|
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 July 12 2013 01:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:54 Kleinmuuhg wrote:On July 12 2013 00:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:42 plogamer wrote:On July 12 2013 00:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:40 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:34 GreenGringo wrote:On July 12 2013 00:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Zimmerman does not have to provide a single reason for it being okay to follow Martin. He was legally allowed to follow Martin. He has no responsibility to not follow Martin. Once when I was a university student I was attacked and beaten up for no reason by drunken youths who decided to take their frustrations out on the nearest defenceless male student they could find. I was "rescued" by a cab driver who knew these kids were up to no good that night and decided to follow them in his cab. I got away with only minor injuries, but there's no telling how badly I would have been beaten up if it weren't for this cab driver. It's simply ridiculous to accuse people of being "vigilantes" for merely following suspicious-looking youths some distance. He wasn't following "youths" it was one lone guy who had every reason to be just more scared of him then Zimmerman was of Martin. If im in a group of people im not afraid of one weird guy following me but if im unarmed by myself that would quite frankly terrify me. It would terrify me too. So I would call the police and get to my house as quickly as possible. Those are two things any rational person would do. Neither of those things are things that Martin did. There's a reason we don't allow 17 year olds to vote. I would have done both of those things at 12, 13, 14, 17, 824, a million years old. It is pretty strange that Martin, who was supposedly freaked out and scared shitless, didn't try to go home (his home was very close to where they were, something like 90-150 meters) or call anyone besides his girlfriend or whatever, and instead somehow ended up causing injuries to Zimmerman and at some point on top of him pounding him "MMA-style". Let's be clear here, the only story that makes any kind of sense is a confrontation INSTIGATED by Martin. It is great that you can act like this in a panic situation, but your chain of logic does not apply to everybody, especially to the picture of Martin that was drawn over the last days weeks and months. Of course your story could be possible, but there are other possibilities as well (GZ attacked Martin, who defended himself and when GZ recognized he would lose the fight he pulled his gun.) Just as an example. It really isnt as one dimensional as you make it look like or else this case wouldnt be as thrilling as it is. It's great that my natural instinct is the same as the natural instinct of every mammal on earth? That when threatened my first instinct is to find a place of safety? Yeah, I guess that's great... It has nothing to do with logic, and everything to do with instinct. What person who is creeped out and completely scared is going to sit around waiting to confront and fight a threat when they have lost the person and are literally 300 feet from their home? It makes absolutely no sense that Martin didn't, at some point, re-approach Zimmerman. The timeline of events DOES NOT FIT. There is no evidence to support that conclusion. Come up with a plausible scenario that somehow fits with the evidence and I will consider it, because as of now, only Zimmerman has done that. Let's be clear again, even if Zimmerman did start the fight (and there is strong evidence suggesting this is not so), he would still have the right to use deadly force to defend himself if Martin escalated the conflict to deadly levels (MMA-style beating, not stopping when told to by John Good). It is absolutely as one dimensional as it is, which is what I say it looks like. It looks like that because it is like that. The only reason this is "thrilling" is because juries are stupid and could go any way. If these juries were made up of perfect "law-bots" than there would be no question whatsoever that Zimmerman would get off.
I would agree with your premise that he would get off if juries were "law-bots" but not because Zimmerman is innocent but because there isn't enough evidence to prove he's guilty. The most telling thing to me about this trial is a cop who told me that if he had done such a terrible job investigating he would probably be at a minimum written up and more than likely suspended and investigated for doing such a terrible job.
Side note its actually interesting to watch these sorts of things with a cop to tell you where the screw-ups happened.
|
On July 12 2013 01:04 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:57 plogamer wrote:Are you serious?
"Fucking punks, these a**holes always get away." Yeah, Zimmerman sounds totally chill right? :|
That does sound pretty chill to me. I call my LoL team mates worse for failing a tower dive, for God's sake.
Are you out of your mind to compare a video-game situation to a real-life situation?
/edit
And why are you removing posts from sc2superfan in the nested quote? Try to keep the topic in context please or you're just here to troll and disrupt discussion.
|
On July 12 2013 01:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:56 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:42 plogamer wrote:On July 12 2013 00:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:40 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:34 GreenGringo wrote:On July 12 2013 00:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Zimmerman does not have to provide a single reason for it being okay to follow Martin. He was legally allowed to follow Martin. He has no responsibility to not follow Martin. Once when I was a university student I was attacked and beaten up for no reason by drunken youths who decided to take their frustrations out on the nearest defenceless male student they could find. I was "rescued" by a cab driver who knew these kids were up to no good that night and decided to follow them in his cab. I got away with only minor injuries, but there's no telling how badly I would have been beaten up if it weren't for this cab driver. It's simply ridiculous to accuse people of being "vigilantes" for merely following suspicious-looking youths some distance. He wasn't following "youths" it was one lone guy who had every reason to be just more scared of him then Zimmerman was of Martin. If im in a group of people im not afraid of one weird guy following me but if im unarmed by myself that would quite frankly terrify me. It would terrify me too. So I would call the police and get to my house as quickly as possible. Those are two things any rational person would do. Neither of those things are things that Martin did. There's a reason we don't allow 17 year olds to vote. I would have done both of those things at 12, 13, 14, 17, 824, a million years old. It is pretty strange that Martin, who was supposedly freaked out and scared shitless, didn't try to go home (his home was very close to where they were, something like 90-150 meters) or call anyone besides his girlfriend or whatever, and instead somehow ended up causing injuries to Zimmerman and at some point on top of him pounding him "MMA-style". Let's be clear here, the only story that makes any kind of sense is a confrontation INSTIGATED by Martin. Is there any doubt that the confrontation (regardless of who instigated it because I havnt seen definitive evidence one way or other) happened because Zimmerman followed him? I might also have tried to fight if I thought I couldn't safely get away. After all, showing my back to someone who may or may not be armed seems like a bad decision especially when I don't know if running will get me killed or not. And if you survived that fight you would be charged with assault and battery. You do not have the right to attack someone because they are following you and "they might be armed." Show nested quote +Also judging by the amount of lies that Zimmerman has been caught in and the amount of disproven events I would be taking anything he says with a grain of salt unless real proof was attached to it.
