|
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 31 2013 22:38 Lt_Stork wrote:
@kmillz - that's what he said to the dispatcher and it was a good guess seeing how Trayvon was 17
Earlier today I read that Zimmerman used to work as a bouncer for illegal parties between 2001 - 2005. What kind of ex-bouncer, vigilante is afraid of a 11 year younger teenager? It doesn't add up
The kind who is getting his faced smashed in. Ok, so he knew he was in his late teens, what difference does it make? If an older teenager attacks me and is punching my head into the concrete repeatedly and I have a gun on me I would do the same thing if I feel like my life is in danger.
Are you going to answer my other question?
|
On May 31 2013 22:35 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 22:31 ComaDose wrote:On May 31 2013 22:19 kmillz wrote:On May 31 2013 15:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 14:52 Quexana wrote:Again Zimmerman following a "teenager" sounds a lot worse than the actuality of the situation. Trayvon was 5'11". Zimmerman did not ask to see his identification before he decided to follow him. Zimmerman had absolutely no idea the age of Trayvon. Seeing as how Zimmerman described Martin to the dispatcher as someone in his "late teens", I'd say he had a pretty good idea of the fact that Martin was a teenager. And yes, he was 5'11", but he was 5'11" and 155 pounds. Zimmerman was 5'8" 200 pounds. That's one Big, scary, scrawny teenager. If you look at the log of the dispatcher, Zimmerman didn't witness Martin committing any crimes. He witnessed Martin looking around. Looking isn't a crime. Martin tried running away from this guy in a car watching him, Zimmerman pursued him, concerned because according to him "These assholes. They always get away" What assholes was he talking about? All he saw was a black person who appeared to be in his "late teens" walking in the rain, wearing a hoodie. I'm sure those are the assholes he meant. We need to have Zimmerman join that Criminal Minds show as he has apparently masterful criminal profiling skills. If only we had more brave citizens willing to stop black kids from walking in the rain while wearing hoodies, our crime rate would drop to zero!! I'm sorry but if I'm walking home from the convenience store, minding my own business, and I see a stranger in a car staring at me, then following me, I'm gonna run. And if he then starts chasing me down, after I'm running away from him, I'm not thinking he's the nice community watch leader, I'm thinking kidnapper/pedophile and I'm gonna fight him. I'm not saying that Zimmerman is guilty of murder, but he should be held accountable for manslaughter. He tried to play hero and profiled a kid as a criminal because he was walking casually in the rain. and he guessed wrong. Why shouldn't he be held accountable for being wrong when his mistake ended in the death of someone. Because if it turns out that the law punishes you for playing vigilante the "you need guns for self defense" suddenly gets another mark against it. If Zimmerman would have died unarmed then us gun nuts would have said "too bad he didn't have a gun" and you'd probably say something like "if he had a gun more people might have died" or some other nonsense which always get's repeated anytime that is suggested. This story isn't a mark against guns for self defense its a mark against gun control if anything. Zimmerman's gun saved his life as far as I can tell and until there comes out evidence that his life wasn't in danger (highly unlikely) that's the way it is. well its nice for you that this event correlates with your political agenda Uhh no, if you can actually read, you would see that he was trying to make it correlate with his political agenda, and I pointed out how if anything it would be the opposite. Aka, it doesn't necessarily correlate with any political agenda. Show nested quote +Because if it turns out that the law punishes you for playing vigilante the "you need guns for self defense" suddenly gets another mark against it.
I wasn't talking about his political agenda. You wrote ".. its a mark against gun control if anything..." and the things you said afterword led me to believe that you we're pleased by this. aparently thats also known as it doesn't necessarily correlate with any political agenda.
but of course i shouldn't have assumed anything.
politics and law is so cold and detatched was my actual thought behind my last post.
|
On May 31 2013 22:19 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 15:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 14:52 Quexana wrote:Again Zimmerman following a "teenager" sounds a lot worse than the actuality of the situation. Trayvon was 5'11". Zimmerman did not ask to see his identification before he decided to follow him. Zimmerman had absolutely no idea the age of Trayvon. Seeing as how Zimmerman described Martin to the dispatcher as someone in his "late teens", I'd say he had a pretty good idea of the fact that Martin was a teenager. And yes, he was 5'11", but he was 5'11" and 155 pounds. Zimmerman was 5'8" 200 pounds. That's one Big, scary, scrawny teenager. If you look at the log of the dispatcher, Zimmerman didn't witness Martin committing any crimes. He witnessed Martin looking around. Looking isn't a crime. Martin tried running away from this guy in a car watching him, Zimmerman pursued him, concerned because according to him "These assholes. They always get away" What assholes was he talking about? All he saw was a black person who appeared to be in his "late teens" walking in the rain, wearing a hoodie. I'm sure those are the assholes he meant. We need to have Zimmerman join that Criminal Minds show as he has apparently masterful criminal profiling skills. If only we had more brave citizens willing to stop black kids from walking in the rain while wearing hoodies, our crime rate would drop to zero!! I'm sorry but if I'm walking home from the convenience store, minding my own business, and I see a stranger in a car staring at me, then following me, I'm gonna run. And if he then starts chasing me down, after I'm running away from him, I'm not thinking he's the nice community watch leader, I'm thinking kidnapper/pedophile and I'm gonna fight him. I'm not saying that Zimmerman is guilty of murder, but he should be held accountable for manslaughter. He tried to play hero and profiled a kid as a criminal because he was walking casually in the rain. and he guessed wrong. Why shouldn't he be held accountable for being wrong when his mistake ended in the death of someone. Because if it turns out that the law punishes you for playing vigilante the "you need guns for self defense" suddenly gets another mark against it. If Zimmerman would have died unarmed then us gun nuts would have said "too bad he didn't have a gun" and you'd probably say something like "if he had a gun more people might have died" or some other nonsense which always get's repeated anytime that is suggested. This story isn't a mark against guns for self defense its a mark against gun control if anything. Zimmerman's gun saved his life as far as I can tell and until there comes out evidence that his life wasn't in danger (highly unlikely) that's the way it is. Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 16:35 Lt_Stork wrote:
If Trayvon was on top of him and punching him. Zman is defenseless and paralyzed on the ground, save for a gun. Why the fuck would you fire a gun in a "late teens" chest? Leg, hip, buttock, it's just a question of angle of your arm and hand. A bullet wound would be enough to scare off any attacker - especially one that was possibly yelling for help and trying to run away from you. How do you know he knew that Trayvon was in his "late teens"? How do you know he had a chance to aim his gun somewhere non-lethal while he was being punched?
His question was why shouldn't Zimmerman be accountable in some way for having shot someone.
I said, because the law making a precedent for convicting vigilantes would be a mark against self defense claims.
Why are you talking about other possible outcomes to the fight as well as other possible outcomes to the sentence?
