|
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 June 26 2013 01:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 01:22 jeremycafe wrote:On June 26 2013 01:13 Masq wrote:On June 26 2013 01:04 jeremycafe wrote:On June 26 2013 00:59 Masq wrote:
The guy disobeyed 911 dispatch, disobeyed his community watch training and ended up killing someone.
Even if he had no intention of killing him, he recklessly escalated the situation and enabled that course of action. The guys liable for sure, the question is for what? "The guy disobeyed 911 dispatch" No he didn't. 991 dispatch is not allowed to give orders. He simply suggested it was not needed to follow. By trying to safely follow Trayvon, in no way to Zimmerman break any laws. You cannot say Zimmerman "recklessly escalated" the situation. He was trying to keep a safe distance to report the location of Martin to the police. In no way was he trying to confront him or fight with him. Martin created a reckless situation by doubling back and attacking Zimmerman. He instigated a fight, and decided to continue attacking Zimmerman after making first contact. He had many opportunities to stay away from Zimmerman or stop attacking him. If Zimmerman was screaming to please stop, and he continued to attack after someone else in the area told him to stop as well, Zimmerman legally made the decision to protect himself. Very few people are 'allowed to give orders'. You mother telling you not to stick your hand in fire isn't an order, its common sense. When your doctor tells you not to take X with Y medication, its not an order. When a 911 dispatcher tells you to do something, its for a reason. Using that logic, if he was keeping a safe distance how did the kid engage him to physically attack him? I thought the general consensus was that they couldn't prove whom was screaming? Additionally, wasn't it stated (originally from Zimmermans father) that it wasn't him screaming? You can't really say such a thing with any credibility. Finally, why is Martin required to run away? Why didn't Zimmerman run away if Martin was going to engage him? You can flip that argument way too easily. "Very few people are 'allowed to give orders'. You mother telling you not to stick your hand in fire isn't an order, its common sense. When your doctor tells you not to take X with Y medication, its not an order. When a 911 dispatcher tells you to do something, its for a reason. " Point is, he did nothing illegal. To say he is liable, there has to be something in place to make it so. I do not believe, and this is purely an opinion that anyone can make since it has no legal means, that following someone does not provoke a fight in a regular situation. I believe most people would flee, call the cops, or hide. Not sneak up on him and sucker punch him in the face. "Using that logic, if he was keeping a safe distance how did the kid engage him to physically attack him? " The claim is that Martin doubled back as Zimmerman was returning to his truck and sucker punched him. Zimmerman was no longer the pursuer in this instance, Martin was. This story has not been disproved yet, so it is what we have to assume to be the truth. "I thought the general consensus was that they couldn't prove whom was screaming? Additionally, wasn't it stated (originally from Zimmermans father) that it wasn't him screaming? You can't really say such a thing with any credibility." The legal consensus is yes, there is no technology to prove who the voice was. The one witness stated (before any lawyers were involved) he heard the man on the bottom calling for help. It wasn't Zimmerman's father, it was Martin's! Trayvon Martin's father TWICE after hearing the tape in the month to follow publicly stated it was not his son crying for help. All of the sudden, there is ZERO doubt it was his son. It is Mr Martin's credibility that is in doubt. In my opinion, this switch was setup to allow this case to happen and for the liability claim the parents were awarded. "Finally, why is Martin required to run away? Why didn't Zimmerman run away if Martin was going to engage him? You can flip that argument way too easily" Most people WOULD run away in that situation. Martin didn't know who the man was, nor did he know if the man had ill intent. Instead he decided to attack Zimmerman. It was a fatal decision. Zimmerman didn't have a chance to run away. He was sucker punched, instantly knocked on his back, and then grappled. Martin than began to punch Zimmerman and slam his head into the ground (which witness and pictures have proven to be true) The event happened closer to Martin's home than Zimmerman's car. You can't "doubleback" and be closer to your initial destination than the pursuer. The only thing that is proven is that Martin didn't go home--we don't know if he "double backed" or "hid" or "stayed in place" or "got lost" or "decided to play hopscotch." However, the incident happened closer to Martin's house than Zimmerman's car, which means zimmerman walked towards Martin's house more than Martin walked back to Zimmerman's car.
