|
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 24 2012 17:51 NIJ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 17:47 Defacer wrote:On March 24 2012 17:07 Mallard86 wrote:
As more information is released, it is becoming clear that this story is at the very least shoddy and sensationalist journalism and at the worst media spin and an unscrupulous attempt to use this tragic event to attack gun rights. When this story broke, the event was described and/or implied as the cold blooded racially motivated murder of a defenseless black child by a paranoid gun toting nut and that the racist police were going to let him slide despite clear evidence of the crime committed. As the facts come in, it is clear that nearly every part of that is not accurate.
Well, Zimmerman was racially motivated. He, at the bare minimum, was obsessed with young black men. The real controversy is the Stand your Ground law, and the precedence this ambiguous situation sets. Surely it wasn't intended to encourage citizens to pursue vigilante justice. The irony of the law is that it's meant for the black kid. If Zimmerman is innocent, you can counter stand your ground when someone stands their ground. woot for anyone who wants to legally kill people.
Exactly. If a guy was following me in his car, and I tried to run, but then he pursued me ... I don't know. I'd be pretty freaked out.
Then, If I found out the guy had a gun I would definitely feel my life was in danger. The guy could be the neighborhood homicidal rapist for all I know.
|
|
|
On March 24 2012 17:47 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 17:07 Mallard86 wrote:
As more information is released, it is becoming clear that this story is at the very least shoddy and sensationalist journalism and at the worst media spin and an unscrupulous attempt to use this tragic event to attack gun rights. When this story broke, the event was described and/or implied as the cold blooded racially motivated murder of a defenseless black child by a paranoid gun toting nut and that the racist police were going to let him slide despite clear evidence of the crime committed. As the facts come in, it is clear that nearly every part of that is not accurate.
Well, Zimmerman was racially motivated. He, at the bare minimum, was obsessed with young black men. The real controversy is the Stand your Ground law, and the precedence this ambiguous situation sets. Surely it wasn't intended to encourage citizens to pursue vigilante justice.
Actually the information currently available indicates that the stand your ground law has absolutely nothing to do with this incident.
|
Just lay on the ground and let someone sit above you and now imagine "if you have the time and power to pull out a gun of a holster, tip it to the chest of the one above you, was there really NO other way to defend yourself?"
Like using your arms to protect you face instead? And would someone beating the crap out of you, like zaqwe tries to make it look, really give you the time to pull out that gun?
Try it with a friend, NO chance for me to get to a gun and lifting it up to the CHEST, not the belly or stuff, without getting it slapped out of my hands. Guns are heavy, hands without a gun are way faster.
|
On March 24 2012 16:55 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 16:47 JeanLuc wrote:On March 24 2012 16:32 dogabutila wrote:
So many people have no idea of what actually happened other then "some guy left a car and shot a kid!" actually there is a lot more established information that is really relevant. some guy was 250 pounds. some kid was 140 . a 110 pound difference. which makes it utterly LAUGHABLE that some vicious idiots on this forum are suggesting that its quite possible that Zimmerman was being attacked such that he felt his life was in danger. "some guy" was armed. some kid was not. was the kid following the guy? no. an armed man with 110 pound advantage, ~8 years ahead in maturity stalks kid against the suggestions of police dispatcher and ends up shooting kid who was on his way to buy some snacks. if that doesn't make you upset/suspicious/incredulous you are missing a piece of your humanity. BTW all this completely apart from race. how do you explain the witness who saw the kid on top of zimmerman punching him in the face?
There's many ways a witness report can be wrong, it can be dark, they can misunderstand the situation and so on. I'm not saying the witness is right or wrong but it's pretty silly to take one witness report for truth and dismiss facts contradicting it.
