So, Trayvon Martin. (Updated 9/10: From the duh and oops departments)

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 . . . 43 NEXT
 

cthulhuspawn82:
The people who think Zimmerman should be put in jail might as well give it up. You dealing with a catch 22 here. Let me explain.

The police decided there was no valid cause to arrest Zimmerman. Now if you disagree, you could become a cop yourself so that you could make arrests in situations like this. Ah, but here is where the catch comes in.

In order to pass the test and become a cop, you need to be a sane, rational person with a firm understanding of the law. And if you were such a person, you would see that this is no probable cause to arrest Zimmerman.

Do you see why its a catch 22? In order to be the kind of person who can arrest Zimmerman, you would have to be the kind of person who wouldn't arrest Zimmerman. Many of you disagree with the decisions the police made, and would have acted differently in their place. And that is exactly why you are not, and probably never will be, police officers.

First, the police do not issue arrest warrants, not without a prosecutor agreeing.

In this case the homicide detective did not believe Zimmerman's story and asked for a warrant, which was turned down by the DA.

BTW I work in law enforcement in Australia and you are letting your opinion cloud your judgement.

Nothing about doubting Zimmerman's account is a catch 22.

I will trust the opinion of a veteran homicide detective, who interviewed Zimmerman the night of the shooting (and wanted Zimmerman arrested) over anything you could possibly post.

My favorite take on the whole thing thus far: if you're a young black man walking down the street in this Florida neighborhood next month, and you see Zimmerman, aren't you going to feel pretty threatened? I mean you can't be sure he won't instigate an altercation and almost immediately escalate to lethal force based entirely on his own subjective, untrained, internal criteria, right?

Maybe you, as a young black man feeling quite justifiably threatened, should take the initiative and preemptively shoot Zimmerman in the chest. That's the only way to guarantee you'll make it out of that situation alive, right? After the fact, when no one really knows what the fuck happened, you can simply tell the cops that you were defending yourself... in a weird "walking directly after the person who is supposedly threatening me" kind of way.

Point is: we really shouldn't be allowing untrained civilians to blow away anyone without severe consequences. If you take it upon yourself to intervene, and there isn't very strong witness corroboration of your story, there should be a chance that you might have to serve some fucking time. Because no matter what happened, you violently killed another human being. Maybe both parties should be punished, hm? Trayvon certainly was.

cthulhuspawn82:

Prosecution: "Trayvon was the one screaming for help."

Defense: "Objection, speculation."

Judge: "Sustained."

They've had dudes find that it was indeed Trayvon who was screaming. So...no.

FieryTrainwreck:
My favorite take on the whole thing thus far: if you're a young black man walking down the street in this Florida neighborhood next month, and you see Zimmerman, aren't you going to feel pretty threatened? I mean you can't be sure he won't instigate an altercation and almost immediately escalate to lethal force based entirely on his own subjective, untrained, internal criteria, right?

Maybe you, as a young black man feeling quite justifiably threatened, should take the initiative and preemptively shoot Zimmerman in the chest. That's the only way to guarantee you'll make it out of that situation alive, right? After the fact, when no one really knows what the fuck happened, you can simply tell the cops that you were defending yourself... in a weird "walking directly after the person who is supposedly threatening me" kind of way.

Point is: we really shouldn't be allowing untrained civilians to blow away anyone without severe consequences. If you take it upon yourself to intervene, and there isn't very strong witness corroboration of your story, there should be a chance that you might have to serve some fucking time. Because no matter what happened, you violently killed another human being. Maybe both parties should be punished, hm? Trayvon certainly was.

I've thought this as well. What 17 year old isn't going to feel a little freaked out by being followed by a middle-aged man? In Trayvon's case, he wasn't actually up to anything, so what could it possibly mean for that guy to be following him except that this grown-ass man was looking to cause trouble? At the very least Zimmerman caused a situation where someone was going to die by forcing the encounter.

FieryTrainwreck:
My favorite take on the whole thing thus far: if you're a young black man walking down the street in this Florida neighborhood next month, and you see Zimmerman, aren't you going to feel pretty threatened? I mean you can't be sure he won't instigate an altercation and almost immediately escalate to lethal force based entirely on his own subjective, untrained, internal criteria, right?

Maybe you, as a young black man feeling quite justifiably threatened, should take the initiative and preemptively shoot Zimmerman in the chest. That's the only way to guarantee you'll make it out of that situation alive, right? After the fact, when no one really knows what the fuck happened, you can simply tell the cops that you were defending yourself... in a weird "walking directly after the person who is supposedly threatening me" kind of way.