What lies and what disproven events? All the lying and disproving has been done by the defense, not the opposite.
Does the law distinguish between "coincidentally going to the same place" and "deliberately following?" This is a legitimate question. The former is obviously completely innocent but I can't help but think that the latter is invariably malicious when you're talking about strangers.
Edit: I adverbed when I should have adjectived.
|
On July 12 2013 01:07 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 01:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:56 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:42 plogamer wrote:On July 12 2013 00:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:40 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:34 GreenGringo wrote:On July 12 2013 00:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Zimmerman does not have to provide a single reason for it being okay to follow Martin. He was legally allowed to follow Martin. He has no responsibility to not follow Martin. Once when I was a university student I was attacked and beaten up for no reason by drunken youths who decided to take their frustrations out on the nearest defenceless male student they could find. I was "rescued" by a cab driver who knew these kids were up to no good that night and decided to follow them in his cab. I got away with only minor injuries, but there's no telling how badly I would have been beaten up if it weren't for this cab driver. It's simply ridiculous to accuse people of being "vigilantes" for merely following suspicious-looking youths some distance. He wasn't following "youths" it was one lone guy who had every reason to be just more scared of him then Zimmerman was of Martin. If im in a group of people im not afraid of one weird guy following me but if im unarmed by myself that would quite frankly terrify me. It would terrify me too. So I would call the police and get to my house as quickly as possible. Those are two things any rational person would do. Neither of those things are things that Martin did. There's a reason we don't allow 17 year olds to vote. I would have done both of those things at 12, 13, 14, 17, 824, a million years old. It is pretty strange that Martin, who was supposedly freaked out and scared shitless, didn't try to go home (his home was very close to where they were, something like 90-150 meters) or call anyone besides his girlfriend or whatever, and instead somehow ended up causing injuries to Zimmerman and at some point on top of him pounding him "MMA-style". Let's be clear here, the only story that makes any kind of sense is a confrontation INSTIGATED by Martin. Is there any doubt that the confrontation (regardless of who instigated it because I havnt seen definitive evidence one way or other) happened because Zimmerman followed him? I might also have tried to fight if I thought I couldn't safely get away. After all, showing my back to someone who may or may not be armed seems like a bad decision especially when I don't know if running will get me killed or not. And if you survived that fight you would be charged with assault and battery. You do not have the right to attack someone because they are following you and "they might be armed." Also judging by the amount of lies that Zimmerman has been caught in and the amount of disproven events I would be taking anything he says with a grain of salt unless real proof was attached to it.
What lies and what disproven events? All the lying and disproving has been done by the defense, not the opposite. Does the law distinguish between "coincidentally going to the same place" and "deliberately following?" This is a legitimate question. The former is obviously completely innocent but I can't help but think that the latter is invariably malicious when you're talking about strangers. Edit: I adverbed when I should have adjectived.
There is no inherent malice in "deliberately following" someone.
|
On July 12 2013 01:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 01:07 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 01:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:56 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:42 plogamer wrote:On July 12 2013 00:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:40 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:34 GreenGringo wrote:On July 12 2013 00:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Zimmerman does not have to provide a single reason for it being okay to follow Martin. He was legally allowed to follow Martin. He has no responsibility to not follow Martin. Once when I was a university student I was attacked and beaten up for no reason by drunken youths who decided to take their frustrations out on the nearest defenceless male student they could find. I was "rescued" by a cab driver who knew these kids were up to no good that night and decided to follow them in his cab. I got away with only minor injuries, but there's no telling how badly I would have been beaten up if it weren't for this cab driver. It's simply ridiculous to accuse people of being "vigilantes" for merely following suspicious-looking youths some distance. He wasn't following "youths" it was one lone guy who had every reason to be just more scared of him then Zimmerman was of Martin. If im in a group of people im not afraid of one weird guy following me but if im unarmed by myself that would quite frankly terrify me. It would terrify me too. So I would call the police and get to my house as quickly as possible. Those are two things any rational person would do. Neither of those things are things that Martin did. There's a reason we don't allow 17 year olds to vote. I would have done both of those things at 12, 13, 14, 17, 824, a million years old. It is pretty strange that Martin, who was supposedly freaked out and scared shitless, didn't try to go home (his home was very close to where they were, something like 90-150 meters) or call anyone besides his girlfriend or whatever, and instead somehow ended up causing injuries to Zimmerman and at some point on top of him pounding him "MMA-style". Let's be clear here, the only story that makes any kind of sense is a confrontation INSTIGATED by Martin. Is there any doubt that the confrontation (regardless of who instigated it because I havnt seen definitive evidence one way or other) happened because Zimmerman followed him? I might also have tried to fight if I thought I couldn't safely get away. After all, showing my back to someone who may or may not be armed seems like a bad decision especially when I don't know if running will get me killed or not. And if you survived that fight you would be charged with assault and battery. You do not have the right to attack someone because they are following you and "they might be armed." Also judging by the amount of lies that Zimmerman has been caught in and the amount of disproven events I would be taking anything he says with a grain of salt unless real proof was attached to it.