The question I answered was why people are so against making zman culpable for the death of a teen. I was telling him why. I was showing him why it's so important to some people that the shooter be considered innocent. If he is considered innocent, it's a big win for gun defense activist and allows them to follow people at night and shoot them in self defense.
|
On May 31 2013 23:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 22:19 kmillz wrote:On May 31 2013 15:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 14:52 Quexana wrote:Again Zimmerman following a "teenager" sounds a lot worse than the actuality of the situation. Trayvon was 5'11". Zimmerman did not ask to see his identification before he decided to follow him. Zimmerman had absolutely no idea the age of Trayvon. Seeing as how Zimmerman described Martin to the dispatcher as someone in his "late teens", I'd say he had a pretty good idea of the fact that Martin was a teenager. And yes, he was 5'11", but he was 5'11" and 155 pounds. Zimmerman was 5'8" 200 pounds. That's one Big, scary, scrawny teenager. If you look at the log of the dispatcher, Zimmerman didn't witness Martin committing any crimes. He witnessed Martin looking around. Looking isn't a crime. Martin tried running away from this guy in a car watching him, Zimmerman pursued him, concerned because according to him "These assholes. They always get away" What assholes was he talking about? All he saw was a black person who appeared to be in his "late teens" walking in the rain, wearing a hoodie. I'm sure those are the assholes he meant. We need to have Zimmerman join that Criminal Minds show as he has apparently masterful criminal profiling skills. If only we had more brave citizens willing to stop black kids from walking in the rain while wearing hoodies, our crime rate would drop to zero!! I'm sorry but if I'm walking home from the convenience store, minding my own business, and I see a stranger in a car staring at me, then following me, I'm gonna run. And if he then starts chasing me down, after I'm running away from him, I'm not thinking he's the nice community watch leader, I'm thinking kidnapper/pedophile and I'm gonna fight him. I'm not saying that Zimmerman is guilty of murder, but he should be held accountable for manslaughter. He tried to play hero and profiled a kid as a criminal because he was walking casually in the rain. and he guessed wrong. Why shouldn't he be held accountable for being wrong when his mistake ended in the death of someone. Because if it turns out that the law punishes you for playing vigilante the "you need guns for self defense" suddenly gets another mark against it. If Zimmerman would have died unarmed then us gun nuts would have said "too bad he didn't have a gun" and you'd probably say something like "if he had a gun more people might have died" or some other nonsense which always get's repeated anytime that is suggested. This story isn't a mark against guns for self defense its a mark against gun control if anything. Zimmerman's gun saved his life as far as I can tell and until there comes out evidence that his life wasn't in danger (highly unlikely) that's the way it is. On May 31 2013 16:35 Lt_Stork wrote:
If Trayvon was on top of him and punching him. Zman is defenseless and paralyzed on the ground, save for a gun. Why the fuck would you fire a gun in a "late teens" chest? Leg, hip, buttock, it's just a question of angle of your arm and hand. A bullet wound would be enough to scare off any attacker - especially one that was possibly yelling for help and trying to run away from you. How do you know he knew that Trayvon was in his "late teens"? How do you know he had a chance to aim his gun somewhere non-lethal while he was being punched? His question was why shouldn't Zimmerman be accountable in some way for having shot someone. I said, because the law making a precedent for convicting vigilantes would be a mark against self defense claims. Why are you talking about other possible outcomes to the fight as well as other possible outcomes to the sentence? The question I answered was why people are so against making zman culpable for the death of a teen. I was telling him why. I was showing him why it's so important to some people that the shooter be considered innocent. If he is considered innocent, it's a big win for gun defense activist and allows them to follow people at night and shoot them in self defense.
You sort of missed a big step between "follow people at night" and "shoot them in self defense." Something along the lines of getting the crap beaten out of him by Martin.
Again, the case hinges on who initiated the altercation itself. Hypothetically, assume that the jury finds that the evidence shows that Martin initiated the fight, do you still believe Zimmerman was in the wrong for shooting him? You want people to lie down and die in a situation like that?
And what does Martin being a teen have anything to do with anything. That's just playing up bias. Teens are just as capable of abhorrent acts of violence as anyone else.
And for the record, I don't like guns, would never own a gun, and am all for stricter gun control. I also have ultimate respect for self-defense laws and believe that people, when their lives are in danger, are within their rights to do whatever it takes to reach safety. If Martin truly did start the fight and have Zimmerman on the ground bashing his head in, his life is forfeit.
|
On May 31 2013 23:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 22:19 kmillz wrote:On May 31 2013 15:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 14:52 Quexana wrote:Again Zimmerman following a "teenager" sounds a lot worse than the actuality of the situation. Trayvon was 5'11". Zimmerman did not ask to see his identification before he decided to follow him. Zimmerman had absolutely no idea the age of Trayvon. Seeing as how Zimmerman described Martin to the dispatcher as someone in his "late teens", I'd say he had a pretty good idea of the fact that Martin was a teenager. And yes, he was 5'11", but he was 5'11" and 155 pounds. Zimmerman was 5'8" 200 pounds. That's one Big, scary, scrawny teenager. If you look at the log of the dispatcher, Zimmerman didn't witness Martin committing any crimes. He witnessed Martin looking around. Looking isn't a crime. Martin tried running away from this guy in a car watching him, Zimmerman pursued him, concerned because according to him "These assholes. They always get away" What assholes was he talking about? All he saw was a black person who appeared to be in his "late teens" walking in the rain, wearing a hoodie. I'm sure those are the assholes he meant. We need to have Zimmerman join that Criminal Minds show as he has apparently masterful criminal profiling skills. If only we had more brave citizens willing to stop black kids from walking in the rain while wearing hoodies, our crime rate would drop to zero!! I'm sorry but if I'm walking home from the convenience store, minding my own business, and I see a stranger in a car staring at me, then following me, I'm gonna run. And if he then starts chasing me down, after I'm running away from him, I'm not thinking he's the nice community watch leader, I'm thinking kidnapper/pedophile and I'm gonna fight him. I'm not saying that Zimmerman is guilty of murder, but he should be held accountable for manslaughter. He tried to play hero and profiled a kid as a criminal because he was walking casually in the rain. and he guessed wrong. Why shouldn't he be held accountable for being wrong when his mistake ended in the death of someone. Because if it turns out that the law punishes you for playing vigilante the "you need guns for self defense" suddenly gets another mark against it. If Zimmerman would have died unarmed then us gun nuts would have said "too bad he didn't have a gun" and you'd probably say something like "if he had a gun more people might have died" or some other nonsense which always get's repeated anytime that is suggested. This story isn't a mark against guns for self defense its a mark against gun control if anything. Zimmerman's gun saved his life as far as I can tell and until there comes out evidence that his life wasn't in danger (highly unlikely) that's the way it is. On May 31 2013 16:35 Lt_Stork wrote:
If Trayvon was on top of him and punching him. Zman is defenseless and paralyzed on the ground, save for a gun. Why the fuck would you fire a gun in a "late teens" chest? Leg, hip, buttock, it's just a question of angle of your arm and hand. A bullet wound would be enough to scare off any attacker - especially one that was possibly yelling for help and trying to run away from you. How do you know he knew that Trayvon was in his "late teens"? How do you know he had a chance to aim his gun somewhere non-lethal while he was being punched? His question was why shouldn't Zimmerman be accountable in some way for having shot someone. I said, because the law making a precedent for convicting vigilantes would be a mark against self defense claims. Why are you talking about other possible outcomes to the fight as well as other possible outcomes to the sentence? The question I answered was why people are so against making zman culpable for the death of a teen. I was telling him why. I was showing him why it's so important to some people that the shooter be considered innocent. If he is considered innocent, it's a big win for gun defense activist and allows them to follow people at night and shoot them in self defense.
