HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » What kind of person would...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 09:57 AM

What kind of person would think that Zimmerman had the right to...

While armed, walk up to a complete stranger who was doing absolutely NOTHING wrong and initiate a confrontation with that person?

If Trayvon Martin was left unmolested to walk home, who doesn't think that he would have gotten to his destination without getting into a fight and getting shot?

Who had more to fear, the unarmed person who was being chased or the armed person who was doing the chasing?

There's only one victim here and he's dead.

A person who carried a loaded weapon into a confrontation, that he was the only person who was intent on having, and then shoots that person that he initiated the confrontation with should face the consequences of his actions if he shoots and kills the unarmed person that he confronted.

Even if Zimmerman was on the losing end of a fight, it was a fight that was only STARTED from his actions alone.

Being armed didn't given him the right to avoid getting his ass beat when he started the goddamned fight in the first place.

Other than the lawyers who he's paying, I can't see how anyone can honestly defend any of Zimmerman's actions here.




398 replies, 33269 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 398 replies Author Time Post
Reply What kind of person would think that Zimmerman had the right to... (Original post)
MrScorpio Jun 2013 OP
H2O Man Jun 2013 #1
Wolf Frankula Jun 2013 #74
timdog44 Jun 2013 #158
malaise Jun 2013 #105
NYC_SKP Jun 2013 #2
smirkymonkey Jun 2013 #133
AAO Jun 2013 #253
Recursion Jun 2013 #3
burnodo Jun 2013 #5
Recursion Jun 2013 #14
burnodo Jun 2013 #18
Pelican Jun 2013 #20
rhett o rick Jun 2013 #25
Pelican Jun 2013 #32
SCVDem Jun 2013 #37
marew Jun 2013 #49
csziggy Jun 2013 #224
oldhippie Jun 2013 #346
GreenStormCloud Jun 2013 #387
Ikonoklast Jun 2013 #237
heaven05 Jun 2013 #271
Pelican Jun 2013 #272
heaven05 Jun 2013 #273
Pelican Jun 2013 #285
heaven05 Jun 2013 #290
Pelican Jun 2013 #291
WinkyDink Jun 2013 #44
cheapdate Jun 2013 #219
WinkyDink Jun 2013 #280
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jun 2013 #396
liberalmike27 Jun 2013 #51
JustAnotherGen Jun 2013 #80
xtraxritical Jun 2013 #202
pacalo Jun 2013 #240
JustAnotherGen Jun 2013 #265
treestar Jun 2013 #242
Threedifferentones Jun 2013 #269
Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #178
burnodo Jun 2013 #236
FarPoint Jun 2013 #209
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2013 #8
Recursion Jun 2013 #16
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2013 #24
burnodo Jun 2013 #28
Jackpine Radical Jun 2013 #161
Recursion Jun 2013 #164
Jackpine Radical Jun 2013 #165
Recursion Jun 2013 #167
Progressive dog Jun 2013 #207
cui bono Jun 2013 #227
hfojvt Jun 2013 #255
locdlib Jun 2013 #270
Lizzie Poppet Jun 2013 #287
MrScorpio Jun 2013 #9
Recursion Jun 2013 #17
MrScorpio Jun 2013 #22
polly7 Jun 2013 #27
d_r Jun 2013 #203
Cirque du So-What Jun 2013 #29
Lordquinton Jun 2013 #99
Recursion Jun 2013 #103
Lordquinton Jun 2013 #123
Mariana Jun 2013 #42
DrDan Jun 2013 #66
Bjorn Against Jun 2013 #70
DrDan Jun 2013 #75
Bjorn Against Jun 2013 #78
DrDan Jun 2013 #81
Bjorn Against Jun 2013 #86
DrDan Jun 2013 #94
Bjorn Against Jun 2013 #128
DrDan Jun 2013 #134
TinkerTot55 Jun 2013 #142
DrDan Jun 2013 #147
Bjorn Against Jun 2013 #154
prole_for_peace Jun 2013 #157
MillennialDem Jun 2013 #169
DrDan Jun 2013 #172
John2 Jun 2013 #192
DrDan Jun 2013 #194
icarusxat Jun 2013 #321
DrDan Jun 2013 #324
heaven05 Jun 2013 #281
DrDan Jun 2013 #297
heaven05 Jun 2013 #299
DrDan Jun 2013 #305
jeff47 Jun 2013 #87
DrDan Jun 2013 #92
jeff47 Jun 2013 #97
DrDan Jun 2013 #104
jeff47 Jun 2013 #107
DrDan Jun 2013 #114
heaven05 Jun 2013 #289
DrDan Jun 2013 #295
heaven05 Jun 2013 #298
DrDan Jun 2013 #301
heaven05 Jun 2013 #306
WinkyDink Jun 2013 #77
reusrename Jun 2013 #257
Cirque du So-What Jun 2013 #12
bravenak Jun 2013 #13
Scuba Jun 2013 #19
Recursion Jun 2013 #84
Scuba Jun 2013 #88
Recursion Jun 2013 #90
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2013 #98
Recursion Jun 2013 #101
Scuba Jun 2013 #126
Cirque du So-What Jun 2013 #129
Just Saying Jun 2013 #206
madashelltoo Jun 2013 #166
MillennialDem Jun 2013 #170
Recursion Jun 2013 #173
MillennialDem Jun 2013 #174
Recursion Jun 2013 #175
MillennialDem Jun 2013 #176
Recursion Jun 2013 #177
MillennialDem Jun 2013 #179
Recursion Jun 2013 #180
MillennialDem Jun 2013 #181
Recursion Jun 2013 #188
naaman fletcher Jun 2013 #208
MillennialDem Jun 2013 #223
naaman fletcher Jun 2013 #225
davidpdx Jun 2013 #232
MillennialDem Jun 2013 #234
Name removed Jun 2013 #276
jeff47 Jun 2013 #89
sarge43 Jun 2013 #21
Pelican Jun 2013 #34
sarge43 Jun 2013 #46
Pelican Jun 2013 #62
sarge43 Jun 2013 #83
Pelican Jun 2013 #116
sarge43 Jun 2013 #130
Pelican Jun 2013 #131
pacalo Jun 2013 #241
Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #91
sarge43 Jun 2013 #112
HiddenAgenda63 Jun 2013 #43
MrScorpio Jun 2013 #71
A Simple Game Jun 2013 #95
arcane1 Jun 2013 #132
SemperEadem Jun 2013 #160
davidpdx Jun 2013 #235
pacalo Jun 2013 #245
Doctor_J Jun 2013 #266
pasto76 Jun 2013 #35
Recursion Jun 2013 #54
WinkyDink Jun 2013 #41
JustAnotherGen Jun 2013 #85
caseymoz Jun 2013 #109
Recursion Jun 2013 #148
WinkyDink Jun 2013 #196
caseymoz Jun 2013 #201
fascisthunter Jun 2013 #228
pacalo Jun 2013 #243
Maraya1969 Jun 2013 #249
Kennah Jun 2013 #258
99Forever Jun 2013 #4
warrior1 Jun 2013 #6
onehandle Jun 2013 #7
MADem Jun 2013 #10
polly7 Jun 2013 #11
prole_for_peace Jun 2013 #159
Skittles Jun 2013 #261
prole_for_peace Jun 2013 #313
walkerbait41 Jun 2013 #15
kristopher Jun 2013 #23
A Brand New World Jun 2013 #30
SunSeeker Jun 2013 #36
HiddenAgenda63 Jun 2013 #59
gollygee Jun 2013 #61
OnlinePoker Jun 2013 #96
jwirr Jun 2013 #26
Nanjing to Seoul Jun 2013 #31
WinkyDink Jun 2013 #47
Tippy Jun 2013 #33
Doctor_J Jun 2013 #267
Tippy Jun 2013 #335
Bjorn Against Jun 2013 #38
DLevine Jun 2013 #39
Azathoth Jun 2013 #40
Bjorn Against Jun 2013 #45
Azathoth Jun 2013 #48
Bjorn Against Jun 2013 #52
Azathoth Jun 2013 #58
Bjorn Against Jun 2013 #63
Azathoth Jun 2013 #72
Bjorn Against Jun 2013 #76
Azathoth Jun 2013 #120
heaven05 Jun 2013 #307
Scootaloo Jun 2013 #185
Azathoth Jun 2013 #190
heaven05 Jun 2013 #303
SemperEadem Jun 2013 #163
totodeinhere Jun 2013 #244
Bjorn Against Jun 2013 #247
heaven05 Jun 2013 #302
AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2013 #60
Enthusiast Jun 2013 #122
Little Star Jun 2013 #156
WinkyDink Jun 2013 #50
Azathoth Jun 2013 #55
WinkyDink Jun 2013 #64
Azathoth Jun 2013 #82
WinkyDink Jun 2013 #195
DrDan Jun 2013 #69
JustAnotherGen Jun 2013 #102
DrDan Jun 2013 #111
JustAnotherGen Jun 2013 #117
DrDan Jun 2013 #118
JustAnotherGen Jun 2013 #127
John2 Jun 2013 #197
DrDan Jun 2013 #200
heaven05 Jun 2013 #311
DrDan Jun 2013 #316
heaven05 Jun 2013 #319
DrDan Jun 2013 #325
heaven05 Jun 2013 #328
Just Saying Jun 2013 #210
DrDan Jun 2013 #212
Just Saying Jun 2013 #214
DrDan Jun 2013 #215
Just Saying Jun 2013 #216
DrDan Jun 2013 #217
Just Saying Jun 2013 #218
DrDan Jun 2013 #220
Just Saying Jun 2013 #221
DrDan Jun 2013 #222
A Simple Game Jun 2013 #79
DrDan Jun 2013 #121
Azathoth Jun 2013 #125
A Simple Game Jun 2013 #182
fascisthunter Jun 2013 #233
Azathoth Jun 2013 #260
heaven05 Jun 2013 #317
heaven05 Jun 2013 #296
ewagner Jun 2013 #53
reusrename Jun 2013 #144
naaman fletcher Jun 2013 #211
reusrename Jun 2013 #238
orpupilofnature57 Jun 2013 #56
DrDan Jun 2013 #57
Kablooie Jun 2013 #65
etherealtruth Jun 2013 #67
ms liberty Jun 2013 #68
AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2013 #73
OnlinePoker Jun 2013 #115
polly7 Jun 2013 #119
lumpy Jun 2013 #162
Nevernose Jun 2013 #93
polly7 Jun 2013 #100
JustAnotherGen Jun 2013 #124
Azathoth Jun 2013 #139
Nevernose Jun 2013 #145
Azathoth Jun 2013 #153
HangOnKids Jun 2013 #168
Nevernose Jun 2013 #186
John2 Jun 2013 #205
John2 Jun 2013 #288
egduj Jun 2013 #106
obama2terms Jun 2013 #108
hedgehog Jun 2013 #110
HooptieWagon Jun 2013 #113
BlancheSplanchnik Jun 2013 #135
NYC_SKP Jun 2013 #136
BlancheSplanchnik Jun 2013 #140
pnwmom Jun 2013 #137
madaboutharry Jun 2013 #138
krispos42 Jun 2013 #141
OregonBlue Jun 2013 #143
dtom67 Jun 2013 #146
Generic Other Jun 2013 #149
many a good man Jun 2013 #150
sarge43 Jun 2013 #171
Moses2SandyKoufax Jun 2013 #151
darkangel218 Jun 2013 #152
RichardPatrick Jun 2013 #189
Major Hogwash Jun 2013 #155
orpupilofnature57 Jun 2013 #184
wryter2000 Jun 2013 #183
DRoseDARs Jun 2013 #187
totodeinhere Jun 2013 #246
DRoseDARs Jun 2013 #252
Rain Mcloud Jun 2013 #191
Jake2413 Jun 2013 #193
tclambert Jun 2013 #198
John2 Jun 2013 #213
ctaylors6 Jun 2013 #230
John2 Jun 2013 #256
tclambert Jun 2013 #397
ZombieHorde Jun 2013 #199
tclambert Jun 2013 #204
Skittles Jun 2013 #226
Eddie Haskell Jun 2013 #229
fascisthunter Jun 2013 #231
totodeinhere Jun 2013 #248
Cha Jun 2013 #239
madville Jun 2013 #250
AAO Jun 2013 #251
hfojvt Jun 2013 #254
MrScorpio Jun 2013 #262
hfojvt Jun 2013 #350
MrScorpio Jun 2013 #353
pacalo Jun 2013 #263
Notafraidtoo Jun 2013 #259
Mkap Jun 2013 #264
WhataKnight Jun 2013 #268
Name removed Jun 2013 #274
MrScorpio Jun 2013 #275
WinkyDink Jun 2013 #279
LineLineReply I
heaven05 Jun 2013 #282
heaven05 Jun 2013 #326
heaven05 Jun 2013 #277
MrScorpio Jun 2013 #278
heaven05 Jun 2013 #283
MrScorpio Jun 2013 #284
Name removed Jun 2013 #336
MrScorpio Jun 2013 #338
Lizzie Poppet Jun 2013 #286
madokie Jun 2013 #292
MrScorpio Jun 2013 #293
madokie Jun 2013 #312
Lizzie Poppet Jun 2013 #318
MrScorpio Jun 2013 #320
Lizzie Poppet Jun 2013 #322
MrScorpio Jun 2013 #323
RGR375 Jun 2013 #304
MrScorpio Jun 2013 #308
uppityperson Jun 2013 #310
MrScorpio Jun 2013 #315
madokie Jun 2013 #314
RGR375 Jun 2013 #294
MrScorpio Jun 2013 #300
RGR375 Jun 2013 #327
uppityperson Jun 2013 #330
heaven05 Jun 2013 #331
Name removed Jun 2013 #363
MrScorpio Jun 2013 #334
RGR375 Jun 2013 #339
uppityperson Jun 2013 #341
MrScorpio Jun 2013 #342
heaven05 Jun 2013 #389
sarge43 Jun 2013 #329
uppityperson Jun 2013 #309
RGR375 Jun 2013 #332
uppityperson Jun 2013 #333
MrScorpio Jun 2013 #337
RGR375 Jun 2013 #343
MrScorpio Jun 2013 #345
RGR375 Jun 2013 #348
MrScorpio Jun 2013 #351
yardwork Jun 2013 #340
RGR375 Jun 2013 #344
uppityperson Jun 2013 #347
RGR375 Jun 2013 #355
uppityperson Jun 2013 #356
yardwork Jun 2013 #374
uppityperson Jun 2013 #379
yardwork Jun 2013 #380
RGR375 Jun 2013 #388
uppityperson Jun 2013 #398
heaven05 Jun 2013 #390
etherealtruth Jun 2013 #349
RGR375 Jun 2013 #352
MrScorpio Jun 2013 #354
RGR375 Jun 2013 #357
MrScorpio Jun 2013 #358
RGR375 Jun 2013 #359
uppityperson Jun 2013 #362
MrScorpio Jun 2013 #364
RGR375 Jun 2013 #366
uppityperson Jun 2013 #367
countingbluecars Jun 2013 #368
etherealtruth Jun 2013 #369
yardwork Jun 2013 #378
MrScorpio Jun 2013 #370
heaven05 Jun 2013 #391
etherealtruth Jun 2013 #361
alc Jun 2013 #360
MrScorpio Jun 2013 #365
RGR375 Jun 2013 #372
MrScorpio Jun 2013 #373
RGR375 Jun 2013 #376
MrScorpio Jun 2013 #377
RGR375 Jun 2013 #382
MrScorpio Jun 2013 #386
RGR375 Jun 2013 #392
heaven05 Jun 2013 #393
RGR375 Jun 2013 #384
uppityperson Jun 2013 #385
uppityperson Jun 2013 #371
yardwork Jun 2013 #375
RGR375 Jun 2013 #381
heaven05 Jun 2013 #395
Liberal_in_LA Jun 2013 #383
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jun 2013 #394

Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 09:59 AM

1. Zimmerman is

the "punk" that he was whining about. A cowardly creep.

