|
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. |
Not to take anything away from DaFreak who's being as objective as possible, but all I can say to this article is "who cares?".
Its about 95% sensationalism with about 5% content thats not even worth reading. Every school protects their students, and its not like Trayvon is a special case. Obama smoked pot as well, and hes the fucking president.
Yeah man, because stealing is okay.
Nice to know that that's not even worth reading, because.
“Oh, God, oh, my God, oh, God,” really? This isn't a fiction book, report the facts. Why is this quote so important, and who is "one major"?
"I don't like what this says so I will call it fiction and admonish people to 'report the facts' while presenting zero facts."
Jesus imagine how much tax people would pay just to fund the amount of prisons if we arrested 50% of students from every school for crimes like this. Kids do stupid shit, the more kids we put in jail, the worse our society ends up in the long run. Even I was worse than this at one point, who knows where I would be if I got imprisoned for all the stupid shit I did, and many many other kids were the same. Also should this change the result of a trial when I get shot? Of course not.
Red herring and more stupid shit. Yes, blithely dismissing theft as "stupid shit" that apparently shouldn't have real consequences is sure to make society better in the long run.
Yes, you should have been imprisoned if you did worse than that at one point.
Who gave newspapers a right to say something about someone they know nothing about? With this logic a lot of famous people and apparently the majority of people in Colorado has been "diverted into nothing useful" and are "allowed to wander the streets".
"I disagree with this so obviously the people saying it have no idea what they're talking about."
I like how you're so laser-focused on the weed and not on the stealing and thuggery about beating up "snitches" and illegally acquiring guns.
The point is Trayvon was doing nothing wrong at the time given the little or no evidence that Zimmerman had. Apparently his past "criminal records" justify Zimmerman's "immortal words". I don't think I need to say any more than this, you guys should be able to figure out why a quote like this invalidates the entire article.
The point is a proper response to being asked what you are doing when you are doing nothing wrong is not physical assault. I have been taking a walk in my own damn neighborhood not more than a quarter-mile from my home and been confronted by a jackass neighbor accusing me of "casing houses." This man was far more confrontational and abusive than Zimmerman was (not hard, since Zimmerman wasn't being abusive at all). I didn't jump him and start pounding his head into the pavement because he pissed me off. I don't think I need to say any more than this, you guys should be able to figure out why beating someone up because they made you angry is not valid behavior.
Terrible journalism at its finest.
Terrible, pathetic posting at its finest.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Everything about Trayvon Martin's criminal history is besides the point and even if he had been breaking into people's homes that very night Zimmerman still had no right to kill him. Them putting Trayvon's past on trial is utterly shameful, and I just hope that the jury is smart enough to see that. Their case still hinges on heresay from the killer and they are just trying to make his story more easy to believe.
|
On May 27 2013 14:16 theaxis12 wrote:
Everything about Trayvon Martin's criminal history is besides the point and even if he had been breaking into people's homes that very night Zimmerman still had no right to kill him. Them putting Trayvon's past on trial is utterly shameful, and I just hope that the jury is smart enough to see that. Their case still hinges on heresay from the killer and they are just trying to make his story more easy to believe.
Not really. His past showing that he has a history of robbery, drug, and gun crimes does play into exactly why Zimmerman confronted trayvon. The case doesn't just hinge on the guys testimony when Zimmerman has all of the physical evidence to back his story up.
|
On May 27 2013 14:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Not to take anything away from DaFreak who's being as objective as possible, but all I can say to this article is "who cares?".
