Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Easy answer. Martin returned to the scene with the intent of teaching that "creepy ass cracker" a lesson as testified in court."
"If someone jumps me I'm going to do my best to off them before they off me."
See the bold part. This is completely consistent with what I said above. Is there a point to this, or are you participating in the inquisition as well?
See the bold part. This is completely consistent with what I said above. Is there a point to this, or are you participating in the inquisition as well?
Take a moment to do a little critical thinking instead of reacting to emotion and I'm sure that you can figure it out.
But considering that the purpose of the inquisition that I am getting here isn't to inform, but to instead to continue to try and discredit me as some sort of racist, I will answer it, yet again for you.
A violent crime was committed.
Violent crime always involves at least two people.
Violent crime requires there to be an attacker & victim.
Law allows victim to defend himself against attacker.
Zimmerman brought up on charges that he was attacker.
Jury found Zimmerman not-guilty, hence he was not attacker, hence, he was victim.
Since Martin was only other person present, then he must be the attacker.
If not, then a violent crime did not occur.
Throw shoes at this if you like, I don't really care, but it's a lot more than most have provide here.
The highlighted bullet point is faulty logic and just plain wrong. The jury gives no reason for failing to convict. A jury's verdict speaks only to the guilty/not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt question and does absolutely nothing to verify or deny any specific sub issues or testimony at trial.
Quote- Maybe Trayvon's parents should have taught him to keep his hands off of people who aren't touching him. Maybe teach him not to be racist, either ...
who said TM was a racist-? those are strong words- ask your partner
Did it give him the right to punch a cop in the face, follow another person in his vehicle & threaten him, point a shotgun at his girlfriend, throw wine bottles, etc...?
We're talking about the TM incident, stay alert. And he didn't threaten TM, only kept an eye on him. That's what townwatch does.
Take a moment to do a little critical thinking instead of reacting to emotion and I'm sure that you can figure it out.
But considering that the purpose of the inquisition that I am getting here isn't to inform, but to instead to continue to try and discredit me as some sort of racist, I will answer it, yet again for you.
A violent crime was committed.
Violent crime always involves at least two people.
Violent crime requires there to be an attacker & victim.
Law allows victim to defend himself against attacker.
Zimmerman brought up on charges that he was attacker.
Jury found Zimmerman not-guilty, hence he was not attacker, hence, he was victim.
Since Martin was only other person present, then he must be the attacker.
If not, then a violent crime did not occur.
Throw shoes at this if you like, I don't really care, but it's a lot more than most have provide here.
Not true.
Regardless of who initiated the physical confrontation, if TM ended up on top, banging GZ's head into the ground, beating him 'MMA' style, and reached for GZ's gun, GZ was legally justified in shooting, even if he did start the confrontation.
I happen to believe that TM came back to confront GZ, did, and we know the rest.
Regardless of who initiated the physical confrontation, if TM ended up on top, banging GZ's head into the ground, beating him 'MMA' style, and reached for GZ's gun, GZ was legally justified in shooting, even if he did start the confrontation.
I happen to believe that TM came back to confront GZ, did, and we know the rest.
In the way you put this, I would have to disagree. Even though Stand Your Ground was not used as a defense, my understanding is that you cannot commit a crime, and them claim it as a defense. For instance, when TM & GZ met up again at some point, it would all hinge on who started the physical assault.
So for the sake of argument lets say Zimmerman was pissed off and took a swing at Martin (video evidence), but then TM got the upper hand and had GZ mounted. It would be much more difficult to claim self defense, and SYG would be out as any type of legitimate defense.
Of course it gets grey even under those circumstances if TM continues to stay on top of GZ and hurt him. At some point if GZ believes TM is trying to kill him and shoots as a last resort, self defense could be a factor. But SYG would not be since GZ initially attempted an A&B on TM.
Regardless of who initiated the physical confrontation, if TM ended up on top, banging GZ's head into the ground, beating him 'MMA' style, and reached for GZ's gun, GZ was legally justified in shooting, even if he did start the confrontation.