If you look at research regarding witness reliability you'd be much less inclined to believe what people say they saw in situations like this. Which basically mean you want all the pieces to fit the puzzle so to speak for one to be able to say actually happen.
|
On March 24 2012 21:36 gruff wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 16:55 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 24 2012 16:47 JeanLuc wrote:On March 24 2012 16:32 dogabutila wrote:
So many people have no idea of what actually happened other then "some guy left a car and shot a kid!" actually there is a lot more established information that is really relevant. some guy was 250 pounds. some kid was 140 . a 110 pound difference. which makes it utterly LAUGHABLE that some vicious idiots on this forum are suggesting that its quite possible that Zimmerman was being attacked such that he felt his life was in danger. "some guy" was armed. some kid was not. was the kid following the guy? no. an armed man with 110 pound advantage, ~8 years ahead in maturity stalks kid against the suggestions of police dispatcher and ends up shooting kid who was on his way to buy some snacks. if that doesn't make you upset/suspicious/incredulous you are missing a piece of your humanity. BTW all this completely apart from race. how do you explain the witness who saw the kid on top of zimmerman punching him in the face? There's many ways a witness report can be wrong, it can be dark, they can misunderstand the situation and so on. I'm not saying the witness is right or wrong but it's pretty silly to take one witness report for truth and dismiss facts contradicting it. If you look at research regarding witness reliability you'd be much less inclined to believe what people say they saw in situations like this. Which basically mean you want all the pieces to fit the puzzle so to speak for one to be able to say actually happen.
but the facts don't contradict it, they support it. The police say Zimmerman had grass stains on his back and was bleeding from the back of his head and his nose. That + witness testimony is pretty strong evidence of Zimmerman being on his back and getting hit. It's at least greater than the evidence that says Zimmerman was never on his back.
|
Well. That Zimmerman fellow does seem rather dubious.
Still, I can't help to think that, was the victim some random whit kid, there would not be this thread nor the petition (with over 1 million votes).
For the same reason, I can't bring myself to actually feel bad for this kids death.
That's what you get for over-using the r - word. :/
|
On March 24 2012 18:05 Mallard86 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 17:47 Defacer wrote:On March 24 2012 17:07 Mallard86 wrote:
As more information is released, it is becoming clear that this story is at the very least shoddy and sensationalist journalism and at the worst media spin and an unscrupulous attempt to use this tragic event to attack gun rights. When this story broke, the event was described and/or implied as the cold blooded racially motivated murder of a defenseless black child by a paranoid gun toting nut and that the racist police were going to let him slide despite clear evidence of the crime committed. As the facts come in, it is clear that nearly every part of that is not accurate.
Well, Zimmerman was racially motivated. He, at the bare minimum, was obsessed with young black men. The real controversy is the Stand your Ground law, and the precedence this ambiguous situation sets. Surely it wasn't intended to encourage citizens to pursue vigilante justice. Actually the information currently available indicates that the stand your ground law has absolutely nothing to do with this incident.
Well, I disagree. I am not sure Zimmerman would have acted the way he did, if it was not for the notion and actual possibility of this law applying to his bat shit crazy behaviour in the first place.
|
On March 24 2012 17:08 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 17:07 Mallard86 wrote:
As more information is released, it is becoming clear that this story is at the very least shoddy and sensationalist journalism and at the worst media spin and an unscrupulous attempt to use this tragic event to attack gun rights. When this story broke, the event was described and/or implied as the cold blooded racially motivated murder of a defenseless black child by a paranoid gun toting nut and that the racist police were going to let him slide despite clear evidence of the crime committed. As the facts come in, it is clear that nearly every part of that is not accurate.
dont forget the media called him white at the beginning. now some call him Hispanic, and other call him white Hispanic. he is half white, half peruvian.
It also doesn't help that his name is germanic, it's easy to just look at his name and the picture and assume he is white. It isn't something that is plainly obvious from his appearence, some journalists may just have assumed he was white at the beginning before they looked at the parents. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they printed some stories calling him white before they found out, and began calling him hispanic/mixed in follow up stories after they found out.
|
On March 24 2012 07:12 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 07:12 Tryndamere wrote:On March 24 2012 07:02 cz wrote:On March 24 2012 07:00 Chessz wrote:
I just think, listening to the 911 calls, Zimmerman is a paranoid mentally ill person or too caught up in his implicit bias about black youth (and likely makes racist conclusions). I think it's fucked up to somehow Trayvon as the aggressor no matter what altercation went down, seeing as Zimmerman left his car, engaged in active pursuit and aggravated the situation. Especially when the dispatcher advised him against that.* If any party was acting in self defense, it would be Trayvon. If Trayvon had a gun and shot Zimmerman, then yes Florida's self-defense law would be applicable here but I can't not imagine how this isn't murder of 2nd degree. Not to mention, Zimmerman's original story to the police was lie.