You can look at it that way if you want but how about innocent until proven guilty? Wouldn't that be a complete sham if he was found guilty with no proof?
(Proof being that he didn't feel his life was in danger)
|
You sort of missed a big step between "follow people at night" and "shoot them in self defense." Something along the lines of getting the crap beaten out of him by Martin.
Again, the case hinges on who initiated the altercation itself. Hypothetically, assume that the jury finds that the evidence shows that Martin initiated the fight, do you still believe Zimmerman was in the wrong for shooting him? You want people to lie down and die in a situation like that?
And what does Martin being a teen have anything to do with anything. That's just playing up bias. Teens are just as capable of abhorrent acts of violence as anyone else.
And for the record, I don't like guns, would never own a gun, and am all for stricter gun control. I also have ultimate respect for self-defense laws and believe that people, when their lives are in danger, are within their rights to do whatever it takes to reach safety. If Martin truly did start the fight and have Zimmerman on the ground bashing his head in, his life is forfeit.
You miss a step too, the one where Martin runs away from Zimmerman. Again, if I'm a teenager and I see a stranger sitting in his car, staring at me, I'm gonna run away, just like Martin did. Zimmerman pursued him. If a guy whose been staring at me, starts chasing me down after I run from him, I'm gonna assume he means me harm and if cornered, fight. Zimmerman didn't identify himself as Neighborhood Watch or a concerned neighbor, which could have diffused the situation. According to Zimmerman's own account (we sadly don't have Martin's account), Martin either came out of nowhere, jumped out from the bushes, or emerged from the darkness (his accounts vary slightly), and asked Zimmerman "Do you have a problem", Zimmerman had the opportunity to explain why he was chasing a teen in the dark, could have said "Hey, I'm in the community watch and we've had some break-ins lately and you were looking suspicious" or something to that effect, but according to Zimmerman, he answered "No, I don't have a problem." That's when Zimmerman claims Martin said "Well, you do now." and jumped him. So, if I take Zimmerman at face value and believe every word he said on the matter, he stalked a teen through his neighborhood, then when the teen ran away, he got out of his car and chased him down, then when the teen gave him the opportunity to explain himself, Zimmerman offered no explanation. Only after all of that did Martin start to fight, and then during the fight, Martin realized that the guy who had been stalking and chasing him with no explanation was doing so carrying a gun! If I was Martin, I would have bashed his head in too.
Everybody is willing to see Zimmerman's point of view and give him the benefit of the doubt that he was in fear for his life, but no one sees how Martin could have been in fear for his life after being stalked and chased by a stranger who was bigger than he was, who was carrying a gun who refused to identify himself when asked. I'm not saying it was murder, but this looks like textbook manslaughter to me. Zimmerman tried playing vigilante, but he guessed wrong and killed a kid unnecessarily. I really don't see why this is controversial. Even if I don't believe anything that was said by anybody except George Zimmerman's own words on the matter, I come to that conclusion. But then again, Zimmerman did lie in court about his finances, leading to his bail being revoked, so I'm not saying that Zimmerman should be taken 100% at his word.
|
On June 01 2013 00:46 Quexana wrote:Show nested quote +You sort of missed a big step between "follow people at night" and "shoot them in self defense." Something along the lines of getting the crap beaten out of him by Martin.
Again, the case hinges on who initiated the altercation itself. Hypothetically, assume that the jury finds that the evidence shows that Martin initiated the fight, do you still believe Zimmerman was in the wrong for shooting him? You want people to lie down and die in a situation like that?
And what does Martin being a teen have anything to do with anything. That's just playing up bias. Teens are just as capable of abhorrent acts of violence as anyone else.
And for the record, I don't like guns, would never own a gun, and am all for stricter gun control. I also have ultimate respect for self-defense laws and believe that people, when their lives are in danger, are within their rights to do whatever it takes to reach safety. If Martin truly did start the fight and have Zimmerman on the ground bashing his head in, his life is forfeit. You miss a step too, the one where Martin runs away from Zimmerman. Again, if I'm a teenager and I see a stranger sitting in his car, staring at me, I'm gonna run away, just like Martin did. Zimmerman pursued him. If a guy whose been staring at me, starts chasing me down after I run from him, I'm gonna assume he means me harm and if cornered, fight. Zimmerman didn't identify himself as Neighborhood Watch or a concerned neighbor, which could have diffused the situation. According to Zimmerman's own account (we sadly don't have Martin's account), Martin either came out of nowhere, jumped out from the bushes, or emerged from the darkness (his accounts vary slightly), and asked Zimmerman "Do you have a problem", Zimmerman had the opportunity to explain why he was chasing a teen in the dark, could have said "Hey, I'm in the community watch and we've had some break-ins lately and you were looking suspicious" or something to that effect, but according to Zimmerman, he answered "No, I don't have a problem." That's when Zimmerman claims Martin said "Well, you do now." and jumped him. So, if I take Zimmerman at face value and believe every word he said on the matter, he stalked a teen through his neighborhood, then when the teen ran away, he got out of his car and chased him down, then when the teen gave him the opportunity to explain himself, Zimmerman offered no explanation. Only after all of that did Martin start to fight, and then during the fight, Martin realized that the guy who had been stalking and chasing him with no explanation was doing so carrying a gun! If I was Martin, I would have bashed his head in too. Everybody is willing to see Zimmerman's point of view and give him the benefit of the doubt that he was in fear for his life, but no one sees how Martin could have been in fear for his life after being stalked and chased by a stranger who was bigger than he was, who was carrying a gun who refused to identify himself when asked. I'm not saying it was murder, but this looks like textbook manslaughter to me. Zimmerman tried playing vigilante, but he guessed wrong and killed a kid unnecessarily. I really don't see why this is controversial. Even if I don't believe anything that was said by anybody except George Zimmerman's own words on the matter, I come to that conclusion. But then again, Zimmerman did lie in court about his finances, leading to his bail being revoked, so I'm not saying that Zimmerman should be taken 100% at his word.
Well it comes down to whether or not you believe Zimmerman's account, if you don't you don't. If you are to believe his account and someone asks you "if you have a problem" isn't saying "no I don't have a problem" an attempt to diffuse the situation? I don't understand how you can believe his own testimony and say that it's textbook manslaughter.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On June 01 2013 00:46 Quexana wrote:Show nested quote +You sort of missed a big step between "follow people at night" and "shoot them in self defense." Something along the lines of getting the crap beaten out of him by Martin.
Again, the case hinges on who initiated the altercation itself. Hypothetically, assume that the jury finds that the evidence shows that Martin initiated the fight, do you still believe Zimmerman was in the wrong for shooting him? You want people to lie down and die in a situation like that?
And what does Martin being a teen have anything to do with anything. That's just playing up bias. Teens are just as capable of abhorrent acts of violence as anyone else.
