|
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. |
Anesthetic, do you think it's reasonable that Martin was in fear for his life?
|
On June 01 2013 22:53 Quexana wrote:
Anesthetic, do you think it's reasonable that Martin was in fear for his life?
Obviously Trayvon wasn't afraid. He had the opportunity to go home but instead chose to double back and confront Zimmerman.
|
On June 01 2013 23:52 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 22:53 Quexana wrote:
Anesthetic, do you think it's reasonable that Martin was in fear for his life? Obviously Trayvon wasn't afraid. He had the opportunity to go home but instead chose to double back and confront Zimmerman.
Next time someone stares you down, follows you and chases you through your neighborhood, you should go home. That's the best thing. Let the stalker see where you live, where your family lives. That's smart.
That's also if you believe 100% Zimmerman's account of what happened. Remember the details of his account have, shall we say "evolved" in the telling of it over time, also, he did lie to the court about his finances, leading to his bail being revoked. So if you're willing to lie in court, how trustworthy are you? What percentage of Zimmerman's account should we believe, and which version of Zimmerman's account should we believe?
|
On June 02 2013 00:01 Quexana wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 23:52 Zaqwe wrote:On June 01 2013 22:53 Quexana wrote:
Anesthetic, do you think it's reasonable that Martin was in fear for his life? Obviously Trayvon wasn't afraid. He had the opportunity to go home but instead chose to double back and confront Zimmerman. Next time someone stares you down, follows you and chases you through your neighborhood, you should go home. That's the best thing. Let the stalker see where you live, where your family lives. That's smart. That's also if you believe 100% Zimmerman's account of what happened. Remember the details of his account have, shall we say "evolved" in the telling of it over time, also, he did lie to the court about his finances, leading to his bail being revoked. So if you're willing to lie in court, how trustworthy are you? What percentage of Zimmerman's account should we believe, and which version of Zimmerman's account should we believe?
Trayvon had over a minute after Zimmerman lost sight of him to do whatever he wanted. He didn't return home, he didn't dial 911, and he didn't go to a neighbor for help. Instead, he doubled back to confront Zimmerman. This is established by the timeline of events, the recorded phone call to police, and the location of the shooting, not Zimmerman's testimony.
Trayvon's actions certainly do not indicate fear.
People are resorting to ridiculous fantasy to avoid admitting that Trayvon was in the wrong when he decided to assault Zimmerman.
|
On June 02 2013 00:54 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2013 00:01 Quexana wrote:On June 01 2013 23:52 Zaqwe wrote:On June 01 2013 22:53 Quexana wrote:
Anesthetic, do you think it's reasonable that Martin was in fear for his life? Obviously Trayvon wasn't afraid. He had the opportunity to go home but instead chose to double back and confront Zimmerman. Next time someone stares you down, follows you and chases you through your neighborhood, you should go home. That's the best thing. Let the stalker see where you live, where your family lives. That's smart. That's also if you believe 100% Zimmerman's account of what happened. Remember the details of his account have, shall we say "evolved" in the telling of it over time, also, he did lie to the court about his finances, leading to his bail being revoked. So if you're willing to lie in court, how trustworthy are you? What percentage of Zimmerman's account should we believe, and which version of Zimmerman's account should we believe? Trayvon had over a minute after Zimmerman lost sight of him to do whatever he wanted. He didn't return home, he didn't dial 911, and he didn't go to a neighbor for help. Instead, he doubled back to confront Zimmerman. This is established by the timeline of events, the recorded phone call to police, and the location of the shooting, not Zimmerman's testimony. Trayvon's actions certainly do not indicate fear. People are resorting to ridiculous fantasy to avoid admitting that Trayvon was in the wrong when he decided to assault Zimmerman.
You've gone from 'ambushed' to 'confronted' to 'assaulted' now. Which one is it and what is your proof?
|
On June 01 2013 23:52 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 22:53 Quexana wrote:
Anesthetic, do you think it's reasonable that Martin was in fear for his life? Obviously Trayvon wasn't afraid. He had the opportunity to go home but instead chose to double back and confront Zimmerman.
Obviously Zimmerman wanted to murder Martin. He had the opportunity to call the police and stay in his car, but instead he chose to stalk Martin, thereby precipitating a confrontation.