However, I think mostly what angers people is the lack of due process and general fuck up of the police. I think they were aware of the potential shitstorm of a story like this but it's a shame to hear of them coercing witnesses.
* ps. someone earlier pointed out the distinction between "we don't need you to do that" and a more direct command "don't do that," and how the wording makes a "big difference" or whatever. That's pretty much horse shit. The dispatcher phrased it that way to be more colloquial and less confrontational, and couldn't foresee the actions that were about to occur, and certainly didn't know Zimmerman was carrying a weapon (in that case, I think she would've been more direct, sensing the danger). It takes a particularly irrational person to disobey when somebody expresses volition like that. How many people do you know, upon hearing "we don't need you do to that" with such a tone, don't listen or respond? To the racism thing, there isn't any evidence of that except for the disputed "coon" slur. It's important to note that he called the police and reported the guy as suspicious BEFORE he realized what the guys race was. Why is it even disputed? Coon IS a racial slur, same as nigger. Except nigger is used much more often. He shouldn't have chased him down and then shot him for no reason. You can't claim self defense if you are the aggressor. Whoa, calm down. The disputed part is whether the word said was coon, not whether that word is racist. The rest of your post is worthless guessing - glad to know you know exactly what went down. Maybe you should call the police and let them know.
Have you even listened to the tape? Your argument to this racial slur discussion is WORTHLESS. Don't act like you know everything because you spam this thread with your "opinions" all the time.
Zimmerman clearly said "fucking coons" if you have listened to the tape. There is no dispute, ask anybody on the street and have them tell you what they hear.
|
On March 24 2012 11:49 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 11:47 Sermokala wrote:On March 24 2012 11:02 taintmachine wrote:On March 24 2012 07:37 cz wrote:
Why ban zaqwe? The post that got him the ban was fine, certainly no worse than average for the past 5 pages I've been posting here for. It's also well within the context of the discussion, not at all derailing the discussion.
Really bad ban from someone who I think has a different view on the discussion at hand. if TL is banning people for making statements not backed by facts, then i should start reporting people about 70 pages back. i mean, someone did kind of set the tone for the thread if we look at the first post after the op He was banned because he had 100 of his 107 posts in this thread and he was presenting media speculation and the witness testimony on his side as fact instead of possible evidence. like many other people in this thread? i am pretty sure that is not the reason for the ban. its much much more complicated than that. regardless, this isnt the place to discuss it. automated ban list thread. Zaqwe was just temp banned for 2 days by HawaiianPig. That account was created on 2012-03-23 04:03:14 and had 109 posts. Reason: Your unfounded opinions are causing an unnecessary amount of unrest in the Trayvon Martin thread. Take a break. edit: well, i had hoped that it wasnt just based on the fact that he was citing the same article over and over, but im not really sure. see guy above who quoted the ban reason in the actual thread. mine is from the ban list.
The only facts are what you can get off the 911 tape, the rest are all speculations. We cannot totally believe the witness statements because they have gone to court yet.
|
On March 24 2012 23:27 Tryndamere wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 07:12 cz wrote:On March 24 2012 07:12 Tryndamere wrote:On March 24 2012 07:02 cz wrote:On March 24 2012 07:00 Chessz wrote:
I just think, listening to the 911 calls, Zimmerman is a paranoid mentally ill person or too caught up in his implicit bias about black youth (and likely makes racist conclusions). I think it's fucked up to somehow Trayvon as the aggressor no matter what altercation went down, seeing as Zimmerman left his car, engaged in active pursuit and aggravated the situation. Especially when the dispatcher advised him against that.* If any party was acting in self defense, it would be Trayvon. If Trayvon had a gun and shot Zimmerman, then yes Florida's self-defense law would be applicable here but I can't not imagine how this isn't murder of 2nd degree. Not to mention, Zimmerman's original story to the police was lie.
However, I think mostly what angers people is the lack of due process and general fuck up of the police. I think they were aware of the potential shitstorm of a story like this but it's a shame to hear of them coercing witnesses.