You are trying to take the word "doubleback" too literal. Based on the length of calls, and how long it took for the incident to happen, it is suggested Martin had enough time to return home. Zimmerman claims he was walking BACK towards his vehicle when the attack began. Regardless of how far he made it, he was no longer following Martin. Unless the state can prove this to be untrue, that is the story. To ASSUME otherwise is guilty until proven innocent, not innocent until proven guilty. In your head he is already a murderer. You haven't heard the state prove ANYTHING that makes it so, yet you have labeled it that way.
|
On June 26 2013 01:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 01:22 jeremycafe wrote:On June 26 2013 01:13 Masq wrote:On June 26 2013 01:04 jeremycafe wrote:On June 26 2013 00:59 Masq wrote:
The guy disobeyed 911 dispatch, disobeyed his community watch training and ended up killing someone.
Even if he had no intention of killing him, he recklessly escalated the situation and enabled that course of action. The guys liable for sure, the question is for what? "The guy disobeyed 911 dispatch" No he didn't. 991 dispatch is not allowed to give orders. He simply suggested it was not needed to follow. By trying to safely follow Trayvon, in no way to Zimmerman break any laws. You cannot say Zimmerman "recklessly escalated" the situation. He was trying to keep a safe distance to report the location of Martin to the police. In no way was he trying to confront him or fight with him. Martin created a reckless situation by doubling back and attacking Zimmerman. He instigated a fight, and decided to continue attacking Zimmerman after making first contact. He had many opportunities to stay away from Zimmerman or stop attacking him. If Zimmerman was screaming to please stop, and he continued to attack after someone else in the area told him to stop as well, Zimmerman legally made the decision to protect himself. Very few people are 'allowed to give orders'. You mother telling you not to stick your hand in fire isn't an order, its common sense. When your doctor tells you not to take X with Y medication, its not an order. When a 911 dispatcher tells you to do something, its for a reason. Using that logic, if he was keeping a safe distance how did the kid engage him to physically attack him? I thought the general consensus was that they couldn't prove whom was screaming? Additionally, wasn't it stated (originally from Zimmermans father) that it wasn't him screaming? You can't really say such a thing with any credibility. Finally, why is Martin required to run away? Why didn't Zimmerman run away if Martin was going to engage him? You can flip that argument way too easily. "Very few people are 'allowed to give orders'. You mother telling you not to stick your hand in fire isn't an order, its common sense. When your doctor tells you not to take X with Y medication, its not an order. When a 911 dispatcher tells you to do something, its for a reason. " Point is, he did nothing illegal. To say he is liable, there has to be something in place to make it so. I do not believe, and this is purely an opinion that anyone can make since it has no legal means, that following someone does not provoke a fight in a regular situation. I believe most people would flee, call the cops, or hide. Not sneak up on him and sucker punch him in the face. "Using that logic, if he was keeping a safe distance how did the kid engage him to physically attack him? " The claim is that Martin doubled back as Zimmerman was returning to his truck and sucker punched him. Zimmerman was no longer the pursuer in this instance, Martin was. This story has not been disproved yet, so it is what we have to assume to be the truth. "I thought the general consensus was that they couldn't prove whom was screaming? Additionally, wasn't it stated (originally from Zimmermans father) that it wasn't him screaming? You can't really say such a thing with any credibility." The legal consensus is yes, there is no technology to prove who the voice was. The one witness stated (before any lawyers were involved) he heard the man on the bottom calling for help. It wasn't Zimmerman's father, it was Martin's! Trayvon Martin's father TWICE after hearing the tape in the month to follow publicly stated it was not his son crying for help. All of the sudden, there is ZERO doubt it was his son. It is Mr Martin's credibility that is in doubt. In my opinion, this switch was setup to allow this case to happen and for the liability claim the parents were awarded. "Finally, why is Martin required to run away? Why didn't Zimmerman run away if Martin was going to engage him? You can flip that argument way too easily" Most people WOULD run away in that situation. Martin didn't know who the man was, nor did he know if the man had ill intent. Instead he decided to attack Zimmerman. It was a fatal decision. Zimmerman didn't have a chance to run away. He was sucker punched, instantly knocked on his back, and then grappled. Martin than began to punch Zimmerman and slam his head into the ground (which witness and pictures have proven to be true) The event happened closer to Martin's home than Zimmerman's car. You can't "doubleback" and be closer to your initial destination than the pursuer. The only thing that is proven is that Martin didn't go home--we don't know if he "double backed" or "hid" or "stayed in place" or "got lost" or "decided to play hopscotch." However, the incident happened closer to Martin's house than Zimmerman's car, which means zimmerman walked towards Martin's house more than Martin walked back to Zimmerman's car.
