|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP. |
On March 23 2012 09:57 Saryph wrote:
Eyewitnesses saying they heard a high pitch cry for help/whine, then a gunshot, and then saw Zimmerman straddling the corpse of the child.
yeah, but she said she didnt see any of the struggle or confrontation; she apparently assumes nothing happened. she also said that it appeared he was holding the wound like he was trying to stop the blood. it just seems like she only saw what happened after everything was done. this may be true or not; but its inconsistent with the other person's testimony, which may also be true or not.
|
On March 23 2012 09:56 Kaitlin wrote:
It is VERY unlikely that a man carrying a concealed weapon started a hand to hand confrontation. Any armed man wants to keep their distance so their weapon isn't taken from them and used against them. If there was a fight between the two, I think it's much more likely that the young, football player, on suspension from school, initiated it. If Martin was on top of Zimmerman, beating him bloody, Zimmerman could do little at that point to prevent Martin from getting his gun and shooting him, bringing us into the SYG arena, from Zimmerman's perspective.
Except of course the assumption is that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon, not intending for a physical altercation. Now I don't know how you speak to people but I sure as shit don't do it from across the street screaming.
|
On March 23 2012 09:39 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 09:27 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 23 2012 09:24 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 23 2012 09:19 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 23 2012 09:16 Saryph wrote:
I like how when you're faced with the story of 'a guy in his late 20s follows an underage minor in his car, gets out and chases him down with a gun, and in the end it comes down to a confrontation where the man shoots the child' you have people taking the side of the man in his 20s with the gun, and criticizing the underage MINOR for defending himself.
If you were 17 and someone twice your size was chasing you with a gun, would you not consider him a massive threat to your life?
It seems as though the SYG law applies to the child and not Zimmerman. If he had killed Zimmerman instead I wonder if the police would have arrested him.
He probably did not even reveal the weapon until he used it or Tray found it on him. But its pretty irrelevent because it would be scary regardless of whether you could see if he was armed or not. When I hear the 911 tape of his death, I hear the sound of sheer terror in the voice of the one screaming for help. I think it's because he saw a gun and knew he was about to be shot. Just my opinion though. That was Zimmermans screams as said by witnesses. The only people to say they identified the screams are Zimmerman claiming it was him, and Martin's Father claiming it was his son on the tapes. The witness reports don't really say one way or the other yet. I just stated my opinion that after listening to the call, that it's more plausible to me that the screaming is Martin. Like I said, just an opinion.
When originaly questioned by the police trays father said that it wasn't his son's voice on the recording. He has changed that in the past three weeks to it being his son. I wonder what could have changed his mind about it.
|
On March 23 2012 09:57 Saryph wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Eyewitnesses saying they heard a high pitch cry for help/whine, then a gunshot, and then saw Zimmerman straddling the corpse of the child.
This testimony is pretty worthless as they've said they didn't see anything until Trayvon was already shot and by then it's kind of too late. They said they didn't even hear the screams for help which are very audible in the 911 calls.
|
On March 23 2012 09:51 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 09:41 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 23 2012 09:39 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 23 2012 09:27 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 23 2012 09:24 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 23 2012 09:19 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 23 2012 09:16 Saryph wrote:
I like how when you're faced with the story of 'a guy in his late 20s follows an underage minor in his car, gets out and chases him down with a gun, and in the end it comes down to a confrontation where the man shoots the child' you have people taking the side of the man in his 20s with the gun, and criticizing the underage MINOR for defending himself.
If you were 17 and someone twice your size was chasing you with a gun, would you not consider him a massive threat to your life?
It seems as though the SYG law applies to the child and not Zimmerman. If he had killed Zimmerman instead I wonder if the police would have arrested him.