* ps. someone earlier pointed out the distinction between "we don't need you to do that" and a more direct command "don't do that," and how the wording makes a "big difference" or whatever. That's pretty much horse shit. The dispatcher phrased it that way to be more colloquial and less confrontational, and couldn't foresee the actions that were about to occur, and certainly didn't know Zimmerman was carrying a weapon (in that case, I think she would've been more direct, sensing the danger). It takes a particularly irrational person to disobey when somebody expresses volition like that. How many people do you know, upon hearing "we don't need you do to that" with such a tone, don't listen or respond? To the racism thing, there isn't any evidence of that except for the disputed "coon" slur. It's important to note that he called the police and reported the guy as suspicious BEFORE he realized what the guys race was. Why is it even disputed? Coon IS a racial slur, same as nigger. Except nigger is used much more often. He shouldn't have chased him down and then shot him for no reason. You can't claim self defense if you are the aggressor. Whoa, calm down. The disputed part is whether the word said was coon, not whether that word is racist. The rest of your post is worthless guessing - glad to know you know exactly what went down. Maybe you should call the police and let them know. Have you even listened to the tape? Your argument to this racial slur discussion is WORTHLESS. Don't act like you know everything because you spam this thread with your "opinions" all the time. Zimmerman clearly said "fucking coons" if you have listened to the tape. There is no dispute, ask anybody on the street and have them tell you what they hear.
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/state-attorney-case-will-be-given-grand-jury-shoot/nLX9c/
WFTV had an audio expert listen to the call, and determined that the word said was "punks."
|
On March 24 2012 21:21 rouzga wrote:
Just lay on the ground and let someone sit above you and now imagine "if you have the time and power to pull out a gun of a holster, tip it to the chest of the one above you, was there really NO other way to defend yourself?"
Like using your arms to protect you face instead? And would someone beating the crap out of you, like zaqwe tries to make it look, really give you the time to pull out that gun?
Try it with a friend, NO chance for me to get to a gun and lifting it up to the CHEST, not the belly or stuff, without getting it slapped out of my hands. Guns are heavy, hands without a gun are way faster.
Concealed carry laws mandate that you must keep the gun hidden. The typical setup used for carrying persons is a small holster that clips onto your belt or pants and sits in between your pants and your pelvic region. The typical carrying weapon is small pistol like a .38 revolver. These guns are quite small and quite light. The holster is not like a duty holster a police officer would carry. It usually doesnt have a snap and is more like a pouch for carrying the gun. They are designed to be light and allow easy withdrawal of the gun.
Retrieving and discharging the gun would not be difficult and in the dark it is quite possible that an assailant would not even see you doing it.
Well, I disagree. I am not sure Zimmerman would have acted the way he did, if it was not for the notion and actual possibility of this law applying to his bat shit crazy behaviour in the first place.
Zimmerman probably did not initiate the encounter expecting it to deteriorate into violence. I would be extremely surprised if he approached the situation thinking of the law. Even if the law did not exist, he would still be covered by standard self defense laws because, according to witnesses and evidence, he was being attacked by Martin. That is why the law doesnt even apply here.
|
On March 24 2012 23:39 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 23:27 Tryndamere wrote:On March 24 2012 07:12 cz wrote:On March 24 2012 07:12 Tryndamere wrote:On March 24 2012 07:02 cz wrote:On March 24 2012 07:00 Chessz wrote:
I just think, listening to the 911 calls, Zimmerman is a paranoid mentally ill person or too caught up in his implicit bias about black youth (and likely makes racist conclusions). I think it's fucked up to somehow Trayvon as the aggressor no matter what altercation went down, seeing as Zimmerman left his car, engaged in active pursuit and aggravated the situation. Especially when the dispatcher advised him against that.* If any party was acting in self defense, it would be Trayvon. If Trayvon had a gun and shot Zimmerman, then yes Florida's self-defense law would be applicable here but I can't not imagine how this isn't murder of 2nd degree. Not to mention, Zimmerman's original story to the police was lie.
However, I think mostly what angers people is the lack of due process and general fuck up of the police. I think they were aware of the potential shitstorm of a story like this but it's a shame to hear of them coercing witnesses.