Trayvon had one and a half minutes after George lost sight of him to go home if he wanted to.
There is no possible way they could have met up unless Trayvon either doubled back or hid and waited to ambush George.
|
|
|
On June 26 2013 01:16 bugser wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 01:11 natrus wrote:
I just dont think a fight is enough for a gun to be pulled. That is my only problem, And it seems Zimmerman lied about many of the details of the fight. But we will see. As of yet I dont think his life was truly in danger. Almost all fights dont end anywhere near death. It wasn't a fight, it was a vicious assault on a victim who was begging for help while he was pinned on the ground having his head smacked against concrete and face pounded MMA style. There wasn't a scratch on Trayvon except for the knuckles he used to punch George in the face. You have a very bizarre and tortured definition of a "fight". If a white male brutally attacked a black neighborhood watchman in such a manner would you be trying to spin it as a "fight" too?
Honestly still sounds like a fight to me. Zimmerman's injuries werent even that bad at all. And its funny you bring race into it. It sounds like the media and talking points have got to you pretty bad bro.
|
On June 26 2013 01:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 01:32 jeremycafe wrote:On June 26 2013 01:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 26 2013 01:16 bugser wrote:On June 26 2013 01:11 natrus wrote:
I just dont think a fight is enough for a gun to be pulled. That is my only problem, And it seems Zimmerman lied about many of the details of the fight. But we will see. As of yet I dont think his life was truly in danger. Almost all fights dont end anywhere near death. It wasn't a fight, it was a vicious assault on a victim who was begging for help while he was pinned on the ground having his head smacked against concrete and face pounded MMA style. There wasn't a scratch on Trayvon except for the knuckles he used to punch George in the face. You have a very bizarre and tortured definition of a "fight". If a white male brutally attacked a black neighborhood watchman in such a manner would you be trying to spin it as a "fight" too? A man holding on to a gun is unlikely to punch back. He is likely to shoot back though, which is what happened. You can't punch if you're holding on to something. He wasn't holding onto it. Stop turning this into Rambo running around with a gun out. He was on his bag crying for help. He had no means to fight back, he was overweight and had no muscles compared the much more fit Martin. If he had the means to fight back, I think it is safe to say he would have avoided getting his head smashed in and nose nearly broken. Use common sense and stop making shit up for fuck sake. We don't know if he was holding a gun or not. No evidence for or against. But a man holding a gun is unlikely to punch back, especially if he shoots the kid instead.
There is no evident for or against, so you assume he was? That is plain stupid. If he was holding onto the gun would have Martin walked up to him to confront him? Would Zimmerman laid back and took a beating before FINALLY deciding to pull the trigger? It does not add up to say he was holding the gun. Again, this is another case of assuming he is guilty and lying.
The facts support his statements. Bottom line. Unless the state proves otherwise, THAT is the story.
|
On June 26 2013 01:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 01:10 bugser wrote:On June 26 2013 00:59 Masq wrote:
The guy disobeyed 911 dispatch, disobeyed his community watch training and ended up killing someone.