He probably did not even reveal the weapon until he used it or Tray found it on him. But its pretty irrelevent because it would be scary regardless of whether you could see if he was armed or not. When I hear the 911 tape of his death, I hear the sound of sheer terror in the voice of the one screaming for help. I think it's because he saw a gun and knew he was about to be shot. Just my opinion though. That was Zimmermans screams as said by witnesses. The only people to say they identified the screams are Zimmerman claiming it was him, and Martin's Father claiming it was his son on the tapes. The witness reports don't really say one way or the other yet. I just stated my opinion that after listening to the call, that it's more plausible to me that the screaming is Martin. Like I said, just an opinion. There are links a few pages back that give witness accounts that say it was zimmerman on the ground. You dont exactly scream for help when your beating someone. You also don't scream for help if you have a gun. The witness reports have been kind of inconsistent, I've seen it be reported both ways so far with both of them on top from different sources. The details of the fight are still unknown, but I personally don't think there was justification for deadly force. If he wanted to use his gun, he could have done a warning shot in the air, or maybe not aim to kill, instead shooting the boy directly in the chest. But as I said, the details are unknown. There's a whole lot of speculation going on in the thread, but we really can't tell what happened yet.
Unless, of course, you do not want to use the gun and were only carrying it as a last resort to protect your life.
Amazing how you are unwilling to view things from any perspective other than Zimmerman being an inhuman monster who wanted to protect his neighbors because... because he's such an inhuman monster... or something.
|
Florida provides for these offenses under the definition of Culpable Negligence:
Culpable negligence is a
conscious doing of an act or following a course of conduct which any
reasonable person would know would likely result in death or great
bodily injury to some other person when done without the intent to
injure any person but with utter disregard for the safety of others.
Not that in order to prove it, it has to be the case that ANY reasonable person (not just one or some) would agree that loss of life was likely. I am not sure they can prove that.
|
On March 23 2012 10:01 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 09:48 Ballistixz wrote:On March 23 2012 09:46 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 23 2012 09:44 Ballistixz wrote:On March 23 2012 09:43 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 23 2012 09:39 Ballistixz wrote:On March 23 2012 09:32 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 23 2012 09:31 Ballistixz wrote:On March 23 2012 09:25 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 23 2012 09:19 Ballistixz wrote:
[quote]
so what...? knowing someone with that carries a gun=/= not knowing someone that is carrying a gun. he could easily be out to rob you or something, you have no clue. why the hell just assume someone that is following you with a gun and that you DONT KNOW is a good guy?
you honestly sound like someone who can easily be robbed if you are that damn naive.... And you sound like someone who screams murder when they see a gun. How would he know if he had a gun in the first place? People you pass in the street outside could be carrying and you wouldnt know. As I said, carrying a gun doesnt make you a bad person. someone following u in a car, continues to follow u for a good while, then gets out of his car and starts to run after you. good guy right? ya, idk what to say to you really. sure a gun doesnt make you a bad person, but you are completly ignoring the actual facts of what happened. the guy only had tea and skittles. why would u think he was "up to no good" or "is on drugs" in the first place? why would u feel the need to chase him down with a gun? WHY? Read the thread before posting, most of those questions have been answered. i know it has been answered, but i am asking YOU why you think that is an ok thing to do? what in your mind beleives that its ok even if you think he was a gangster or a suspicious person? vigilantism is not a good thing for very good reason. it puts yourself and everyone else involved in danger. I have every right to ask what a person is doing in my neighborhood. Why would I question my neighbor, or a mother with a baby in a stroller about what they were doing in my neighborhood? and your willing to follow someone for several blocks with a gun to do that because....? But he didnt follow him for several blocks...... he still followed him and even ran after him.... if someone chases after me then i will be prepared to defense myself. do you now know the problem zimmer man has caused? if he simply did not follow and let the police handle it then a innocent kid would be alive right now. You and I must have different definitions of innocent. Trayvon didn't do anything wrong until he decided to knock someone to the ground and pummel them in the head. At that point he stopped being innocent.
for someone who made an account to just be belligerent on this thread, in the face of evidence contradicting you that is much more recent than the really old reports of an eyewitness that was coaxed into saying it by the police. you are pretty unyielding.
|
On March 23 2012 09:59 Lockitupv2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 09:54 Ballistixz wrote:On March 23 2012 09:48 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 23 2012 09:45 dp wrote:On March 23 2012 09:41 Lockitupv2 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 23 2012 09:39 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 09:27 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 23 2012 09:24 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 23 2012 09:19 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 23 2012 09:16 Saryph wrote:
I like how when you're faced with the story of 'a guy in his late 20s follows an underage minor in his car, gets out and chases him down with a gun, and in the end it comes down to a confrontation where the man shoots the child' you have people taking the side of the man in his 20s with the gun, and criticizing the underage MINOR for defending himself.
