If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   The audio "expert" who claims it was Trayvon and not Zimmerman screaming for help on the 911 tape will not be allowed to testify at trial   (usatoday.com) divider line 673
    More: Obvious, George Zimmerman, Mark O'Mara, the weekend, jury, screaming  
•       •       •

6085 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jun 2013 at 7:47 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



673 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-23 02:02:30 PM  

fredklein: ChaosStar: fredklein: ChaosStar: Except for the whole 'stalked and murdered an innocent young man' problem, of course.

Except that's not what happened, of course.
0/10

"Followed" no quotes, he didn't allegedly follow him while armed while legally conceal carrying (and after showing ill intent expressing frustration at police response times toward "these assholes" who "always get away") and then, after a confrontation, killed Trayvon in self defense after Martin attacked him, bashed his head into the concrete, and went for his gun.

Hows that?

ftfy

Contains facts not in evidence.

Giltric: fredklein: Giltric: Exactly.

Trayvon started the assault. Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force to defend himself.

No, by chasing Trayvon, Zimmerman started it.

Citation as to an event being an assault based on the criteria of following someone?

Look up 'stalking'. Following someone can be a crime, and even if it's not, it can be taken as an aggressive act. And, EVEN IF it isn't, we still don't know what happened when they met each other. But the safe bet is they continued to act in accordance with their personalities- hunter / prey.


And Angela Corey in all her overzealousness to go for broke never bothered to file anything about stalking.

Why would that be?

Probably because it doesn't fit the criteria of stalking.

Smarter minds than you are working on the case pal....Juris GEDs  need not apply.
 
2013-06-23 02:03:51 PM  

fredklein: Giltric: How many people are justified in assaulting the person who is "following" them in that picture.

Talk about strawmen. No one is "following" anyone in that picture. They are just walking down the sidewalk.

Zimmerman was not 'just walking down the sidewalk'- he was actually following Trayvon.


Citations as to "following" or "following and observing" being a crime?

Be vigilant citizen....if you see something, say something......
 
2013-06-23 02:12:55 PM  

Giltric: fredklein: Giltric: Zimmerman could have been an off duty cop for all Trayvon knew.

Even more reason to fear him.

And run away right?

Or do you think assaulting an off duty cop is justifiable?


It's a moot point because Zimmy was not a law enforcement officer of any kind.  Just a self-important douche with a gun who liked to chase little boys around.
 
2013-06-23 02:22:42 PM  

Oh_Enough_Already: gimmegimme: Giltric: fredklein: Giltric: Zimmerman could have been an off duty cop for all Trayvon knew.

Even more reason to fear him.

And run away right?

Or do you think assaulting an off duty cop is justifiable?

It's a moot point because Zimmy was not a law enforcement officer of any kind.  Just a self-important douche with a gun who liked to chase little boys around.

In what universe is a violent 17-year old thug a "little boy?"


Funny how you take exception at the implication Martin could have been a "little boy," but you don't seem to mind armed men following teenagers around.

In a vehicle...on foot...between houses.  Creepy!
 
2013-06-23 02:23:22 PM  

Oh_Enough_Already: In what universe is a violent 17-year old thug a "little boy?"


In what universe was Martin a "17-year-old thug"?

/Oh, I forgot. I was black.
 
2013-06-23 02:25:15 PM  

Oh_Enough_Already: gimmegimme: Giltric: fredklein: Giltric: Zimmerman could have been an off duty cop for all Trayvon knew.

Even more reason to fear him.

And run away right?

Or do you think assaulting an off duty cop is justifiable?

It's a moot point because Zimmy was not a law enforcement officer of any kind.  Just a self-important douche with a gun who liked to chase little boys around.

In what universe is a violent 17-year old thug a "little boy?"


Harlem?
 
2013-06-23 04:27:16 PM  
Zimmerman wanted justice and punishment done that night. Several break-ins had occurred previously, with the perpetrators escaping. They were described as "young black men". Zimmerman sees a young black wan walking down the street, immediately assumes that's he's responsible for the break-ins, and starts pursuing him. "These assholes always get away!" isn't a phrase someone who is merely suspicious of a stranger would use. Zimmerman had already judged and pronounced sentence on Trayvon solely because he was a young black man walking at night through a neighborhood that had experienced some trouble and he wanted someone to pay for it.

And what "suspicious activity" did Trayvon do to earn Zimmerman's wrath? Zimmerman's given three different stories: Trayvon was peering into windows; Trayvon was staring at houses; Trayvon was skipping down the street. So which was it?

Zimmerman also has a documented history of anger and violence, assaulting an officer and beating his wife, which is a lot more substantial and concrete than Trayvon's few tweet pictures, hearsay, and lack of criminal record.
 
2013-06-23 04:44:29 PM  

fredklein: ChaosStar: He made that quite clear when he said:
Dispatcher: What's your apartment number?
Zimmerman: It's a home. It's 1950, Oh, crap. I don't want to give it all out. I don't know where this kid is.
So yes, he was afraid to give out his information, because Martin could have followed him home to do anything.

So, you think Trayvon, who's been running away this whole time, actually wanted to follow the crazy guy with the gun back to his house??

That makes absolutely no sense.

Besides, that's Zimmerman's reasoning for not saying his address out loud. Which has absolutely nothing to do with not setting a meeting place (far from his house, if he wishes).

Giving out where he was going to be to meet the police meant Martin could have been waiting for him when he got there, or could have followed him there.

Again, makes no sense. Why would Trayvon, who is actively seeking to AVOID Zimmerman, suddenly decide to turn around and FOLLOW him?? Especially follow him to a meeting with the cops??

Average police response time is high, he had no idea when a officer was going to show up.

No it's not, you yourself said "The first officer was on scene about a minute and a half after the end of the phone call."

Kiddo look at the map, seriously, look at it. Zoom in if you can.
Here, look at the Google map.
https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=203577346 16 7583507267.0004bbdcc7c71244ae865
Where is Martin hiding? It's a farking open area of lawns. Even the trees aren't big enough to hide an Ethiopian behind.

Try looking at a different angle.

[img.fark.net image 392x594]

There are plenty of places to hide. There are fences and bushes and pillars (oh, my!).

Stop making shiat up .

Indeed.


Yes, Martin's ESP allowed him to know Zimmerman had a gun.
It all makes perfect sense when you stop trying to turn Martin into the sweet face little boy the media portrayed him as and instead think of him at a football playing teenager with a chip on his shoulder, a perchance for violence, and a knack for trouble.
Stop confusing what you know now with what either party knew at the time of the incident.

ft

fredklein: Contains facts not in evidence.


Such as what?

fredklein: Look up 'stalking'. Following someone can be a crime, and even if it's not, it can be taken as an aggressive act. And, EVEN IF it isn't, we still don't know what happened when they met each other. But the safe bet is they continued to act in accordance with their personalities- hunter / prey.


No you look up stalking. Just following someone is not a crime, and it's not an aggressive act. It doesn't matter what happened when they met, all that matters is Martin put Zimmerman's life in danger and Zimmerman defended himself from that threat to his life with deadly force. Clear self defense. None of all the other shiat you spew matters.
 
