|
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. |
Oh no, not weed! Those potheads are always up to no good. Thank God we can shoot 'em on the street now.
User was warned for this post
|
On May 18 2012 11:22 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Oh no, not weed! Those potheads are always up to no good. Thank God we can shoot 'em on the street now.
If the pothead broke my nose, opened two inch-wide cuts in the back of my head and he's on top of me trying to finish me off you damn right I would try to defend myself with anything I've got, including shooting him.. Marting was what? a 6'3'' high school football player, with problems at school and home.. where the heck did the narrative that he was an innocent 130 pound innocent boy started? this is just disgusting.. what the media did with this case I mean...
|
On May 18 2012 11:31 s4life wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 11:22 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Oh no, not weed! Those potheads are always up to no good. Thank God we can shoot 'em on the street now. If the pothead broke my nose, opened two inch-wide cuts in the back of my head and he's on top of me trying to finish me off you damn right I would try to defend myself with anything I've got, including shooting him.. Marting was what? a 6'3'' high school football player, with problems at school and home.. where the heck did the narrative that he was an innocent 130 pound innocent boy started? this is just disgusting.. what the media did with this case I mean...
youre forgetting the guy literally stalked him. you cant stalk anyone them kill them when you are losing the fight. well you can in florida maybe. basically comes down to zimmerman following the boy with no reason, confronting him, getting in a fight then shooting and killing a underage teen. if zimmerman would have done what any reasonable person would have done this never would have happened. yet because he wanted to be a vigilante a kid is dead.
it also is important to remember we wont ever get his side of the story. my point is basically if zimmerman would have done what most people would have, this would not have happened. i mean following someone and confronting them while carrying a gun is asking for trouble.
|
On May 18 2012 11:31 s4life wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 11:22 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Oh no, not weed! Those potheads are always up to no good. Thank God we can shoot 'em on the street now. If the pothead broke my nose, opened two inch-wide cuts in the back of my head and he's on top of me trying to finish me off you damn right I would try to defend myself with anything I've got, including shooting him.. Marting was what? a 6'3'' high school football player, with problems at school and home.. where the heck did the narrative that he was an innocent 130 pound innocent boy started? this is just disgusting.. what the media did with this case I mean...
I read somewhere that Trayvon was actually extremely light, 140-160 pounds, or around there. I believe it was accurate but I'm not 100% sure.
The media dug up some old school photos of him a few years ago, instead of more recent ones where he had half his boxers showing, wearing a bandana around his face with a gang symbol, etc, to evoke sympathy in the majority of the people reading. Most people dont even read the article, right, they just see the headline and the pictures and they think "oh no! a big bad white convict (the picture of the officer was a mug shot, instead of a picture of him smiling in a suit) killed a cute innocent black kid, thats so horrible and racist!, so its quite the effective. Basically yea, the media is incredibly sensationalist because they know it works well in converting the masses, but when you look closer, you see how disgusting it actually is. I tried to have conversations about it with some of my friends but they dont read anything either T_T.
|
On May 18 2012 11:43 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 11:31 s4life wrote:On May 18 2012 11:22 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Oh no, not weed! Those potheads are always up to no good. Thank God we can shoot 'em on the street now. If the pothead broke my nose, opened two inch-wide cuts in the back of my head and he's on top of me trying to finish me off you damn right I would try to defend myself with anything I've got, including shooting him.. Marting was what? a 6'3'' high school football player, with problems at school and home.. where the heck did the narrative that he was an innocent 130 pound innocent boy started? this is just disgusting.. what the media did with this case I mean... youre forgetting the guy literally stalked him. you cant stalk anyone them kill them when you are losing the fight. well you can in florida maybe. basically comes down to zimmerman following the boy with no reason, confronting him, getting in a fight then shooting and killing a underage teen. if zimmerman would have done what any reasonable person would have done this never would have happened. yet because he wanted to be a vigilante a kid is dead. it also is important to remember we wont ever get his side of the story. my point is basically if zimmerman would have done what most people would have, this would not have happened. i mean following someone and confronting them while carrying a gun is asking for trouble.
Stalking someone isn't reason enough for that someone to start beating you up bloody, teenager or not. As far as I know, Zimmerman did nothing illegal by following up on what Martin was doing, in a way he was just trying to do his job. To incarcerate Zimmerman you would have to prove that 1) Zimmerman showed aggression while he was approaching Martin and 2) Zimmerman started the physical altercation. Neither point seems to be supported by the circumstantial evidence, because 1) None in his own mind would have approached an armed man as Marting did, which means Zimmerman did not have the gun on his hand as he approached Martin and 2) Martin did not show a single sign of having received a punch or anything similar, except for his knuckles.
