|
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 17 2013 04:42 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 04:38 papaz wrote:On July 17 2013 04:34 Gunther wrote:On July 17 2013 04:33 papaz wrote:On July 17 2013 04:08 MstrJinbo wrote:On July 17 2013 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:22 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:16 SKC wrote:On July 17 2013 03:13 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
"About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[13] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[74] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[75] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[13] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[76] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[13] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[13]"
Sounds pretty much like Zimmerman followed Trayvon.
Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Shooting_and_investigation Your own quote says Zimmermann lost him at some point. It doesn't have a timeline. It in no way disproves the fact that Trayvon could have just walked away to his house. If you want more detailed information you need something better than Wikipedia. Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point? That there is other evidence that Trayvon got into a conflict with Zimmerman, got the upper hand and was beating Zimmerman against the ground. This was backed up by an eye witness and the police reports. The jury members said that they believed Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he defended himself. The stuff how provided doesn't prove anything except that Zimmerman followed Martin, which isn't illegal. But it should be. Why is an untrained person allowed to play police? For me that sounds like climbing into a tiger cage, killing the tiger when he attacks you and saying: "I didn't do anything wrong, it attacked me!" Of course it's true, but Zimmerman got himself into a dangerous confrontation that escalated because both people didn't know how to handle the situation. I don't see why something like this is not illegal. If the situation could be avoided that should be the first option. If the "defender" willingly engages in the confrontation, he risks the health of himself and others involved. Following someone is not the same as playing police. It's public space and Zimmerman had every right to be there. It would have been smarter for him not to have been there, but it shouldn't be made a crime. Zimmerman played police no matter how you look at the matter. Something is beyond messed up when you actively put yourself in the position Zimmerman did and completely go free because you defended yourself. I'm not saying he is guilty of murder but he is sure guilty of something and what needs to be done so that this tragic event doesn't occur again is that people one way or another is not allowed to play police in the first place. Well, nothing occurring to the actual FACTS suggest he played police. Following someone is not playing police no matter how you look at it. How do you think he played police, I'm curious? What did Zimmerman do in your opinion, I'm curious. well, in the jury's opinion, he reasonably defended himself.
Actually, the trial concluded that just can't be proven that he didn't.
|
On July 17 2013 04:52 papaz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 04:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 17 2013 04:38 papaz wrote:On July 17 2013 04:34 Gunther wrote:On July 17 2013 04:33 papaz wrote:On July 17 2013 04:08 MstrJinbo wrote:On July 17 2013 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:22 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:16 SKC wrote:
[quote]
Your own quote says Zimmermann lost him at some point. It doesn't have a timeline. It in no way disproves the fact that Trayvon could have just walked away to his house. If you want more detailed information you need something better than Wikipedia. Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point? That there is other evidence that Trayvon got into a conflict with Zimmerman, got the upper hand and was beating Zimmerman against the ground. This was backed up by an eye witness and the police reports. The jury members said that they believed Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he defended himself. The stuff how provided doesn't prove anything except that Zimmerman followed Martin, which isn't illegal. But it should be. Why is an untrained person allowed to play police? For me that sounds like climbing into a tiger cage, killing the tiger when he attacks you and saying: "I didn't do anything wrong, it attacked me!" Of course it's true, but Zimmerman got himself into a dangerous confrontation that escalated because both people didn't know how to handle the situation. I don't see why something like this is not illegal. If the situation could be avoided that should be the first option. If the "defender" willingly engages in the confrontation, he risks the health of himself and others involved. Following someone is not the same as playing police. It's public space and Zimmerman had every right to be there. It would have been smarter for him not to have been there, but it shouldn't be made a crime. Zimmerman played police no matter how you look at the matter. Something is beyond messed up when you actively put yourself in the position Zimmerman did and completely go free because you defended yourself. I'm not saying he is guilty of murder but he is sure guilty of something and what needs to be done so that this tragic event doesn't occur again is that people one way or another is not allowed to play police in the first place. Well, nothing occurring to the actual FACTS suggest he played police. Following someone is not playing police no matter how you look at it. How do you think he played police, I'm curious? What did Zimmerman do in your opinion, I'm curious. well, in the jury's opinion, he reasonably defended himself. You are either deliberately avoiding the question or just being a wiseguy. Was Zimmerman stopping an ongoing bank robery, was he stopping a kidnapping? What was he doing in the FIRST place. What happened after he put himself in a situation with a loaded gun is obvious but if you only look at this tragic event as a snapshot of the moment Zimmerman felt he needed to use a gun then God save us all from every person out there that decides approach someone else with a gun, gets in a fight and then protects himself.
I am going to quote dAPhREAk now, because he is so good at shooting this stuff down. The fact that he followed TM does not matter, since the act of following him did not directly lead to the shooting. The act of Trayvon attacking Zimmerman is the cause of the shooting, not the act of following.
On July 17 2013 04:49 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 04:45 papaz wrote:On July 17 2013 04:36 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 04:33 papaz wrote:On July 17 2013 04:08 MstrJinbo wrote:On July 17 2013 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:22 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:16 SKC wrote:On July 17 2013 03:13 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
"About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[13] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[74] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[75] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[13] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[76] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[13] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[13]"
Sounds pretty much like Zimmerman followed Trayvon.
Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Shooting_and_investigation Your own quote says Zimmermann lost him at some point. It doesn't have a timeline. It in no way disproves the fact that Trayvon could have just walked away to his house. If you want more detailed information you need something better than Wikipedia. Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point? That there is other evidence that Trayvon got into a conflict with Zimmerman, got the upper hand and was beating Zimmerman against the ground. This was backed up by an eye witness and the police reports. The jury members said that they believed Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he defended himself. The stuff how provided doesn't prove anything except that Zimmerman followed Martin, which isn't illegal. But it should be. Why is an untrained person allowed to play police? For me that sounds like climbing into a tiger cage, killing the tiger when he attacks you and saying: "I didn't do anything wrong, it attacked me!" Of course it's true, but Zimmerman got himself into a dangerous confrontation that escalated because both people didn't know how to handle the situation. I don't see why something like this is not illegal. If the situation could be avoided that should be the first option. If the "defender" willingly engages in the confrontation, he risks the health of himself and others involved. Following someone is not the same as playing police. It's public space and Zimmerman had every right to be there. It would have been smarter for him not to have been there, but it shouldn't be made a crime. Zimmerman played police no matter how you look at the matter. Something is beyond messed up when you actively put yourself in the position Zimmerman did and completely go free because you defended yourself. I'm not saying he is guilty of murder but he is sure guilty of something and what needs to be done so that this tragic event doesn't occur again is that people one way or another is not allowed to play police in the first place. I see a theme in our brother and sisters from Europe. People are not allowed to play police, unless they do good stuff, which then its ok. But if they make mistakes, it should be against the law. So if you have good intentions, leave them at home in Europe, they are not welcome because you could make something worse. But that is just it. This is beyond mistake. He was told NOT to follow. He had every opportunity to NOT put himself in the situation he did but he still did. With a loaded gun I might add. What was Zimmerman saving other people from? Nothing was happening. He sees something he thinks is suspicious. It's not like there is an ongoing bank robery he discovered and decided to stop. based on what we know, zimmerman "following" trayvon was as much related to the death as zimmerman's decision to go to WALMART. it was not the proximate cause of the shooting, and thus, really doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things. it was obviously the "but for" cause, but we dont convict people based on "but for" causes. lazy google search: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_cause
|
On July 17 2013 04:45 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 04:42 kmillz wrote:On July 17 2013 04:35 MstrJinbo wrote:On July 17 2013 04:26 kmillz wrote:On July 17 2013 04:22 MrCon wrote:On July 17 2013 04:17 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 04:15 MrCon wrote:On July 17 2013 04:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 17 2013 04:08 MrCon wrote:
You can use a pepper spray against knife crime. And it's not like a gun would change anything anyway. lol at pepper spray to thwart a knife crime. what a joke. Come on, don't be dumb on purpose. If I point my gun on you from 3-5 meters, you do nothing. I can't do that with a knife, and if I do, my opponent has ample time to spray me. Wth is this discussion where people are trying to tell you that a knife is the same thing as a gun. Have you ever been sprayed with pepper spray? Its not magic. If that person wants to stab you, they are going to do it, pepper spray or not. If they are drunk or on drugs, it is every more likely that spray will do nothing. I have been on both end. You suddenly can't breath anymore, it's like your throat is blocked, which usually induce such a panic that you don't do anything because you want to stay alive (spray isn't lethal, but its effect make you think you'll die of asphyxiation). Also you can't see anymore because your eyes are too wet. Not sure it's pepper pray, we call that "lacrymogene" C'mon dude at least watch the video I posted. That girl didn't look like she thought she was gonna die. Don't police and military personnel, especially those taking up security roles, train for situations where they are getting sprayed with mace or pepper spray in case it is turned against them? I served 4 years in the Marine Corps. No I've never had any training related to pepper spray. Being a Marine or Police Officer doesn't make you impervious to the effects of pepper spray. The point is simply pepper spray is not an effective way to stop someone from killing you with a knife. I don't know why people think that the military trains people to have special powers to resist pepper spray.
Meh, I'm not implying super powers. But there are enough accounts in the media reporting cadets getting spayed in the face during training to indicate it happens.
|
On July 17 2013 04:52 papaz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 04:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 17 2013 04:38 papaz wrote:On July 17 2013 04:34 Gunther wrote:On July 17 2013 04:33 papaz wrote:On July 17 2013 04:08 MstrJinbo wrote:On July 17 2013 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:22 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:16 SKC wrote:
[quote]
Your own quote says Zimmermann lost him at some point. It doesn't have a timeline. It in no way disproves the fact that Trayvon could have just walked away to his house. If you want more detailed information you need something better than Wikipedia. Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point? That there is other evidence that Trayvon got into a conflict with Zimmerman, got the upper hand and was beating Zimmerman against the ground. This was backed up by an eye witness and the police reports. The jury members said that they believed Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he defended himself. The stuff how provided doesn't prove anything except that Zimmerman followed Martin, which isn't illegal. But it should be. Why is an untrained person allowed to play police? For me that sounds like climbing into a tiger cage, killing the tiger when he attacks you and saying: "I didn't do anything wrong, it attacked me!" Of course it's true, but Zimmerman got himself into a dangerous confrontation that escalated because both people didn't know how to handle the situation. I don't see why something like this is not illegal. If the situation could be avoided that should be the first option. If the "defender" willingly engages in the confrontation, he risks the health of himself and others involved. Following someone is not the same as playing police. It's public space and Zimmerman had every right to be there. It would have been smarter for him not to have been there, but it shouldn't be made a crime. Zimmerman played police no matter how you look at the matter. Something is beyond messed up when you actively put yourself in the position Zimmerman did and completely go free because you defended yourself. I'm not saying he is guilty of murder but he is sure guilty of something and what needs to be done so that this tragic event doesn't occur again is that people one way or another is not allowed to play police in the first place. Well, nothing occurring to the actual FACTS suggest he played police. Following someone is not playing police no matter how you look at it. How do you think he played police, I'm curious? What did Zimmerman do in your opinion, I'm curious. well, in the jury's opinion, he reasonably defended himself. You are either deliberately avoiding the question or just being a wiseguy. Was Zimmerman stopping an ongoing bank robery, was he stopping a kidnapping? What was he doing in the FIRST place. What happened after he put himself in a situation with a loaded gun is obvious but if you only look at this tragic event as a snapshot of the moment Zimmerman felt he needed to use a gun then God save us all from every person out there that decides approach someone else with a gun, gets in a fight and then protects himself.
