RawkHawk2010
Member
Oh come on, despite the poor wording that wasn't really so bad.
"It was all god's plan" might as well just be a synonym for "I had to do what I had to do and I don't regret it."
George Zimmerman (killer of unarmed Florida teen Trayvon Martin) found not guilty
- Thread starter Dude Abides
- Start date
- Status
Oh come on, despite the poor wording that wasn't really so bad.
"It was all god's plan" might as well just be a synonym for "I had to do what I had to do and I don't regret it."
Mackenzie 92
Member
Most people. At least all the fights I've witnessed and been in, there was no screaming. I'm distinguishing between physical and verbal fights here, when people are going at it there isn't any trash talk or screaming in my experience.
Why would Zimmerman be screaming if he had a gun? If he felt his life was in danger he would react and use it, not scream in the way that we heard on the 911 call. Those screams sound like a scared kid to me and they get more hysterical right before the gunshot.
I can relate to both trayvon and george. Like trayvon, I've gone to the convenience store at night. And like George, I've felt threatened in my own home/neighborhood (In my case, it was targetted vandalism during high school, not robberies. I'm talking 2-3 dozen acts of vandalism of my home over a 1-2 month period, including spray painted threats against me.) The difference is in order to catch the bastards, I let the authorities do their jobs, they increased patrols in the area, and there were nights where I did a stake out from my own bedroom, peeking through the blinders with the lights off at 2:00 am, phone in hand, waiting for the bastards to show up and to call the local dispatchers, hopefully with a description of their faces or plates or something. Not once did I think of approaching them myself or wish harm upon them. The police eventually caught them, and, one day, one of the boys was brought over by his parents to apologize, and while being scolded, he suffered a massive panic attack at our front door, 2 feet in front of us. And we called 911 immediately, got towels and wet cloths and we took care of him, and worried about him, until well after the ambulance arrived. And we continued to check up on him, even though he was a bastard that had caused $5-$10k of damage to our house and made myself unable to peacefully relax within the confines of the 4 walls I knew as home for my whole life.
I showed empathy, and I sure as fuck had more reason not to than George did to Trayvon. And I firmly believe George's actions were 100% to blame for trayvon's death, and if he had EITHER let the police do their jobs OR a shred of empathy, trayvon would still be alive. His actions were so irresponsible and reckless that the death they caused is overwhelmingly criminal in nature, his injuries be damned.
I showed empathy, and I sure as fuck had more reason not to than George did to Trayvon. And I firmly believe George's actions were 100% to blame for trayvon's death, and if he had EITHER let the police do their jobs OR a shred of empathy, trayvon would still be alive. His actions were so irresponsible and reckless that the death they caused is overwhelmingly criminal in nature, his injuries be damned.
vas_a_morir
Banned
Vastradamas' prediction: The medical examiner will say "The shot came from below at point blank range" and everyone will go "the prosecution is blowing this!"
Hard to say without a reference point with Trayvon's voice. Zimmerman's voice is far from Barry White, so the voice can be whoever's voice you want it to be. If you want to hear a teen, you could. If you want to hear a guy in his 20's, you could.
RawkHawk2010
Member
When did that happen? He just said he wouldn't have done anything differently - because in his view not acting would have resulted in his own death.
Sucks for him, trayvon was just defending himself.
If he could do anything differently that night, he would still follow the kid, confront the kid and then kill the kid because it was Gods Plan. I mean who are we to question God's righteous plan. Zimmerman was just playing his role. His destiny.
He said he didn't regret getting out of the car. If George stays in the car, nobody dies.
Are you suggesting Trayvon would have taken George's life if George didn't get out of the car? Because the implication in your post, combined with what George said, is that George would have been attacked if he didn't get out of the car.
Vicetrailia
Banned
He has no remorse what so ever about any of his actions. Not a single action prior to the shooting as well. He did not want to prevent the death of Trayvon.