Its about 95% sensationalism with about 5% content thats not even worth reading. Every school protects their students, and its not like Trayvon is a special case. Obama smoked pot as well, and hes the fucking president. Yeah man, because stealing is okay. Nice to know that that's not even worth reading, because. Show nested quote +“Oh, God, oh, my God, oh, God,” really? This isn't a fiction book, report the facts. Why is this quote so important, and who is "one major"? "I don't like what this says so I will call it fiction and admonish people to 'report the facts' while presenting zero facts." Show nested quote +Jesus imagine how much tax people would pay just to fund the amount of prisons if we arrested 50% of students from every school for crimes like this. Kids do stupid shit, the more kids we put in jail, the worse our society ends up in the long run. Even I was worse than this at one point, who knows where I would be if I got imprisoned for all the stupid shit I did, and many many other kids were the same. Also should this change the result of a trial when I get shot? Of course not. Red herring and more stupid shit. Yes, blithely dismissing theft as "stupid shit" that apparently shouldn't have real consequences is sure to make society better in the long run. Yes, you should have been imprisoned if you did worse than that at one point. Show nested quote +Who gave newspapers a right to say something about someone they know nothing about? With this logic a lot of famous people and apparently the majority of people in Colorado has been "diverted into nothing useful" and are "allowed to wander the streets". "I disagree with this so obviously the people saying it have no idea what they're talking about." I like how you're so laser-focused on the weed and not on the stealing and thuggery about beating up "snitches" and illegally acquiring guns. Show nested quote +The point is Trayvon was doing nothing wrong at the time given the little or no evidence that Zimmerman had. Apparently his past "criminal records" justify Zimmerman's "immortal words". I don't think I need to say any more than this, you guys should be able to figure out why a quote like this invalidates the entire article. The point is a proper response to being asked what you are doing when you are doing nothing wrong is not physical assault. I have been taking a walk in my own damn neighborhood not more than a quarter-mile from my home and been confronted by a jackass neighbor accusing me of "casing houses." This man was far more confrontational and abusive than Zimmerman was (not hard, since Zimmerman wasn't being abusive at all). I didn't jump him and start pounding his head into the pavement because he pissed me off. I don't think I need to say any more than this, you guys should be able to figure out why beating someone up because they made you angry is not valid behavior. Terrible, pathetic posting at its finest.
I don't need to post facts, I am criticizing a professional journalist for trying to mislead people. It is very unprofessional for journalists to input their own opinion as fact.
Case in point,
Instead, Martin was “diverted” into nothing useful. Just days after his non-arrest, he was allowed to wander the streets of Sanford high and alone looking, in Zimmerman’s immortal words, “like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something.”
Yes, you should have been imprisoned if you did worse than that at one point.
Thanks Mr.Backseat Cop. Nice for you to tell me how the laws should be in Australia.
There's a reason schools protect their students, and almost every school does it. There's nothing special about Trayvon or the school he went to and I posted some reasons why. For some reason this article makes it out that this school and Trayvon is a completely unique case.
Red herring and more stupid shit. Yes, blithely dismissing theft as "stupid shit" that apparently shouldn't have real consequences is sure to make society better in the long run.
I never said Trayvon shouldn't get punished. The point the journalist implied was that if Trayvon got arrested, he would never have been in this incident, which is just stupid. Trayvon got punished for his actions, he just didn't get arrested. Most schools punish their own students with their own set of rules, they do not call the police to arrest them.
Key phrase here
Zimmerman's immortal words
That's not biased at all...
The entire article is almost based on heresay.
“Oh, God, oh, my God, oh, God,” one major reportedly said when first looking at Martin’s data. He realized that Martin had been suspended twice already that school year for offenses that should have gotten him arrested – once for getting caught with a burglary tool and a dozen items of female jewelry, the second time for getting caught with marijuana and a marijuana pipe.
Again, who is this "one major". For all we know, this person and what "he realised" could have been completely made up.
How about I write an article about how Zimmerman is a convicted rapist and gun wielding maniac and put this phrase in it.
"Oh, God, oh, my God, oh, God,” one major reportedly said when first looking at Zimmerman's data”
I mean I'm not wrong, because a major "reportedly" said it. You see how stupid it sounds?
The point is a proper response to being asked what you are doing when you are doing nothing wrong is not physical assault. I have been taking a walk in my own damn neighborhood not more than a quarter-mile from my home and been confronted by a jackass neighbor accusing me of "casing houses." This man was far more confrontational and abusive than Zimmerman was (not hard, since Zimmerman wasn't being abusive at all). I didn't jump him and start pounding his head into the pavement because he pissed me off. I don't think I need to say any more than this, you guys should be able to figure out why beating someone up because they made you angry is not valid behavior.
Red herring and more stupid shit. Yes, blithely dismissing theft as "stupid shit" that apparently shouldn't have real consequences is sure to make society better in the long run.
Yes, you should have been imprisoned if you did worse than that at one point.
"I don't like what this says so I will call it fiction and admonish people to 'report the facts' while presenting zero facts."
Its nice of you to be a total jerk and then make this completely hypocritical point which pretty much sums up your entire post. You didn't post facts, you just gave this biased view of what you think happened, thus concluding own biased answer as to what the result should have been. For all we know, Zimmerman could have thrown the first punch which invalidates your lovely story about your neighbour, there is no concrete evidence as to what happened. Regardless, this point is completely irrelevant to my post. Nice red herring.