And for the record, I don't like guns, would never own a gun, and am all for stricter gun control. I also have ultimate respect for self-defense laws and believe that people, when their lives are in danger, are within their rights to do whatever it takes to reach safety. If Martin truly did start the fight and have Zimmerman on the ground bashing his head in, his life is forfeit. You miss a step too, the one where Martin runs away from Zimmerman. Again, if I'm a teenager and I see a stranger sitting in his car, staring at me, I'm gonna run away, just like Martin did. Zimmerman pursued him. If a guy whose been staring at me, starts chasing me down after I run from him, I'm gonna assume he means me harm and if cornered, fight. Zimmerman didn't identify himself as Neighborhood Watch or a concerned neighbor, which could have diffused the situation. According to Zimmerman's own account (we sadly don't have Martin's account), Martin either came out of nowhere, jumped out from the bushes, or emerged from the darkness (his accounts vary slightly), and asked Zimmerman "Do you have a problem", Zimmerman had the opportunity to explain why he was chasing a teen in the dark, could have said "Hey, I'm in the community watch and we've had some break-ins lately and you were looking suspicious" or something to that effect, but according to Zimmerman, he answered "No, I don't have a problem." That's when Zimmerman claims Martin said "Well, you do now." and jumped him. So, if I take Zimmerman at face value and believe every word he said on the matter, he stalked a teen through his neighborhood, then when the teen ran away, he got out of his car and chased him down, then when the teen gave him the opportunity to explain himself, Zimmerman offered no explanation. Only after all of that did Martin start to fight, and then during the fight, Martin realized that the guy who had been stalking and chasing him with no explanation was doing so carrying a gun! If I was Martin, I would have bashed his head in too. Everybody is willing to see Zimmerman's point of view and give him the benefit of the doubt that he was in fear for his life, but no one sees how Martin could have been in fear for his life after being stalked and chased by a stranger who was bigger than he was, who was carrying a gun who refused to identify himself when asked. I'm not saying it was murder, but this looks like textbook manslaughter to me. Zimmerman tried playing vigilante, but he guessed wrong and killed a kid unnecessarily. I really don't see why this is controversial. Even if I don't believe anything that was said by anybody except George Zimmerman's own words on the matter, I come to that conclusion. But then again, Zimmerman did lie in court about his finances, leading to his bail being revoked, so I'm not saying that Zimmerman should be taken 100% at his word.
unless I'm misunderstanding what you wrote, no, Martin didn't know Zimmerman had a gun and couldn't have until the fight started. Also, from the phone call, he stopped pursuing as can be heard(I believe it was the rustling stopped). Furthermore, we have no clue if Zimmerman identified himself as Neighorhood watch or not since we don't know much past the part when Martin supposdly jumped him. There are a lot of things still missing in this case, doubt we'll get the full story anytime soon.
|
Well it comes down to whether or not you believe Zimmerman's account, if you don't you don't. If you are to believe his account and someone asks you "if you have a problem" isn't saying "no I don't have a problem" an attempt to diffuse the situation? I don't understand how you can believe his own testimony and say that it's textbook manslaughter.
"no, i don't have a problem" isn't good enough when you're stalking someone. Police are required to identify themselves as such to suspects they are chasing. Zimmerman can't give so much as a "I'm in the community watch"? Do people normally stare from their cars, then chase teenagers through neighborhoods when they don't have a problem?
|
unless I'm misunderstanding what you wrote, no, Martin didn't know Zimmerman had a gun and couldn't have until the fight started. Also, from the phone call, he stopped pursuing as can be heard(I believe it was the rustling stopped). Furthermore, we have no clue if Zimmerman identified himself as Neighorhood watch or not since we don't know much past the part when Martin supposdly jumped him. There are a lot of things still missing in this case, doubt we'll get the full story anytime soon.
Zimmerman has given his account to the media several times. I am indeed saying that Martin didn't know Zimmerman had a gun until after the fight started. According to Zimmerman's account it went something like
1. Zimmerman called the Police
2. Martin Noticed Zimmerman staring at him from his car.
3. Martin Fled
4. Zimmerman got out of his car
5. Dispatcher told Zimmerman "We don't need you to [pursue Martin]
6. Zimmerman hangs up with police.
7. Zimmerman pursues Martin
8. Martin comes out from nowhere/jumps out from behind a bush/emerges from the darkness
9. Martin asks Zimmerman if he has a problem
10. Zimmerman says he doesn't have a problem
11. Martin jumps Zimmerman
12. During the fight Martin sees the gun
13. Martin begins bashing Zimmerman's head into the ground.
14. Zimmerman grabs gun and shoots martin
15. Martin says "you got me", then dies.
Zimmerman never said he identified himself as Neighborhood Watch, police reports leaked to the press backed this up. He never tried to explain why he was following and chasing Martin through the neighborhood. I'm saying put yourself in Martin's shoes that night, there's a man staring at you from his car, you run away, he chases you down. You ask him what's his problem and after stalking you claims he doesn't have a problem, essentially saying he has no good reason for his actions, so you fight this dude who for all you know could be a kidnapper/pedophile who likes teenage boys. Then during the fight you see that this guy who has been stalking and chasing you through the neighborhood, who won't tell you who he is or why he's doing what he's doing, has a gun. Would you not be in fear for your life? If George Zimmerman had done his job as a member of the Community Watch and, well Watched, then Martin would be alive today. He did more than watch though. He pursued and chased a teenager who was walking home from a convenience store. And when confronted, did not identify himself or explain his actions. And as a result of Zimmerman's actions, someone died. Zimmerman made a call, and it was a mistake. Why shouldn't he be responsible for his mistake?
|
On June 01 2013 00:46 Quexana wrote:Show nested quote +You sort of missed a big step between "follow people at night" and "shoot them in self defense." Something along the lines of getting the crap beaten out of him by Martin.
Again, the case hinges on who initiated the altercation itself. Hypothetically, assume that the jury finds that the evidence shows that Martin initiated the fight, do you still believe Zimmerman was in the wrong for shooting him? You want people to lie down and die in a situation like that?
And what does Martin being a teen have anything to do with anything. That's just playing up bias. Teens are just as capable of abhorrent acts of violence as anyone else.
And for the record, I don't like guns, would never own a gun, and am all for stricter gun control. I also have ultimate respect for self-defense laws and believe that people, when their lives are in danger, are within their rights to do whatever it takes to reach safety. If Martin truly did start the fight and have Zimmerman on the ground bashing his head in, his life is forfeit. You miss a step too, the one where Martin runs away from Zimmerman. Again, if I'm a teenager and I see a stranger sitting in his car, staring at me, I'm gonna run away, just like Martin did. Zimmerman pursued him. If a guy whose been staring at me, starts chasing me down after I run from him, I'm gonna assume he means me harm and if cornered, fight. Zimmerman didn't identify himself as Neighborhood Watch or a concerned neighbor, which could have diffused the situation. According to Zimmerman's own account (we sadly don't have Martin's account), Martin either came out of nowhere, jumped out from the bushes, or emerged from the darkness (his accounts vary slightly), and asked Zimmerman "Do you have a problem", Zimmerman had the opportunity to explain why he was chasing a teen in the dark, could have said "Hey, I'm in the community watch and we've had some break-ins lately and you were looking suspicious" or something to that effect, but according to Zimmerman, he answered "No, I don't have a problem." That's when Zimmerman claims Martin said "Well, you do now." and jumped him. So, if I take Zimmerman at face value and believe every word he said on the matter, he stalked a teen through his neighborhood, then when the teen ran away, he got out of his car and chased him down, then when the teen gave him the opportunity to explain himself, Zimmerman offered no explanation. Only after all of that did Martin start to fight, and then during the fight, Martin realized that the guy who had been stalking and chasing him with no explanation was doing so carrying a gun! If I was Martin, I would have bashed his head in too. Everybody is willing to see Zimmerman's point of view and give him the benefit of the doubt that he was in fear for his life, but no one sees how Martin could have been in fear for his life after being stalked and chased by a stranger who was bigger than he was, who was carrying a gun who refused to identify himself when asked. I'm not saying it was murder, but this looks like textbook manslaughter to me. Zimmerman tried playing vigilante, but he guessed wrong and killed a kid unnecessarily. I really don't see why this is controversial. Even if I don't believe anything that was said by anybody except George Zimmerman's own words on the matter, I come to that conclusion. But then again, Zimmerman did lie in court about his finances, leading to his bail being revoked, so I'm not saying that Zimmerman should be taken 100% at his word.
