|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On May 30 2013 16:15 Mazer wrote:
I'm stuck wondering why Zimmerman felt the need to continue following him
On May 30 2013 14:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:
What we have is an armed man who was told not to follow someone, following that person anyway
On May 30 2013 17:48 Mazer wrote:
why would Zimmerman continue following Martin despite already reporting it to the authorities.
People need to stop repeating this lie.
When you have to fabricate lies to try and paint Zimmerman as guilty, it goes to show how obviously innocent he is.
|
On May 30 2013 16:15 Mazer wrote:
I think people entirely dismissing the dispatcher's 'suggestion' is straight up irresponsible. I'm stuck wondering why Zimmerman felt the need to continue following him despite doing his due diligence in reporting already. Anyone trying to argue that Martin was in fact the aggressor and Zimmerman was just standing his ground really can't just sweep this under the rug because it absolutely is relevant.
I would say that considering this "irresponsible" you need to put yourself in that position.
If you have had dealings with police before, you know that for non-serious incidents like what Zimmerman called in is low-priority simply because no crime has been committed and there is no obvious intent; imagine all the calls police get all the time from concerned neighbours etc. like this that turn to nothing.
If I put myself in Zimmerman's shoes, I would deem it irresponsible to ignore that suggestion, given he is Neighbourhood Watch, to simply say to yourself "ok this is the police's problem now", and leaving the scene.
|
On May 30 2013 20:42 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 13:44 sluggaslamoo wrote:On May 30 2013 13:35 Whitewing wrote:On May 30 2013 13:21 theaxis12 wrote:On May 30 2013 12:56 tokicheese wrote:On May 30 2013 12:39 theaxis12 wrote:On May 30 2013 10:08 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2013 09:46 theaxis12 wrote:On May 30 2013 09:19 Tewks44 wrote:On May 30 2013 09:06 theaxis12 wrote:From the Wiki on Justifiable homicide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide "A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, manslaughter or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time." "The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the defendant had no alternative method of self-defense or defense of another than to kill the attacker." I don't really see those conditions being met by Zimmerman considering he was large enough to fight back (or even retreat with the threat of the gun) vs. an unarmed man roughly his size who was not displaying any obvious intentions to commit a serious crime simply by walking at night. The opinion that he was large enough to fight back is pure speculation. He looked like he had been beaten up pretty bad in pictures taken the night of the shooting. You can't judge someone's ability to fight back based purely on size. There are other factors such as ability and strength. Zimmerman made the choice to confront Martin even after being told to stay where he was, and if you choose to start shit with someone that can beat your ass, well your ass is going to be beaten in self-defense. There is no reason to think that Martin would have killed Zimmerman because he had no motive or weapon. Zimmerman went up to Martin and spoke with him. That can't really be considered "starting shit" can it? Zimmerman was never ordered to stay where he was. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Shooting_and_investigationThe dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." That doesn't sound like an order to me, more like a suggestion. How on Earth do you know what happened when Zimmerman confronted Martin, no one does, that is the point. Maybe Zimmerman tried to intimidate Martin with his gun, wouldn't that explain and excuse his attack? The only story we have is from Zimmerman ofc he is going to say the kid attacked him for no reason. The fact that he was the initiator and the only one armed requires that we give Martin the benefit of the doubt that he feared for his life and attacked out of self-defense. Also he could have defended himself regardless of Martin's size with his gun in a non-lethal fashion (intimidation or non-lethal blow), so it still doesn't qualify as justifiable homicide. So let me get this straight. You think it's a possibility Zimmerman was waving a gun around and then Martin though his best bet was to rush him? You watch too many movies. It's painfully obvious that Martin at some point attacked Zimmerman. Martin is clearly not a nice individual and has a history of violent behaviour. Zimmerman was beaten up pretty bad while Martin just had the bullet hole in his chest. The time frame from Zimmerman being on the phone to the fight. it's pretty clear what happened if you connect the dots. I just stated that as an obvious example, there is any number of ways that Zimmerman could have made Martin fear for his life. Martin had noticed him watching him and even ran away from him, so maybe he feared being raped or kidnapped. The point is that we have to give Martin the benefit of the doubt because Zimmerman was the one who initiated the whole situation and had any violent intent