You realize that all you're probably gonna get back is "He had a right to walk wherever he wanted to," right? That's all I've been hearing and it's driving me insane.
Family of Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch seeks arrest
- Thread starter Dram
- Start date
- Status
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
It's hard to tell what that sound was. It could have been anything.
After re-listening to that 911 call though, it completely contradicts his statement that he was returning to his truck. The operator asks him if the police should meet him at the mailboxes (i.e. his truck), he first says yeah, but then changes his mind and tell the operator to have them call him. That suggests he planned on looking for Trayvon instead of going back to his truck. "Could you have them call me and I'll tell them where I am at"
After re-listening to that 911 call though, it completely contradicts his statement that he was returning to his truck. The operator asks him if the police should meet him at the mailboxes (i.e. his truck), he first says yeah, but then changes his mind and tell the operator to have them call him. That suggests he planned on looking for Trayvon instead of going back to his truck. "Could you have them call me and I'll tell them where I am at"
devildog820
Member
The really sad thing about what you just described is that it is probably true and will allow him to get away with murder because of the shitty wording of the law. He was, in his mind, defending himself.
The law should hold people responsible if they misjudge the situation. Sure, Zimmerman flipped out and thought he was defending himself. But he was wrong. He shouldn't get off because he misjudged the situation.
JCreasy
Member
You do realize that Zimmerman made this a hostile, and thus, fearful, situation when he stalked and pursued Trayvon Martin. Wouldn't you agree?
Remember, Trayvon was 17. He was being pursued by an older stranger who happened to be packing a gun. If I were him I'd be thinking that this guy might try to abduct me, or worse. We already know about the black man that was run over and killed in Mississippi for no reason at all. There was nothing wrong with Zimmerman's calling into 911, the argument being that he was being a concerned neighbor. I get that. What was wrong was his choice to pursue Trayvon while armed. And this stalk and pursuit implied hostile intent. We know that because Trayvon ran from him.
Zimmerman was not an officer of the law and Trayvon Martin was under no obligation to comply with any of Zimmerman's demands. Wouldn't you agree?
BruiserBear
Banned
Holy shit. If I didn't know any better I'd think you were trolling me right now, but you're not.
Let me quote myself, from the post you just replied to.
"Before anyone's imagination gets carried away, I'm not defending Zimmerman in any way here! Just explaining that while he is the bad guy here, his mindset was likely one of fear, rather than no fear."
Zimmerman is the bad guy here.....
Zimmerman is the bad guy here.....
Zimmerman is the bad guy here......
Did I say Trayvon was the bad guy in any way, shape, or form? No, and I didn't even hint at that being the case. I was describing Zimmerman's mindset as this situation unfolded. Why is this so hard for some people to process this stuff? His mindset could have been that fairys were dancing around his car, but that wouldn't make it so, would it? His mindset was one of fear and paranoia. Imaginary fear, but still fear. That is all.
I was replying to someone suggesting that because Zimmerman had gun, he wasn't afraid.
Except for the fact that you've never seen me say anything remotely like that in all my posts in this thread. I've said it probably 25 times now in different posts. Zimmerman committed a horrible crime, and should go to jail for a long time.
I disagree completely. I don't think his mindset matters one bit when it was one completely fabricated in his imagination. I believe he will be charged with a crime, and found guilty. I don't believe that law excuses what he did. It seems that some higher ups, states attorney etc, decided to say that law excused him. I don't believe that will be the case in a court of law.
You can't claim self defense when you choose to pursue someone.
Bad guy has been used, and then a defense for his actions come out, over and over again. Like posting pictures of Trayvon to justify reasons to be followed.
Not just you, but others that fall into your posting role in this thread.
I was just asking as calling Zimmerman the bad guy, then defending his action is the new "I voted for the war, before I voted against it."Loosely used of course, from what I've seen here.
There is stadium full of conjecture in all of your posts. Which is why I simply asked the question.
Of course hes a bad guy, he shot an unarmed kid. That hasn't stopped you, and many others though.
BruiserBear
Banned
I've behaved differently than others "falling into my posting role in this thread". Whatever that means.
I've never posted pictures of Trayvon. Never suggested anything that would make him suspicious if any way. I've simply never engaged in any character attacks against him, and it bothers me greatly that others have. This kid died, at 17, over nothing. It's terrible.
Yeah, its a shame.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Understanding != excusing.
He's committed a crime becuase he's paranoid, that doesn't make it not a crime.
(I'm assuming guilt here, yes)
He's committed a crime becuase he's paranoid, that doesn't make it not a crime.
(I'm assuming guilt here, yes)
BruiserBear
Banned
Big Baybee
Member
Gordon Shumway
Banned
Dude Abides
Banned
Their respective backgrounds are not relevant to whether, within the meaning of the statute, Zimmerman "provoked" Martin into using force against him (again, assuming Martin even did). All that matters is what Zimmerman did or said to Martin.
