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.
Zimmerman is a frustrated little rejected cop-wanna-be who couldn't find a Girlfriend, so had to express his dubious manhood by hunting an innocent kid who had the nerve to walk to the store and back home. He had no right to follow, question or otherwise accost the guy. He should go to jail as a message to all the other vigilante deputy-dog morons who don't understand the American concept of Liberty. If anyone is not free to walk the streets, then no one is free to walk the streets. That means you and your kids too!
Put yourself in that kids Reeboks. YOU are followed by some guy in a car, then the guy get's of of his car to follow YOU on foot. What are YOU thinking? I'm thinking this mutt is up to no good. My head is on a swivel, my defenses are at defcon 1. If he get's too close to me, I'm not waiting to get blind sided. If he asks me what am I doing here, I'm demanding: who want's to know? Show me your badge, or f&%K off.
No matter how you cut it, common sense tells you that Zimmerman was the aggressor who stalked his way into a confrontation that HE wanted. And, unless you believe that I, or ANYBODY, at ANYTIME, has the right to follow YOU, and approach YOU, and question YOU, You can't possibly defend this mutt. And if you can, Go out right now and burn a flag, because you don't know what American Liberty, or Freedom means!
I don't know much about the Anthony trial, but I know the prosecutors sure made a real mess and rush to judgment in the Duke Lacrosse case. They will never learn, that's why the system is set up to protect defendants. Even 200 years ago people understood the State's tendency to prosecute people for political reasons.
That's because there is no concern for Justice, or truth, reason, or the American way. You are guilty until proven innocent, and the only thing that prosecutors care about is their Win/Loss record, just as if it peoples lives were just a baseball season. Who cares if they were guilty, or innocent: I GOT HIM! And now the whole, city, county, state, or (God Please, please!), COUNTRY will know my name! Man, that's just great for my career! Guilt? Innocence? Who cares? I want headlines!
Shakespeare told us long ago--The first thing we should do is kill all of the lawyers!
And just think, if we did, we'd get most of the politicians too!
Zimmerman is a frustrated little rejected cop-wanna-be who couldn't find a Girlfriend, so had to express his dubious manhood by hunting an innocent kid who had the nerve to walk to the store and back home. He had no right to follow, question or otherwise accost the guy. He should go to jail as a message to all the other vigilante deputy-dog morons who don't understand the American concept of Liberty. If anyone is not free to walk the streets, then no one is free to walk the streets. That means you and your kids too!
Put yourself in that kids Reeboks. YOU are followed by some guy in a car, then the guy get's of of his car to follow YOU on foot. What are YOU thinking? I'm thinking this mutt is up to no good. My head is on a swivel, my defenses are at defcon 1. If he get's too close to me, I'm not waiting to get blind sided. If he asks me what am I doing here, I'm demanding: who want's to know? Show me your badge, or f&%K off.
No matter how you cut it, common sense tells you that Zimmerman was the aggressor who stalked his way into a confrontation that HE wanted. And, unless you believe that I, or ANYBODY, at ANYTIME, has the right to follow YOU, and approach YOU, and question YOU, You can't possibly defend this mutt. And if you can, Go out right now and burn a flag, because you don't know what American Liberty, or Freedom means!
Well, Zimmerman probably felt like the law was incapable of dealing with the very high crime rate that abounds in many parts of Florida. Zimmerman probably was annoyed with thieves, and was trying to do whatever he could do to stop another crime from happening in his neighborhood. I can guarantee you that I'm not a cop wannabe, but I would have done basically the same thing if I had been in his shoes.
I can tell you a story about how I lived on a street that a lot of people would drive though going 50+ mph. We lived in the house on the corner of the block, and there were four young children that lived there, and who would play outside, riding bikes around, or just crossing the street to go to their friends houses. Every time I saw a car going fast through the neighborhood, it would **** me off, because someday, they would end up running over one of my nieces or nephews, and then I would have to hunt them down and kill them. And it would have been impossible for anyone to make me feel guilty about it.
On multiple occasions, I would get in my car and chase these punk kids down and have a talk with them about riding through my neighborhood at 50 mph or more in a 25 mph zone. I never had a single one of them ever argue with me about it, they either apologized to me or said nothing and nodded their head. And generally, they would avoid driving in front of my house after I had a talk with them.