Recommended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:09 PM

74. Zimmerman is

A sorry asshole who was playing TV cop. But he was not a cop, he had no right to act as a cop. Prison, that's what he needs, Prison.

Wolf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wolf Frankula (Reply #74)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 03:30 PM

158. And he was

told not to act. But overstepped his bounds. Wanted to use his "gun". Prison is the place for a guy with this mentality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:41 PM

105. +1,000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 10:02 AM

2. Zimmerman is:

a stalker. And armed stalker. He has no standing as a victim or as a defender of his own safety.

Second degree murderer creeper stalker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 01:14 PM

133. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:26 PM

253. It seems so fucking obvious - I hope the jury can figure it out!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 10:03 AM

3. Even when armed, you have a right to talk to people in public

This case can't end soon enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #3)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 10:05 AM

5. You have a right to talk to people in public?

 

What law or amendment covers that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to burnodo (Reply #5)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 10:20 AM

14. Um... seriously? What amendment covers speech? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #14)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 10:23 AM

18. ludicrous

 

Free speech does not entitle you to accost another person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to burnodo (Reply #18)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 10:30 AM

20. You can talk to anyone you like on a public street...

 

You can't harm them or detain them and they are under no obligation to respond to you but there is nothing nada zero that says you can't be spoken to in public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pelican (Reply #20)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 10:35 AM

25. Yes, so what's your point? nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #25)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 10:51 AM

32. Follow the thread...

 

. You have a right to talk to people in public?

What law or amendment covers that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pelican (Reply #32)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:15 AM

37. It was a dark and stormy night....

Not the best time to run up to a stranger and start a conversation which was probably like, "Hey You! What are you doing around here!"

Thus the creepy cracker comment.

Who was acting in self defense?

Guilty! He was told not to get out of the car and the HOA rules state no confrontation.

Only an assault may change that and nobody was being assaulted by Trayvon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SCVDem (Reply #37)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:38 AM

49. Absolutely! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SCVDem (Reply #37)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 07:43 PM

224. Why didn't Zimmerman ask Martin a question while on the phone with

Sanford PD? On his call Zimmerman said that "he's coming towards me." Then a few seconds later Zimmerman said "he's coming to check me out." At that point with the phone to his ear, why didn't Zimmerman open his car window and ask Martin a question such as "Hey, are you lost? I haven't seen you around before." If Martin had been "up to no good" that would have scared him off. And no "punk" would be stupid enough to attack someone with a phone to their ear.

Instead, Zimmerman followed Martin and when Martin eventually asked Zimmerman why he was following, by his own account Zimmerman did not give Martin a civil answer.

I've looked at this case over the last year and have my own theory of what happened, given the timing and the testimony so far: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3129154

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Reply #224)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 02:52 PM

346. "... no "punk" would be stupid enough to attack someone with a phone to their ear."

Don't know many punks, do you? Never misunderestimate stupidity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SCVDem (Reply #37)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 07:16 PM

387. Z was NOT told to stay in his truck.

That is a myth that gets posted a lot here. Please note the following transcript of Z's call to the police.

1:58 Zimmerman: No, you go in straight through the entrance and then you’d make a left. Uh, yeah, you go straight in, don’t turn and make a left. Shit, he’s running.

2:08 Dispatcher: He’s running? Which way is he running?

2:10 (door opens, sound of door alarm) THIS IS WHEN Z GETS OUT OF HIS TRUCK.

2:10 Zimmerman: Ah, down towards the, ah, other entrance of the neighborhood.

2:14 (door closes)

2:14 Dispatcher: OK. Which entrance is that that he’s heading towards?

2:17 Zimmerman; The back entrance. Fucking punks.

2:20 (wind noise)

2:23 Dispatcher: Are you following him?

2:25 Zimmerman: Yeah.

2:26 Dispatcher: OK, we don’t need you to do that. THIS IS WHEN HE IS ADVISED TO STAND DOWN.

2:28 Zimmerman: OK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pelican (Reply #32)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 08:47 PM

237. You have no right to detain anyone going about their business, either.

Unless you are deliberately trying to provoke someone, it's a bad idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pelican (Reply #32)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 09:35 AM

271. keep

up the good work. Zimpig will get off and you will feel better about that unarmed black guy scaring the zimpig so bad he had to shoot him. for double, triple, quadruple emphasis!!!!!!!!!!!!!damn!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #271)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 09:39 AM

272. It seems like there is enough emotion to keep this going until the sun burns out...

 

... so I figure a more objective look at what will and won't pass legal review would be helpful.

Glad you enjoyed it...

If Zimmerman is acquitted, it won't be due anything you or I did. This is just meaningless internet banter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pelican (Reply #272)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 09:47 AM

273. yeah

good contribution. Keep up the good analysis of what the zimpig was entitled to do to that young, unarmed black kid who was in the right place at the wrong time. If some person shouted out a question to me, a person I did not know, in a suspicious and confrontational manner, I would ignore them. They don't have the right to an answer. Zimpig by his stalking engagement scared this kid and when the kid defended himself(alleged)zimpig shot him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #273)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 10:28 AM

285. So.. to sum up your post...

 

Your guess as to what happened is that Zimmerman asked Martin a question, at which point Martin chose to not ignore and instead initiated the physical conflict?

Wow, thought you were on the kid's side...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pelican (Reply #285)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 10:51 AM

290. ok

you're on the money.....again. I'm through with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #290)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 10:54 AM

291. My favorite part of this whole thing...

 

... is repeating peoples theories back to them sans hyperbole and emotion and watching them go "Oh..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pelican (Reply #20)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:33 AM

44. We aren't talking about a "Good afternoon" here. It's GD CREEPY to be approached AT NIGHT by a

total STRANGER.

AND STOP BEING DISINGENUOUS.

Z was NOT exchanging pleasantries; he was confronting TM about why he was there and what he was doing.

So if you think a TOTAL STRANGER CONFRONTING YOU AT NIGHT, DEMANDING YOU EXPLAIN YOURSELF, IS WORTHY OF YOUR DEFENSE,

I can only hope you are not my neighbor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #44)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 07:29 PM

219. And don't forget this was a 17-year old minor being stalked by a grown man and a stranger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cheapdate (Reply #219)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 10:11 AM

280. Exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cheapdate (Reply #219)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 08:13 PM

396. 15 going on 16 years old.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to burnodo (Reply #5)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:41 AM

51. What Kind of Person?

An extreme racist. One of Rush Limbaugh's 20 million or so semi-regular viewers.

A "conversation?" Really? Harassment is a "conversation." It's a harassing conversation. Zimmerman is afflicted with what a lot of our country has come down with, and that's a lack of common sense. The cop told him not to go, and he did it anyway, because he's stupid, and was looking for a black kid to harass.

"Standing your ground," implies "standing." It isn't "follow a person, walk up to them, make them angry, then stand your ground." "Stand your ground" implies someone else, approaching you, and harassing you. Had Trayvon had a gun, then he'd have the right to use the law, not Zimmeracistman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalmike27 (Reply #51)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:19 PM

80. Well said

As usual MrScorpio hits it out of the ballpark. Add in this:



"Standing your ground," implies "standing." It isn't "follow a person, walk up to them, make them angry, then stand your ground." "Stand your ground" implies someone else, approaching you, and harassing you. Had Trayvon had a gun, then he'd have the right to use the law, not Zimmeracistman.


Pure brilliance - and I don't think anyone has just point by point written that yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #80)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 06:47 PM

202. The defense is not using the "stand your ground" approach.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #202)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 09:14 PM

240. When a defense has to rely on strategic lawyering ingenuity, that says something about their case.

The stand-your-ground law was Zimmerman's defense after the murder, but when O'Mara entered the case, he decided to avoid the risk that those deciding the case would reject a self-defense claim.

I don't care if Trayvon whacked Zimmerman's head or not; it was Trayvon who had the right to use self-defense. He was the one being stalked by a character with a gun who had a lust for authority over others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #202)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 07:51 AM

265. Nope

But a lot of people at DU firmly in the Zimmerman camp ARE.

The same people say they just want him to have a fair trial.

If he is convicted - will they remember that his defense Attorneys made that choice? Because some are arguing a moot point at DU - as MrScorpio pointed out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalmike27 (Reply #51)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 09:35 PM

242. Your second paragraph puts it well

The incident came about due to Zimmerman creating a situation he could call standing his ground, not an honest development of such an incident.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalmike27 (Reply #51)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 08:39 AM

269. Amen

Trayvon Martin was the one who stood his ground that night, against an abusive and armed aggressor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to burnodo (Reply #5)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 04:08 PM

178. ..

You have a fan club!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #178)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 08:46 PM

236. kewl!

 

that's neat

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to burnodo (Reply #5)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 07:08 PM

209. You are so in denial.

Zimmerman was armed, stepped out of his vehicle when he saw a black kid in the gaited community. He was not chasing Martin to just talk..Zimmy called 911 and disregarded the dispatch orders to stay in his vehicle, and/or not to approach. ..He wanted to confront him as he believed he was suspicious, out of place, did not belong in the community.

Zimmerman offers a weak rationale, identifying concerns regarding recent home break-ins withing the past few months. Zimmy, in his self promoting fantasy as a cop want-a-be; who was indeed armed and ready to shoot someone. Well, in his arrogance, he briskly followed Martin between buildings, along the sidewalk and ultimately murdered the unarmed teen Martin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #3)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 10:06 AM

8. Do you have a right to follow them around and intimidate them?

Fatty was lucky. The next time a Dirty Harry wannabe wants to play Detective his prey might be packing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #8)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 10:21 AM

16. Follow? Yes. intimidate? no (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #16)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 10:35 AM

24. Most people would feel intimidated if they were followed; especially at night and by a stranger

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #16)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 10:38 AM

28. A right to follow?

 

If I followed a cop around, do ya think that cop would recognize my "right" to follow him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #16)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 03:41 PM

161. Perden me iggerance here, but

when does "follow" become "stalk?"

Dat dere Wikkypeeja thingie sez

Stalking is unwanted or obsessive attention by an individual or group toward another person. Stalking behaviors are related to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person or monitoring them. The word stalking is used, with some differing meanings, in psychology and psychiatry and also in some legal jurisdictions as a term for a criminal offense.

According to a 2002 report by the National Center for Victims of Crime, "Virtually any unwanted contact between two people to directly or indirectly communicates a threat or places the victim in fear can be considered stalking" although in practice the legal standard is usually somewhat stricter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #161)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 03:45 PM

164. Legally? I don't know. Do you?

What's the law in Florida?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #164)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 03:49 PM

165. Actually, I don't know, but I imagine the FL statutes are online.

I'm really talking about the both the common-language meaning of the terms and the psychological aspects of intrusive following here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #165)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 03:51 PM

167. A lot of truly dickish behavior is entirely legal and doesn't (legally) justify violence

I still see two guys being too aggressive in trying to get the other to go away and neither being willing to back down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #167)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 06:56 PM

207. And only one had a gun

and he used it to kill, to kill someone he followed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #167)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 08:06 PM

227. Except only one created the scenario in which the other got killed.

The aggressor murdered the other person, who seemed to just want to go about his own business and wasn't doing anything suspicious.

So, no, it wasn't two guys being too aggressive. It was one guy being too aggressive and the other guy dying because of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #167)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:54 PM

255. Zimmerman did not want Trayvon to go away

or get away. He wanted Trayvon to stay around and have to talk to the police.

Trayvon also apparently did not want to ditch Zimmerman or he could have easily run home. Maybe he was not much of a runner and just ran a little ways and hid, but it is clear that he did NOT try to run home for one reason or other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #167)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 09:08 AM

270. Really?

I see one creepy guy, GZ, following an unarmed young man who was mindng his own business. Creepy guy decides that for some "reason" that there was "something wrong" with unarmed kid and takes it upon himself to take the law into his own hands (yeah, GZ is absolutely a wanna be cop) despite being told to stop following that child. So, you're wrong. There never would have been any confrontation had creepy kept his ass in his car. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that TM was the aggressor, unless you just want to buy into creepy's story. Creepy went looking for trouble and he found it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #16)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 10:33 AM

287. I think "following" someone who's pretty obviously trying to avoid contact...

...legitimately falls into "potential threat" territory. It doesn't, on its own, constitute grounds to use deadly force, but if anyone were following me like Zimmerman followed Martin, I'd be concerned...and ready to defend myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #3)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 10:11 AM

9. Did he have the right to chase someone around?

What if Zimmerman laid his hands on Martin in an attempt to hold him up from walking home?

