Ishkur: I alone am best: Detaining someone - Not even true he's making stuff up.

Question: What was Zimmerman planning to do when he caught up to Martin? He already made the 9/11 call, so the Police are on their way. Can we not make the safe assertion that his intention was to make sure Martin did not get away?

....that's detainment.

He was making sure he knew where he had gone for when the police showed up. He did not want to lose line of sight with him. He wasn't chasing him to catch up and detain him.

Also detainment doesn't mean what you think it means if you think pursuing someone is detainment.

I alone am best: Following someone - Not illegal. Questioning someone - Not illegal.

it's against any operating procedures for neighborhood watches you can find that's for sure. They also teach you not to do such things in your concealed carry classes and apparently they also tell you not to do that when you are on the phone with 911... In this thread about a teen getting killed by a vigilante you might be asking yourself why they have such recommendations. The answer is to avoid having vigilantes kill kids as part of your neighborhood watch.

It's almost like none of us know what actually happened, and yet are completely convinced about the appropriate resolution to this situation.

Headso: I alone am best: Following someone - Not illegal. Questioning someone - Not illegal.

it's against any operating procedures for neighborhood watches you can find that's for sure. They also teach you not to do such things in your concealed carry classes and apparently they also tell you not to do that when you are on the phone with 911... In this thread about a teen getting killed by a vigilante you might be asking yourself why they have such recommendations. The answer is to avoid having vigilantes kill kids as part of your neighborhood watch.

So we go from illegal to not advised then? Well its not advised you drink your own urine but I do it because its sterile and I like the way it tastes.

I think everyone learned a valuable lesson from this event - if you are going to beat the shiat out of someone, make sure they don't have a gun, or else they might kill you.

All conclusions I've read either in support of Zimmerman or Martin have been based on speculation and each poster's particular blend of prejudices. Zimmerman is the only one that actually knows whether he was attacked and to what degree. That pisses a lot of people off because it puts all the power in his hands. So they make up scenarios that sound plausible. Doesn't change a thing. The fact is - all people have to go on is their own speculations - myself included.

DROxINxTHExWIND: Killing them when you don;t get the answer youre looking for IS illegal. But lets just assume Zimmerman did everything wrong right up until the instant before he killed Trayvon for attacking him unprovoked. Seems like a rational response.

Are you TRYING to be ridiculous? If you were there to witness all these details that aren't supported in any way by any evidence - by not coming forward to the police, I think you are probably committing a felony.

Headso: I alone am best: Following someone - Not illegal. Questioning someone - Not illegal.

it's against any operating procedures for neighborhood watches you can find that's for sure. They also teach you not to do such things in your concealed carry classes and apparently they also tell you not to do that when you are on the phone with 911... In this thread about a teen getting killed by a vigilante you might be asking yourself why they have such recommendations. The answer is to avoid having vigilantes kill kids as part of your neighborhood watch.

So he's neighborhood watch or not? It seems like this talking point changes depending on which specific part of the narrative the anti-due process people are arguing.

I alone am best: Headso: I alone am best: Following someone - Not illegal. Questioning someone - Not illegal.

it's against any operating procedures for neighborhood watches you can find that's for sure. They also teach you not to do such things in your concealed carry classes and apparently they also tell you not to do that when you are on the phone with 911... In this thread about a teen getting killed by a vigilante you might be asking yourself why they have such recommendations. The answer is to avoid having vigilantes kill kids as part of your neighborhood watch.

So we go from illegal to not advised then? Well its not advised you drink your own urine but I do it because its sterile and I like the way it tastes.

I don't speak for anyone but myself. So "we" haven't gone anywhere, champ. You can drink your piss all day long, that isn't going to get kids killed walking home from the store.

Mr. Vicarious: It's almost like none of us know what actually happened, and yet are completely convinced about the appropriate resolution to this situation.

Or, even better, none of us knows what actually happened, but the law dictates the appropriate resolution whenever evidence of self-defense is corroborated, and contrary evidence of guilt is inconclusive or non-existent.

Phinn: Mr. Vicarious: It's almost like none of us know what actually happened, and yet are completely convinced about the appropriate resolution to this situation.

