|
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 10:14 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +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.
is sad how biased you are. trayvon committed no crime and could have easily been acting in self defense like zimmerman could. if zimmerman could get away with murder on the "stand your grounds" law then martin could have just as easily got away with it if all he did was use his fist to defend himself.
someone comes at you pointing a gun that you dont know then of course you will act in self defense.
now please, stop trolling. its obvious you made an account purely to troll this thread.
|
On March 23 2012 10:14 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Zimmerman trying to disperse justice on his own, and not allowing the police to do their job seems to me to be a lot more 'every man for himself mentality.'
It is also very unfortunate that you seem to want to drag a dead child's name through the mud by accusing him of preemptively assaulting Zimmerman, while you have no evidence of knowledge to back this up.
There is just as much chance and evidence to back up the idea that Zimmerman ran up to him (something he admits he did) and pushed him around, and accosted him (he was a much bigger man, knowing the police were on the way, and with a gun, all reasons to have confidence)
|
On March 23 2012 10:17 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 10:16 Fyrewolf wrote: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.
you've said that multiple times, and it is less than productive. maybe he did make this account to post in this thread. however, his first post pointed out evidence (with source) that contradicted what was being presented in the op and by other people in the thread. so far, his contributions have been worth more than most people's in this thread. you may disagree with him, but calling him a troll is just silly.
|
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"
That makes sense. Still, worse case scenario was that the kid tried to beat him up. Does he deserve to get shot for that? This Zimmerman guy sounds like such a tool, getting manhandled by a teenager and then killing him.
|
On March 23 2012 10:21 Spicy_Curry wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 10:12 NotSorry wrote: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" That makes sense. Still, worse case scenario was that the kid tried to beat him up. Does he deserve to get shot for that? This Zimmerman guy sounds like such a tool, getting manhandled by a teenager and then killing him.
the kid didnt deserve to get shot. period. no question about it. end of discussion.
the question is whether zimmerman acted in self defense (i.e., acted with a reasonable fear of great bodily injury).
|
On March 23 2012 10:20 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 10:17 PrinceXizor wrote:On March 23 2012 10:16 Fyrewolf wrote: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:
[quote]
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. you've said that multiple times, and it is less than productive. maybe he did make this account to post in this thread. however, his first post pointed out evidence (with source) that contradicted what was being presented in the op and by other people in the thread. so far, his contributions have been worth more than most people's in this thread. you may disagree with him, but calling him a troll is just silly.
if i bring a textbook from 1860 to an argument about the geography and territory of the united states i would be considered a troll, i see no reason bringing well outdated sources shouldn't be considered the same thing here, especially since he has been directly contradicted by multiple witness interviews.
|
On March 23 2012 10:18 Ballistixz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 10:14 Zaqwe wrote: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. is sad how biased you are. trayvon committed no crime and could have easily been acting in self defense like zimmerman could. if zimmerman could get away with murder on the "stand your grounds" law then martin could have just as easily got away with it if all he did was use his fist to defend himself. someone comes at you pointing a gun that you dont know then of course you will act in self defense. now please, stop trolling. its obvious you made an account purely to troll this thread.
The question of whether Trayvon was acting in self-defense isn't really relevant, is it ? He's dead. Nobody is comtemplating prosecuting him. If he was acting in self-defense, that doesn't preclude Zimmerman from also acting in self-defense. That's the tragedy here. It was basically a situation where two innocent people had an encounter, in which case both parties were innocent, but also did something to contribute to the end, which was a dead teenager who 5 minutes before wanted nothing more than to return home with his Skittles and Iced Tea.
|
On March 23 2012 10:08 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 10:02 Fyrewolf wrote: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.
The son was with the parents, left during the NBA halftime to go to the 7-11 and was on his way back when he was shot. He wasn't with the girl, just on the phone with her. The parents had no idea that he was on the phone with her until they got the cell phone.