If you were 17 and someone twice your size was chasing you with a gun, would you not consider him a massive threat to your life?
It seems as though the SYG law applies to the child and not Zimmerman. If he had killed Zimmerman instead I wonder if the police would have arrested him.
He probably did not even reveal the weapon until he used it or Tray found it on him. But its pretty irrelevent because it would be scary regardless of whether you could see if he was armed or not. When I hear the 911 tape of his death, I hear the sound of sheer terror in the voice of the one screaming for help. I think it's because he saw a gun and knew he was about to be shot. Just my opinion though. That was Zimmermans screams as said by witnesses. The only people to say they identified the screams are Zimmerman claiming it was him, and Martin's Father claiming it was his son on the tapes. The witness reports don't really say one way or the other yet. I just stated my opinion that after listening to the call, that it's more plausible to me that the screaming is Martin. Like I said, just an opinion. There are links a few pages back that give witness accounts that say it was zimmerman on the ground. You dont exactly scream for help when your beating someone. You can't take the eye witness account you like and choose that one as fact. There was more than one eye witness, although it seems they caught the fight at different times. And I would assume that some are conflicting, as that is the nature of the beast. Just saying, I wouldn't keep quoting that as if it is gospel. But im not cherry picking. yeah you are, you are being insanely biased about this entire situation. you have no clue on who really acted in self defense. martin could have been acting in self defense just as well as zimmerman. the real issue here is that ZIMMERMAN SHOULD HAVE NOT FOLLOWED HIM. thats how issues start, its common sense -_-. he has caused so much problems by trying to be a vigilante which is just stupidity. what if he really was chasing a gangster that was also wielding a gun? a shoot out would have insued and Zimmerman probably dead and the gangster claiming self defense. do you now see how flawed this is and how much problems a vigilante can cause? I cant be biased by quoting witness testimony. Following someone is not being a vigilante especially when you are part of a neighborhood watch. There is even testimony that his neighbors loved him. In fact a black lady would tell Zimmerman if she left town so he could keep an eye on her house.Zimmerman wasnt a vigilante by any means.
he took the gun with him and ran after him clearly trying to stop him because he thought he was "up to no good". thats vigilantism . if all you wanted to do was "talk" then why take a gun and arm yourself? if you thought he was a threat why engage with him AT ALL? neighborhood watches do not involve following someone that YOU THINK is a threat and engaging with the supposed threat.
as a GOOD neighborhood watch person you simply have to report anything suspicious in your neighborhood and the police will act accordingly. you do not follow someone with a damn gun and engage with them.