Who would be in the right in THAT situation?

If a fight ensues, which it did, who has the responsibility for starting it, the person who wanted to walk home unmolested or the person who was intent on having a confrontation in the first place?

Even when armed, does that give a person any right to talk to another person in public who doesn't want to be talked to?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #9)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 10:22 AM

17. If Z grabbed M he was wrong

Though I'm done talking with people who mystically "know" the order of events there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #17)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 10:33 AM

22. The answers that you're NOT giving to all of my questions are quite telling indeed. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #17)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 10:37 AM

27. Would your beliefs change if it were a woman being stalked

and fearful, alone, at night? What would you think of her striking out when she's finally confronted? Would she deserve to be shot if she'd gotten in a few good hits?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #27)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 06:52 PM

203. make it better

what if it was a black man with a gun following a white woman?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #17)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 10:39 AM

29. You'll be alright

There are still innumerable opportunities to toss out apologia for those who would walk around secretly carrying a weapon and starting shit with people - and that fact doesn't have jack shit to do with the order of events.

On edit: couldn't a post on DU be considered a 'street,' where various & sundry passersby have the 'right' to come up and start talking to you? Obviously, you don't like it one little bit - threatening, as you do, to stop talking to them. I realize that I'm invoking the 'magical powers' to which you allude elsewhere in this thread when I suggest that Trayvon Martin may not have had any desire to talk to George Zimmerman on that fateful night, and look where it got him! And this is an internet forum, f'cryin' out loud! All that can possibly result from talking on DU is offending someone's delicate-flower feelings - yet you seem to think there's nothing wrong with a secretly-armed individual confronting people - on the street, where there are obviously life-or-death consequences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #17)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:37 PM

99. It's funny you say that

because somehow you mystically "know" the order of events there.

If you want to argue that TM bashed his head against the ground or something (which is in high doubt, btw) then you have to ignore the fact that Z followed him and, against police direction, and against watch policy confronted him, and then shot him, was it in self defense? Was Treyvon acting in self defense? What if Martin had a gun and shot Zimmerman in self defense, would you be singing the same tune?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #99)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:39 PM

103. No, I'm the one admitting I *don't* know the sequence of events.

It's plausible to me that Zimmerman grabbed Martin and it's plausible to me that Martin punched Zimmerman. I don't know and neither does anyone else.

If you want to argue that TM bashed his head against the ground or something (which is in high doubt, btw) then you have to ignore the fact that Z followed him and, against police direction, and against watch policy confronted him,

Do any of those give M the right to hit Z?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #103)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 01:00 PM

123. You're acting like it is fact that Martin even did that

which is in doubt, you know that, right? What gave Z the right to do what he did? how about the rest of what I asked, what if M had a gun and some guy confronted him, would it have been ok for him to shoot Z? If M was acting in self defense by fighting back, where is the problem?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #9)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:29 AM

42. "Chase" is the right word to use.

It's pretty obvious from the sounds during Zim's phone call to the police that he was running (or at least walking very rapidly) after Trayvon right after he got out of the vehicle. He wasn't simply "following" him at that point, and he wasn't "stalking" him, he was chasing him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #9)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:59 AM

66. are you really suggesting it is AGAINST THE LAW to start a conversation with someone who does

not want to be engaged in a conversation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #66)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:05 PM

70. You have no right to force someone to have a conversation

You may have a right to attempt to initiate a conversation with someone in most cases, but if that person does not want to talk to you then you have no right to force them to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #70)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:10 PM

75. my point is - it is not against the law to initiate the conversation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #75)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:14 PM

78. But it is against the law to force another person to engage in conversation

You can try to initiate it, but if the other person wants to keep walking you have to let them walk away. You have a right to speech, you do not necessarily have the right to conversation or harrassment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #78)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:19 PM

81. thank you - here is the comment I was responding to

"Even when armed, does that give a person any right to talk to another person in public who doesn't want to be talked to? "

we apparently are in agreement

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #81)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:23 PM

86. No, you said there was a right to initiate conversation

There is no right to conversation, only a right to speech. Zimmerman had no right to force Martin to have a conversation with him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #86)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:34 PM

94. I did say "start a conversation" - but I never implied that TM had to respond

if I say "hello", I have started a conversation. You need say nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #94)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 01:07 PM

128. No reasonable person believes this was a simple "Hello"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #128)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 01:15 PM

134. good heavens - that was my example of "starting a conversation"

I was certainly NOT implying that had anything to do with the case.

and to remind you (before another tangent takes over) - my point is, that beginning a conversation with a "hello", "what are you doing here", "who are you", whatever, is not against the law.

that alone is not harassment

that is all I have said . . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #134)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 01:47 PM

142. As a female, I beg to differ...

...though males may also agree:
If you walk up to me and say "hello," that's fine...
but unless I can see plainly that you are a policeman or other figure of authority ( like a fireman, perhaps, )
you CANNOT ask me "what I'm doing (t)here" or "who are you" because it's none of your damn business, if I don't know you.
And yes, I would consider those suspicious and threatening questions from a perfect stranger.
ESPECIALLY on a dark, stormy night with few people out and about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TinkerTot55 (Reply #142)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 02:05 PM

147. my . . . point . . . is . . . that it is NOT against the law

I understand you might not like it. I understand you might feel threatened. I understand you might be suspicious.

But I cannot think of any law that has been broken.

Can you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #147)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 02:44 PM

154. An unarmed kid was shot and killed by the person who stopped him

That seems to me to be a major violation of the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #147)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 03:22 PM

157. And, as a woman, if some guy walked up to me in the dark and rain

and asked "What are you doing here?" or "What do you think you are doing here?" or something to that effect, I may fell threatened and, under Stand Your Ground, have the right to preemptively defend myself. Maybe I would jump him and hit him in the face.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #147)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 03:55 PM

169. It is irrelevant to whether it is against the law or not. What is relevant is would a

reasonable person feel threatened or not?

You don't have to break the law to threaten someone.

If you wear a shirt that says "I rape people for fun" and walk up to people saying "hello" you have not done anything illegal, but you have caused a reasonable threat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to DrDan (Reply #147)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 05:46 PM

192. To me stalking

 

innocent people is against the law, unless you are a policemen. What Zimmerman did, provoked the incident. That is a fact known.

This is where the law kicks in for no right to self defense if Zimmerman had some fault. Zimmerman is trying to use a small portion of the law justifying self defense, if he was the initial aggressor. He is trying to claim his life was in danger,in order to use deadly force on Martin.

Martin is the only person had wounds indicating he fought Zimmerman with small abrasions on his hands, but strangely Zimmerman has no wounds, indicating he put up a fight for his life, except firing a gun. He hasn't even mentioned throwing punches at Martin. That is not using all available means to escape before using deadly force to kill someone with a gun.

I think this is becoming politically racially charged. Zimmerman had no right to monitor, or follow Trayvon Martin without him being in some kind of criminal activity. His excuse was some kinda program empowered him to do so, yet everyone in the community that lived there doesn't even know Zimmerman. If they didn't want people going through that area, then the community should have closed it off and put up no trespassing signs.

So that community is responsible for Zimmerman's actions if they gave him such authority. If I was Trayvon's parents, I would be seeking a civil lawsuit against the owners of that property, and the people authorizing Zimmerman to act as a police officer. The law can work both ways here. Martin had a right to go from point A to B without being accosted by Zimmerman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #192)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 05:55 PM

194. this part of the thread originated from a question as to whether one can initiate a conversation

with someone who does not wish to participate - whether that is within the law

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3127121

"stalking" is not the issue being discussed - it is whether initiating a conversation is against some law as suggested.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #147)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 12:13 PM

321. look up the definition of asault...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to icarusxat (Reply #321)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 12:24 PM

324. look up the definition of "conversation" - (I could not find "asault", btw)

are you implying that initiating a conversation is tantamount to assault? If so, please say so. Otherwise, you are missing the point of the sub-thread.

My simple point is that starting a conversation is NOT against the law. I am tiring of having to state that to those who have joined late.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #134)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 10:12 AM

281. yeah

right. All I see you saying is the WHITE looking man had a right to ask "who are you". "what are you doing here black person(implied)". Freedom is it great or what!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #281)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 11:28 AM

297. guess it is too much to expect you to read anything - but what I said was that

no law was broken in initiating a conversation. YOU decided to bring racism into it.

I wonder why . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #297)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 11:32 AM

299. yeah

yeah, yeah, yeah. I know what you said. My statement to you stands. Call yourself whatever you want to .I didn't and I'm finished with a wannabe slick zimpig apologist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #299)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 11:38 AM

305. well why don't you just tell me what you think I said then . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #75)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:27 PM

87. And if it was just two people out for a stroll, you might actually have a point.

But Zimmerman was chasing Martin. That makes the situation entirely different.

Tell ya what, you go walking around your neighborhood at night, and I'm gonna leap out of the shadows and come running after you, waving a gun.

When I reach you, I'm going to yell at you. It will be unclear if I'm wanting to discuss the latest results of the local sports team, or if I'm a raving lunatic who thinks you're a demon who must be cleansed.

Your claim is that you will not find this situation at all threatening. Because if it is threatening, you'd have the right to "stand your ground" and use any level of force against me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #87)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:30 PM

92. wow - that is quite a stretch as to what is being discussed

Where did I claim anything about not feeling a threat? Lets not make stuff up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #92)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:36 PM

97. Because the entirety of your argument requires it.

As soon as Martin felt threatened, "Stand your ground" comes into play. For Martin.

Thus "Zimmerman just wanted to have a conversation" is an utterly useless justification.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #97)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:40 PM

104. I said that? Don't think so.

All I said was that starting a conversation is not against the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #104)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:43 PM

107. In your attempt to justify Zimmerman's actions.

So yes, you did say that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #107)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:48 PM

114. justified his actions?

I said it is not against the law to initiate a conversation with someone, regardless of whether they want it or not.

You are reading WAY too much into my posts.

I do not defend Z in any way - just feel he should get his fair day in court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #92)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 10:48 AM

289. what

you claim to be the discussion, is not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #289)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 11:24 AM

295. reading that was 5 seconds I wasted

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #295)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 11:28 AM

298. I'm

glad then, that I wasted FIVE seconds of your life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #298)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 11:34 AM

301. better get at your homework

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #301)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 11:39 AM

306. thanks

for the reminder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #66)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:14 PM

77. This is very disingenuous. The CONTEXT is being FOLLOWED through a development, not a mere

"Hi! How YOU doin'?"

At night. Followed. At night.

Was Z trying to ask TM for direction, mayhaps? Was he calling out, "Hey, fella! How 'bout those Dodgers?" Or "Hot enough for ya?"

Free speech ENDS when harassment begins. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/harassment

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #9)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 12:39 AM

257. This is perfectly legal under FL law.

 




776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm
and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html



As long as Zimmerman eventually became scared of the Martin boy, he had the legal authority under FL law to kill him.

This law really is the "kill the nigger" law that people have been complaining that it is. There is absolutely no other justification for putting this law on the books that I can think of.

If Zimmerman had only told the truth about accosting Martin he would have been able to assert the stand-your-ground protections and no one would be able to touch him.

Because he apparently lied about what happened, he made himself legally vulnerable here. If the state can show that he lied about Martin jumping him with a sucker-punch then they can also probably show that he was never really in fear for his life because he had made himself "armed and dangerous" before pursuing him. Of course he wasn't scared, he had a gun. This was his fantasy come true. He could be the tough guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #3)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 10:14 AM

12. Well, that's one way of putting it

'Even when armed, you have a right to talk to people in public' certainly sounds innocuous enough. Another way of putting it is that Zimmerman was 'starting shit with someone while having a weapon secreted upon his person,' and it's no less accurate than the apologia you serve up - still steaming - for public consumption. 'Starting shit' is how *I* would characterize Zimmerman's actions on that night. Perhaps all those law-abiding folks to whom you allude do nothing more than 'talk to people in public,' but when Zimmerman went to 'talk' with Trayvon Martin that night, it wasn't to make idle chitchat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #3)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 10:18 AM

13. Not if they don't want to talk to that armed person.

And they try to run away from that armed person. Who btw does not have a badge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #3)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 10:25 AM

19. A right to talk to, yes. Question, and demand answers, no. Chase down, no. Shoot, no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #19)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:22 PM

84. Question and demand answers, yes. And Martin had a right to ignore him.

"Who are you and what are you doing here?" is something good neighbors ask.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #84)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:27 PM

88. Ask, yes. Demand answers, no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #88)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:29 PM

90. Maybe we mean different things by "demand"? I think we're saying the same thing.

If by "demand" you mean Z had a right to expect an answer, then I agree with you: you can ask "what are you doing here?" and the person you're asking has no obligation to say anything to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #84)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:37 PM

98. If I'm lawfully occupying the space I'm in I'm going to tell you to fuck off...

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #98)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:38 PM

101. And you'd have every right to do so

At the risk of breaking this down third-grade style, the big question is still "who hit whom first?" And nobody knows the answer to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #101)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 01:02 PM

126. I don't think that is "the big question". It's one of many, and not the most important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #98)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 01:09 PM

129. I tried that once

It was at the Kentucky Derby many years ago. I attempted to make myself at home along a railing with a view of the racetrack, but mere minutes later I was verbally accosted by a flat-topped fat fuck in a seersucker suit (it looked like it was bought at Sears, and he was a sucker for wearing it in that heat). He told me that I was 'in his spot,' although there was nothing around to indicate that the spot was 'saved' - and that's the tack I took, saying effectively, 'I don't see your name on it. Fuck off!'