People in this thread keep trying to act as if Trayvon was somehow incapable of willingly initiating a fight, im sorry but it is NOT far fetched to believe that Trayvon could've simply changed his mind and decided he was tired of this guys shit and to try to beat him up for following him.
I really dislike the fact that a lot of people in this thread are trying to play it off like there is no way in hell that Trayvon actually initiated the fight and worse off are the people that are trying to say "this is what a teenager would've done", news flash people, every person is unique and the whole purpose of this trial is to try to uncover what actually happened, so I suggest everyone here try to actually listen and follow the case instead of trying to push opinions one side or the other.
|
On June 01 2013 03:04 Anesthetic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 00:46 Quexana wrote:You sort of missed a big step between "follow people at night" and "shoot them in self defense." Something along the lines of getting the crap beaten out of him by Martin.
Again, the case hinges on who initiated the altercation itself. Hypothetically, assume that the jury finds that the evidence shows that Martin initiated the fight, do you still believe Zimmerman was in the wrong for shooting him? You want people to lie down and die in a situation like that?
And what does Martin being a teen have anything to do with anything. That's just playing up bias. Teens are just as capable of abhorrent acts of violence as anyone else.
And for the record, I don't like guns, would never own a gun, and am all for stricter gun control. I also have ultimate respect for self-defense laws and believe that people, when their lives are in danger, are within their rights to do whatever it takes to reach safety. If Martin truly did start the fight and have Zimmerman on the ground bashing his head in, his life is forfeit. You miss a step too, the one where Martin runs away from Zimmerman. Again, if I'm a teenager and I see a stranger sitting in his car, staring at me, I'm gonna run away, just like Martin did. Zimmerman pursued him. If a guy whose been staring at me, starts chasing me down after I run from him, I'm gonna assume he means me harm and if cornered, fight. Zimmerman didn't identify himself as Neighborhood Watch or a concerned neighbor, which could have diffused the situation. According to Zimmerman's own account (we sadly don't have Martin's account), Martin either came out of nowhere, jumped out from the bushes, or emerged from the darkness (his accounts vary slightly), and asked Zimmerman "Do you have a problem", Zimmerman had the opportunity to explain why he was chasing a teen in the dark, could have said "Hey, I'm in the community watch and we've had some break-ins lately and you were looking suspicious" or something to that effect, but according to Zimmerman, he answered "No, I don't have a problem." That's when Zimmerman claims Martin said "Well, you do now." and jumped him. So, if I take Zimmerman at face value and believe every word he said on the matter, he stalked a teen through his neighborhood, then when the teen ran away, he got out of his car and chased him down, then when the teen gave him the opportunity to explain himself, Zimmerman offered no explanation. Only after all of that did Martin start to fight, and then during the fight, Martin realized that the guy who had been stalking and chasing him with no explanation was doing so carrying a gun! If I was Martin, I would have bashed his head in too. Everybody is willing to see Zimmerman's point of view and give him the benefit of the doubt that he was in fear for his life, but no one sees how Martin could have been in fear for his life after being stalked and chased by a stranger who was bigger than he was, who was carrying a gun who refused to identify himself when asked. I'm not saying it was murder, but this looks like textbook manslaughter to me. Zimmerman tried playing vigilante, but he guessed wrong and killed a kid unnecessarily. I really don't see why this is controversial. Even if I don't believe anything that was said by anybody except George Zimmerman's own words on the matter, I come to that conclusion. But then again, Zimmerman did lie in court about his finances, leading to his bail being revoked, so I'm not saying that Zimmerman should be taken 100% at his word. People in this thread keep trying to act as if Trayvon was somehow incapable of willingly initiating a fight, im sorry but it is NOT far fetched to believe that Trayvon could've simply changed his mind and decided he was tired of this guys shit and to try to beat him up for following him. I really dislike the fact that a lot of people in this thread are trying to play it off like there is no way in hell that Trayvon actually initiated the fight and worse off are the people that are trying to say "this is what a teenager would've done", news flash people, every person is unique and the whole purpose of this trial is to try to uncover what actually happened, so I suggest everyone here try to actually listen and follow the case instead of trying to push opinions one side or the other.
Do we have evidence an armed man chased after and followed his victim? Yes.
Do we have evidence that a kid walking home randomly attacked someone? No.
Is it possible? I guess, but on what evidence do we go off of?
|
People in this thread keep trying to act as if Trayvon was somehow incapable of willingly initiating a fight, im sorry but it is NOT far fetched to believe that Trayvon could've simply changed his mind and decided he was tired of this guys shit and to try to beat him up for following him.
I really dislike the fact that a lot of people in this thread are trying to play it off like there is no way in hell that Trayvon actually initiated the fight and worse off are the people that are trying to say "this is what a teenager would've done", news flash people, every person is unique and the whole purpose of this trial is to try to uncover what actually happened, so I suggest everyone here try to actually listen and follow the case instead of trying to push opinions one side or the other.
What are you responding to? My post doesn't act as though Trayvon was incapable of initiating the fight. Actually my point was that taking only Zimmerman's account of what happened into account (which suggests Trayvon started the fight), Zimmerman had no reason to stalk him, chase him through a neighborhood after Trayvon tried running away, then refuse to Idendify himself or explain his stalkery actions to Trayvon once confronted. I'm not saying Zimmerman is evil or racist or anything of the like. I'm saying he made a bad call. A call which led to the death of a teenager. Trayvon didn't walk through that neighborhood looking to cause trouble, he was looking to go home and eat the candy he just bought. Zimmerman went looking to stop trouble that was only in his mind and shot someone dead. Why is everyone trying to justify this?
|
On June 01 2013 03:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 03:04 Anesthetic wrote:On June 01 2013 00:46 Quexana wrote:You sort of missed a big step between "follow people at night" and "shoot them in self defense." Something along the lines of getting the crap beaten out of him by Martin.
Again, the case hinges on who initiated the altercation itself. Hypothetically, assume that the jury finds that the evidence shows that Martin initiated the fight, do you still believe Zimmerman was in the wrong for shooting him? You want people to lie down and die in a situation like that?
And what does Martin being a teen have anything to do with anything. That's just playing up bias. Teens are just as capable of abhorrent acts of violence as anyone else.