Xenon
Member
If Zimmerman attacked Trayvon when he got out of the car it would. Also show me where I ever said that Zimmerman was not responsible. I just said he should be convicted with manslaughter.
If by that you mean trying to find out all the facts about the case before making my decision, than yes. As opposed to you making your mind up that Zimmerman was guilty from the beginning.
Personally I think an important lesson would be lost if you just put 100% of responsibility on Zimmerman. Who I do believe is mostly to blame. The following statement is going to piss people off but its true. Trayvon may be alive today if he had handled things differently. Does that mean that he deserved to die, no. But the one lesson that should be taken away from this and the father who got shot. You never know what someone is capable of and avoid fighting at all cost.
Saying Trayvon has zero responsibility in what happened that night is willfully ignorant at best.
RawkHawk2010
Member
Well if Trayvon did indeed start the physical part of the altercation (a question we don't know the answer to), Zimmerman's suspicions were vindicated.
Remorse wouldn't be warranted in that case, depending on the person.
Zimmerman has a child like voice imo. From the 911 call alone I would guess by his voice to be a teenager.
polyh3dron
Banned
I don't know what church he belongs to or what religion he follows, but the judeo-christian version of God gave humans free will. One of his commandments is that you shall not kill.
If I'm being followed, I'm uncomfortable. Scared, even. However, if my follower becomes more aggressive after I try to back off (like, say, switching modes of transportation just because he needs to in order to continue following me), I'm perceiving a very real and imminent threat to my safety.
Except he had clear intent to make a confrontation with Trayvon via the police calls. Without going to far into Zimmermans own story of what occurred which he seemed to change multiple occasions, the very fact that his intent was to engage Trayvon when he was clearly told otherwise establishes intent. The death on this kid is on his hands, the fact he even has to resort to self defense(which his claim is still questionable) still goes back to his intent to confront Trayvon. His negligence and incompetence cost this Teen his life, I don't think manslaughter is the right call.
And you should highlight first where I accused you of saying Zimmerman wasn't responsible. I just reworded your point slightly to highlight the oppositions POV.
Vicetrailia
Banned
If Trayvon was on drugs or was trying to commit a crime he would be vindicated. That's where this shit starts other than "They always get away". His whole journey was bullshit from start to finish.
Didn't he still "secure" martin on the ground? Seems to me like he wasn't perfectly certain if the threat was over.
how can so many people just shrug their shoulders at a homicide simply because we can't be sure who threw the first punch? As though all violence is equal in the presence of some violence, and no initial act of violence (in the most literal sense of the term) is justifiable?
we're going to 0 doubt, not reasonable doubt, levels here. Trayvon was murdered. not in cold-blood, but still murdered.
we're going to 0 doubt, not reasonable doubt, levels here. Trayvon was murdered. not in cold-blood, but still murdered.
vas_a_morir
Banned
Depends. I grew up as a Presbyterian. They most certainly do not believe in Free Will.
As a result, judging from some of the reactions in this thread, my interpretation of 'Good' and 'God's Will' are VERY different from some posters.
Here's a hint: On Good Friday, the man who Christians believe to be the most noble, loving, and moral human being in history was tortured to death brutally in front of his friends and family. It was a the worst day imaginable, yet it is known to Christians as "Good Friday."
Wacky as it may sound to us, to Calvinists, it makes perfect sense.
sketchsanchez
Member
im watching this show recapping the week amd they have two former prosecutors on (one for LA the other for NY) and one says details dont matter, paint the bigger picture and the other says details matter the bigger picture isnt enough(both of them are saying this in regards to this specific case, not in a broader sense).
I cant help but think about people already saying its a wrap, Zimmerman is going to walk and not even two people who used to do the same job as the prosecution cant even agree about the approach to the case or how its going.
I cant help but think about people already saying its a wrap, Zimmerman is going to walk and not even two people who used to do the same job as the prosecution cant even agree about the approach to the case or how its going.
you also use his cross as a positive symbol, which is fucked up. Like if the symbol of judaism became a gas chamber.