|
On May 18 2012 11:43 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 11:31 s4life wrote:On May 18 2012 11:22 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Oh no, not weed! Those potheads are always up to no good. Thank God we can shoot 'em on the street now. If the pothead broke my nose, opened two inch-wide cuts in the back of my head and he's on top of me trying to finish me off you damn right I would try to defend myself with anything I've got, including shooting him.. Marting was what? a 6'3'' high school football player, with problems at school and home.. where the heck did the narrative that he was an innocent 130 pound innocent boy started? this is just disgusting.. what the media did with this case I mean... youre forgetting the guy literally stalked him. you cant stalk anyone them kill them when you are losing the fight. well you can in florida maybe. basically comes down to zimmerman following the boy with no reason, confronting him, getting in a fight then shooting and killing a underage teen. if zimmerman would have done what any reasonable person would have done this never would have happened. yet because he wanted to be a vigilante a kid is dead. it also is important to remember we wont ever get his side of the story. my point is basically if zimmerman would have done what most people would have, this would not have happened. i mean following someone and confronting them while carrying a gun is asking for trouble.
Judging from the evidence, it wasn't a fight, but more of a beating.
And im sorry, where is there evidence that Zimmerman that intiated the fight? Maybe he did, or maybe he made one comment and Martin jumped on him. And that's the point, you need to be able to prove that Zimmerman did this and at this point you really can't. (Unless the prosectuor has other evidence)
To convict for murder you need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I'd say there's still A LOT of doubt in this case.
|
On May 18 2012 11:46 13_Doomblaze_37 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 11:31 s4life wrote:On May 18 2012 11:22 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Oh no, not weed! Those potheads are always up to no good. Thank God we can shoot 'em on the street now. If the pothead broke my nose, opened two inch-wide cuts in the back of my head and he's on top of me trying to finish me off you damn right I would try to defend myself with anything I've got, including shooting him.. Marting was what? a 6'3'' high school football player, with problems at school and home.. where the heck did the narrative that he was an innocent 130 pound innocent boy started? this is just disgusting.. what the media did with this case I mean... I read somewhere that Trayvon was actually extremely light, 140-160 pounds, or around there. I believe it was accurate but I'm not 100% sure. The media dug up some old school photos of him a few years ago, instead of more recent ones where he had half his boxers showing, wearing a bandana around his face with a gang symbol, etc, to evoke sympathy in the majority of the people reading. Most people dont even read the article, right, they just see the headline and the pictures and they think "oh no! a big bad white convict (the picture of the officer was a mug shot, instead of a picture of him smiling in a suit) killed a cute innocent black kid, thats so horrible and racist!, so its quite the effective. Basically yea, the media is incredibly sensationalist because they know it works well in converting the masses, but when you look closer, you see how disgusting it actually is. I tried to have conversations about it with some of my friends but they dont read anything either T_T.
What if someone were to account for the media being biased, but still came to the conclusion that Zimmerman was guilty? That he should not have been 1) stalking the kid or 2) (and more importantly) entering any kind of confrontation with another human being with a gun as a neighborhood watch (rules of being a neighborhood watch disallow firearms when acting as neighborhood watch).
A lot of people make this point, but in my opinion, it's pretty moot, because it's been beaten to death from overexplanation. Anyone that has been truly following the case or who has been involved know all the aspects (negative and positive) of Trayvon. However, just because he may have been an aggressive prick with a bad attitude (or however you want to view him), that does not justify him being shot.
I still think that the proper question that needs to be assessed is not what happened during the encounter. Instead, the question is whether or not Zimmerman's provocation and actions leading up the event was the reason for the encounter and/or killing. Additionally, they need to see within what rights Zimmerman had to even be in possession of a gun when acting as a neighborhood watch, or even if he had the right to follow him.
|
On May 18 2012 12:06 s4life wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 11:43 heliusx wrote:On May 18 2012 11:31 s4life wrote:On May 18 2012 11:22 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Oh no, not weed! Those potheads are always up to no good. Thank God we can shoot 'em on the street now. If the pothead broke my nose, opened two inch-wide cuts in the back of my head and he's on top of me trying to finish me off you damn right I would try to defend myself with anything I've got, including shooting him.. Marting was what? a 6'3'' high school football player, with problems at school and home.. where the heck did the narrative that he was an innocent 130 pound innocent boy started? this is just disgusting.. what the media did with this case I mean... youre forgetting the guy literally stalked him. you cant stalk anyone them kill them when you are losing the fight. well you can in florida maybe. basically comes down to zimmerman following the boy with no reason, confronting him, getting in a fight then shooting and killing a underage teen. if zimmerman would have done what any reasonable person would have done this never would have happened. yet because he wanted to be a vigilante a kid is dead. it also is important to remember we wont ever get his side of the story. my point is basically if zimmerman would have done what most people would have, this would not have happened. i mean following someone and confronting them while carrying a gun is asking for trouble. Stalking someone isn't reason enough for that someone to start beating you up bloody, teenager or not. As far as I know, Zimmerman did nothing illegal by following up on what Martin was doing, in a way he was just trying to do his job. To incarcerate Zimmerman you would have to prove that 1) Zimmerman showed aggression while he was approaching Martin and 2) Zimmerman started the physical altercation. Neither point seems to be supported by the circumstantial evidence, because 1) None in his own mind would have approached an armed man as Marting did, which means Zimmerman did not have the gun on his hand as he approached Martin and 2) Martin did not show a single sign of having received a punch or anything similar, except for his knuckles.