|
On March 23 2012 10:02 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 09:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 23 2012 09:31 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 23 2012 09:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 23 2012 09:19 Saryph wrote:
The police really screwed up here, if you look into the story, the police had the child's cellphone, and did not even attempt to contact the family. The family of the child went three days searching for their child before finding out he was dead, all the while the police were sitting there with a phone with 'dad' and 'mom' on the contact list. i find this incredibly hard to believe. three days not knowing where their kid was or what happened? the kid went to visit a friend, left the house, he was talking to the girl on the phone when it went down supposedly, she told him to run away, the kid is shot, the police come to the neighborhood and everything gets cordoned off (sirens, yellow tape, the whole works). you dont think the girl or her family would figure out what happened that same night? you dont think they would tell the parents? come on people, use your brains. • What happened to Martin's cellphone? Reports abound that Martin's parents were not informed of his murder until they contacted police to report him missing, despite having his cellphone is feeding further scepticism about the police's conduct. It led New York Times columnist Charles Blow to tweet on Monday urging his followers to make his Tweet trend "Where is Trayvon Martin's cellphone?" Right there the article linked from the OP claims that the Martin family did not find out until they tried to report Treyvon missing. Admittedly almost all the articles on the issue have some sort of bias in them, but apparently there was enough of a buzz that a New York Times columnist posted on twitter about it. well, explain to me how the girl (not sure if just a friend, or a girlfriend) could be on the phone while it was going down and tell the kid to run away, but not know that something happened to him that very night (even 10 minutes later when you hear the sirens)? i would think she would contact the family, or at the very least tell the cops who the parents were. i dont believe everything i read. and this just smells like bullshit to me. Reportedly the girls parents wanted her to stay out of it. And reportedly she was so distressed that she was hospitalized. She was contacted by the Martin family after they found out about the call at 7:12. The call went dead at 7:16. Police arrived at 7:17. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/trayvon-martin-parents-phone-call-proves-slain-son-141202780.html
so, if thats true. she knew that there was something wrong with her friend, and she just turned and walked away (metaphorically). if thats true, that is cold. regardless, even if she couldnt handle it, why didnt her parents get involved and call the other parents? also, why didnt the kids parents call her (i assume they knew where their child was) and ask where their son went?
maybe the cops took too long to contact the parents, but i am still looking at the girl and her family and shaking my head. something is not adding up here.
|
On March 23 2012 10:06 Anytus wrote:Florida provides for these offenses under the definition of Culpable Negligence: Culpable negligence is a conscious doing of an act or following a course of conduct which any reasonable person would know would likely result in death or great bodily injury to some other person when done without the intent to injure any person but with utter disregard for the safety of others. Not that in order to prove it, it has to be the case that ANY reasonable person (not just one or some) would agree that loss of life was likely. I am not sure they can prove that.
He admits that he thinks he is up to no good or on drugs.... SO whats your point? Are you agreeing with me? It dosn't have to be loss of life either. And why would he need a gun if what he was doing was safe.
He did not intend or hurt or kill Tray (thats his story). But any reasonable person would know that confronting a criminal in the act could result in bodily harm.
Good job finding the FL law so fast 
|
On March 23 2012 10:03 Lockitupv2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 09:58 ZeromuS wrote:Look guys it boils down for me like this - Zimmer sees some kid he feels is suspicious, - he calls cops and they say to stay away - he grabs his gun and follows the kid - regardless of any fight, the kid is dead and zimmer shot him - the kid didn't have a weapon The moment you call the cops and they say to stay away, you cannot grab a gun, follow and then shoot a person. Grabbing the gun and following them was clearly intent to harm the kid. There is no way to justify grabbing a gun and following someone when the police said to not do anything and then shooting them. I don't care if they fought, this was after Zimmer grabbed his gun and decided to follow the kid after the police told him not to. On March 23 2012 09:58 Anytus wrote:On March 23 2012 09:54 Ballistixz wrote:
ZIMMERMAN SHOULD HAVE NOT FOLLOWED HIM.
Even if everyone agrees with this statement, what is the point of hammering it home again? Just because he should not have followed doesn't make it illegal that he did. Not using your common sense is often times, not a crime. No, but grabbing a gun, following when told not to clearly show mens rea under the law, Zimmer decided at that moment to be a vigilante. No, keeping a gun on you, especially, when you believe that the other person is armed, actually makes complete sense.
I dont get it, the police gave him clear orders to stop following the kid. He violated those orders and he faces no repercussions?
|
On March 23 2012 10:05 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 09:56 Kaitlin wrote:
It is VERY unlikely that a man carrying a concealed weapon started a hand to hand confrontation. Any armed man wants to keep their distance so their weapon isn't taken from them and used against them. If there was a fight between the two, I think it's much more likely that the young, football player, on suspension from school, initiated it. If Martin was on top of Zimmerman, beating him bloody, Zimmerman could do little at that point to prevent Martin from getting his gun and shooting him, bringing us into the SYG arena, from Zimmerman's perspective. Except of course the assumption is that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon, not intending for a physical altercation. Now I don't know how you speak to people but I sure as shit don't do it from across the street screaming.