And for the record, I don't like guns, would never own a gun, and am all for stricter gun control. I also have ultimate respect for self-defense laws and believe that people, when their lives are in danger, are within their rights to do whatever it takes to reach safety. If Martin truly did start the fight and have Zimmerman on the ground bashing his head in, his life is forfeit. You miss a step too, the one where Martin runs away from Zimmerman. Again, if I'm a teenager and I see a stranger sitting in his car, staring at me, I'm gonna run away, just like Martin did. Zimmerman pursued him. If a guy whose been staring at me, starts chasing me down after I run from him, I'm gonna assume he means me harm and if cornered, fight. Zimmerman didn't identify himself as Neighborhood Watch or a concerned neighbor, which could have diffused the situation. According to Zimmerman's own account (we sadly don't have Martin's account), Martin either came out of nowhere, jumped out from the bushes, or emerged from the darkness (his accounts vary slightly), and asked Zimmerman "Do you have a problem", Zimmerman had the opportunity to explain why he was chasing a teen in the dark, could have said "Hey, I'm in the community watch and we've had some break-ins lately and you were looking suspicious" or something to that effect, but according to Zimmerman, he answered "No, I don't have a problem." That's when Zimmerman claims Martin said "Well, you do now." and jumped him. So, if I take Zimmerman at face value and believe every word he said on the matter, he stalked a teen through his neighborhood, then when the teen ran away, he got out of his car and chased him down, then when the teen gave him the opportunity to explain himself, Zimmerman offered no explanation. Only after all of that did Martin start to fight, and then during the fight, Martin realized that the guy who had been stalking and chasing him with no explanation was doing so carrying a gun! If I was Martin, I would have bashed his head in too. Everybody is willing to see Zimmerman's point of view and give him the benefit of the doubt that he was in fear for his life, but no one sees how Martin could have been in fear for his life after being stalked and chased by a stranger who was bigger than he was, who was carrying a gun who refused to identify himself when asked. I'm not saying it was murder, but this looks like textbook manslaughter to me. Zimmerman tried playing vigilante, but he guessed wrong and killed a kid unnecessarily. I really don't see why this is controversial. Even if I don't believe anything that was said by anybody except George Zimmerman's own words on the matter, I come to that conclusion. But then again, Zimmerman did lie in court about his finances, leading to his bail being revoked, so I'm not saying that Zimmerman should be taken 100% at his word. People in this thread keep trying to act as if Trayvon was somehow incapable of willingly initiating a fight, im sorry but it is NOT far fetched to believe that Trayvon could've simply changed his mind and decided he was tired of this guys shit and to try to beat him up for following him. I really dislike the fact that a lot of people in this thread are trying to play it off like there is no way in hell that Trayvon actually initiated the fight and worse off are the people that are trying to say "this is what a teenager would've done", news flash people, every person is unique and the whole purpose of this trial is to try to uncover what actually happened, so I suggest everyone here try to actually listen and follow the case instead of trying to push opinions one side or the other. Is it possible? I guess
You do understand the meaning of beyond a reasonable doubt right? I think its something very important that everyone in this thread is forgetting.
Also your wording is horribly biased, it makes a lot of difference if i say
Do we have evidence that an armed member of a neighborhood watch was keeping an eye on someone who he felt was suspicious? Yes
Do we have evidence that this man was hurt? Yes
|
On June 01 2013 03:16 Quexana wrote:Show nested quote +People in this thread keep trying to act as if Trayvon was somehow incapable of willingly initiating a fight, im sorry but it is NOT far fetched to believe that Trayvon could've simply changed his mind and decided he was tired of this guys shit and to try to beat him up for following him.
I really dislike the fact that a lot of people in this thread are trying to play it off like there is no way in hell that Trayvon actually initiated the fight and worse off are the people that are trying to say "this is what a teenager would've done", news flash people, every person is unique and the whole purpose of this trial is to try to uncover what actually happened, so I suggest everyone here try to actually listen and follow the case instead of trying to push opinions one side or the other. What are you responding to? My post doesn't act as though Trayvon was incapable of initiating the fight. Actually my point was that taking only Zimmerman's account of what happened into account (which suggests Trayvon started the fight), Zimmerman had no reason to stalk him, chase him through a neighborhood after Trayvon tried running away, then refuse to Idendify himself or explain his stalkery actions to Trayvon once confronted. I'm not saying Zimmerman is evil or racist or anything of the like. I'm saying he made a bad call. A call which led to the death of a teenager. Trayvon didn't walk through that neighborhood looking to cause trouble, he was looking to go home and eat the candy he just bought. Zimmerman went looking to stop trouble that was only in his mind and shot someone dead. Why is everyone trying to justify this?
Personally I dont believe that you guys actually believe that Zimmerman actually was trying to protect his neighborhood, but thats not up to anybody except the people at the court that will be deciding his trial. In my opinion if he genuinely believed that Trayvon was suspicious, and if he was in a neighborhood watch which operates in an area with significant amounts of crime then he had some decent intentions.
|
You do understand the meaning of beyond a reasonable doubt right? I think its something very important that everyone in this thread is forgetting.
It's beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. The prosecution will have no problem proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed homicide. The question the court must decide is whether that homicide was justified or not and in that case the burden of proof is on the defense, not the prosecution. Yes, Zimmerman's testimony will count as proof, and the prosecution will offer evidence to poke holes in that testimony, but the fact as to whether Zimmerman killed Martin or somebody else killed him has already been made clear.
|
On June 01 2013 03:22 Anesthetic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 03:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 01 2013 03:04 Anesthetic wrote:On June 01 2013 00:46 Quexana wrote:You sort of missed a big step between "follow people at night" and "shoot them in self defense." Something along the lines of getting the crap beaten out of him by Martin.
Again, the case hinges on who initiated the altercation itself. Hypothetically, assume that the jury finds that the evidence shows that Martin initiated the fight, do you still believe Zimmerman was in the wrong for shooting him? You want people to lie down and die in a situation like that?
And what does Martin being a teen have anything to do with anything. That's just playing up bias. Teens are just as capable of abhorrent acts of violence as anyone else.