One puts oneself into the "aggressor" category by initially provoking the use of force. What does it mean to provoke the use of force under Florida law? Is it enough to follow someone, or is something more required, such as actually touching the person? Neither of us know.
JCreasy
Member
What I try to imagine is a scenario in which it is not considered provocation to follow someone you don't know with a loaded weapon.
That is to say, is there ever an innocent reason to pursue someone you don't know with a loaded weapon, if your not a police officer?
Is the loaded weapon concealed or visible? I imagine that would be important.
BruiserBear
Banned
I was thinking the same thing. The person would probably have to be presenting a notable threat.
Probably depends on the circumstances. If there was evidence that Trayvon gave Zimmerman a 1 hitter quitter and he just happened to die it would be one thing but it wouldn be a whole nother story if he puched his face to a bloody pulp, while being relatively unscathed himself.
JCreasy
Member
See, I would say Trayvon perceived some sort of threat, which is why he ran.
In other words, he had made it clear that he wanted nothing to do with Zimmerman.
Unknown One
Member
I disagree that this story is over-covered since we don't have enough information. What do these Republicans want? Sweep this story back under the rug? Not happening!!!
I agree.
Following someone in the car isn't by itself gravely threatening, but the moment they start running, chasing them down on foot is presenting yourself as a serious threat.
You are then explicitly telling this person, "I am AFTER you", and their survival instincts engage. You should not expect this person to react peacefully if you catch up to them.
empty vessel
Member
It would be important. But the statute can be read very broadly, if the Florida courts so choose. It could also be read very narrowly. It all depends on what combination of facts some judges decide to call provocation (or not to call provocation). They could interpret it to require very little provocation (which I would be inclined to do given how broad the defense law is for a non-aggressor) or they could interpret it to require a lot of provocation (which would give more leeway for people to antagonize people before shooting them). Remember, to be characterized as an aggressor does not mean one has committed a criminal offense, or even that another person is legally justified in using violence against the person. It just means that, once you become the "aggressor," the sweeping protections for using lethal force aren't available to you to justify the consequences of what happens. In short: caveat aggressor.
So that requirement could be very low, because all it could be saying is that if you pester somebody to the point that violence breaks out, then you as the "pestering" party cannot use lethal force to solve the problem you created except under extremely limited circumstances.
why do they want to sweep it under the rug?
is it because they're afraid of losing their guns?
is it because the victim is black?
is it because Zimmerman is "white"?
BruiserBear
Banned
I don't think there's any disputing that.
Because they think the 'overzealous' nightly broadcast of one particular story of injustice that just happens to not resonate enough for them on a personal level and they might also perceive some of the allegations that are coming out as an attack on their own sense of justice. Thus the quicker it settles in the background the better. They are not out raged enough about the injustice to care about seeing it as often as it is being shown, and some of them especially don't like the racial tone being setup around it as a lot of people have put their finger in their ear in regards to unbalanced prosecution of black vs white people on crimes like this. They don't see it, thus they don't get why its such a big deal to so many and lash out at those that keep making it seem like its such a big deal during this case.
In summary all the above you mentioned, although to a lot its mainly disinterest because it just isn't resonating more then any other story of injustice.
JCreasy
Member
And I know this point has been made before, but I can't buy Zimmerman's excuse for getting out his car to check street signs because where he ended up confronting Trayvon is some distance from the driving streets. It's in between the town houses.
Check out this video explanation here:
http://blog.reidreport.com/2012/03/trayvon-martin-a-walk-through-of-the-shooting-scene/
How did he end up in between the town houses if he was looking for street signs?
And most importantly, his vehicle is pretty far away from the crime scene, or HAS to be far away from the crime scene because cars can't drive where the crime scene took place.
So how could Trayvon sneak up on him at his vehicle, and then get shot around the corner, off the street, in between the town houses, far away from his vehicle?
Can anyone clarify what Zimmerman is trying to claim here?
Check out this video explanation here:
http://blog.reidreport.com/2012/03/trayvon-martin-a-walk-through-of-the-shooting-scene/
How did he end up in between the town houses if he was looking for street signs?
And most importantly, his vehicle is pretty far away from the crime scene, or HAS to be far away from the crime scene because cars can't drive where the crime scene took place.
So how could Trayvon sneak up on him at his vehicle, and then get shot around the corner, off the street, in between the town houses, far away from his vehicle?
Can anyone clarify what Zimmerman is trying to claim here?
Devolution
Member
When in doubt claim the black person tried to car jack you.