What lies and what disproven events? All the lying and disproving has been done by the defense, not the opposite. Does the law distinguish between "coincidentally going to the same place" and "deliberately following?" This is a legitimate question. The former is obviously completely innocent but I can't help but think that the latter is invariably malicious when you're talking about strangers. Edit: I adverbed when I should have adjectived. There is no inherent malice in "deliberately following" someone.
In this situation, it was malicious. He had an opportunity to avoid conflict and chose not to. His choice eventually lead to him killing someone. This fact alone makes him definitively guilty in my eyes.
|
On July 12 2013 01:07 plogamer wrote:
Are you out of your mind to compare a video-game situation to a real-life situation? No, not really. People curse in real life all the time. "Fucking punks" and "assholes" can be merely an expression of minor annoyance.
You're the one out of your mind if you don't realize that people all the time use words like "fucking punks" without meaning much by them.
On July 12 2013 01:07 plogamer wrote:
And why are you removing posts from sc2superfan in the nested quote? Try to keep the topic in context please or you're just here to troll and disrupt discussion. GTFO. I just wanted to quote a snippet from your post because it was the only part I was responding to. I might have accidentally made it look somewhat misleading, but people typically don't pay minute attention to these things.
Oh noes -- look I said "GTFO"! I'd better chill down before I commit second degree murder.
|
On July 12 2013 01:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 01:07 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 01:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:56 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:42 plogamer wrote:On July 12 2013 00:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:40 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:34 GreenGringo wrote:On July 12 2013 00:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Zimmerman does not have to provide a single reason for it being okay to follow Martin. He was legally allowed to follow Martin. He has no responsibility to not follow Martin. Once when I was a university student I was attacked and beaten up for no reason by drunken youths who decided to take their frustrations out on the nearest defenceless male student they could find. I was "rescued" by a cab driver who knew these kids were up to no good that night and decided to follow them in his cab. I got away with only minor injuries, but there's no telling how badly I would have been beaten up if it weren't for this cab driver. It's simply ridiculous to accuse people of being "vigilantes" for merely following suspicious-looking youths some distance. He wasn't following "youths" it was one lone guy who had every reason to be just more scared of him then Zimmerman was of Martin. If im in a group of people im not afraid of one weird guy following me but if im unarmed by myself that would quite frankly terrify me. It would terrify me too. So I would call the police and get to my house as quickly as possible. Those are two things any rational person would do. Neither of those things are things that Martin did. There's a reason we don't allow 17 year olds to vote. I would have done both of those things at 12, 13, 14, 17, 824, a million years old. It is pretty strange that Martin, who was supposedly freaked out and scared shitless, didn't try to go home (his home was very close to where they were, something like 90-150 meters) or call anyone besides his girlfriend or whatever, and instead somehow ended up causing injuries to Zimmerman and at some point on top of him pounding him "MMA-style". Let's be clear here, the only story that makes any kind of sense is a confrontation INSTIGATED by Martin. Is there any doubt that the confrontation (regardless of who instigated it because I havnt seen definitive evidence one way or other) happened because Zimmerman followed him? I might also have tried to fight if I thought I couldn't safely get away. After all, showing my back to someone who may or may not be armed seems like a bad decision especially when I don't know if running will get me killed or not. And if you survived that fight you would be charged with assault and battery. You do not have the right to attack someone because they are following you and "they might be armed." Also judging by the amount of lies that Zimmerman has been caught in and the amount of disproven events I would be taking anything he says with a grain of salt unless real proof was attached to it.
What lies and what disproven events? All the lying and disproving has been done by the defense, not the opposite. Does the law distinguish between "coincidentally going to the same place" and "deliberately following?" This is a legitimate question. The former is obviously completely innocent but I can't help but think that the latter is invariably malicious when you're talking about strangers. Edit: I adverbed when I should have adjectived. There is no inherent malice in "deliberately following" someone.
Why do you keep ignoring Zimmerman's comment to the dispatcher before he followed Trayvon?
|
On July 12 2013 01:10 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 01:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 01:07 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 01:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:56 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:42 plogamer wrote:On July 12 2013 00:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:40 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:34 GreenGringo wrote:
[quote]Once when I was a university student I was attacked and beaten up for no reason by drunken youths who decided to take their frustrations out on the nearest defenceless male student they could find.
I was "rescued" by a cab driver who knew these kids were up to no good that night and decided to follow them in his cab. I got away with only minor injuries, but there's no telling how badly I would have been beaten up if it weren't for this cab driver.
It's simply ridiculous to accuse people of being "vigilantes" for merely following suspicious-looking youths some distance.
He wasn't following "youths" it was one lone guy who had every reason to be just more scared of him then Zimmerman was of Martin. If im in a group of people im not afraid of one weird guy following me but if im unarmed by myself that would quite frankly terrify me. It would terrify me too. So I would call the police and get to my house as quickly as possible. Those are two things any rational person would do. Neither of those things are things that Martin did. There's a reason we don't allow 17 year olds to vote. I would have done both of those things at 12, 13, 14, 17, 824, a million years old. It is pretty strange that Martin, who was supposedly freaked out and scared shitless, didn't try to go home (his home was very close to where they were, something like 90-150 meters) or call anyone besides his girlfriend or whatever, and instead somehow ended up causing injuries to Zimmerman and at some point on top of him pounding him "MMA-style". Let's be clear here, the only story that makes any kind of sense is a confrontation INSTIGATED by Martin. Is there any doubt that the confrontation (regardless of who instigated it because I havnt seen definitive evidence one way or other) happened because Zimmerman followed him? I might also have tried to fight if I thought I couldn't safely get away. After all, showing my back to someone who may or may not be armed seems like a bad decision especially when I don't know if running will get me killed or not. And if you survived that fight you would be charged with assault and battery. You do not have the right to attack someone because they are following you and "they might be armed." Also judging by the amount of lies that Zimmerman has been caught in and the amount of disproven events I would be taking anything he says with a grain of salt unless real proof was attached to it.