He was investigating what he believed to be a suspicious individual. He then was involved in an altercation with that individual, which by accounts the individual started several minutes after their initial contact. Then the individual gained the upper hand in the altercation, and the defendant defended himself with deadly force. What's difficult to understand here?
EDIT: Read Plansix's above post. It explains everything I was trying to say.
|
On July 17 2013 04:38 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 04:33 papaz wrote:On July 17 2013 04:08 MstrJinbo wrote:On July 17 2013 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:22 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:16 SKC wrote:On July 17 2013 03:13 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 02:35 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 02:33 Fusa wrote:
[quote]
what you all fail to realize is the moment zimmerman "stalked" treyvon, was the moment he was the aggressor. The argument is such that treyvon could have simply just "walked away", well he was actively walking away the whole time.
It a pretty f***** up world when I can run down someone, confront them, begin to defend/attack rather then avoiding confrontation, begin to lose the mutual combat, then shoot the person to death 300 meters away from where I started running after the kid. Did you just make all that up as you went? That isn't the facts of the case at all. You need to read up on it, rather than just believing what other people tell you. "About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[13] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[74] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[75] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[13] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[76] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[13] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[13]" Sounds pretty much like Zimmerman followed Trayvon. Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Shooting_and_investigation Your own quote says Zimmermann lost him at some point. It doesn't have a timeline. It in no way disproves the fact that Trayvon could have just walked away to his house. If you want more detailed information you need something better than Wikipedia. Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point? That there is other evidence that Trayvon got into a conflict with Zimmerman, got the upper hand and was beating Zimmerman against the ground. This was backed up by an eye witness and the police reports. The jury members said that they believed Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he defended himself. The stuff how provided doesn't prove anything except that Zimmerman followed Martin, which isn't illegal. But it should be. Why is an untrained person allowed to play police? For me that sounds like climbing into a tiger cage, killing the tiger when he attacks you and saying: "I didn't do anything wrong, it attacked me!" Of course it's true, but Zimmerman got himself into a dangerous confrontation that escalated because both people didn't know how to handle the situation. I don't see why something like this is not illegal. If the situation could be avoided that should be the first option. If the "defender" willingly engages in the confrontation, he risks the health of himself and others involved. Following someone is not the same as playing police. It's public space and Zimmerman had every right to be there. It would have been smarter for him not to have been there, but it shouldn't be made a crime. Zimmerman played police no matter how you look at the matter. He followed someone carrying a gun being told he should not. Something is beyond messed up when you actively put yourself in the position Zimmerman did and completely go free because you defended yourself. I'm not saying he is guilty of murder but he is sure guilty of something and what needs to be done so that this tragic event doesn't occur again is that people one way or another is not allowed to play police in the first place. Ye, i agree. As some people said before, involuntary manslaughter would seem reasonable. I also never meant that people shouldn't defend themselves, but the situation could have been avoided and that should influence the sentence.
What makes you think that this situation should have been avoided? Who is to say Trayvon was not a risk to the security of the neighborhood that night? His personal history has shown that he is capable of doing illegal things. You all assume Trayvon was walking directly home that night. Also the situation could have been avoided if Trayvon didn't throw the first punch as the Juror interviewed by Anderson Cooper of CNN believes he did.
|
On July 17 2013 04:52 papaz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 04:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 17 2013 04:38 papaz wrote:On July 17 2013 04:34 Gunther wrote:On July 17 2013 04:33 papaz wrote:On July 17 2013 04:08 MstrJinbo wrote:On July 17 2013 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:22 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:16 SKC wrote:
[quote]
Your own quote says Zimmermann lost him at some point. It doesn't have a timeline. It in no way disproves the fact that Trayvon could have just walked away to his house. If you want more detailed information you need something better than Wikipedia. Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point? That there is other evidence that Trayvon got into a conflict with Zimmerman, got the upper hand and was beating Zimmerman against the ground. This was backed up by an eye witness and the police reports. The jury members said that they believed Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he defended himself. The stuff how provided doesn't prove anything except that Zimmerman followed Martin, which isn't illegal. But it should be. Why is an untrained person allowed to play police? For me that sounds like climbing into a tiger cage, killing the tiger when he attacks you and saying: "I didn't do anything wrong, it attacked me!" Of course it's true, but Zimmerman got himself into a dangerous confrontation that escalated because both people didn't know how to handle the situation. I don't see why something like this is not illegal. If the situation could be avoided that should be the first option. If the "defender" willingly engages in the confrontation, he risks the health of himself and others involved. Following someone is not the same as playing police. It's public space and Zimmerman had every right to be there. It would have been smarter for him not to have been there, but it shouldn't be made a crime. Zimmerman played police no matter how you look at the matter. Something is beyond messed up when you actively put yourself in the position Zimmerman did and completely go free because you defended yourself. I'm not saying he is guilty of murder but he is sure guilty of something and what needs to be done so that this tragic event doesn't occur again is that people one way or another is not allowed to play police in the first place. Well, nothing occurring to the actual FACTS suggest he played police. Following someone is not playing police no matter how you look at it. How do you think he played police, I'm curious? What did Zimmerman do in your opinion, I'm curious. well, in the jury's opinion, he reasonably defended himself. You are either deliberately avoiding the question or just being a wiseguy. Was Zimmerman stopping an ongoing bank robery, was he stopping a kidnapping? What was he doing in the FIRST place. What happened after he put himself in a situation with a loaded gun is obvious but if you only look at this tragic event as a snapshot of the moment Zimmerman felt he needed to use a gun then God save us all from every person out there that decides approach someone else with a gun, gets in a fight and then protects himself.