He unbuttoned his ugly-ass sport coat to reveal a holstered service revolver and verbally identified himself as an off-duty Louisville cop*

*disclaimer for lurking gun nuts: I didn't take the time to identify the caliber of the weapon or any other gun-nut trivia and minutae. Hell, I don't even know if it was his service revolver or whether he was actually an off-duty cop; I only know that he made a movement to ensure that I saw that he was packing a fucking gun and making a thinly-veiled threat by virtue of his 'authority.'


Being much more inclined to flirt with danger in my youth, I asked, 'what? are you gonna shoot me - right here - for not getting out of 'your' spot?'

He replied, 'there's gonna be trouble if you don't move along,' and with another movement slid that sport coat back further, revealing even more hemispherical pus-gut and holstered weapon. For a variety of reasons, I decided to relinquish *my* space - but only because this asshole was brandishing a weapon.

The moral of this story - if there is one - is that from thereafter I always considered the possibility that the asshole giving me a hard time may have a concealed weapon, and that he is just itching for an opportunity to use it. I've become more circumspect in my usage of 'fuck off!' since then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cirque du So-What (Reply #129)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 06:56 PM

206. Disgusting behavior

Someone like that shouldn't carry a badge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #84)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 03:51 PM

166. Only if you're standing in my yard.

No one knows everyone in their community, all of their family and friends. How would you feel if your neighbors grilled your visitors? No, you are not being a good neighbor by questioning people. Call the police if you think they are suspicious; for your safety and theirs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #84)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 03:58 PM

170. I disagree. If you knock on my door or come into my house or onto my property, yes. If you are just

walking down the street in my neighborhood, no it is not reasonable to ask wtf you are doing here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MillennialDem (Reply #170)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 04:01 PM

173. So it would be ok to punch you if you did? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #173)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 04:02 PM

174. If I chased you for five minutes as is what happened in this case, YES.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MillennialDem (Reply #174)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 04:04 PM

175. If I were persuaded Z chased him, sure

I'm not. Z said he lost sight of M, called the police again, and M came back and attacked him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #175)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 04:06 PM

176. If TM came back and punched him, yes he was in wrong. If Zimmerman caught up to TM or cut him

off (very possible given the neighborhood), then Zimmerman was in wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MillennialDem (Reply #176)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 04:07 PM

177. Totally agree. I don't know which happened (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #177)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 04:10 PM

179. On another note, I need to stop multitasking while posting. The appears missing in two

spots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MillennialDem (Reply #179)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 04:11 PM

180. Ah, you Millenials... We Gen-Xers don't need to multi-task to have typos (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #180)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 04:14 PM

181. Here is something that was posted by someone else, I'm not sure if it's accurate or not



If that's true, Zimmerman was absolutely in the wrong. No question about it, Trayvon had every reason to fear him. And it's certainly possibly Zimmerman could have caught him there even if he was a slower runner. It was dark, raining, and I doubt Trayvon Martin knew exactly which way to go.

Also for what it's worth, I'm on the X/Millennial cusp, some sources consider me X some consider me Millennial. Growing up with a lot of technology in an above average income family, I relate more to Millennials.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MillennialDem (Reply #181)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 05:16 PM

188. If those paths are correct, that's pretty damning of Zimmerman, yes. Are they?

I hope they can figure out what actually happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MillennialDem (Reply #181)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 07:04 PM

208. For what it's worth

 

Zimmerman denies that was TV path. I'm not saying of course that one should believe him, but I don't know who came up with "Zimmermans assumed path" on that map.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Reply #208)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 07:37 PM

223. I know, I am just presenting a case where it is possible Zimmerman was

the instigator and Trayvon did everything he did to get away from him.

Not sure that's true or not, as you said.

But really that's all that matters. Zimmerman catches up to Martin or cuts him off - it doesn't matter what injuries Zimmerman sustained or what the HOA or police policy was: in such a case Martin had just cause to injure Zimmerman until he gave up, ran away, or got KOed.

On the other hand if Martin doubled back and ambushed Zimmerman looking for a fight, then Martin is almost certainly the instigator and Zimmerman defended himself.

That's all that matters in this case. All the stuff about injuries, policies, who said what is all irrelevant. One of the two instigated the fight, and the instigator is either guilty of murder or guilty of battery but deceased.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MillennialDem (Reply #223)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 07:54 PM

225. I agree with you 100% morally.

 

I am a gun owner and used to be a big pro-gunner. I am not anymore because as I learned when you carry a gun you have a special duty to avoid confrontation. The NRA has taken the right to bear arms beyond that and now to "the right to be a jackass wannabe mall cop", which is why I don't really describe myself as pro gun anymore.

I agree with you 100% morally. However, I think that the way the laws are written he will be acquitted. But we will see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MillennialDem (Reply #181)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 08:29 PM

232. If that is true, then Zimmerman ambushed him

But it also means, Zimmerman was only following him about two blocks before he decided to go around the other houses. Did Martin lose sight of Zimmerman for a period of time after he started following him? I'm not sure.

The other thing it goes to show is that Zimmerman made a bad assumption about whether Martin "belonged" in that area as he seemed to be claiming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #232)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 08:34 PM

234. Of course, Zimmy is clearly racist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #232)


Response to Scuba (Reply #19)


Response to Recursion (Reply #3)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 10:32 AM

21. Beg your pardon

Zimmerman was told by the 911 dispatcher to stay in his car. He didn't; he stalked and confronted Martin.

/on edit/ Nothing mythical about the dispatcher's order. It's public record.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarge43 (Reply #21)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:10 AM

34. I encourage you to view the testimony of the dispatcher...

 

She stated, in summary, that she saw how "We don't need you to do that" in the context of the conversation could have multiple interpretations and also that she had no legal authority to order him in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pelican (Reply #34)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:34 AM

46. Yeah, she did have authority to tell a civilian to stay out of a potential crime scene.

No, this wasn't a crime scene, but she could only go on what was reported.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarge43 (Reply #46)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:54 AM

62. You should tell him that...

 

Because his testimony says otherwise....

The State also asked Noffke why he didn’t simply order Zimmerman not to follow Martin–giving the lie, by the way, to the enduring myth that Zimmerman followed Martin contrary to police orders–and Noffke answered that it was against policy because it could make them liable for the consequences.



O’Mara asked if Noffke could understand how asking Zimmerman, twice, about the direction of Martin’s direction of flight might have been reasonably interpreted as a reason to get out of the car to determine the answer to the question. Noffke responded, “I understand how someone could have misinterpreted the intent of that.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pelican (Reply #62)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:21 PM

83. Then Noffke was wrong

The last thing police, fire fighters, paramedics need are civilians in the way because that can turn a simple misunderstanding into a second degree murder case, especially when one of them is an armed cop wannabe.

Further, Zimmerman had a choice. He could have exercised common sense, stayed out of the way and let the police do their jobs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarge43 (Reply #83)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:49 PM

116. You should write a letter...

 

... even though it won't matter because that was policy during the incident and the testimony in court.

Feel free to continue to rail about how things "should be" though...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pelican (Reply #116)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 01:11 PM

130. Right after you write to Martin's parents about "real" world. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarge43 (Reply #130)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 01:13 PM

131. What does that even mean?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pelican (Reply #62)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 09:30 PM

241. I can't ignore the common-sense advice Noffke gave Zimmerman that evening.

"Are you following him?"

"Yes."

"Okay, we don't need you to do that."



This crucial part of the 911 call can be rationalized or minimalized by the defense, or by Zimmerman's morally-challenged fans who aren't being paid to defend him (like O'Mara/West), but the common sense remains intact: Zimmerman should not have followed Trayvon Martin, period.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarge43 (Reply #46)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:30 PM

91. Dispatch does not have authority to command. Just the fact of the law.

They have no authority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #91)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:46 PM

112. OK then, they have authority to strongly advise. They're often first contact.

If Zimmerman hadn't been hell bent on playing at cop, he might have taken the advice and not wound up the accused in a murder case.

Now, he might be proven innocent of the stated charge, but he killed another human being who did nothing to deserve it. There is no justification for what he did. Any attempt is merely parsing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarge43 (Reply #21)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:32 AM

43. "OK, we don't need you to do that..."

 

coming from a civilian employee (and we can all be pretty sure Zimmerman knew THAT fact), rather than a sworn LEO, isn't exactly an order. He did say "OK," in response, though, and has always maintained that he followed the instruction...

I wonder where you get the idea that Zimmerman "stalked and confronted Martin" when all of the evidence I have seen or heard so far from the prosecution's witnesses seems to support the opposite conclusion.

Hasn't Zimmerman always maintained that Martin jumped and suckered him while he was simply trying to walk back to his car and use his cell phone? Wouldn't it seen pretty logical for Martin to at least WANT to confront the "creepy-ass cracker" that seemed to be monitoring him, that night? It would seem strange to me otherwise.

I wasn't there and I'm no magician, but it just seems to be both a perfectly logical act and normal occurrance to me. Martin's "What are you following me for..." seems to also indicate (at least to me) that Martin, rather than Zimmerman was the initiator...

The fact (and tragedy) of the matter is that no one alive except Zimmerman actually knows who approached whom. I'm not particularly looking forward to the information that will surface in the days to come, either, as I think that there is going to be some major character assassination attempts on both sides of the issue. I believe that we are going to be pretty sick of the "angry young black with chip" argument (FoxNews) up against the "white, racist wannabe vigilante" (CNN) argument.

The whole circus sickens me, but it is still pretty damn compelling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiddenAgenda63 (Reply #43)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:06 PM

71. Just in case you weren't sure about my intentions in starting this thread...

I'd just like to point out that this thread is about you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiddenAgenda63 (Reply #43)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:34 PM

95. Jump to the conclusions you want much?

Gee, why wouldn't Zimmerman say he stalked, jumped, and suckered Martin? Maybe because he killed him and didn't want to be in prison the rest of his life?

Why wouldn't Martin want to confront Zimmerman? Maybe because he was just a teen? Maybe because he was afraid he may be armed? It would seem strange to me that Martin would confront him and not run or hide.

"What are you following me for..." indicates to you that Martin was the one initiating the confrontation? Very strange logic you seem to be using. My logic says that if Zimmerman doesn't follow there is no confrontation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiddenAgenda63 (Reply #43)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 01:13 PM

132. "What are you following me for..." makes HIM the initiator? Not the person actually following him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiddenAgenda63 (Reply #43)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 03:37 PM

160. fail

nice try...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiddenAgenda63 (Reply #43)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 08:38 PM

235. Look back up thread at 181

If that map is accurate (and we don't know for sure) then Zimmerman ambushed him. Either way Zimmerman was following Martin when he clearly didn't need to be as he had called the police.

The other piece of very damning evidence is that Zimmerman is a trained MMA fighter. The use of the gun was unnecessary force as Zimmerman should have been able to defend himself against a much smaller and weaker person (if he was attacked first). Given the gun was fired by Zimmerman, he has admitted to it, and he should have been capable of defending himself without it sinks him.

As for a conviction, I believe the jury will end up hung and not give a verdict either way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiddenAgenda63 (Reply #43)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 10:00 PM

245. The fact that the 911 dispatcher is a "civilian" doesn't negate the common-sense advice

he gave to Zimmerman.

Yes, Zimmerman was the aggressor. Trayvon was minding his own business, walking home. It was Zimmerman who noticed Trayvon, immediately assuming he was up to no good, building up the suspicion in his mind by calling 911.

I wasn't there, either, but I have the common sense to know that Zimmerman should not have followed Trayvon Martin.

The logic shown here is astounding:

I wasn't there and I'm no magician, but it just seems to be both a perfectly logical act and normal occurrance to me. Martin's "What are you following me for..." seems to also indicate (at least to me) that Martin, rather than Zimmerman was the initiator...


Only six jurors -- none of whom impressed me during the selection process -- & the more I read about some people's twisted logic, the more concerned I get about their sense of logic. Only six people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiddenAgenda63 (Reply #43)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 08:24 AM

266. What?

"white, racist wannabe vigilante" (CNN) argument.


I don't think you've been watching CNN very carefully

Also, "Why are you following me" makes Zim, not Martin, the initiator - he was following martin.

Holy crap. I now have an idea how the Limbeciles are viewing the procedings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #3)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:12 AM

35. actually, you dont

you approach me and say something. I tell you to leave me alone. Continuing is now harrassment. Zimmerman is not law enforcement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pasto76 (Reply #35)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:45 AM

54. Agreed. no evidence Z did anything like that

What I've heard describes Martin confronting Z about following him. Which, for that matter, Martin had every right to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #3)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:29 AM

41. Where the HELL do you live?! I sure as hell don't want to be approached by total STRANGERS at NIGHT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #41)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:23 PM

85. Me either

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #3)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:44 PM

109. We don't know exactly how Zimmerman initiated it.


So, bringing in speech is irrelevant. As far as we know, Zimmerman might have stared with a punch to the face. Or an attempted choke hold, since he was trying to restrain Martin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #109)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 02:07 PM

148. Or Martin started with a punch to the face. We don't know

This is the part of the incident where we don't have witnesses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #148)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 05:58 PM

196. And yet the only arguments you can posit are against Trayvon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #148)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 06:44 PM

201. No, Martin didn't start it.


Before they met, Zimmerman told the dispatcher that he was going to confront Martin, despite the dispatcher telling him specifically not to. So, it's pretty certain Zimmerman was responsible for starting it. M and Z wouldn't have met if it weren't for Z. How aggressively did he start out? We don't know. But he seemed damned determined and pumped for a confrontation.

And for that, Z deserves at least the legal shit storm he's been in since.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #3)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 08:07 PM

228. you forgot the letter "s"

stalk... you should be ashamed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #3)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 09:41 PM

243. Is that all Zimmerman wanted, to *talk* to the person he didn't recognize?

If that's all he wanted, he wouldn't have called 911. He would have meandered over to Trayvon, told him he was a neighborhood watchman, that he was concerned about recent burglaries, & because he hadn't seen Trayvon before he was wondering why he might be walking through the neighborhood. Trayvon would have given him the information & there would have been no incident (providing Zimmerman handled it maturely & respectfully).