What lies and what disproven events? All the lying and disproving has been done by the defense, not the opposite. Does the law distinguish between "coincidentally going to the same place" and "deliberately following?" This is a legitimate question. The former is obviously completely innocent but I can't help but think that the latter is invariably malicious when you're talking about strangers. Edit: I adverbed when I should have adjectived. There is no inherent malice in "deliberately following" someone. In this situation, it was malicious. He had an opportunity to avoid conflict and chose not to. His choice eventually lead to him killing someone. This fact alone makes him definitively guilty in my eyes.
How would he know that there would be a conflict?
|
On July 12 2013 01:07 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 01:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:56 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:42 plogamer wrote:On July 12 2013 00:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:40 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:34 GreenGringo wrote:On July 12 2013 00:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Zimmerman does not have to provide a single reason for it being okay to follow Martin. He was legally allowed to follow Martin. He has no responsibility to not follow Martin. Once when I was a university student I was attacked and beaten up for no reason by drunken youths who decided to take their frustrations out on the nearest defenceless male student they could find. I was "rescued" by a cab driver who knew these kids were up to no good that night and decided to follow them in his cab. I got away with only minor injuries, but there's no telling how badly I would have been beaten up if it weren't for this cab driver. It's simply ridiculous to accuse people of being "vigilantes" for merely following suspicious-looking youths some distance. He wasn't following "youths" it was one lone guy who had every reason to be just more scared of him then Zimmerman was of Martin. If im in a group of people im not afraid of one weird guy following me but if im unarmed by myself that would quite frankly terrify me. It would terrify me too. So I would call the police and get to my house as quickly as possible. Those are two things any rational person would do. Neither of those things are things that Martin did. There's a reason we don't allow 17 year olds to vote. I would have done both of those things at 12, 13, 14, 17, 824, a million years old. It is pretty strange that Martin, who was supposedly freaked out and scared shitless, didn't try to go home (his home was very close to where they were, something like 90-150 meters) or call anyone besides his girlfriend or whatever, and instead somehow ended up causing injuries to Zimmerman and at some point on top of him pounding him "MMA-style". Let's be clear here, the only story that makes any kind of sense is a confrontation INSTIGATED by Martin. Is there any doubt that the confrontation (regardless of who instigated it because I havnt seen definitive evidence one way or other) happened because Zimmerman followed him? I might also have tried to fight if I thought I couldn't safely get away. After all, showing my back to someone who may or may not be armed seems like a bad decision especially when I don't know if running will get me killed or not. And if you survived that fight you would be charged with assault and battery. You do not have the right to attack someone because they are following you and "they might be armed." Also judging by the amount of lies that Zimmerman has been caught in and the amount of disproven events I would be taking anything he says with a grain of salt unless real proof was attached to it.
What lies and what disproven events? All the lying and disproving has been done by the defense, not the opposite. Does the law distinguish between "coincidentally going to the same place" and "deliberately following?" This is a legitimate question. The former is obviously completely innocent but I can't help but think that the latter is invariably malicious when you're talking about strangers. Edit: I adverbed when I should have adjectived.
You are allowed to follow people, but there are limits. If they tell you to leave them alone, you are generally required to do so. Also, following someone without announcing yourself and your intent can make someone feel threatened. Zimmerman is not law enforcment and we don't know how he idenified himself to Martin(or how any of that happened).
In general, its a bad idea to follow people, as they can reasonablely believe that you might have the intent to harm them.
In this case, who knows. The following is not nearly as important as to how Zimmerman approached Martin. If he did it with his hand on his gun and started agressively questioning Martin, that would be very poor judgment and Martin could have felt threatened. However, we will never know that part.
|
On July 12 2013 01:11 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 01:07 plogamer wrote:
Are you out of your mind to compare a video-game situation to a real-life situation? No, not really. People curse in real life all the time. "Fucking punks" and "assholes" can be merely an expression of minor annoyance. You're the one out of your mind if you don't realize that people all the time use words like "fucking punks" without meaning much by them.
I could never imagine a circumstance where I am calmly cussing while calling 911.
|
On July 12 2013 01:12 iamperfection wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 01:10 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2013 01:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 01:07 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 01:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:56 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:42 plogamer wrote:On July 12 2013 00:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:40 Adreme wrote:
[quote]
He wasn't following "youths" it was one lone guy who had every reason to be just more scared of him then Zimmerman was of Martin. If im in a group of people im not afraid of one weird guy following me but if im unarmed by myself that would quite frankly terrify me. It would terrify me too. So I would call the police and get to my house as quickly as possible. Those are two things any rational person would do. Neither of those things are things that Martin did. There's a reason we don't allow 17 year olds to vote. I would have done both of those things at 12, 13, 14, 17, 824, a million years old. It is pretty strange that Martin, who was supposedly freaked out and scared shitless, didn't try to go home (his home was very close to where they were, something like 90-150 meters) or call anyone besides his girlfriend or whatever, and instead somehow ended up causing injuries to Zimmerman and at some point on top of him pounding him "MMA-style". Let's be clear here, the only story that makes any kind of sense is a confrontation INSTIGATED by Martin. Is there any doubt that the confrontation (regardless of who instigated it because I havnt seen definitive evidence one way or other) happened because Zimmerman followed him? I might also have tried to fight if I thought I couldn't safely get away. After all, showing my back to someone who may or may not be armed seems like a bad decision especially when I don't know if running will get me killed or not. And if you survived that fight you would be charged with assault and battery. You do not have the right to attack someone because they are following you and "they might be armed." Also judging by the amount of lies that Zimmerman has been caught in and the amount of disproven events I would be taking anything he says with a grain of salt unless real proof was attached to it.