I have no doubt that Zimmerman initiated contact by questioning what Trayvon was doing there. It's not unrealistic to assume this conversation could have happened at fairly close range. However, I seriously doubt that if it's true that these two fought, which seems to be the case, that Zimmerman started that part of it. It seems to me that the football player didn't respect what Zimmerman was doing and got aggressive physically.
|
On March 23 2012 10:10 Spicy_Curry wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 10:03 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 23 2012 09:58 ZeromuS wrote:Look guys it boils down for me like this - Zimmer sees some kid he feels is suspicious, - he calls cops and they say to stay away - he grabs his gun and follows the kid - regardless of any fight, the kid is dead and zimmer shot him - the kid didn't have a weapon The moment you call the cops and they say to stay away, you cannot grab a gun, follow and then shoot a person. Grabbing the gun and following them was clearly intent to harm the kid. There is no way to justify grabbing a gun and following someone when the police said to not do anything and then shooting them. I don't care if they fought, this was after Zimmer grabbed his gun and decided to follow the kid after the police told him not to. On March 23 2012 09:58 Anytus wrote:On March 23 2012 09:54 Ballistixz wrote:
ZIMMERMAN SHOULD HAVE NOT FOLLOWED HIM.
Even if everyone agrees with this statement, what is the point of hammering it home again? Just because he should not have followed doesn't make it illegal that he did. Not using your common sense is often times, not a crime. No, but grabbing a gun, following when told not to clearly show mens rea under the law, Zimmer decided at that moment to be a vigilante. No, keeping a gun on you, especially, when you believe that the other person is armed, actually makes complete sense. I dont get it, the police gave him clear orders to stop following the kid. He violated those orders and he faces no repercussions?
He was given no such orders.
|
On March 23 2012 10:10 Spicy_Curry wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 10:03 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 23 2012 09:58 ZeromuS wrote:Look guys it boils down for me like this - Zimmer sees some kid he feels is suspicious, - he calls cops and they say to stay away - he grabs his gun and follows the kid - regardless of any fight, the kid is dead and zimmer shot him - the kid didn't have a weapon The moment you call the cops and they say to stay away, you cannot grab a gun, follow and then shoot a person. Grabbing the gun and following them was clearly intent to harm the kid. There is no way to justify grabbing a gun and following someone when the police said to not do anything and then shooting them. I don't care if they fought, this was after Zimmer grabbed his gun and decided to follow the kid after the police told him not to. On March 23 2012 09:58 Anytus wrote:On March 23 2012 09:54 Ballistixz wrote:
ZIMMERMAN SHOULD HAVE NOT FOLLOWED HIM.
Even if everyone agrees with this statement, what is the point of hammering it home again? Just because he should not have followed doesn't make it illegal that he did. Not using your common sense is often times, not a crime. No, but grabbing a gun, following when told not to clearly show mens rea under the law, Zimmer decided at that moment to be a vigilante. No, keeping a gun on you, especially, when you believe that the other person is armed, actually makes complete sense. I dont get it, the police gave him clear orders to stop following the kid. He violated those orders and he faces no repercussions? no they did not, it was a dispatcher and quote, "you don't have to do that sir"
|
On March 23 2012 10:03 Lockitupv2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 09:58 ZeromuS wrote:Look guys it boils down for me like this - Zimmer sees some kid he feels is suspicious, - he calls cops and they say to stay away - he grabs his gun and follows the kid - regardless of any fight, the kid is dead and zimmer shot him - the kid didn't have a weapon The moment you call the cops and they say to stay away, you cannot grab a gun, follow and then shoot a person. Grabbing the gun and following them was clearly intent to harm the kid. There is no way to justify grabbing a gun and following someone when the police said to not do anything and then shooting them. I don't care if they fought, this was after Zimmer grabbed his gun and decided to follow the kid after the police told him not to. On March 23 2012 09:58 Anytus wrote:On March 23 2012 09:54 Ballistixz wrote:
ZIMMERMAN SHOULD HAVE NOT FOLLOWED HIM.