I happen to believe that TM came back to confront GZ, did, and we know the rest.
As a law abiding citizen, if you called 911 and they recommended that you not follow the individual and allow police to do their job, would you still follow Trayvon? Remember, Trayvon hadn't committed any crime, just passing through with his hoodie and a soft drink beverage.
It really depends on my mindset at the time. Even a neighbor or family member might say don't follow them, and their advice might make me think differently.
Then again if I have made up my mind that the person is up to no good, I'd probably disregard it and continue to follow them. I'll give you an example I just remembered from many years ago.
I was driving home from a baseball game one evening and was trying to get over to the right hand lane to get on the expressway. In my rear view mirror I saw a car hit another car fairly hard, trying to do the same thing I was. Sure enough this car took off, and as I got over it sped ahead of me and jumped on the entrance ramp. I sped up to follow and called the police. After being switched between agencies (due to it now being a state trooper situation with them being in the expressway ), the dispatcher was asking me questions as to the description and the tag on the vehicle.
The H&R car didn't realize I was next to them on the expressway, about a car length back, and had seen the accident. They were still speeding, but not that much more than the flow of traffic.
After I gave all the info I could to the dispatcher, she asked if I was still following them, and I said yes. She advised me to stop and that they would handle it from there since they "had the tag number". I asked if the tag matched the car because I was thinking it might be a stolen tag (common in my city) and she said she could not give me that information. So I continued to follow them knowing that her recommendation had no legal authority. She didn't continue to ask me to stop because I explained that I was approaching a major branch coming up and they could go in 3 other directions and even get off on another expressway. As we approached that area, it became clear they were going to go north on another extension to a different highway. Since I was going to be going south, it would delay me by at least 20 minutes or more to continue to follow them in the opposite direction. So with the advice (really a demand) from my passengers, plus the dispatcher, I went south after informing her they got off on the north ramp.
She then explained that she would call a different agency and let them know since it was now a Metro police jurisdiction.
I thought to myself, damn it, I should have known this was going to happen, and by the time a BOLO went out on this car with a different LE agency, these guys could have gotten off any number of exits never to be found.
The reason I told you this story was to point out that the only reason I stopped following this hit & run vehicle was more for inconvenience and my family members wanting me to, than the dispatcher saying I should stop following them. If it was a H&R with say a pedestrian, I probably would have continued to follow them regardless. The only thing that would have stopped me in that situation is if they started driving so recklessly that I'd be endangering my passengers to do so.
BTW - I was never called/contacted to be a witness, so they obviously never caught the bums.
In the way you put this, I would have to disagree. Even though Stand Your Ground was not used as a defense, my understanding is that you cannot commit a crime, and them claim it as a defense. For instance, when TM & GZ met up again at some point, it would all hinge on who started the physical assault.
So for the sake of argument lets say Zimmerman was pissed off and took a swing at Martin (video evidence), but then TM got the upper hand and had GZ mounted. It would be much more difficult to claim self defense, and SYG would be out as any type of legitimate defense.
Of course it gets grey even under those circumstances if TM continues to stay on top of GZ and hurt him.
At some point if GZ believes TM is trying to kill him and shoots as a last resort, self defense could be a factor. But SYG would not be since GZ initially attempted an A&B on TM.
If I push you, you react by punching me the nose, I go down, you jump on me, and beat me to the point that I have a reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm or death [a jury decision], standard self defense law allows me to use deadly force.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), the dispatcher was asking me questions as to the description and the tag on the vehicle. 
So I continued to follow them knowing that her recommendation had no legal authority. She didn't continue to ask me to stop because I explained that I was approaching a major branch coming up and they could go in 3 other directions and even get off on another expressway. As we approached that area, it became clear they were going to go north on another extension to a different highway. Since I was going to be going south, it would delay me by at least 20 minutes or more to continue to follow them in the opposite direction. So with the advice (really a demand) from my passengers, plus the dispatcher, I went south after informing her they got off on the north ramp. 