he was doing what he had been doing for months: monitoring his neighborhood and reporting crime. he had been quite effective before and some (but not all) residents appreciated his diligence. due to his actions, people were arrested and crimes thwarted.
what was he doing in this particular circumstance? he was reporting on a suspicious looking individual in his neighborhood. although we dont know whether trayvon was actually casing the neighborhood like zimmerman thought, there does appear to be some legitimacy to his concern given the history of the neighborhood.
|
It seems that USA is so degenerated nation that you need gun to keep you safe sad date of affairs
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On July 17 2013 04:52 papaz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 04:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 17 2013 04:38 papaz wrote:On July 17 2013 04:34 Gunther wrote:On July 17 2013 04:33 papaz wrote:On July 17 2013 04:08 MstrJinbo wrote:On July 17 2013 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:22 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:16 SKC wrote:
[quote]
Your own quote says Zimmermann lost him at some point. It doesn't have a timeline. It in no way disproves the fact that Trayvon could have just walked away to his house. If you want more detailed information you need something better than Wikipedia. Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point? That there is other evidence that Trayvon got into a conflict with Zimmerman, got the upper hand and was beating Zimmerman against the ground. This was backed up by an eye witness and the police reports. The jury members said that they believed Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he defended himself. The stuff how provided doesn't prove anything except that Zimmerman followed Martin, which isn't illegal. But it should be. Why is an untrained person allowed to play police? For me that sounds like climbing into a tiger cage, killing the tiger when he attacks you and saying: "I didn't do anything wrong, it attacked me!" Of course it's true, but Zimmerman got himself into a dangerous confrontation that escalated because both people didn't know how to handle the situation. I don't see why something like this is not illegal. If the situation could be avoided that should be the first option. If the "defender" willingly engages in the confrontation, he risks the health of himself and others involved. Following someone is not the same as playing police. It's public space and Zimmerman had every right to be there. It would have been smarter for him not to have been there, but it shouldn't be made a crime. Zimmerman played police no matter how you look at the matter. Something is beyond messed up when you actively put yourself in the position Zimmerman did and completely go free because you defended yourself. I'm not saying he is guilty of murder but he is sure guilty of something and what needs to be done so that this tragic event doesn't occur again is that people one way or another is not allowed to play police in the first place. Well, nothing occurring to the actual FACTS suggest he played police. Following someone is not playing police no matter how you look at it. How do you think he played police, I'm curious? What did Zimmerman do in your opinion, I'm curious. well, in the jury's opinion, he reasonably defended himself. You are either deliberately avoiding the question or just being a wiseguy.
Was Zimmerman stopping an ongoing bank robery, was he stopping a kidnapping?What was he doing in the FIRST place. What happened after he put himself in a situation with a loaded gun is obvious but if you only look at this tragic event as a snapshot of the moment Zimmerman felt he needed to use a gun then God save us all from every person out there that decides approach someone else with a gun, gets in a fight and then protects himself.
No, he was trying to find out if a robbery or kidnapping (or whatever) was taking place.
There's very little risk that approaching someone and asking them what they're doing will result in a death. It did in this case, but you can't criticize an ex ante decision just because you know the ex post outcome.
|
On July 17 2013 04:55 moopie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 04:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 17 2013 04:38 papaz wrote:On July 17 2013 04:34 Gunther wrote:On July 17 2013 04:33 papaz wrote:On July 17 2013 04:08 MstrJinbo wrote:On July 17 2013 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:22 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:16 SKC wrote:
[quote]
Your own quote says Zimmermann lost him at some point. It doesn't have a timeline. It in no way disproves the fact that Trayvon could have just walked away to his house. If you want more detailed information you need something better than Wikipedia. Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point? That there is other evidence that Trayvon got into a conflict with Zimmerman, got the upper hand and was beating Zimmerman against the ground. This was backed up by an eye witness and the police reports. The jury members said that they believed Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he defended himself. The stuff how provided doesn't prove anything except that Zimmerman followed Martin, which isn't illegal. But it should be. Why is an untrained person allowed to play police? For me that sounds like climbing into a tiger cage, killing the tiger when he attacks you and saying: "I didn't do anything wrong, it attacked me!" Of course it's true, but Zimmerman got himself into a dangerous confrontation that escalated because both people didn't know how to handle the situation. I don't see why something like this is not illegal. If the situation could be avoided that should be the first option. If the "defender" willingly engages in the confrontation, he risks the health of himself and others involved. Following someone is not the same as playing police. It's public space and Zimmerman had every right to be there. It would have been smarter for him not to have been there, but it shouldn't be made a crime. Zimmerman played police no matter how you look at the matter. Something is beyond messed up when you actively put yourself in the position Zimmerman did and completely go free because you defended yourself. I'm not saying he is guilty of murder but he is sure guilty of something and what needs to be done so that this tragic event doesn't occur again is that people one way or another is not allowed to play police in the first place. Well, nothing occurring to the actual FACTS suggest he played police. Following someone is not playing police no matter how you look at it. How do you think he played police, I'm curious? What did Zimmerman do in your opinion, I'm curious. well, in the jury's opinion, he reasonably defended himself. Actually, the trial concluded that just can't be proven that he didn't.