Zimmerman immediately thought of Trayvon as a "punk" & an "asshole", as the 911 tape reveals. He was up to no good, period, in Zimmerman's mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #3)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 10:44 PM

249. You don't have a right to stalk them however.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 12:52 AM

258. If George Zimmerman has simply talked to Trayvon Martin, this would have ended very differently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 10:04 AM

4. Couldn't agree more.

IMO, that scumbag, plotted and carried out a cold-blooded, premeditated murder on a victim of convenience. Had he not killed Travon Martin, he would have at some point found a different victim.

Zimmerman is a classic antisocial, gun-toting, bully and should never be allowed to walk among decent citizens again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 10:05 AM

6. Zimmerman is

guilty of stalking and violating Trayvon's civil rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 10:06 AM

7. Gun nuts. They 'are the law.' nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 10:12 AM

10. What it is. No mistake. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 10:12 AM

11. Trayvon Martin had every right to fight his stalker and hunter.

What amazes me is that people think that any living being hunted and afraid would not strike back or even strike out. I hope Zimmerman did get his ass beat. These trials piss me off so bad I can't watch most times. Hoping for justice for Trayvon's family.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #11)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 03:32 PM

159. Apparently your are only allowed to defend yourself with a firearm

not fists or anything else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to prole_for_peace (Reply #159)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 01:29 AM

261. so let's say Trayvon threw a punch

he would have been defending himself, USING HIS FISTS, from a gun-humping nutcase cop wannabe

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #261)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 11:54 AM

313. Exactly

It seems like too many people believe "defense" means a gun; not fists, or a tree branch or anything that would stop the threatening you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 10:21 AM

15. You are so right

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 10:34 AM

23. Imagine the situation reversed

An urban landscape, a black man with a bit of an attitude and a gun stalks a white male youth for being in "his" neighborhood. A confrontation ensues; the white youth is shot and killed.

How much discussion is there on who bears full responsibility?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #23)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 10:40 AM

30. This is an appropriate analogy.

And we know how that situation would play out. The black man would have been found guilty in a heartbeat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Brand New World (Reply #30)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:14 AM

36. Yup, and people would not have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to his defense fund.

He would have gotten a burned out overworked public defender who would try to plead him out to avoid the death penalty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Brand New World (Reply #30)


Response to kristopher (Reply #23)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:52 AM

61. +1000

Absolutely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #23)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:35 PM

96. The defense would say the white youth initiated the confrontation with racist comments.

It's what the defense is supposed to do. Create enough reasonable doubt that the client gets off. It's the prosecution's job to prove guilt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 10:37 AM

26. The question has a deeper meaning. It deals with his idea that he was "cop for the gated community"

and he assumes that he was supposed to be able to carry and use a gun. The question then was he authorized to carry his gun and confront strangers? If so who authorized him? Who was he working for?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 10:47 AM

31. One DUer said we can't assume anything because we weren't there. Neither were the police

 

or the DA trying the case. So therefore, Zimmerman is innocent. Case closed.

I will defend Zimmerman using that DUers logic: WE WEREN'T THERE WHEN HE SHOT TRAYVON MARTIN.

And I am using BARRELS of sarcasm in this post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nanjing to Seoul (Reply #31)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:35 AM

47. There are those who think citizens not on the jury should have lobotomies pre-verdict.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:08 AM

33. Zimmerman is a product of the NRA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tippy (Reply #33)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 08:30 AM

267. and Hate Radio

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #267)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 01:22 PM

335. Yes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:21 AM

38. The same type of person who supported lynching in the past

Make no mistake about it, Zimmerman's supporters are the same types of people who supported the KKK and lynchings in the past.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:26 AM

39. K&R. Zimmerman stalked and killed an unarmed kid who was minding his own business.

Imagine what kind of country this would be if everybody was walking around armed, following & confronting people who, in their opinion, look suspicious? It's ridiculous. I hope this creep gets convicted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:29 AM

40. The hysterical groupthink on these threads is really something to behold

Exactly where has it been proved that Zimmerman "started the goddamned fight" ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #40)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:33 AM

45. Considering he told the police he was following before the fight began...

And he said "they always get away" before Trayvon Martin said or did anything to him it should be obvious to anyone with more than two brain cells that Zimmerman started the confrontation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #45)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:38 AM

48. In other words, you don't need evidence because you think your assumption is "obvious"

Zimmerman should go to jail based on your assumptions about his acts, and those who disagree support lynchings

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #48)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:42 AM

52. Are you suggesting the call to police I mentioned is not evidence?

It is a FACT that he said on the record that he was following Trayvon before the incident.

It is a FACT that he said on this call that "they always get away", this was BEFORE the confrontation.

That is evidence, you are simply ignoring the evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #52)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:51 AM

58. Yes, it is "evidence"

Just not evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin. That is an assumption.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #58)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:57 AM

63. He started the confrontation

The whole debate over who attacked first is a red herring, we KNOW Zimmerman started the confrontation, we do not know the specifics about what exactly happened during the confrontation but we KNOW that the confrontation was started by Zimmerman. We may not know who struck the first blow or what motivated them to strike that first blow, but it would be insane to believe an armed person can confront an unarmed person and then be justified in shooting that unarmed person if the confrontation goes the wrong way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #63)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:06 PM

72. So because he said "they always get away," we now KNOW that he started the confrontation?

This simply doesn't follow. If we're going to suspend the basic rules of logic here, then I can't really respond.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #72)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:12 PM

76. It makes it pretty clear that he was not going to allow Martin to get away

There is absolutely no evidence that Martin did anything to Zimmerman or anyone else before Zimmerman made it clear that he was not going to let him "get away". When one person was minding his own business and the other person explicitly suggested that the person who was minding his own business should not be allowed to "get away" only an absolute moron would think the person who was minding his own business started the confrontation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #76)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:54 PM

120. You're misstating the evidence

Zimmerman bemoaned the fact that "they always get away." He didn't "make it clear" that he was not going to let him "get away." That is not what he said nor is it a direct implication of what he said. You can argue, and the prosecution is arguing, that this what he really was thinking, but that falls far short of being beyond a reasonable doubt.

When one person was minding his own business and the other person explicitly suggested that the person who was minding his own business should not be allowed to "get away" only an absolute moron would think the person who was minding his own business started the confrontation.


You are appealing to "common sense" and assuming something happened a certain way without actual evidence that it really happened that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #120)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 11:41 AM

307. well

if you were on the jury, zimpig would walk. Right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #72)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 04:42 PM

185. How small does that corner have to get before you stop painting?

once you start basing your argument on special pleading, it's all downhill from there, my friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #185)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 05:38 PM

190. lol, if you want to accuse me of a fallacy, you have to actually demonstrate it

Otherwise you haven't even attempted to rebut my point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #72)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 11:38 AM

303. you

have suspended logic because of your love for zimpigs action. You need to check yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #58)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 03:44 PM

163. zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed young person

that is a fact--otherwise, Trayvon Martin would be alive to talk about it.

who started a fight is really non sequitur. Had he stayed in his car, there would not have been any fight for apologists to quibble over. Had he not had it in his mind to avenge whatever dysfunctional craziness in his head regarding "they always get away", he wouldn't be on trial for 2nd degree murder.

What is fact is that he got out of his car and was in close enough proximity to draw a gun, aim it and successfully murder an unarmed teenager. He could have walked away at any time before he put his hands on his piece and drew it out and shot the young man. But he didn't, so here he is today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #52)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 09:54 PM

244. But it is up to the court to weigh the evidence, not you or me. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to totodeinhere (Reply #244)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 10:05 PM

247. I am entitled to my opinion, The court can't tell me not to look at the evidence myself

I don't have the legal power to convict Zimmerman, but I certainly have the right to voice my opinion that what he did is inexcusable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #48)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 11:36 AM

302. well

it seems pretty obvious to me, who would be in the crowd watching the 'bitter fruit' swing in the wind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #45)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:52 AM

60. Agreed. Anyone more than two brain cells.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #45)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:55 PM

122. It demonstrates Zimmerman's intent.

He was tired of those people always getting away. He started it. If he had not aggressively pursued TM nothing would have happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enthusiast (Reply #122)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 02:49 PM

156. Bingo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #40)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:40 AM

50. Do you know the difference between "intense" and the hyperbolic "hysterical"? Z was the STALKER.

HIS behavior provoked the confrontation. He would not stop with his creepy-crawly Tex Watson following of this KID, a KID who, like a cornered animal, finally turned on Z.

NONE of which would have happened but for Z's actions. Put another way, ALL of the ensuing events happened BECAUSE Z WOULD NOT LET TRAYVON WALK ON ALONE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #50)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:47 AM

55. So now we're casually comparing Z to Manson, but it's wrong to call these threads "hysterical"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #55)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:58 AM

64. My analogy was intended to be precise, to wit: The night-time "creepy-crawly" runs the Mansion

group would go on.

But hey: There are posters who think that if Susan Atkins approached them in the dead of night to "talk," that would be kopacetic.

Frankly, I think the "It's Free Speech!" posters are the ones bordering on hysteria.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #64)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:20 PM

82. You think it's a precise analogy to compare a guy on the phone with 911 following someone he claims

is acting suspicious with the Manson family breaking into peoples' homes in the middle of the night?

I'm not sure how "free speech" factors into it, but the concept of proportionality certainly does. Even if Zimmerman *did* initiate a verbal confrontation, which he denies and for which there is little direct evidence, Trayvon did not have the right to respond disproportionately. If some weirdo follows me and demands to know who I am, that doesn't mean I automatically have the right to swing on him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #82)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 05:57 PM

195. "Trayvon did not have the right to respond disproportionately." Says you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #40)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:03 PM

69. it really is not hard to understand how lynch mobs gained energy after reading

some of these posts

"ignore the facts and upcoming testimony . . . .get the rope"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #69)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:39 PM

102. No lynch mob mentality here


Notes on lynching:
http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1979/2/79.02.04.x.html

The accusations against persons lynched, according to the Tuskegee Institute records for the years 1882 to 1951, were: in 41 per cent for felonious assault, 19.2 per cent for rape, 6.1 per cent for attempted rape, 4.9 per cent for robbery and theft, 1.8 per cent for insult to white persons, and 22.7 per cent for miscellaneous offenses or no offense at a 11.5 In the last category are all sorts of trivial �offenses� such as �disputing with a white man,� attempting to register to vote, �unpopularity�, self-defense, testifying against a white man, �asking a white woman in marriage�, and �peeping in a window.�


Granted non blacks were lynched but not at the rates of blacks in the South.

I gave some of those reasons to point out that there weren't trials for stupidity like attempting to register to vote or not being "popular".

George Zimmerman is getting a trial in a court of law - a fair chance. No one at DU is disputing his right to a trial of his peers and what is being posted here won't make a damn bit of difference in the outcome of this trial.


But that said - I do think that Zimmerman should have let the police handle the person he believed was committing a crime. He did not do that. Had he done that - then this would a simple case of walking while black and it would have been the responding Officer's word against Trayvon with Zimmerman a mere bystander witness to Trayvon's "suspicious" behavior leading to his arrest and trial in juvenile court.

Also please note - many lynchings were a combination of gun shot and hanging.

See why this touches a nerve with people? This country has no problem arresting and incarcerating young black men. Look at those incarceration rates . . . Considering the community this occurred in- the accused had a REALLY good shot of getting Trayvon arrested, tried as an adult, and sent to prison for five years.


Zimmerman is just the lowest hanging fruit on the stupidity tree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #102)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:45 PM

111. there are many here who have already concluded that Z is guilty - even though

weeks of testimony remain.

I have read comments here that he does not deserve to walk among others, that he should be locked up for life, etc, etc.

Z deserves his day in court. He deserves a fair trial. And those 6 jurors will deliver a fair verdict, imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #111)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:52 PM

117. DrDan

Same thing with OJ. Same with the woman acquitted for killing her daughter down in Florida. People have a right to write and say that he's guilty because they believe he brought a gun to a fist fight.

I believe hands down and flat out he killed Trayvon Martin. I don't care what Trayvon did - Zimmerman took a gun, pulled the trigger and shot him in the chest.

Does anyone deny that?

It's the punishment for that action that is in dispute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #117)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:54 PM

118. before punishment - 2d murder charges need to be proven

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #118)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 01:06 PM

127. Ditto

In the cases I pointed out. Casey Anthony is the woman I referred to and OJ Simpson.

At the end of the day they were both found innocent.

But I was a young Poli Sci and Mass Communications double major at the time of the OJ Simpson spectacle. My journalism AND pr professors used it as a test story/positioning study. I distinctly remember the racially charged joke about OJ not going to Cancun but going to "can coon".

Let's just not gild the lily and pretend this is the first person to be tried and convicted in the court of public opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #111)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 06:22 PM

197. I'm not sure those jurors

 

will deliver a fair verdict because even that is stacked.

I'm one of the people you can accuse of finding Zimmerman guilty before the Trial because the facts known was enough for me. The facts are:

I have no doubts Zimmerman killed an innocent person just going to the store and on his way home. Zimmerman called him suspicious, but I don't call that suspicious. Martin was committing no crime. Zimmerman was the initial aggressor is a fact and he followed Martin at first is a fact. So he has some fault in what happened afterwards. He is not void of it according to the Self Defense definition.

Zimmerman did not use all means to not confront Martin or get away from him. If he is going to claim Martin was beating him to Death, then Zimmerman did not use all means available to escape, before using Deadly force. He is pointing outwounds Martin might have given him, but strangely Zimmerman shows no wounds given to Martin, indicating he tried to fight back. If so, that is not using all means to escape. I simply don't believe Zimmerman's storyand I don't believe Mr Good either.