(I don't actually think this. It's just stupid to pretend you were there that night and know the exact nature of the conflict.)
|
On June 02 2013 00:01 Quexana wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 23:52 Zaqwe wrote:On June 01 2013 22:53 Quexana wrote:
Anesthetic, do you think it's reasonable that Martin was in fear for his life? Obviously Trayvon wasn't afraid. He had the opportunity to go home but instead chose to double back and confront Zimmerman. Next time someone stares you down, follows you and chases you through your neighborhood, you should go home. That's the best thing. Let the stalker see where you live, where your family lives. That's smart.That's also if you believe 100% Zimmerman's account of what happened. Remember the details of his account have, shall we say "evolved" in the telling of it over time, also, he did lie to the court about his finances, leading to his bail being revoked. So if you're willing to lie in court, how trustworthy are you? What percentage of Zimmerman's account should we believe, and which version of Zimmerman's account should we believe?
Said with sarcasm but completely true. Go home, lock the fucking doors and call the cops. If I remember correctly somewhere the timeline was discussed. Trayvon had to have doubled back because Zimmerman couldn't find him for a couple of minutes and he was within hundreds of feet from the house he was staying at. IE: It doesn't take more than 2 minutes to walk 150~ feet.
|
On June 02 2013 01:12 Mazer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2013 00:54 Zaqwe wrote:On June 02 2013 00:01 Quexana wrote:On June 01 2013 23:52 Zaqwe wrote:On June 01 2013 22:53 Quexana wrote:
Anesthetic, do you think it's reasonable that Martin was in fear for his life? Obviously Trayvon wasn't afraid. He had the opportunity to go home but instead chose to double back and confront Zimmerman. Next time someone stares you down, follows you and chases you through your neighborhood, you should go home. That's the best thing. Let the stalker see where you live, where your family lives. That's smart. That's also if you believe 100% Zimmerman's account of what happened. Remember the details of his account have, shall we say "evolved" in the telling of it over time, also, he did lie to the court about his finances, leading to his bail being revoked. So if you're willing to lie in court, how trustworthy are you? What percentage of Zimmerman's account should we believe, and which version of Zimmerman's account should we believe? Trayvon had over a minute after Zimmerman lost sight of him to do whatever he wanted. He didn't return home, he didn't dial 911, and he didn't go to a neighbor for help. Instead, he doubled back to confront Zimmerman. This is established by the timeline of events, the recorded phone call to police, and the location of the shooting, not Zimmerman's testimony. Trayvon's actions certainly do not indicate fear. People are resorting to ridiculous fantasy to avoid admitting that Trayvon was in the wrong when he decided to assault Zimmerman. You've gone from 'ambushed' to 'confronted' to 'assaulted' now. Which one is it and what is your proof?
I don't see any contradiction between those terms. What Trayvon did falls under all three.
The proof is the time from when Zimmerman loses sight of Trayvon on the phone call and the end of the call. Trayvon had over a minute to go home, which was a very short distance away. He has to have doubled back to have ended up at the location of the shooting.
The autopsy also found no injuries on Trayvon. That shows it was just a one sided assault. Zimmerman was luckily able to save himself with his handgun, but until then had done no harm at all.
|
On June 02 2013 01:43 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2013 01:12 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 00:54 Zaqwe wrote:On June 02 2013 00:01 Quexana wrote:On June 01 2013 23:52 Zaqwe wrote:On June 01 2013 22:53 Quexana wrote:
Anesthetic, do you think it's reasonable that Martin was in fear for his life? Obviously Trayvon wasn't afraid. He had the opportunity to go home but instead chose to double back and confront Zimmerman. Next time someone stares you down, follows you and chases you through your neighborhood, you should go home. That's the best thing. Let the stalker see where you live, where your family lives. That's smart. That's also if you believe 100% Zimmerman's account of what happened. Remember the details of his account have, shall we say "evolved" in the telling of it over time, also, he did lie to the court about his finances, leading to his bail being revoked. So if you're willing to lie in court, how trustworthy are you? What percentage of Zimmerman's account should we believe, and which version of Zimmerman's account should we believe? Trayvon had over a minute after Zimmerman lost sight of him to do whatever he wanted. He didn't return home, he didn't dial 911, and he didn't go to a neighbor for help. Instead, he doubled back to confront Zimmerman. This is established by the timeline of events, the recorded phone call to police, and the location of the shooting, not Zimmerman's testimony. Trayvon's actions certainly do not indicate fear. People are resorting to ridiculous fantasy to avoid admitting that Trayvon was in the wrong when he decided to assault Zimmerman. You've gone from 'ambushed' to 'confronted' to 'assaulted' now. Which one is it and what is your proof? I don't see any contradiction between those terms. What Trayvon did falls under all three. The proof is the time from when Zimmerman loses sight of Trayvon on the phone call and the end of the call. Trayvon had over a minute to go home, which was a very short distance away. He has to have doubled back to have ended up at the location of the shooting. The autopsy also found no injuries on Trayvon. That shows it was just a one sided assault. Zimmerman was luckily able to save himself with his handgun, but until then had done no harm at all.
