On March 23 2012 13:43 rouzga wrote: You still claim he assaulted him although you also claimed we cannot say who started the fight? So you're still backstabbing your own words?
There's no evidence that Trayvon was attacked before he decided to knock Zimmerman down and deliver repeated blows to his head. None at all.
There is testimony from George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman known and trusted by his neighbors who has said he was attacked. His testimony is consistent with witnesses who saw parts of what happened. What is public of the physical evidence at the scene also corroborates Zimmerman's story.
Until there is some evidence that Trayvon didn't attack first there's no reason to believe it. We can't 100% rule it out, in the same way we can't rule out aliens, but it is very unlikely given what we know so far.
There's also no evidence of 'repeated blows', but hey, you haven't needed evidence this whole time, so I don't know why the fuck I'm even posting.
No, there is witness testimony. Here ya go, Zimmerman was getting his face rearranged.
Rewatching this video I notice it shows the place where the shooting happened. Here is the reporter gesturing to it.
It was on the grass right beside the sidewalk. This contradicts claims some people have made that Zimmerman did not have a right to be where he was when Trayvon attacked him.
Not according to the police report. Says the shooting happened between 1231 Twin Trees Lane and 2821 Retreat View Circle. That is the side/backyard of two adjacent homes. Take a look at the map here so you can get an idea of where it was and what it looked like - HERE
Looking at the view of the neighborhood itself, it would seem very odd for Zimmerman to ever need to leave his vehicle to find out what road he was on, but that is just my opinion.
isnt it a multi-unit housing complex? that just looks like the greenbelt between the homes, which is usually community property.
On March 23 2012 13:35 Mindcrime wrote: because marijuana just screams maturity?
I think when people start dealing drugs you can stop referring to them as a "kid".
Even the fact that people keep calling him a kid is absurd. It's not even accurate. He would be a youth or teen if you want to use age descriptive language.
So he's a drug dealer now? From the images you posted to attack the 17 year old's character, he seems to be a consumer, not a dealer.
I agree heartily. In no way does that facebook conversation imply Trayvon was a dealer. His buddy could simply have been waiting for him so they could go buy it together, which is typically a good idea for safety and trust reasons.
Also discussing drug deals publicly on facebook could have simply been an attempt to look more thuggish for the ladies who might like that type of guy. It doesn't prove shit. I can go post the same thing on any TL member's facebook now, doesn't mean I smoke or deal.
You can try to spin it however you want, but really, it doesn't imply drug dealing in any way? Not any way at all? Even a little?
Maybe you are getting a little bit too dogmatic when you feel the need to claim that those facebook posts don't imply drug dealing in any way.
im sorry, but if he is a drug dealer, he is apparently the dumbest drug dealer on the planet. having the conversation on facebook, which apparently is open to public (unless you got a copy from someone who had access to it), is just stupid. i would bet its just kids (teens, young adults, whatever you want to call them) being dumb and acting like what they are not. the kid doesnt look like a gangster and he doesnt appear to be a drug dealer. i see what looks like a gold tooth, but no grill (maybe its just my resolution, i dont know).
if you took random quotes from my facebook page, im sure you could accuse me of all kinds of morally bankrupt things. it is facebook, people say stupid shit.
It still doesn't change anything. Really, NOTHING. Stop arguing if he was buying plants, weed or an orangetree. The story is still the same.
On March 23 2012 14:00 Kaitlin wrote: Roselyn Zarate i remember seeing youh in the hallways , smh youh were never in class . . . Your hugs were the best . When youh told me youh was leaving krop i got sad , but i always thought i was gonna see youh again . Now this happens . . Rest In Peace Trayvon Slimm Martin . You'll be missed so much , i wont forget you♥ February 27 at 7:56pm near Miami, FL ·
Michael Suave French Bra were dem fat bitches at! January 6 at 10:33pm ·
Trayvon Slimm Martin LOL U GOTT EM ALL NIGGA! January 6 at 10:34pm
Michael Suave French naw i heard u was da nigga dats why i asked u January 6 at 10:37pm
Trayvon Slimm Martin SO I AINT SEE U WIT 3 FAT HOES @ KFC AFTA SKOOL BRU?? January 6 at 10:41pm
Michael Suave French oh shit damn u saw me fuk i was tryna hurry an leave but dey started fightin ova da las wing January 6 at 10:43pm
Trayvon Slimm Martin LOL NAW I SEEN EM SHARIN 1 DOUBLE DOWN January 6 at 10:46pm
Michael Suave French lol oh aight January 6 at 10:46pm
I'm not sure I understand all of this, but if he was skipping classes, my first guess would be spelling class.