* ps. someone earlier pointed out the distinction between "we don't need you to do that" and a more direct command "don't do that," and how the wording makes a "big difference" or whatever. That's pretty much horse shit. The dispatcher phrased it that way to be more colloquial and less confrontational, and couldn't foresee the actions that were about to occur, and certainly didn't know Zimmerman was carrying a weapon (in that case, I think she would've been more direct, sensing the danger). It takes a particularly irrational person to disobey when somebody expresses volition like that. How many people do you know, upon hearing "we don't need you do to that" with such a tone, don't listen or respond? To the racism thing, there isn't any evidence of that except for the disputed "coon" slur. It's important to note that he called the police and reported the guy as suspicious BEFORE he realized what the guys race was. Why is it even disputed? Coon IS a racial slur, same as nigger. Except nigger is used much more often. He shouldn't have chased him down and then shot him for no reason. You can't claim self defense if you are the aggressor. Whoa, calm down. The disputed part is whether the word said was coon, not whether that word is racist. The rest of your post is worthless guessing - glad to know you know exactly what went down. Maybe you should call the police and let them know. Have you even listened to the tape? Your argument to this racial slur discussion is WORTHLESS. Don't act like you know everything because you spam this thread with your "opinions" all the time. Zimmerman clearly said "fucking coons" if you have listened to the tape. There is no dispute, ask anybody on the street and have them tell you what they hear. http://www.wftv.com/news/news/state-attorney-case-will-be-given-grand-jury-shoot/nLX9c/Show nested quote +WFTV had an audio expert listen to the call, and determined that the word said was "punks."
The other audio expert from CNN said it was very difficult to pinpoint the exact word used, and the video of his analysis on it sounded nothing like "punks" to me. I unmistakeably hear a hard c sound in it, which sounds nothing like a p, so please excuse me for being skeptical about this claim.
|
The police told him not to follow Trayvon. Zimmerman didn't just lay low and leave. So why the hell would some kid buying some candy and iced tea purposely go out of his way to beat up some random man he has never met before for NO REASON? WHAT? If Zimmerman called 911, followed instructions to NOT pursue Zimmerman, and just went home none of this would have happened. This further begs the question, why was there any contact between Zimmerman and Trayvon to begin with? My guess, Zimmerman confronted Trayvon first out of "suspicion".
Also, why didn't the police detain Zimmerman immediately that afternoon when they found Trayvon shot dead? Why did they let Zimmerman go home, stay home, and just leave him be? If you were caught fleeing the scene of a crime regardless of circumstance, you would be brought in for questioning. Why the hell did that not happen simply because he said "I stood my ground". He's admitting to the fact that he shot dead a 17-year old boy and simply because he said it was out of self-defense that's good enough? This doesn't add up.
|
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012
So according to the witness Martin did in fact attack Zimmerman.
This being after Zimmerman refused to stop following him and probably provoked the attack.
What a clusterfuck all around.
He's admitting to the fact that he shot dead a 17-year old boy and simply because he said it was out of self-defense that's good enough? This doesn't add up.
According to police Zimmerman was bloodied and had injuries, presumably from Martin.
|
On March 24 2012 23:57 Mallard86 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 21:21 rouzga wrote:
Just lay on the ground and let someone sit above you and now imagine "if you have the time and power to pull out a gun of a holster, tip it to the chest of the one above you, was there really NO other way to defend yourself?"
Like using your arms to protect you face instead? And would someone beating the crap out of you, like zaqwe tries to make it look, really give you the time to pull out that gun?
Try it with a friend, NO chance for me to get to a gun and lifting it up to the CHEST, not the belly or stuff, without getting it slapped out of my hands. Guns are heavy, hands without a gun are way faster. Concealed carry laws mandate that you must keep the gun hidden. The typical setup used for carrying persons is a small holster that clips onto your belt or pants and sits in between your pants and your pelvic region. The typical carrying weapon is small pistol like a .38 revolver. These guns are quite small and quite light. The holster is not like a duty holster a police officer would carry. It usually doesnt have a snap and is more like a pouch for carrying the gun. They are designed to be light and allow easy withdrawal of the gun. Retrieving and discharging the gun would not be difficult and in the dark it is quite possible that an assailant would not even see you doing it. Show nested quote +
Well, I disagree. I am not sure Zimmerman would have acted the way he did, if it was not for the notion and actual possibility of this law applying to his bat shit crazy behaviour in the first place.