No injuries on Trayvon doesn't prove Zimmerman didn't make an attempt against him first.
And yes, there is a pretty stark difference in the meaning of those words. It's debatable who confronted who but to say one definitely assaulted or ambushed the other is a stretch.
|
On June 02 2013 02:14 Mazer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2013 01:43 Zaqwe wrote:On June 02 2013 01:12 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 00:54 Zaqwe wrote:On June 02 2013 00:01 Quexana wrote:On June 01 2013 23:52 Zaqwe wrote:On June 01 2013 22:53 Quexana wrote:
Anesthetic, do you think it's reasonable that Martin was in fear for his life? Obviously Trayvon wasn't afraid. He had the opportunity to go home but instead chose to double back and confront Zimmerman. Next time someone stares you down, follows you and chases you through your neighborhood, you should go home. That's the best thing. Let the stalker see where you live, where your family lives. That's smart. That's also if you believe 100% Zimmerman's account of what happened. Remember the details of his account have, shall we say "evolved" in the telling of it over time, also, he did lie to the court about his finances, leading to his bail being revoked. So if you're willing to lie in court, how trustworthy are you? What percentage of Zimmerman's account should we believe, and which version of Zimmerman's account should we believe? Trayvon had over a minute after Zimmerman lost sight of him to do whatever he wanted. He didn't return home, he didn't dial 911, and he didn't go to a neighbor for help. Instead, he doubled back to confront Zimmerman. This is established by the timeline of events, the recorded phone call to police, and the location of the shooting, not Zimmerman's testimony. Trayvon's actions certainly do not indicate fear. People are resorting to ridiculous fantasy to avoid admitting that Trayvon was in the wrong when he decided to assault Zimmerman. You've gone from 'ambushed' to 'confronted' to 'assaulted' now. Which one is it and what is your proof? I don't see any contradiction between those terms. What Trayvon did falls under all three. The proof is the time from when Zimmerman loses sight of Trayvon on the phone call and the end of the call. Trayvon had over a minute to go home, which was a very short distance away. He has to have doubled back to have ended up at the location of the shooting. The autopsy also found no injuries on Trayvon. That shows it was just a one sided assault. Zimmerman was luckily able to save himself with his handgun, but until then had done no harm at all. No injuries on Trayvon doesn't prove Zimmerman didn't make an attempt against him first. And yes, there is a pretty stark difference in the meaning of those words. It's debatable who confronted who but to say one definitely assaulted or ambushed the other is a stretch.
You think it's a stretch to say Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman?
|
On June 02 2013 02:21 Donger wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2013 02:14 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 01:43 Zaqwe wrote:On June 02 2013 01:12 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 00:54 Zaqwe wrote:On June 02 2013 00:01 Quexana wrote:On June 01 2013 23:52 Zaqwe wrote:On June 01 2013 22:53 Quexana wrote:
Anesthetic, do you think it's reasonable that Martin was in fear for his life? Obviously Trayvon wasn't afraid. He had the opportunity to go home but instead chose to double back and confront Zimmerman. Next time someone stares you down, follows you and chases you through your neighborhood, you should go home. That's the best thing. Let the stalker see where you live, where your family lives. That's smart. That's also if you believe 100% Zimmerman's account of what happened. Remember the details of his account have, shall we say "evolved" in the telling of it over time, also, he did lie to the court about his finances, leading to his bail being revoked. So if you're willing to lie in court, how trustworthy are you? What percentage of Zimmerman's account should we believe, and which version of Zimmerman's account should we believe? Trayvon had over a minute after Zimmerman lost sight of him to do whatever he wanted. He didn't return home, he didn't dial 911, and he didn't go to a neighbor for help. Instead, he doubled back to confront Zimmerman. This is established by the timeline of events, the recorded phone call to police, and the location of the shooting, not Zimmerman's testimony. Trayvon's actions certainly do not indicate fear. People are resorting to ridiculous fantasy to avoid admitting that Trayvon was in the wrong when he decided to assault Zimmerman. You've gone from 'ambushed' to 'confronted' to 'assaulted' now. Which one is it and what is your proof? I don't see any contradiction between those terms. What Trayvon did falls under all three. The proof is the time from when Zimmerman loses sight of Trayvon on the phone call and the end of the call. Trayvon had over a minute to go home, which was a very short distance away. He has to have doubled back to have ended up at the location of the shooting. The autopsy also found no injuries on Trayvon. That shows it was just a one sided assault. Zimmerman was luckily able to save himself with his handgun, but until then had done no harm at all. No injuries on Trayvon doesn't prove Zimmerman didn't make an attempt against him first. And yes, there is a pretty stark difference in the meaning of those words. It's debatable who confronted who but to say one definitely assaulted or ambushed the other is a stretch. You think it's a stretch to say Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman?