2013-06-23 04:46:13 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Zimmerman wanted justice and punishment done that night. Several break-ins had occurred previously, with the perpetrators escaping. They were described as "young black men". Zimmerman sees a young black wan walking down the street, immediately assumes that's he's responsible for the break-ins, and starts pursuing him. "These assholes always get away!" isn't a phrase someone who is merely suspicious of a stranger would use. Zimmerman had already judged and pronounced sentence on Trayvon solely because he was a young black man walking at night through a neighborhood that had experienced some trouble and he wanted someone to pay for it.

And what "suspicious activity" did Trayvon do to earn Zimmerman's wrath? Zimmerman's given three different stories: Trayvon was peering into windows; Trayvon was staring at houses; Trayvon was skipping down the street. So which was it?

Zimmerman also has a documented history of anger and violence, assaulting an officer and beating his wife, which is a lot more substantial and concrete than Trayvon's few tweet pictures, hearsay, and lack of criminal record.


Stupid and wrong all in the same post. Congrats.
Oh and please cite source for above
 
2013-06-23 04:51:48 PM  
Zimmerman strapped on a gun, chased someone down at night, started a fight, shot and killed the guy he was fighting with.  I don't think he planned all that out ahead of time, but that's certainly how it ended up.

And many of you think "Oh, yeah, obviously that's self defense, nothing wrong with that".  Completely nuts.
 
2013-06-23 04:52:44 PM  

Giltric: Be vigilant citizen....if you see something, say something......


Yes, "Say something". NOT "follow, engage, and shoot to kill". Can you tell the difference?
 
2013-06-23 05:06:18 PM  

fredklein: Giltric: Be vigilant citizen....if you see something, say something......

Yes, "Say something". NOT "follow, engage, and shoot to kill". Can you tell the difference?


If I spot someone swerving in their car around mile post 123.5 I'm going to follow their vehicle for as long as it takes for the police to catch up.

What's so bad about giving the police up to date information?

You have no evidence that shows that ZImmerman engaged Trayvon first.

Stick to the facts.
 
2013-06-23 05:08:34 PM  

ChaosStar: Yes, Martin's ESP allowed him to know Zimmerman had a gun.


How was Zimmerman carrying the gun? In a holster, probably.. Was it visible? Did he lift his shirt to put his cell phone in his pocket (having just finished a call), thus allowing the gun to be seen? Did he pull the gun when Trayvon came out of hiding?

There are many ways Trayvon could have seen it. Psychic powers not needed.

It all makes perfect sense when you stop trying to turn Martin into the sweet face little boy the media portrayed him as and instead think of him at a football playing teenager with a chip on his shoulder, a perchance for violence, and a knack for trouble.


Cites?

Oh, and who wouldn't 'have a chip on their shoulder' when your neighbors start following you around when you're walking home at night?

Stop confusing what you know now with what either party knew at the time of the incident.

Trayvon knew some guy was following him.
At some point, he found out the guy following him was armed.

What would YOU do in that situation?

fredklein: Contains facts not in evidence.

Such as what?


The part about killing Trayvon in self defense after Martin attacked him. You (and I) don't know what happened. Only two people do, and -surprise, surprise- one is dead. How convenient.

Just following someone is not a crime, and it's not an aggressive act.

So, you wouldn't be upset if I followed you, your wife, or daughter around? I somehow doubt that.

It doesn't matter what happened when they met, all that matters is Martin put Zimmerman's life in danger and Zimmerman defended himself from that threat to his life with deadly force.

It DOES matter, if Zimmerman put Trayvon's life in danger first. Then it was TRAYVON who was defending himself from that threat to his life with deadly force.
 
2013-06-23 05:14:24 PM  

ChaosStar: Zimmerman also has a documented history of anger and violence, assaulting an officer and beating his wife, which is a lot more substantial and concrete than Trayvon's few tweet pictures, hearsay, and lack of criminal record.

Stupid and wrong all in the same post. Congrats.
Oh and please cite source for above


In 2005, Zimmerman was charged with assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest, after shoving an officer while a friend of Zimmerman's was being questioned about underage drinking. The charges were reduced, then dropped when Zimmerman entered a pre-trial diversion program. Also in 2005, Zimmerman's ex-fiance filed a restraining order against him, alleging domestic violence.
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#George_Zimme r man
 
2013-06-23 05:19:28 PM  

Giltric: If I spot someone swerving in their car around mile post 123.5 I'm going to follow their vehicle for as long as it takes for the police to catch up.


Are you also going to get into a fight with them and shoot them dead? No? Oh.

What's so bad about giving the police up to date information?

"We don't need you to do that."

You have no evidence that shows that ZImmerman engaged Trayvon first.

Zimmerman was chasing Trayvon. He was the pursuer. The hunter.

Trayvon was running away.

Now, which person is more likely to be the one to initiate a physical confrontation- the hunter, or the prey? (Ignore the fact that chasing someone is itself a type of violence).

img.fark.net
 
2013-06-23 05:23:20 PM  

fredklein: ChaosStar: Yes, Martin's ESP allowed him to know Zimmerman had a gun.

How was Zimmerman carrying the gun? In a holster, probably.. Was it visible? Did he lift his shirt to put his cell phone in his pocket (having just finished a call), thus allowing the gun to be seen? Did he pull the gun when Trayvon came out of hiding?

There are many ways Trayvon could have seen it. Psychic powers not needed.

It all makes perfect sense when you stop trying to turn Martin into the sweet face little boy the media portrayed him as and instead think of him at a football playing teenager with a chip on his shoulder, a perchance for violence, and a knack for trouble.

Cites?

Oh, and who wouldn't 'have a chip on their shoulder' when your neighbors start following you around when you're walking home at night?

Stop confusing what you know now with what either party knew at the time of the incident.

Trayvon knew some guy was following him.
At some point, he found out the guy following him was armed.

What would YOU do in that situation?

fredklein: Contains facts not in evidence.

Such as what?

The part about killing Trayvon in self defense after Martin attacked him. You (and I) don't know what happened. Only two people do, and -surprise, surprise- one is dead. How convenient.

Just following someone is not a crime, and it's not an aggressive act.

So, you wouldn't be upset if I followed you, your wife, or daughter around? I somehow doubt that.

It doesn't matter what happened when they met, all that matters is Martin put Zimmerman's life in danger and Zimmerman defended himself from that threat to his life with deadly force.

It DOES matter, if Zimmerman put Trayvon's life in danger first. Then it was TRAYVON who was defending himself from that threat to his life with deadly force.


Since Florida isn't an open carry state then no, it wasn't visible and no, it wouldn't have been visible when he put his phone back in his pocket. How do I know? Because when you get a CWP you're trained on all this stuff. Your ccp being visible when you're doing things is a big no no.
Since Martin didn't come out of hiding, then no, he didn't pull the gun when Martin came out of hiding.
How could Martin punch someone in the face and end up on top of them if they had a gun drawn the entire time?

Are you saying Martin wasn't a football player when there's photographs of him in uniform? Are you saying he wasn't a troublemaker when he was on a school suspension? Perhaps you're saying he didn't have a chip on his shoulder, despite being sent by his mother to live with his father because she couldn't deal with him. I don't need citations for those, it's common knowledge. Just because there's someone following you doesn't give you cause to turn around and attack them.