</OT>
edit: or a whip
How is Trayvon becoming aggressive vindicate Zimmerman? Where do you folks live where it's okay for armed adults to trail and follow young teens at night solely because of the color of their skin?
I think this is something white people just cannot understand. The other day I chased a white junkie up the street who shattered my neighbors car window and stole his gps. This is now perhaps the 15th time where I've seen a young white male commit a crime, whether it's stealing our lawn mower, breaking into my basement as I'm sleeping and wake up, try breaking into our car etc.
I don't automatically assume the next white guy I see walking down my street is a criminal who will try and break into my car. I can't believe the shit Zimmerman's friend is saying either. And I did see the junkie I chased a few days later. He was cycling down a street 4 blocks over while I was walking my dog. I looked back, he looked back.
Now if I'm walking down the street after going to the store, I have the right not to be harassed or followed. It's illegal for police to do it, especially since there is no crime committed. Being black, while wearing a hoodie and walking down the street doesn't mean you're a criminal. If it was me I'd probably accost the guy too. Maybe even get into a fight if I was upset or not. The last thing I'd think is this guy is trying to be Clint Eastwood from Gran Torino carrying a loaded gun and will shoot me dead.
It's simple, he panicked just like most guys with guns do in the heat of the moment. He was carrying a deadly weapon and he used it, if he didn't have it, if he stayed in his truck, both people would be alive.
polyh3dron
Banned
So apparently the perfect murder is getting into a fistfight and then pulling out a gun and shooting the other person.
You can even do it in broad daylight with a shitload of witnesses.
You can even do it in broad daylight with a shitload of witnesses.
only if the other person looks suspicious
Someone with a gun. Not a chance that Zimmerman continues to pursue Martin if he was weaponless.
Also, don't forget to mention it was Gods plan. Thats critical.
Fixed that for you
All minorities look suspicious.
Oh yeah a totally applicaple parallel.Anyways, there's a difference between self-defense and self-preservation. Someone on death row would never kill their executioner in the chamber and get off on self defense.
it's just one example. another is killing someone that is trying to defend themself from you.
Like this case.
Trayvon may have initiated physical contact because George got out of his car, verbally harassed him, and followed him. George started the confrontation by getting out of the car and approaching Trayvon, plain and simple.
Given the basic facts of the case I'm not sure why anyone would try to argue what you're claiming. I'm not trying to insult you or be rude, but your argument has no logic or weight at all. It's one thing to use hypothetical scenarios, it's another to base those hypothetical scenarios on improbabilities and things that just would not have happened otherwise.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I think I remember that part. Where the defendant is awaiting trial and the townsfolk gather to lynch him beforehand and Gregory Peck calmly prevents them from having their way with him? Or did you mean a different part?
He hasn't walked yet.
methane47
Member
Well we all agree the prosecution sucks and the defense is killing it right now
That said, I'll admit I would like to see Zimmerman do some time for his role.
I feel like the "truth" that you want revealed is almost irrelevant at this point. The facts that everyone already knows and accepts are damning in my eyes and show that one party was CLEARLY responsible for what occurred.
Who started the fight, or who was on top or who was beating up who, doesn't matter in my eyes one bit. because it is so clear as day to me that Zimmerman was completely responsible for what occurred that night.
Zimmerman was the one who profiled a young boy incorrectly.
Zimmerman was the one who followed him for a while in his car.
Zimmerman was the one who GOT OUT of his car and Followed TM behind other people's houses.
How is it that Zimmerman now gets to skirt responsibility? When he was the ADULT in the situation, he was the one who instigated the event. It just doesn't seem fair to anyone with a lick of common sense.
I'm not saying that TM didn't have a part, I'm just saying it doesn't seem fair that Zim may not do time for his overwhelming role in the situation.
I'm not sure what you mean, are you saying there was no outrage because a white guy died?