It's a possibility. Saying he definitely did so is a stretch.
|
On June 02 2013 02:23 Mazer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2013 02:21 Donger wrote:On June 02 2013 02:14 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 01:43 Zaqwe wrote:On June 02 2013 01:12 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 00:54 Zaqwe wrote:On June 02 2013 00:01 Quexana wrote:On June 01 2013 23:52 Zaqwe wrote:On June 01 2013 22:53 Quexana wrote:
Anesthetic, do you think it's reasonable that Martin was in fear for his life? Obviously Trayvon wasn't afraid. He had the opportunity to go home but instead chose to double back and confront Zimmerman. Next time someone stares you down, follows you and chases you through your neighborhood, you should go home. That's the best thing. Let the stalker see where you live, where your family lives. That's smart. That's also if you believe 100% Zimmerman's account of what happened. Remember the details of his account have, shall we say "evolved" in the telling of it over time, also, he did lie to the court about his finances, leading to his bail being revoked. So if you're willing to lie in court, how trustworthy are you? What percentage of Zimmerman's account should we believe, and which version of Zimmerman's account should we believe? Trayvon had over a minute after Zimmerman lost sight of him to do whatever he wanted. He didn't return home, he didn't dial 911, and he didn't go to a neighbor for help. Instead, he doubled back to confront Zimmerman. This is established by the timeline of events, the recorded phone call to police, and the location of the shooting, not Zimmerman's testimony. Trayvon's actions certainly do not indicate fear. People are resorting to ridiculous fantasy to avoid admitting that Trayvon was in the wrong when he decided to assault Zimmerman. You've gone from 'ambushed' to 'confronted' to 'assaulted' now. Which one is it and what is your proof? I don't see any contradiction between those terms. What Trayvon did falls under all three. The proof is the time from when Zimmerman loses sight of Trayvon on the phone call and the end of the call. Trayvon had over a minute to go home, which was a very short distance away. He has to have doubled back to have ended up at the location of the shooting. The autopsy also found no injuries on Trayvon. That shows it was just a one sided assault. Zimmerman was luckily able to save himself with his handgun, but until then had done no harm at all. No injuries on Trayvon doesn't prove Zimmerman didn't make an attempt against him first. And yes, there is a pretty stark difference in the meaning of those words. It's debatable who confronted who but to say one definitely assaulted or ambushed the other is a stretch. You think it's a stretch to say Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman? It's a possibility. Saying he definitely did so is a stretch.
So you believe that Zimmerman may have inflicted his wounds upon himself?
|
On June 02 2013 01:39 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2013 00:01 Quexana wrote:On June 01 2013 23:52 Zaqwe wrote:On June 01 2013 22:53 Quexana wrote:
Anesthetic, do you think it's reasonable that Martin was in fear for his life? Obviously Trayvon wasn't afraid. He had the opportunity to go home but instead chose to double back and confront Zimmerman. Next time someone stares you down, follows you and chases you through your neighborhood, you should go home. That's the best thing. Let the stalker see where you live, where your family lives. That's smart.That's also if you believe 100% Zimmerman's account of what happened. Remember the details of his account have, shall we say "evolved" in the telling of it over time, also, he did lie to the court about his finances, leading to his bail being revoked. So if you're willing to lie in court, how trustworthy are you? What percentage of Zimmerman's account should we believe, and which version of Zimmerman's account should we believe? Said with sarcasm but completely true. Go home, lock the fucking doors and call the cops. If I remember correctly somewhere the timeline was discussed. Trayvon had to have doubled back because Zimmerman couldn't find him for a couple of minutes and he was within hundreds of feet from the house he was staying at. IE: It doesn't take more than 2 minutes to walk 150~ feet.