No, it's pretty clear that Zimmerman was attacked with what could be perceived as deadly force by the injuries he sustained and the witness accounts.
You think somehow Zimmerman put Martin's life in jeopardy first despite all the evidence that Martin was never at Zimmerman's mercy? Please explain that one because it's gotta be a good one.
 
2013-06-23 05:24:51 PM  

fredklein: ChaosStar: Zimmerman also has a documented history of anger and violence, assaulting an officer and beating his wife, which is a lot more substantial and concrete than Trayvon's few tweet pictures, hearsay, and lack of criminal record.

Stupid and wrong all in the same post. Congrats.
Oh and please cite source for above

In 2005, Zimmerman was charged with assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest, after shoving an officer while a friend of Zimmerman's was being questioned about underage drinking. The charges were reduced, then dropped when Zimmerman entered a pre-trial diversion program. Also in 2005, Zimmerman's ex-fiance filed a restraining order against him, alleging domestic violence.
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#George_Zimme r man


Trayvon was charged with 2 counts of rape in 2009
 
2013-06-23 05:25:56 PM  

fredklein: ChaosStar: Zimmerman also has a documented history of anger and violence, assaulting an officer and beating his wife, which is a lot more substantial and concrete than Trayvon's few tweet pictures, hearsay, and lack of criminal record.

Stupid and wrong all in the same post. Congrats.
Oh and please cite source for above

In 2005, Zimmerman was charged with assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest, after shoving an officer while a friend of Zimmerman's was being questioned about underage drinking. The charges were reduced, then dropped when Zimmerman entered a pre-trial diversion program. Also in 2005, Zimmerman's ex-fiance filed a restraining order against him, alleging domestic violence.
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#George_Zimme r man


Oh you mean the undercover cop that was hassling his friend? I'd push some guy in plain clothes to if they were bothering my friends.
Alleged domestic violence is a far cry from "beating his wife"
Both are very short of a "history of anger and violence".

Keep lying to yourself though.
 
2013-06-23 05:44:34 PM  
Jesus farking Christ. I leave for 24 hours and you people are still at each other's throats.

Give it up. Neither opinion is going to win, and it's going to be a cluster no matter what happens.
 
2013-06-23 06:01:06 PM  

Giltric: Trayvon started the assault. Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force to defend himself.


Does that also apply if a would-be rapist's victim turn on him while he's following her to a suitably dark place for an attack?
 
2013-06-23 06:03:52 PM  

Molavian: Once he assaulted Zimmerman, Martin took it to a whole new level.

What's so hard for people to understand about this?


If you're being followed around by an armed stalker, why should you wait to be attacked?What I find hard to understand is why Mr Martin is not seen by some as having any right to confront the man stalking him. Would that have been too uppity?
 
2013-06-23 06:34:51 PM  

ChaosStar: fredklein: ChaosStar: Zimmerman also has a documented history of anger and violence, assaulting an officer and beating his wife, which is a lot more substantial and concrete than Trayvon's few tweet pictures, hearsay, and lack of criminal record.

Stupid and wrong all in the same post. Congrats.
Oh and please cite source for above

In 2005, Zimmerman was charged with assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest, after shoving an officer while a friend of Zimmerman's was being questioned about underage drinking. The charges were reduced, then dropped when Zimmerman entered a pre-trial diversion program. Also in 2005, Zimmerman's ex-fiance filed a restraining order against him, alleging domestic violence.
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#George_Zimme r man

Oh you mean the undercover cop that was hassling his friend? I'd push some guy in plain clothes to if they were bothering my friends.
Alleged domestic violence is a far cry from "beating his wife"
Both are very short of a "history of anger and violence".

Keep lying to yourself though.


"Give me proof!"
*proof is provided*
"Those don't count, undercover cops aren't cops and women should stay in the kitchen! But this black guy, now he's a menace II society, just look at those internet pictures and listen to that hearsay! Just because he doesn't have any record of doing wrong things doesn't mean he's not a vicious beast ready to destroy and mangle!"

How about the rest of my post? Or could you not think of anything to refute it?
 
2013-06-23 06:58:16 PM  

orbister: Molavian: Once he assaulted Zimmerman, Martin took it to a whole new level.

What's so hard for people to understand about this?

If you're being followed around by an armed stalker, why should you wait to be attacked?What I find hard to understand is why Mr Martin is not seen by some as having any right to confront the man stalking him. Would that have been too uppity?


How do you know the person following you is armed?
 
2013-06-23 07:12:54 PM  

ChaosStar: Since Florida isn't an open carry state then no, it wasn't visible and no, it wouldn't have been visible when he put his phone back in his pocket. How do I know? Because when you get a CWP you're trained on all this stuff. Your ccp being visible when you're doing things is a big no no.


So is shooting someone.

Since Martin didn't come out of hiding, then no, he didn't pull the gun when Martin came out of hiding.

And you know this... how?

How could Martin punch someone in the face and end up on top of them if they had a gun drawn the entire time?

1) Walk up to him.
2) Punch him in the face.
3) Jump on top of him.

It's not hard.

Are you saying Martin wasn't a football player when there's photographs of him in uniform?

Well, photographs aren't really proof anymore ever since the invention of PhotoShop, but... No, I'm not saying that.

Are you saying he wasn't a troublemaker when he was on a school suspension?

The schools are so farked up these days. They suspend kids for biting their pop-tarts into a vague 'gun-like' shape. So, a suspension doesn't really prove he was "a troublemaker".

Perhaps you're saying he didn't have a chip on his shoulder, despite being sent by his mother to live with his father because she couldn't deal with him

And his supposed anger towards his family is related to Zimmerman... how?

Just because there's someone following you doesn't give you cause to turn around and attack them.

Interesting. So, you think people can't protect themselves. Hmm. But you say Zimmerman was just protecting himself. I sense a contradiction.

No, it's pretty clear that Zimmerman was attacked with what could be perceived as deadly force by the injuries he sustained and the witness accounts.

Looking at the photos-

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/George_Zimmerman_b a ck_of_head.jpg

Meh. I've cut myself worse shaving.

You think somehow Zimmerman put Martin's life in jeopardy first despite all the evidence that Martin was never at Zimmerman's mercy? Please explain that one because it's gotta be a good one.

ZImmerman was armed, in pursuit of Trayvon. If an armed man is chasing you, you aren't at his mercy?
 
2013-06-23 07:18:15 PM  

ChaosStar: Oh you mean the undercover cop that was hassling his friend? I'd push some guy in plain clothes to if they were bothering my friends.


So you admit to being a violent person.

Alleged domestic violence is a far cry from "beating his wife"

"beating his wife" is practically the definition of "domestic violence".

Both are very short of a "history of anger and violence".

No, they pretty much define the term.

Keep lying to yourself though.

Back atcha.
 
2013-06-23 07:18:25 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: ChaosStar: fredklein: ChaosStar: Zimmerman also has a documented history of anger and violence, assaulting an officer and beating his wife, which is a lot more substantial and concrete than Trayvon's few tweet pictures, hearsay, and lack of criminal record.