I've never had an IM chat where I didn't sound like an intoxicated retard.
Oh wow, this thread just took a dive off a cliff. Now people are claiming an eyewitness describing one man on top of another beating him up could somehow be describing a single punch.
This zealotry has really gone off the deep end. There's no way a reasonable person could think that testimony is describing someone being pinned down and struck one single time.
Take a step back and look at yourselves for a moment. Really. This has gone too far.
On March 23 2012 13:43 rouzga wrote: You still claim he assaulted him although you also claimed we cannot say who started the fight? So you're still backstabbing your own words?
There's no evidence that Trayvon was attacked before he decided to knock Zimmerman down and deliver repeated blows to his head. None at all.
There is testimony from George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman known and trusted by his neighbors who has said he was attacked. His testimony is consistent with witnesses who saw parts of what happened. What is public of the physical evidence at the scene also corroborates Zimmerman's story.
Until there is some evidence that Trayvon didn't attack first there's no reason to believe it. We can't 100% rule it out, in the same way we can't rule out aliens, but it is very unlikely given what we know so far.
There's also no evidence of 'repeated blows', but hey, you haven't needed evidence this whole time, so I don't know why the fuck I'm even posting.
No, there is witness testimony. Here ya go, Zimmerman was getting his face rearranged. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEDBqvEauYU Rewatching this video I notice it shows the place where the shooting happened. Here is the reporter gesturing to it.
It was on the grass right beside the sidewalk. This contradicts claims some people have made that Zimmerman did not have a right to be where he was when Trayvon attacked him.
Not according to the police report. Says the shooting happened between 1231 Twin Trees Lane and 2821 Retreat View Circle. That is the side/backyard of two adjacent homes. Take a look at the map here so you can get an idea of where it was and what it looked like - HERE
Looking at the view of the neighborhood itself, it would seem very odd for Zimmerman to ever need to leave his vehicle to find out what road he was on, but that is just my opinion.
isnt it a multi-unit housing complex? that just looks like the greenbelt between the homes, which is usually community property.
I have no idea exactly how the property is laid out. I am in no position to dispute if it was common area or not. The fact that police report it as between the two homes shows that it is not directly next to the sidewalk. That was all I was pointing out.
On March 23 2012 13:35 Mindcrime wrote: because marijuana just screams maturity?
I think when people start dealing drugs you can stop referring to them as a "kid".
Even the fact that people keep calling him a kid is absurd. It's not even accurate. He would be a youth or teen if you want to use age descriptive language.
So he's a drug dealer now? From the images you posted to attack the 17 year old's character, he seems to be a consumer, not a dealer.
I agree heartily. In no way does that facebook conversation imply Trayvon was a dealer. His buddy could simply have been waiting for him so they could go buy it together, which is typically a good idea for safety and trust reasons.
Also discussing drug deals publicly on facebook could have simply been an attempt to look more thuggish for the ladies who might like that type of guy. It doesn't prove shit. I can go post the same thing on any TL member's facebook now, doesn't mean I smoke or deal.
You can try to spin it however you want, but really, it doesn't imply drug dealing in any way? Not any way at all? Even a little?
Maybe you are getting a little bit too dogmatic when you feel the need to claim that those facebook posts don't imply drug dealing in any way.
im sorry, but if he is a drug dealer, he is apparently the dumbest drug dealer on the planet. having the conversation on facebook, which apparently is open to public (unless you got a copy from someone who had access to it), is just stupid. i would bet its just kids (teens, young adults, whatever you want to call them) being dumb and acting like what they are not. the kid doesnt look like a gangster and he doesnt appear to be a drug dealer. i see what looks like a gold tooth, but no grill (maybe its just my resolution, i dont know).
if you took random quotes from my facebook page, im sure you could accuse me of all kinds of morally bankrupt things. it is facebook, people say stupid shit.