youre attacking points i never made. all i was pointing out was this wouldnt have happened if zimmerman wasnt following him with a gun. also it is NOT his job.
|
On May 18 2012 12:12 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 11:43 heliusx wrote:On May 18 2012 11:31 s4life wrote:On May 18 2012 11:22 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Oh no, not weed! Those potheads are always up to no good. Thank God we can shoot 'em on the street now. If the pothead broke my nose, opened two inch-wide cuts in the back of my head and he's on top of me trying to finish me off you damn right I would try to defend myself with anything I've got, including shooting him.. Marting was what? a 6'3'' high school football player, with problems at school and home.. where the heck did the narrative that he was an innocent 130 pound innocent boy started? this is just disgusting.. what the media did with this case I mean... youre forgetting the guy literally stalked him. you cant stalk anyone them kill them when you are losing the fight. well you can in florida maybe. basically comes down to zimmerman following the boy with no reason, confronting him, getting in a fight then shooting and killing a underage teen. if zimmerman would have done what any reasonable person would have done this never would have happened. yet because he wanted to be a vigilante a kid is dead. it also is important to remember we wont ever get his side of the story. my point is basically if zimmerman would have done what most people would have, this would not have happened. i mean following someone and confronting them while carrying a gun is asking for trouble. Judging from the evidence, it wasn't a fight, but more of a beating. And im sorry, where is there evidence that Zimmerman that intiated the fight? Maybe he did, or maybe he made one comment and Martin jumped on him. And that's the point, you need to be able to prove that Zimmerman did this and at this point you really can't. (Unless the prosectuor has other evidence) To convict for murder you need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I'd say there's still A LOT of doubt in this case.
and im sorry, where did i say he initiated a fight? my point still stands because of zimmermans vigilante attitude (following him with a gun), this got way out of hand. im not taking sides just playing devils advocate. he should NOT be following anyone with a gun. that just shows his mindset.
|
On May 18 2012 12:16 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 12:12 1Eris1 wrote:On May 18 2012 11:43 heliusx wrote:On May 18 2012 11:31 s4life wrote:On May 18 2012 11:22 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Oh no, not weed! Those potheads are always up to no good. Thank God we can shoot 'em on the street now. If the pothead broke my nose, opened two inch-wide cuts in the back of my head and he's on top of me trying to finish me off you damn right I would try to defend myself with anything I've got, including shooting him.. Marting was what? a 6'3'' high school football player, with problems at school and home.. where the heck did the narrative that he was an innocent 130 pound innocent boy started? this is just disgusting.. what the media did with this case I mean... youre forgetting the guy literally stalked him. you cant stalk anyone them kill them when you are losing the fight. well you can in florida maybe. basically comes down to zimmerman following the boy with no reason, confronting him, getting in a fight then shooting and killing a underage teen. if zimmerman would have done what any reasonable person would have done this never would have happened. yet because he wanted to be a vigilante a kid is dead. it also is important to remember we wont ever get his side of the story. my point is basically if zimmerman would have done what most people would have, this would not have happened. i mean following someone and confronting them while carrying a gun is asking for trouble. Judging from the evidence, it wasn't a fight, but more of a beating. And im sorry, where is there evidence that Zimmerman that intiated the fight? Maybe he did, or maybe he made one comment and Martin jumped on him. And that's the point, you need to be able to prove that Zimmerman did this and at this point you really can't. (Unless the prosectuor has other evidence) To convict for murder you need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I'd say there's still A LOT of doubt in this case. and im sorry, where did i say he initiated a fight? my point still stands because of zimmermans vigilante attitude (following him with a gun), this got way out of hand. im not taking sides just playing devils advocate. he should NOT be following anyone with a gun. that just shows his mindset.
confronting him, getting in a fight
If this doesn't mean him starting a fight then I'm not sure what your arguement is.