Point is: we really shouldn't be allowing untrained civilians to blow away anyone without severe consequences. If you take it upon yourself to intervene, and there isn't very strong witness corroboration of your story, there should be a chance that you might have to serve some fucking time. Because no matter what happened, you violently killed another human being. Maybe both parties should be punished, hm? Trayvon certainly was.

Serge A. Storms:

I've thought this as well. What 17 year old isn't going to feel a little freaked out by being followed by a middle-aged man? In Trayvon's case, he wasn't actually up to anything, so what could it possibly mean for that guy to be following him except that this grown-ass man was looking to cause trouble? At the very least Zimmerman caused a situation where someone was going to die by forcing the encounter.

Any law or social policy has to viewed in a cost benefit analysis.

John Lott at www.nationalreview.com makes the argument that on balance, the laws and policies that made this tragedy possible, overall, save many lives.

evilneko:
That was highly insulting and uncalled-for. You could at least try to hide your contempt for those who disagree with you.

You have shown nothing but contemptible anti-gun, anti-police, and anti-neighborhood watch prejudice against George Zimmerman, why should I respect you when you very likely have had experience with neither, nor with the type of people THEY deal with on a daily basis? George Zimmerman was a damn sight better father figure than any of Tray's parents, who let him wander in a neighborhood they didn't live in, without supervision, after he got suspended for marijuana. If your life philosophy is FUCK YOU DAD, then anyone with life experience should hold you in contempt.

The angry liberals are using this for their own selfish benefit, nothing else. Don't even try to convince me you genuinely care about the suffering of the parties involved. The murder of young black men is almost ubiquitous in this country's inner city regions, and the only one who gets national attention is one who was killed by a "white hispanic."

Our President, who I will now be calling a "white african american" so as not to be hypocritical, fanned the already hot flames of racial tension by saying, simply, his son would look like Trayvon. That's obviously the president trying to create an "awww" moment to pull on weak minded people's heartstrings.

Here's what the president should have said.

"America, chill out. We have a legal system that, as a citizen, Zimmerman has the right to use. If found guilty, he will be locked away for a very long time. But let the system work. Oh, and by the way, Trayvon isn't any more dead than if he'd been shot by someone else. All that matters is what happened, not the races of the people involved. You just got served, good night, America."

Wow, if Barack Obama said that, he'd instantly win 5% of this country's population. It would be a massive double-take. Wait, a president decided to be presidential, rather than a demagogue and panderer? Amazing.

TheDarkEricDraven:

cthulhuspawn82:

Prosecution: "Trayvon was the one screaming for help."

Defense: "Objection, speculation."

Judge: "Sustained."

They've had dudes find that it was indeed Trayvon who was screaming. So...no.

They've had one, ONE "expert" determine that, and he's attempting to pimp his 5000 dollar software out to police departments. Somehow I seriously fucking doubt it was tested with two different cheap microphones using cellular compression algorithms at two different distances with two different wind conditions and two different states of stress.

Gorfias:

FieryTrainwreck:
My favorite take on the whole thing thus far: if you're a young black man walking down the street in this Florida neighborhood next month, and you see Zimmerman, aren't you going to feel pretty threatened? I mean you can't be sure he won't instigate an altercation and almost immediately escalate to lethal force based entirely on his own subjective, untrained, internal criteria, right?

Maybe you, as a young black man feeling quite justifiably threatened, should take the initiative and preemptively shoot Zimmerman in the chest. That's the only way to guarantee you'll make it out of that situation alive, right? After the fact, when no one really knows what the fuck happened, you can simply tell the cops that you were defending yourself... in a weird "walking directly after the person who is supposedly threatening me" kind of way.

Point is: we really shouldn't be allowing untrained civilians to blow away anyone without severe consequences. If you take it upon yourself to intervene, and there isn't very strong witness corroboration of your story, there should be a chance that you might have to serve some fucking time. Because no matter what happened, you violently killed another human being. Maybe both parties should be punished, hm? Trayvon certainly was.

Serge A. Storms:

I've thought this as well. What 17 year old isn't going to feel a little freaked out by being followed by a middle-aged man? In Trayvon's case, he wasn't actually up to anything, so what could it possibly mean for that guy to be following him except that this grown-ass man was looking to cause trouble? At the very least Zimmerman caused a situation where someone was going to die by forcing the encounter.

Any law or social policy has to viewed in a cost benefit analysis.

John Lott at www.nationalreview.com makes the argument that on balance, the laws and policies that made this tragedy possible, overall, save many lives.