according to the interview of the juror, they thought he was acting in self defense. you are semantically correct though. they only found "not guilty" and didn't make an affirmative statement that he was acting in self defense. but in the words of the onion, "c'mon."
|
On July 17 2013 04:57 Jisall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 04:38 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 04:33 papaz wrote:On July 17 2013 04:08 MstrJinbo wrote:On July 17 2013 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:22 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:16 SKC wrote:On July 17 2013 03:13 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 02:35 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Did you just make all that up as you went? That isn't the facts of the case at all. You need to read up on it, rather than just believing what other people tell you. "About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[13] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[74] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[75] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[13] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[76] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[13] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[13]" Sounds pretty much like Zimmerman followed Trayvon. Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Shooting_and_investigation Your own quote says Zimmermann lost him at some point. It doesn't have a timeline. It in no way disproves the fact that Trayvon could have just walked away to his house. If you want more detailed information you need something better than Wikipedia. Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point? That there is other evidence that Trayvon got into a conflict with Zimmerman, got the upper hand and was beating Zimmerman against the ground. This was backed up by an eye witness and the police reports. The jury members said that they believed Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he defended himself. The stuff how provided doesn't prove anything except that Zimmerman followed Martin, which isn't illegal. But it should be. Why is an untrained person allowed to play police? For me that sounds like climbing into a tiger cage, killing the tiger when he attacks you and saying: "I didn't do anything wrong, it attacked me!" Of course it's true, but Zimmerman got himself into a dangerous confrontation that escalated because both people didn't know how to handle the situation. I don't see why something like this is not illegal. If the situation could be avoided that should be the first option. If the "defender" willingly engages in the confrontation, he risks the health of himself and others involved. Following someone is not the same as playing police. It's public space and Zimmerman had every right to be there. It would have been smarter for him not to have been there, but it shouldn't be made a crime. Zimmerman played police no matter how you look at the matter. He followed someone carrying a gun being told he should not. Something is beyond messed up when you actively put yourself in the position Zimmerman did and completely go free because you defended yourself. I'm not saying he is guilty of murder but he is sure guilty of something and what needs to be done so that this tragic event doesn't occur again is that people one way or another is not allowed to play police in the first place. Ye, i agree. As some people said before, involuntary manslaughter would seem reasonable. I also never meant that people shouldn't defend themselves, but the situation could have been avoided and that should influence the sentence. What makes you think that this situation should have been avoided? Who is to say Trayvon was not a risk to the security of the neighborhood that night? His personal history has shown that he is capable of doing illegal things. You all assume Trayvon was walking directly home that night. Also the situation could have been avoided if Trayvon didn't throw the first punch as the Juror interviewed by Anderson Cooper of CNN believes he did.
We already had this before, there was no immediate danger, and even the police told him that he "doesn't need to do that". No one is making any assumptions here.
|
On July 17 2013 04:59 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 04:55 moopie wrote:On July 17 2013 04:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 17 2013 04:38 papaz wrote:On July 17 2013 04:34 Gunther wrote:On July 17 2013 04:33 papaz wrote:On July 17 2013 04:08 MstrJinbo wrote:On July 17 2013 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:22 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point? That there is other evidence that Trayvon got into a conflict with Zimmerman, got the upper hand and was beating Zimmerman against the ground. This was backed up by an eye witness and the police reports. The jury members said that they believed Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he defended himself. The stuff how provided doesn't prove anything except that Zimmerman followed Martin, which isn't illegal. But it should be. Why is an untrained person allowed to play police? For me that sounds like climbing into a tiger cage, killing the tiger when he attacks you and saying: "I didn't do anything wrong, it attacked me!" Of course it's true, but Zimmerman got himself into a dangerous confrontation that escalated because both people didn't know how to handle the situation. I don't see why something like this is not illegal. If the situation could be avoided that should be the first option. If the "defender" willingly engages in the confrontation, he risks the health of himself and others involved. Following someone is not the same as playing police. It's public space and Zimmerman had every right to be there. It would have been smarter for him not to have been there, but it shouldn't be made a crime. Zimmerman played police no matter how you look at the matter. Something is beyond messed up when you actively put yourself in the position Zimmerman did and completely go free because you defended yourself. I'm not saying he is guilty of murder but he is sure guilty of something and what needs to be done so that this tragic event doesn't occur again is that people one way or another is not allowed to play police in the first place. Well, nothing occurring to the actual FACTS suggest he played police. Following someone is not playing police no matter how you look at it. How do you think he played police, I'm curious? What did Zimmerman do in your opinion, I'm curious. well, in the jury's opinion, he reasonably defended himself. Actually, the trial concluded that just can't be proven that he didn't. according to the interview of the juror, they thought he was acting in self defense. you are semantically correct though. they only found "not guilty" and didn't make an affirmative statement that he was acting in self defense. but in the words of the onion, "c'mon."
Legal pleadings would be way better if we could use language from the Onion. I want to file a opposition that only had "Are you kidding me?" as the argument section.
|
On July 17 2013 05:03 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 04:57 Jisall wrote:On July 17 2013 04:38 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 04:33 papaz wrote:On July 17 2013 04:08 MstrJinbo wrote:On July 17 2013 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:22 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:16 SKC wrote:On July 17 2013 03:13 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
"About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[13] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[74] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[75] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[13] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[76] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[13] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[13]"
Sounds pretty much like Zimmerman followed Trayvon.
Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Shooting_and_investigation Your own quote says Zimmermann lost him at some point. It doesn't have a timeline. It in no way disproves the fact that Trayvon could have just walked away to his house. If you want more detailed information you need something better than Wikipedia. Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point? That there is other evidence that Trayvon got into a conflict with Zimmerman, got the upper hand and was beating Zimmerman against the ground. This was backed up by an eye witness and the police reports. The jury members said that they believed Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he defended himself. The stuff how provided doesn't prove anything except that Zimmerman followed Martin, which isn't illegal. But it should be. Why is an untrained person allowed to play police? For me that sounds like climbing into a tiger cage, killing the tiger when he attacks you and saying: "I didn't do anything wrong, it attacked me!" Of course it's true, but Zimmerman got himself into a dangerous confrontation that escalated because both people didn't know how to handle the situation. I don't see why something like this is not illegal. If the situation could be avoided that should be the first option. If the "defender" willingly engages in the confrontation, he risks the health of himself and others involved. Following someone is not the same as playing police. It's public space and Zimmerman had every right to be there. It would have been smarter for him not to have been there, but it shouldn't be made a crime. Zimmerman played police no matter how you look at the matter. He followed someone carrying a gun being told he should not. Something is beyond messed up when you actively put yourself in the position Zimmerman did and completely go free because you defended yourself. I'm not saying he is guilty of murder but he is sure guilty of something and what needs to be done so that this tragic event doesn't occur again is that people one way or another is not allowed to play police in the first place. Ye, i agree. As some people said before, involuntary manslaughter would seem reasonable. I also never meant that people shouldn't defend themselves, but the situation could have been avoided and that should influence the sentence. What makes you think that this situation should have been avoided? Who is to say Trayvon was not a risk to the security of the neighborhood that night? His personal history has shown that he is capable of doing illegal things. You all assume Trayvon was walking directly home that night. Also the situation could have been avoided if Trayvon didn't throw the first punch as the Juror interviewed by Anderson Cooper of CNN believes he did. We already had this before, there was no immediate danger, and even the police told him that he "doesn't need to do that". No one is making any assumptions here.
So we can only follow and attempt to keep our neighbors safe if teh criminals wear signs that say "I mean you harm"?
God damn it, I want to write a short story based on this world folks are creating here. It would be very safe.
|
On July 17 2013 05:03 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 04:57 Jisall wrote:On July 17 2013 04:38 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 04:33 papaz wrote:On July 17 2013 04:08 MstrJinbo wrote:On July 17 2013 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:22 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:16 SKC wrote:On July 17 2013 03:13 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
"About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[13] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[74] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[75] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[13] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[76] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[13] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[13]"
Sounds pretty much like Zimmerman followed Trayvon.
Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Shooting_and_investigation Your own quote says Zimmermann lost him at some point. It doesn't have a timeline. It in no way disproves the fact that Trayvon could have just walked away to his house. If you want more detailed information you need something better than Wikipedia. Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point? That there is other evidence that Trayvon got into a conflict with Zimmerman, got the upper hand and was beating Zimmerman against the ground. This was backed up by an eye witness and the police reports. The jury members said that they believed Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he defended himself. The stuff how provided doesn't prove anything except that Zimmerman followed Martin, which isn't illegal. But it should be. Why is an untrained person allowed to play police? For me that sounds like climbing into a tiger cage, killing the tiger when he attacks you and saying: "I didn't do anything wrong, it attacked me!" Of course it's true, but Zimmerman got himself into a dangerous confrontation that escalated because both people didn't know how to handle the situation. I don't see why something like this is not illegal. If the situation could be avoided that should be the first option. If the "defender" willingly engages in the confrontation, he risks the health of himself and others involved. Following someone is not the same as playing police. It's public space and Zimmerman had every right to be there. It would have been smarter for him not to have been there, but it shouldn't be made a crime. Zimmerman played police no matter how you look at the matter. He followed someone carrying a gun being told he should not. Something is beyond messed up when you actively put yourself in the position Zimmerman did and completely go free because you defended yourself. I'm not saying he is guilty of murder but he is sure guilty of something and what needs to be done so that this tragic event doesn't occur again is that people one way or another is not allowed to play police in the first place. Ye, i agree. As some people said before, involuntary manslaughter would seem reasonable. I also never meant that people shouldn't defend themselves, but the situation could have been avoided and that should influence the sentence. What makes you think that this situation should have been avoided? Who is to say Trayvon was not a risk to the security of the neighborhood that night? His personal history has shown that he is capable of doing illegal things. You all assume Trayvon was walking directly home that night. Also the situation could have been avoided if Trayvon didn't throw the first punch as the Juror interviewed by Anderson Cooper of CNN believes he did. We already had this before, there was no immediate danger, and even the police told him that he "doesn't need to do that". No one is making any assumptions here.
Yeah but if there's no immediate danger than what's the problem? Just approach the kid and ask him if he belongs there or not.