Mr Good is alluding that he saw Zimmerman getting beat to death by martin and that he didn't make any attempts to save Zimmerman's life while he was calling for help. Mr Good can be all robotic as he want in his answers, but I find his story unbelievable, especially in the Dark when all the other witnesses couldn't see anything he saw.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #197)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 06:40 PM

200. well it is a good thing we have jurors deciding this case who will be

listening to ALL of the evidence. I have faith in their decision whatever it may be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #200)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 11:53 AM

311. you

having faith in the jury's decision? Of this I have no doubt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #311)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 11:58 AM

316. I do have faith in their upcoming decision - you have a problem with the jury?

They will be listening to the ENTIRE testimony. They will be objective in their decision based on the closing arguments.

Unlike some here . . . yes, I trust their judgement.

Why don't you share your concern with this jury. What exactly about the makeup of the jury has you bothered?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #316)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 12:04 PM

319. Need

you ask or are you just trying to 'trap' me in my words? I wish the jury reflected the racial demographics of society at large. Since you asked. That there are racist on that jury? Who knows. But one hispanic, and five whites, that is not a jury to reflect the dead victim's interests here. Just my opinion and I don't think Trayvon will see any type of justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #319)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 12:27 PM

325. so you don't trust the judgement of the jury . . .

I think I understand why.

But it does provide a rant should the decision go contrary to your wishes - so it provides you some value.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #325)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 12:45 PM

328. yes

I do hope he is found guilty and no rants if he isn't. It will just further my understanding of racism and how it is applied in this modern age. Open season on young, hooded blacks with dangerous skittles and tea in hand. Very, very wicked and vicious times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #69)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 07:11 PM

210. No one here is advocating lynching

And this Fox News talking point is beyond offensive.

If anything, Trayvon Martin was lynched when Zimmerman played judge, jury and executioner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just Saying (Reply #210)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 07:17 PM

212. a week into testimony and there are those here who have decided Z is guilty

that he should rot in prison, that he does not deserve to walk among the rest of us.

This with weeks of testimony left.

offensive? yes it is. EVERYONE deserves a fair trial with a verdict from their peers. EVERYONE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #212)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 07:21 PM

214. Thinking someone is guilty

Isn't the same as lynching.

Your talking point is far more offensive than people having an opinion on the murder of a kid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just Saying (Reply #214)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 07:22 PM

215. you are entitled to your opinion - as am I

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #215)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 07:25 PM

216. Sure

But my opinion isn't an offensive, Fox News talking point.

Enjoy your Saturday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just Saying (Reply #216)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 07:27 PM

217. hmmmmm - I sense a bit of guilt

and your RW/Fox reference is out of line

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #217)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 07:28 PM

218. As with so many things you've posted today

You sense wrong.

To respond to your edit

The only people I've heard use that lynching line are Right wing tools.

Words have meaning and using that one in this case is offensive. That's why I called you on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just Saying (Reply #218)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 07:31 PM

220. like stating EVERYONE deserves a fair trial"

like not jumping to conclusions and letting all of the testimony be considered?

is that what you are referring to?

I clearly see where you are coming from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #220)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 07:33 PM

221. Yes clearly you're the victim here.



Bye Danny!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just Saying (Reply #221)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 07:36 PM

222. never claimed to be a victim, now did I

nor claim to have been victimized

guess I just hit a raw nerve . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #40)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:16 PM

79. Intent was proven to me when he got out of his vehicle. Can you prove me wrong?

Zimmerman stays in his vehicle and no confrontation, and nobody dies, unless the coward does a hit and run which wouldn't surprise me.

And I have no doubt that if he wasn't armed with a gun, he doesn't have the courage to get out of the vehicle! Guns give cowards courage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #79)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:55 PM

121. cannot disagree with your gun comment - agree completely - read my tagline

we'll see in a few weeks if 2nd degree murder was proven

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #79)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 01:01 PM

125. So you're saying he intended to confront/fight Trayvon while he was on the phone with 911?

Was he going to put the operator on speakerphone?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #125)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 04:21 PM

182. I'm saying he intended to confront Martin when he ignored the advice given by 911.

Fight? Never, I have no doubt Zimmerman was and is a coward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #40)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 08:33 PM

233. "groupthink" yeah, you keep telling yourself that is all it is

and shine those guns of yours, because that is the only reason for your anemic attempt to dismiss this OP and those that have popularly agreed with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fascisthunter (Reply #233)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 01:03 AM

260. The "gunner" namecalling has become the DU version of "socialist" namecalling

Meaningless, juvenile, hurled with hysterical relish at anyone who refuses to join whatever mob happens to be assembled at a given moment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #260)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 11:59 AM

317. yeah

you're part of the mob that is saying, no matter what, Trayvon Martin asked to be killed by a coward that night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #40)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 11:26 AM

296. if

you're cursing, to defend zimpig, you know you're wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:44 AM

53. Under the principles of self-defense

...
The victim has the right to self-defense and may use deadly force if they can "reasonably" believe that he/she is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. The roles can only change after the aggressor abandons his/her attack and makes the victim aware that he/she is doing so. If, after abandonment, the person that was attacked continues the defense, then the roles may be reversed.

Courts differ on exactly how this takes place and a lot of it is case-specific...

but...

If I were the prosecution, I would argue that:
1. Zimmerman had the gun and Martin believed his life was in danger
2. At no time did Zimmerman indicate that he was abandoning the attack
3. At no time did Zimmerman indicate to Martin that he was abandoning the attack
4. At all times Zimmerman was armed and, in fact, used the weapon to kill Martin

If I were the defense, I would argue that:
1. Zimmerman never assaulted/battered Martin; Martin was the aggressor from the beginning
2. Zimmerman had a reasonable cause to believe that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm; therefore the use of deadly force was justifiable.
3. Martin reacted to Zimmerman's approach with excessive force

Which way will it go?

I have no idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ewagner (Reply #53)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 01:56 PM

144. The self-defense and FL stand-your-ground laws are predicated upon legal conduct.

 

Zimmerman is in a tough spot now, because he claimed that Martin jumped out of the bushes and attacked him. We now know that isn't the case at all.

Had Zimmerman stuck to a story that is more truthful, i.e. that he tried to detain Martin until the cops could get there and question him, then I think he would be untouchable under FL law. Nothing that I can see makes his actual conduct illegal, only now he has made up this big lie about being jumped and everyone knows it's not true. Martin was talking on the telephone.

It is pretty frightening that he would have probably gotten away with never being charged at all had he told a truthful account of what really happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reusrename (Reply #144)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 07:15 PM

211. How do we know that?

 

You said:

" We now know that isn't the case at all."

How do we now know that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Reply #211)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 08:59 PM

238. From testimony.

 

There was a witness.

I mean, at this point we have to go with the evidence.

Perhaps Zimmerman will dispute the testimony, but I seriously doubt he will testify.

At this point there is nobody disputing that witness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:48 AM

56. A paranoid schizophrenic

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:50 AM

57. isn't the real question whether a law was broken?

that has to be proven, does it not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:58 AM

65. Freerepublic conservatives, that's who.

Here's an example:

"This is a serious milestone trial.
Zimmerman is so innocent it is ridiculous
I think in Tx the crime rate of CHL holders is like .04%
I am not sure what the crime rate of Gangsta Lean users is, but I bet it is a tad over .04%
In a just world, Zimmerman would be able to retire on the states dime for being falsely accused and imprisoned."

They also are calling Mandela a terrorist over there.

It is a total bizarro world in conservative land today where all morals, values, justice and common sense is are discarded in service of ideologically I based hatred.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:00 PM

67. I can only venture guesses as to what kind of person would think zimmerman had the "right"

None of my guesses are very flattering to the intellect or humanity of the defender

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:02 PM

68. Exactly. K&R, n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:08 PM

73. Zimmerman was claiming authority that he did not have. He was packing heat. Is there any chance

 

that he did not open his jacket to show his piece? Or otherwise indicate that he was carrying?

Zimmerman was a volunteer neighborhood bully.

Martin ended up fighting for his life. It wasn't a fair fight. Zimmerman was armed while he wasn't. Zimmerman won while Martin lost.

The cowardly Zimmerman didn't even let Martin fight in a fair fight.

The cowardly Zimmerman was afraid of Martin's skin color, the clothing that he was wearing, and his youth plus the way that he was walking. Zimmerman had a way to deal with that, however. He armed himself. Then, while being armed, he decided to stalk the unarmed Trayvon Martin.

No one can seriously believe that Zimmerman was less than confrontational when he had his first words with Martin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #73)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:48 PM

115. The Young Turks had a good segment with Zimmerman muttering "Fucking Coons" under his breath

Tough to say, but that's what I hear when I listen to the segment. I don't know if it's because the suggestion was put there by TYT or not. The phrase is at 1:51 of the clip.

&feature=player_embedded

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnlinePoker (Reply #115)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:54 PM

119. That's what I hear too. It's definitely not 'goons'. imho. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #119)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 03:43 PM

162. Yes, sounds like he mumbles 'fu**ing coons' just before the responder says

'we don't need you to do that'. Zimmerman appears breathless, very nervous
and certainly expressed his determination to take down his imagined perpetrator of crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:34 PM

93. Lets play my favorite version of this game:

What if Zimmerman had been a 27 year old black man and Trayvon had been a 17 year old white girl?

Would anyone seriously still be arguing that he had the right to follow Martin in his car before grabbing a gun and chasing the kid down and shooting the kid? Of course not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nevernose (Reply #93)


Response to Nevernose (Reply #93)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 01:00 PM

124. Not a single person

And that's sexism my friend - aside from racial prejudice.

It seems to me Trayvon was taught the same thing I was - Stranger Danger. Beware of suspicious looking and behaving strangers. I would hope my 17 and 19 years old nephews would be wary and get their spider sense up to . . . If they walked down to the quick check from my place at 7 pm on a rainy late winter night.

The difference is - the police in my town would be pissed to high holy hell that Zimmerman got in the way of doing the job they were paid and trained to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nevernose (Reply #93)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 01:26 PM

139. In your version, the 17 year old white girl also holds the black man down

and smashes his head into the pavement, yes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #139)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 01:58 PM

145. Sure, why not?

Actually, let's say that no one really knows what happened for sure. We know that there are conflicting witnesses, some of which contradict each other and some of which contradict themselves.

The only version we have is from the big black guy. We know he has given multiple different stories to the police, changing each story as the facts came out. We know that he claims he was out for a walk, minding his own business, when a skinny white girl jumped out and attacked him for no reason, and that when it was revealed that there was a record of him calling 911, he changes the story to chasing the white kid.

911 becomes further complicated for this black man, because a child's screams of help are clearly heard. The man claims that they are his screams, but can offer no explanation as to why the cries were cut off when the gunshot was heard. He later goes on national television, the Al Sharpton show, to claim the child's last words were, "Ohh, you got me."

It should also be noted that in his first version to police, the hypothetical black man tells them that he was being smothered, that the white girl was covering his face mouth and nose; there was no mention of having his head smashed in the concrete. Someone, probably a lawyer, inquires as to how, if he felt his life was in danger from being smothered, he screamed for help. Naturally, this part of his story changes again.

Also, the white girl has been in a few fights in school and talks tough on the Internet. The black guy trains three days a week in mixed martial arts.

Of course, the black man denies medical attention. In fact, he feels so good that he goes to work the next day. They say he should get checked out by the doctor. His doctor says that he's just fine, hadn't suffered any injuries beyond minor cosmetic ones, and, in fact, wouldn't have even gotten the scratch on his head if he had a full head of hair. She does recommend to him that he see an ENT because his nose might be broken, but the black guy thought it was minor and so sought no medical attention.

So yeah, as long as the fact pattern matches up in my switched race/sex hypothetical, I'd think things looked pretty bad for the black guy. Of course, Zimmerman's not a black guy who shot a white girl.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nevernose (Reply #145)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 02:36 PM

153. Well, if you're going to play, you have to get the facts correct

We know that he claims he was out for a walk, minding his own business, when a skinny white girl jumped out and attacked him for no reason, and that when it was revealed that there was a record of him calling 911, he changes the story to chasing the white kid.


Ah, we begin with a patent falsehood. Our hypothetical black man never gave a statement to police that he was out for a stroll when he suddenly got jumped by a white girl he had never seen before. Moving on...

because a child's screams of help are clearly heard


Except that the screams do not sound like a "child's", nor are either of the participants in the confrontation young enough to have a "child's scream."

but can offer no explanation as to why the cries were cut off when the gunshot was heard


After the gunshot, the white girl breaks off her attack. The black man is no longer being attacked and thus stops his frantic screaming for help.

the hypothetical black man tells them that he was being smothered, that the white girl was covering his face mouth and nose


Actually, the black says that the white girl tried to smother him at one point, but he squirms out of it. He claims that in squirming away from the smothering attempt, his shirt gets pulled up revealing his concealed weapon.

there was no mention of having his head smashed in the concrete.


Once again, blantantly untrue. I think I'm detecting a pattern.

Naturally, this part of his story changes again.


Also untrue. I get the impression this game involves making up facts that directly contradict the facts of the Zimmerman case.

Also, the white girl has been in a few fights in school and talks tough on the Internet. The black guy trains three days a week in mixed martial arts.


This is basically true. Of course, you left out the fact that the white girl is taller than the black man, in far better physical shape, and plays football.

Of course, the black man denies medical attention. In fact, he feels so good that he goes to work the next day. They say he should get checked out by the doctor. His doctor says that he's just fine...


And once again, we find the actual facts are at variance with what you state:

A medical report compiled by the family physician of Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman and obtained exclusively by ABC News found that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a "closed fracture" of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury the day after he fatally shot Martin during an alleged altercation.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-medical-report-sheds-light-injuries-trayvon/story?id=16353532#.Uc8m0qPD9MY


At this point it's clear that your "game" involves omitting and/or misrepresenting entire sections of the factual record while fabricating other parts out of whole cloth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #153)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 03:53 PM

168. You Are Awfully Invested In This Case

I hope it works out for you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #153)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 04:47 PM

186. You illustrate Zimmermans credibility problem nicely

Try a simple google search for George Zommerman Inconsistencies. He's said all of those things and more, one stori at the scene, a different version for the news, and more versions after consulting with attorneys. If you can't even see that he's changed his story multiple times, you're in serious denial.