I bet he does, given that he writes for nationalreview.com.

ravenshrike:
They've had one, ONE "expert" determine that, and he's attempting to pimp his 5000 dollar software out to police departments. Somehow I seriously fucking doubt it was tested with two different cheap microphones using cellular compression algorithms at two different distances with two different wind conditions and two different states of stress.

I don't mean you any disrespect, Ravenshrike, but aren't you usually smarter then this? It's pretty clear from the evidence that Zimmerman did it. He ought to just confess and get himself a lesser sentence.

harmonic:
The angry liberals are using this for their own selfish benefit, nothing else. Don't even try to convince me you genuinely care about the suffering of the parties involved. The murder of young black men is almost ubiquitous in this country's inner city regions, and the only one who gets national attention is one who was killed by a "white hispanic."

Our President, who I will now be calling a "white african american" so as not to be hypocritical, fanned the already hot flames of racial tension by saying, simply, his son would look like Trayvon. That's obviously the president trying to create an "awww" moment to pull on weak minded people's heartstrings.

Here's what the president should have said.

"America, chill out. We have a legal system that, as a citizen, Zimmerman has the right to use. If found guilty, he will be locked away for a very long time. But let the system work. Oh, and by the way, Trayvon isn't any more dead than if he'd been shot by someone else. All that matters is what happened, not the races of the people involved. You just got served, good night, America."

Wow, if Barack Obama said that, he'd instantly win 5% of this country's population. It would be a massive double-take. Wait, a president decided to be presidential, rather than a demagogue and panderer? Amazing.

He'd win the 5% that think they want to vote liberal but won't vote Democrat and talk a lot about Ron Paul on the internet, and he'd lose at least that many that are actually planning on voting for him by calling a news conference to insult the intelligence of everyone that didn't like how the case was initially handled. Contrary to popular belief, the president never does himself any favors by attempting to "serve" the people that disagree with him, much less his own core demographics.

TheDarkEricDraven:

ravenshrike:
They've had one, ONE "expert" determine that, and he's attempting to pimp his 5000 dollar software out to police departments. Somehow I seriously fucking doubt it was tested with two different cheap microphones using cellular compression algorithms at two different distances with two different wind conditions and two different states of stress.

I don't mean you any disrespect, Ravenshrike, but aren't you usually smarter then this? It's pretty clear from the evidence that Zimmerman did it. He ought to just confess and get himself a lesser sentence.

The way the law works in the US, you must be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Mathematically this supposedly works out to 95%. Since the start of the altercation was witnessed by not a single person and the only witness that actually saw part of the altercation agrees with Zimmerman's version of events, are you HONESTLY saying you are 95% certain that Zimmerman physically started the altercation and then shot Martin? Because otherwise he's not guilty of manslaughter under Florida law.

Serge A. Storms:

He'd win the 5% that think they want to vote liberal but won't vote Democrat and talk a lot about Ron Paul on the internet, and he'd lose at least that many that are actually planning on voting for him by calling a news conference to insult the intelligence of everyone that didn't like how the case was initially handled. Contrary to popular belief, the president never does himself any favors by attempting to "serve" the people that disagree with him, much less his own core demographics.

I could write *volumes* on what's wrong with what you said, but I'll keep it to a nice list.

1) He's not the president of the democrats. He's not the president of black people. He's the president of the United States. Everyone in this country. It's not his job to serve the interests of "his core demographics." It's his job to govern the country. The way you think is VERY dangerous, and you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

2) By saying what I said he should say, he's not "serving people who disagree with him." He's calling for reason and peace to prevail. I can only conclude that you really like racial tension. I can also conclude that you don't care about the rule of law, you just want vengeance on evil whitey, or whatever.

3) Your silly stereotype of Ron Paulers is just that, silly. The president will likely win this election, but only because his opponents are so weak, not because he's so great. He is an extremely divisive president. The last non-divisive president we had won 49 out of 50 states in his 2nd term election. If Obama were to grow up, claim responsibility for his own actions, stop blaming the last president for everything, and represent everyone in the country (not just democrats, not just blacks) he would indeed gain a significant amount of support.

4) Going along with #3, the only people he would lose by calling for reason to prevail are extremely weak-minded fools. Or, people who stand to gain from the tragedy. (Sharpton and his ilk.)

harmonic:

Serge A. Storms:

He'd win the 5% that think they want to vote liberal but won't vote Democrat and talk a lot about Ron Paul on the internet, and he'd lose at least that many that are actually planning on voting for him by calling a news conference to insult the intelligence of everyone that didn't like how the case was initially handled. Contrary to popular belief, the president never does himself any favors by attempting to "serve" the people that disagree with him, much less his own core demographics.