Even if everyone agrees with this statement, what is the point of hammering it home again? Just because he should not have followed doesn't make it illegal that he did. Not using your common sense is often times, not a crime. No, but grabbing a gun, following when told not to clearly show mens rea under the law, Zimmer decided at that moment to be a vigilante. No, keeping a gun on you, especially, when you believe that the other person is armed, actually makes complete sense.
following him and trying to engage/stop him, however, does not make sense. infact it is very VERY stupid to do so especially when you were on the phone with the cops reporting his every move -_-.
even if the guy had good intentions, what he did was completely out of line and just downright stupid. he was already on the phone with 911, so why engage with the suspect? what was the point? what was he trying to prove?
|
On March 23 2012 09:54 Ballistixz wrote:
ZIMMERMAN SHOULD HAVE NOT FOLLOWED HIM
Why not? It's his neighborhood, he has every right to walk around there. It's a high crime area, he has every reason to be suspicious of people he doesn't recognize.
I really do not like this modern mentality of every man for himself. Zimmerman seems like a really good guy who looked out for his neighbors out of a sense of civic duty.
It's sad and unfortunate the way things played out, but the wrong action was when Trayvon decided to commit a preemptive assault instead of continuing to walk away or just talking to Zimmerman to see what was going on.
|
On March 23 2012 10:06 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 09:51 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 23 2012 09:41 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 23 2012 09:39 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 23 2012 09:27 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 23 2012 09:24 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 23 2012 09:19 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 23 2012 09:16 Saryph wrote:
I like how when you're faced with the story of 'a guy in his late 20s follows an underage minor in his car, gets out and chases him down with a gun, and in the end it comes down to a confrontation where the man shoots the child' you have people taking the side of the man in his 20s with the gun, and criticizing the underage MINOR for defending himself.
If you were 17 and someone twice your size was chasing you with a gun, would you not consider him a massive threat to your life?
It seems as though the SYG law applies to the child and not Zimmerman. If he had killed Zimmerman instead I wonder if the police would have arrested him.
He probably did not even reveal the weapon until he used it or Tray found it on him. But its pretty irrelevent because it would be scary regardless of whether you could see if he was armed or not. When I hear the 911 tape of his death, I hear the sound of sheer terror in the voice of the one screaming for help. I think it's because he saw a gun and knew he was about to be shot. Just my opinion though. That was Zimmermans screams as said by witnesses. The only people to say they identified the screams are Zimmerman claiming it was him, and Martin's Father claiming it was his son on the tapes. The witness reports don't really say one way or the other yet. I just stated my opinion that after listening to the call, that it's more plausible to me that the screaming is Martin. Like I said, just an opinion. There are links a few pages back that give witness accounts that say it was zimmerman on the ground. You dont exactly scream for help when your beating someone. You also don't scream for help if you have a gun. The witness reports have been kind of inconsistent, I've seen it be reported both ways so far with both of them on top from different sources. The details of the fight are still unknown, but I personally don't think there was justification for deadly force. If he wanted to use his gun, he could have done a warning shot in the air, or maybe not aim to kill, instead shooting the boy directly in the chest. But as I said, the details are unknown. There's a whole lot of speculation going on in the thread, but we really can't tell what happened yet. Unless, of course, you do not want to use the gun and were only carrying it as a last resort to protect your life. Amazing how you are unwilling to view things from any perspective other than Zimmerman being an inhuman monster who wanted to protect his neighbors because... because he's such an inhuman monster... or something.