And for the record, I don't like guns, would never own a gun, and am all for stricter gun control. I also have ultimate respect for self-defense laws and believe that people, when their lives are in danger, are within their rights to do whatever it takes to reach safety. If Martin truly did start the fight and have Zimmerman on the ground bashing his head in, his life is forfeit. You miss a step too, the one where Martin runs away from Zimmerman. Again, if I'm a teenager and I see a stranger sitting in his car, staring at me, I'm gonna run away, just like Martin did. Zimmerman pursued him. If a guy whose been staring at me, starts chasing me down after I run from him, I'm gonna assume he means me harm and if cornered, fight. Zimmerman didn't identify himself as Neighborhood Watch or a concerned neighbor, which could have diffused the situation. According to Zimmerman's own account (we sadly don't have Martin's account), Martin either came out of nowhere, jumped out from the bushes, or emerged from the darkness (his accounts vary slightly), and asked Zimmerman "Do you have a problem", Zimmerman had the opportunity to explain why he was chasing a teen in the dark, could have said "Hey, I'm in the community watch and we've had some break-ins lately and you were looking suspicious" or something to that effect, but according to Zimmerman, he answered "No, I don't have a problem." That's when Zimmerman claims Martin said "Well, you do now." and jumped him. So, if I take Zimmerman at face value and believe every word he said on the matter, he stalked a teen through his neighborhood, then when the teen ran away, he got out of his car and chased him down, then when the teen gave him the opportunity to explain himself, Zimmerman offered no explanation. Only after all of that did Martin start to fight, and then during the fight, Martin realized that the guy who had been stalking and chasing him with no explanation was doing so carrying a gun! If I was Martin, I would have bashed his head in too. Everybody is willing to see Zimmerman's point of view and give him the benefit of the doubt that he was in fear for his life, but no one sees how Martin could have been in fear for his life after being stalked and chased by a stranger who was bigger than he was, who was carrying a gun who refused to identify himself when asked. I'm not saying it was murder, but this looks like textbook manslaughter to me. Zimmerman tried playing vigilante, but he guessed wrong and killed a kid unnecessarily. I really don't see why this is controversial. Even if I don't believe anything that was said by anybody except George Zimmerman's own words on the matter, I come to that conclusion. But then again, Zimmerman did lie in court about his finances, leading to his bail being revoked, so I'm not saying that Zimmerman should be taken 100% at his word. People in this thread keep trying to act as if Trayvon was somehow incapable of willingly initiating a fight, im sorry but it is NOT far fetched to believe that Trayvon could've simply changed his mind and decided he was tired of this guys shit and to try to beat him up for following him. I really dislike the fact that a lot of people in this thread are trying to play it off like there is no way in hell that Trayvon actually initiated the fight and worse off are the people that are trying to say "this is what a teenager would've done", news flash people, every person is unique and the whole purpose of this trial is to try to uncover what actually happened, so I suggest everyone here try to actually listen and follow the case instead of trying to push opinions one side or the other. Is it possible? I guess You do understand the meaning of beyond a reasonable doubt right? I think its something very important that everyone in this thread is forgetting. Also your wording is horribly biased, it makes a lot of difference if i say Do we have evidence that an armed member of a neighborhood watch was keeping an eye on someone who he felt was suspicious? Yes Do we have evidence that this man was hurt? Yes
Is it possible a Martin was a werewolf with hypnotizing powers that attacked Zimmerman and upon killing martin the shock made zimmerman lose his memory? Sure--if we don't need evidence for things anymore I guess anything is possible.
It's only self defense IF he was attacked by Martin. We have no evidence at all as to what Martin did. Should we accuse Martin of assault without evidence?
Here's what we have, a guy with a gun tracked someone who lived in an area with a history of robberies and martin, after running for his life, asks the tracker what he was doing, the perpetrator retorts with a non-answer.
The evidence suggests that the wounds come from Martin trying to defend himself. After being chased, tracked down, and not being given an answer to his question, in a neighborhood with a history of robberies.
Sure we could assume that Martin had a heart attack a microsecond before the bullet impact and he died before the bullet hit and all Zman is guilty of shooting a dead body. We can assume a lot of Things. Loki mind controlling mortals to cause mischief, the phase of the moon affecting the citizens down below. A lot of things are possible if we ignore the facts.
What are the facts? Zman was running after Martin. Zman says he was going after Martin. Zman says "they get away" suggesting his distrust of the police coming. Zman refused to walk back to his car and walked towards the victim's house. The victim is dead less than a minute after he meets up with Zman.
Zman was seeking, nervous about, and found his victim. His victim died about 40 seconds later.
But yes, if we ignore facts, we can say that anything could have happened. Heck, maybe it was a 2nd shooter from the grassy knoll.
|
On June 01 2013 03:04 Anesthetic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 00:46 Quexana wrote:You sort of missed a big step between "follow people at night" and "shoot them in self defense." Something along the lines of getting the crap beaten out of him by Martin.
Again, the case hinges on who initiated the altercation itself. Hypothetically, assume that the jury finds that the evidence shows that Martin initiated the fight, do you still believe Zimmerman was in the wrong for shooting him? You want people to lie down and die in a situation like that?
And what does Martin being a teen have anything to do with anything. That's just playing up bias. Teens are just as capable of abhorrent acts of violence as anyone else.
And for the record, I don't like guns, would never own a gun, and am all for stricter gun control. I also have ultimate respect for self-defense laws and believe that people, when their lives are in danger, are within their rights to do whatever it takes to reach safety. If Martin truly did start the fight and have Zimmerman on the ground bashing his head in, his life is forfeit. You miss a step too, the one where Martin runs away from Zimmerman. Again, if I'm a teenager and I see a stranger sitting in his car, staring at me, I'm gonna run away, just like Martin did. Zimmerman pursued him. If a guy whose been staring at me, starts chasing me down after I run from him, I'm gonna assume he means me harm and if cornered, fight. Zimmerman didn't identify himself as Neighborhood Watch or a concerned neighbor, which could have diffused the situation. According to Zimmerman's own account (we sadly don't have Martin's account), Martin either came out of nowhere, jumped out from the bushes, or emerged from the darkness (his accounts vary slightly), and asked Zimmerman "Do you have a problem", Zimmerman had the opportunity to explain why he was chasing a teen in the dark, could have said "Hey, I'm in the community watch and we've had some break-ins lately and you were looking suspicious" or something to that effect, but according to Zimmerman, he answered "No, I don't have a problem." That's when Zimmerman claims Martin said "Well, you do now." and jumped him. So, if I take Zimmerman at face value and believe every word he said on the matter, he stalked a teen through his neighborhood, then when the teen ran away, he got out of his car and chased him down, then when the teen gave him the opportunity to explain himself, Zimmerman offered no explanation. Only after all of that did Martin start to fight, and then during the fight, Martin realized that the guy who had been stalking and chasing him with no explanation was doing so carrying a gun! If I was Martin, I would have bashed his head in too. Everybody is willing to see Zimmerman's point of view and give him the benefit of the doubt that he was in fear for his life, but no one sees how Martin could have been in fear for his life after being stalked and chased by a stranger who was bigger than he was, who was carrying a gun who refused to identify himself when asked. I'm not saying it was murder, but this looks like textbook manslaughter to me. Zimmerman tried playing vigilante, but he guessed wrong and killed a kid unnecessarily. I really don't see why this is controversial. Even if I don't believe anything that was said by anybody except George Zimmerman's own words on the matter, I come to that conclusion. But then again, Zimmerman did lie in court about his finances, leading to his bail being revoked, so I'm not saying that Zimmerman should be taken 100% at his word. People in this thread keep trying to act as if Trayvon was somehow incapable of willingly initiating a fight, im sorry but it is NOT far fetched to believe that Trayvon could've simply changed his mind and decided he was tired of this guys shit and to try to beat him up for following him. I really dislike the fact that a lot of people in this thread are trying to play it off like there is no way in hell that Trayvon actually initiated the fight and worse off are the people that are trying to say "this is what a teenager would've done", news flash people, every person is unique and the whole purpose of this trial is to try to uncover what actually happened, so I suggest everyone here try to actually listen and follow the case instead of trying to push opinions one side or the other.
