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.
But there were riots in Crown Heights over a traffic accident.
Zimmerman is likely to walk. It looks like he was rightfully defending himself from a thug.
Actually, if any one was a thug in this situation, it was Zimmerman. He followed Trayvon, confronted him in a aggressive manner, and he had the gun. Trayvon had as much right to defend himself as Zimmerman.
Stop making something out of nothing, stop race baiting on this thread, and stop whining about "a black guy verbally assaulted a friend at work". So sorry! You think you and whites are the victims in society today or ever? Your posts are the usual nonsense.
He is also appears to be rejoicing the death of a kid who did nothing wrong, just happened to be loitering around his parent's neighborhood. Wait till it happens to his own loved ones and he'll be the one crying injustice.
Agreed that any person who ignores police to leave a safe place (his car), and follow a "suspicious" character (young black man with a can of iced tea) who later ends up dead, bears moral reponsibility for his death. Whether he bears legal responsibility, we shall see.
As to the original question, I don't see New Yorkers rioting or such if he gets off. As has been pointed out, when Rodney King's cops got off, NYC was quiet. There were protests aplenty, but no riots, in the aftermath of the sodomizing of Abner Louima (cops found guilty), or the killing of of Amadou Diallou (cops fiound innocent). And for those of us old enough to remember, there were even predictions of riots here after the premiere of Spike Lee's "Do The Right Thing" back in 1989. Of course no riots materialized.
The fear of black folks gone wild is, IMO, the product of bigoted minds that hold the worst stereotypcial views and are happy to jump to the worst possible conclusions about black folks' behavior despite any evidence (exmples above) to the contrary.
The op is race baiting with this thread...I mean is this guy actually complaining and fearing that some blacks may verbally assault some random person on the train because of a perceived slight/injustice? Blacks have PLENTY of reasons to be angry at whites, Blacks have PLENTY of reasons to riot, and have PLENTY of reasons to do them violent and deadly harm hundreds of years before this case....and yet it doesn't happen..why is that?
Stop making something out of nothing, stop race baiting on this thread, and stop whining about "a black guy verbally assaulted a friend at work". So sorry! You think you and whites are the victims in society today or ever?.
My ex-BF, who is an FBI agent, had a long "discussion" (that came close to an argument) about this case the other day. I simply DO NOT GET how Zimmerman can sleep at night. I just don't get it. That kid was doing nothing wrong--if he'd just left him alone, he'd still be alive.
Last edited by bmwguydc; 07-13-2013 at 12:41 AM..
Reason: Please report issues, thanks.
The fear of black folks gone wild is, IMO, the product of bigoted minds that hold the worst stereotypcial views and are happy to jump to the worst possible conclusions about black folks' behavior despite any evidence (exmples above) to the contrary.
wish you could have told Yankel Rosenblaum that in 1991.
But my question is how can someone claim self-defense if they provoked the situation? I don't see how someone can claim that if they instigated the situation. Now had he been minding his own business and this happened, then I can understand but he FOLLOWED him after the cops told him to stay put! Based on that alone, I would think he would bare some sort of responsibility for the outcome.
It isn't illegal to follow someone unless they're on their own private property. That said, it's grounds for dismissal from the civilian patrol. Whoever threw the first punch is the one who instigated the sequence of violence. That said, Zimmerman will be toast in the inevitable civil trial for nothing more than getting out of his vehicle. Proving his civil responsibility will be a relative cinch compared with proving his criminal responsibility.
It really is incredible. I don't see how he doesn't get off then based on this very flawed law. Putting aside race and just talking about this on a person-to-person level, if someone is minding their own business and another person comes along and confronts them, I would think that the person doing the confronting would lose the right to claim self-defense.
"Confronting" someone can be limited to mere words. If I heard someone outside my residence and went outside to ask them what they were doing and they got violent I'd be justified in using commensurate force, no? Even if I confronted them?
Actually, if any one was a thug in this situation, it was Zimmerman. He followed Trayvon, confronted him in a aggressive manner, and he had the gun. Trayvon had as much right to defend himself as Zimmerman.
Not unless and not until Zimmerman assaulted Martin. Asking someone 'What are you doing here?' is not assault.
I'm in Coney, where there are probably more people of mixed Jewish/Hispanic background, like Zimmerman, than anywhere in the world except maybe Buenos Aires. I'm happy to say that in spite of that no one here seems to be rooting for the s.o.b.
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.
Now had he been minding his own business and this happened, then I can understand but he FOLLOWED him after the cops told him to stay put! Based on that alone, I would think he would bare some sort of responsibility for the outcome.
I don't see how he doesn't get off then based on this very flawed law. Putting aside race and just talking about this on a person-to-person level, if someone is minding their own business and another person comes along and confronts them, I would think that the person doing the confronting would lose the right to claim self-defense.