On edit: the scream. You seriously think the guy screaming just stopped when he pulled the trigger? That is more likely than the screams stopping because of a bullet to the chest?

Martin had played high school football; he still only weighed 160. I know plenty of teenage girls that weigh 160. 160 is little, and the fact that he was 6'1" merely illustrates just how skinny he was beneath the hoodie.

In 12 years I've never put someone on ignore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nevernose (Reply #186)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 06:54 PM

205. This is why I find

 

Zimmerman's story not believable and Mr Good's testimony not believable. I weigh well over two hundred pounds. Zimmerman at the time weighed 204 pounds to Martin's 158. They listed Martin at a little over 5'9 and Zimmerman at 5'8. That is not much of a difference in height but a big difference in weight.

The age difference is also huge. Martin is 17 or just turned 17 and Zimmerman was closer to 28 years old. Martin was a minor and Zimmerman was a full grown man. In other words Martin was a juvenile. It would embarrass some men if a juvenile or kid was physically beating me to death in a fist fight. And Zimmerman wasn't even an old man at that.

Then they tried to use the football athletic excuse when they stereotype all Blackmales. They down played Zimmerman's MMA training which specifically teaches fighting skills or the art of fighting. They also throw out all the evidence, which shows Zimmerman the only one being in physical confrontations or fights. The only thing in Martin's history could be called just juvenile pranks or smoking a little weed, which is common among a lot of American youths at his age. And smoking weed does not make you violent if you have ever smoked it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #153)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 10:39 AM

288. Here is logic for

 

you to follow, and I hope you pay perfect attention.

The Prosecution's case is George Zimmerman profiled Trayvon Martin and pursue him on that particular night. He killed Trayvon Martin on that particular night, with a deadly weapon, claiming self defense. The prosecution is claiming George Zimmerman did not kill Martin in self defense and disobeyed instructions not to follow Martin. Instead, Zimmerman wanted to be a wannabe cop. They also said the evidence will show Zimmerman lied. That is the case the prosecution has to prove without a reasonable doubt.

The Defense claims, George Zimmerman was on his way to a certain errand, but notice Trayvon Martin suspiciously walking in the rain and never seen him before. Zimmerman was also the captain of neighborhood watch and said there were a number of br eakins in the area lately. So that prompted him to call 911.

When he called 911, Zimmerman gave the description of Martin as suspicious and looked up to no good. He also described Martin being in his late teens and looking like he was on drugs. He went on to say that Martin started to come to wards him and looked like he was carrying something. He claimed he didn't know what his deal was.

Somewhere during that conversation, you could hear the chimes of a vehicle door opening, Zimmerman also remarked that Martin ran and he lost him. He sounded upset that Martin disappeared. During the same time the operator asked Zimmerman was he following Martin. Zimmerman replied yes and the operator said he didn't want him to do that. Zimmerman replied OK. The operator asked him did he know which way Martin went. He claimed Martin went in a certain direction.

The operator said that he would get an officer out there and asked for Zimmerman's name and home address if he lived in the area. Zimmerman said he didn't want to give his home address and told them where his truck would be. He also gave them directions and told them to call back when the officer got there. They asked him the address he was at and Zimmerman said he didn't know. Zimmerman's claim is Martin ambushed him while he was walking back to his Truck. His claim is he did not continue to look for Martin.

The last person Martin talked to on his cell phone was Jenteal. Jenteal claimed that Martin said a crazy white guy was following him. That is stalking. Martin also claimed that he lost him. There were two calls. On the last call was where the interruption came and Martin apparently seeing Zimmerman again. Martin's friend back at his father's girl friend's house, claimed that Martin went to the 711, to buy some skittles for him. His friend was also asked if he ever went to that 711 before and the answer was yes. He is a younger age than Martin. The clerk testified Martin made it to the store and bought two items. He didn't think Martin looked suspicious at all. He didn't claim Martin looked like he was on drugs either.

That was Zimmerman's description, when he saw Martin going home. There is another witness out that night, also walking in the rain with a dog. Zimmerman made Martin suspicious in his mind. I've only heard one witness, that testified so far actually knew Zimmerman. So if they saw Zimmerman that night, according to Zimmerman, he would have been suspicious. This is what started the entire event, and both parties reacting to it. There is also evidence Zimmerman has done this fifty other times.

And the evidence shows, Zimmerman volunteered to do this. Even though evidence shows Zimmerman rejected getting more organized through a police authorization, there is other evidence not shown, Zimmerman has a criminal record in his background that would have been checked out. If people know anything about joining Law enforcement agencies or getting employed, they know they would go through a criminal background check.

tHe evidence also shows Zimmerman had a gun. His excuse was because a dog attacked his wife and the Law enforcement authority told him to get a gun. There is no indication that he was robbed or attacked by anybody himself. If there was a violent dog in the neighborhood, that dog would either be put to sleep or turned into the dog catcher. Anyway, the owner would be liable. So telling him to get a gun is inexcusable. So Zimmerman is a bunch of shit.

I'm stopping here, but I'm following the case closely with every detail. So far I think Zimmerman is guilty. I think the prosecution could have been more aggressive on Good, because I see holes in his testimony. I actually think Jenteal was more authentic while Good came off as programmed. And he was the only person in position to actually go out and save either Zimmerman or Trayvon's life if he thought it was so serious. Also given other information, original investigators were thrown off the case for manipulating or being accuse of manipulating testimony to help Zimmerman, should be told to the jury. Good claims he was clarifying his testimony, but I don't see the difference from Jenteal. He gave the same testimony at first and then back tracked under pressure, only to clarify under more pressure. The prosecution used kid gloves on him. If he really saw Zimmerman getting the shit beat out of him and heard him calling for help, then why didn't Good intervene, since he was so nosy from the start? The same thing can be said with the witness that took the photograph and told his wife not to get involved.

So most of these witnesses that Zimmerman told the operator, he lived in the area, don't even know Zimmerman. He would have been in the same predicament Martin was in. Most of those witnesses would be too, except they aren't Black.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:41 PM

106. George's actions were grossly negligent and highly irresponsible.

Which resulted in the untimely death of Trayvon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:44 PM

108. I agree Zimmerman called the cops

Zimmerman followed Trayvon even though he was told not to, if he found Trayvon suspicious he could have kindly walked up to him and asked, "do you live in this neighborhood" or something along those lines, but nope, he decided to start a confrontation. Zimmerman started the whole situation while Trayvon was just walking around minding his OWN business, Zimmerman approached him, Zimmerman called the police, Zimmerman followed him and Zimmerman shot him. The whole thing could have been avoided if he left Trayvon alone. And if Trayvon did get a few good hits in, so what? The guy had a gun, most people would fight back if someone had a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:45 PM

110. Not me!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:47 PM

113. I agree 100%. Zimmerman was the aggressor...

And it began not at the point of confrontation, but at the point when he got out of his truck, armed, and started stalking Martin.
Although Florida's gun laws get a lot of flak (deservedly), in the cases that have gone to jury, the juries have consistantly ruled the aggressor can't claim stand your ground or self defense. I hope the trend continues in this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 01:16 PM

135. I'm no lawyer, but if I were---I'd call it pre-meditated homicide.



Zimmerman had been itching and planning and hoping to shoot someone black from the moment he instigated to get himself appointed Neighborhood Watch Dude.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlancheSplanchnik (Reply #135)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 01:21 PM

136. I think it was, too, but it would be hard to prove.

I think he was itching for an opportunity to be a hero but no damsels in distress were presenting themselves so he...

Hey!

Howyadoin?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #136)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 01:30 PM

140. HEY SKP!

Damn Skippy!!


NO! Haa! I mean....







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 01:21 PM

137. Very well put, Mr. Scorpio. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 01:23 PM

138. +1,000,000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 01:30 PM

141. He didn't.

The question to be resolved is:

Did Zimmerman initiate the confrontation, or did Martin?


I've stated before that I believe Zimmerman is guilty of initiating the confrontation and it was Martin that was, in fact, "standing his ground".

Assuming Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, and Martin did not respond with disproportionate force (without an effective purpose-built or improvised weapon or martial arts skills, how could he?), Zimmerman therefore had to no right to use his gun to defend himself.


HOWEVER...


I believe Zimmerman's story is that, after Martin got the better of him in the physical confrontation, Martin at some point noticed the pistol Zimmerman was carrying in his belt holster. Martin then is alleged to have said "you're a dead man" or something of that ilk and grabbed for Zimmerman's gun.

If this is true (or more importantly, if the jury believes it to be true) then Zimmerman getting his gun out and shooting Martin before Martin could seize it and shoot him with it MIGHT turn this into an acceptable self-defense shooting.

This does not alleviate Zimmerman of initiating the confrontation for which a person died, so he is still responsible for Martin's death, IMO. The degree of guilt is up for debate, however.


I have not been following the case since the initial discussion over a year ago, so I am ready to be corrected with updated information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 01:49 PM

143. Zimmerman followed and murdered an unarmed teenager. Everything else is just defense B.S.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 02:00 PM

146. If Zimmerman is innocent....

I would take it that it would be legal for someone to arm themselves and follow Mr Zimmerman .

And If they felt threatened, they could legally kill him. (?)

????


I am a gun owner; but this is clearly NOT self-defense. A racist murdered a kid.

period.

If they say this was legal, then god help Us....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 02:21 PM

149. If Zimmerman had been killed with his own gun

would his defenders say Martin had a right to self defense? Or would they be crying for the kid's head?

Apparently Zimmerman was not altogether liked in his neighborhood. He was a dumbass. He called Sanford Police Department on average once a week to report everything from strangers to open garage doors. A vigilante. Self-appointed. And as likely to target the neighbors and their friends as the "punks" he was reportedly watching out for.

They should ask the neighbors if they feel safer since Zimmerman moved out of the neighborhood. I bet they do. Even if they didn't know what he was up to then. Who needs that sort of watch "captain" patrolling the neighborhood.

I googled and found this old article published after Z's arrest:

Zimmerman, who patrolled the Retreat at Twin Lakes development in his own car, had been called aggressive in earlier complaints to the local police and the homeowner's association, according to a homeowner who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

At an emergency homeowner’s association meeting on March 1, “one man was escorted out because he openly expressed his frustration because he had previously contacted the Sanford Police Department about Zimmerman approaching him and even coming to his home,” the resident wrote in an email to HuffPost. “It was also made known that there had been several complaints about George Zimmerman and his tactics" in his neighborhood watch captain role.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/12/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin_n_1340358.html

The president of the homeowners association for the community where the shooting took place testified that he didn't think a neighborhood watch program was needed and that Zimmerman was in charge of the community's program from the very beginning.

An FBI report shows Zimmerman had a pattern of calling authorities about criminal activities and safety issues in his neighborhood. In one of the calls to Sanford police, Zimmerman complained about children playing and running in the street. Four calls were about black men he said he witnessed in the neighborhood after break-ins, according to the report, release by the state attorney's office.


http://www.freep.com/article/20130625/NEWS07/306250053/Trayvon-Martin-George-Zimmerman-trial-statements

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 02:28 PM

150. It's Neighborhood WATCH, not Neighborhood CHASE

Zimmerman carried a gun, which violates NW guidelines. Zimmerman pursued, contrary to police instructions. Zimmerman clearly provoked the situation.

I find it hard to believe Trayvon Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun when the physical interaction began. Firing the gun may have been unintentional, but Zimmerman is responsible for creating the chain of events that led to it, self-defense or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to many a good man (Reply #150)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 03:58 PM

171. Also Neighborhood Watch guidelines are very specific

You observe and report; you do not engage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 02:31 PM

151. Good OP. I haven't read any of the replies yet,

but I'd like to ask the Zimmerman apologists a few questions.

1) What if it were your child in Trayvon's position? If you have children, didn't you teach them to never comply with the requests of a stranger in public? Oh I know, I know, Trayvon wasn't a "child", he was a young black male, and like all black men was a potential danger to society. (Unlike Bristol Palin who pregnant at 17 was just a child who made an innocent mistake, and the Bush twins who got caught drinking at 19! Yay for extended adolescence! Another benefit of white privilege!)

2) Knowing what we know about this can't character, would you want your daughter/sister/niece to date, or end up with a man like George Zimmerman?

I'm not totally sure, but I'm thinking that a lot of gun nuts really don't think much of Zimmerman as a person, but they've taken an interest in this case because essentially many of their pet issues have gone on trial. They look at Zimmerman and think, "There before the grace of God". These are tough things for me to admit, because it validates my beliefs that the vast majority of gun nuts and CCW holders view the world from the same paranoid, violent lense that George Zimmerman saw it. This is why I'm willing to go to extraordinary lengths to avoid people who like guns and become obsesed with law and order.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 02:32 PM

152. If Trayvon was an adult and had a gun

He could've and would've shot Zimmerman in self defense, and there wouldn't have been a trial because Zimmerman was the agressor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Reply #152)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 05:23 PM

189. Do you mean if the circumstances had been the same, or if Zimmerman had assaulted Trayvon?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 02:44 PM

155. Glenn Beck fans.

Did you see him the other day dressed up as a Boy Scout?

Seriously deranged nutjobs who watch Glenn Beck would think they could shoot anyone who was walking in any neighborhood and get away with it.
Especially Black people.

Zimmerman didn't even live in that neighborhood.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #155)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 04:33 PM

184. Making him the ' Neighborhood Threat '

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 04:23 PM

183. I've been shaking my head for days

I can't believe some people here can't see a simple truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 04:48 PM

187. Incarcerated or free, I think he's a deadman either way. He's not gonna avoid "fucking coons" forevr

He stands a better chance in prison if he joins the Aryans. Otherwise, he's fucked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DRoseDARs (Reply #187)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 10:00 PM

246. I hope that you don't approve of the thought that if he goes free someone should

take the law in their own hands and kill him. That would be just as wrong as the killing of Trayvon Martin. Or is it Travon? I've seen it spelled both ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to totodeinhere (Reply #246)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:25 PM

252. Trayvon with a y and no I don't. He's made such a mess of his own case, then there's his def team.

I wouldn't waste my time with that scum anymore than I've wasted my time with OJ Simpson in 20+ years, which is none at all. But in this case, a whole community is righteously outraged. Hard to know where this will go, but easy to guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 05:41 PM

191. One word;Vigilante. that is all.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 05:54 PM

193. Absolutely right

How can you start a fight and when you are getting your ass kicked you pull a gun. Lock him up for a long time and repeal that stupid "Stand your ground" law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 06:30 PM

198. I'm unclear on the rules for a claim of self defense.

Does the prosecution have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was NOT defending himself?