You completely misconstrued my post and completely missed the point of it. See the poster above me (theaxis), who is more in line with the point I was making.
|
On May 27 2013 14:31 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 14:16 theaxis12 wrote:
Everything about Trayvon Martin's criminal history is besides the point and even if he had been breaking into people's homes that very night Zimmerman still had no right to kill him. Them putting Trayvon's past on trial is utterly shameful, and I just hope that the jury is smart enough to see that. Their case still hinges on heresay from the killer and they are just trying to make his story more easy to believe. Not really. His past showing that he has a history of robbery, drug, and gun crimes does play into exactly why Zimmerman confronted trayvon. The case doesn't just hinge on the guys testimony when Zimmerman has all of the physical evidence to back his story up.
The drug crime was an empty bag with traces of marijuana. He had traces of thc in his system which showed he hadn't smoked in the last 30 days. Oh and also text messages with pictures of drugs.
The robbery was over jewelry he apparently couldn't have owned and a screwdriver. Not enough grounds to be actually arrested.
The gun crime is about him texting with photos of a gun.
In the end who was actually carrying a gun and ended up with the gun crime?
Hmmm
iirc Zimmerman confronted Trayvon without being sure who he was, so that logic doesn't really stand. Correct me if I'm wrong.
|
On May 27 2013 15:07 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 14:31 Sermokala wrote:On May 27 2013 14:16 theaxis12 wrote:
Everything about Trayvon Martin's criminal history is besides the point and even if he had been breaking into people's homes that very night Zimmerman still had no right to kill him. Them putting Trayvon's past on trial is utterly shameful, and I just hope that the jury is smart enough to see that. Their case still hinges on heresay from the killer and they are just trying to make his story more easy to believe. Not really. His past showing that he has a history of robbery, drug, and gun crimes does play into exactly why Zimmerman confronted trayvon. The case doesn't just hinge on the guys testimony when Zimmerman has all of the physical evidence to back his story up. The drug crime was an empty bag with traces of marijuana. He had traces of thc in his system which showed he hadn't smoked in the last 30 days. Oh and also text messages with pictures of drugs. The robbery was over jewelry he apparently couldn't have owned and a screwdriver. Not enough grounds to be actually arrested. The gun crime is about him texting with photos of a gun. In the end who was actually carrying a gun and ended up with the gun crime? Hmmm iirc Zimmerman confronted Trayvon without being sure who he was, so that logic doesn't really stand. Correct me if I'm wrong.
They found stolen jewelry that was reported stolen and a used screwdriver he used to steal the jewelry in the locker that he owned. They didn't arrest him because they already had arrested too many black people and decided to whitewash the records. He didn't buy the gun legally so he was de facto committed a gun crime.
Zimmerman confronted Trayvon because he looked suspicious. Suspicion that was justified with trayvons past. Zimmerman didn't commit a gun crime and was just defending himself on the ground as all the physical evidence on the ground attests to. Its not a crime to ask someone what they're doing. Its a crime to assault someone for doing so. its not a crime to defend yourself from that assault, doubly so if its fatal.
|
On May 27 2013 15:20 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 15:07 sluggaslamoo wrote:On May 27 2013 14:31 Sermokala wrote:On May 27 2013 14:16 theaxis12 wrote:
Everything about Trayvon Martin's criminal history is besides the point and even if he had been breaking into people's homes that very night Zimmerman still had no right to kill him. Them putting Trayvon's past on trial is utterly shameful, and I just hope that the jury is smart enough to see that. Their case still hinges on heresay from the killer and they are just trying to make his story more easy to believe. Not really. His past showing that he has a history of robbery, drug, and gun crimes does play into exactly why Zimmerman confronted trayvon. The case doesn't just hinge on the guys testimony when Zimmerman has all of the physical evidence to back his story up. The drug crime was an empty bag with traces of marijuana. He had traces of thc in his system which showed he hadn't smoked in the last 30 days. Oh and also text messages with pictures of drugs. The robbery was over jewelry he apparently couldn't have owned and a screwdriver. Not enough grounds to be actually arrested. The gun crime is about him texting with photos of a gun. In the end who was actually carrying a gun and ended up with the gun crime? Hmmm iirc Zimmerman confronted Trayvon without being sure who he was, so that logic doesn't really stand. Correct me if I'm wrong. They found stolen jewelry that was reported stolen and a used screwdriver he used to steal the jewelry in the locker that he owned. They didn't arrest him because they already had arrested too many black people and decided to whitewash the records. He didn't buy the gun legally so he was de facto committed a gun crime. Zimmerman confronted Trayvon because he looked suspicious. Suspicion that was justified with trayvons past. Zimmerman didn't commit a gun crime and was just defending himself on the ground as all the physical evidence on the ground attests to. Its not a crime to ask someone what they're doing. Its a crime to assault someone for doing so. its not a crime to defend yourself from that assault, doubly so if its fatal.