Yes, I agree Zimmerman should not have followed and confronted Martin, but to justify him being convicted of murder, you would need to have had him intiate the fight. That is what we are discussing here right?
|
On May 18 2012 12:21 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 12:16 heliusx wrote:On May 18 2012 12:12 1Eris1 wrote:On May 18 2012 11:43 heliusx wrote:On May 18 2012 11:31 s4life wrote:On May 18 2012 11:22 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Oh no, not weed! Those potheads are always up to no good. Thank God we can shoot 'em on the street now. If the pothead broke my nose, opened two inch-wide cuts in the back of my head and he's on top of me trying to finish me off you damn right I would try to defend myself with anything I've got, including shooting him.. Marting was what? a 6'3'' high school football player, with problems at school and home.. where the heck did the narrative that he was an innocent 130 pound innocent boy started? this is just disgusting.. what the media did with this case I mean... youre forgetting the guy literally stalked him. you cant stalk anyone them kill them when you are losing the fight. well you can in florida maybe. basically comes down to zimmerman following the boy with no reason, confronting him, getting in a fight then shooting and killing a underage teen. if zimmerman would have done what any reasonable person would have done this never would have happened. yet because he wanted to be a vigilante a kid is dead. it also is important to remember we wont ever get his side of the story. my point is basically if zimmerman would have done what most people would have, this would not have happened. i mean following someone and confronting them while carrying a gun is asking for trouble. Judging from the evidence, it wasn't a fight, but more of a beating. And im sorry, where is there evidence that Zimmerman that intiated the fight? Maybe he did, or maybe he made one comment and Martin jumped on him. And that's the point, you need to be able to prove that Zimmerman did this and at this point you really can't. (Unless the prosectuor has other evidence) To convict for murder you need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I'd say there's still A LOT of doubt in this case. and im sorry, where did i say he initiated a fight? my point still stands because of zimmermans vigilante attitude (following him with a gun), this got way out of hand. im not taking sides just playing devils advocate. he should NOT be following anyone with a gun. that just shows his mindset. If this doesn't mean him starting a fight then I'm not sure what your arguement is. Yes, I agree Zimmerman should not have followed and confronted Martin, but to justify him being convicted of murder, you would need to have had him intiate the fight. That is what we are discussing here right?
i was merely stating there was a fight, if you want to bold where i said he started the fight that might help. and no initiation of the fight is not a requirement for convicting him of murder. this is a complicated case that is beyond my understanding of florida law, and obviously of yours also.
what most experts are claiming is that they will need to prove that was zimmermans behavior was irrational and unreasonable (depraved mind). And I do beleive following someone with a gun shows irrationality and unreasonable behavior because there was no evidence of a crime being commited. (racial profiling does not equate to evidence of a crime)
|
On May 18 2012 12:15 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 12:06 s4life wrote:On May 18 2012 11:43 heliusx wrote:On May 18 2012 11:31 s4life wrote:On May 18 2012 11:22 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Oh no, not weed! Those potheads are always up to no good. Thank God we can shoot 'em on the street now. If the pothead broke my nose, opened two inch-wide cuts in the back of my head and he's on top of me trying to finish me off you damn right I would try to defend myself with anything I've got, including shooting him.. Marting was what? a 6'3'' high school football player, with problems at school and home.. where the heck did the narrative that he was an innocent 130 pound innocent boy started? this is just disgusting.. what the media did with this case I mean... youre forgetting the guy literally stalked him. you cant stalk anyone them kill them when you are losing the fight. well you can in florida maybe. basically comes down to zimmerman following the boy with no reason, confronting him, getting in a fight then shooting and killing a underage teen. if zimmerman would have done what any reasonable person would have done this never would have happened. yet because he wanted to be a vigilante a kid is dead. it also is important to remember we wont ever get his side of the story. my point is basically if zimmerman would have done what most people would have, this would not have happened. i mean following someone and confronting them while carrying a gun is asking for trouble. Stalking someone isn't reason enough for that someone to start beating you up bloody, teenager or not. As far as I know, Zimmerman did nothing illegal by following up on what Martin was doing, in a way he was just trying to do his job. To incarcerate Zimmerman you would have to prove that 1) Zimmerman showed aggression while he was approaching Martin and 2) Zimmerman started the physical altercation. Neither point seems to be supported by the circumstantial evidence, because 1) None in his own mind would have approached an armed man as Marting did, which means Zimmerman did not have the gun on his hand as he approached Martin and 2) Martin did not show a single sign of having received a punch or anything similar, except for his knuckles. youre attacking points i never made. all i was pointing out was this wouldnt have happened if zimmerman wasnt following him with a gun. also it is NOT his job.
Uh? You said that stalking is reason enough to warrant getting beaten up .. I am contending that it isn't. You have to show aggressive behavior and start the fight. Apparently, Zimmerman did neither.