As to why the girl didn't come forward sooner, I'm not even going to try to fathom the mind of a 16 year old girl, much less one who was traumatized by talking to her boyfriend less than 5 minutes before he was shot. And my jedi mind powers also seem to be failing at reading her parent's minds, but its unclear how much they knew or were involved.
|
On March 22 2012 09:28 Monsen wrote:
I will never, ever in a million years understand the US when it comes to guns. Mind blown. I have no words.
From a historical perspective, after World War 2 happened Germany went through a "De-natzification". Because, the Nazi's were bad. Everything that Nazi's stood for, the opposite was to become public opinion in Germany(where you are posting from). Such as guns. So do you not like guns as a result of your culture/upbringing or as your own conclusion after considering the merits?
I think, if they don't exist already, laws against vigilante justice should be made. It's like a high templar stalking a zergling and then saying it needed to storm because, you know, some zerglings are real bad and nasty.
|
On March 23 2012 10:21 Spicy_Curry wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 10:12 NotSorry wrote: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" That makes sense. Still, worse case scenario was that the kid tried to beat him up. Does he deserve to get shot for that? This Zimmerman guy sounds like such a tool, getting manhandled by a teenager and then killing him.
whats more is, how did a 140lb teen overpower a 250lb grown man in the first place?
|
On March 23 2012 10:07 Ballistixz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 09:59 Lockitupv2 wrote: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.
I suppose he took the pistol with him just in case he got knocked to the ground and beaten in the head while nobody came to his aid.
|
On March 23 2012 10:08 Wrongspeedy wrote: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 
Looks like I got an outdated version. Here is the most recent one:
Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing
a gross careless disregard for the safety and welfare
of another person or persons.
I am not sure that any reasonable person would agree that approaching a suspicious person who is on drugs is like to lead to the great bodily harm of that suspicious person. Maybe to the person approaching him, but you can't negligently harm yourself.
What I mean is that approaching this person is likely to lead to great bodily harm if and only if the other person responds in an angry and potentially illegal way. Zimmerman's act by itself might not be enough to show negligence. It sort of requires a hostile reaction from Martin. Zimmerman would argue that he didn't show gross disregard for Martin's life by approaching him, Martin showed gross disregard for his own life and Martin's when he attacked him (of course assuming eh will claim that this is what happened).
Honestly though, I am not sure. There is definitely an argument to be had here. It seems like it comes down to who you think acted negligently first. Whoever that person is, they are to blame.
|
On March 23 2012 10:24 Ballistixz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 10:21 Spicy_Curry wrote:On March 23 2012 10:12 NotSorry wrote: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" That makes sense. Still, worse case scenario was that the kid tried to beat him up. Does he deserve to get shot for that? This Zimmerman guy sounds like such a tool, getting manhandled by a teenager and then killing him. whats more is, how did a 140lb teen overpower a 250lb grown man in the first place?
and how did he overpower the 250 lb man and let the man get on top of him, and why did the 250 pound man use lethal force AFTER mounting the teenager. Zimmerman was found straddling the body right after the gunshot. clearly he could have just subdued the kid nonlethally at that point, not even UFC fighters can get out of a situation where they are pinned to the floor by a much heavier person.
|
On March 23 2012 10:23 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 10:18 Ballistixz wrote:On March 23 2012 10:14 Zaqwe wrote: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. is sad how biased you are. trayvon committed no crime and could have easily been acting in self defense like zimmerman could. if zimmerman could get away with murder on the "stand your grounds" law then martin could have just as easily got away with it if all he did was use his fist to defend himself. someone comes at you pointing a gun that you dont know then of course you will act in self defense. now please, stop trolling. its obvious you made an account purely to troll this thread. The question of whether Trayvon was acting in self-defense isn't really relevant, is it ? He's dead. Nobody is comtemplating prosecuting him. If he was acting in self-defense, that doesn't preclude Zimmerman from also acting in self-defense. That's the tragedy here. It was basically a situation where two innocent people had an encounter, in which case both parties were innocent, but also did something to contribute to the end, which was a dead teenager who 5 minutes before wanted nothing more than to return home with his Skittles and Iced Tea.