It still doesn't change anything. Really, NOTHING. Stop arguing if he was buying plants, weed or an orangetree. The story is still the same.
it is highly relevant if the victim's "gangsterness" and "drug dealing" was known to the guy. but i doubt that is the case.
Reputation of victim. If you find that (victim) had a reputation of being a violent and dangerous person and that [his] [her] reputation was known to the defendant, you may consider this fact in determining whether the actions of the defendant were those of a reasonable person in dealing with an individual of that reputation.
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.
But, he should not have been reckless and rationalized before following him. You killed somebody and that is because you were being too reckless. You do not act like a vigilante and expect that law would still side with you. The law does not encourage vigilantism
On March 22 2012 14:14 Tektos wrote: Oh without a doubt I'm sure it has good intentions, it is just the positive effects I'm struggling to see.
The positive effects are very important. Without this kind of law, it is up to a jury to decide when to allow you to shoot someone who has broken into your home. If you have to run past the intruder to get out, some juries might say "well, you could have gotten out so it isn't self-defense" and others might say "well, you would have been in danger if you tried to run, so you were acting in self-defense even though you maybe could have run." Without this kind of legislation, it leaves self-defense in a very bad place where no one is really sure if they are acting in self-defense or not.
On March 23 2012 14:27 Zaqwe wrote: Oh wow, this thread just took a dive off a cliff. Now people are claiming an eyewitness describing one man on top of another beating him up could somehow be describing a single punch.
This zealotry has really gone off the deep end. There's no way a reasonable person could think that testimony is describing someone being pinned down and struck one single time.
Take a step back and look at yourselves for a moment. Really. This has gone too far.
How pathetic.
Your zealotry has really gone off the deep end. There's no way a reasonable person could think that you're not a troll.
Take a step back and look at yourself for a moment. Really. You have gone too far.
On March 23 2012 14:27 Zaqwe wrote: Oh wow, this thread just took a dive off a cliff. Now people are claiming an eyewitness describing one man on top of another beating him up could somehow be describing a single punch.
This zealotry has really gone off the deep end. There's no way a reasonable person could think that testimony is describing someone being pinned down and struck one single time.
Take a step back and look at yourselves for a moment. Really. This has gone too far.
You are amazing. Once the video is pointed out to be hearsay and idioms, you go ad hominem.
On March 23 2012 13:43 rouzga wrote: You still claim he assaulted him although you also claimed we cannot say who started the fight? So you're still backstabbing your own words?
There's no evidence that Trayvon was attacked before he decided to knock Zimmerman down and deliver repeated blows to his head. None at all.
There is testimony from George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman known and trusted by his neighbors who has said he was attacked. His testimony is consistent with witnesses who saw parts of what happened. What is public of the physical evidence at the scene also corroborates Zimmerman's story.
Until there is some evidence that Trayvon didn't attack first there's no reason to believe it. We can't 100% rule it out, in the same way we can't rule out aliens, but it is very unlikely given what we know so far.
There's also no evidence of 'repeated blows', but hey, you haven't needed evidence this whole time, so I don't know why the fuck I'm even posting.
No, there is witness testimony. Here ya go, Zimmerman was getting his face rearranged. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEDBqvEauYU Rewatching this video I notice it shows the place where the shooting happened. Here is the reporter gesturing to it.
It was on the grass right beside the sidewalk. This contradicts claims some people have made that Zimmerman did not have a right to be where he was when Trayvon attacked him.
Not according to the police report. Says the shooting happened between 1231 Twin Trees Lane and 2821 Retreat View Circle. That is the side/backyard of two adjacent homes. Take a look at the map here so you can get an idea of where it was and what it looked like - HERE
Looking at the view of the neighborhood itself, it would seem very odd for Zimmerman to ever need to leave his vehicle to find out what road he was on, but that is just my opinion.
isnt it a multi-unit housing complex? that just looks like the greenbelt between the homes, which is usually community property.