In the case you linked It took TWO DAYS to arrest Trevor Dooley (The black guy shooter) AND he was convicted and is serving 8 years. It took Florida almost TWO MONTHS to arrest Zimmerman. Add to the fact that they didn't even canvas the scene and do their due diligence on the night of the shooting.
Seek help.
probably the part where the jury convicts even though he's as innocent as he could possibly be. except in this case, the innocent person is the victim, not the defendant, and the verdict is not guilty. In both cases, the verdict is an outrage.
(In the book his arm wasn't paralyzed. It was gone- had been cut off by a woodchipper years ago)
Bullshit. It depends on who you punch. Punching a small child or a 90 year old woman could easily be argued as intent to kill.
vas_a_morir
Banned
you also use his cross as a positive symbol, which is fucked up. Like if the symbol of judaism became a gas chamber.
</OT>
edit: or a whip
Lol, not me. I don't go for that nutty shenanigans.
So if Zim is being completely honest:
1) TM jumped him after he had given up his pursuit (this is his story, right?)
2) He was getting his ass beat (head hit into concrete)
3) TM and he both saw the gun and Zim got to it first?
What does that mean to everyone?
If Zim did not instigate the violence with TM, what right does TM have to hit him? Does TM have the responsibility to ask him why he's following him before attacking him? Does TM have the right to 'protect himself' with unprovoked violence?
To me, the absolutely crucial measure here is the instigation of violence. Zim isn't culpable for being suspicious of TM (unless he is the escalator), he's enacting his normal volunteer duties without escalation and without violence (assuming that he gave up his pursuit). If there was a way to prove he is the instigator and escalator, it then seems fully plausible to initiate his guilt.
Hope I'm not off on this? I'm not trying to take a side (the situation is terrible), but get caught up on people's views. Regardless of verdict, I'm trying objectively see guilt here and from what the courtroom has brought (at least what I've taken in), Zim's proven to be credible in his version of the events.
If I were on this jury, there's absolutely no way that I could, beyond a reasonable doubt, convict him of murder right now. Other charges potentially, but murder, no.
1) TM jumped him after he had given up his pursuit (this is his story, right?)
2) He was getting his ass beat (head hit into concrete)
3) TM and he both saw the gun and Zim got to it first?
What does that mean to everyone?
If Zim did not instigate the violence with TM, what right does TM have to hit him? Does TM have the responsibility to ask him why he's following him before attacking him? Does TM have the right to 'protect himself' with unprovoked violence?
To me, the absolutely crucial measure here is the instigation of violence. Zim isn't culpable for being suspicious of TM (unless he is the escalator), he's enacting his normal volunteer duties without escalation and without violence (assuming that he gave up his pursuit). If there was a way to prove he is the instigator and escalator, it then seems fully plausible to initiate his guilt.
Hope I'm not off on this? I'm not trying to take a side (the situation is terrible), but get caught up on people's views. Regardless of verdict, I'm trying objectively see guilt here and from what the courtroom has brought (at least what I've taken in), Zim's proven to be credible in his version of the events.
If I were on this jury, there's absolutely no way that I could, beyond a reasonable doubt, convict him of murder right now. Other charges potentially, but murder, no.
Dude Abides
Banned
Background on Zimmerman and the 911 call arent actually relevant since Martin wouldnt have been aware of them. Please, try to follow what's going on. Your once a day drive by derp is getting a bit tiresome.
PeteZaTheHutt
Member
My opinion of this entire tragedy is that both TM and GZ poorly handled the encounter prior to the actual shooting. I've tried to put myself in the shoes of both of these men and I've thought about how I, myself, would've handled the situation. Maybe I'm naive, but I would hope that most people, if they found themselves in a similar situation, would choose to act in a manner that is at least in line with what I'm outlining below. Of course, all of my suggestions could be moot anyway because of the highly charged atmosphere of the confrontation along with the darkness and the uncertainty (and many other factors) which would quickly degenerate into a scenario where anything can go.