Stupid and wrong all in the same post. Congrats.
Oh and please cite source for above

In 2005, Zimmerman was charged with assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest, after shoving an officer while a friend of Zimmerman's was being questioned about underage drinking. The charges were reduced, then dropped when Zimmerman entered a pre-trial diversion program. Also in 2005, Zimmerman's ex-fiance filed a restraining order against him, alleging domestic violence.
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#George_Zimme r man

Oh you mean the undercover cop that was hassling his friend? I'd push some guy in plain clothes to if they were bothering my friends.
Alleged domestic violence is a far cry from "beating his wife"
Both are very short of a "history of anger and violence".

Keep lying to yourself though.

"Give me proof!"
*proof is provided*
"Those don't count, undercover cops aren't cops and women should stay in the kitchen! But this black guy, now he's a menace II society, just look at those internet pictures and listen to that hearsay! Just because he doesn't have any record of doing wrong things doesn't mean he's not a vicious beast ready to destroy and mangle!"

How about the rest of my post? Or could you not think of anything to refute it?


I didn't ask for proof, I asked you to cite a source. I knew what you would cite about the officer, and I knew I could point out the logical fallacy that shoving a plain clothes police officer is hardly on the serious end of the "assaulting a police officer" spectrum you make it seem to be by claiming he has a history of violence and anger immediately beforehand.
You provided no proof to your claim that Zimmerman beat his wife in your citation, just that she alleged domestic violence. Not only could that be considered slanderous in the right situation, I'm gonna let you in on a little secret: women lie just like men.

The rest of your post is nothing but your flawed speculation and your own personal bias opinion of matters that happened. How can I refute your feelings on a matter, flawed though they may be?
 
2013-06-23 07:21:10 PM  

fredklein: ChaosStar: Oh you mean the undercover cop that was hassling his friend? I'd push some guy in plain clothes to if they were bothering my friends.

So you admit to being a violent person.

Alleged domestic violence is a far cry from "beating his wife"

"beating his wife" is practically the definition of "domestic violence".

Both are very short of a "history of anger and violence".

No, they pretty much define the term.

Keep lying to yourself though.

Back atcha.


You know, I normally don't do this, but I'm just going to ignore you. You're clearly trolling since you keep repeating the same things over and over that have been refuted, answered, and show to be blatant lies.
 
2013-06-23 07:22:28 PM  

orbister: Giltric: Trayvon started the assault. Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force to defend himself.

Does that also apply if a would-be rapist's victim turn on him while he's following her to a suitably dark place for an attack?


That's actually a very difficult hair to split:  What constitutes, legally, intent on the so-called "would be rapist's" part?  Say it's late, I'm walking along a street, and a woman happens to be in front of me.  She happens to be walking along the same path I am, because she is, say, parked in the same parking structure or lot as I am.   To her, I'm following her, and it's dark. To me, I don't even really notice she's there and I just want to get to my car.

Since she doesn't KNOW that that's the case, does the mere fact that I'm following her path, and happen to be following her since we're both going to the same place, and have a penis, suggest that I am a would-be rapist?  Or does it simply mean that I'm following her because she's going in the same direction I am?

Now, let's say that I see a young woman who is behaving strangely. I notice that she's out of sorts, and she's clearly got something wrong, so I decide to follow her and figure out what's wrong. She mistakes this as my following her. Again, does the fact that I chose to follow her and have a penis make me a would-be rapist? Or merely someone trying to figure out what the hell is wrong and render aid if needed?

Just by following someone, you have not demonstrated intent to do harm to someone, you're merely following them, and that is not illegal.  It only becomes an act of aggression when you not only are following, but are escalating the situation, and clearly are demonstrating an intent to do harm through verbal threats and actual attempts to attack.

Even in your case, all emotional strawmen aside, the woman would be charged and criminally liable unless the person following her demonstrated clear intent to cause harm and was escalating the situation.

Also, as a side note, I would point out to those who think it's stupid that an aggressor can still claim self defense, I would suggest the following rebuttal scenario:

I get into an argument with you over something. Let's say you stole my wallet.  Because I "started" The argument, I am technically "the aggressor". Now, if you start beating the shiat out of me, or you pull a knife on me, which is a clear escalation of threat from a common argument or fistfight, and i have no other way to disengage and get out of the fight, I am legally allowed to defend myself against this new threat, since the mere act of starting a fight for legitimate reasons does not legally mean that I am thusly required to suffer any and all escalation of violence used against me.

In plain terms: I get into an argument with you because you're drunk and loud and actively groping women and getting beligerent, and the "Starting a fight" consists of telling you to leave and physically restraining you. You escalate the situation by pulling a knife, or proceeding to beat the shiat out of me because I was trying to stop you from hurting others.  I am legally allowed to defend myself from you even though I technically started the confrontation, because simply starting a confrontation does not give you the implicit right to use any and all force against me.
 
2013-06-23 07:22:33 PM  

Cataholic: orbister: Molavian: Once he assaulted Zimmerman, Martin took it to a whole new level.

What's so hard for people to understand about this?

If you're being followed around by an armed stalker, why should you wait to be attacked?What I find hard to understand is why Mr Martin is not seen by some as having any right to confront the man stalking him. Would that have been too uppity?

How do you know the person following you is armed?


When you're being stalked, you need to assume the worst because of the imminent danger.  The stalker has not identified himself to you and he's been following you for several minutes.  You don't know if the stalker wants to rape you or follow you home to rape your loved ones or if he wants to kill you...you just don't know.

If only Trayvon had been armed, he would have been able to defend himself.
 
2013-06-23 07:25:20 PM  

Bravo Two: orbister: Giltric: Trayvon started the assault. Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force to defend himself.

Does that also apply if a would-be rapist's victim turn on him while he's following her to a suitably dark place for an attack?

That's actually a very difficult hair to split:  What constitutes, legally, intent on the so-called "would be rapist's" part?  Say it's late, I'm walking along a street, and a woman happens to be in front of me.  She happens to be walking along the same path I am, because she is, say, parked in the same parking structure or lot as I am.   To her, I'm following her, and it's dark. To me, I don't even really notice she's there and I just want to get to my car.

Since she doesn't KNOW that that's the case, does the mere fact that I'm following her path, and happen to be following her since we're both going to the same place, and have a penis, suggest that I am a would-be rapist?  Or does it simply mean that I'm following her because she's going in the same direction I am?

Now, let's say that I see a young woman who is behaving strangely. I notice that she's out of sorts, and she's clearly got something wrong, so I decide to follow her and figure out what's wrong. She mistakes this as my following her. Again, does the fact that I chose to follow her and have a penis make me a would-be rapist? Or merely someone trying to figure out what the hell is wrong and render aid if needed?

Just by following someone, you have not demonstrated intent to do harm to someone, you're merely following them, and that is not illegal.  It only becomes an act of aggression when you not only are following, but are escalating the situation, and clearly are demonstrating an intent to do harm through verbal threats and actual attempts to attack.

Even in your case, all emotional strawmen aside, the woman would be charged and criminally liable unless the person following her demonstrated clear intent to cause harm and was escalating the situation.

Also, a ...


^this
 
2013-06-23 07:26:35 PM  

Bravo Two: orbister: Giltric: Trayvon started the assault. Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force to defend himself.

Does that also apply if a would-be rapist's victim turn on him while he's following her to a suitably dark place for an attack?