I still can't believe that such law exists in Florida where you can shoot and kill a guy and go have tea the next day. A LIFE was taken. Regardless of the circumstances, I find it incumbent upon law enforcement to conduct a thorough investigation and not simply take the shooter's word for it.
This country can be so stupid sometimes.
This country can be so stupid sometimes.
Just stop right there. Zimmerman KNEW all of the streets in that gated community. He's been the self-appointed Neighborhood Watch captain for a while and lived in that area for years. Plus, it's a small area. He got out of his car to pursue Trayvon. That's where everything else that he's said is a lie.
JCreasy
Member
See I think it would pretty easy to prove that Zimmerman's sole purpose for getting out of his car was to pursue Trayvon Martin.
Once that's established, he's the sole aggressor. His account falls apart.
But he acted on his paranoia. I'll give him the benefit the benefit of the doubt and assume that he's not racist (since 1) he called 9-1-1 to report it instead of going full-blown vigilante and 2) there's that story about him trying to get help for the little black kid) but he took his "duty" too far.
If I'm looking out of my window and I think someone is on drugs and up to no good, I'm calling the cops and that's it. That's what they're there for. People make incorrect assumptions about other people all the time.....like this Zimmerman fool did. The police are better trained and equipped to handle these situations (at least I hope, lol). Zimmerman took the law into his own hands, and it resulted in the needless death of a person.
He may have been trying to help but the world doesn't need his brand of assistance.
Ummm.....Zimmerman's a liar? =p
Roger Danish
Member
It doesn't fit the "narrative."
Whether that narrative is one of a post-racial America, or--more accurately--one in which white males are themselves the victims of racial and sex discrimination (thus, any other claims of "racial discrimination" are simply "race baiting" and thus "racist"). It's not an isolated phenomenon. I remember reading an article about this in a major publication (Newsweek?) just last year.
I can imagine Zimmerman shaking his head and cocking his gun while saying that.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Between this thread and the Healthcare Hearings one, you've been dropping some good knowledge as of late. Keep abiding that shit.
Anyone watch Piers Morgan where he's talking with TED Nugent? Piers asks him a question basically saying if he believes Neighborhood Watch should have the right to bear arms and use it depending on the situation and Nugent actually said yes. I mean there's not wanting look bad/wrong in an argument and then there's that.
It's funny because after that he keeps trying to call the whole situation a tragedy and that he has the family in his prayers.
It's funny because after that he keeps trying to call the whole situation a tragedy and that he has the family in his prayers.
Why are they asking Nugent? yeah he loves gun but so does millions of other people, what can he possible add to the conversation?
BruiserBear
Banned
It gets headlines if you get a celebrity to say something crazy.
They were probably hoping he'd say something awful since he's a piece of human garbage. Kudos to him for not being a mutant for five minutes.
He did make the assumption that Trayvon bashed the guys face in almost to the point of death and then at the same time say that he has the family in his prayers. It was a weird interview to say the least. oh and he pulled Toures's "You're not American so you can't understand" card.
It's amazing how people take Zimmerman at his word. There's NO proof that he had his head bashed in or that he ever had a broken nose. None! And yet people accept the word of a man who physically assaulted his girlfriend, a police officer, and a drunken woman BECAUSE HE SAID IT WAS TRUE. I just can't believe it.
demigod
Member
Fuck man, did you completely forget about John? He was right outside his door, he got scared and ran back in.
You're pathetic. One on hand, you say Zimmerman is guilty and should go to jail. On the other hand, you try to defend him by posting your "facts"(lol) that contradicts what 90% of the peoples views in this thread. After all this is over with, you will come back to this thread and either say, "i'm glad he's going to jail as i hoped" or "haha, i told you guys that they don't have enough evidence to convict him". Either way, its a win-win situation for you.
BruiserBear
Banned
Could you provide a link explaining "John's" story?
You seem to have completely misjudged my point of view, and my intentions. But don't worry, you've got lots of company here. As I've said before, if you don't come out and support every conspiracy theory, jump to conclusions that have no evidence to support them, and give emotional statements, rather than factual ones, you must support George Zimmerman.
If George Zimmerman does not spend years in jail for this crime, I will be upset. I would never return to this thread to celebrate him getting off the hook because I've never supported him, or believed his story for that matter. I've given this opinon so many times now I'd swear people saying things like you just did were kidding, but unfortunately I know you're not. Which is exactly why I began posting in this thread.
demigod
Member
Search fox news john trayvon.
Why would we be kidding? We're sick of your conspiracies and fake facts. We are sick of you trying to say Zimmerman is guilty yet you keep defending him. If you even think that Trayvon had a gun, Zimmerman should've done what the dispatcher told him and waited at the mailbox to prevent himself from getting hurt. But nope, Zimmerman didn't listen. He pursued the suspect and took the laws into his own hands.
- Status