What lies and what disproven events? All the lying and disproving has been done by the defense, not the opposite. Does the law distinguish between "coincidentally going to the same place" and "deliberately following?" This is a legitimate question. The former is obviously completely innocent but I can't help but think that the latter is invariably malicious when you're talking about strangers. Edit: I adverbed when I should have adjectived. There is no inherent malice in "deliberately following" someone. In this situation, it was malicious. He had an opportunity to avoid conflict and chose not to. His choice eventually lead to him killing someone. This fact alone makes him definitively guilty in my eyes. How would he know that there would be a conflict?
He followed a person he believed was a criminal who has escaped authorities in the past while armed...
|
This whole following stuff is silly. It's like blaming a girl for wearing a short dress when she gets raped. You can't blame Zimmerman for the death simply bc he was following trayvon. There is nothing illegal about following someone. It's stupid, but not illegal.
It's not illegal for me to drive into Pine Hills (the hood here in Orlando) at 1am. It's not illegal, but it isn't smart. I bet if I was attacked and killed someone there it would be the same shit "why were you going through tht neighborhood, you knew it was bad, you're guilty". But everyone forgets, hey this person is beating me up, it has nothing to do with how I got there
|
On July 12 2013 01:10 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 01:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 01:07 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 01:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:56 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:42 plogamer wrote:On July 12 2013 00:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:40 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:34 GreenGringo wrote:
[quote]Once when I was a university student I was attacked and beaten up for no reason by drunken youths who decided to take their frustrations out on the nearest defenceless male student they could find.
I was "rescued" by a cab driver who knew these kids were up to no good that night and decided to follow them in his cab. I got away with only minor injuries, but there's no telling how badly I would have been beaten up if it weren't for this cab driver.
It's simply ridiculous to accuse people of being "vigilantes" for merely following suspicious-looking youths some distance.
He wasn't following "youths" it was one lone guy who had every reason to be just more scared of him then Zimmerman was of Martin. If im in a group of people im not afraid of one weird guy following me but if im unarmed by myself that would quite frankly terrify me. It would terrify me too. So I would call the police and get to my house as quickly as possible. Those are two things any rational person would do. Neither of those things are things that Martin did. There's a reason we don't allow 17 year olds to vote. I would have done both of those things at 12, 13, 14, 17, 824, a million years old. It is pretty strange that Martin, who was supposedly freaked out and scared shitless, didn't try to go home (his home was very close to where they were, something like 90-150 meters) or call anyone besides his girlfriend or whatever, and instead somehow ended up causing injuries to Zimmerman and at some point on top of him pounding him "MMA-style". Let's be clear here, the only story that makes any kind of sense is a confrontation INSTIGATED by Martin. Is there any doubt that the confrontation (regardless of who instigated it because I havnt seen definitive evidence one way or other) happened because Zimmerman followed him? I might also have tried to fight if I thought I couldn't safely get away. After all, showing my back to someone who may or may not be armed seems like a bad decision especially when I don't know if running will get me killed or not. And if you survived that fight you would be charged with assault and battery. You do not have the right to attack someone because they are following you and "they might be armed." Also judging by the amount of lies that Zimmerman has been caught in and the amount of disproven events I would be taking anything he says with a grain of salt unless real proof was attached to it.
What lies and what disproven events? All the lying and disproving has been done by the defense, not the opposite. Does the law distinguish between "coincidentally going to the same place" and "deliberately following?" This is a legitimate question. The former is obviously completely innocent but I can't help but think that the latter is invariably malicious when you're talking about strangers. Edit: I adverbed when I should have adjectived. There is no inherent malice in "deliberately following" someone. In this situation, it was malicious. He had an opportunity to avoid conflict and chose not to. His choice eventually lead to him killing someone. This fact alone makes him definitively guilty in my eyes.
If you are speaking legally, you are definitively incorrect.
If you are speaking morally, than you are also wrong. I have no responsibility to "avoid conflict" with someone who attacks me completely out of the blue. When they attack me completely out of the blue, and continue attacking me viciously after being told by someone to stop (John Good), I absolutely have the right to defend myself using any means necessary.
Martin had the choice to avoid conflict and he chose not to. He ended up getting someone killed. Himself, but it could have just as easily been Zimmerman, beaten to death for trying to do his fucking job as a neighborhood watch-man.
|
On July 12 2013 01:12 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 01:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 01:07 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 01:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:56 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:42 plogamer wrote:On July 12 2013 00:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:40 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:34 GreenGringo wrote:
[quote]Once when I was a university student I was attacked and beaten up for no reason by drunken youths who decided to take their frustrations out on the nearest defenceless male student they could find.
I was "rescued" by a cab driver who knew these kids were up to no good that night and decided to follow them in his cab. I got away with only minor injuries, but there's no telling how badly I would have been beaten up if it weren't for this cab driver.