I could write *volumes* on what's wrong with what you said, but I'll keep it to a nice list.

1) He's not the president of the democrats. He's not the president of black people. He's the president of the United States. Everyone in this country. It's not his job to serve the interests of "his core demographics." It's his job to govern the country. The way you think is VERY dangerous, and you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

2) By saying what I said he should say, he's not "serving people who disagree with him." He's calling for reason and peace to prevail. I can only conclude that you really like racial tension. I can also conclude that you don't care about the rule of law, you just want vengeance on evil whitey, or whatever.

3) Your silly stereotype of Ron Paulers is just that, silly. The president will likely win this election, but only because his opponents are so weak, not because he's so great. He is an extremely divisive president. The last non-divisive president we had won 49 out of 50 states in his 2nd term election. If Obama were to grow up, claim responsibility for his own actions, stop blaming the last president for everything, and represent everyone in the country (not just democrats, not just blacks) he would indeed gain a significant amount of support.

4) Going along with #3, the only people he would lose by calling for reason to prevail are extremely weak-minded fools. Or, people who stand to gain from the tragedy. (Sharpton and his ilk.)

What a melodramatic pile of self-righteous crap. You're explaining how the president should do his job and in the same post that you're deeming who should and shouldn't vote based on the perception that anyone that disagrees with how you think the president should have responded to the incident enjoys racial tension.

TheDarkEricDraven:

ravenshrike:
They've had one, ONE "expert" determine that, and he's attempting to pimp his 5000 dollar software out to police departments. Somehow I seriously fucking doubt it was tested with two different cheap microphones using cellular compression algorithms at two different distances with two different wind conditions and two different states of stress.

I don't mean you any disrespect, Ravenshrike, but aren't you usually smarter then this? It's pretty clear from the evidence that Zimmerman did it. He ought to just confess and get himself a lesser sentence.

Except that it's not at all clear from the evidence what happened. All we know for sure is that Zimmerman followed Martin, an altercation ensued and Martin was killed, and Zimmerman claims self defense with not a single witness to prove either way. Anything beyond is speculation and there's no way you can say that it's clear who did what.

ravenshrike:
The way the law works in the US, you must be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Mathematically this supposedly works out to 95%. Since the start of the altercation was witnessed by not a single person and the only witness that actually saw part of the altercation agrees with Zimmerman's version of events, are you HONESTLY saying you are 95% certain that Zimmerman physically started the altercation and then shot Martin? Because otherwise he's not guilty of manslaughter under Florida law.

Your reasoning is all wrong. You are not arguing that murdering people is legal unless it can be proven to be unlawfull.

All wrong. Murder is a criminal offense, untill one can prove self-defense. The only one capable of making a claim on self-defense in this situation, is Martin, who was being chased by a crazed gunman.

Zimmerman is guilty of murder because he confessed to the killing, ballistic evidence and all other forensic evidence shows it, and the 911 calls show the events leading up to the murder.

Since the burden of evidence is fulfilled on the prosecution side of the bargain, Zimmerman remains guilty untill he can proven it wasn't murder, but legalised murder in stand-your-ground terms.

But right now, all we have is that the murderer claims it was self-defense, nothing to substantiate that with, and Zimmerman's history of violence, paranoid vigilante crap and the events leading up to the murder, and Martin's right of self-defense against Zimmerman's cowardly attack, that makes a self-defense claim impossible.

So not only is there ample evidence for first degree murder, there is evidence the only defense used is a lie.

Serge A. Storms:

What a melodramatic pile of self-righteous crap. You're explaining how the president should do his job and in the same post that you're deeming who should and shouldn't vote based on the perception that anyone that disagrees with how you think the president should have responded to the incident enjoys racial tension.

Yeah... I'm thinking you're a bit out of this weight class. You're arguing way, way below the level I was hoping.

Do me a favor and don't vote. Bye.

harmonic:

Serge A. Storms:

What a melodramatic pile of self-righteous crap. You're explaining how the president should do his job and in the same post that you're deeming who should and shouldn't vote based on the perception that anyone that disagrees with how you think the president should have responded to the incident enjoys racial tension.

Yeah... I'm thinking you're a bit out of this weight class. You're arguing way, way below the level I was hoping.

Do me a favor and don't vote. Bye.

I wasn't arguing, I was pointing out the hilarious hypocrisy in your statement that would make it impossible for any real conversation to take place, a position I stand by now. If you need to talk down to people and expect everyone to respond to your with your level of inflated self-importance and superficial grasp of American politics there's always reddit.