|
On May 18 2012 12:32 s4life wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 12:15 heliusx wrote:On May 18 2012 12:06 s4life wrote:On May 18 2012 11:43 heliusx wrote:On May 18 2012 11:31 s4life wrote:On May 18 2012 11:22 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Oh no, not weed! Those potheads are always up to no good. Thank God we can shoot 'em on the street now. If the pothead broke my nose, opened two inch-wide cuts in the back of my head and he's on top of me trying to finish me off you damn right I would try to defend myself with anything I've got, including shooting him.. Marting was what? a 6'3'' high school football player, with problems at school and home.. where the heck did the narrative that he was an innocent 130 pound innocent boy started? this is just disgusting.. what the media did with this case I mean... youre forgetting the guy literally stalked him. you cant stalk anyone them kill them when you are losing the fight. well you can in florida maybe. basically comes down to zimmerman following the boy with no reason, confronting him, getting in a fight then shooting and killing a underage teen. if zimmerman would have done what any reasonable person would have done this never would have happened. yet because he wanted to be a vigilante a kid is dead. it also is important to remember we wont ever get his side of the story. my point is basically if zimmerman would have done what most people would have, this would not have happened. i mean following someone and confronting them while carrying a gun is asking for trouble. Stalking someone isn't reason enough for that someone to start beating you up bloody, teenager or not. As far as I know, Zimmerman did nothing illegal by following up on what Martin was doing, in a way he was just trying to do his job. To incarcerate Zimmerman you would have to prove that 1) Zimmerman showed aggression while he was approaching Martin and 2) Zimmerman started the physical altercation. Neither point seems to be supported by the circumstantial evidence, because 1) None in his own mind would have approached an armed man as Marting did, which means Zimmerman did not have the gun on his hand as he approached Martin and 2) Martin did not show a single sign of having received a punch or anything similar, except for his knuckles. youre attacking points i never made. all i was pointing out was this wouldnt have happened if zimmerman wasnt following him with a gun. also it is NOT his job. Uh? You said that stalking is reason enough to warrant getting beaten up .. I am contending that it isn't. You have to show aggressive behavior and start the fight. Apparently, Zimmerman did neither.
im pretty sure i infact did not say that., if you could show me where i did we could continue our debate.
|
On May 18 2012 12:26 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 12:21 1Eris1 wrote:On May 18 2012 12:16 heliusx wrote:On May 18 2012 12:12 1Eris1 wrote:On May 18 2012 11:43 heliusx wrote:On May 18 2012 11:31 s4life wrote:On May 18 2012 11:22 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Oh no, not weed! Those potheads are always up to no good. Thank God we can shoot 'em on the street now. If the pothead broke my nose, opened two inch-wide cuts in the back of my head and he's on top of me trying to finish me off you damn right I would try to defend myself with anything I've got, including shooting him.. Marting was what? a 6'3'' high school football player, with problems at school and home.. where the heck did the narrative that he was an innocent 130 pound innocent boy started? this is just disgusting.. what the media did with this case I mean... youre forgetting the guy literally stalked him. you cant stalk anyone them kill them when you are losing the fight. well you can in florida maybe. basically comes down to zimmerman following the boy with no reason, confronting him, getting in a fight then shooting and killing a underage teen. if zimmerman would have done what any reasonable person would have done this never would have happened. yet because he wanted to be a vigilante a kid is dead. it also is important to remember we wont ever get his side of the story. my point is basically if zimmerman would have done what most people would have, this would not have happened. i mean following someone and confronting them while carrying a gun is asking for trouble. Judging from the evidence, it wasn't a fight, but more of a beating. And im sorry, where is there evidence that Zimmerman that intiated the fight? Maybe he did, or maybe he made one comment and Martin jumped on him. And that's the point, you need to be able to prove that Zimmerman did this and at this point you really can't. (Unless the prosectuor has other evidence) To convict for murder you need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I'd say there's still A LOT of doubt in this case. and im sorry, where did i say he initiated a fight? my point still stands because of zimmermans vigilante attitude (following him with a gun), this got way out of hand. im not taking sides just playing devils advocate. he should NOT be following anyone with a gun. that just shows his mindset. confronting him, getting in a fight If this doesn't mean him starting a fight then I'm not sure what your arguement is. Yes, I agree Zimmerman should not have followed and confronted Martin, but to justify him being convicted of murder, you would need to have had him intiate the fight. That is what we are discussing here right? i was merely stating there was a fight, if you want to bold where i said he started the fight that might help. and no initiation of the fight is not a requirement for convicting him of murder. this is a complicated case that is beyond my understanding of florida law, and obviously of yours also. what most experts are claiming is that they will need to prove that was zimmermans behavior was irrational and unreasonable (depraved mind). And I do beleive following someone with a gun shows irrationality and unreasonable behavior because there was no evidence of a crime being commited. (racial profiling does not equate to evidence of a crime)
Nope, they will need to prove that Zimmerman started the fight.. nothing else would suffice for the murder conviction to hold... proving that he was irrational, isn't enough if Zimmerman was not being physically aggressive initially.