It's simply ridiculous to accuse people of being "vigilantes" for merely following suspicious-looking youths some distance.
He wasn't following "youths" it was one lone guy who had every reason to be just more scared of him then Zimmerman was of Martin. If im in a group of people im not afraid of one weird guy following me but if im unarmed by myself that would quite frankly terrify me. It would terrify me too. So I would call the police and get to my house as quickly as possible. Those are two things any rational person would do. Neither of those things are things that Martin did. There's a reason we don't allow 17 year olds to vote. I would have done both of those things at 12, 13, 14, 17, 824, a million years old. It is pretty strange that Martin, who was supposedly freaked out and scared shitless, didn't try to go home (his home was very close to where they were, something like 90-150 meters) or call anyone besides his girlfriend or whatever, and instead somehow ended up causing injuries to Zimmerman and at some point on top of him pounding him "MMA-style". Let's be clear here, the only story that makes any kind of sense is a confrontation INSTIGATED by Martin. Is there any doubt that the confrontation (regardless of who instigated it because I havnt seen definitive evidence one way or other) happened because Zimmerman followed him? I might also have tried to fight if I thought I couldn't safely get away. After all, showing my back to someone who may or may not be armed seems like a bad decision especially when I don't know if running will get me killed or not. And if you survived that fight you would be charged with assault and battery. You do not have the right to attack someone because they are following you and "they might be armed." Also judging by the amount of lies that Zimmerman has been caught in and the amount of disproven events I would be taking anything he says with a grain of salt unless real proof was attached to it.
What lies and what disproven events? All the lying and disproving has been done by the defense, not the opposite. Does the law distinguish between "coincidentally going to the same place" and "deliberately following?" This is a legitimate question. The former is obviously completely innocent but I can't help but think that the latter is invariably malicious when you're talking about strangers. Edit: I adverbed when I should have adjectived. There is no inherent malice in "deliberately following" someone. Why do you keep ignoring Zimmerman's comment to the dispatcher before he followed Trayvon?
Because it doesn't matter. All that matters is how the conflct started, which we don't know. Zimmerman's story reports that he was jumped and beat by Martin. That is the only evidnece that exists and the court takes it at face value. It is backed up by the testimony of John Good, who saw the end of the conflict.
What Zimmerman said is not nearly as important as how the conflict got started. The Court cannot guess how it got started, but only provide the evidnce.
|
On July 12 2013 01:13 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 01:11 GreenGringo wrote:On July 12 2013 01:07 plogamer wrote:
Are you out of your mind to compare a video-game situation to a real-life situation? No, not really. People curse in real life all the time. "Fucking punks" and "assholes" can be merely an expression of minor annoyance. You're the one out of your mind if you don't realize that people all the time use words like "fucking punks" without meaning much by them. I could never imagine a circumstance where I am calmly cussing while calling 911.
GreenGringo has no idea what 'context' means.
|
On July 12 2013 01:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 01:01 Freddybear wrote:On July 12 2013 00:52 plogamer wrote:On July 12 2013 00:50 Freddybear wrote:On July 12 2013 00:37 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:34 Freddybear wrote:On July 12 2013 00:28 docvoc wrote:On July 12 2013 00:25 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 00:17 Sermokala wrote:
This is just silly. Pobably was the prosecutions strategy the whole time to direct the case to be 2nd degree murder and then bait and switch at the end to get anything on him.
People shouldn't be allowed to be charged with different even lesser crimes at the end of their trial, just sickening. But isn't the point of a trial to arrive at the truth? Obviously the lawyers just want to win their case but the entire process ought to bring about justice. If you're not guilty of pre-meditated murder but you are guilty of something lesser, a trial ought to be able to shift gears. Because guilty people ought to be taken off the streets and (ideally) rehabilitated. No. Hopefully the trial does that, but truth is subjective. What seems to be occuring is that the prosectution has realized that they have either done a poor job, or are insecure in the job they have done. From the beginning they had a backup plan, as all good lawyers do. This is entirely within their rights from what I'm reading. The problem is that they're springing this on the defense at literally the last minute. There is a certain amount of research needed to find the case law (actual trial decisions in previous cases) regarding these new charges. The prosecution is trying to deny Zimmerman his right to effective counsel by preventing his lawyers from having the time to do that research. It doesn't matter if they are springing it on them at the last minute because job of courts is to find the truth and find an effective punishment for whatever happened. If they are able to prove you are guilty of a crime that you weren't charged with during the trial then that's no reason for you to simply get off on that crime. Actually it does matter because, at least in American courts, that finding of the truth is the outcome of a process of give-and-take between the prosecution and the defense. If either side can spring a surprise on the other, that denies the process of finding the truth and leaves the results up to trickery and deception. Well, I know that full disclosure is standard practice. But I thought that only involved evidence. What to pursue with the fully disclosed evidence should be another matter. Only an incompetent lawyer would not be aware of all the possibilities given a set of evidence. There is a reason why the charges to be considered in the trial are stated at the beginning. The prosecution had plenty of opportunities to ask for the additional charge of child abuse. It's not like they didn't know Trademark's age before the defense rested. Thats not how the process works. The prosecution can ask for other charges to be considered and the Defense was aware that 3rd degree murder was an option. I don't know how the child abuse comes into this, since 3rd degree murder is its own charge, but I would need to see what they are citing.