Too many people are making too many assumptions about this case. Actually, in Zimmerman's original accounting of the story, he said he was starting to walk back to his car after having chased Martin and lost him, when Martin appeared and confronted him, and that when he reached for his cellphone Martin attacked. Martin could have interpreted a strange man who was following him and then responding "no I don't have a problem" while reaching for something to be reaching for a gun, and may have attacked prematurely because he was afraid. This is speculation of course, but it illustrates how differently the exact same situation can be viewed.
|
On June 01 2013 03:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 03:22 Anesthetic wrote:On June 01 2013 03:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 01 2013 03:04 Anesthetic wrote:On June 01 2013 00:46 Quexana wrote:You sort of missed a big step between "follow people at night" and "shoot them in self defense." Something along the lines of getting the crap beaten out of him by Martin.
Again, the case hinges on who initiated the altercation itself. Hypothetically, assume that the jury finds that the evidence shows that Martin initiated the fight, do you still believe Zimmerman was in the wrong for shooting him? You want people to lie down and die in a situation like that?
And what does Martin being a teen have anything to do with anything. That's just playing up bias. Teens are just as capable of abhorrent acts of violence as anyone else.
And for the record, I don't like guns, would never own a gun, and am all for stricter gun control. I also have ultimate respect for self-defense laws and believe that people, when their lives are in danger, are within their rights to do whatever it takes to reach safety. If Martin truly did start the fight and have Zimmerman on the ground bashing his head in, his life is forfeit. You miss a step too, the one where Martin runs away from Zimmerman. Again, if I'm a teenager and I see a stranger sitting in his car, staring at me, I'm gonna run away, just like Martin did. Zimmerman pursued him. If a guy whose been staring at me, starts chasing me down after I run from him, I'm gonna assume he means me harm and if cornered, fight. Zimmerman didn't identify himself as Neighborhood Watch or a concerned neighbor, which could have diffused the situation. According to Zimmerman's own account (we sadly don't have Martin's account), Martin either came out of nowhere, jumped out from the bushes, or emerged from the darkness (his accounts vary slightly), and asked Zimmerman "Do you have a problem", Zimmerman had the opportunity to explain why he was chasing a teen in the dark, could have said "Hey, I'm in the community watch and we've had some break-ins lately and you were looking suspicious" or something to that effect, but according to Zimmerman, he answered "No, I don't have a problem." That's when Zimmerman claims Martin said "Well, you do now." and jumped him. So, if I take Zimmerman at face value and believe every word he said on the matter, he stalked a teen through his neighborhood, then when the teen ran away, he got out of his car and chased him down, then when the teen gave him the opportunity to explain himself, Zimmerman offered no explanation. Only after all of that did Martin start to fight, and then during the fight, Martin realized that the guy who had been stalking and chasing him with no explanation was doing so carrying a gun! If I was Martin, I would have bashed his head in too. Everybody is willing to see Zimmerman's point of view and give him the benefit of the doubt that he was in fear for his life, but no one sees how Martin could have been in fear for his life after being stalked and chased by a stranger who was bigger than he was, who was carrying a gun who refused to identify himself when asked. I'm not saying it was murder, but this looks like textbook manslaughter to me. Zimmerman tried playing vigilante, but he guessed wrong and killed a kid unnecessarily. I really don't see why this is controversial. Even if I don't believe anything that was said by anybody except George Zimmerman's own words on the matter, I come to that conclusion. But then again, Zimmerman did lie in court about his finances, leading to his bail being revoked, so I'm not saying that Zimmerman should be taken 100% at his word. People in this thread keep trying to act as if Trayvon was somehow incapable of willingly initiating a fight, im sorry but it is NOT far fetched to believe that Trayvon could've simply changed his mind and decided he was tired of this guys shit and to try to beat him up for following him. I really dislike the fact that a lot of people in this thread are trying to play it off like there is no way in hell that Trayvon actually initiated the fight and worse off are the people that are trying to say "this is what a teenager would've done", news flash people, every person is unique and the whole purpose of this trial is to try to uncover what actually happened, so I suggest everyone here try to actually listen and follow the case instead of trying to push opinions one side or the other. Is it possible? I guess You do understand the meaning of beyond a reasonable doubt right? I think its something very important that everyone in this thread is forgetting. Also your wording is horribly biased, it makes a lot of difference if i say Do we have evidence that an armed member of a neighborhood watch was keeping an eye on someone who he felt was suspicious? Yes Do we have evidence that this man was hurt? Yes Is it possible a Martin was a werewolf with hypnotizing powers that attacked Zimmerman and upon killing martin the shock made zimmerman lose his memory? Sure--if we don't need evidence for things anymore I guess anything is possible. It's only self defense IF he was attacked by Martin. We have no evidence at all as to what Martin did. Should we accuse Martin of assault without evidence? Here's what we have, a guy with a gun tracked someone who lived in an area with a history of robberies and martin, after running for his life, asks the tracker what he was doing, the perpetrator retorts with a non-answer. The evidence suggests that the wounds come from Martin trying to defend himself. After being chased, tracked down, and not being given an answer to his question, in a neighborhood with a history of robberies. Sure we could assume that Martin had a heart attack a microsecond before the bullet impact and he died before the bullet hit and all Zman is guilty of shooting a dead body. We can assume a lot of Things. Loki mind controlling mortals to cause mischief, the phase of the moon affecting the citizens down below. A lot of things are possible if we ignore the facts. What are the facts? Zman was running after Martin. Zman says he was going after Martin. Zman says "they get away" suggesting his distrust of the police coming. Zman refused to walk back to his car and walked towards the victim's house. The victim is dead less than a minute after he meets up with Zman. Zman was seeking, nervous about, and found his victim. His victim died about 40 seconds later. But yes, if we ignore facts, we can say that anything could have happened. Heck, maybe it was a 2nd shooter from the grassy knoll.
So your idea of defending from someone following you is to stop and fight them? Have you ever lived in a high crime area? Ever been followed by someone and actually know what it feels like to be in danger?Im simply wondering why in the world you keep claiming that Trayvon was "defending himself" by stopping and fighting the guy that was following him. Go out and ask anyone who has grown up in a high crime area if they think its a smart idea to "Defend" themselves by stopping and fighting someone who is stalking them because to me it seems that you have no street smarts when you claim these outrageous things. Lets let people who actually live in the same neighborhoods as trayvon decide what actually happened instead of letting people who probably have no clue what it feels like to be in a fight or live in a high crime neighborhood decide a man's fate.
|
Personally I dont believe that you guys actually believe that Zimmerman actually was trying to protect his neighborhood, but thats not up to anybody except the people at the court that will be deciding his trial. In my opinion if he genuinely believed that Trayvon was suspicious, and if he was in a neighborhood watch which operates in an area with significant amounts of crime then he had some decent intentions.
I do believe that Zimmerman had "decent intention", better than that I think he had good intentions. I think he was genuinely trying to protect his neighborhood. I also think he genuinely believed that Martin looked suspicious. Belief does not equal fact though. Despite his noble intentions, he made a mistake, several mistakes in fact, that winded up costing an innocent boy his life. If Martin did start the fight, then he made a mistake too, but Martin paid for his mistake with his life. Zimmerman is trying to get off without paying any penalty for his mistake, and I just don't think it's right. I'm not saying he's a murderer, that he should be locked up for life, but manslaughter is not too harsh a verdict for what he did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