If he had gone home and called the police, the police would have likely told him to stay away from Zimmerman, then he would have the full right to go chasing after Zimmerman in the dark with a gun against the police's advice, because that's how it works right? The police tell you to stay away from someone and you then have the right to chase after them with a gun.
|
On June 02 2013 02:25 Donger wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2013 02:23 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 02:21 Donger wrote:On June 02 2013 02:14 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 01:43 Zaqwe wrote:On June 02 2013 01:12 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 00:54 Zaqwe wrote:On June 02 2013 00:01 Quexana wrote:On June 01 2013 23:52 Zaqwe wrote:On June 01 2013 22:53 Quexana wrote:
Anesthetic, do you think it's reasonable that Martin was in fear for his life? Obviously Trayvon wasn't afraid. He had the opportunity to go home but instead chose to double back and confront Zimmerman. Next time someone stares you down, follows you and chases you through your neighborhood, you should go home. That's the best thing. Let the stalker see where you live, where your family lives. That's smart. That's also if you believe 100% Zimmerman's account of what happened. Remember the details of his account have, shall we say "evolved" in the telling of it over time, also, he did lie to the court about his finances, leading to his bail being revoked. So if you're willing to lie in court, how trustworthy are you? What percentage of Zimmerman's account should we believe, and which version of Zimmerman's account should we believe? Trayvon had over a minute after Zimmerman lost sight of him to do whatever he wanted. He didn't return home, he didn't dial 911, and he didn't go to a neighbor for help. Instead, he doubled back to confront Zimmerman. This is established by the timeline of events, the recorded phone call to police, and the location of the shooting, not Zimmerman's testimony. Trayvon's actions certainly do not indicate fear. People are resorting to ridiculous fantasy to avoid admitting that Trayvon was in the wrong when he decided to assault Zimmerman. You've gone from 'ambushed' to 'confronted' to 'assaulted' now. Which one is it and what is your proof? I don't see any contradiction between those terms. What Trayvon did falls under all three. The proof is the time from when Zimmerman loses sight of Trayvon on the phone call and the end of the call. Trayvon had over a minute to go home, which was a very short distance away. He has to have doubled back to have ended up at the location of the shooting. The autopsy also found no injuries on Trayvon. That shows it was just a one sided assault. Zimmerman was luckily able to save himself with his handgun, but until then had done no harm at all. No injuries on Trayvon doesn't prove Zimmerman didn't make an attempt against him first. And yes, there is a pretty stark difference in the meaning of those words. It's debatable who confronted who but to say one definitely assaulted or ambushed the other is a stretch. You think it's a stretch to say Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman? It's a possibility. Saying he definitely did so is a stretch. So you believe that Zimmerman may have inflicted his wounds upon himself?
When did I say that? If Trayvon 'stood his ground' then it's not assault but self-defence. Since we don't know these details and I doubt it will ever become clear seeing as one guy is dead and the other is on trial, I really don't think anyone can definitely say 'x assaulted y first'.
|
On June 02 2013 02:26 Mazer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2013 02:25 Donger wrote:On June 02 2013 02:23 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 02:21 Donger wrote:On June 02 2013 02:14 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 01:43 Zaqwe wrote:On June 02 2013 01:12 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 00:54 Zaqwe wrote:On June 02 2013 00:01 Quexana wrote:On June 01 2013 23:52 Zaqwe wrote:
[quote]
Obviously Trayvon wasn't afraid. He had the opportunity to go home but instead chose to double back and confront Zimmerman. Next time someone stares you down, follows you and chases you through your neighborhood, you should go home. That's the best thing. Let the stalker see where you live, where your family lives. That's smart. That's also if you believe 100% Zimmerman's account of what happened. Remember the details of his account have, shall we say "evolved" in the telling of it over time, also, he did lie to the court about his finances, leading to his bail being revoked. So if you're willing to lie in court, how trustworthy are you? What percentage of Zimmerman's account should we believe, and which version of Zimmerman's account should we believe? Trayvon had over a minute after Zimmerman lost sight of him to do whatever he wanted. He didn't return home, he didn't dial 911, and he didn't go to a neighbor for help. Instead, he doubled back to confront Zimmerman. This is established by the timeline of events, the recorded phone call to police, and the location of the shooting, not Zimmerman's testimony. Trayvon's actions certainly do not indicate fear. People are resorting to ridiculous fantasy to avoid admitting that Trayvon was in the wrong when he decided to assault Zimmerman. You've gone from 'ambushed' to 'confronted' to 'assaulted' now. Which one is it and what is your proof? I don't see any contradiction between those terms. What Trayvon did falls under all three. The proof is the time from when Zimmerman loses sight of Trayvon on the phone call and the end of the call. Trayvon had over a minute to go home, which was a very short distance away. He has to have doubled back to have ended up at the location of the shooting. The autopsy also found no injuries on Trayvon. That shows it was just a one sided assault. Zimmerman was luckily able to save himself with his handgun, but until then had done no harm at all. No injuries on Trayvon doesn't prove Zimmerman didn't make an attempt against him first. And yes, there is a pretty stark difference in the meaning of those words. It's debatable who confronted who but to say one definitely assaulted or ambushed the other is a stretch. You think it's a stretch to say Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman? It's a possibility. Saying he definitely did so is a stretch. So you believe that Zimmerman may have inflicted his wounds upon himself? When did I say that? If Trayvon 'stood his ground' then it's not assault but self-defence.