That's actually a very difficult hair to split:  What constitutes, legally, intent on the so-called "would be rapist's" part?  Say it's late, I'm walking along a street, and a woman happens to be in front of me.  She happens to be walking along the same path I am, because she is, say, parked in the same parking structure or lot as I am.   To her, I'm following her, and it's dark. To me, I don't even really notice she's there and I just want to get to my car.

Since she doesn't KNOW that that's the case, does the mere fact that I'm following her path, and happen to be following her since we're both going to the same place, and have a penis, suggest that I am a would-be rapist?  Or does it simply mean that I'm following her because she's going in the same direction I am?

Now, let's say that I see a young woman who is behaving strangely. I notice that she's out of sorts, and she's clearly got something wrong, so I decide to follow her and figure out what's wrong. She mistakes this as my following her. Again, does the fact that I chose to follow her and have a penis make me a would-be rapist? Or merely someone trying to figure out what the hell is wrong and render aid if needed?

Just by following someone, you have not demonstrated intent to do harm to someone, you're merely following them, and that is not illegal.  It only becomes an act of aggression when you not only are following, but are escalating the situation, and clearly are demonstrating an intent to do harm through verbal threats and actual attempts to attack.

Even in your case, all emotional strawmen aside, the woman would be charged and criminally liable unless the person following her demonstrated clear intent to cause harm and was escalating the situation.

Also, a ...


My goodness.  Look at the lengths you'll go to in order to defend a man with a history of violence who stalked a teenage boy for several minutes and then shot him to death.  If you have children, what will you tell them?

"Now look, children.  If a strange man is following you for several minutes in a vehicle and then on foot, lay down on the ground face down with your arms outstretched and wait for the police to arrive to clear up the situation."
 
2013-06-23 07:28:10 PM  

gimmegimme: Cataholic: orbister: Molavian: Once he assaulted Zimmerman, Martin took it to a whole new level.

What's so hard for people to understand about this?

If you're being followed around by an armed stalker, why should you wait to be attacked?What I find hard to understand is why Mr Martin is not seen by some as having any right to confront the man stalking him. Would that have been too uppity?

How do you know the person following you is armed?

When you're being stalked, you need to assume the worst because of the imminent danger.  The stalker has not identified himself to you and he's been following you for several minutes.  You don't know if the stalker wants to rape you or follow you home to rape your loved ones or if he wants to kill you...you just don't know.

If only Trayvon had been armed, he would have been able to defend himself.


Oh it's gimmegimme again with his misinformation and sensationalism. Shocking.
If the stalker has not identified himself, how is he a stalker then? He happens to be driving and or walking in the same direction as you so he's a stalker?
Face it, no matter how many times you want to try and apply the label that stalker thing just isn't going to stick. Everyone else with common sense and knowledge of the law has figured it out, why can't you?
 
2013-06-23 07:30:07 PM  

ChaosStar: Keizer_Ghidorah: ChaosStar: fredklein: ChaosStar: Zimmerman also has a documented history of anger and violence, assaulting an officer and beating his wife, which is a lot more substantial and concrete than Trayvon's few tweet pictures, hearsay, and lack of criminal record.

Stupid and wrong all in the same post. Congrats.
Oh and please cite source for above

In 2005, Zimmerman was charged with assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest, after shoving an officer while a friend of Zimmerman's was being questioned about underage drinking. The charges were reduced, then dropped when Zimmerman entered a pre-trial diversion program. Also in 2005, Zimmerman's ex-fiance filed a restraining order against him, alleging domestic violence.
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#George_Zimme r man

Oh you mean the undercover cop that was hassling his friend? I'd push some guy in plain clothes to if they were bothering my friends.
Alleged domestic violence is a far cry from "beating his wife"
Both are very short of a "history of anger and violence".

Keep lying to yourself though.

"Give me proof!"
*proof is provided*
"Those don't count, undercover cops aren't cops and women should stay in the kitchen! But this black guy, now he's a menace II society, just look at those internet pictures and listen to that hearsay! Just because he doesn't have any record of doing wrong things doesn't mean he's not a vicious beast ready to destroy and mangle!"

How about the rest of my post? Or could you not think of anything to refute it?

I didn't ask for proof, I asked you to cite a source. I knew what you would cite about the officer, and I knew I could point out the logical fallacy that shoving a plain clothes police officer is hardly on the serious end of the "assaulting a police officer" spectrum you make it seem to be by claiming he has a history of violence and anger immediately beforehand.
You provided no proof to your claim that Zimmerman beat his wife in your c ...


Yet you think that a few tweets and some hearsay is unshakable proof that Trayvon was a monster worthy of being executed.

Zimemrman's given three contradicting accounts of what Trayvon was doing that aroused his suspicions, and "These assholes always get away!" is not something that someone who is merely suspicious of a stranger. Zimemrman had pronounced Trayvon guilty of the break-ins and was seeking justice for them and someone to punish. There's little other rational reason that Zimmerman would have been so desperate to catch him, to the point of not simply letting the police meet with him at a specific point and go from there and even getting out of his car to continue chasing Trayvon on foot.
 
2013-06-23 07:30:35 PM  

gimmegimme: Cataholic: orbister: Molavian: Once he assaulted Zimmerman, Martin took it to a whole new level.

What's so hard for people to understand about this?

If you're being followed around by an armed stalker, why should you wait to be attacked?What I find hard to understand is why Mr Martin is not seen by some as having any right to confront the man stalking him. Would that have been too uppity?

How do you know the person following you is armed?

When you're being stalked, you need to assume the worst because of the imminent danger.  The stalker has not identified himself to you and he's been following you for several minutes.  You don't know if the stalker wants to rape you or follow you home to rape your loved ones or if he wants to kill you...you just don't know.

If only Trayvon had been armed, he would have been able to defend himself.


And unless the person following you demonstrated clear intent to do harm, just the act of following you is not legally justification for assault and/or self defense, as it lacks intent.

The gun on Zimmerman was concealed. Trayvon had no way to know he was armed, and though you can "assume" anything you want, attacking someone on the assumption that they're armed and/or out to do you harm is not legal justification for the use of force.

Zimmerman could have followed him all goddamn day, and unless he escalated the sitation and/or demonstrated a clear intent to do harm to Trayvon in a clear way, he would have both been within his legal rights, and legally doing nothing that constituted a crime.

I'm sorry, you don't get to claim that Zimmerman was an aggressor just because he followed Martin. There's no evidence he did anything more than this, and this alone does not constitute an aggressive act or intent to do harm that would have justified an attack by Martin.

Unless Zimmerman can be demonstrably proven to have begun to threaten or actively seek to capture and do harm to Martin, then Martin was not justified in attacking Zimmerman.  There are no witnesses or evidence that he did anything of the sort, so all you have, really, is the fact that Zimmerman followed Martin, and a fight ensued, and Martin was shot in what Zimmerman claims is self defense.  We have some sketchy eye-witness reports, and some physical evidence, none of which is inconsistent with Zimmerman's claims.

So, unless you have something more, then this is nothing but an exercise in wanting desperately for the simple act of following someone to be seen as a criminal act in order to justify a conviction.
 