Or, even better, none of us knows what actually happened, but the law dictates the appropriate resolution whenever evidence of self-defense is corroborated, and contrary evidence of guilt is inconclusive or non-existent.

ding ding ding ding

Ishkur: I alone am best: He was making sure he knew where he had gone for when the police showed up. He did not want to lose line of sight with him. He wasn't chasing him to catch up and detain him.

But that's not what happened. He did not keep his distance at all. Instead he confronted Martin. Because he wanted Martin to stay put. Especially when Martin started running.

That's detainment.

Where are you getting all these details from? Martin ran from Zinmermang? And Zimmermang physically detained him? Source please.

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Where are you getting all these details from?

The Land of Make-Believe.

Ishkur: I alone am best: He was making sure he knew where he had gone for when the police showed up. He did not want to lose line of sight with him. He wasn't chasing him to catch up and detain him.

But that's not what happened. He did not keep his distance at all. Instead he confronted Martin. Because he wanted Martin to stay put. Especially when Martin started running.

That's detainment.

Do you think when he told the 911 operator that he lost sight of the kid he was actually right next to him keeping him from leaving? Martin was gone, he was out of danger at that point. From the way the "real" story played out not the made up "lets hang zimmerman because we think crazy things" he did not catch up to him at all. Martin came back and that's not detainment. Words have meanings. Detainment does not fit here because it didn't happen. If it did surely you can provide a citation for it.

Headso: I alone am best: Headso: I alone am best: Following someone - Not illegal. Questioning someone - Not illegal.

it's against any operating procedures for neighborhood watches you can find that's for sure. They also teach you not to do such things in your concealed carry classes and apparently they also tell you not to do that when you are on the phone with 911... In this thread about a teen getting killed by a vigilante you might be asking yourself why they have such recommendations. The answer is to avoid having vigilantes kill kids as part of your neighborhood watch.

So we go from illegal to not advised then? Well its not advised you drink your own urine but I do it because its sterile and I like the way it tastes.

I don't speak for anyone but myself. So "we" haven't gone anywhere, champ. You can drink your piss all day long, that isn't going to get kids killed walking home from the store.

You quoted me quoting someone else with something that I wasn't even arguing. So, maybe if you don't like being lumped into the "FOLLOWING SOMEONE IS EBIL" crowd you shouldn't quote me talking to them bro.

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Headso: I alone am best: Following someone - Not illegal. Questioning someone - Not illegal.

it's against any operating procedures for neighborhood watches you can find that's for sure. They also teach you not to do such things in your concealed carry classes and apparently they also tell you not to do that when you are on the phone with 911... In this thread about a teen getting killed by a vigilante you might be asking yourself why they have such recommendations. The answer is to avoid having vigilantes kill kids as part of your neighborhood watch.

So he's neighborhood watch or not? It seems like this talking point changes depending on which specific part of the narrative the anti-due process people are arguing.

My point is everywhere that they can give you info about if you should chase down people while armed or not they tell you not to do it. People who think this guy acted in a reasonable way with his gun have never owned a gun or worse they do but they have no gun safety knowledge at all.

JWideman: Here's the thing that I think black people should try to remember:
There's exactly as much evidence that Zimmerman murdered this kid (as opposed to self-defense) as there was that OJ killed his ex.

You just come from the Black Panther rally?

OJ murdered his ex and Ron Goldman. That is fact...sue me OJ to prove me wrong. When the blood of your victims, especially Ron Goldman, was found in your car....that is very convincing. OJ would have been convicted except for the awful handling of the case by Marcia Clark...who got totally schooled by Johnnie Cochran. OJ got thoroughly destroyed and embarrased in the civil suit

George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin in self-defense. That is not my opinion, that is fact. The key evidence shows that Martin jumped and was beating Zimmerman when he capped Martin. These "witnesses" that the Lynch Zimmerman media keep bringing up are totally un-credible since they did not see the incident. And, the side of the issue taken by Jew-killing, Black Racist Al Sharpton is always the WRONG side....and those are also facts about Sharpton

I alone am best: So, maybe if you don't like being lumped into the "FOLLOWING SOMEONE IS EBIL" crowd you shouldn't quote me talking to them bro.

you can't even stay on the same page yourself, now it is ebil(in all caps), whatever that means.

"Slimm?" He went by "Slimm?" In 2000 farking 12? What. A. Loser.