Third degree murder is wrongful death in the course of another felony. The child abuse charge would be the felony. Absent that additional charge there could be no third degree murder charge. So yes, the defense would not be aware that the third degree murder charge could be an option because the prerequisite child abuse charge wasn't on the table.
|
On July 12 2013 01:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 01:12 plogamer wrote:On July 12 2013 01:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 01:07 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 01:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:56 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:42 plogamer wrote:On July 12 2013 00:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:40 Adreme wrote:
[quote]
He wasn't following "youths" it was one lone guy who had every reason to be just more scared of him then Zimmerman was of Martin. If im in a group of people im not afraid of one weird guy following me but if im unarmed by myself that would quite frankly terrify me. It would terrify me too. So I would call the police and get to my house as quickly as possible. Those are two things any rational person would do. Neither of those things are things that Martin did. There's a reason we don't allow 17 year olds to vote. I would have done both of those things at 12, 13, 14, 17, 824, a million years old. It is pretty strange that Martin, who was supposedly freaked out and scared shitless, didn't try to go home (his home was very close to where they were, something like 90-150 meters) or call anyone besides his girlfriend or whatever, and instead somehow ended up causing injuries to Zimmerman and at some point on top of him pounding him "MMA-style". Let's be clear here, the only story that makes any kind of sense is a confrontation INSTIGATED by Martin. Is there any doubt that the confrontation (regardless of who instigated it because I havnt seen definitive evidence one way or other) happened because Zimmerman followed him? I might also have tried to fight if I thought I couldn't safely get away. After all, showing my back to someone who may or may not be armed seems like a bad decision especially when I don't know if running will get me killed or not. And if you survived that fight you would be charged with assault and battery. You do not have the right to attack someone because they are following you and "they might be armed." Also judging by the amount of lies that Zimmerman has been caught in and the amount of disproven events I would be taking anything he says with a grain of salt unless real proof was attached to it.
What lies and what disproven events? All the lying and disproving has been done by the defense, not the opposite. Does the law distinguish between "coincidentally going to the same place" and "deliberately following?" This is a legitimate question. The former is obviously completely innocent but I can't help but think that the latter is invariably malicious when you're talking about strangers. Edit: I adverbed when I should have adjectived. There is no inherent malice in "deliberately following" someone. Why do you keep ignoring Zimmerman's comment to the dispatcher before he followed Trayvon? Because it doesn't matter. All that matters is how the conflct started, which we don't know. Zimmerman's story reports that he was jumped and beat by Martin. That is the only evidnece that exists and the court takes it at face value. It is backed up by the testimony of John Good, who saw the end of the conflict. What Zimmerman said is not nearly as important as how the conflict got started. The Court cannot guess how it got started, but only provide the evidnce.
Zimmerman's comment reflects his state of mind immediately prior to the conflict.
|
On July 12 2013 01:10 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 01:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 01:07 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 01:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:56 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:42 plogamer wrote:On July 12 2013 00:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:40 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:34 GreenGringo wrote:
[quote]Once when I was a university student I was attacked and beaten up for no reason by drunken youths who decided to take their frustrations out on the nearest defenceless male student they could find.
I was "rescued" by a cab driver who knew these kids were up to no good that night and decided to follow them in his cab. I got away with only minor injuries, but there's no telling how badly I would have been beaten up if it weren't for this cab driver.
It's simply ridiculous to accuse people of being "vigilantes" for merely following suspicious-looking youths some distance.
He wasn't following "youths" it was one lone guy who had every reason to be just more scared of him then Zimmerman was of Martin. If im in a group of people im not afraid of one weird guy following me but if im unarmed by myself that would quite frankly terrify me. It would terrify me too. So I would call the police and get to my house as quickly as possible. Those are two things any rational person would do. Neither of those things are things that Martin did. There's a reason we don't allow 17 year olds to vote. I would have done both of those things at 12, 13, 14, 17, 824, a million years old. It is pretty strange that Martin, who was supposedly freaked out and scared shitless, didn't try to go home (his home was very close to where they were, something like 90-150 meters) or call anyone besides his girlfriend or whatever, and instead somehow ended up causing injuries to Zimmerman and at some point on top of him pounding him "MMA-style". Let's be clear here, the only story that makes any kind of sense is a confrontation INSTIGATED by Martin. Is there any doubt that the confrontation (regardless of who instigated it because I havnt seen definitive evidence one way or other) happened because Zimmerman followed him? I might also have tried to fight if I thought I couldn't safely get away. After all, showing my back to someone who may or may not be armed seems like a bad decision especially when I don't know if running will get me killed or not. And if you survived that fight you would be charged with assault and battery. You do not have the right to attack someone because they are following you and "they might be armed." Also judging by the amount of lies that Zimmerman has been caught in and the amount of disproven events I would be taking anything he says with a grain of salt unless real proof was attached to it.
What lies and what disproven events? All the lying and disproving has been done by the defense, not the opposite. Does the law distinguish between "coincidentally going to the same place" and "deliberately following?" This is a legitimate question. The former is obviously completely innocent but I can't help but think that the latter is invariably malicious when you're talking about strangers. Edit: I adverbed when I should have adjectived. There is no inherent malice in "deliberately following" someone. In this situation, it was malicious. He had an opportunity to avoid conflict and chose not to. His choice eventually lead to him killing someone. This fact alone makes him definitively guilty in my eyes. i posted this a few seconds ago, but this would be the same as blaming a girl wearing a short skirt when she gets raped. Zimmerman following trayvon shouldn't result in a fight, but the fight happened. The only person you can blame is the person that started the fight.