That's only if Zimmerman can prove that he wasn't assaulted first, but we don't have concrete evidence. We only have evidence that Zimmerman was likely attacked by Trayvon. Trayvon could have been justified in the attack, we don't know. In the end the texts about guns don't really hold up when Trayvon wasn't carrying a gun, and Zimmerman was.
I'm willing to take back these statements if you can post me links to prove that I'm wrong.
It was that M-DSPD internal affairs investigation which revealed in October 2011 Trayvon Martin was searched by School Resource Officer, Darryl Dunn. The search of Trayvon Martin’s backpack turned up at least 12 pcs of ladies jewelry, and a man’s watch, in addition to a flat head screwdriver described as “a burglary tool”.
When Trayvon was questioned about who owned the jewelry and where it came from, he claimed he was just holding it for a “friend”. A “friend” he would not name.
Later, after the police report was outlined in the Robles article, and despite Trayvon being suspended for the second time in a new school year, Martin family attorney, Benjamin Crump, said Trayvon’s dad, Tracy Martin, and Trayvon’s mom, Sybrina Fulton, did not know anything about the jewelry case.
Its not really enough grounds for an arrest, I mean its likely he did it but please show me the article which says that it was reported stolen and they could match two and two together. Innocent until proven guilty.
Also please show me the article which shows that Trayvon actually possessed a gun. The only ones I can see are about photos and texts talking about guns. This is not illegal.
As it stands, none of these actions actually warrant an arrest or criminal record.
|
|
|
I take back everything, this guy is clearly going to become a serial killer. Take him out asap, get the swat team.
|
On May 27 2013 15:48 sluggaslamoo wrote:I take back everything, this guy is clearly going to become a serial killer. Take him out asap, get the swat team.
He was also in possession of ''burglary tools'' which means that he would have gotten arrested twice if it wasn't for the police department making it look like crime was going down... or something like that.
As somebody who doesn't live in the US I honestly think that it's retarded to arrest somebody because he owns marijuana or is in possession of ''burglary tools'' - Did he use them? What kinds of burglary tools because some of those are multipurpose and could be circumstantial.
|
sluggyslawhatever
I don't need to post facts,
Well then, no one needs to waste their time on you.
|
I am having a hard time finding the source but someone here on page 94 said that Zimmerman did NOT confront Martin. Instead Martin confronted Zimmerman i.e initiated first. Anyone has source to this?
Because it doesn't matter what is there because if they can prove that Martin was the aggressor then this whole case is done straight up.
|
On May 29 2013 10:12 heroyi wrote:
I am having a hard time finding the source but someone here on page 94 said that Zimmerman did NOT confront Martin. Instead Martin confronted Zimmerman i.e initiated first. Anyone has source to this?
Because it doesn't matter what is there because if they can prove that Martin was the aggressor then this whole case is done straight up.
Considering that martin didn't have any physical damage (other then the gunshot) and Zimmerman had numerous places where he was beaten its pretty easy to see who was the "aggressor".
Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch guy trying to prevent people from robbing homes in his neighborhood. Along comes a young black youth on pot looking like hes going to try and rob some house's and he goes and asks him what hes doing in the area.
Pretty open and shut case as far as I see it.
|
On May 29 2013 10:18 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2013 10:12 heroyi wrote:
I am having a hard time finding the source but someone here on page 94 said that Zimmerman did NOT confront Martin. Instead Martin confronted Zimmerman i.e initiated first. Anyone has source to this?
Because it doesn't matter what is there because if they can prove that Martin was the aggressor then this whole case is done straight up. Considering that martin didn't have any physical damage (other then the gunshot) and Zimmerman had numerous places where he was beaten its pretty easy to see who was the "aggressor". Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch guy trying to prevent people from robbing homes in his neighborhood. Along comes a young black youth on pot looking like hes going to try and rob some house's and he goes and asks him what hes doing in the area. Pretty open and shut case as far as I see it.
Which is why I am curious as to why they were excluded.
|
On May 29 2013 10:18 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2013 10:12 heroyi wrote:
I am having a hard time finding the source but someone here on page 94 said that Zimmerman did NOT confront Martin. Instead Martin confronted Zimmerman i.e initiated first. Anyone has source to this?