Blablahb:
Zimmerman is guilty of murder because he confessed to the killing

Since the burden of evidence is fulfilled on the prosecution side of the bargain, Zimmerman remains guilty untill he can proven it wasn't murder, but legalised murder in stand-your-ground terms.

It's not guilty until proven innocent, kiddo. It's the other way around, whether you like it or not. They didn't make an arrest, they probably won't make an arrest. Right now you're the equivalent of a five-year-old throwing a tantrum.

But right now, all we have is that the murderer claims it was self-defense, nothing to substantiate that with.

I'm sure that eye witness would love to hear you say that.

and Zimmerman's history of violence, paranoid vigilante crap and the events leading up to the murder.

Verbal Confrontation with his now ex-wife where cops were called before it could escalate further. Pushing a cop because he was acting out of line with one of the kids Zimmerman mentored, didn't result in any charges. Captain of the neighborhood watch in a upper-middle class community =/= wanna be cop. All but the last occurred almost six years ago.

and Martin's right of self-defense against Zimmerman's cowardly attack, that makes a self-defense claim impossible.

A teenager with a history of violence initiating a verbal confrontation and then beating a man's head against the concrete sure does sound like a great claim of self defense. Could have just told Zimmerman where he was going.

So not only is there ample evidence for first degree murder, there is evidence the only defense used is a lie.

Yeah, no. Police reports and eye witness claims basically nullify your argument that Zimmerman was a "BABBY KILLER WITH A GUN HE JUST WANTED TO USE!!!1!".

Smagmuck_:
It's not guilty until proven innocent, kiddo. It's the other way around, whether you like it or not. They didn't make an arrest, they probably won't make an arrest. Right now you're the equivalent of a five-year-old throwing a tantrum.

Technically speaking self defense is an affirmative defense in Florida if not covered by SYG, which this incident is not. This is irrelevant however as his injuries are entirely within his claim of self defense. All an affirmative self defense claim means is you must prove you could not retreat when attacked and were in fear of life or great bodily harm. Between Zimmerman's account of how the altercation started and the only eyewitness to see the fight itself, all the elements for a self defense claim are there. Which is EXACTLY why the prosecutor took one look at the evidence and told the investigator to get more proof.

Smagmuck_:

A teenager with a history of violence initiating a verbal confrontation and then beating a man's head against the concrete sure does sound like a great claim of self defense. Could have just told Zimmerman where he was going.

Don't suppose you happen to have anything to back up this notion that Martin was a kid with "a history of violence"? While I certainly find Blab's claim of "first-degree murder" to be highly inaccurate, you're also inventing "facts" out of whole cloth.

And btw, it was none of Zimmerman's fucking business where Trayvon Martin was going. George Zimmerman is not a police officer and has no legal authority.

EDIT: Also, this is not directed at you, Smagmuck, but anyone who claims that Obama unnecessarily injected himself into this issue can sit down and have a nice warm glass of shut up. Obama made his comments when he was asked about the incident by a reporter during a Rose Garden ceremony.

President Barack Obama spoke out on the shooting death of Miami teen Trayvon Martin Friday, calling it a "tragedy" and saying that if he had a son, "he would look like Trayvon."

Obama was asked about the 17-year-old's death during a ceremony in the White House Rose Garden.

Emphasis mine.

And while other posters in this thread have so laughably asserted that Obama implied that George Zimmerman was guilty of a crime apparently didn't read this nugget from that same response:

"I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this, and that everybody pulls together, federal, state and local, to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened," Obama said. "So I'm glad that not only is the Justice Department looking into it, I understand now that the governor of the state of Florida has formed a task force to investigate what is taking place."

Yep, clear and unwavering declaration of George Zimmerman's guilt.

EDIT 2: Apparently the "Obama fanning the flames of racial tension" comments were in another thread. This one, for some reason: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.357766-Obama-caught-on-open-mic

Tyler Perry:
Don't suppose you happen to have anything to back up this notion that Martin was a kid with "a history of violence"? While I certainly find Blab's claim of "first-degree murder" to be highly inaccurate, you're also inventing "facts" out of whole cloth.

And btw, it was none of Zimmerman's fucking business where Trayvon Martin was going.

On a ten day suspension for marijuana. Tweets back and forth with his brother about beating a bus driver, his youtube channel with three or four videos of him fighting, facebook messages between him and friends about beating someone who bested Trayvon in a one-on-one fight.