going into it. Also is thinking Martin charged Zimmerman with his gun really more outlandish than the story Zimmerman is trying to promote that Martin was just a raving lunatic that once confronted with a polite conversation tried to kill him? Come on...this defense is the most racist thing to happen yet in this case. It is truly sad how many people will buy into this image of a thug n*gger that will bash your head in the second you question him. It's not really the issue of whether people buy into it or not. The question is: is there a reasonable chance that Zimmerman fired after being beaten up badly, in self defense? If the answer to that is yes, even if you don't think that it was the case, then you have to find him not guilty. The evidence does show Zimmerman being badly beaten and Martin with only the gunshot wound as an injury, which suggests that, no matter what provocation occurred, Martin was indeed beating the shit out of Zimmerman who then fired in self defense. Anything else is just speculation really, and that's not enough to convict a man on. Please don't say something like "anything else is just speculation", when your entire post is pure speculation... If Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon which is a likely possibility considering Zimmerman has a record of assaulting police officers, people and domestic violence and was generally known by people that knew him for having a bad temper. Doing so gives Trayvon a right to slam Zimmermans head into the pavement, however now that Zimmerman is in fear for his life, is he allowed to pull out the gun and shoot him? I don't know, but seems weird if its allowed. A random person grabs me and throws me, or wrestles me, do I have to wait for you to bloody my face before I can fight back? I don't think so. In fact the exact same excuse would apply to Trayvon, than to Zimmerman. Of course the only person that can give an account to what happened, is the person that is still alive, so how do you think the story will be when his future career is at stake? Also witness reports of people that I will admit only heard the event, paint a very different picture to the one and only witness that Zimmerman had. Do you understand that it doesn't actually matter that Zimmerman might have been the aggressor, unless it can be proven that he actually was, beyond a reasonable doubt, definitely completely at fault for the fight? It doesn't actually matter how many different ways you can spin Zimmerman starting a fight and then going for the gun after he loses it. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. What injuries did they both have? Martin had damaged knuckles and a gunshot wound. Zimmerman had a broken nose and lacerations on the back of his head. I think that's sufficient to conclude that Zimmerman was punched in the face, but there's no other damage to Martin at all other than the gunshot wound.
You are correct, Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty, but don't forget that this also applies to Martin.
Now if we approach this morally, we will probably conclude that Zimmerman is guilty, as he ended a life while Martin tried to punch/attack him and from what we know succeded to some degree.
However, if we want to know who is guilty Legally, we need to decide if we believe Zimmerman or not, because what we have is A dead person against a statement of the person that caused someones death.
The only real problem I have with your posts is how you describe what happened. In an earlier post you literally wrote "Zimmerman being badly beaten and Martin with only the gunshot wound as an injury". Does it really matter what wounds he had? he is dead, Zimmerman isn't. I think killing someone should be looked at differently than beating someone up, because wounds heal, death is final.
Lastly, I'll drop this link because it shows in what condition Zimmerman was a few hours after the shooting.
Link
This issue is a matter of opinion, so you don't need to agree with me. You should however re-think how you write about this case, because you are obviously trying to make Zimmerman look like the Victim, which directly goes against "Innocent until proven Guilty"
|
On May 30 2013 22:57 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 16:15 Mazer wrote:
I think people entirely dismissing the dispatcher's 'suggestion' is straight up irresponsible. I'm stuck wondering why Zimmerman felt the need to continue following him despite doing his due diligence in reporting already. Anyone trying to argue that Martin was in fact the aggressor and Zimmerman was just standing his ground really can't just sweep this under the rug because it absolutely is relevant. I would say that considering this "irresponsible" you need to put yourself in that position. If you have had dealings with police before, you know that for non-serious incidents like what Zimmerman called in is low-priority simply because no crime has been committed and there is no obvious intent; imagine all the calls police get all the time from concerned neighbours etc. like this that turn to nothing. If I put myself in Zimmerman's shoes, I would deem it irresponsible to ignore that suggestion, given he is Neighbourhood Watch, to simply say to yourself "ok this is the police's problem now", and leaving the scene.