Phinn: Mr. Vicarious: It's almost like none of us know what actually happened, and yet are completely convinced about the appropriate resolution to this situation.

Or, even better, none of us knows what actually happened, but the law dictates the appropriate resolution whenever evidence of self-defense is corroborated, and contrary evidence of guilt is inconclusive or non-existent.

It also dictates the proper resolution when neither of those things are true as well. It even dictates what should happen if the opposite is true.

Headso: I alone am best: So, maybe if you don't like being lumped into the "FOLLOWING SOMEONE IS EBIL" crowd you shouldn't quote me talking to them bro.

you can't even stay on the same page yourself, now it is ebil(in all caps), whatever that means.

I'm on the same page. I was quoting someone who said it was unlawful to follow and question someone. I said it wasn't. You quoted me about how its not advised, which had nothing to do with the legality of the situation from my original post. I just assumed you were one of the "following someone is unlawful". If I offended you about it I apologize. Aslo Ebil(misspelling of the word Evil) was my attempt at hyperbole.

I also don't drink my own urine. I was trying to fit a quote from Dodgeball the film into it and got lazy.

Ishkur:
But that's not what happened. He did not keep his distance at all. Instead he confronted Martin. Because he wanted Martin to stay put. Especially when Martin started running.

That's detainment.

That's fantasy land. There is no evidence that Zimmerman initiated a confrontation with Martin. None. Zero. Zilch.

That doesn't mean Zimmerman didn't initiate it. We don't know. We know he followed Martin. We also know he told the police that he had lost sight of Martin and was on his way back to his car. Maybe he was lying. We don't know.

I alone am best: I also don't drink my own urine.

well that makes one of us... have fun all!

I alone am best: Following someone - Not illegal. Questioning someone - Not illegal. Detaining someone - Not even true he's making stuff up.

Attacking someone - 100% Not legal.

It had to be an attack because "Stand Your Ground" only applies if your means of defense goes "BANG", so it couldn't have been the kid being defensive about some creep following him and chasing him. I bet we even know that Zimmerman could not have possibly laid hands anyone either, don't we. (Since you seem to have a psychic telling you things)

Headso: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Headso: I alone am best: Following someone - Not illegal. Questioning someone - Not illegal.

it's against any operating procedures for neighborhood watches you can find that's for sure. They also teach you not to do such things in your concealed carry classes and apparently they also tell you not to do that when you are on the phone with 911... In this thread about a teen getting killed by a vigilante you might be asking yourself why they have such recommendations. The answer is to avoid having vigilantes kill kids as part of your neighborhood watch.

So he's neighborhood watch or not? It seems like this talking point changes depending on which specific part of the narrative the anti-due process people are arguing.

My point is everywhere that they can give you info about if you should chase down people while armed or not they tell you not to do it. People who think this guy acted in a reasonable way with his gun have never owned a gun or worse they do but they have no gun safety knowledge at all.

Hypothetically speaking if someone runs and you lose sight of them and they can go down 3 different paths, is it irresponsible to walk and see which path they went down?

The only reason people are saying that Zimmerman "chased down" Martin is because they ended up together, but the kid had a huge head start on Zimmerman and the fight happened right where he originally lost sight of him. Him meeting up with Trayvon was likely more an unsuspected outcome than a goal.

(It's all irrelevant because up until that point no one did anything technically illegal and each person had a reasons for shoving/punching the other which is what turned it into a deadly situation, and we will never know for sure who what person was)

Ishkur: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Where are you getting all these details from? Martin ran from Zinmermang? And Zimmermang physically detained him? Source please.

You HAVE read the 9/11 and Trayvon's phone transcripts, right?

Yes. And per the gf's statement, Martin specifically said he wasn't going to run.

But please, paste the section of the transcript that states that Martin ran from Zimmermang, and Zimmermang detained him (as you originally claimed.)

Ishkur:
Why would Martin come back when HE was the one being followed and he was 70 yards from his home?

Zimmerman's story is complete horseshiat. When you're being followed, the natural response is to flee, and when you've escaped, you don't go back and assail your pursuer. Nothing Zimmerman says makes sense given the evidence.

Because 17 year old males are not known for their level-headedness?

You have no problem believing that Zimmerman was amped up and wanting a confrontation, is it so hard to believe that Martin decided to do the same thing?