All of those are readily available on the Internet, there are even screen shots of them.

And Zimmerman was Captain of the Neighborhood watch, he saw someone he did not recognize in the neighborhood, asking someone where they're going seems well within the perimeters of being a NW Captain.

Smagmuck_:
On a ten day suspension for marijuana.

COMPLETELY irrelevant.

Smagmuck_:
Tweets back and forth with his brother about beating a bus driver, his youtube channel with three or four videos of him fighting, facebook messages between him and friends about beating someone who bested Trayvon in a one-on-one fight.

Assuming all of this "history of violence" stuff is true, so what? Is George Zimmerman a mind reader? Did he know Trayvon Martin's "history" when he followed him, got out of his truck and approached him? Maybe Martin wasn't a saint. But painting him as some thug as some effort to justify Zimmerman's conduct is pure character assassination.

Smagmuck_:
And Zimmerman was Captain of the Neighborhood watch, he saw someone he did not recognize in the neighborhood, asking someone where they're going seems well within the perimeters of being a NW Captain.

I don't give a fuck if George Zimmerman was captain of the New York Rangers. Neighborhood watch != law enforcement. He has no legal right to play Batman and go chasing suspicious people around. He did, at first, exactly what neighborhood watch is supposed to do -- witness suspicious activity and CALL THE COPS. And that's it -- not pursue someone who was doing absolutely nothing illegal. Neighborhood watch is not a bunch of vigilantes.

Tyler Perry:
Assuming all of this "history of violence" stuff is true, so what? Is George Zimmerman a mind reader? Did he know Trayvon Martin's "history" when he followed him, got out of his truck and approached him? Maybe Martin wasn't a saint. But painting him as some thug as some effort to justify Zimmerman's conduct is pure character assassination.

I see this as ironic, you're berating me for pointing out that Trayvon wasn't a perfect little angel, while you yourself go out of your way to try and make Zimmerman look like a cold blooded murderer.

I don't give a fuck if George Zimmerman was captain of the New York Rangers. Neighborhood watch != law enforcement. He has no legal right to play Batman and go chasing suspicious people around. He did, at first, exactly what neighborhood watch is supposed to do -- witness suspicious activity and CALL THE COPS. And that's it -- not pursue someone who was doing absolutely nothing illegal. Neighborhood watch is not a bunch of vigilantes.

"In other news, an elderly couples home was broken into resulting in one hospitalization and six hundred dollars of stolen jewelry... More at eleven..."

Zimmerman didn't recognize Trayvon, called the police's non-emergency number and followed to ask him where he was going, resulting in Trayvon taking off (Justified), where Zimmerman gave chase for the rest of the block before turning back to go back to his vehicle. Up until then, both parties were completely justified in their actions.

Smagmuck_:
I see this as ironic, you're berating me for pointing out that Trayvon wasn't a perfect little angel, while you yourself go out of your way to try and make Zimmerman look like a cold blooded murderer.

YOU need to learn to fucking read, since I gave my take on what I thought happened (and why) earlier in the thread, and at no point did I claim Zimmerman was a "cold blooded murderer." Keep on fuckin' that strawman.

"In other news, an elderly couples home was broken into resulting in one hospitalization and six hundred dollars of stolen jewelry... More at eleven..."

Zimmerman didn't recognize Trayvon, called the police's non-emergency number and followed to ask him where he was going, resulting in Trayvon taking off (Justified), where Zimmerman gave chase for the rest of the block before turning back to go back to his vehicle. Up until then, both parties were completely justified in their actions.

NO. Zimmerman was NOT justified.

He. Is. Not. A. Police. Officer. He had no business chasing people around the neighborhood. Unless he was actively intervening in a violent crime, his involvement with Trayvon Martin should have ended when he hung up the phone with the police department. Your shitty scare tactics notwithstanding, Trayvon Martin was doing nothing wrong.

Tyler Perry:
YOU need to learn to fucking read, since I gave my take on what I thought happened (and why) earlier in the thread, and at no point did I claim Zimmerman was a "cold blooded murderer." Keep on fuckin' that strawman.

NO. Zimmerman was NOT justified.

He. Is. Not. A. Police. Officer. He had no business chasing people around the neighborhood. Unless he was actively intervening in a violent crime, his involvement with Trayvon Martin should have ended when he hung up the phone with the police department. Your shitty scare tactics notwithstanding, Trayvon Martin was doing nothing wrong.

And you're not a lawyer, your point being?

Following a suspicious character after contacting proper authorities seems pretty justifiable.

Smagmuck_:
And you're not a lawyer, your point being?

