you have the right to defend your home and property. They vary by state.
-
Do you take yourself seriously? You refuse to acknowledge anyone's point of view and yet you expect people to acknowledge yours? You gripe on hypocrisy all the time, yet you are the biggest hypocrite on the board.
I acknowledge other points of view all the time Hards. All the time. I give what I get.
-
I acknowledge other points of view all the time Hards. All the time. I give what I get.
Shall we take a vote? Because I'm quite sure that you're delusional.
-
Only the mighty Chicos is ABLE to connect a few dots. Hysterical.
At least please refrain from judging others for connecting the dots when that is what you yourself have FINALLY admitted to doing.
Connecting the dots should rely on some factual information, not fantasy or totally misleading information (i.e. repeatedly told to stop following him). There is a difference. That's why they call it connecting the dots to make an educated guess. But if its crap in from the start, you're going to get crap out for your answer.
That's why I find you MORE MIGHTY, because you're able to connect the dots on bad information or no information at all. It's like you are the amazing Kreskin
-
Connecting the dots should rely on some factual information, not fantasy or totally misleading information (i.e. repeatedly told to stop following him). There is a difference. That's why they call it connecting the dots to make an educated guess. But if its crap in from the start, you're going to get crap out for your answer.
That's why I find you MORE MIGHTY, because you're able to connect the dots on bad information or no information at all. It's like you are the amazing Kreskin
Got it.
Chicos point of view = factual information
Other conflicting points of view = crap
pretty much exactly the response I expected.
-
Shall we take a vote? Because I'm quite sure that you're delusional.
You can do whatever you want Hards. There are people here that if we were standing outside at high noon together and I said it was daytime they would insist I said it was night time. There are others that I've pushed the wrong way...guilty as charged. There are others that I get along with great. If you want to have a poll, or a vote then please don't let me stop you. Maybe we can get a trophy made up, or better yet a banner....or even better, a ring.
-
Florida Man arrested for kidnapping neighbor's dog. Having sex with it in his trailer.
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2013-07-26/story/st-johns-sex-predator-charged-having-sex-neighbors-dog (http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2013-07-26/story/st-johns-sex-predator-charged-having-sex-neighbors-dog)
HOLY CRAP FLORIDA
Florida Man Arrested Twice In One Week For Sex With Dogs
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/topstories/article/322224/483/Man-arrested-for-animal-cruelty-again (http://www.firstcoastnews.com/topstories/article/322224/483/Man-arrested-for-animal-cruelty-again)
(http://i.imgur.com/lNEg8.gif)
-
Pretty convenient. Fits your narrative, and ideology nicely.
and is accurate though it does not fit yours.
-
HOLY CRAP FLORIDA
Florida Man Arrested Twice In One Week For Sex With Dogs
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/topstories/article/322224/483/Man-arrested-for-animal-cruelty-again (http://www.firstcoastnews.com/topstories/article/322224/483/Man-arrested-for-animal-cruelty-again)
(http://i.imgur.com/lNEg8.gif)
Illinois man crushed to death by trash compactor looking for cell phone. Genius. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/01/illinois-man-reportedly-crushed-to-death-by-trash-compactor-while-searching-for/?test=latestnews
Illinois into the final four http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local/illinois&id=9190357
No clowning around, especially if you are pounding the clown http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local/illinois&id=9182000
-
You can do whatever you want Hards. There are people here that if we were standing outside at high noon together and I said it was daytime they would insist I said it was night time. There are others that I've pushed the wrong way...guilty as charged. There are others that I get along with great. If you want to have a poll, or a vote then please don't let me stop you. Maybe we can get a trophy made up, or better yet a banner....or even better, a ring.
Thanks for your permission. I'm sure quite a few people feel the same about you.
-
For those of you who know nothing of Michigan politics.....The Michigan constitution prohibits counties or municipalities from charging an additional sales tax, a la Cook County/Chicago. In exchange, money from sales tax is supposed to return to the municipalities via a revenue sharing formula. That formula got changed in the late 90's, and less and less money has been returned to the municipalities. Detroit has suffered close to a billion dollar hit over the last 15 years, do to the diminished revenue sharing. My city has been shorted nearly $50 million over that time. I am not saying that there hasn't been massive corruption in Detroit. There has been. What I am saying is that there are more factors at work. If the state had lived up to its obligations, Detroit would be in bad shape, but not bankrupt. The current mayor, Dave Bing, is a good man who deserved better.
As far as the US auto industry, the unions have made some poor choices. But their poor choices are peanuts compared to the idiocy, paternalism, nepotism, short-sightedness, inability to read markets, embarrassingly bad engineering, poorly chosen cost cutting decisions that have come from the top down. Whereas I hold GZ 98% responsible for the events in Florida, I hold the auto industry's top management 85% responsible for the state it was in 6 years ago.
Of course you do. It's always someone else's fault. Never the unions or the political leadership, unless the leadership is not the democrats. Did the auto industry incur the 17 billion dollar debt for the city of Detroit? Detroit has been shorted 1 billion dollars over the last 15 years? That's $66 million annually, a drop in the bucket. Did Detroit know it was running a shortfall? Why didn't they act 15 years ago instead of kicking the can down the road to the point where bankruptcy was their only option?
Did the auto industry leaders make stupid choices? At least they were playing with their own money.
-
Got it.
Chicos point of view = factual information
Other conflicting points of view = crap
pretty much exactly the response I expected.
Nope, other points of view are not crap if they are grounded in facts or common sense. When they are grounded in untruths, which were proven to the poster, they are crap. Pretty much what I expected from you, the inability to decipher the two. When someone says the divorce rate in this country is 50%, they are wrong and reliant on total crap. They are lazy, and don't have their information correct. Same idea...we all make mistakes with "the facts" here, I have admitted as much in this vary thread. So have others, and some have even admitted as such. Others have refused to, and worse keep perpetuating them....crap in crap out.
-
Is that what Fox News told you?
Obviously unions are to blame for management decisions and the substandard work of designers and engineers. Everybody knows that.
unions are to blame for pricing the labor so high as to be no longer competitive, while insisting on more, more, more.
-
Apparently you didn't notice the part that I bolded??
I did, but I chose to respond to the entire paragraph since it all ties together.
-
Nope, other points of view are not crap if they are grounded in facts or common sense. When they are grounded in untruths, which were proven to the poster, they are crap. Pretty much what I expected from you, the inability to decipher the two. When someone says the divorce rate in this country is 50%, they are wrong and reliant on total crap. They are lazy, and don't have their information correct. Same idea...we all make mistakes with "the facts" here, I have admitted as much in this vary thread. So have others, and some have even admitted as such. Others have refused to, and worse keep perpetuating them....crap in crap out.
Kinda like how you deny human caused climate change. Despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists (read: experts) who agree that humans have caused climate change.
-
Thanks for your permission. I'm sure quite a few people feel the same about you.
I have no doubt. I'll sleep fine tonight
-
Illinois man crushed to death by trash compactor looking for cell phone. Genius. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/01/illinois-man-reportedly-crushed-to-death-by-trash-compactor-while-searching-for/?test=latestnews
Illinois into the final four http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local/illinois&id=9190357
No clowning around, especially if you are pounding the clown http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local/illinois&id=9182000
Florida Man Breaks Into Ex-Girlfriend's House; Drinks Beer, Shaves, Dumps Her Father's Ashes Into Toilet
http://www.wtsp.com/rss/article/325710/8/Burglar-dumps-homeowners-relatives-ashes-in-tub-toilet (http://www.wtsp.com/rss/article/325710/8/Burglar-dumps-homeowners-relatives-ashes-in-tub-toilet)