Both parties were not innocent. Zimmerman went out of his way to stalk, harass, intimidate, and ultimately kill Trayvon.
|
On March 23 2012 10:24 Ballistixz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 10:21 Spicy_Curry wrote:On March 23 2012 10:12 NotSorry wrote: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" That makes sense. Still, worse case scenario was that the kid tried to beat him up. Does he deserve to get shot for that? This Zimmerman guy sounds like such a tool, getting manhandled by a teenager and then killing him. whats more is, how did a 140lb teen overpower a 250lb grown man in the first place?
Thats not really that unbelievable. He was in the prime of his life, a good football player, and probably worked out almost daily. He is also taller (longer reach) and much of Zimmermans weight advantage might not have been muscle.
Its also possible that Tray was straddling Zimmerman when he was shot, then Zimmerman would have pushed him off and then could be straddling him. The autopsy will probably tell a lot.
|
On March 23 2012 10:25 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 10:07 Ballistixz wrote:On March 23 2012 09:59 Lockitupv2 wrote: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. I suppose he took the pistol with him just in case he got knocked to the ground and beaten in the head while nobody came to his aid.
i suppose he got knocked to the ground and beaten in the head because he was chasing a teenager and then pointed a gun at him, and that teenager didnt have anyone come to his aid.
see how this game works?
|
On March 23 2012 10:26 Zealotdriver wrote:
Both parties were not innocent. Zimmerman went out of his way to stalk, harass, intimidate, and ultimately kill Trayvon.
Except that, as I've pointed out numerous times, he did not commit the crimes of stalking or harassment at any time. Zimmerman certainly isn't innocent in that he did shoot the kid. legally though, he might or might not be found not guilty or murder/manslaughter depending on how thigns went down.
|
On March 23 2012 10:25 Anytus wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 10:08 Wrongspeedy wrote: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 Looks like I got an outdated version. Here is the most recent one: Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing a gross careless disregard for the safety and welfare of another person or persons. I am not sure that any reasonable person would agree that approaching a suspicious person who is on drugs is like to lead to the great bodily harm of that suspicious person. Maybe to the person approaching him, but you can't negligently harm yourself. What I mean is that approaching this person is likely to lead to great bodily harm if and only if the other person responds in an angry and potentially illegal way. Zimmerman's act by itself might not be enough to show negligence. It sort of requires a hostile reaction from Martin. Zimmerman would argue that he didn't show gross disregard for Martin's life by approaching him, Martin showed gross disregard for his own life and Martin's when he attacked him (of course assuming eh will claim that this is what happened). Honestly though, I am not sure. There is definitely an argument to be had here. It seems like it comes down to who you think acted negligently first. Whoever that person is, they are to blame.
But thats the thing, you are approaching someone to accuse them of something. Cops know that this is a very delicate subject, even people lash out at cops for doing this. He knew it was a dangerous situation, he wouldn't carry a gun around if he didn't think what he was doing was kind of dangerous.
|
On March 23 2012 10:27 Ballistixz wrote:
i suppose he got knocked to the ground and beaten in the head because he was chasing a teenager and then pointed a gun at him, and that teenager didnt have anyone come to his aid.
see how this game works?
Exactly my point. Someone broke the law first. That person is probably the one who first initiated physical violence. It definitely goes both ways though.
|
On March 23 2012 10:32 Anytus wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 10:27 Ballistixz wrote:
i suppose he got knocked to the ground and beaten in the head because he was chasing a teenager and then pointed a gun at him, and that teenager didnt have anyone come to his aid.
see how this game works? Exactly my point. Someone broke the law first. That person is probably the one who first initiated physical violence. It definitely goes both ways though.
Technically if both of them felt threatened they could both be acting in self defense in which case neither has broken a law. Self defense doesn't mean you have to wait to be attacked first, just feel threatened which is where a lot of gray area comes into the picture
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