Firstly, if I were in GZ's shoes, I would've clearly identified myself as a neighborhood watch member to a clearly agitated TM in order to calm him down by reassuring him that I did not have any random aggressive intentions. I would have clearly stated that my only intentions were to ascertain TM's intentions in order to safeguard the neighborhood and I would've also explained that I had called the police already. At best, TM would've realized that nothing bad was going to happen and things would have been cleared up in quick order. At worse, TM would've hightailed it out of there knowing that the police were on the way.
Now, if I were in TM's shoes, I would've refrained from using such a confrontational manner toward GZ and not so quickly assumed that GZ had harmful intentions as soon as they had met. Perhaps he could have allowed more time for GZ to explain why he was following TM, and he would've realized that there was no need to defend himself.
Again, this is just my opinion, but it seems to me that both of these men are guilty somewhat of puffing out their chests and playing the tough guy. GZ is the tough guy cop wannabe with an authority complex while TM is the street wise gangsta wannabe. Pitting these two volatile personalities against each other was never going to end well. Both of their attitudes contributed to the quick escalation of the situation when cooler heads could have prevailed instead. We could go over endless what-if scenarios where either GZ or TM (or both) could have approached things differently and more rationally, thereby avoiding tragedy altogether. Unfortunately, cooler heads did not prevail and a young man is dead.
Firstly, if I were in GZ's shoes, I would've clearly identified myself as a neighborhood watch member to a clearly agitated TM in order to calm him down by reassuring him that I did not have any random aggressive intentions. I would have clearly stated that my only intentions were to ascertain TM's intentions in order to safeguard the neighborhood and I would've also explained that I had called the police already. At best, TM would've realized that nothing bad was going to happen and things would have been cleared up in quick order. At worse, TM would've hightailed it out of there knowing that the police were on the way.
Now, if I were in TM's shoes, I would've refrained from using such a confrontational manner toward GZ and not so quickly assumed that GZ had harmful intentions as soon as they had met. Perhaps he could have allowed more time for GZ to explain why he was following TM, and he would've realized that there was no need to defend himself.
Again, this is just my opinion, but it seems to me that both of these men are guilty somewhat of puffing out their chests and playing the tough guy. GZ is the tough guy cop wannabe with an authority complex while TM is the street wise gangsta wannabe. Pitting these two volatile personalities against each other was never going to end well. Both of their attitudes contributed to the quick escalation of the situation when cooler heads could have prevailed instead. We could go over endless what-if scenarios where either GZ or TM (or both) could have approached things differently and more rationally, thereby avoiding tragedy altogether. Unfortunately, cooler heads did not prevail and a young man is dead.
This case is pretty tough to decide on at the moment. On one hand, most of the witness testimony points to his story being true. On the other hand, you have Jeantel who heard the beginning of the confrontation and that points to Zimmerman being the aggressor.
Will have to see what happens next week.
Will have to see what happens next week.
But don't you know?! He would have died by Trayvon's hands if he didn't have his weapon!
faceless007
Member
Not to mention really freaking irresponsible.
Hmm, has Zimmerman said at what point he unholstered his gun? Was it before or after the confrontation began?
Vicetrailia
Banned
The problem does not lie in with the confrontation. GZ shouldn't have profiled and/or shouldn't have left the truck.
Mammoth Jones
Member
This. Unfortunately the law doesn't seem to give a fuck and is soley focused on whom physically encountered whom first.
Since Trayvon isn't here is nothing stopping Zimmerman from twisting the facts to support his narrative of self defense.
PeteZaTheHutt
Member
I agree. This is probably just one of thousands of "what-if" scenarios that could have resulted in a less tragic outcome. I also mentioned in my post "(and many other factors)" in brackets, and the apparent racial profiling on GZ's part is one of those other factors to which I was referring. Unfortunately, GZ did leave his truck and it led to a poorly communicated confrontation between two aggressive alpha males.
- Status