I was discussing it based off the definition of assault and not the legal term.
*edit*
Based off of your edit it looks like you weren't either so my point still stands. You can definitely say that Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman.
|
On June 02 2013 02:28 Donger wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2013 02:26 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 02:25 Donger wrote:On June 02 2013 02:23 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 02:21 Donger wrote:On June 02 2013 02:14 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 01:43 Zaqwe wrote:On June 02 2013 01:12 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 00:54 Zaqwe wrote:On June 02 2013 00:01 Quexana wrote:
[quote]
Next time someone stares you down, follows you and chases you through your neighborhood, you should go home. That's the best thing. Let the stalker see where you live, where your family lives. That's smart.
That's also if you believe 100% Zimmerman's account of what happened. Remember the details of his account have, shall we say "evolved" in the telling of it over time, also, he did lie to the court about his finances, leading to his bail being revoked. So if you're willing to lie in court, how trustworthy are you? What percentage of Zimmerman's account should we believe, and which version of Zimmerman's account should we believe? Trayvon had over a minute after Zimmerman lost sight of him to do whatever he wanted. He didn't return home, he didn't dial 911, and he didn't go to a neighbor for help. Instead, he doubled back to confront Zimmerman. This is established by the timeline of events, the recorded phone call to police, and the location of the shooting, not Zimmerman's testimony. Trayvon's actions certainly do not indicate fear. People are resorting to ridiculous fantasy to avoid admitting that Trayvon was in the wrong when he decided to assault Zimmerman. You've gone from 'ambushed' to 'confronted' to 'assaulted' now. Which one is it and what is your proof? I don't see any contradiction between those terms. What Trayvon did falls under all three. The proof is the time from when Zimmerman loses sight of Trayvon on the phone call and the end of the call. Trayvon had over a minute to go home, which was a very short distance away. He has to have doubled back to have ended up at the location of the shooting. The autopsy also found no injuries on Trayvon. That shows it was just a one sided assault. Zimmerman was luckily able to save himself with his handgun, but until then had done no harm at all. No injuries on Trayvon doesn't prove Zimmerman didn't make an attempt against him first. And yes, there is a pretty stark difference in the meaning of those words. It's debatable who confronted who but to say one definitely assaulted or ambushed the other is a stretch. You think it's a stretch to say Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman? It's a possibility. Saying he definitely did so is a stretch. So you believe that Zimmerman may have inflicted his wounds upon himself? When did I say that? If Trayvon 'stood his ground' then it's not assault but self-defence. I was discussing it based off the definition of assault and not the legal term. *edit* Based off of your edit it looks like you weren't either so my point still stands. You can definitely say that Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman.
I'm totally lost about what your point is.
Trayvon defending himself (hyptohetically speaking) is not assault even if he did inflict injuries on Zimmerman.