Let's do this thread a favour and stop responding to people who make claims which simply are not true.
When Zimmerman was told it was unnecessary to follow he responded "okay", and stopped following.
The claim that he ignored the dispatcher is completely false. It's a fraud. A lie.
People repeat this lie because they so desperately wish Zimmerman was guilty they need to fabricate evidence in their head to fit their preconceived conclusion.
|
On May 30 2013 15:09 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 14:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 30 2013 14:35 kmillz wrote:On May 30 2013 14:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 30 2013 14:12 Krohm wrote:I don't know if this has been posted yet (didn't see anything on the last 3 pages) but... http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-drug-photos-mentioned-judge/story?id=19271093#.UabcrUCsh8ELawyers for George Zimmerman will not be permitted to mention pictures of drugs and guns found on Trayvon Martin's cell phone during opening statements in Zimmerman's trial for murder next month, a judge ruled today. Although I can somewhat agree with that ruling I am still uncomfortable with it. I understand Trayvon isn't the one on trial here, but I think those photos expose his character. Also I still can't believe people are arguing about Zimmerman being "ordered" to not follow Trayvon. Are you guys unaware that 911 dispatchers have zero legal authority. Not only that but he wasn't necessarily told not to follow him. As for the confrontation that's still being disputed as well. It's not proven that Zimmerman approached (confronted) Trayvon. Everyone seems to be jumping the gun on this topic and it's really irritating at times. Yes Trayvon is dead and all we have is Zimmerman's testimony to rely on, but that doesn't mean we can just make our own accusations about what may or may not have happened. Zimmerman told investigators he was returning to his vehicle when Martin approached him from his left rear and confronted him. What we have is an armed man who was told not to follow someone, following that person anyway, and the person ending up dead because of it. Those are the facts of the case. Unless Z man had access to those photos before he followed travyon, those are irrelevant to the facts. Claiming something is a fact doesn't make it a fact. The transcript of his conversation says the dispatcher told him "you don't need to do that" and as we have discussed already, that conversation doesn't matter anyway. He doesn't have an obligation to obey an order from the dispatcher even if she was giving him one..which she wasn't. It's literally the only thing we have that isn't testimony. Z man says he's following someone. They inform him otherwise. Z man ends up near trav's house anyway with a dead body in front of him. Those are the only facts we have apart from testimonies which we will trust or not trust based on whatever arbitrary creed you follow. You can't twist the facts to fit your narrative. What do you mean they inform him otherwise? They literally said "we don't need you to do that". The only facts you say? What about Zimmerman's beat up face? That's not a fact to you?
There's nothing to twist.
Zimmerman got into a fight.
One says it was his fault, the other says it was Travyon's fault. Hence--arguable.
The only thing we know for fact is an armed man followed an unarmed man, said he didn't recognize who it was, and it turned out the man he followed lived in the neighborhood he was supposedly "protecting."
Which begs the question of how well did Zimmerman actually know that neighborhood to begin with if in his attempt to defend it he shoots one of their residents.
We have a recorded message of Zman following Trav, we have Trav's dead body. The rest is up for debate. Some say the injuries prove that Trav was the aggressor, others say the bullet in the chest is proof that Zman is the aggressor. Once again, up for debate.