Even if he had no intention of killing him, he recklessly escalated the situation and enabled that course of action. The guys liable for sure, the question is for what? You are wrong. He agreed with the dispatcher and stopped following. They mentioned that during opening statements. George Zimmerman is the victim, and he wasn't "asking for it" regardless of what the victim blaming people like to say. He agreed so much that he was near Martin's house, away from his car, while still holding his gun. Yup, sounds like he "agreed" alright.
He had already left his car. The sound of his movement is what caused the dispatcher to ask if he was following.
|
On June 26 2013 01:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 01:10 bugser wrote:On June 26 2013 00:59 Masq wrote:
The guy disobeyed 911 dispatch, disobeyed his community watch training and ended up killing someone.
Even if he had no intention of killing him, he recklessly escalated the situation and enabled that course of action. The guys liable for sure, the question is for what? You are wrong. He agreed with the dispatcher and stopped following. They mentioned that during opening statements. George Zimmerman is the victim, and he wasn't "asking for it" regardless of what the victim blaming people like to say. He agreed so much that he was near Martin's house, away from his car, while still holding his gun. Yup, sounds like he "agreed" alright.
Since when has there been ANY statement that he was walking around with his gun out? What the hell! He had a damn flashlight in his hands, not a gun! Stop making shit up.
|
Got a site i can watch online? Anyone?
|
On June 26 2013 01:38 jeremycafe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 01:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 26 2013 01:32 jeremycafe wrote:On June 26 2013 01:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 26 2013 01:16 bugser wrote:On June 26 2013 01:11 natrus wrote:
I just dont think a fight is enough for a gun to be pulled. That is my only problem, And it seems Zimmerman lied about many of the details of the fight. But we will see. As of yet I dont think his life was truly in danger. Almost all fights dont end anywhere near death. It wasn't a fight, it was a vicious assault on a victim who was begging for help while he was pinned on the ground having his head smacked against concrete and face pounded MMA style. There wasn't a scratch on Trayvon except for the knuckles he used to punch George in the face. You have a very bizarre and tortured definition of a "fight". If a white male brutally attacked a black neighborhood watchman in such a manner would you be trying to spin it as a "fight" too? A man holding on to a gun is unlikely to punch back. He is likely to shoot back though, which is what happened. You can't punch if you're holding on to something. He wasn't holding onto it. Stop turning this into Rambo running around with a gun out. He was on his bag crying for help. He had no means to fight back, he was overweight and had no muscles compared the much more fit Martin. If he had the means to fight back, I think it is safe to say he would have avoided getting his head smashed in and nose nearly broken. Use common sense and stop making shit up for fuck sake. We don't know if he was holding a gun or not. No evidence for or against. But a man holding a gun is unlikely to punch back, especially if he shoots the kid instead. There is no evident for or against, so you assume he was? That is plain stupid. If he was holding onto the gun would have Martin walked up to him to confront him? Would Zimmerman laid back and took a beating before FINALLY deciding to pull the trigger? It does not add up to say he was holding the gun. Again, this is another case of assuming he is guilty and lying. The facts support his statements. Bottom line. Unless the state proves otherwise, THAT is the story.
At less than 21 feet a bum rush will hit before a gun can be used. If we take Martin's GF's testimony into account, they were in close distance to each other enough for Martin to ask what was going on. At less than 21 feet Zimmerman would be on the ground before he could shoot.
The fight was fast, enough for Martin to defend himself and get shot in the process.
|
On June 26 2013 01:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 01:30 bugser wrote:On June 26 2013 01:13 Masq wrote:On June 26 2013 01:04 jeremycafe wrote:On June 26 2013 00:59 Masq wrote:
The guy disobeyed 911 dispatch, disobeyed his community watch training and ended up killing someone.