2013-06-23 07:33:12 PM  

Bravo Two: gimmegimme: Cataholic: orbister: Molavian: Once he assaulted Zimmerman, Martin took it to a whole new level.

What's so hard for people to understand about this?

If you're being followed around by an armed stalker, why should you wait to be attacked?What I find hard to understand is why Mr Martin is not seen by some as having any right to confront the man stalking him. Would that have been too uppity?

How do you know the person following you is armed?

When you're being stalked, you need to assume the worst because of the imminent danger.  The stalker has not identified himself to you and he's been following you for several minutes.  You don't know if the stalker wants to rape you or follow you home to rape your loved ones or if he wants to kill you...you just don't know.

If only Trayvon had been armed, he would have been able to defend himself.

And unless the person following you demonstrated clear intent to do harm, just the act of following you is not legally justification for assault and/or self defense, as it lacks intent.

The gun on Zimmerman was concealed. Trayvon had no way to know he was armed, and though you can "assume" anything you want, attacking someone on the assumption that they're armed and/or out to do you harm is not legal justification for the use of force.

Zimmerman could have followed him all goddamn day, and unless he escalated the sitation and/or demonstrated a clear intent to do harm to Trayvon in a clear way, he would have both been within his legal rights, and legally doing nothing that constituted a crime.

I'm sorry, you don't get to claim that Zimmerman was an aggressor just because he followed Martin. There's no evidence he did anything more than this, and this alone does not constitute an aggressive act or intent to do harm that would have justified an attack by Martin.

Unless Zimmerman can be demonstrably proven to have begun to threaten or actively seek to capture and do harm to Martin, then Martin was not justified in attack ...


Do you at least acknowledge that Martin tried to get away from Zimmerman at at least one point and Zimmerman pursued him?
 
2013-06-23 07:34:55 PM  

ChaosStar: gimmegimme: Cataholic: orbister: Molavian: Once he assaulted Zimmerman, Martin took it to a whole new level.

What's so hard for people to understand about this?

If you're being followed around by an armed stalker, why should you wait to be attacked?What I find hard to understand is why Mr Martin is not seen by some as having any right to confront the man stalking him. Would that have been too uppity?

How do you know the person following you is armed?

When you're being stalked, you need to assume the worst because of the imminent danger.  The stalker has not identified himself to you and he's been following you for several minutes.  You don't know if the stalker wants to rape you or follow you home to rape your loved ones or if he wants to kill you...you just don't know.

If only Trayvon had been armed, he would have been able to defend himself.

Oh it's gimmegimme again with his misinformation and sensationalism. Shocking.
If the stalker has not identified himself, how is he a stalker then? He happens to be driving and or walking in the same direction as you so he's a stalker?
Face it, no matter how many times you want to try and apply the label that stalker thing just isn't going to stick. Everyone else with common sense and knowledge of the law has figured it out, why can't you?


When someone drives at the same speed as a person walks in order to stay behind him and watch where he's going and what he's doing, I believe that's one of the textbook definitions of stalking.

You're the one who keeps making these retarded leaps of "Well by YOUR definition, anyone who's moving in the same direction as you is STALKING you, so that means you must have God's permission to beat their heads into the cement, right?!", dude, stop trying to say we're the crazy ones.
 
2013-06-23 07:37:36 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: ChaosStar: gimmegimme: Cataholic: orbister: Molavian: Once he assaulted Zimmerman, Martin took it to a whole new level.

What's so hard for people to understand about this?

If you're being followed around by an armed stalker, why should you wait to be attacked?What I find hard to understand is why Mr Martin is not seen by some as having any right to confront the man stalking him. Would that have been too uppity?

How do you know the person following you is armed?

When you're being stalked, you need to assume the worst because of the imminent danger.  The stalker has not identified himself to you and he's been following you for several minutes.  You don't know if the stalker wants to rape you or follow you home to rape your loved ones or if he wants to kill you...you just don't know.

If only Trayvon had been armed, he would have been able to defend himself.

Oh it's gimmegimme again with his misinformation and sensationalism. Shocking.
If the stalker has not identified himself, how is he a stalker then? He happens to be driving and or walking in the same direction as you so he's a stalker?
Face it, no matter how many times you want to try and apply the label that stalker thing just isn't going to stick. Everyone else with common sense and knowledge of the law has figured it out, why can't you?

When someone drives at the same speed as a person walks in order to stay behind him and watch where he's going and what he's doing, I believe that's one of the textbook definitions of stalking.

You're the one who keeps making these retarded leaps of "Well by YOUR definition, anyone who's moving in the same direction as you is STALKING you, so that means you must have God's permission to beat their heads into the cement, right?!", dude, stop trying to say we're the crazy ones.


That's why I plonked him.  If I did to some 17-year-old woman what Zimmy did to Martin (before the gunshot, obviously), I'd end up on one of those unpleasant lists.
 
2013-06-23 07:37:41 PM  

gimmegimme: My goodness. Look at the lengths you'll go to in order to defend a man with a history of violence who stalked a teenage boy for several minutes and then shot him to death. If you have children, what will you tell them?

"Now look, children. If a strange man is following you for several minutes in a vehicle and then on foot, lay down on the ground face down with your arms outstretched and wait for the police to arrive to clear up the situation."


1. If the person is strange to me, I don't know his history, therefore his history is irrelevant.  Martin demonstrably had no prior knowledge of Zimmerman, and Zimmerman had no prior knowledge of Martin. Any argument that suggests that Martin should feel threatened because of Zimmerman's past history of violence is a lie and false on its face because Martin could not have known anything about it unless he knew Zimmerman.

2. I have children. What I have told them is that if someone you don't know is following you, you seek out someone you do know or somewhere safe, or a crowded, well-lit public place, and call the police. Defend yourself if necessary.   I have not, and will not, tell my children to either confront or attack someone who is following them, because their "Following" them is not inherently illegal, and unless they know for a fact that the person is bad, they have no reason to directly confront the stranger. Further, because they don't know the person and whether or not he or she's armed or is out to do harm, going after, confronting, or otherwise doing anything other than getting around a lot of witnesses and/or to a safe place is only putting them in more danger.

It's criminally irresponsible to advise anyone to confront someone you believe to be an aggressor, or in any way do anything but avoid them and get to a safe place. By going out of your way to confront them, you at BEST are instigating what very well could be a fatal confrontation to you because you walked right into the hands of the attacker, and at worst, could be a harmful or fatal criminal mistake because you attacked someone who wasn't intent on doing harm. You have neither a way of knowing what hteir intent is unless it is clearly communicated, nor the authority to confront someone who has not directly engaged you in a confrontation.

So, your point is?
 
2013-06-23 07:39:40 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: When someone drives at the same speed as a person walks in order to stay behind him and watch where he's going and what he's doing, I believe that's one of the textbook definitions of stalking


It may be textbook, but it isn't the legal definition of stalking.  The crime of stalking involves following someone on a repeated number of occasions for the sole and intended purpose of harassing or intimidating them.  It's very very difficult to follow someone for an entire day and have it meet that definition, much less to do so over he course of 10 minutes.
 
2013-06-23 07:39:51 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Yet you think that a few tweets and some hearsay is unshakable proof that Trayvon was a monster worthy of being executed.