The only thing not up for debate is Zman tells the police he's following someone who lives in that neighborhood, and that after being told not to do it, he ends up shooting trav a short distance from Trav's house.
|
On May 30 2013 23:04 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 22:57 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote:On May 30 2013 16:15 Mazer wrote:
I think people entirely dismissing the dispatcher's 'suggestion' is straight up irresponsible. I'm stuck wondering why Zimmerman felt the need to continue following him despite doing his due diligence in reporting already. Anyone trying to argue that Martin was in fact the aggressor and Zimmerman was just standing his ground really can't just sweep this under the rug because it absolutely is relevant. I would say that considering this "irresponsible" you need to put yourself in that position. If you have had dealings with police before, you know that for non-serious incidents like what Zimmerman called in is low-priority simply because no crime has been committed and there is no obvious intent; imagine all the calls police get all the time from concerned neighbours etc. like this that turn to nothing. If I put myself in Zimmerman's shoes, I would deem it irresponsible to ignore that suggestion, given he is Neighbourhood Watch, to simply say to yourself "ok this is the police's problem now", and leaving the scene. Let's do this thread a favour and stop responding to people who make claims which simply are not true. When Zimmerman was told it was unnecessary to follow he responded "okay", and stopped following. The claim that he ignored the dispatcher is completely false. It's a fraud. A lie. People repeat this lie because they so desperately wish Zimmerman was guilty they need to fabricate evidence in their head to fit their preconceived conclusion.
People believe it because Travyon was shot near his house. And unless Zimmerman was following Travyon as he walked around his front yard--its easy to assume he continued following Travyon until he was almost home.
|
On May 30 2013 22:57 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 16:15 Mazer wrote:
I think people entirely dismissing the dispatcher's 'suggestion' is straight up irresponsible. I'm stuck wondering why Zimmerman felt the need to continue following him despite doing his due diligence in reporting already. Anyone trying to argue that Martin was in fact the aggressor and Zimmerman was just standing his ground really can't just sweep this under the rug because it absolutely is relevant. I would say that considering this "irresponsible" you need to put yourself in that position. If you have had dealings with police before, you know that for non-serious incidents like what Zimmerman called in is low-priority simply because no crime has been committed and there is no obvious intent; imagine all the calls police get all the time from concerned neighbours etc. like this that turn to nothing. If I put myself in Zimmerman's shoes, I would deem it irresponsible to ignore that suggestion, given he is Neighbourhood Watch, to simply say to yourself "ok this is the police's problem now", and leaving the scene.
Shouldn't neighborhood watch be at least aware that the guy he is following is someone who actually lives there?
|
United States7483 Posts
On May 30 2013 22:59 domisama wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 20:42 Whitewing wrote:On May 30 2013 13:44 sluggaslamoo wrote:On May 30 2013 13:35 Whitewing wrote:On May 30 2013 13:21 theaxis12 wrote:On May 30 2013 12:56 tokicheese wrote:On May 30 2013 12:39 theaxis12 wrote:On May 30 2013 10:08 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2013 09:46 theaxis12 wrote:On May 30 2013 09:19 Tewks44 wrote:
[quote]
The opinion that he was large enough to fight back is pure speculation. He looked like he had been beaten up pretty bad in pictures taken the night of the shooting. You can't judge someone's ability to fight back based purely on size. There are other factors such as ability and strength. Zimmerman made the choice to confront Martin even after being told to stay where he was, and if you choose to start shit with someone that can beat your ass, well your ass is going to be beaten in self-defense. There is no reason to think that Martin would have killed Zimmerman because he had no motive or weapon. Zimmerman went up to Martin and spoke with him. That can't really be considered "starting shit" can it? Zimmerman was never ordered to stay where he was. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Shooting_and_investigationThe dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." That doesn't sound like an order to me, more like a suggestion. How on Earth do you know what happened when Zimmerman confronted Martin, no one does, that is the point. Maybe Zimmerman tried to intimidate Martin with his gun, wouldn't that explain and excuse his attack? The only story we have is from Zimmerman ofc he is going to say the kid attacked him for no reason. The fact that he was the initiator and the only one armed requires that we give Martin the benefit of the doubt that he feared for his life and attacked out of self-defense. Also he could have defended himself regardless of Martin's size with his gun in a non-lethal fashion (intimidation or non-lethal blow), so it still doesn't qualify as justifiable homicide. So let me get this straight. You think it's a possibility