|
|
|
On July 17 2013 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 05:03 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 04:57 Jisall wrote:On July 17 2013 04:38 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 04:33 papaz wrote:On July 17 2013 04:08 MstrJinbo wrote:On July 17 2013 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:22 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:16 SKC wrote:
[quote]
Your own quote says Zimmermann lost him at some point. It doesn't have a timeline. It in no way disproves the fact that Trayvon could have just walked away to his house. If you want more detailed information you need something better than Wikipedia. Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point? That there is other evidence that Trayvon got into a conflict with Zimmerman, got the upper hand and was beating Zimmerman against the ground. This was backed up by an eye witness and the police reports. The jury members said that they believed Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he defended himself. The stuff how provided doesn't prove anything except that Zimmerman followed Martin, which isn't illegal. But it should be. Why is an untrained person allowed to play police? For me that sounds like climbing into a tiger cage, killing the tiger when he attacks you and saying: "I didn't do anything wrong, it attacked me!" Of course it's true, but Zimmerman got himself into a dangerous confrontation that escalated because both people didn't know how to handle the situation. I don't see why something like this is not illegal. If the situation could be avoided that should be the first option. If the "defender" willingly engages in the confrontation, he risks the health of himself and others involved. Following someone is not the same as playing police. It's public space and Zimmerman had every right to be there. It would have been smarter for him not to have been there, but it shouldn't be made a crime. Zimmerman played police no matter how you look at the matter. He followed someone carrying a gun being told he should not. Something is beyond messed up when you actively put yourself in the position Zimmerman did and completely go free because you defended yourself. I'm not saying he is guilty of murder but he is sure guilty of something and what needs to be done so that this tragic event doesn't occur again is that people one way or another is not allowed to play police in the first place. Ye, i agree. As some people said before, involuntary manslaughter would seem reasonable. I also never meant that people shouldn't defend themselves, but the situation could have been avoided and that should influence the sentence. What makes you think that this situation should have been avoided? Who is to say Trayvon was not a risk to the security of the neighborhood that night? His personal history has shown that he is capable of doing illegal things. You all assume Trayvon was walking directly home that night. Also the situation could have been avoided if Trayvon didn't throw the first punch as the Juror interviewed by Anderson Cooper of CNN believes he did. We already had this before, there was no immediate danger, and even the police told him that he "doesn't need to do that". No one is making any assumptions here. Yeah but if there's no immediate danger than what's the problem? Just approach the kid and ask him if he belongs there or not.
That might work if the kid was not a black male, that is a race thing.
|
On July 17 2013 05:12 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 17 2013 05:03 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 04:57 Jisall wrote:On July 17 2013 04:38 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 04:33 papaz wrote:On July 17 2013 04:08 MstrJinbo wrote:On July 17 2013 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:22 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point? That there is other evidence that Trayvon got into a conflict with Zimmerman, got the upper hand and was beating Zimmerman against the ground. This was backed up by an eye witness and the police reports. The jury members said that they believed Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he defended himself. The stuff how provided doesn't prove anything except that Zimmerman followed Martin, which isn't illegal. But it should be. Why is an untrained person allowed to play police? For me that sounds like climbing into a tiger cage, killing the tiger when he attacks you and saying: "I didn't do anything wrong, it attacked me!" Of course it's true, but Zimmerman got himself into a dangerous confrontation that escalated because both people didn't know how to handle the situation. I don't see why something like this is not illegal. If the situation could be avoided that should be the first option. If the "defender" willingly engages in the confrontation, he risks the health of himself and others involved. Following someone is not the same as playing police. It's public space and Zimmerman had every right to be there. It would have been smarter for him not to have been there, but it shouldn't be made a crime. Zimmerman played police no matter how you look at the matter. He followed someone carrying a gun being told he should not. Something is beyond messed up when you actively put yourself in the position Zimmerman did and completely go free because you defended yourself. I'm not saying he is guilty of murder but he is sure guilty of something and what needs to be done so that this tragic event doesn't occur again is that people one way or another is not allowed to play police in the first place. Ye, i agree. As some people said before, involuntary manslaughter would seem reasonable. I also never meant that people shouldn't defend themselves, but the situation could have been avoided and that should influence the sentence. What makes you think that this situation should have been avoided? Who is to say Trayvon was not a risk to the security of the neighborhood that night? His personal history has shown that he is capable of doing illegal things. You all assume Trayvon was walking directly home that night. Also the situation could have been avoided if Trayvon didn't throw the first punch as the Juror interviewed by Anderson Cooper of CNN believes he did. We already had this before, there was no immediate danger, and even the police told him that he "doesn't need to do that". No one is making any assumptions here. Yeah but if there's no immediate danger than what's the problem? Just approach the kid and ask him if he belongs there or not. That might work if the kid was a black male, that is a race thing.
You racial profile people if you ask them why there are there, unless they are white, then its ok and you can ask them anything.
|
Ignored by media: Zimmerman voted for Obama, tutored black kids
Al Sharpton has incited crowds with "arrest Zimmerman now!" and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough has flatly called George Zimmerman a murderer. Yet what has been widely underreported by the majority of American news organs is that Zimmerman is actually an Obama Democrat who has quite the history of working with and for fellow Americans of African heritage, as reported by The Telegraph (of London, England) on 15 July, 2013; both the Mercury News (of Silicon Valley, CA) and The National Review on July 14, 2013; and Breitbart.com on Feb. 6, 2013.
At times collectively and others singularly, The Telegraph, the Mercury News and The National Review have all cited past instances of Zimmerman's liberal/Democrat street-cred that would cause any Hollywood starlet or six figure income resident of Manhattan's tony Upper West Side hang their head in shame.
Researchable and legitimate source examples of Zimmerman's past history of working with and for blacks include:
"He and a black friend opened up an insurance office in a Florida..."
"He'd engaged in notably un-racist behaviour such as taking a black girl to his high-school prom..."
"Not only does he have black relatives, he has reportedly donated his time to tutor black children."
"He launched a campaign to help a homeless black man who was beaten up by a white kid."
Despite three reputable media outlets reporting these examples of George Zimmerman's past interactions with blacks, Breitbart.com reported almost six months ago:
Not only was Zimmerman not a racist – he had a black business partner, has Afro-Peruvian roots, and helped out underprivileged black kids in his neighborhood – he also was a supporter of the very president who would later slander him by innuendo.
As Robert, George’s brother, told me, George is "a registered Democrat. He registered as a Hispanic. He kind of did some internal family campaigning for Obama."
Attorney General Eric Holder also announced that the Department of Justice is still investigating if they will levy federal charges against Zimmerman for violating Trayvon Martin's civil rights.
http://www.examiner.com/article/ignored-by-media-zimmerman-voted-for-obama-tutored-black-kids
|
On July 17 2013 05:03 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 04:57 Jisall wrote:On July 17 2013 04:38 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 04:33 papaz wrote:On July 17 2013 04:08 MstrJinbo wrote:On July 17 2013 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:22 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:16 SKC wrote:On July 17 2013 03:13 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
"About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[13] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[74] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[75] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[13] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[76] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[13] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[13]"
Sounds pretty much like Zimmerman followed Trayvon.
Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Shooting_and_investigation Your own quote says Zimmermann lost him at some point. It doesn't have a timeline. It in no way disproves the fact that Trayvon could have just walked away to his house. If you want more detailed information you need something better than Wikipedia. Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point? That there is other evidence that Trayvon got into a conflict with Zimmerman, got the upper hand and was beating Zimmerman against the ground. This was backed up by an eye witness and the police reports. The jury members said that they believed Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he defended himself. The stuff how provided doesn't prove anything except that Zimmerman followed Martin, which isn't illegal. But it should be. Why is an untrained person allowed to play police? For me that sounds like climbing into a tiger cage, killing the tiger when he attacks you and saying: "I didn't do anything wrong, it attacked me!" Of course it's true, but Zimmerman got himself into a dangerous confrontation that escalated because both people didn't know how to handle the situation. I don't see why something like this is not illegal. If the situation could be avoided that should be the first option. If the "defender" willingly engages in the confrontation, he risks the health of himself and others involved. Following someone is not the same as playing police. It's public space and Zimmerman had every right to be there. It would have been smarter for him not to have been there, but it shouldn't be made a crime. Zimmerman played police no matter how you look at the matter. He followed someone carrying a gun being told he should not. Something is beyond messed up when you actively put yourself in the position Zimmerman did and completely go free because you defended yourself. I'm not saying he is guilty of murder but he is sure guilty of something and what needs to be done so that this tragic event doesn't occur again is that people one way or another is not allowed to play police in the first place. Ye, i agree. As some people said before, involuntary manslaughter would seem reasonable. I also never meant that people shouldn't defend themselves, but the situation could have been avoided and that should influence the sentence. What makes you think that this situation should have been avoided? Who is to say Trayvon was not a risk to the security of the neighborhood that night? His personal history has shown that he is capable of doing illegal things. You all assume Trayvon was walking directly home that night. Also the situation could have been avoided if Trayvon didn't throw the first punch as the Juror interviewed by Anderson Cooper of CNN believes he did. We already had this before, there was no immediate danger, and even the police told him that he "doesn't need to do that". No one is making any assumptions here.
Police dispatchers are not "police". They are trained civilians.
|
On July 17 2013 05:14 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 05:12 Judicator wrote:On July 17 2013 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 17 2013 05:03 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 04:57 Jisall wrote:On July 17 2013 04:38 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 04:33 papaz wrote:On July 17 2013 04:08 MstrJinbo wrote:On July 17 2013 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:22 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
That there is other evidence that Trayvon got into a conflict with Zimmerman, got the upper hand and was beating Zimmerman against the ground. This was backed up by an eye witness and the police reports. The jury members said that they believed Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he defended himself.
The stuff how provided doesn't prove anything except that Zimmerman followed Martin, which isn't illegal. But it should be. Why is an untrained person allowed to play police? For me that sounds like climbing into a tiger cage, killing the tiger when he attacks you and saying: "I didn't do anything wrong, it attacked me!" Of course it's true, but Zimmerman got himself into a dangerous confrontation that escalated because both people didn't know how to handle the situation. I don't see why something like this is not illegal. If the situation could be avoided that should be the first option. If the "defender" willingly engages in the confrontation, he risks the health of himself and others involved. Following someone is not the same as playing police. It's public space and Zimmerman had every right to be there. It would have been smarter for him not to have been there, but it shouldn't be made a crime. Zimmerman played police no matter how you look at the matter. He followed someone carrying a gun being told he should not. Something is beyond messed up when you actively put yourself in the position Zimmerman did and completely go free because you defended yourself. I'm not saying he is guilty of murder but he is sure guilty of something and what needs to be done so that this tragic event doesn't occur again is that people one way or another is not allowed to play police in the first place. Ye, i agree. As some people said before, involuntary manslaughter would seem reasonable. I also never meant that people shouldn't defend themselves, but the situation could have been avoided and that should influence the sentence. What makes you think that this situation should have been avoided? Who is to say Trayvon was not a risk to the security of the neighborhood that night? His personal history has shown that he is capable of doing illegal things. You all assume Trayvon was walking directly home that night. Also the situation could have been avoided if Trayvon didn't throw the first punch as the Juror interviewed by Anderson Cooper of CNN believes he did. We already had this before, there was no immediate danger, and even the police told him that he "doesn't need to do that". No one is making any assumptions here. Yeah but if there's no immediate danger than what's the problem? Just approach the kid and ask him if he belongs there or not. That might work if the kid was a black male, that is a race thing. You racial profile people if you ask them why there are there, unless they are white, then its ok and you can ask them anything.
No, I mean Martin as a black male doesn't trust whoever was tailing him. Too many fucked up things have happened for a black person to trust a random stranger on their intentions. Not saying it should have led to what it ended up being.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