|
On May 18 2012 12:35 s4life wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 12:26 heliusx wrote:On May 18 2012 12:21 1Eris1 wrote:On May 18 2012 12:16 heliusx wrote:On May 18 2012 12:12 1Eris1 wrote:On May 18 2012 11:43 heliusx wrote:On May 18 2012 11:31 s4life wrote:On May 18 2012 11:22 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Oh no, not weed! Those potheads are always up to no good. Thank God we can shoot 'em on the street now. If the pothead broke my nose, opened two inch-wide cuts in the back of my head and he's on top of me trying to finish me off you damn right I would try to defend myself with anything I've got, including shooting him.. Marting was what? a 6'3'' high school football player, with problems at school and home.. where the heck did the narrative that he was an innocent 130 pound innocent boy started? this is just disgusting.. what the media did with this case I mean... youre forgetting the guy literally stalked him. you cant stalk anyone them kill them when you are losing the fight. well you can in florida maybe. basically comes down to zimmerman following the boy with no reason, confronting him, getting in a fight then shooting and killing a underage teen. if zimmerman would have done what any reasonable person would have done this never would have happened. yet because he wanted to be a vigilante a kid is dead. it also is important to remember we wont ever get his side of the story. my point is basically if zimmerman would have done what most people would have, this would not have happened. i mean following someone and confronting them while carrying a gun is asking for trouble. Judging from the evidence, it wasn't a fight, but more of a beating. And im sorry, where is there evidence that Zimmerman that intiated the fight? Maybe he did, or maybe he made one comment and Martin jumped on him. And that's the point, you need to be able to prove that Zimmerman did this and at this point you really can't. (Unless the prosectuor has other evidence) To convict for murder you need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I'd say there's still A LOT of doubt in this case. and im sorry, where did i say he initiated a fight? my point still stands because of zimmermans vigilante attitude (following him with a gun), this got way out of hand. im not taking sides just playing devils advocate. he should NOT be following anyone with a gun. that just shows his mindset. confronting him, getting in a fight If this doesn't mean him starting a fight then I'm not sure what your arguement is. Yes, I agree Zimmerman should not have followed and confronted Martin, but to justify him being convicted of murder, you would need to have had him intiate the fight. That is what we are discussing here right? i was merely stating there was a fight, if you want to bold where i said he started the fight that might help. and no initiation of the fight is not a requirement for convicting him of murder. this is a complicated case that is beyond my understanding of florida law, and obviously of yours also. what most experts are claiming is that they will need to prove that was zimmermans behavior was irrational and unreasonable (depraved mind). And I do beleive following someone with a gun shows irrationality and unreasonable behavior because there was no evidence of a crime being commited. (racial profiling does not equate to evidence of a crime) Nope, they will need to prove that Zimmerman started the fight.. nothing else would suffice for the murder conviction to hold... proving that he was irrational, isn't enough if Zimmerman was not being physically aggressive initially.
proving zimmerman started the fight does not need to be proved and im not going to argue with you on something you could easily google.
|
On May 18 2012 12:34 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 12:32 s4life wrote:On May 18 2012 12:15 heliusx wrote:On May 18 2012 12:06 s4life wrote:On May 18 2012 11:43 heliusx wrote:On May 18 2012 11:31 s4life wrote:On May 18 2012 11:22 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Oh no, not weed! Those potheads are always up to no good. Thank God we can shoot 'em on the street now. If the pothead broke my nose, opened two inch-wide cuts in the back of my head and he's on top of me trying to finish me off you damn right I would try to defend myself with anything I've got, including shooting him.. Marting was what? a 6'3'' high school football player, with problems at school and home.. where the heck did the narrative that he was an innocent 130 pound innocent boy started? this is just disgusting.. what the media did with this case I mean... youre forgetting the guy literally stalked him. you cant stalk anyone them kill them when you are losing the fight. well you can in florida maybe. basically comes down to zimmerman following the boy with no reason, confronting him, getting in a fight then shooting and killing a underage teen. if zimmerman would have done what any reasonable person would have done this never would have happened. yet because he wanted to be a vigilante a kid is dead. it also is important to remember we wont ever get his side of the story. my point is basically if zimmerman would have done what most people would have, this would not have happened. i mean following someone and confronting them while carrying a gun is asking for trouble. Stalking someone isn't reason enough for that someone to start beating you up bloody, teenager or not. As far as I know, Zimmerman did nothing illegal by following up on what Martin was doing, in a way he was just trying to do his job. To incarcerate Zimmerman you would have to prove that 1) Zimmerman showed aggression while he was approaching Martin and 2) Zimmerman started the physical altercation. Neither point seems to be supported by the circumstantial evidence, because 1) None in his own mind would have approached an armed man as Marting did, which means Zimmerman did not have the gun on his hand as he approached Martin and 2) Martin did not show a single sign of having received a punch or anything similar, except for his knuckles. youre attacking points i never made. all i was pointing out was this wouldnt have happened if zimmerman wasnt following him with a gun. also it is NOT his job. Uh? You said that stalking is reason enough to warrant getting beaten up .. I am contending that it isn't. You have to show aggressive behavior and start the fight. Apparently, Zimmerman did neither. im pretty sure i infact did not say that., if you could show me where i did we could continue our debate.
I thought you said this
youre forgetting the guy literally stalked him. you cant stalk anyone them kill them when you are losing the fight.
What you are implying here is that killing is ok if you are losing a fight, unless you stalked him first, i.e. stalking is reason enough to just getting beaten up bloody and risk permanent damage.
|
On May 18 2012 12:42 s4life wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 12:34 heliusx wrote:On May 18 2012 12:32 s4life wrote:On May 18 2012 12:15 heliusx wrote:On May 18 2012 12:06 s4life wrote:On May 18 2012 11:43 heliusx wrote:On May 18 2012 11:31 s4life wrote:On May 18 2012 11:22 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Oh no, not weed! Those potheads are always up to no good. Thank God we can shoot 'em on the street now. If the pothead broke my nose, opened two inch-wide cuts in the back of my head and he's on top of me trying to finish me off you damn right I would try to defend myself with anything I've got, including shooting him.. Marting was what? a 6'3'' high school football player, with problems at school and home.. where the heck did the narrative that he was an innocent 130 pound innocent boy started? this is just disgusting.. what the media did with this case I mean... youre forgetting the guy literally stalked him. you cant stalk anyone them kill them when you are losing the fight. well you can in florida maybe. basically comes down to zimmerman following the boy with no reason, confronting him, getting in a fight then shooting and killing a underage teen. if zimmerman would have done what any reasonable person would have done this never would have happened. yet because he wanted to be a vigilante a kid is dead. it also is important to remember we wont ever get his side of the story. my point is basically if zimmerman would have done what most people would have, this would not have happened. i mean following someone and confronting them while carrying a gun is asking for trouble. Stalking someone isn't reason enough for that someone to start beating you up bloody, teenager or not. As far as I know, Zimmerman did nothing illegal by following up on what Martin was doing, in a way he was just trying to do his job. To incarcerate Zimmerman you would have to prove that 1) Zimmerman showed aggression while he was approaching Martin and 2) Zimmerman started the physical altercation. Neither point seems to be supported by the circumstantial evidence, because 1) None in his own mind would have approached an armed man as Marting did, which means Zimmerman did not have the gun on his hand as he approached Martin and 2) Martin did not show a single sign of having received a punch or anything similar, except for his knuckles. youre attacking points i never made. all i was pointing out was this wouldnt have happened if zimmerman wasnt following him with a gun. also it is NOT his job. Uh? You said that stalking is reason enough to warrant getting beaten up .. I am contending that it isn't. You have to show aggressive behavior and start the fight. Apparently, Zimmerman did neither. im pretty sure i infact did not say that., if you could show me where i did we could continue our debate. I thought you said this Show nested quote +
youre forgetting the guy literally stalked him. you cant stalk anyone them kill them when you are losing the fight.
What you are implying here is that killing is ok if you are losing a fight, unless you stalked him first, i.e. stalking is reason enough to just getting beaten up bloody and risk permanent damage.
for the love of god, why are you misrepresenting my posts? why respond if you cant respond to what im actually saying?
what i am implying is that zimmerman caused the confrontation by irrationally following the young man with a gun and confronting him. if zimmerman had NOT chosen to do such an irrational behavior this would have never happened. also the details of the confrontation are very scant.
|
On May 18 2012 12:37 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 12:35 s4life wrote:On May 18 2012 12:26 heliusx wrote:On May 18 2012 12:21 1Eris1 wrote:On May 18 2012 12:16 heliusx wrote:On May 18 2012 12:12 1Eris1 wrote:On May 18 2012 11:43 heliusx wrote:On May 18 2012 11:31 s4life wrote:On May 18 2012 11:22 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Oh no, not weed! Those potheads are always up to no good. Thank God we can shoot 'em on the street now. If the pothead broke my nose, opened two inch-wide cuts in the back of my head and he's on top of me trying to finish me off you damn right I would try to defend myself with anything I've got, including shooting him.. Marting was what? a 6'3'' high school football player, with problems at school and home.. where the heck did the narrative that he was an innocent 130 pound innocent boy started? this is just disgusting.. what the media did with this case I mean... youre forgetting the guy literally stalked him. you cant stalk anyone them kill them when you are losing the fight. well you can in florida maybe. basically comes down to zimmerman following the boy with no reason, confronting him, getting in a fight then shooting and killing a underage teen. if zimmerman would have done what any reasonable person would have done this never would have happened. yet because he wanted to be a vigilante a kid is dead. it also is important to remember we wont ever get his side of the story. my point is basically if zimmerman would have done what most people would have, this would not have happened. i mean following someone and confronting them while carrying a gun is asking for trouble. Judging from the evidence, it wasn't a fight, but more of a beating. And im sorry, where is there evidence that Zimmerman that intiated the fight? Maybe he did, or maybe he made one comment and Martin jumped on him. And that's the point, you need to be able to prove that Zimmerman did this and at this point you really can't. (Unless the prosectuor has other evidence) To convict for murder you need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I'd say there's still A LOT of doubt in this case. and im sorry, where did i say he initiated a fight? my point still stands because of zimmermans vigilante attitude (following him with a gun), this got way out of hand. im not taking sides just playing devils advocate. he should NOT be following anyone with a gun. that just shows his mindset. confronting him, getting in a fight If this doesn't mean him starting a fight then I'm not sure what your arguement is. Yes, I agree Zimmerman should not have followed and confronted Martin, but to justify him being convicted of murder, you would need to have had him intiate the fight. That is what we are discussing here right? i was merely stating there was a fight, if you want to bold where i said he started the fight that might help. and no initiation of the fight is not a requirement for convicting him of murder. this is a complicated case that is beyond my understanding of florida law, and obviously of yours also. what most experts are claiming is that they will need to prove that was zimmermans behavior was irrational and unreasonable (depraved mind). And I do beleive following someone with a gun shows irrationality and unreasonable behavior because there was no evidence of a crime being commited. (racial profiling does not equate to evidence of a crime) Nope, they will need to prove that Zimmerman started the fight.. nothing else would suffice for the murder conviction to hold... proving that he was irrational, isn't enough if Zimmerman was not being physically aggressive initially. proving zimmerman started the fight does not need to be proved and im not going to argue with you on something you could easily google.