|
On June 02 2013 02:26 Mazer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2013 02:25 Donger wrote:On June 02 2013 02:23 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 02:21 Donger wrote:On June 02 2013 02:14 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 01:43 Zaqwe wrote:On June 02 2013 01:12 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 00:54 Zaqwe wrote:On June 02 2013 00:01 Quexana wrote:On June 01 2013 23:52 Zaqwe wrote:
[quote]
Obviously Trayvon wasn't afraid. He had the opportunity to go home but instead chose to double back and confront Zimmerman. Next time someone stares you down, follows you and chases you through your neighborhood, you should go home. That's the best thing. Let the stalker see where you live, where your family lives. That's smart. That's also if you believe 100% Zimmerman's account of what happened. Remember the details of his account have, shall we say "evolved" in the telling of it over time, also, he did lie to the court about his finances, leading to his bail being revoked. So if you're willing to lie in court, how trustworthy are you? What percentage of Zimmerman's account should we believe, and which version of Zimmerman's account should we believe? Trayvon had over a minute after Zimmerman lost sight of him to do whatever he wanted. He didn't return home, he didn't dial 911, and he didn't go to a neighbor for help. Instead, he doubled back to confront Zimmerman. This is established by the timeline of events, the recorded phone call to police, and the location of the shooting, not Zimmerman's testimony. Trayvon's actions certainly do not indicate fear. People are resorting to ridiculous fantasy to avoid admitting that Trayvon was in the wrong when he decided to assault Zimmerman. You've gone from 'ambushed' to 'confronted' to 'assaulted' now. Which one is it and what is your proof? I don't see any contradiction between those terms. What Trayvon did falls under all three. The proof is the time from when Zimmerman loses sight of Trayvon on the phone call and the end of the call. Trayvon had over a minute to go home, which was a very short distance away. He has to have doubled back to have ended up at the location of the shooting. The autopsy also found no injuries on Trayvon. That shows it was just a one sided assault. Zimmerman was luckily able to save himself with his handgun, but until then had done no harm at all. No injuries on Trayvon doesn't prove Zimmerman didn't make an attempt against him first. And yes, there is a pretty stark difference in the meaning of those words. It's debatable who confronted who but to say one definitely assaulted or ambushed the other is a stretch. You think it's a stretch to say Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman? It's a possibility. Saying he definitely did so is a stretch. So you believe that Zimmerman may have inflicted his wounds upon himself? When did I say that? If Trayvon 'stood his ground' then it's not assault but self-defence. Since we don't know these details and I doubt it will ever become clear seeing as one guy is dead and the other is on trial, I really don't think anyone can definitely say 'x assaulted y first'.
Trayvon ran away and then came back. He didn't stand his ground.
|
On June 02 2013 02:33 Mazer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2013 02:28 Donger wrote:On June 02 2013 02:26 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 02:25 Donger wrote:On June 02 2013 02:23 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 02:21 Donger wrote:On June 02 2013 02:14 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 01:43 Zaqwe wrote:On June 02 2013 01:12 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 00:54 Zaqwe wrote:
[quote]
Trayvon had over a minute after Zimmerman lost sight of him to do whatever he wanted. He didn't return home, he didn't dial 911, and he didn't go to a neighbor for help. Instead, he doubled back to confront Zimmerman. This is established by the timeline of events, the recorded phone call to police, and the location of the shooting, not Zimmerman's testimony.
Trayvon's actions certainly do not indicate fear.
People are resorting to ridiculous fantasy to avoid admitting that Trayvon was in the wrong when he decided to assault Zimmerman. You've gone from 'ambushed' to 'confronted' to 'assaulted' now. Which one is it and what is your proof? I don't see any contradiction between those terms. What Trayvon did falls under all three. The proof is the time from when Zimmerman loses sight of Trayvon on the phone call and the end of the call. Trayvon had over a minute to go home, which was a very short distance away. He has to have doubled back to have ended up at the location of the shooting. The autopsy also found no injuries on Trayvon. That shows it was just a one sided assault. Zimmerman was luckily able to save himself with his handgun, but until then had done no harm at all. No injuries on Trayvon doesn't prove Zimmerman didn't make an attempt against him first. And yes, there is a pretty stark difference in the meaning of those words. It's debatable who confronted who but to say one definitely assaulted or ambushed the other is a stretch. You think it's a stretch to say Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman? It's a possibility. Saying he definitely did so is a stretch. So you believe that Zimmerman may have inflicted his wounds upon himself? When did I say that? If Trayvon 'stood his ground' then it's not assault but self-defence. I was discussing it based off the definition of assault and not the legal term. *edit* Based off of your edit it looks like you weren't either so my point still stands. You can definitely say that Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman. I'm totally lost about what your point is. Trayvon defending himself (hyptohetically speaking) is not assault even if he did inflict injuries on Zimmerman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault
"An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm."
or a definition by Google "Make a physical attack on."
It doesn't matter if he was trying to defend him self. It's still assault.