I have no idea exactly how the property is laid out. I am in no position to dispute if it was common area or not. The fact that police report it as between the two homes shows that it is not directly next to the sidewalk. That was all I was pointing out.
Maybe sidewalk was the wrong term, I should have called it a "walkway". The point is he had every right to be walking there.
Some people earlier had tried to claim that Zimmerman was on Trayvon's private property and that gave Trayvon the right to attack first.
I noticed that the video shows it is clearly a public walkway and so I pointed it out, though it was a bit late.
On March 23 2012 14:27 Zaqwe wrote: Oh wow, this thread just took a dive off a cliff. Now people are claiming an eyewitness describing one man on top of another beating him up could somehow be describing a single punch.
This zealotry has really gone off the deep end. There's no way a reasonable person could think that testimony is describing someone being pinned down and struck one single time.
Take a step back and look at yourselves for a moment. Really. This has gone too far.
You are amazing. Once the video is pointed out to be hearsay and idioms, you go ad hominem.
The video is an eyewitness giving his firsthand account. That is not hearsay.
And the word "beat", or "beating" in English means multiple strikes. You can't, by definition, beat someone or something with a single strike.
I was going to comment on how I understand teamliquid is an international site and English is not everyone's first language but your location says you are American?
On March 23 2012 14:27 Zaqwe wrote: Oh wow, this thread just took a dive off a cliff. Now people are claiming an eyewitness describing one man on top of another beating him up could somehow be describing a single punch.
This zealotry has really gone off the deep end. There's no way a reasonable person could think that testimony is describing someone being pinned down and struck one single time.
Take a step back and look at yourselves for a moment. Really. This has gone too far.
You are amazing. Once the video is pointed out to be hearsay and idioms, you go ad hominem.
The video is an eyewitness giving his firsthand account. That is not hearsay.
And the word "beat", or "beating" in English means multiple strikes. You can't, by definition, beat someone or something with a single strike.
I was going to comment on how I understand teamliquid is an international site and English is not everyone's first language but your location says you are American?
More ad hominem! I should make this a drinking game.
On March 23 2012 13:35 Mindcrime wrote: because marijuana just screams maturity?
I think when people start dealing drugs you can stop referring to them as a "kid".
Even the fact that people keep calling him a kid is absurd. It's not even accurate. He would be a youth or teen if you want to use age descriptive language.
So he's a drug dealer now? From the images you posted to attack the 17 year old's character, he seems to be a consumer, not a dealer.
I agree heartily. In no way does that facebook conversation imply Trayvon was a dealer. His buddy could simply have been waiting for him so they could go buy it together, which is typically a good idea for safety and trust reasons.
Also discussing drug deals publicly on facebook could have simply been an attempt to look more thuggish for the ladies who might like that type of guy. It doesn't prove shit. I can go post the same thing on any TL member's facebook now, doesn't mean I smoke or deal.
You can try to spin it however you want, but really, it doesn't imply drug dealing in any way? Not any way at all? Even a little?
Maybe you are getting a little bit too dogmatic when you feel the need to claim that those facebook posts don't imply drug dealing in any way.
im sorry, but if he is a drug dealer, he is apparently the dumbest drug dealer on the planet. having the conversation on facebook, which apparently is open to public (unless you got a copy from someone who had access to it), is just stupid. i would bet its just kids (teens, young adults, whatever you want to call them) being dumb and acting like what they are not. the kid doesnt look like a gangster and he doesnt appear to be a drug dealer. i see what looks like a gold tooth, but no grill (maybe its just my resolution, i dont know).
if you took random quotes from my facebook page, im sure you could accuse me of all kinds of morally bankrupt things. it is facebook, people say stupid shit.
It still doesn't change anything. Really, NOTHING. Stop arguing if he was buying plants, weed or an orangetree. The story is still the same.
it is highly relevant if the victim's "gangsterness" and "drug dealing" was known to the guy. but i doubt that is the case.
Reputation of victim. If you find that (victim) had a reputation of being a violent and dangerous person and that [his] [her] reputation was known to the defendant, you may consider this fact in determining whether the actions of the defendant were those of a reasonable person in dealing with an individual of that reputation.