Well then it's a good thing I'm not driving around my neighborhood attempting to offer unsolicited legal advice.

Smagmuck_:
Following a suspicious character after contacting proper authorities seems pretty justifiable.

1. No, it seems like a good way for someone to get shot dead over a misunderstanding, apparently. If George Zimmerman had followed the protocols established by pretty much every other neighborhood watch in the country and NOT pursued this "suspicious individual," Trayvon Martin would still be alive and George Zimmerman would not be potentially facing charges.

2. You'll have to remind me what Trayvon Martin was doing that was so "suspicious" other than walking through a neighborhood in which he did not live.

Tyler Perry:
1. No, it seems like a good way for someone to get shot dead over a misunderstanding, apparently. If George Zimmerman had followed the protocols established by pretty much every other neighborhood watch in the country and NOT pursued this "suspicious individual," Trayvon Martin would still be alive and George Zimmerman would not be potentially facing charges.

2. You'll have to remind me what Trayvon Martin was doing that was so "suspicious" other than walking through a neighborhood in which he did not live.

1. If Trayvon had just explained himself and asked Zimmerman to stop following him, we wouldn't be discussing this now would we?

2. Walking through a neighborhood that you don't live in, that had recently suffered a string of break ins, while wearing a hoodie IS suspicious.

Smagmuck_:

NO. Zimmerman was NOT justified.

He. Is. Not. A. Police. Officer. He had no business chasing people around the neighborhood. Unless he was actively intervening in a violent crime, his involvement with Trayvon Martin should have ended when he hung up the phone with the police department. Your shitty scare tactics notwithstanding, Trayvon Martin was doing nothing wrong.

And you're not a lawyer, your point being?

Following a suspicious character after contacting proper authorities seems pretty justifiable.

Not after the proper authorities explicitly tell you not to follow him.

Smagmuck_:

Tyler Perry:
1. No, it seems like a good way for someone to get shot dead over a misunderstanding, apparently. If George Zimmerman had followed the protocols established by pretty much every other neighborhood watch in the country and NOT pursued this "suspicious individual," Trayvon Martin would still be alive and George Zimmerman would not be potentially facing charges.

2. You'll have to remind me what Trayvon Martin was doing that was so "suspicious" other than walking through a neighborhood in which he did not live.

1. If Trayvon had just explained himself and asked Zimmerman to stop following him, we wouldn't be discussing this now would we?

2. Walking through a neighborhood that you don't live in, that had recently suffered a string of break ins, while wearing a hoodie IS suspicious.

1. Put yourself in Trayvon Martin's shoes, rather than George Zimmerman's, for just one second. You are walking through a neighborhood, minding your own business, when a truck starts following you. After a time, someone gets out and proceeds to pursue you on foot. When that person asks "where are you going?," are you really going to volunteer that information?

If George Zimmerman had stayed in his fucking truck where he belonged, we wouldn't be discussing this now, would we? I will repeat, since it apparently isn't sinking in -- George Zimmerman is not a police officer, nor is he Batman, and he had no business attempting to act like either.

2. That's absurd. For starters, the notion that a hoodie makes you suspicious is mindbogglingly stupid. I probably know fewer people who DON'T own at least one hoodie than people who do. And sorry, but simply being someplace does not automatically make one "suspicious."

I'm a 35-year-old white male. If I was walking through that neighborhood wearing a hoodie (I have about 5 or 6), would George Zimmerman have followed me?

Tyler Perry:
NO. Zimmerman was NOT justified.

He. Is. Not. A. Police. Officer. He had no business chasing people around the neighborhood. Unless he was actively intervening in a violent crime, his involvement with Trayvon Martin should have ended when he hung up the phone with the police department. Your shitty scare tactics notwithstanding, Trayvon Martin was doing nothing wrong.

Do you have any evidence Zimmerman continued to look for Martin after the phone call? Any at all?

cobra_ky:

Smagmuck_:

NO. Zimmerman was NOT justified.

He. Is. Not. A. Police. Officer. He had no business chasing people around the neighborhood. Unless he was actively intervening in a violent crime, his involvement with Trayvon Martin should have ended when he hung up the phone with the police department. Your shitty scare tactics notwithstanding, Trayvon Martin was doing nothing wrong.

And you're not a lawyer, your point being?

Following a suspicious character after contacting proper authorities seems pretty justifiable.

Not after the proper authorities explicitly tell you not to follow him.

"We don't need you to do that" is not the authorities EXPLICITLY telling you not to do something.

ravenshrike:

Tyler Perry:
NO. Zimmerman was NOT justified.