|
On July 12 2013 01:13 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 01:10 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2013 01:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 01:07 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 01:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:56 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:42 plogamer wrote:On July 12 2013 00:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:40 Adreme wrote:
[quote]
He wasn't following "youths" it was one lone guy who had every reason to be just more scared of him then Zimmerman was of Martin. If im in a group of people im not afraid of one weird guy following me but if im unarmed by myself that would quite frankly terrify me. It would terrify me too. So I would call the police and get to my house as quickly as possible. Those are two things any rational person would do. Neither of those things are things that Martin did. There's a reason we don't allow 17 year olds to vote. I would have done both of those things at 12, 13, 14, 17, 824, a million years old. It is pretty strange that Martin, who was supposedly freaked out and scared shitless, didn't try to go home (his home was very close to where they were, something like 90-150 meters) or call anyone besides his girlfriend or whatever, and instead somehow ended up causing injuries to Zimmerman and at some point on top of him pounding him "MMA-style". Let's be clear here, the only story that makes any kind of sense is a confrontation INSTIGATED by Martin. Is there any doubt that the confrontation (regardless of who instigated it because I havnt seen definitive evidence one way or other) happened because Zimmerman followed him? I might also have tried to fight if I thought I couldn't safely get away. After all, showing my back to someone who may or may not be armed seems like a bad decision especially when I don't know if running will get me killed or not. And if you survived that fight you would be charged with assault and battery. You do not have the right to attack someone because they are following you and "they might be armed." Also judging by the amount of lies that Zimmerman has been caught in and the amount of disproven events I would be taking anything he says with a grain of salt unless real proof was attached to it.
What lies and what disproven events? All the lying and disproving has been done by the defense, not the opposite. Does the law distinguish between "coincidentally going to the same place" and "deliberately following?" This is a legitimate question. The former is obviously completely innocent but I can't help but think that the latter is invariably malicious when you're talking about strangers. Edit: I adverbed when I should have adjectived. There is no inherent malice in "deliberately following" someone. In this situation, it was malicious. He had an opportunity to avoid conflict and chose not to. His choice eventually lead to him killing someone. This fact alone makes him definitively guilty in my eyes. If you are speaking legally, you are definitively incorrect. If you are speaking morally, than you are also wrong. I have no responsibility to "avoid conflict" with someone who attacks me completely out of the blue. When they attack me completely out of the blue, and continue attacking me viciously after being told by someone to stop (John Good), I absolutely have the right to defend myself using any means necessary. Martin had the choice to avoid conflict and he chose not to. He ended up getting someone killed. Himself, but it could have just as easily been Zimmerman, beaten to death for trying to do his fucking job as a neighborhood watch-man.
I just want to confirm something are you arguing that it wasn't dumb of him to follow Martin in the first place?
|
On July 12 2013 01:13 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 01:10 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2013 01:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 01:07 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 01:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:56 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:42 plogamer wrote:On July 12 2013 00:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:40 Adreme wrote:
[quote]
He wasn't following "youths" it was one lone guy who had every reason to be just more scared of him then Zimmerman was of Martin. If im in a group of people im not afraid of one weird guy following me but if im unarmed by myself that would quite frankly terrify me. It would terrify me too. So I would call the police and get to my house as quickly as possible. Those are two things any rational person would do. Neither of those things are things that Martin did. There's a reason we don't allow 17 year olds to vote. I would have done both of those things at 12, 13, 14, 17, 824, a million years old. It is pretty strange that Martin, who was supposedly freaked out and scared shitless, didn't try to go home (his home was very close to where they were, something like 90-150 meters) or call anyone besides his girlfriend or whatever, and instead somehow ended up causing injuries to Zimmerman and at some point on top of him pounding him "MMA-style". Let's be clear here, the only story that makes any kind of sense is a confrontation INSTIGATED by Martin. Is there any doubt that the confrontation (regardless of who instigated it because I havnt seen definitive evidence one way or other) happened because Zimmerman followed him? I might also have tried to fight if I thought I couldn't safely get away. After all, showing my back to someone who may or may not be armed seems like a bad decision especially when I don't know if running will get me killed or not. And if you survived that fight you would be charged with assault and battery. You do not have the right to attack someone because they are following you and "they might be armed." Also judging by the amount of lies that Zimmerman has been caught in and the amount of disproven events I would be taking anything he says with a grain of salt unless real proof was attached to it.
What lies and what disproven events? All the lying and disproving has been done by the defense, not the opposite. Does the law distinguish between "coincidentally going to the same place" and "deliberately following?" This is a legitimate question. The former is obviously completely innocent but I can't help but think that the latter is invariably malicious when you're talking about strangers. Edit: I adverbed when I should have adjectived. There is no inherent malice in "deliberately following" someone. In this situation, it was malicious. He had an opportunity to avoid conflict and chose not to. His choice eventually lead to him killing someone. This fact alone makes him definitively guilty in my eyes. If you are speaking legally, you are definitively incorrect. If you are speaking morally, than you are also wrong. I have no responsibility to "avoid conflict" with someone who attacks me completely out of the blue. When they attack me completely out of the blue, and continue attacking me viciously after being told by someone to stop (John Good), I absolutely have the right to defend myself using any means necessary. Martin had the choice to avoid conflict and he chose not to. He ended up getting someone killed. Himself, but it could have just as easily been Zimmerman, beaten to death for trying to do his fucking job as a neighborhood watch-man.
I am going to say that following someone without identifying yourself could make someone feel threatened. It is the same behaviour that a criminal would take if they were intendeding harm on someone. There is an argument that Martin could have felt threatened by Zimmerman and suspected he might attempt to harm Martin.
However, we would need to know how the conflict started to make the judgment. Since there is little evidence beyond Zimmerman's statments, it is unclear what took place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