Ishkur: I alone am best: Martin was gone, he was out of danger at that point.

Yeah, so why didn't Zimmerman leave him alone?

I alone am best: Martin came back and that's not detainment.

Why would Martin come back when HE was the one being followed and he was 70 yards from his home?

Zimmerman's story is complete horseshiat. When you're being followed, the natural response is to flee, and when you've escaped, you don't go back and assail your pursuer. Nothing Zimmerman says makes sense given the evidence.

Unless you feel like you just got punked and decide that your natural response wasn't warranted because you just smoked the fat bastard chasing you. How would you propose that zimmerman caught up with martin after martin had lost him and zimmerman stopped the pursuit? Did zimmerman reach deep down inside and pull out all the strength necessary to catch up to someone who had already outran him once, out paced him so bad in fact that he was out of sight?

Ishkur: Zimmerman's story is complete horseshiat. When you're being followed, the natural response is to flee, and when you've escaped, you don't go back and assail your pursuer. Nothing Zimmerman says makes sense given the evidence.

It's actually flee or fight and the location of the fight is right where Zimmerman originally lost sight of him. His phone call goes for almost a minute more after that. Martin could have been 3/4ths of the way home (from that cut through) if he actually fled.

Any white kid who goes into a black neighborhood deserves confrontation while a black kid going into a white neighborhood should be ignored.

Vlad_the_Inaner: It had to be an attack because "Stand Your Ground" only applies if your means of defense goes "BANG", so it couldn't have been the kid being defensive about some creep following him and chasing him. I bet we even know that Zimmerman could not have possibly laid hands anyone either, don't we. (Since you seem to have a psychic telling you things)

I think the use of SYG laws have misreported like a lot of things in this case. It's a pretty clear case of self defense with the only question being "who threw the first punch"?

Ishkur: redmid17: Does he grab Martin and keep him there? Does he yell out "Stop or I'll shoot!"? There has to some kind of evidence of an actual detention.

Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend at the time. I want to read those transcripts. I'm sure when they are released, they will paint a completely different picture than Zimmerman's alibi. Because the two stories don't even relate in any way, which means one is a complete bold-faced lie.

Considering Zimmerman was the one looking for trouble and Martin was the one eating snack food and going home, I'm going to side with Martin for now.

But I will always concede to the facts.

Again, please quote the part of the transcript that states that Martin ran, and Zimmermang detained him. Or admit you just pulled that little tidbit out of your anus.

Vlad_the_Inaner: I alone am best: Following someone - Not illegal. Questioning someone - Not illegal. Detaining someone - Not even true he's making stuff up.

Attacking someone - 100% Not legal.

It had to be an attack because "Stand Your Ground" only applies if your means of defense goes "BANG", so it couldn't have been the kid being defensive about some creep following him and chasing him. I bet we even know that Zimmerman could not have possibly laid hands anyone either, don't we. (Since you seem to have a psychic telling you things)

Or, you know it could be the eye witness who saw martin on top of zimmerman. Or the fact that zimmerman had injuries and martin had none.

Link (new window)

You're right though there isn't enough evidence that's just an admission by you as to why zimmerman should go free. All evidence points to him not committing a crime. Everything else is just conjecture made up by people that want to see him hang.

Ishkur: redmid17: Does he grab Martin and keep him there? Does he yell out "Stop or I'll shoot!"? There has to some kind of evidence of an actual detention.

Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend at the time. I want to read those transcripts. I'm sure when they are released, they will paint a completely different picture than Zimmerman's alibi. Because the two stories don't even relate in any way, which means one is a complete bold-faced lie.

Considering Zimmerman was the one looking for trouble and Martin was the one eating snack food and going home, I'm going to side with Martin for now.

But I will always concede to the facts.

You do know that there can only be transcripts for recorded calls, right?

His Twitter handle was misleading.

He did, in fact, have a limit.

Become what you wish to seem.

He wanted to be a thug, and died like one.

This is a problem why, again, exactly?

It's not exactly like America has any shortage of violent black teens.

Ishkur: redmid17: Do cell phone companies really keep a recording of every call or transcribe it to a text file?

Yes. Everything is recorded. Every text, every call, everything you do with your phone that uses your carrier.

This is not true.