Zimmerman was waving a gun around and then Martin though his best bet was to rush him? You watch too many movies. It's painfully obvious that Martin at some point attacked Zimmerman. Martin is clearly not a nice individual and has a history of violent behaviour. Zimmerman was beaten up pretty bad while Martin just had the bullet hole in his chest. The time frame from Zimmerman being on the phone to the fight. it's pretty clear what happened if you connect the dots. I just stated that as an obvious example, there is any number of ways that Zimmerman could have made Martin fear for his life. Martin had noticed him watching him and even ran away from him, so maybe he feared being raped or kidnapped. The point is that we have to give Martin the benefit of the doubt because Zimmerman was the one who initiated the whole situation and had any violent intent going into it. Also is thinking Martin charged Zimmerman with his gun really more outlandish than the story Zimmerman is trying to promote that Martin was just a raving lunatic that once confronted with a polite conversation tried to kill him? Come on...this defense is the most racist thing to happen yet in this case. It is truly sad how many people will buy into this image of a thug n*gger that will bash your head in the second you question him. It's not really the issue of whether people buy into it or not. The question is: is there a reasonable chance that Zimmerman fired after being beaten up badly, in self defense? If the answer to that is yes, even if you don't think that it was the case, then you have to find him not guilty. The evidence does show Zimmerman being badly beaten and Martin with only the gunshot wound as an injury, which suggests that, no matter what provocation occurred, Martin was indeed beating the shit out of Zimmerman who then fired in self defense. Anything else is just speculation really, and that's not enough to convict a man on. Please don't say something like "anything else is just speculation", when your entire post is pure speculation... If Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon which is a likely possibility considering Zimmerman has a record of assaulting police officers, people and domestic violence and was generally known by people that knew him for having a bad temper. Doing so gives Trayvon a right to slam Zimmermans head into the pavement, however now that Zimmerman is in fear for his life, is he allowed to pull out the gun and shoot him? I don't know, but seems weird if its allowed. A random person grabs me and throws me, or wrestles me, do I have to wait for you to bloody my face before I can fight back? I don't think so. In fact the exact same excuse would apply to Trayvon, than to Zimmerman. Of course the only person that can give an account to what happened, is the person that is still alive, so how do you think the story will be when his future career is at stake? Also witness reports of people that I will admit only heard the event, paint a very different picture to the one and only witness that Zimmerman had. Do you understand that it doesn't actually matter that Zimmerman might have been the aggressor, unless it can be proven that he actually was, beyond a reasonable doubt, definitely completely at fault for the fight? It doesn't actually matter how many different ways you can spin Zimmerman starting a fight and then going for the gun after he loses it. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. What injuries did they both have? Martin had damaged knuckles and a gunshot wound. Zimmerman had a broken nose and lacerations on the back of his head. I think that's sufficient to conclude that Zimmerman was punched in the face, but there's no other damage to Martin at all other than the gunshot wound. You are correct, Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty, but don't forget that this also applies to Martin. Now if we approach this morally, we will probably conclude that Zimmerman is guilty, as he ended a life while Martin tried to punch/attack him and from what we know succeded to some degree. However, if we want to know who is guilty Legally, we need to decide if we believe Zimmerman or not, because what we have is A dead person against a statement of the person that caused someones death. The only real problem I have with your posts is how you describe what happened. In an earlier post you literally wrote "Zimmerman being badly beaten and Martin with only the gunshot wound as an injury". Does it really matter what wounds he had? he is dead, Zimmerman isn't. I think killing someone should be looked at differently than beating someone up, because wounds heal, death is final. Lastly, I'll drop this link because it shows in what condition Zimmerman was a few hours after the shooting. LinkThis issue is a matter of opinion, so you don't need to agree with me. You should however re-think how you write about this case, because you are obviously trying to make Zimmerman look like the Victim, which directly goes against "Innocent until proven Guilty"
I'm not trying to make Zimmerman look like the victim, the guy represents a shit ton of behaviors I despise. The issue of whether Trayvon Martin is innocent or not is actually irrelevant because of Florida's retarded stand your ground law. It's an idiotic law, but legally, as long as Zimmerman believes he was threatened (and you're never going to prove he didn't) he was allowed to shoot Martin.