He. Is. Not. A. Police. Officer. He had no business chasing people around the neighborhood. Unless he was actively intervening in a violent crime, his involvement with Trayvon Martin should have ended when he hung up the phone with the police department. Your shitty scare tactics notwithstanding, Trayvon Martin was doing nothing wrong.

Do you have any evidence Zimmerman continued to look for Martin after the phone call? Any at all?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Zimmerman_cell_phone_call_to_police

Sorry, it's wiki, but everything is cited. I'm at work or I'd dig further. But there's approximately 7 minutes after he hangs up with the police and Martin's call from his girlfriend, and Zimmerman is still following Martin.

cobra_ky:
SNIP

Dispatch Operators don't carry the same authority that LEOs do, let alone, a non-emergency dispatcher. They can suggest things, but they can not order you to do things.

Tyler Perry:
1. Put yourself in Trayvon Martin's shoes, rather than George Zimmerman's, for just one second. You are walking through a neighborhood, minding your own business, when a truck starts following you. After a time, someone gets out and proceeds to pursue you on foot. When that person asks "where are you going?," are you really going to volunteer that information?

If George Zimmerman had stayed in his fucking truck where he belonged, we wouldn't be discussing this now, would we? I will repeat, since it apparently isn't sinking in -- George Zimmerman is not a police officer, nor is he Batman, and he had no business attempting to act like either.

Being someone who's done some stupid things during his youth. Yes, I have been stopped in a similar situation. And you know what I did? I explained why I was there. It's seriously, not that hard. If anything, you're making Trayvon look paranoid.

"Oh look, a shady person I don't recognize in my neighborhood, I'm going to contact the proper authorities and then ask him where he's going and if he's minding his own business, then I will call the authorities back and say it was a false alarm."[1]

Ye-up, he's totally criminal scum there...

[1] paraphrased.

Smagmuck_:
Being someone who's done some stupid things during his youth. Yes, I have been stopped in a similar situation. And you know what I did? I explained why I was there. It's seriously, not that hard. If anything, you're making Trayvon look paranoid.

Bully for you! You, of course, are under no legal obligation to divulge such information to a total stranger who is operating with zero legal authority to question you. And neither was Trayvon Martin. You honestly can't see how Martin might have felt slightly threatened by being followed by a complete stranger?

Your attempts to completely absolve George Zimmerman -- who violated the protocol established by pretty much every neighborhood watch organization in the known universe by pursuing and engaging a potential suspect -- of any culpability in what happened are, to be quite honest, rather lame.

Smagmuck_:
"Oh look, a shady person I don't recognize in my neighborhood, I'm going to contact the proper authorities and then ask him where he's going and if he's minding his own business, then I will call the authorities back and say it was a false alarm."[1]

Ye-up, he's totally criminal scum there...

I would be interested to know where you obtained the ability to read George Zimmerman's mind.

[1] paraphrased.

These too will be added to the OP: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/31/v-print/2725442/what-is-known-what-isnt-about.html

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-30/justice/justice_florida-teen-shooting-witnesses_1_police-department-gated-community-account?_s=PM:JUSTICE

Overall summaries of the case so far with little commentary/speculation.

Prosecutor denies he rejected detective's request for a warrant: http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/02/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html

So we're back to "he wasn't arrested because of Stand Your Ground."

Myrmecodon:

evilneko:
That was highly insulting and uncalled-for. You could at least try to hide your contempt for those who disagree with you.

You have shown nothing but contemptible anti-gun, anti-police, and anti-neighborhood watch prejudice against George Zimmerman, why should I respect you when you very likely have had experience with neither, nor with the type of people THEY deal with on a daily basis? George Zimmerman was a damn sight better father figure than any of Tray's parents, who let him wander in a neighborhood they didn't live in, without supervision, after he got suspended for marijuana. If your life philosophy is FUCK YOU DAD, then anyone with life experience should hold you in contempt.

I believe you have me confused with someone else. I'm not actually quite sure who. I know @Blablahb to be so anti-gun that I even directly addressed him in the OP (and to his credit he didn't really pull out the anti-gun rhetoric til about page 8 or 9 and didn't actually start it for once. Thanks, Blah), but I don't believe him to be very anti-police.

Your post shows how very little attention you've paid to what I've been saying throughout this thread. It and your other posts indicate to me that you're incapable of engaging in this discussion without attacking your opponents. Fair enough then. In the future I'll pay very little attention to yours.

You're welcome to prove me wrong, of course.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 . . . 43 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked