|
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 2012 07:04 Tula wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 05:56 Portlandian wrote:On July 17 2012 05:23 Tula wrote:
Frankly my biggest problem is that Zimmerman does not make a very reliable witness. How did you come to such a conclusion? Not only does his account of the events appear to be corroborated by the evidence, his estimation of Trayvon as a suspicious character proved to be very accurate. He said Trayvon looked like he was on drugs, the autopsy showed he had been smoking marijuana. Trayvon also abused cough syrup and was buying ingredients for a cough syrup cocktail (skittles and Arizona watermelon drink). Trayvon had been caught in school with a burglary tool and stolen women's jewelry, so the conclusion that he may have been looking for a house to rob when he was walking around looking into houses was very reasonable and it was smart to phone police. You are including unproven allegations by the defense as fact. Linking marijuana to drugs in this context is idiotic at best. Considering that you appear to be from Belgium you should be well aware that marijuana does not make someone more aggressive, on the contrary it usually makes you more relaxed. skittles and Arizona watermelon drink might be something you can use for a cough syrup cocktail (whatever that is, I've never heard of it in Austria btw.) but it is also a soft drink and a snack, so it literally proves nothing. Fact is he might have considered Trayvon suspicious, but frankly so would he himself have appeared. He trailed someone through the dark without attempting to identify himself remember? Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 05:56 Portlandian wrote:On July 17 2012 05:23 Tula wrote:
He behaved contrary to the recommendation (or orders) of the 911 call, He obeyed the 911 operator, responded "okay" and immediately stopped following. You are either misinformed or a liar. Not according to the sources given in the OP, which is the only thing I can base my information on. If you have other information by all means link it. Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 05:56 Portlandian wrote:On July 17 2012 05:23 Tula wrote:
and started (or at the very least) provoked a confrontation which ended with a young teenager dead. Trayvon confronted Zimmerman from behind and assaulted him when he was returning to his truck. This is a clearly unprovoked attack, initiated by Trayvon himself. According to Zimmermans statement you mean. There is no reliable witness to corrobate that and the other party is dead. Zimmerman had no wounds requiring medical attention according to the Sanford police officer (again see OP). Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 05:56 Portlandian wrote:On July 17 2012 05:23 Tula wrote:
One last note, going back the entire quote chain, if walking about and looking at houses is enough to be called suspicious I'd probably get arrested every second day because I like walking around the neighbourhood in the evening to clear my head before going to sleep. It is unlikely you actually look at people's houses, wander slowly, and attempt to peer into windows in a neighborhood that has been experiencing high amounts of crime. But if you do, you certainly should expect the police to be phoned on you eventually and I hope you don't assault the person who reports your behaviour to police. Again you assume quite a lot here. We have no proof that Trayvon assaulted anyone. We also have no proof that he truly did what you are stating as a fact. He might have simply been walking back to his fathers house with his munchies when someone started following him without identifying himself. We know as a fact from the police call that Trayvon started fleeing and Zimmerman pursued him. Frankly that sounds like fairly normal fear behaviour to me (and also to the investigating police officers if you'd recall). Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 05:56 Portlandian wrote:On July 17 2012 05:23 Tula wrote:
Frankly what appals me the most is that he still seems convinced he has done nothing wrong... There's nothing wrong with being a good citizen who looks out for your neighbors. There's nothing wrong with defending yourself when you are being attacked. He did nothing wrong. What he did was right and good. So, it's right and good that a teenager who was minding his own buisness and on his way home is now dead because a good citizen instigated an unnecessary confrontation and defended himself with a gun against an unarmed person who might or might not have struck the first blow? Frankly if so our definitions of what is right and good differ quite a bit. Personally I consider it criminal.
I don't think you can make such blanket statements of what a drug can or can't do. I've seen plenty of people smoke weed, and many of them get hyper/jumpy off it. (Some certainly become relaxed, as well.)
|
On July 17 2012 07:19 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 07:04 Tula wrote:On July 17 2012 05:56 Portlandian wrote:On July 17 2012 05:23 Tula wrote:
Frankly my biggest problem is that Zimmerman does not make a very reliable witness. How did you come to such a conclusion? Not only does his account of the events appear to be corroborated by the evidence, his estimation of Trayvon as a suspicious character proved to be very accurate. He said Trayvon looked like he was on drugs, the autopsy showed he had been smoking marijuana. Trayvon also abused cough syrup and was buying ingredients for a cough syrup cocktail (skittles and Arizona watermelon drink). Trayvon had been caught in school with a burglary tool and stolen women's jewelry, so the conclusion that he may have been looking for a house to rob when he was walking around looking into houses was very reasonable and it was smart to phone police. You are including unproven allegations by the defense as fact. Linking marijuana to drugs in this context is idiotic at best. Considering that you appear to be from Belgium you should be well aware that marijuana does not make someone more aggressive, on the contrary it usually makes you more relaxed. skittles and Arizona watermelon drink might be something you can use for a cough syrup cocktail (whatever that is, I've never heard of it in Austria btw.) but it is also a soft drink and a snack, so it literally proves nothing. Fact is he might have considered Trayvon suspicious, but frankly so would he himself have appeared. He trailed someone through the dark without attempting to identify himself remember? On July 17 2012 05:56 Portlandian wrote:On July 17 2012 05:23 Tula wrote:
He behaved contrary to the recommendation (or orders) of the 911 call, He obeyed the 911 operator, responded "okay" and immediately stopped following. You are either misinformed or a liar. Not according to the sources given in the OP, which is the only thing I can base my information on. If you have other information by all means link it. On July 17 2012 05:56 Portlandian wrote:On July 17 2012 05:23 Tula wrote:
and started (or at the very least) provoked a confrontation which ended with a young teenager dead. Trayvon confronted Zimmerman from behind and assaulted him when he was returning to his truck. This is a clearly unprovoked attack, initiated by Trayvon himself. According to Zimmermans statement you mean. There is no reliable witness to corrobate that and the other party is dead. Zimmerman had no wounds requiring medical attention according to the Sanford police officer (again see OP). On July 17 2012 05:56 Portlandian wrote:On July 17 2012 05:23 Tula wrote:
One last note, going back the entire quote chain, if walking about and looking at houses is enough to be called suspicious I'd probably get arrested every second day because I like walking around the neighbourhood in the evening to clear my head before going to sleep. It is unlikely you actually look at people's houses, wander slowly, and attempt to peer into windows in a neighborhood that has been experiencing high amounts of crime. But if you do, you certainly should expect the police to be phoned on you eventually and I hope you don't assault the person who reports your behaviour to police. Again you assume quite a lot here. We have no proof that Trayvon assaulted anyone. We also have no proof that he truly did what you are stating as a fact. He might have simply been walking back to his fathers house with his munchies when someone started following him without identifying himself. We know as a fact from the police call that Trayvon started fleeing and Zimmerman pursued him. Frankly that sounds like fairly normal fear behaviour to me (and also to the investigating police officers if you'd recall). On July 17 2012 05:56 Portlandian wrote:On July 17 2012 05:23 Tula wrote:
Frankly what appals me the most is that he still seems convinced he has done nothing wrong... There's nothing wrong with being a good citizen who looks out for your neighbors. There's nothing wrong with defending yourself when you are being attacked. He did nothing wrong. What he did was right and good. So, it's right and good that a teenager who was minding his own buisness and on his way home is now dead because a good citizen instigated an unnecessary confrontation and defended himself with a gun against an unarmed person who might or might not have struck the first blow? Frankly if so our definitions of what is right and good differ quite a bit. Personally I consider it criminal. I don't think you can make such blanket statements of what a drug can or can't do. I've seen plenty of people smoke weed, and many of them get hyper/jumpy off it. (Some certainly become relaxed, as well.)
True, but you are missing the point. "Doing Drugs" or "he is on drugs" has a very specific connotation and meaning in our language nowadays. It's mostly a leftover from PCP days and means someone is more aggressive than normal. Marijuana is not included into that group for a very good reason, as is Opium (even if almost no one uses the later nowadays), simply because they do not usually have that effect.
Sadly I have had more than enough experience with teenagers doing all kinds of drugs to last me 2 or 3 lifetimes, but so far I have not had a single experience of hyperaggression in connection to Marijuana (nor have i heard of one). I cannot quote you chapter and verse of medical studies, though i could quote you my handbook regarding common drugs and how to deal with students doing that if it helps you.
|
Marijuana makes me nervous, paranoid, jumpy and aggressive. It's a horrible experience.
I cannot wait for this to get to trial.
|
On July 17 2012 07:44 Tula wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 07:19 1Eris1 wrote:On July 17 2012 07:04 Tula wrote:On July 17 2012 05:56 Portlandian wrote:On July 17 2012 05:23 Tula wrote:
Frankly my biggest problem is that Zimmerman does not make a very reliable witness. How did you come to such a conclusion? Not only does his account of the events appear to be corroborated by the evidence, his estimation of Trayvon as a suspicious character proved to be very accurate. He said Trayvon looked like he was on drugs, the autopsy showed he had been smoking marijuana. Trayvon also abused cough syrup and was buying ingredients for a cough syrup cocktail (skittles and Arizona watermelon drink). Trayvon had been caught in school with a burglary tool and stolen women's jewelry, so the conclusion that he may have been looking for a house to rob when he was walking around looking into houses was very reasonable and it was smart to phone police. You are including unproven allegations by the defense as fact. Linking marijuana to drugs in this context is idiotic at best. Considering that you appear to be from Belgium you should be well aware that marijuana does not make someone more aggressive, on the contrary it usually makes you more relaxed. skittles and Arizona watermelon drink might be something you can use for a cough syrup cocktail (whatever that is, I've never heard of it in Austria btw.) but it is also a soft drink and a snack, so it literally proves nothing. Fact is he might have considered Trayvon suspicious, but frankly so would he himself have appeared. He trailed someone through the dark without attempting to identify himself remember? On July 17 2012 05:56 Portlandian wrote:On July 17 2012 05:23 Tula wrote:
He behaved contrary to the recommendation (or orders) of the 911 call, He obeyed the 911 operator, responded "okay" and immediately stopped following. You are either misinformed or a liar. Not according to the sources given in the OP, which is the only thing I can base my information on. If you have other information by all means link it. On July 17 2012 05:56 Portlandian wrote:On July 17 2012 05:23 Tula wrote:
and started (or at the very least) provoked a confrontation which ended with a young teenager dead. Trayvon confronted Zimmerman from behind and assaulted him when he was returning to his truck. This is a clearly unprovoked attack, initiated by Trayvon himself. According to Zimmermans statement you mean. There is no reliable witness to corrobate that and the other party is dead. Zimmerman had no wounds requiring medical attention according to the Sanford police officer (again see OP). On July 17 2012 05:56 Portlandian wrote:On July 17 2012 05:23 Tula wrote:
One last note, going back the entire quote chain, if walking about and looking at houses is enough to be called suspicious I'd probably get arrested every second day because I like walking around the neighbourhood in the evening to clear my head before going to sleep. It is unlikely you actually look at people's houses, wander slowly, and attempt to peer into windows in a neighborhood that has been experiencing high amounts of crime. But if you do, you certainly should expect the police to be phoned on you eventually and I hope you don't assault the person who reports your behaviour to police. Again you assume quite a lot here. We have no proof that Trayvon assaulted anyone. We also have no proof that he truly did what you are stating as a fact. He might have simply been walking back to his fathers house with his munchies when someone started following him without identifying himself. We know as a fact from the police call that Trayvon started fleeing and Zimmerman pursued him. Frankly that sounds like fairly normal fear behaviour to me (and also to the investigating police officers if you'd recall). On July 17 2012 05:56 Portlandian wrote:On July 17 2012 05:23 Tula wrote:
Frankly what appals me the most is that he still seems convinced he has done nothing wrong... There's nothing wrong with being a good citizen who looks out for your neighbors. There's nothing wrong with defending yourself when you are being attacked. He did nothing wrong. What he did was right and good. So, it's right and good that a teenager who was minding his own buisness and on his way home is now dead because a good citizen instigated an unnecessary confrontation and defended himself with a gun against an unarmed person who might or might not have struck the first blow? Frankly if so our definitions of what is right and good differ quite a bit. Personally I consider it criminal. I don't think you can make such blanket statements of what a drug can or can't do. I've seen plenty of people smoke weed, and many of them get hyper/jumpy off it. (Some certainly become relaxed, as well.) True, but you are missing the point. "Doing Drugs" or "he is on drugs" has a very specific connotation and meaning in our language nowadays. It's mostly a leftover from PCP days and means someone is more aggressive than normal. Marijuana is not included into that group for a very good reason, as is Opium (even if almost no one uses the later nowadays), simply because they do not usually have that effect. Sadly I have had more than enough experience with teenagers doing all kinds of drugs to last me 2 or 3 lifetimes, but so far I have not had a single experience of hyperaggression in connection to Marijuana (nor have i heard of one). I cannot quote you chapter and verse of medical studies, though i could quote you my handbook regarding common drugs and how to deal with students doing that if it helps you.
I don't think the arguement is that the marijuana made Martin punch Zimmerman, I think it was just being used as a way to validate Zimmerman's claims. I agree, marijuana ususally doesn't make you aggresive, but Zimmerman didn't say "Hey there's this kid here acting aggresive, he might be on drugs", he said "theres a kid here acting a funny, he might be on drugs" (or something like that.)
And unforntuneately, what we consider hyper-aggresion nowadays can be triggered by a simple insult or altercation, depending on mood/setting/whatever, without the need of drugs. Hell I've seen guys clock eachother simply over a bad look in school and none of them were on drugs at the time.
|
On July 17 2012 05:23 Tula wrote:
You are including unproven allegations by the defense as fact. Linking marijuana to drugs in this context is idiotic at best. Considering that you appear to be from Belgium you should be well aware that marijuana does not make someone more aggressive, on the contrary it usually makes you more relaxed. skittles and Arizona watermelon drink might be something you can use for a cough syrup cocktail (whatever that is, I've never heard of it in Austria btw.) but it is also a soft drink and a snack, so it literally proves nothing. Fact is he might have considered Trayvon suspicious, but frankly so would he himself have appeared. He trailed someone through the dark without attempting to identify himself remember?
Zimmerman phoned to say Trayvon looked like he was on drugs and was up to no good. Trayvon was indeed on at least one drug. Based on his leaked social networking conversations may have been on another drug called "lean" which uses DXM from cough syrup as the active ingredient.
Furthermore Trayvon had been caught with a burglary tool and stolen jewelry in the past. Wandering around looking into houses was what raised Zimmerman's suspicion that Trayvon was up to no good. Given Trayvon's history and Zimmerman's sharp and accurate analysis that Trayvon was on drugs it is not unreasonable to suspect Trayvon really was up to no good. It would also help explain his violent reaction to being observed, as many criminals caught in the act do respond with violence.
Whether Zimmerman would look suspicious is irrelevant. If someone phoned the police on him I am sure he would not be upset and would willingly speak with police to explain the situation.
On July 17 2012 05:23 Tula wrote:
Not according to the sources given in the OP, which is the only thing I can base my information on. If you have other information by all means link it.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/02/911-call-shows-zimmerman-stopped-following-martin-after-dispatchers-request-corroborates-story/
On July 17 2012 05:23 Tula wrote:
According to Zimmermans statement you mean. There is no reliable witness to corrobate that and the other party is dead. Zimmerman had no wounds requiring medical attention according to the Sanford police officer (again see OP).
The female on the phone with Trayvon says she heard Trayvon confront Zimmerman first, although she claims different words were spoken. Zimmerman's account is the only one from someone who witnessed what happened. Considering the rest of his story is corroborated by the evidence, fits the timeline, and the sequence of events matches the girlfriends testimony there is no reason to come up with your own fantasy of events which is supported by absolutely nothing.
Zimmerman had a broken nose and a large gash on the back of his head. He was the one who refused to go to the hospital.
On July 17 2012 05:23 Tula wrote:
Again you assume quite a lot here. We have no proof that Trayvon assaulted anyone. We also have no proof that he truly did what you are stating as a fact. He might have simply been walking back to his fathers house with his munchies when someone started following him without identifying himself.
We know as a fact from the police call that Trayvon started fleeing and Zimmerman pursued him. Frankly that sounds like fairly normal fear behaviour to me (and also to the investigating police officers if you'd recall).
The eyewitness who saw Trayvon beating Zimmerman, the wounds on Zimmerman, the lack of wounds on Trayvon anywhere other than his knuckles, and the close range of the shot provide ample evidence that Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman. I am not sure why you are posting on this topic when you are so misinformed.
Trayvon's behaviour seems to indicate he was caught casing houses for burglary. He had several minutes to travel a few dozen meters home and instead lurked in the dark pathway waiting for Zimmerman. He also had a phone he could have used to call police in those minutes. It was probably the police he was afraid of, not Zimmerman.
On July 17 2012 05:23 Tula wrote:
So, it's right and good that a teenager who was minding his own buisness and on his way home is now dead because a good citizen instigated an unnecessary confrontation and defended himself with a gun against an unarmed person who might or might not have struck the first blow? Frankly if so our definitions of what is right and good differ quite a bit. Personally I consider it criminal.
Trayvon was not necessarily minding his own business. He may have been, but there is also reason to believe he may have been casing houses for burglary. The main issue here I think is that you are willing to jump to conclusions with no evidence as long as the conclusions are pro-Trayvon and anti-Zimmerman. You are too easily influenced by the emotional manipulation of media outlets. Set aside your emotions and try to examine the evidence with logic.
It's right and good that Zimmerman looks out for his neighbors. He is a good citizen and if everyone cared and contributed to their community like he did the world would be a very nice place to live. It is also right and good that Zimmerman had the means to defend himself. If he had been beaten to death or suffered brain damage it would be tragic and his community would have lost a good man who made positive contributions. People should not be disarmed and left at the mercy of violent thugs.
I haven't fallen for the fantasy that Trayvon was a choir boy. He was a blossoming young criminal. I have no trouble identifying him as the person responsible for his own death, and I am not particularly saddened by the outcome.
|
I wonder if this same law would protect Trayvon Martin had Zimmerman died instead.
|
First she said he was racist.
Then she said his family was racist.
Then she said he molested her.
:| ok then.
|
On July 17 2012 22:09 Probe1 wrote:First she said he was racist. Then she said his family was racist. Then she said he molested her. :| ok then.
See your point, but I don't think she's just piling on, she didn't go to the media with it. It was part her testimony that the Judge released to the media.
|
I really don't get it , I read the OP (and all the links, but everything is so fuzzy, no objective view). what's all about anyway ? CBA to parse through all ~ 70 forum pages to find out what the hell happened there.
As far as I've read, a person died and the one involved must justify his actions.
Is there anyone who can shed some light regarding this situation?!
|
On July 17 2012 22:19 HomeWorld wrote:
I really don't get it , I read the OP (and all the links, but everything is so fuzzy, no objective view). what's all about anyway ? CBA to parse through all ~ 70 forum pages to find out what the hell happened there.
As far as I've read, a person died and the one involved must justify his actions.
Is there anyone who can shed some light regarding this situation?!
Basically you got it but as usual in the US, the race card was played and it became a huge news story.
The problem has been with the Media / Rights Groups trying to make it out that Zimmerman was a gun crazy racists and now sexual molester that tracked down and gunned down a poor innocent kid who just wanted to get skittles and ice tea.
The boy who was shot, Trayvon Martin, was 17 and black. The man who shot him, George Zimmerman, is mixed hispanic/white. Zimmerman was head of the neighborhood watch and was allowed to carry a firearm. His neighborhood had several recent break-ins and the police rarely made it on scene in time to catch the robbers so he decided to pursue and question Martin, who was walking around in the rain looking into houses and acting "suspicious, like he is on drugs". (Martin was smoking Marijuana)
So far, the claim is that when confronted, Martin supposedly attacked Zimmerman, knocking him to the ground and bashing his head into the ground (injuries on Z support this) and Zimmerman then shot and killed Martin in self defense.
Right now its up to the court to decide whether Martin attacked Zimmerman, and whether Zimmerman had to right to defend himself with deadly force.
|
On July 17 2012 21:48 Zorkmid wrote:
I wonder if this same law would protect Trayvon Martin had Zimmerman died instead.
Well, I mean yes? If the entire story pointed to Zimmerman initiating and assaulting him, then definitely yes?
But if you mean had Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman, killing him, on the basis of following him, then no, of course not, that would be a silly fucking civilization to live in.
|
I dunno why people keep claiming that the kid was high at the time. According to toxicology reports, the THC in his system was low enough that it could have been in his system from days to weeks ago, and has no affect on his behavior. Link
+ Show Spoiler +Autopsy reports said medical examiners found THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, when they tested Martin's blood and urine.
But Larry Kobilinsky, professor of forensic science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, told the AP that the THC amount was so low that it may have been ingested days earlier and played no role in Martin's behavior. He doubts the judge will even let it be used by the defense if they try to introduce it at trial.
"This kind of level can be seen days after somebody smokes," Kobilinsky told CBS News. "If it comes up in the case, I would be surprised. It wouldn't benefit the defense, it wouldn't benefit the prosecution, and if the defense tried to bring it up, the judge would keep it out."
There aren't any reports of lean, and saying he was on or at least planning to get on purely because of the fact he was eating skittles and drinking soda is kinda dumb.
|
On July 17 2012 22:30 MooseyFate wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 22:19 HomeWorld wrote:
I really don't get it , I read the OP (and all the links, but everything is so fuzzy, no objective view). what's all about anyway ? CBA to parse through all ~ 70 forum pages to find out what the hell happened there.
As far as I've read, a person died and the one involved must justify his actions.
Is there anyone who can shed some light regarding this situation?! Basically you got it but as usual in the US, the race card was played and it became a huge news story. The problem has been with the Media / Rights Groups trying to make it out that Zimmerman was a gun crazy racists and now sexual molester that tracked down and gunned down a poor innocent kid who just wanted to get skittles and ice tea. The boy who was shot, Trayvon Martin, was 17 and black. The man who shot him, George Zimmerman, is mixed hispanic/white. Zimmerman was head of the neighborhood watch and was allowed to carry a firearm. His neighborhood had several recent break-ins and the police rarely made it on scene in time to catch the robbers so he decided to pursue and question Martin, who was walking around in the rain looking into houses and acting "suspicious, like he is on drugs". (Martin was smoking Marijuana) So far, the claim is that when confronted, Martin supposedly attacked Zimmerman, knocking him to the ground and bashing his head into the ground (injuries on Z support this) and Zimmerman then shot and killed Martin in self defense. Right now its up to the court to decide whether Martin attacked Zimmerman, and whether Zimmerman had to right to defend himself with deadly force.
The way I see it, no one, but no one should use deadly force unless the victim is on his property or it the police. That neighbor watch is illegitimate if used as a deterrence for "whatever" crimes, mainly their task is to report and assist the law enforcement but not interfere with crimes that takes place (just to avoid this kind of situations) , judging by that , I might consider it as a murder.
|
On July 17 2012 23:14 HomeWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 22:30 MooseyFate wrote:On July 17 2012 22:19 HomeWorld wrote:
I really don't get it , I read the OP (and all the links, but everything is so fuzzy, no objective view). what's all about anyway ? CBA to parse through all ~ 70 forum pages to find out what the hell happened there.
As far as I've read, a person died and the one involved must justify his actions.
Is there anyone who can shed some light regarding this situation?! Basically you got it but as usual in the US, the race card was played and it became a huge news story. The problem has been with the Media / Rights Groups trying to make it out that Zimmerman was a gun crazy racists and now sexual molester that tracked down and gunned down a poor innocent kid who just wanted to get skittles and ice tea. The boy who was shot, Trayvon Martin, was 17 and black. The man who shot him, George Zimmerman, is mixed hispanic/white. Zimmerman was head of the neighborhood watch and was allowed to carry a firearm. His neighborhood had several recent break-ins and the police rarely made it on scene in time to catch the robbers so he decided to pursue and question Martin, who was walking around in the rain looking into houses and acting "suspicious, like he is on drugs". (Martin was smoking Marijuana) So far, the claim is that when confronted, Martin supposedly attacked Zimmerman, knocking him to the ground and bashing his head into the ground (injuries on Z support this) and Zimmerman then shot and killed Martin in self defense. Right now its up to the court to decide whether Martin attacked Zimmerman, and whether Zimmerman had to right to defend himself with deadly force. The way I see it, no one, but no one should use deadly force unless the victim is on his property or it the police. That neighbor watch is illegitimate if used as a deterrence for "whatever" crimes, mainly their task is to report and assist the law enforcement but not interfere with crimes that takes place (just to avoid this kind of situations) , judging by that , I might consider it as a murder.
No fucking way you're serious. If you're being actively beaten by anyone, even ignoring if that's the case here, if you're being actively beaten on the street, for any reason, you're not going to attempt to do anything to get out of it?
Gotta be a troll.
|
On July 17 2012 22:30 MooseyFate wrote:
Basically you got it but as usual in the US, the race card was played and it became a huge news story.
The problem has been with the Media / Rights Groups trying to make it out that Zimmerman was a gun crazy racists and now sexual molester that tracked down and gunned down a poor innocent kid who just wanted to get skittles and ice tea.
The boy who was shot, Trayvon Martin, was 17 and black. The man who shot him, George Zimmerman, is mixed hispanic/white. Zimmerman was head of the neighborhood watch and was allowed to carry a firearm. His neighborhood had several recent break-ins and the police rarely made it on scene in time to catch the robbers so he decided to pursue and question Martin, who was walking around in the rain looking into houses and acting "suspicious, like he is on drugs". (Martin was smoking Marijuana)
So far, the claim is that when confronted, Martin supposedly attacked Zimmerman, knocking him to the ground and bashing his head into the ground (injuries on Z support this) and Zimmerman then shot and killed Martin in self defense.
Right now its up to the court to decide whether Martin attacked Zimmerman, and whether Zimmerman had to right to defend himself with deadly force.
People need to stop claiming that what Zimmerman did had ANYTHING to do with the "neighborhood watch", an organization that in no way advocates any type of interference with any person seen to be acting "suspiciously". A sentence like:
Zimmerman was head of the neighborhood watch and was allowed to carry a firearm.
Is completely false and misleading. He's allowed to carry a firearm, sure. But this has got NOTHING to do with the neighborhood watch.
Those who are part of a Neighborhood watch program are the eyes and ears of law enforcement. But that is all. Mr. Martin decided to directly engage with someone who he thought could be a criminal. This is something that all responsible Neighborhood Watch programs do not condone.
|
On July 17 2012 23:17 Felnarion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 23:14 HomeWorld wrote:On July 17 2012 22:30 MooseyFate wrote:On July 17 2012 22:19 HomeWorld wrote:
I really don't get it , I read the OP (and all the links, but everything is so fuzzy, no objective view). what's all about anyway ? CBA to parse through all ~ 70 forum pages to find out what the hell happened there.
As far as I've read, a person died and the one involved must justify his actions.
Is there anyone who can shed some light regarding this situation?! Basically you got it but as usual in the US, the race card was played and it became a huge news story. The problem has been with the Media / Rights Groups trying to make it out that Zimmerman was a gun crazy racists and now sexual molester that tracked down and gunned down a poor innocent kid who just wanted to get skittles and ice tea. The boy who was shot, Trayvon Martin, was 17 and black. The man who shot him, George Zimmerman, is mixed hispanic/white. Zimmerman was head of the neighborhood watch and was allowed to carry a firearm. His neighborhood had several recent break-ins and the police rarely made it on scene in time to catch the robbers so he decided to pursue and question Martin, who was walking around in the rain looking into houses and acting "suspicious, like he is on drugs". (Martin was smoking Marijuana) So far, the claim is that when confronted, Martin supposedly attacked Zimmerman, knocking him to the ground and bashing his head into the ground (injuries on Z support this) and Zimmerman then shot and killed Martin in self defense. Right now its up to the court to decide whether Martin attacked Zimmerman, and whether Zimmerman had to right to defend himself with deadly force. The way I see it, no one, but no one should use deadly force unless the victim is on his property or it the police. That neighbor watch is illegitimate if used as a deterrence for "whatever" crimes, mainly their task is to report and assist the law enforcement but not interfere with crimes that takes place (just to avoid this kind of situations) , judging by that , I might consider it as a murder. No fucking way you're serious. If you're being actively beaten by anyone, even ignoring if that's the case here, if you're being actively beaten on the street, for any reason, you're not going to attempt to do anything to get out of it? Gotta be a troll.
That's a different fact, ofc I will try to defend myself if I'm put in that kind of situation that you've told (if it's totally unprovoked by me, I can use anything to defend myself), but regarding the subject, I have a feeling that that guy (Zimmerman) put himself in that situation (basically asking it for it) and the result , we know it already.
Also Zimmerman's history doesn't help him too much regarding this case ...
|
On July 17 2012 23:17 Felnarion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 23:14 HomeWorld wrote:On July 17 2012 22:30 MooseyFate wrote:On July 17 2012 22:19 HomeWorld wrote:
I really don't get it , I read the OP (and all the links, but everything is so fuzzy, no objective view). what's all about anyway ? CBA to parse through all ~ 70 forum pages to find out what the hell happened there.
As far as I've read, a person died and the one involved must justify his actions.
Is there anyone who can shed some light regarding this situation?! Basically you got it but as usual in the US, the race card was played and it became a huge news story. The problem has been with the Media / Rights Groups trying to make it out that Zimmerman was a gun crazy racists and now sexual molester that tracked down and gunned down a poor innocent kid who just wanted to get skittles and ice tea. The boy who was shot, Trayvon Martin, was 17 and black. The man who shot him, George Zimmerman, is mixed hispanic/white. Zimmerman was head of the neighborhood watch and was allowed to carry a firearm. His neighborhood had several recent break-ins and the police rarely made it on scene in time to catch the robbers so he decided to pursue and question Martin, who was walking around in the rain looking into houses and acting "suspicious, like he is on drugs". (Martin was smoking Marijuana) So far, the claim is that when confronted, Martin supposedly attacked Zimmerman, knocking him to the ground and bashing his head into the ground (injuries on Z support this) and Zimmerman then shot and killed Martin in self defense. Right now its up to the court to decide whether Martin attacked Zimmerman, and whether Zimmerman had to right to defend himself with deadly force. The way I see it, no one, but no one should use deadly force unless the victim is on his property or it the police. That neighbor watch is illegitimate if used as a deterrence for "whatever" crimes, mainly their task is to report and assist the law enforcement but not interfere with crimes that takes place (just to avoid this kind of situations) , judging by that , I might consider it as a murder. No fucking way you're serious. If you're being actively beaten by anyone, even ignoring if that's the case here, if you're being actively beaten on the street, for any reason, you're not going to attempt to do anything to get out of it? Gotta be a troll.
I don't think so. Why are you getting in a fight in the first place? You say nothing about why you're getting beaten -- and that matters. Getting into an altercation with somebody in public doesn't give you carte blanche to protect yourself by any means necessary. If you're assaulted, then yes, protect yourself. But if its a mutual altercation, or something you yourself started, then "self-defense" is just a cowardly excuse for drastic actions. It's very, very rare that someone assaults somebody in open public for no reason.
All I know is it's a real shame that we let people like Zimmerman carry guns and call themselves our protectors.
I know not everyone agrees, but to me, that's what this story has always been about. We encourage people to carry weapons and to protect themselves, and then the ugly side to that is you get people who see the chance to compensate for their shortcomings. "I may be poor and uneducated, but I protect the streets." What drove Zimmerman to follow Martin? The fact that he thought Martin was going to hurt somebody in the neighborhood? I still see zero reason to make that assumption. I'd sooner assume that Zimmerman just really wanted a chance to be a hero.
|
On July 17 2012 23:30 Zorkmid wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 17 2012 22:30 MooseyFate wrote:
Basically you got it but as usual in the US, the race card was played and it became a huge news story.
The problem has been with the Media / Rights Groups trying to make it out that Zimmerman was a gun crazy racists and now sexual molester that tracked down and gunned down a poor innocent kid who just wanted to get skittles and ice tea.
The boy who was shot, Trayvon Martin, was 17 and black. The man who shot him, George Zimmerman, is mixed hispanic/white. Zimmerman was head of the neighborhood watch and was allowed to carry a firearm. His neighborhood had several recent break-ins and the police rarely made it on scene in time to catch the robbers so he decided to pursue and question Martin, who was walking around in the rain looking into houses and acting "suspicious, like he is on drugs". (Martin was smoking Marijuana)
So far, the claim is that when confronted, Martin supposedly attacked Zimmerman, knocking him to the ground and bashing his head into the ground (injuries on Z support this) and Zimmerman then shot and killed Martin in self defense.
Right now its up to the court to decide whether Martin attacked Zimmerman, and whether Zimmerman had to right to defend himself with deadly force.
Zimmerman was head of the neighborhood watch and was allowed to carry a firearm.
Is completely false and misleading. He's allowed to carry a firearm, sure. But this has got NOTHING to do with the neighborhood watch.Those who are part of a Neighborhood watch program are the eyes and ears of law enforcement. But that is all. Mr. Martin decided to directly engage with someone who he thought could be a criminal. This is something that all responsible Neighborhood Watch programs do not condone.
Please tell me you are a troll. Was he not appointed to head up the neighborhood watch by the gated community in which he lived?
As head of the neighborhood watch, is he not suppose to keep an eye out for suspicious persons in his neighborhood and contact the police? Didn't Zimmerman do exactly that?
So what I said is neither false or misleading. Stick to the facts please, not your "opinion". If you just want to ramble out your opinion and ignore facts, go to Yahoo comment section.
|
On July 17 2012 22:30 MooseyFate wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 22:19 HomeWorld wrote:
I really don't get it , I read the OP (and all the links, but everything is so fuzzy, no objective view). what's all about anyway ? CBA to parse through all ~ 70 forum pages to find out what the hell happened there.
As far as I've read, a person died and the one involved must justify his actions.
Is there anyone who can shed some light regarding this situation?! Basically you got it but as usual in the US, the race card was played and it became a huge news story. The problem has been with the Media / Rights Groups trying to make it out that Zimmerman was a gun crazy racists and now sexual molester that tracked down and gunned down a poor innocent kid who just wanted to get skittles and ice tea. The boy who was shot, Trayvon Martin, was 17 and black. The man who shot him, George Zimmerman, is mixed hispanic/white. Zimmerman was head of the neighborhood watch and was allowed to carry a firearm. His neighborhood had several recent break-ins and the police rarely made it on scene in time to catch the robbers so he decided to pursue and question Martin, who was walking around in the rain looking into houses and acting "suspicious, like he is on drugs". (Martin was smoking Marijuana) So far, the claim is that when confronted, Martin supposedly attacked Zimmerman, knocking him to the ground and bashing his head into the ground (injuries on Z support this) and Zimmerman then shot and killed Martin in self defense. Right now its up to the court to decide whether Martin attacked Zimmerman, and whether Zimmerman had to right to defend himself with deadly force.
Lol. If you can tell who has/has not been smoking weed just by looking at their walking then you are a god amoung the modern police force. Like seriously. There is no diffence between a stoned person walking down the street and a sober person walking down the street. Maybe the stoned person's shoulders are more relaxed.
|
On July 17 2012 23:45 MooseyFate wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 23:30 Zorkmid wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 17 2012 22:30 MooseyFate wrote:
Basically you got it but as usual in the US, the race card was played and it became a huge news story.
The problem has been with the Media / Rights Groups trying to make it out that Zimmerman was a gun crazy racists and now sexual molester that tracked down and gunned down a poor innocent kid who just wanted to get skittles and ice tea.
The boy who was shot, Trayvon Martin, was 17 and black. The man who shot him, George Zimmerman, is mixed hispanic/white. Zimmerman was head of the neighborhood watch and was allowed to carry a firearm. His neighborhood had several recent break-ins and the police rarely made it on scene in time to catch the robbers so he decided to pursue and question Martin, who was walking around in the rain looking into houses and acting "suspicious, like he is on drugs". (Martin was smoking Marijuana)
So far, the claim is that when confronted, Martin supposedly attacked Zimmerman, knocking him to the ground and bashing his head into the ground (injuries on Z support this) and Zimmerman then shot and killed Martin in self defense.
Right now its up to the court to decide whether Martin attacked Zimmerman, and whether Zimmerman had to right to defend himself with deadly force.
Zimmerman was head of the neighborhood watch and was allowed to carry a firearm.
Is completely false and misleading. He's allowed to carry a firearm, sure. But this has got NOTHING to do with the neighborhood watch.Those who are part of a Neighborhood watch program are the eyes and ears of law enforcement. But that is all. Mr. Martin decided to directly engage with someone who he thought could be a criminal. This is something that all responsible Neighborhood Watch programs do not condone. Please tell me you are a troll. Was he not appointed to head up the neighborhood watch by the gated community in which he lived? As head of the neighborhood watch, is he not suppose to keep an eye out for suspicious persons in his neighborhood and contact the police? Didn't Zimmerman do exactly that? So what I said is neither false or misleading. Stick to the facts please, not your "opinion". If you just want to ramble out your opinion and ignore facts, go to Yahoo comment section.
Every word I said was a fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