Zimemrman's given three contradicting accounts of what Trayvon was doing that aroused his suspicions, and "These assholes always get away!" is not something that someone who is merely suspicious of a stranger. Zimemrman had pronounced Trayvon guilty of the break-ins and was seeking justice for them and someone to punish. There's little other rational reason that Zimmerman would have been so desperate to catch him, to the point of not simply letting the police meet with him at a specific point and go from there and even getting out of his car to continue chasing Trayvon on foot.


I do? Really? Please quote where I said that. Since Martin wasn't executed, like you hyperbolically claim, I think you'll have a hard time with that one.

Please quote these contradicting accounts you keep referencing.
Why are you fixated on a comment he made to a dispatcher when it proves nothing except his frustration with alleged law breakers getting away? Stop tilting at windmills.
Please explain how Zimmerman was desperate to catch him when he wasn't running very fast, if at all? You don't catch someone running away by speed walking after them. No, his reasoning for following Martin, as has been said at least a hundred times already, was to continue gathering information to feed to the police dispatcher on the phone. When the dispatcher told him that wasn't needed he stopped following Martin.

What other misinformation you got that I can correct you on?
 
2013-06-23 07:41:00 PM  

Bravo Two: gimmegimme: My goodness. Look at the lengths you'll go to in order to defend a man with a history of violence who stalked a teenage boy for several minutes and then shot him to death. If you have children, what will you tell them?

"Now look, children. If a strange man is following you for several minutes in a vehicle and then on foot, lay down on the ground face down with your arms outstretched and wait for the police to arrive to clear up the situation."

1. If the person is strange to me, I don't know his history, therefore his history is irrelevant.  Martin demonstrably had no prior knowledge of Zimmerman, and Zimmerman had no prior knowledge of Martin. Any argument that suggests that Martin should feel threatened because of Zimmerman's past history of violence is a lie and false on its face because Martin could not have known anything about it unless he knew Zimmerman.

2. I have children. What I have told them is that if someone you don't know is following you, you seek out someone you do know or somewhere safe, or a crowded, well-lit public place, and call the police. Defend yourself if necessary.   I have not, and will not, tell my children to either confront or attack someone who is following them, because their "Following" them is not inherently illegal, and unless they know for a fact that the person is bad, they have no reason to directly confront the stranger. Further, because they don't know the person and whether or not he or she's armed or is out to do harm, going after, confronting, or otherwise doing anything other than getting around a lot of witnesses and/or to a safe place is only putting them in more danger.

It's criminally irresponsible to advise anyone to confront someone you believe to be an aggressor, or in any way do anything but avoid them and get to a safe place. By going out of your way to confront them, you at BEST are instigating what very well could be a fatal confrontation to you because you walked right into the hands of the attac ...


Hahahahaha...

"Children, people have the legal right to follow you all they want.  This is perfectly legal.  Daddy's primary goal is to keep you compliant with US and local law."

Please, just reread what you typed.  You are putting 100% responsibility on the unarmed kid and 0% on the armed stalker.  Will you tell me what Zimmy's responsibilities were as an armed citizen on patrol?  Morally and under the law?
 
2013-06-23 07:41:45 PM  

gimmegimme: Do you at least acknowledge that Martin tried to get away from Zimmerman at at least one point and Zimmerman pursued him?


I neither acknowledge nor ignore this because I have no solid facts to either prove or disprove it. We have the telephone call where martin runs and Zimmerman gets out of his car, is told he doesn't need to pursue, and says "OK".  We have no evidence that he either did or didn't continue to pursue martin, or substantive evidence of the ensuing moments in time between that point and when the altercation took place.

Unless you were there, or have evidence that no one else does, you have no substantive proof of this, either, so you cannot claim conclusively that that's what happened.

As far as we know, Zimmerman immediately stopped, returned or was on the way to returning to his vehicle, and was attacked by martin. Zimmerman may also have continued to go after Martin, come across where Martin was hiding, and got into a fight that resulted in a gunshot.  We don't know. There's no evidence to clearly prove either scenario, and to believe in one over the other is emotional investment, not factual belief.
 
2013-06-23 07:46:20 PM  
.

Keizer_Ghidorah: You're the one who keeps making these retarded leaps of "Well by YOUR definition, anyone who's moving in the same direction as you is STALKING you, so that means you must have God's permission to beat their heads into the cement, right?!", dude, stop trying to say we're the crazy ones.


Really? So I'm the person hyperbolically claiming, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, that by merely following Martin Zimmerman was stalking, hunting, harassing, etc him?
Sorry, I don't think you'll find that anywhere either.

I've maintained all along Zimmerman was following Martin, and as Cataholic pointed out to you

Cataholic: It may be textbook, but it isn't the legal definition of stalking. The crime of stalking involves following someone on a repeated number of occasions for the sole and intended purpose of harassing or intimidating them. It's very very difficult to follow someone for an entire day and have it meet that definition, much less to do so over he course of 10 minutes.


What else you got kiddo?
 
2013-06-23 07:48:06 PM  

gimmegimme: Hahahahaha...

"Children, people have the legal right to follow you all they want. This is perfectly legal. Daddy's primary goal is to keep you compliant with US and local law."

Please, just reread what you typed. You are putting 100% responsibility on the unarmed kid and 0% on the armed stalker. Will you tell me what Zimmy's responsibilities were as an armed citizen on patrol? Morally and under the law?


"Armed stalker". How do they know the person is armed? How do they know that they are, in fact, stalking them?

I tell my kids to avoid confrontation and to get to a safe place, since they have no means of confronting or stopping a determined attacker. They're not old enough to have a gun and not big enough to do anything serious to an adult.

But, the notion that I would tell them that they can't just attack or go after someone who they don't know has done anything wrong, but instead to get to a safe place and call the cops and/or someone they know and trust, and let the person deal with the situation if there is one, is laughable to you, and illogical?

What, do you tell your children that if someone is following you they must be out to rape or kill you so you have to do everything you can to get them first? That seems...criminally irresponsible to me.

Oh well, you have yet to demonstrate that you are anything but hysterical when it comes to anyone who might possibly be out to get you, and believe that everyone should view potential threats in an equally hysterical method. I truly pity you and your life where such fear and constant doubt is necessary.

Where I come from, as an adult, if someone's coming after me casually or is following me, I tend to just stop and ask them what the hell they want. No running, no attacking, no assumptions.  As a kid, we just got somewhere safe with lots of adults and made sure we had a LOT of eyeballs that could see someone trying to do something bad, since most people in town wouldn't take too kindly to someone trying to go after a running, screaming child.
 
2013-06-23 07:48:45 PM  

Bravo Two: gimmegimme: Do you at least acknowledge that Martin tried to get away from Zimmerman at at least one point and Zimmerman pursued him?

I neither acknowledge nor ignore this because I have no solid facts to either prove or disprove it. We have the telephone call where martin runs and Zimmerman gets out of his car, is told he doesn't need to pursue, and says "OK".  We have no evidence that he either did or didn't continue to pursue martin, or substantive evidence of the ensuing moments in time between that point and when the altercation took place.

Unless you were there, or have evidence that no one else does, you have no substantive proof of this, either, so you cannot claim conclusively that that's what happened.