Even if he had no intention of killing him, he recklessly escalated the situation and enabled that course of action. The guys liable for sure, the question is for what? "The guy disobeyed 911 dispatch" No he didn't. 991 dispatch is not allowed to give orders. He simply suggested it was not needed to follow. By trying to safely follow Trayvon, in no way to Zimmerman break any laws. You cannot say Zimmerman "recklessly escalated" the situation. He was trying to keep a safe distance to report the location of Martin to the police. In no way was he trying to confront him or fight with him. Martin created a reckless situation by doubling back and attacking Zimmerman. He instigated a fight, and decided to continue attacking Zimmerman after making first contact. He had many opportunities to stay away from Zimmerman or stop attacking him. If Zimmerman was screaming to please stop, and he continued to attack after someone else in the area told him to stop as well, Zimmerman legally made the decision to protect himself. Very few people are 'allowed to give orders'. You mother telling you not to stick your hand in fire isn't an order, its common sense. When your doctor tells you not to take X with Y medication, its not an order. When a 911 dispatcher tells you to do something, its for a reason. Using that logic, if he was keeping a safe distance how did the kid engage him to physically attack him? I thought the general consensus was that they couldn't prove whom was screaming? Additionally, wasn't it stated (originally from Zimmermans father) that it wasn't him screaming? You can't really say such a thing with any credibility. Finally, why is Martin required to run away? Why didn't Zimmerman run away if Martin was going to engage him? You can flip that argument way too easily. The argument about disobeying is pointless, because Zimmerman agreed with the dispatcher and stopped following. Trayvon was able to attack him by approaching him from behind and ambushing him after George was finished on the phone call. He may have been lurking and waiting for an opportunity, or he may have been doubled back. He had a minute and a half while George was on the phone to leave the area if he wanted to. It was actually Trayvon's father who said it wasn't Trayvon's voice. A witness also saw George pinned on the ground being beaten and shouting for help, and George's account of events always included him shouting for help. Trayvon wasn't required to do anything. He could have stopped to talk, loitered around and not talked, he could have ran or leisurely walked away (he had a full 1:30). But he wasn't legally allowed to savagely clobber a neighborhood watchman for phoning police on him. Why are you turning this into a dogfight scenario? They weren't opposing sides at war. Zimmerman had 1:30 minutes to go home, but instead brought a gun with him to pursue a black kid.
Zimmerman was on the phone for those one minute and thirty seconds, after he stopped pursuing. I don't really understand what you are talking about.
You have become completely incoherent. Like a child saying "I know you are, but what am I?"
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On June 26 2013 01:38 jeremycafe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 01:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 26 2013 01:32 jeremycafe wrote:On June 26 2013 01:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 26 2013 01:16 bugser wrote:On June 26 2013 01:11 natrus wrote:
I just dont think a fight is enough for a gun to be pulled. That is my only problem, And it seems Zimmerman lied about many of the details of the fight. But we will see. As of yet I dont think his life was truly in danger. Almost all fights dont end anywhere near death. It wasn't a fight, it was a vicious assault on a victim who was begging for help while he was pinned on the ground having his head smacked against concrete and face pounded MMA style. There wasn't a scratch on Trayvon except for the knuckles he used to punch George in the face. You have a very bizarre and tortured definition of a "fight". If a white male brutally attacked a black neighborhood watchman in such a manner would you be trying to spin it as a "fight" too? A man holding on to a gun is unlikely to punch back. He is likely to shoot back though, which is what happened. You can't punch if you're holding on to something. He wasn't holding onto it. Stop turning this into Rambo running around with a gun out. He was on his bag crying for help. He had no means to fight back, he was overweight and had no muscles compared the much more fit Martin. If he had the means to fight back, I think it is safe to say he would have avoided getting his head smashed in and nose nearly broken. Use common sense and stop making shit up for fuck sake. We don't know if he was holding a gun or not. No evidence for or against. But a man holding a gun is unlikely to punch back, especially if he shoots the kid instead. There is no evident for or against, so you assume he was? That is plain stupid. If he was holding onto the gun would have Martin walked up to him to confront him? Would Zimmerman laid back and took a beating before FINALLY deciding to pull the trigger? It does not add up to say he was holding the gun. Again, this is another case of assuming he is guilty and lying. The facts support his statements. Bottom line. Unless the state proves otherwise, THAT is the story.