I could post pictures of "Enrique" (Zaqwe) as some tattoed gangster and let it look like he's some hardcore bully, hispanic and selfproclaimed defender of rights and you'd still read his posts the same way you do now. Because you can't be sure that's how he really is. And that's how the internet and prejudices work.
On March 22 2012 13:15 Tektos wrote: How does something like the Stand your Ground law pass in a single state let alone 20+?
That is the most stupid shit I've ever heard in my life! He clearly pursued the kid (against the advice of the police over the phone) and is now claiming self defense... what has this world come to.
Poor kid, I sincerely hope justice gets served.
It has good intentions and positive effects, outside of this, it just needs better tuning. The Florida version is very vague others arent.
Oh without a doubt I'm sure it has good intentions, it is just the positive effects I'm struggling to see.
How about being able to defend your own life without having to worry about going to prison.
If he followed the guy AFTER police dispatch told him not to, he clearly is not protected by SYG. Even the laws' own creator stated this in an interview.
There has been a rise in "justifiable homicides" as a result of SYG but please point me to a single case of where someone was prosecuted for defending themselves in a public place before SYG was introduced. So you're confusing INTENT with EFFECT. You agree that the intent is good but have provided zero evidence that the effect has been positive.
On March 23 2012 13:35 Mindcrime wrote: because marijuana just screams maturity?
I think when people start dealing drugs you can stop referring to them as a "kid".
Even the fact that people keep calling him a kid is absurd. It's not even accurate. He would be a youth or teen if you want to use age descriptive language.
So he's a drug dealer now? From the images you posted to attack the 17 year old's character, he seems to be a consumer, not a dealer.
I agree heartily. In no way does that facebook conversation imply Trayvon was a dealer. His buddy could simply have been waiting for him so they could go buy it together, which is typically a good idea for safety and trust reasons.
Also discussing drug deals publicly on facebook could have simply been an attempt to look more thuggish for the ladies who might like that type of guy. It doesn't prove shit. I can go post the same thing on any TL member's facebook now, doesn't mean I smoke or deal.
You can try to spin it however you want, but really, it doesn't imply drug dealing in any way? Not any way at all? Even a little?
Maybe you are getting a little bit too dogmatic when you feel the need to claim that those facebook posts don't imply drug dealing in any way.
im sorry, but if he is a drug dealer, he is apparently the dumbest drug dealer on the planet. having the conversation on facebook, which apparently is open to public (unless you got a copy from someone who had access to it), is just stupid. i would bet its just kids (teens, young adults, whatever you want to call them) being dumb and acting like what they are not. the kid doesnt look like a gangster and he doesnt appear to be a drug dealer. i see what looks like a gold tooth, but no grill (maybe its just my resolution, i dont know).
if you took random quotes from my facebook page, im sure you could accuse me of all kinds of morally bankrupt things. it is facebook, people say stupid shit.
It still doesn't change anything. Really, NOTHING. Stop arguing if he was buying plants, weed or an orangetree. The story is still the same.
it is highly relevant if the victim's "gangsterness" and "drug dealing" was known to the guy. but i doubt that is the case.
Reputation of victim. If you find that (victim) had a reputation of being a violent and dangerous person and that [his] [her] reputation was known to the defendant, you may consider this fact in determining whether the actions of the defendant were those of a reasonable person in dealing with an individual of that reputation.
I could post pictures of "Enrique" (Zaqwe) as some tattoed gangster and let it look like he's some hardcore bully, hispanic and selfproclaimed defender of rights and you'd still read his posts the same way you do now. Because you can't be sure that's how he really is. And that's how the internet and prejudices work.
And those pictures exist. But it would be complete inappropriate and out of context to do something like this. Something like he has done himself.
On March 23 2012 16:01 DannyJ wrote: ... are you insane?
Are you suggesting that one of the two photos has not been lightened? How or why do you think that happened?
It would be an especially strange coincidence considering so many media outlets are calling Zimmerman "white" instead of accurately describing him as a mixed race Hispanic.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AElCz.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Frtcj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tTl8T.jpg)