As far as we know, Zimmerman immediately stopped, returned or was on the way to returning to his vehicle, and was attacked by martin. Zimmerman may also have continued to go after Martin, come across where Martin was hiding, and got into a fight that resulted in a gunshot.  We don't know. There's no evidence to clearly prove either scenario, and to believe in one over the other is emotional investment, not factual belief.


It's amazing how you've turned it around on Martin.  The armed fake policeman was just walking around between houses, thinking about which Golden Girl he most wanted to bang when he was a kid.  Then all of a sudden, the unarmed teenager ATTACKED OUTTA NOWHERE.

Amazing.
 
2013-06-23 07:50:33 PM  

gimmegimme: Bravo Two: gimmegimme: Do you at least acknowledge that Martin tried to get away from Zimmerman at at least one point and Zimmerman pursued him?

I neither acknowledge nor ignore this because I have no solid facts to either prove or disprove it. We have the telephone call where martin runs and Zimmerman gets out of his car, is told he doesn't need to pursue, and says "OK".  We have no evidence that he either did or didn't continue to pursue martin, or substantive evidence of the ensuing moments in time between that point and when the altercation took place.

Unless you were there, or have evidence that no one else does, you have no substantive proof of this, either, so you cannot claim conclusively that that's what happened.

As far as we know, Zimmerman immediately stopped, returned or was on the way to returning to his vehicle, and was attacked by martin. Zimmerman may also have continued to go after Martin, come across where Martin was hiding, and got into a fight that resulted in a gunshot.  We don't know. There's no evidence to clearly prove either scenario, and to believe in one over the other is emotional investment, not factual belief.

It's amazing how you've turned it around on Martin.  The armed fake policeman was just walking around between houses, thinking about which Golden Girl he most wanted to bang when he was a kid.  Then all of a sudden, the unarmed teenager ATTACKED OUTTA NOWHERE.

Amazing.


/headdesk
The stupid, it burns..
 
2013-06-23 07:52:38 PM  

Bravo Two: Where I come from, as an adult, if someone's coming after me casually or is following me, I tend to just stop and ask them what the hell they want. No running, no attacking, no assumptions. As a kid, we just got somewhere safe with lots of adults and made sure we had a LOT of eyeballs that could see someone trying to do something bad, since most people in town wouldn't take too kindly to someone trying to go after a running, screaming child.


I'm sorry to have to say this, but if you used this kind of aggressive language, you might end up with a Zimmerman Heart Attack.

What, do you tell your children that if someone is following you they must be out to rape or kill you so you have to do everything you can to get them first? That seems...criminally irresponsible to me.

ISN'T THIS THE CRUX OF ZIMMERMAN'S WHOLE DEFENSE?!?!?!
 
2013-06-23 07:55:30 PM  

gimmegimme: Will you tell me what Zimmy's responsibilities were as an armed citizen on patrol? Morally and under the law?


As I missed this in my prior response, let me answer it here:

Zimmerman had the responsibility to protect himself and others, morally. If you are part of a community and see something suspicious, then I expect you, morally, to report the behavior.  How you do that is your choice, whether it's jsut calling the cops, going over and asking what the hell you're doing, or keeping an eye on you. None of the above are illegal, and are entirely at your discretion.

Having a CCW, Zimmerman was legally allowed to carry a firearm, and use his own best judgement as to what constituted a violent threat that needed to be defended against.

"on patrol" -- I'm not even sure what you mean by this. I haven't seen anything to suggest that Zimmerman was actively out trolling the neighborhood in his car looking for threats, he saw a person who was suspicious walking through the neighborhood, and chose a course of action to keep an eye on and report this person.

As I've said many times, I've done similar things, however I'm usually a lot less circumspect about it. I've been past a neighbor's place and saw a carload of people stopped in the driveway. As I knew the person was out of town, I stopped and asked what the hell they were doing and if they needed some assistance. I also recorded their license number. Yes, I did happen to be armed at the time, mostly because I generally go about armed unless I have a specific reason not to.

I know that my neighbors have done the same thing, questioning and confronting people occasionally who trespass into orchards or fields, or who seem to be out of place in our corner of the woods.  It's the normal, neighborly thing to do.

I don't understand any other way. While I agree Zimmerman may have acted above and beyond and forced Martin into a confrontation in his being overzealous, I think it's a tragic lack of judgement, more than I think it's a person out looking to kill someone.
 
2013-06-23 07:57:54 PM  

gimmegimme: It's amazing how you've turned it around on Martin. The armed fake policeman was just walking around between houses, thinking about which Golden Girl he most wanted to bang when he was a kid. Then all of a sudden, the unarmed teenager ATTACKED OUTTA NOWHERE.

Amazing.


I have done nothing but stated the facts of the case as released to the public. I have no other data to present, nor any data with which to draw a conclusion. I have merely stated two possible scenarios based on the evidence that is available.

If this amazes you, and making a factual statement based on the evidence that favors no particular scenario is a foreign concept, I submit that you are letting emotion rule and are failing to adhere to logic and reason.

That, to me, is amazing.
 
2013-06-23 07:58:19 PM  

ChaosStar: Keizer_Ghidorah: Yet you think that a few tweets and some hearsay is unshakable proof that Trayvon was a monster worthy of being executed.

Zimemrman's given three contradicting accounts of what Trayvon was doing that aroused his suspicions, and "These assholes always get away!" is not something that someone who is merely suspicious of a stranger. Zimemrman had pronounced Trayvon guilty of the break-ins and was seeking justice for them and someone to punish. There's little other rational reason that Zimmerman would have been so desperate to catch him, to the point of not simply letting the police meet with him at a specific point and go from there and even getting out of his car to continue chasing Trayvon on foot.

I do? Really? Please quote where I said that. Since Martin wasn't executed, like you hyperbolically claim, I think you'll have a hard time with that one.


I can point to how you keep dismissing an actual police record on Zimmerman while saying tweets and hearsay are concrete proof of Trayvon's guilt.

Please quote these contradicting accounts you keep referencing.

Looking at the moment, there's a lot of Fark and internet to search. There are at least three accounts of Trayvon's "suspicious behavior as given by Zimmerman: He was dodging between houses, he was peering into windows, and he was skipping down the street.

Why are you fixated on a comment he made to a dispatcher when it proves nothing except his frustration with alleged law breakers getting away? Stop tilting at windmills.

I said nothing about the 911 dispatcher. I said that Zimmerman was so engrossed in catching Trayvon that he couldn't be bothered to meet the police at a specific point and let them do their job.

Please explain how Zimmerman was desperate to catch him when he wasn't running very fast, if at all? You don't catch someone running away by speed walking after them. No, his reasoning for following Martin, as has been said at least a hundred times already, was to continue gathering information to feed to the police dispatcher on the phone. When the dispatcher told him that wasn't needed he stopped following Martin.

You're assuming that I meant Zimmerman was physically trying to catch him, as in take him into his arms and hold him or something. I did not say that. Chasing after someone to see where they go is still trying to catch them.

What other misinformation you got that I can correct you on?

I don't know. Maybe you can tell me why Zimmerman said "These assholes always get away!" when he went after Trayvon if it wasn't about seeking justice for the break-ins.
 
Displayed 50 of 673 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report