I wouldn't bother tbh. Thieving Magpie made the same point several times yet there is no shred of proof that was the case at all and arguing over it won't get you anywhere. Infact, it's just as likely and even more likely that Zimmerman pulled out the gun when he was being beaten rather than walking around with the gun in his hand.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On June 26 2013 01:41 natrus wrote:
Got a site i can watch online? Anyone?
check out OP
|
On June 26 2013 01:41 jeremycafe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 01:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 26 2013 01:10 bugser wrote:On June 26 2013 00:59 Masq wrote:
The guy disobeyed 911 dispatch, disobeyed his community watch training and ended up killing someone.
Even if he had no intention of killing him, he recklessly escalated the situation and enabled that course of action. The guys liable for sure, the question is for what? You are wrong. He agreed with the dispatcher and stopped following. They mentioned that during opening statements. George Zimmerman is the victim, and he wasn't "asking for it" regardless of what the victim blaming people like to say. He agreed so much that he was near Martin's house, away from his car, while still holding his gun. Yup, sounds like he "agreed" alright. Since when has there been ANY statement that he was walking around with his gun out? What the hell! He had a damn flashlight in his hands, not a gun! Stop making shit up.
Fine, replace Gun with holster, pocket, or prehensile tail. Whatever floats your boat.
Armed man walks up to kid while near the kid's house and shoots him.
|
On June 26 2013 01:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 01:38 jeremycafe wrote:On June 26 2013 01:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 26 2013 01:32 jeremycafe wrote:On June 26 2013 01:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 26 2013 01:16 bugser wrote:On June 26 2013 01:11 natrus wrote:
I just dont think a fight is enough for a gun to be pulled. That is my only problem, And it seems Zimmerman lied about many of the details of the fight. But we will see. As of yet I dont think his life was truly in danger. Almost all fights dont end anywhere near death. It wasn't a fight, it was a vicious assault on a victim who was begging for help while he was pinned on the ground having his head smacked against concrete and face pounded MMA style. There wasn't a scratch on Trayvon except for the knuckles he used to punch George in the face. You have a very bizarre and tortured definition of a "fight". If a white male brutally attacked a black neighborhood watchman in such a manner would you be trying to spin it as a "fight" too? A man holding on to a gun is unlikely to punch back. He is likely to shoot back though, which is what happened. You can't punch if you're holding on to something. He wasn't holding onto it. Stop turning this into Rambo running around with a gun out. He was on his bag crying for help. He had no means to fight back, he was overweight and had no muscles compared the much more fit Martin. If he had the means to fight back, I think it is safe to say he would have avoided getting his head smashed in and nose nearly broken. Use common sense and stop making shit up for fuck sake. We don't know if he was holding a gun or not. No evidence for or against. But a man holding a gun is unlikely to punch back, especially if he shoots the kid instead. There is no evident for or against, so you assume he was? That is plain stupid. If he was holding onto the gun would have Martin walked up to him to confront him? Would Zimmerman laid back and took a beating before FINALLY deciding to pull the trigger? It does not add up to say he was holding the gun. Again, this is another case of assuming he is guilty and lying. The facts support his statements. Bottom line. Unless the state proves otherwise, THAT is the story. At less than 21 feet a bum rush will hit before a gun can be used. If we take Martin's GF's testimony into account, they were in close distance to each other enough for Martin to ask what was going on. At less than 21 feet Zimmerman would be on the ground before he could shoot. The fight was fast, enough for Martin to defend himself and get shot in the process.