Or does the claim constitute an "affirmative defense" where the defense has the burden to prove the claim?

Okay, wikipedia says option two applies. The defense has to prove that Zimmerman "had an honest and reasonable belief that another's use of force was unlawful and that the defendant's conduct was necessary to protect himself." But they may not have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. "It can either be proved by clear and convincing evidence or by a preponderance of the evidence."

So does that mean the case hinges on what Zimmerman believed? Well . . . I don't know, but I'm gonna guess he believes whatever will get him the least jail time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tclambert (Reply #198)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 07:18 PM

213. Zimmerman has to prove

 

that he had the right to use "Deadly Force", because he exhausted all other means to escape the attacker. He has to prove he was not the initial aggressor also and had no fault in the provocation.

That is the tricky part and why I say Zimmerman is guilty regardless of Martin's actions. Zimmerman caused the entire event by falsely accusing Martin of doing something wrong which triggered the entire event. Martin was minding his own business and not involved in any suspicious or criminal activity. Zimmerman also initially pursued Martin, which caused Martin to react to him. So Zimmerman is not without entire fault.

Furthermore there is no evidence Zimmerman used all means to escape before using deadly force. There is no evidence he fought back because there is no bruises on Zimmerman's hands. The only injuries are on his face and head, which indicates maybe Martin gave Zimmerman those wounds in an attempt to defend himself trying to escape.

So it is very hard to believe this grown man did nothing while this child was beating him half to death without throwing punches himself. So he thought his only alternative was using a gun and it was already loaded and ready to fire at that. That indicates to me he went looking for martin with a loaded gun ready to fire. Even if he thought Martin had a gun, he knew the situation was dangerous prior to pursuing Martin. So you can't say, Zimmerman has no fault.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tclambert (Reply #198)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 08:15 PM

230. My understanding is

Z has to produce evidence of self-defense.
"When self-defense is asserted, the defendant has the burden of producing enough evidence to establish a prima facie case demonstrating the justifiable use of force. Montijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424, 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing of self- defense, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188. The burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, including the burden of proving that the defendant did not act in self-defense, never shifts from the State to the defendant. Montijo, 61 So. 3d at 427; Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188."

So, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime charged and that Z did not act in self-defense.

The FL statute on self-defense:
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;...

I have not really been following the trial, but I assume this statute will apply:
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter (justification of self-defense) is not available to a person who:
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

My understanding of FL case law on initial provocation is that the initial provocation must be done “by force or the threat of force.” For example, one case (Gibbs v State) ruled that "provoked" could not refer to mere words or conduct without force or threat of force.

Those who practice in FL may be able to add more to the legal standards that apply. I believe the jury instruction would be as follows: "If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty. However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved."

Edited to add: I'm from another state, so had to check FL law on all this. Hopefully if there are any material mistakes a FL atty will chime in. I will also mention, I hope without sounding condescending in any way, that 2 things I've noticed re the coverage and comments of this case is that (1) people refer to legal issues generally such as a Wiki explanation as opposed to specific FL law, and those can vary in very important ways, and (2) they comment as if the legal situation is how they think it should be rationally when case law often gives very specific examples. For example, case law gives many examples of what constitutes initial provocation in self-defense cases.

Hope all that helps more than, you know, the other way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ctaylors6 (Reply #230)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 12:05 AM

256. That does help,

 

and pay particular attention to the aggressor has to use all means to escape, before using deadly force. According to the testimony so far and the evidence, Zimmerman did not. THe only injuries on Trayvon was a gun shot wound and slight abrasions on his knuckles.

Zimmerman only had injuries to his head and face. He had no injuries on his hands or knuckles, which gave an indication he fought back. There is no mention of him swinging at Martin, only evidence, they were interlocked at one point on the ground. The more logical explanation is Martin was fighting for his life, trying to escape Zimmerman's grasp. A man fighting for his life and not landing any blows, don't make sense at all. The only injuries are blows by Martin, putting up a fight. The only evidence of self defense by Zimmerman is the use of a gun.

It was also a gun already loaded and in firing position. The very fact, Zimmerman went after Martin with a loaded gun in firing position, meant he intended to use it on Martin. His description of Martin on the 911 call alluded to him, Martin was dangerous.

If he thought Martin might have been armed and dangerous, he should have not pursued him or even left his vehicle for anything. He had prior instructions from community watch instructions and plus the advise of the 911 operator. Zimmerman is not without fault in what happened. In my opinion, that makes him guilty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ctaylors6 (Reply #230)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 08:26 PM

397. Yeah, that helped. Thank you.

Especially the parts on "initial provocation" and exhausting "every reasonable means to escape." Those aspects will likely put Zimmerman in prison.

I don't know how to find a particular state's law on the various subjects that come up. Consequently, I do fall back on wikipedia's sometimes vague descriptions.

So many times it seems controversial cases hinge on the specific wording of the jury instructions the judge provides just before sending them off to deliberate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 06:35 PM

199. Did you want us to actually answer your questions? If so, then here:

What kind of person would think that Zimmerman had the right to...While armed, walk up to a complete stranger who was doing absolutely NOTHING wrong and initiate a confrontation with that person?


I don't know.

If Trayvon Martin was left unmolested to walk home, who doesn't think that he would have gotten to his destination without getting into a fight and getting shot?


True. He may have been hit by a car or something, but he would have most likely made it home.

Who had more to fear, the unarmed person who was being chased or the armed person who was doing the chasing?


Martin had the most to fear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 06:54 PM

204. Are you arguing that the rules of felony murder come into play?

Because Zimmerman assaulted Martin, committing a felony, Zimmerman becomes responsible for anything that happens in furtherance of that felony? That sounds like what you mean, and it sounds plausible to me. But the prosecution doesn't seem to be pursuing that angle at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 08:02 PM

226. a gun-humping, cowardly piece of SHIT, Mr. Scorpio

the kind of person who thinks their fear and ignorance trumps justice

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 08:12 PM

229. A bigot

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 08:27 PM

231. you nailed it... I'll add that Zimmerman's Defenders believe a gun owner...

... should have the right to be judge and jury when they feel threatened. However we know now that Zimmerman could just be a psychopath looking for a legal excuse.

In this case we know Trayvon's reasons for being in that neighborhood that evening, so there was no right nor valid reason for shooting him... Trayvon was innocent, and if we defend Zimmerman, we give people permission to stalk and murder based on suspicion or paranoia. Do people really want to live in a place where this is allowed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fascisthunter (Reply #231)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 10:06 PM

248. I don't defend what Zimmerman did. But I do defend his right to a fair

trial with competent legal council since that is the right of all defendants no matter how heinous is the crime that they are accused of. So we need to make a distinction between people who defend what he did and those who defend his right to a fair trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 09:12 PM

239. Mahalo MrScorpio for providing..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 10:55 PM

250. I think they should have tried him for manslaughter

Second Degree murder might leave some doubt with a jury, manslaughter would have been a guaranteed conviction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:24 PM

251. Great Opening Statement!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:48 PM

254. you don't start a fight by following somebody

you start it by hitting somebody or threatening to hit somebody.

I don't believe Zimmerman initiated any confrontation. I KNOW that Trayvon had a one minute head start, that's on the phone record.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #254)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 01:29 AM

262. I'm a little curious here...

What do you think that Trayvon Martin did to warrant being followed by Zimmerman in the first place?

Or are you stipulating that Zimmerman never followed Martin at all?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #262)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 03:27 PM

350. What difference does that make?

The story, as I see it in general is

1. Zimmerman follows Trayvon
2. Trayvin hits Zimmerman, knocks him down and keeps hitting him

Whatever reason Zimmerman thought he had for #1, the fact of #2 (in my mind) gives Zimmerman the right to defend himself, even with lethal force.

Everybody has a right to not get punched, except the person who throws the first punch. Nobody has a right to not be followed. Only one of these statements makes sense

A. He was hitting me, I had to defend myself
B. He was following me, I had to defend myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #350)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 04:03 PM

353. It makes every difference in the world why Zimmerman was chasing after Martin and how...

One (an armed person) was doing the chasing and the other (an unarmed person) was being chased... Which of those two, realistically, had the most to fear?

In your mind, Zimmerman had the right to chase people around in the dark with a gun.

In the midst of chasing people around in the dark with a gun, why is he not liable for the death of anyone that he's chasing around in the dark with a gun whom he kills while they are defending their own life?

And you are so sure that Martin threw the first punch, are you not? Why shouldn't that asshole Zimmerman NOT have been punched?

If some strange person chased you around and came up to you in the dark, aggressively demanding why you're where you know that you're supposed to be and all you had was your own fists... Would you used them or not?

Would you fight for your own life if you felt that it was in danger?

Again, I ask... Had Martin been left unmolested, do you think that he would have gotten home alive or not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #254)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 01:48 AM

263. The seed for the confrontation was Zimmerman's staring hard enough at Trayvon to make him

nervous. Trayvon didn't know Zimmerman or his motives any better than Zimmerman knew Trayvon. For all Trayvon knew, Zimmerman was up to no good.

Zimmerman was following Trayvon, a second act of aggression. As the phone conversation with Rachel showed, Trayvon was trying to avoid Zimmerman; Trayvon told Rachel he was going to go "the back way", which is backed up by the illustration someone above posted, showing the paths of both Trayvon & Zimmerman. Zimmerman circled around, where he met up with Trayvon.

Given that Zimmerman had no business playing cop that night, the claims of Trayvon being the aggressor are just incredible. Neighborhood watchmen are only supposed to report what they think is suspicious & let the police do the investigating. He's a wannabe cop with a concealed weapon taboot; common sense dictates that he should have minded his own business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 01:02 AM

259. I think George's version of the events are very strange.



If you watch this video you see Zimmerman explain his version of events and where it happened.The things that stick out to me are what he says TM said.

1. TM " you got a problem?" Zimmerman " No." TM " Well you got a problem now." then Zimmerman says TM charged him. Weird

2. Zimmerman says that TM noticed his gun while TM was on top of him and beating him and then says " you are going to die tonight" weird again.

3. After Zimmerman shoots TM Zimmerman says that TM says " You got me" then Zimmerman gets on top of TM and spreads his arms out. Weird once more

Its like TM was a bad b movie actor with poor lines. doesn't make any sense to me. Zimmerman's story seems to imply that TM was not human and behaved and talked as no human would.

This leaves me to question his version of events, Its not normal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 02:43 AM

264. People keep asking

I hear people keep saying that Zimmerman had the right to defend himself

What about Trayvon....
Their was a man stalking him! Threating him! Following him! Why are they not asking if Trayvon felt like his life was endangered. Even if he did punch Zimmerman he had every right to

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 08:35 AM

268. That is the main point

 

The issue is the State of Florida, pushed by political reasons, over charged Zimmerman. Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter, no matter what you think of him. He had every right to follow Trayvon, he had every right to confront Trayvon if his job that night was to be a neighborhood watchman. What he did not have a right to do was confront him in an aggressive way. A simple "hey I am working neighborhood watch tonight, can you tell me what you're up to" probably would have been all that was necessary and no one would have been hurt. That is if Trayvon would have just said to him I'm on my way back to my fathers house, which I believe he would have said.

All those media personalities that came to Sanford and pushed their own agenda will most likely be responsible for getting Zimmerman off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)


Response to Name removed (Reply #274)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 09:59 AM

275. My heart bleeds for you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Name removed (Reply #274)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 10:10 AM

279. 1. Z killed with a gun. 2. Trayvon had no drugs. 3. Thus, you are part of the "fantasy" contingent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Name removed (Reply #274)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 10:16 AM

282. I

feel sorry for you. Keep up the good work on making this a better place to live.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Name removed (Reply #274)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 12:34 PM

326. ohh

you're back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 10:02 AM

277. you

are on it! Also, I never in my wildest 'bad' moment with this site could have imagined that so many zimpig apologists were on THIS site. Progressive people, I don't think so!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #277)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 10:05 AM

278. Look at the post #274

Before he finds himself missing from this conversation.

My OP was for people like him

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #278)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 10:21 AM

283. he's

gone???!!!! Like magic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #283)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 10:23 AM

284. POOF! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #284)


Response to Name removed (Reply #336)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 01:40 PM

338. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with this site's rules

They are designed so that members can have the upper hand in discussions against obvious trolls.

It's not that I expect everyone to agree with me, I'm quite capable of having people disagree with me. As long as their arguing from an intellectually honest position.

However, trolls have no place on this site.

They are free to be dispensed with as soon as they display trollish behavior... Like reappearing after they've been dispensed with.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 10:29 AM

286. This is the precise reason I couldn't care less if Trayvon swung first.

Zimmerman initiated and sustained the confrontation. That means he bears the primary responsibility for the results. If it turns out that Martin initiated the physical part of the confrontation, that wouldn't alter Zimmerman's responsibility for Martin's death one iota, IMO. Zimmerman behaved in a way that caused Martin to believe he was in serious physical danger (a belief that proved true). Martin had the right to act in self defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 10:55 AM

292. The fact he had a round in the chamber

speaks volumes to me. That is enough to warrant a look at premeditation.
In 'Nam I never carried my weapon with a round in the chamber. Didn't want to take a chance on an accident.
This guy was itching for a fight, a one sided one at that.
I hope they find him guilty and the judge throws the book at him. He does not, I repeat, does not, deserve to be a free person walking on our streets ever again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #292)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 10:57 AM

293. Wow. He chambered a round beforehand...

That speaks volumes about intent.

Excellent point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #293)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 11:53 AM

312. The DA told about this in his opening statement