Because it doesn't matter what is there because if they can prove that Martin was the aggressor then this whole case is done straight up. Considering that martin didn't have any physical damage (other then the gunshot) and Zimmerman had numerous places where he was beaten its pretty easy to see who was the "aggressor". Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch guy trying to prevent people from robbing homes in his neighborhood. Along comes a young black youth on pot looking like hes going to try and rob some house's and he goes and asks him what hes doing in the area. Pretty open and shut case as far as I see it.
In no way am I being disrespectful so please do not take it that way:
I am still not sold yet by this post as it really simplifies the situation. I mean iirc Martin was in the area on the phone with his GF hold a bag of skittles? and a tea. Doesn't seem like a conquest to go robbing.
Even if Zimmerman had a whole bunch of visible injuries that still won't stand very strong to the jury (don't have to delve that much into this). I mean does Martin have a notoriety to his name (infamous around that area?) or did Zimmerman in fact target him cause of his skin color (really hate to say this).
That's why I am asking about this. Because of the lawyer can prove that Martin in fact attacked Zimmerman FIRST then all of these speculations (of which I pointed out the majority above) don't matter shit.
|
Hm to me it seems like this Zimmerman was judged prematurely by the media. It doesnt look like anyone will be able to prove that Martin didnt attack Zimmerman. Even if the contrary can not be proven either, it would still be innocent until proven guilty.
So I think the outcome of any trial is pretty much predetermined.
This case got way too much attention and way too many people judged it without actually knowing what happened. Just because of political leanings.
|
I dont see how the criminal background that he apparently had is really relevant to the events that transpired the night of the shooting. As the guy above me said, he had a bag of skittles and tea. Unless Zimmerman somehow knew who Martin was and also somehow knew about his hidden background, how are these facts really relevant to the incident itself?
All of this aside, as some of the other posters have said, I think we need to know who initiated the confrontation, and I have no idea how we are ever going to figure that out for sure.
|
On May 29 2013 10:40 Aveng3r wrote:
I dont see how the criminal background that he apparently had is really relevant to the events that transpired the night of the shooting. As the guy above me said, he had a bag of skittles and tea. Unless Zimmerman somehow knew who Martin was and also somehow knew about his hidden background, how are these facts really relevant to the incident itself?
All of this aside, as some of the other posters have said, I think we need to know who initiated the confrontation, and I have no idea how we are ever going to figure that out for sure.
To be honest, I don't think anyone but George Zimmerman himself knows. The thing that kind of stuck out to me was the fact that Zimmerman seems like he is a pretty big dude to be getting his ass kicked by some young kid. I don't know if he provoked the fight or not, but that part is pretty surprising to me.
|
On May 29 2013 10:38 Redox wrote:
Hm to me it seems like this Zimmerman was judged prematurely by the media. It doesnt look like anyone will be able to prove that Martin didnt attack Zimmerman. Even if the contrary can not be proven either, it would still be innocent until proven guilty.
So I think the outcome of any trial is pretty much predetermined.
This case got way too much attention and way too many people judged it without actually knowing what happened. Just because of political leanings.
I really do hate how media portrayed Zimmerman so damn quickly. Just because Martin was a minority was the only reason why the Media was on this topic so heavily and I really do hate that.
On May 29 2013 10:40 Aveng3r wrote:
I dont see how the criminal background that he apparently had is really relevant to the events that transpired the night of the shooting. As the guy above me said, he had a bag of skittles and tea. Unless Zimmerman somehow knew who Martin was and also somehow knew about his hidden background, how are these facts really relevant to the incident itself?
All of this aside, as some of the other posters have said, I think we need to know who initiated the confrontation, and I have no idea how we are ever going to figure that out for sure.
To both posters: Again I keep hearing that both the GF (surprising :o) and Zimmerman (obviously) both agree that Martin was to engage first. If the GF, unwittingly or w.e reason, stands by this statement then I think they have all the evidence they need to let Zimmerman go. Hell I don't think Zimmerman even has any records does he (I could be wrong and if so please enlighten me)?
|
On May 29 2013 10:40 Aveng3r wrote:
I dont see how the criminal background that he apparently had is really relevant to the events that transpired the night of the shooting. As the guy above me said, he had a bag of skittles and tea. Unless Zimmerman somehow knew who Martin was and also somehow knew about his hidden background, how are these facts really relevant to the incident itself?
All of this aside, as some of the other posters have said, I think we need to know who initiated the confrontation, and I have no idea how we are ever going to figure that out for sure.
The background plays a role in judging if Martin could have attacked Zimmerman or not which forced Zimmerman to defend himself. A criminal background makes this possibility more likely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