Zimmerman probably did not initiate the encounter expecting it to deteriorate into violence. I would be extremely surprised if he approached the situation thinking of the law. Even if the law did not exist, he would still be covered by standard self defense laws because, according to witnesses and evidence, he was being attacked by Martin. That is why the law doesnt even apply here.
He followed/pursued him with a GUN. What does he need to do that exactly points towards "possible" violence. And yes I am pretty sure if you act as stupid as Mr. Zimmerman you do not necessarily think about specific laws you may or may not break in certain situations.
|
Ready for some sick statistics guys- Taken from Dr. Stanley Jacobs in my university's CRJ department
The stand your ground law has resulted in a tripling of justifiable homicides in Florida. Of the almost 170 people to have lost their life since the passing of the law, how many do you think were actually armed?
Out of 168 cases where someone killed another human being, admitted it, and got off because of the stand your ground law- how many of those 168 human beings were armed?-- 1. How you justify killing an unarmed man when you are armed 168 different times is pretty mind blowing. I guess Florida is full of criminal MMA experts @_@
This law gives the average citizen more discretion in the use of deadly force than sworn police officers and absolutely no over sight because no prosecution is 100x easier than seeking justice.
This case specifically- The police chief absolutely did not follow the law in not arresting zimmerman. A defense of justifiable homicide is only a defense at trial. It is the burden of the defendant to prove his actions were in self defense once he admits to committing the crime. At the time the police had a grown 250 lb man with a smoking gun standing over an unarmed dead 140lb boy- you have probable cause that this man committed a crime-- you arrest him. Could you imagine if the way the sanford police handled this case as standard operating procedure (enter mall shoot 10 people-- but officer it was in self defense-- o ok sweet dood have a good night)
What is the most disgusting part of this whole case is that the Martin family had to sue to get the 911 tapes released. This police department was actively trying to prevent the truth of Martin's death to come out. That is blatant obstruction of Justice. The Sanford police department has exhibited more criminal activity in this case than the poor dead little Martin.
How many more cases have sanford and other departments covered up? We'll never know, and that makes me fucking sad.
RIP Martin-- you deserved better than this world gave you
|
On March 25 2012 01:24 DeepElemBlues wrote:http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012So according to the witness Martin did in fact attack Zimmerman. This being after Zimmerman refused to stop following him and probably provoked the attack. What a clusterfuck all around. Show nested quote +He's admitting to the fact that he shot dead a 17-year old boy and simply because he said it was out of self-defense that's good enough? This doesn't add up. According to police Zimmerman was bloodied and had injuries, presumably from Martin.
That makes perfect sense. I too would be scared shitless if someone followed me in the middle of the night. Who knows what exactly happened, the bottomline is that someone, encouraged by his surroundings( neighbour watch because recent break ins/ friendly "vigilante" laws) acted about as bad and out of his rights as possible. I can understand that notion that people want to protect their own property - even with force, but that they try to play hero and are paranoid as shit with no police training or authority whatsoever - can´t even fathom how irresponsible this behaviour is, and the law that encourages this for that matter.
|
On March 25 2012 01:34 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 01:24 DeepElemBlues wrote:http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012So according to the witness Martin did in fact attack Zimmerman. This being after Zimmerman refused to stop following him and probably provoked the attack. What a clusterfuck all around. He's admitting to the fact that he shot dead a 17-year old boy and simply because he said it was out of self-defense that's good enough? This doesn't add up. According to police Zimmerman was bloodied and had injuries, presumably from Martin. That makes perfect sense. I too would be scared shitless if someone followed me in the middle of the night. Who knows what exactly happened, the bottomline is that someone, encouraged by his surroundings( neighbour watch because recent break ins/ friendly "vigilante" laws) acted about as bad and out of his rights as possible. I can understand that notion that people want to protect their own property - even with force, but that they try to play hero and are paranoid as shit with no police training or authority whatsoever - can´t even fathom how irresponsible this behaviour is, and the law that encourages this for that matter.
What gets me is that the police officer on dispatch TOLD him not to confront Trayvon. But Zimmerman did so regardless. You'd think that he'd take orders from the police.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