From reports are inconsistent, details are unknown, details are unknown again, lots of speculation going on in the thread, and we can't tell what happened yet, and from that you conclude that I must automatically despise someone and am not open to any other viewpoints. That's just silly.
|
I'm glad the justice and courts system exists and we aren't all judged by the internet mob.
|
On March 23 2012 10:16 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 10:06 Zaqwe wrote:On March 23 2012 09:51 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 23 2012 09:41 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 23 2012 09:39 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 23 2012 09:27 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 23 2012 09:24 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 23 2012 09:19 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 23 2012 09:16 Saryph wrote:
I like how when you're faced with the story of 'a guy in his late 20s follows an underage minor in his car, gets out and chases him down with a gun, and in the end it comes down to a confrontation where the man shoots the child' you have people taking the side of the man in his 20s with the gun, and criticizing the underage MINOR for defending himself.
If you were 17 and someone twice your size was chasing you with a gun, would you not consider him a massive threat to your life?
It seems as though the SYG law applies to the child and not Zimmerman. If he had killed Zimmerman instead I wonder if the police would have arrested him.
He probably did not even reveal the weapon until he used it or Tray found it on him. But its pretty irrelevent because it would be scary regardless of whether you could see if he was armed or not. When I hear the 911 tape of his death, I hear the sound of sheer terror in the voice of the one screaming for help. I think it's because he saw a gun and knew he was about to be shot. Just my opinion though. That was Zimmermans screams as said by witnesses. The only people to say they identified the screams are Zimmerman claiming it was him, and Martin's Father claiming it was his son on the tapes. The witness reports don't really say one way or the other yet. I just stated my opinion that after listening to the call, that it's more plausible to me that the screaming is Martin. Like I said, just an opinion. There are links a few pages back that give witness accounts that say it was zimmerman on the ground. You dont exactly scream for help when your beating someone. You also don't scream for help if you have a gun. The witness reports have been kind of inconsistent, I've seen it be reported both ways so far with both of them on top from different sources. The details of the fight are still unknown, but I personally don't think there was justification for deadly force. If he wanted to use his gun, he could have done a warning shot in the air, or maybe not aim to kill, instead shooting the boy directly in the chest. But as I said, the details are unknown. There's a whole lot of speculation going on in the thread, but we really can't tell what happened yet. Unless, of course, you do not want to use the gun and were only carrying it as a last resort to protect your life. Amazing how you are unwilling to view things from any perspective other than Zimmerman being an inhuman monster who wanted to protect his neighbors because... because he's such an inhuman monster... or something. From reports are inconsistent, details are unknown, details are unknown again, lots of speculation going on in the thread, and we can't tell what happened yet, and from that you conclude that I must automatically despise someone and am not open to any other viewpoints. That's just silly.
he made his account just to say whatever he feels like in this thread. he will just troll people all day.
|
On March 23 2012 10:12 NotSorry wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 10:10 Spicy_Curry wrote:On March 23 2012 10:03 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 23 2012 09:58 ZeromuS wrote:Look guys it boils down for me like this - Zimmer sees some kid he feels is suspicious, - he calls cops and they say to stay away - he grabs his gun and follows the kid - regardless of any fight, the kid is dead and zimmer shot him - the kid didn't have a weapon The moment you call the cops and they say to stay away, you cannot grab a gun, follow and then shoot a person. Grabbing the gun and following them was clearly intent to harm the kid. There is no way to justify grabbing a gun and following someone when the police said to not do anything and then shooting them. I don't care if they fought, this was after Zimmer grabbed his gun and decided to follow the kid after the police told him not to. On March 23 2012 09:58 Anytus wrote:On March 23 2012 09:54 Ballistixz wrote:
ZIMMERMAN SHOULD HAVE NOT FOLLOWED HIM.
Even if everyone agrees with this statement, what is the point of hammering it home again? Just because he should not have followed doesn't make it illegal that he did. Not using your common sense is often times, not a crime. No, but grabbing a gun, following when told not to clearly show mens rea under the law, Zimmer decided at that moment to be a vigilante. No, keeping a gun on you, especially, when you believe that the other person is armed, actually makes complete sense. I dont get it, the police gave him clear orders to stop following the kid. He violated those orders and he faces no repercussions? no they did not, it was a dispatcher and quote, "you don't have to do that sir"
Actually, it was "we don't need you to do that", but you got the gist of it
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