|
On May 30 2013 21:22 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 21:10 IamPryda wrote:
I think there is enough evidence to prove Zimmerman provoked a reaction from trayvon however that doesn't mean Zimmerman started the physical fight the 2 had. I personal believe Zimmerman needs to be held accountable for something Probably not murder because the more backround info we learn the more it's seems like self defense is a reasonable claim. I think at this point we can agree neither person involved was a good person and both are trash imo What should he be held accountable for? Also that last sentence is pretty obtuse.
I personally would give him manslaughter because I think he created a hostile situation while armed with a weapon knowing he would just shoot if need be. But since you can't prove that criminally because there isnt enough evidence I think this will become a wrongful death case in civil court where the burden of proof is much less. As far as my last comment being obtuse I don't think there is anything wrong calling a wannabe cop vigilante and wannabe thug trash
|
Some notes on Zimmerman's character:
"According to the witness, Zimmerman singled him out because he was Middle Eastern, calling him a "fucking moron" and mocking him with the voice of "Achmed the terrorist." He said Zimmerman would also tell stories and make jokes about "bombing" and other "Middle Eastern stuff."[link]
In the 911 call, Zimmerman can be heard saying "These assholes always get away." [...]Zimmerman also said Martin "looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something. Something's wrong with him."[link]
If you are going to shout for help and can't defend yourself, why would you a) volunteer to be the neighborhood watch, and b) not run away from a guy that looks so menacing
|
On May 30 2013 22:50 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 16:15 Mazer wrote:
I'm stuck wondering why Zimmerman felt the need to continue following him Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 14:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:
What we have is an armed man who was told not to follow someone, following that person anyway Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 17:48 Mazer wrote:
why would Zimmerman continue following Martin despite already reporting it to the authorities. People need to stop repeating this lie. When you have to fabricate lies to try and paint Zimmerman as guilty, it goes to show how obviously innocent he is.
Not sure how a fact is a lie now, please explain.
|
On May 30 2013 23:22 Lt_Stork wrote:Some notes on Zimmerman's character: "According to the witness, Zimmerman singled him out because he was Middle Eastern, calling him a "fucking moron" and mocking him with the voice of "Achmed the terrorist." He said Zimmerman would also tell stories and make jokes about "bombing" and other "Middle Eastern stuff."[ link] In the 911 call, Zimmerman can be heard saying "These assholes always get away." [...]Zimmerman also said Martin "looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something. Something's wrong with him."[ link] If you are going to shout for help and can't defend yourself, why would you a) volunteer to be the neighborhood watch, and b) not run away from a guy that looks so menacing
So you are saying that anyone in a neighborhood watch shouldn't need to shout for help if assaulted? Maybe go sign up for the closest neighborhood watch meeting in your area and see what people turn up. Judging by your two posts in this thread it might blow your mind.
|
On May 30 2013 23:41 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 23:22 Lt_Stork wrote:Some notes on Zimmerman's character: "According to the witness, Zimmerman singled him out because he was Middle Eastern, calling him a "fucking moron" and mocking him with the voice of "Achmed the terrorist." He said Zimmerman would also tell stories and make jokes about "bombing" and other "Middle Eastern stuff."[ link] In the 911 call, Zimmerman can be heard saying "These assholes always get away." [...]Zimmerman also said Martin "looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something. Something's wrong with him."[ link] If you are going to shout for help and can't defend yourself, why would you a) volunteer to be the neighborhood watch, and b) not run away from a guy that looks so menacing So you are saying that anyone in a neighborhood watch shouldn't need to shout for help if assaulted? Maybe go sign up for the closest neighborhood watch meeting in your area and see what people turn up. Judging by your two posts in this thread it might blow your mind.