I think you are a bit confused. What the district attorney is trying to prove -- which is irrational behavior -- is completely different to what is required by law to convict Zimmerman. The reason the attorney didn't go for the minimum legal requirement -- Zimmerman started the fight -- is because he has absolutely no way to prove it, in fact everything seems to indicate the opposite. Many legal experts share this opinion and most of them think there is no case here... it's all media sensationalism.
|
On May 18 2012 12:48 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 12:42 s4life wrote:On May 18 2012 12:34 heliusx wrote:On May 18 2012 12:32 s4life wrote:On May 18 2012 12:15 heliusx wrote:On May 18 2012 12:06 s4life wrote:On May 18 2012 11:43 heliusx wrote:On May 18 2012 11:31 s4life wrote:On May 18 2012 11:22 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Oh no, not weed! Those potheads are always up to no good. Thank God we can shoot 'em on the street now. If the pothead broke my nose, opened two inch-wide cuts in the back of my head and he's on top of me trying to finish me off you damn right I would try to defend myself with anything I've got, including shooting him.. Marting was what? a 6'3'' high school football player, with problems at school and home.. where the heck did the narrative that he was an innocent 130 pound innocent boy started? this is just disgusting.. what the media did with this case I mean... youre forgetting the guy literally stalked him. you cant stalk anyone them kill them when you are losing the fight. well you can in florida maybe. basically comes down to zimmerman following the boy with no reason, confronting him, getting in a fight then shooting and killing a underage teen. if zimmerman would have done what any reasonable person would have done this never would have happened. yet because he wanted to be a vigilante a kid is dead. it also is important to remember we wont ever get his side of the story. my point is basically if zimmerman would have done what most people would have, this would not have happened. i mean following someone and confronting them while carrying a gun is asking for trouble. Stalking someone isn't reason enough for that someone to start beating you up bloody, teenager or not. As far as I know, Zimmerman did nothing illegal by following up on what Martin was doing, in a way he was just trying to do his job. To incarcerate Zimmerman you would have to prove that 1) Zimmerman showed aggression while he was approaching Martin and 2) Zimmerman started the physical altercation. Neither point seems to be supported by the circumstantial evidence, because 1) None in his own mind would have approached an armed man as Marting did, which means Zimmerman did not have the gun on his hand as he approached Martin and 2) Martin did not show a single sign of having received a punch or anything similar, except for his knuckles. youre attacking points i never made. all i was pointing out was this wouldnt have happened if zimmerman wasnt following him with a gun. also it is NOT his job. Uh? You said that stalking is reason enough to warrant getting beaten up .. I am contending that it isn't. You have to show aggressive behavior and start the fight. Apparently, Zimmerman did neither. im pretty sure i infact did not say that., if you could show me where i did we could continue our debate. I thought you said this
youre forgetting the guy literally stalked him. you cant stalk anyone them kill them when you are losing the fight.
What you are implying here is that killing is ok if you are losing a fight, unless you stalked him first, i.e. stalking is reason enough to just getting beaten up bloody and risk permanent damage. for the love of god, why are you misrepresenting my posts? why respond if you cant respond to what im actually saying? what i am implying is that zimmerman caused the confrontation by irrationally following the young man with a gun and confronting him. if zimmerman had NOT chosen to do such an irrational behavior this would have never happened. also the details of the confrontation are very scant.
Those are your words pal.. I am not misrepresenting nothing. Then again, following someone irrationally or not is not freaking illegal.. can you acknowledge that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