|
On June 02 2013 02:54 Donger wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2013 02:33 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 02:28 Donger wrote:On June 02 2013 02:26 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 02:25 Donger wrote:On June 02 2013 02:23 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 02:21 Donger wrote:On June 02 2013 02:14 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 01:43 Zaqwe wrote:On June 02 2013 01:12 Mazer wrote:
[quote]
You've gone from 'ambushed' to 'confronted' to 'assaulted' now. Which one is it and what is your proof? I don't see any contradiction between those terms. What Trayvon did falls under all three. The proof is the time from when Zimmerman loses sight of Trayvon on the phone call and the end of the call. Trayvon had over a minute to go home, which was a very short distance away. He has to have doubled back to have ended up at the location of the shooting. The autopsy also found no injuries on Trayvon. That shows it was just a one sided assault. Zimmerman was luckily able to save himself with his handgun, but until then had done no harm at all. No injuries on Trayvon doesn't prove Zimmerman didn't make an attempt against him first. And yes, there is a pretty stark difference in the meaning of those words. It's debatable who confronted who but to say one definitely assaulted or ambushed the other is a stretch. You think it's a stretch to say Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman? It's a possibility. Saying he definitely did so is a stretch. So you believe that Zimmerman may have inflicted his wounds upon himself? When did I say that? If Trayvon 'stood his ground' then it's not assault but self-defence. I was discussing it based off the definition of assault and not the legal term. *edit* Based off of your edit it looks like you weren't either so my point still stands. You can definitely say that Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman. I'm totally lost about what your point is. Trayvon defending himself (hyptohetically speaking) is not assault even if he did inflict injuries on Zimmerman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault"An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm." or a definition by Google "Make a physical attack on." It doesn't matter if he was trying to defend him self. It's still assault.
I was in accord with you until this point. That is not true. Assaulting someone bares the connotation that the assault occurs before a possible reaction. The reaction being a defense against a previously occuring assault. What trayvonn did was assault though, the evidence clearly shows that he doubled back and that zimmerman did not take trayvonn to the ground, but it was the other way around. Though by this point, with the amount of withheld evidence, I can't truly say what we are missing, though from what we do have, we can say that Trayvonn did initiate the physical part, where as zimmerman initiated the verbal portion of the confrontation.
|
On June 02 2013 02:34 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2013 02:26 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 02:25 Donger wrote:On June 02 2013 02:23 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 02:21 Donger wrote:On June 02 2013 02:14 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 01:43 Zaqwe wrote:On June 02 2013 01:12 Mazer wrote:On June 02 2013 00:54 Zaqwe wrote:On June 02 2013 00:01 Quexana wrote:
[quote]
Next time someone stares you down, follows you and chases you through your neighborhood, you should go home. That's the best thing. Let the stalker see where you live, where your family lives. That's smart.
That's also if you believe 100% Zimmerman's account of what happened. Remember the details of his account have, shall we say "evolved" in the telling of it over time, also, he did lie to the court about his finances, leading to his bail being revoked. So if you're willing to lie in court, how trustworthy are you? What percentage of Zimmerman's account should we believe, and which version of Zimmerman's account should we believe? Trayvon had over a minute after Zimmerman lost sight of him to do whatever he wanted. He didn't return home, he didn't dial 911, and he didn't go to a neighbor for help. Instead, he doubled back to confront Zimmerman. This is established by the timeline of events, the recorded phone call to police, and the location of the shooting, not Zimmerman's testimony. Trayvon's actions certainly do not indicate fear. People are resorting to ridiculous fantasy to avoid admitting that Trayvon was in the wrong when he decided to assault Zimmerman. You've gone from 'ambushed' to 'confronted' to 'assaulted' now. Which one is it and what is your proof? I don't see any contradiction between those terms. What Trayvon did falls under all three. The proof is the time from when Zimmerman loses sight of Trayvon on the phone call and the end of the call. Trayvon had over a minute to go home, which was a very short distance away. He has to have doubled back to have ended up at the location of the shooting. The autopsy also found no injuries on Trayvon. That shows it was just a one sided assault. Zimmerman was luckily able to save himself with his handgun, but until then had done no harm at all. No injuries on Trayvon doesn't prove Zimmerman didn't make an attempt against him first. And yes, there is a pretty stark difference in the meaning of those words. It's debatable who confronted who but to say one definitely assaulted or ambushed the other is a stretch. You think it's a stretch to say Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman? It's a possibility. Saying he definitely did so is a stretch. So you believe that Zimmerman may have inflicted his wounds upon himself? When did I say that? If Trayvon 'stood his ground' then it's not assault but self-defence. Since we don't know these details and I doubt it will ever become clear seeing as one guy is dead and the other is on trial, I really don't think anyone can definitely say 'x assaulted y first'. Trayvon ran away and then came back. He didn't stand his ground.
My interpretation of what you're saying is: Martin coming back and asking 'what's your problem?' is proof that he had to have attacked Zimmerman. Is this correct?
On June 02 2013 02:54 Donger wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2013 02:33 Mazer wrote:
I'm totally lost about what your point is.
Trayvon defending himself (hyptohetically speaking) is not assault even if he did inflict injuries on Zimmerman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault"An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm." or a definition by Google "Make a physical attack on." It doesn't matter if he was trying to defend him self. It's still assault.
Are you arguing that there is no difference in defending one self from an assault and actually making the assault in the first place? Again, I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