He's saying that if you can't defend yourself why would you pursue someone and not just call the police.
He's saying that if you're the type who needs help, why would you pursue someone and not just call the police.
He's implicitly saying why would someone who is armed follow a kid who lives in the neighborhood being watched.
|
On May 30 2013 23:27 Mazer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 22:50 Zaqwe wrote:On May 30 2013 16:15 Mazer wrote:
I'm stuck wondering why Zimmerman felt the need to continue following him On May 30 2013 14:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:
What we have is an armed man who was told not to follow someone, following that person anyway On May 30 2013 17:48 Mazer wrote:
why would Zimmerman continue following Martin despite already reporting it to the authorities. People need to stop repeating this lie. When you have to fabricate lies to try and paint Zimmerman as guilty, it goes to show how obviously innocent he is. Not sure how a fact is a lie now, please explain.
I challenge you to provide some evidence to support your claims.
Everything shows Zimmerman did not follow Trayvon after the dispatcher said it wasn't necessary. Zimmerman agreed with the dispatcher and stopped following, then was on the phone for over a minute while Trayvon had time to go all the way home, but decided to double back to ambush Zimmerman when he was returning to his vehicle.
|
On May 30 2013 23:50 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 23:27 Mazer wrote:On May 30 2013 22:50 Zaqwe wrote:On May 30 2013 16:15 Mazer wrote:
I'm stuck wondering why Zimmerman felt the need to continue following him On May 30 2013 14:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:
What we have is an armed man who was told not to follow someone, following that person anyway On May 30 2013 17:48 Mazer wrote:
why would Zimmerman continue following Martin despite already reporting it to the authorities. People need to stop repeating this lie. When you have to fabricate lies to try and paint Zimmerman as guilty, it goes to show how obviously innocent he is. Not sure how a fact is a lie now, please explain. I challenge you to provide some evidence to support your claims. Everything shows Zimmerman did not follow Trayvon after the dispatcher said it wasn't necessary. Zimmerman agreed with the dispatcher and stopped following, then was on the phone for over a minute while Trayvon had time to go all the way home, but decided to double back to ambush Zimmerman when he was returning to his vehicle.
Even if he followed Martin that would not mean he is guilty. Never heard its manslaughter to follow or keep an eye on someone. The guilty one is the one who attacked first.
|
On May 30 2013 23:50 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 23:27 Mazer wrote:On May 30 2013 22:50 Zaqwe wrote:On May 30 2013 16:15 Mazer wrote:
I'm stuck wondering why Zimmerman felt the need to continue following him On May 30 2013 14:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:
What we have is an armed man who was told not to follow someone, following that person anyway On May 30 2013 17:48 Mazer wrote:
why would Zimmerman continue following Martin despite already reporting it to the authorities. People need to stop repeating this lie. When you have to fabricate lies to try and paint Zimmerman as guilty, it goes to show how obviously innocent he is. Not sure how a fact is a lie now, please explain. I challenge you to provide some evidence to support your claims. Everything shows Zimmerman did not follow Trayvon after the dispatcher said it wasn't necessary. Zimmerman agreed with the dispatcher and stopped following, then was on the phone for over a minute while Trayvon had time to go all the way home, but decided to double back to ambush Zimmerman when he was returning to his vehicle.
How far can someone casually walk in a minute?
If I was running I know damn sure how far I could run--but why would Travyon run?
"ended when Zimmerman fatally shot Martin 70 yards (64 m) from the rear door of the townhouse where Martin was staying"
Travyon was shot down the block from where he lived. In a minutes passing someone casually walking would be about half way up the block at most? How do you lose sight of someone half a block away from you? If Zimmerman really just stopped in his tracks and didn't pursue, how far could Travyon go in one minute?
Two possibilities:
A.) Travyon was running away from Zman => which would explain why he could disappear in a minutes passing.
B.) Zman was actually following him.
If it is A.) Then the only reason he would run would be that an armed man was following him.