You will blindly believe anything to go along with what you have already accepted as the events that took place. Zimmerman was walking around with a flashlight in his hands, not a gun. He dropped the flashlight near where the fight took place. 21 feet is plenty of space to fire a gun that is already loaded and has no safety. How can you say Martin defended himself when he was the aggressor?
|
I listened to the dispatchers testimony yesterday, and I understand what he is legally required to say. I understand it wasn't an order. The point is he went against someone with whom he was seeking assist from. It shows intent.
|
On June 26 2013 01:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 01:41 jeremycafe wrote:On June 26 2013 01:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 26 2013 01:10 bugser wrote:On June 26 2013 00:59 Masq wrote:
The guy disobeyed 911 dispatch, disobeyed his community watch training and ended up killing someone.
Even if he had no intention of killing him, he recklessly escalated the situation and enabled that course of action. The guys liable for sure, the question is for what? You are wrong. He agreed with the dispatcher and stopped following. They mentioned that during opening statements. George Zimmerman is the victim, and he wasn't "asking for it" regardless of what the victim blaming people like to say. He agreed so much that he was near Martin's house, away from his car, while still holding his gun. Yup, sounds like he "agreed" alright. Since when has there been ANY statement that he was walking around with his gun out? What the hell! He had a damn flashlight in his hands, not a gun! Stop making shit up. Fine, replace Gun with holster, pocket, or prehensile tail. Whatever floats your boat. Armed man walks up to kid while near the kid's house and shoots him.
"Armed man" was walking back to his car after being stationary on the phone for 1m30s, when he was ambushed from behind by a young man.
|
On June 26 2013 01:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 01:41 jeremycafe wrote:On June 26 2013 01:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 26 2013 01:10 bugser wrote:On June 26 2013 00:59 Masq wrote:
The guy disobeyed 911 dispatch, disobeyed his community watch training and ended up killing someone.
Even if he had no intention of killing him, he recklessly escalated the situation and enabled that course of action. The guys liable for sure, the question is for what? You are wrong. He agreed with the dispatcher and stopped following. They mentioned that during opening statements. George Zimmerman is the victim, and he wasn't "asking for it" regardless of what the victim blaming people like to say. He agreed so much that he was near Martin's house, away from his car, while still holding his gun. Yup, sounds like he "agreed" alright. Since when has there been ANY statement that he was walking around with his gun out? What the hell! He had a damn flashlight in his hands, not a gun! Stop making shit up. Fine, replace Gun with holster, pocket, or prehensile tail. Whatever floats your boat. Armed man walks up to kid while near the kid's house and shoots him.
THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED. Ignorant as fuck.
He never once WALKED up to martin. Martin approached Zimmerman. Replace gun with Flashlight, which is the truth, not the bullshit you are trying to spread.
Armed man patrols trouble neighborhood, tries to follow a kid who looks suspicious so he can report back to the police, loses site of kid so decides to return to his vehicle, attacked and beaten to a point where he feared his life, then pulled out his weapon to defend his life. Completely different story than the bullshit you make up.
|
On June 26 2013 01:46 Masq wrote:
I listened to the dispatchers testimony yesterday, and I understand what he is legally required to say. I understand it wasn't an order. The point is he went against someone with whom he was seeking assist from. It shows intent.
He agreed with the dispatcher and stopped following.
Please stop.
|
On June 26 2013 01:46 Masq wrote:
I listened to the dispatchers testimony yesterday, and I understand what he is legally required to say. I understand it wasn't an order. The point is he went against someone with whom he was seeking assist from. It shows intent.
It does not show intent to murder... It shows intent to make sure the police can find him. Nothing more nothing less. IF that proves murder to you, I don't know what to say.
|
On June 26 2013 01:48 bugser wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 01:46 Masq wrote:
I listened to the dispatchers testimony yesterday, and I understand what he is legally required to say. I understand it wasn't an order. The point is he went against someone with whom he was seeking assist from. It shows intent. He agreed with the dispatcher and stopped following. Please stop.
He didn't stop. The defense made it a point that you can hear him stop at times. Zimmerman stated himself that he continue to pursuit. It wasn't an always on the move, but he was following Martin in hopes to keep vision of him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
