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.
Assuming the girl saw the rapist, called the police, and then followed him?
On July 12 2013 00:41 sc2superfan101 wrote: [quote] 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?
He agrees its dumb, just not criminal or a factor in the current case. Follow someone does not give them the ability to attack you or be violent.
On July 12 2013 00:41 sc2superfan101 wrote: [quote] 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?
Are we playing the "In hindsight, which is 20/20" game? Or are we playing the: "Zimmerman has no reason to believe Martin will try to beat him to death on a goddamn sidewalk" game?
Would I advise Zimmerman to follow Trayvon, knowing all that I do now? No. Would I have advised Zimmerman, the neighbor-hood watch-man, to keep an eye on a suspicious looking person in the neighborhood? Yes. Absolutely, that's his job.
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?
Are we playing the "In hindsight, which is 20/20" game? Or are we playing the: "Zimmerman has no reason to believe Martin will try to beat him to death on a goddamn sidewalk" game?
Would I advise Zimmerman to follow Trayvon, knowing all that I do now? No. Would I have advised Zimmerman, the neighbor-hood watch-man, to keep an eye on a suspicious looking person in the neighborhood? Yes. Absolutely, that's his job.
The reason the dispatcher told him not to follow was about keeping him alive because if Zimmerman was actually he would most likely be dead right now. Not getting sued is a nice side benefit but in that case its completely about the fact that he is in no way equipped to be trying to follow someone who may be armed and dangerous.
Now if he had remembered what he looks like and kept an eye out for him next time he was on watch then that would be the rational decision but there was almost no scenario under which following him ends well.
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?
Are we playing the "In hindsight, which is 20/20" game? Or are we playing the: "Zimmerman has no reason to believe Martin will try to beat him to death on a goddamn sidewalk" game?
Would I advise Zimmerman to follow Trayvon, knowing all that I do now? No. Would I have advised Zimmerman, the neighbor-hood watch-man, to keep an eye on a suspicious looking person in the neighborhood? Yes. Absolutely, that's his job.
Neighborhood watch merely report what they see... not pursue.
On July 12 2013 00:46 sc2superfan101 wrote: [quote] 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?
Are we playing the "In hindsight, which is 20/20" game? Or are we playing the: "Zimmerman has no reason to believe Martin will try to beat him to death on a goddamn sidewalk" game?
Would I advise Zimmerman to follow Trayvon, knowing all that I do now? No. Would I have advised Zimmerman, the neighbor-hood watch-man, to keep an eye on a suspicious looking person in the neighborhood? Yes. Absolutely, that's his job.
Neighborhood watch merely report what they see... not pursue.
Zimmerman said he stopped pursuing. At that point he was heading back to his truck.
On July 12 2013 00:46 sc2superfan101 wrote: [quote] 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?
Are we playing the "In hindsight, which is 20/20" game? Or are we playing the: "Zimmerman has no reason to believe Martin will try to beat him to death on a goddamn sidewalk" game?
Would I advise Zimmerman to follow Trayvon, knowing all that I do now? No. Would I have advised Zimmerman, the neighbor-hood watch-man, to keep an eye on a suspicious looking person in the neighborhood? Yes. Absolutely, that's his job.
The reason the dispatcher told him not to follow
The dispatcher was quite clear that he did not order Zimmerman to do anything at all.
Why is everyone doing this "Zimmerman followed Trayvon and this is what caused it" thing when the facts as we have them don't support it?
The map of the situation, witnesses and testimony all say that, yes, for a while Zimmerman tailed Trayvon. Then, Trayvon began running and at about the same time as the Dispatcher said he "did not need" zimmerman to follow, Z lost T and then completed the call.
After completing the call, Zimmerman began to walk back to his truck when Trayvon approached him at the T intersection in the sidewalk. For them to have ended up here, there is no reasonable way that would not require Trayvon to have turned around and headed AWAY from his house further down Retreat View Circle.
It's not possible guys. You're arguing for something that didn't happen. There is no argument to be made that Trayvon felt threatened when he had already lost Zimmerman. All of the testimony, the maps, the evidence, the witnesses...every single one of them says you're wrong.
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.
Speak for yourself. I can imagine it quite easily.
The prosecution must really be desperate if these are the straws you are grasping.
Im not "grasping" anything I just cant see myself calling the police or really anyone im not friends with and just casually cussing about someone. I don't doubt as an adult male that Zimmerman cusses regularly I just doubt that he does it routinely under those circumstances if he is as calm as you are saying.
Also I said earlier I don't think he will be found guilty because there isn't enough evidence so I don't know why you think im arguing for the prosecution or something.
On July 12 2013 00:46 sc2superfan101 wrote: [quote] 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?
Are we playing the "In hindsight, which is 20/20" game? Or are we playing the: "Zimmerman has no reason to believe Martin will try to beat him to death on a goddamn sidewalk" game?
Would I advise Zimmerman to follow Trayvon, knowing all that I do now? No. Would I have advised Zimmerman, the neighbor-hood watch-man, to keep an eye on a suspicious looking person in the neighborhood? Yes. Absolutely, that's his job.
Neighborhood watch merely report what they see... not pursue.
And they're almost never armed. It was weird that Zimmerman had a gun at all.
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?
Are we playing the "In hindsight, which is 20/20" game? Or are we playing the: "Zimmerman has no reason to believe Martin will try to beat him to death on a goddamn sidewalk" game?
Would I advise Zimmerman to follow Trayvon, knowing all that I do now? No. Would I have advised Zimmerman, the neighbor-hood watch-man, to keep an eye on a suspicious looking person in the neighborhood? Yes. Absolutely, that's his job.
Neighborhood watch merely report what they see... not pursue.
And they're almost never armed. It was weird that Zimmerman had a gun at all.
On July 12 2013 01:26 Adreme wrote: Im not "grasping" anything I just cant see myself calling the police or really anyone im not friends with and just casually cussing about someone. I don't doubt as an adult male that Zimmerman cusses regularly I just doubt that he does it routinely under those circumstances if he is as calm as you are saying.
And I say you should speak for yourself. Lots of people casually cuss in the presence of strangers. I have no idea why you think he wouldn't casually cuss when reporting the behaviour of a suspected felon.
On July 12 2013 01:05 sc2superfan101 wrote: [quote] 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."
[quote]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?
Are we playing the "In hindsight, which is 20/20" game? Or are we playing the: "Zimmerman has no reason to believe Martin will try to beat him to death on a goddamn sidewalk" game?
Would I advise Zimmerman to follow Trayvon, knowing all that I do now? No. Would I have advised Zimmerman, the neighbor-hood watch-man, to keep an eye on a suspicious looking person in the neighborhood? Yes. Absolutely, that's his job.
Neighborhood watch merely report what they see... not pursue.
And they're almost never armed. It was weird that Zimmerman had a gun at all.
Having a concealed carry permit is not "weird"
He's not talking about Zimmerman, he's talking about the concept of armed neighborhood watchmen.
3rd degree murder is still 25 years minimum for Zimmerman.
I'm reading 10/20/Life law kicks in.
Third Degree Felony Murder Third Degree Murder is classified as a Second Degree Felony. Under Florida’s sentencing guidelines, and absent mitigating circumstances, a judge is required to impose a minimum sentence of 10? years in prison, but can impose any additional combination of the following penalties:
•Up to 15 years in prison. •Up to 15 years of probation. •Up to $10,000 in fines. 10-20-Life Firearm Enhancement If the jury finds that a firearm was used, Third Degree Murder is reclassified to a First Degree Felony, which increases the maximum sentence to 30 years in prison or 30 years of probation.
However, because Murder is an enumerated felony, if the jury finds that the firearm was used to kill Trayvon Martin, the judge would be required to impose a 25 year minimum-mandatory prison sentence and could sentence him to life in prison (notwithstanding the 30 year maximum sentence).
If the jury only found that he possessed or discharged the firearm, then the respective 10 or 20 year mandatory-minimum sentence must be imposed.
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.
Speak for yourself. I can imagine it quite easily.
The prosecution must really be desperate if these are the straws you are grasping.
You're grasping if you are trying to argue that swearing and cussing reflects a calm state of mind. /edit
I can imagine your wedding proposal. "Will you fucking marry me, you punk?"
I didn't say it "reflects" a calm state of mind; I said it's neutral.
There's lots of people who use words like "fucking punks" when they're in a relative clam state of mind, especially if they're talking about people they suspect to be criminals.
EPT