If it is B.) Then the armed man would be the aggressor because he is following an unarmed man.
So no, it isn't obvious that Zman didn't follow Trav. And unless Trav was being chased by Zman, there's no way he'd disappear in a minute's time. He was already near his house for christ's sake.
|
You don't need to be pursued by an armed man to start running. That seems like a weird conclusion.
|
On May 31 2013 00:17 nihlon wrote:
You don't need to be pursued by an armed man to start running. That seems like a weird conclusion.
Fine, then what reasons does Travyon have to run in the opposite direction of an armed vigilante?
|
On May 30 2013 23:50 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 23:27 Mazer wrote:On May 30 2013 22:50 Zaqwe wrote:On May 30 2013 16:15 Mazer wrote:
I'm stuck wondering why Zimmerman felt the need to continue following him On May 30 2013 14:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:
What we have is an armed man who was told not to follow someone, following that person anyway On May 30 2013 17:48 Mazer wrote:
why would Zimmerman continue following Martin despite already reporting it to the authorities. People need to stop repeating this lie. When you have to fabricate lies to try and paint Zimmerman as guilty, it goes to show how obviously innocent he is. Not sure how a fact is a lie now, please explain. I challenge you to provide some evidence to support your claims. Everything shows Zimmerman did not follow Trayvon after the dispatcher said it wasn't necessary. Zimmerman agreed with the dispatcher and stopped following, then was on the phone for over a minute while Trayvon had time to go all the way home, but decided to double back to ambush Zimmerman when he was returning to his vehicle.
Judging from the Phonecall, Zimmerman did stop running after the dispatcher said it was not necessary, and then gave his answers.
However, where is your evidence that Martin had time to go home?
After the Phone Call ends, a lot could have happened, and if you really think that Zimmerman stopped following Martin, then what reason would he have to not return to his vehicle? If Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle he could have easily reached it by the time the call had ended (I'm juding this because of the running sounds Zimmerman makes and how long they go on). Of course I have no proof that Zimmerman started following Martin again, but you don't have any proof for your claims either.
Whatever the case, you should stop calling people liars when you have just as much evidence for your claims as they do.
|
On May 30 2013 23:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 23:41 nihlon wrote:On May 30 2013 23:22 Lt_Stork wrote:Some notes on Zimmerman's character: "According to the witness, Zimmerman singled him out because he was Middle Eastern, calling him a "fucking moron" and mocking him with the voice of "Achmed the terrorist." He said Zimmerman would also tell stories and make jokes about "bombing" and other "Middle Eastern stuff."[ link] In the 911 call, Zimmerman can be heard saying "These assholes always get away." [...]Zimmerman also said Martin "looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something. Something's wrong with him."[ link] If you are going to shout for help and can't defend yourself, why would you a) volunteer to be the neighborhood watch, and b) not run away from a guy that looks so menacing So you are saying that anyone in a neighborhood watch shouldn't need to shout for help if assaulted? Maybe go sign up for the closest neighborhood watch meeting in your area and see what people turn up. Judging by your two posts in this thread it might blow your mind. He's saying that if you can't defend yourself why would you pursue someone and not just call the police. He's saying that if you're the type who needs help, why would you pursue someone and not just call the police. He's implicitly saying why would someone who is armed follow a kid who lives in the neighborhood being watched.
What really gets me is it's probably Trayvon yelling for help for a minute. Neighbors have witnessed that Zman is an aggressive person and it doesn't seem likely that he would be afraid to pursue Trayvon. Two scenarios present themselves:
- Zimmerman faces someone much stronger than him and starts yelling to call for help for a minute (audio proves otherwise)
- Trayvon is yelling for help and in the end shot. Why would he scream for help if he wanted to kill someone and forced him to shoot him?
People are asking what reason Zman had to go after Trayvon. According to Wikipedia there had been recent burglaries in the Neighborhood and Zman was a witness in one of the cases identifying a "black" man in an investigation. Zman was probably trying to wrestle him down until the cops came
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