With that said. If I believed there was someone acting strangely in my neighborhood(on drugs?), that I didn't recognize, and was dressed like a gangster. I wouldn't hesitate to ask them what they were doing in my neighborhood. I would do so in a respectable manner. And it would be wise of them to be respectful back to me in response.
If I had been Zimmerman acting as a pseudo neighborhood watch. And I had been following a suspected thief. And if I asked him why he was in the neighborhood(which is what Martin's friend said he said). And he then got angry and punched me in the nose and was banging my head into the concrete. I probably wouldn't have waited nearly as long as to kill him.
As I always told my nieces and nephews when they would get in a fight. There isn't a fight until someone lays their hands on someone else. Up until someone physically does something to someone else, it is simply an argument. If you want to escalate an argument to a fight, you better have a really good reason for it. Otherwise, you are in the wrong.
I don't see how Trayvon Martin believed that he was in the right when he laid his hands on George Zimmerman. He wasn't in the right, he was in the wrong, he was just angry. If he was scared, he would have just run home. He was angry that some "creepy ass cracker" was following him, and so he wanted to beat him up. The question is, do you have the right to beat someone up who is following you? No. Do you have the right to follow someone who you believe is robbing houses in your neighborhood? Yes. Can you continue following them even if the police say "we don't need you to do that." Yes. Do you have the right to follow someone you believe is robbing houses with a concealed gun if you have a license to do so? Yes.
What you seem to be advocating by arguing that Trayvon Martin should have the right to beat someone up who is following him. Is arguing that you should not have the right to pursue anyone who you think is committing a crime. Or possibly, that you don't even have the right to walk anywhere near someone else, if you think that it could make them nervous, and thus cause them to possibly attack you.
You seem to be advocating that if a person is looking into the windows of your neighbors house, you don't even have the right to ask him what he is doing. And if he is angry by you questioning him, he should be able to turn around and punch you in the face.
Basically, you are arguing that no matter what kinds of crimes are happening in the world around us, that we should not be allowed to respond in any way, other than to just call the police. Pretending as if the police always handle situations perfectly, and never cause the needless death of what they believe is a dangerous suspect.
If you take the man in Texas for instance, who shot the two men who were breaking into his neighbors home. Did he have the right to defend his neighbors home?
The whole thing is absolutely ridiculous. Had Trayvon Martin kept his hands to himself, he would still be alive today, period. His mother should have taught him to keep his hands to himself. But she didn't. Because we know that he thought of himself as quite the gangster, and that he was getting in fights at school and most likely elsewhere as well. Trayvon was a violent young man, who chose to use violence against George Zimmerman, and it cost him his life.
The most simple way, would be to sort of switch the roles in a weird way. Lets pretend that Trayvon had the gun and Zimmerman was following him. And out of supposed fear for his life, Trayvon shot Zimmerman who was following him. Would that have been OK? No.
Lets pretend that we used the above situation and that Trayvon had been white and Zimmerman black, and that Trayvon had the gun and shot the black Zimmerman who was following him. Would that have been legal? No.
In no context was it ever OK for Trayvon to attack Zimmerman, unless Zimmerman attacked him first. Or at least was reasonably fearful of his life. You can't even distort the facts that create that kind of environment. And thus, in all circumstances, Trayvon was wrong.
And no, it should not be illegal to follow someone with a gun. Because it doesn't even take a gun to kill someone. It shouldn't be illegal to follow someone at all. The paparazzi does it all the time. I mean, as long as it isn't harassment anyway.
Talk is circulating that there are incriminating text messages on St. Trayvon's phone where he said something to the extent that his arms hurt from fighting earlier that day and that he had lost round one but won rounds two and three of the fight. Trayvon also may have sought to purchase a gun illegally. We may have grounds for a mistrial if the prosecution concealed this evidence from the defense.
Well, Zimmerman probably felt like the law was incapable of dealing with the very high crime rate that abounds in many parts of Florida. Zimmerman probably was annoyed with thieves, and was trying to do whatever he could do to stop another crime from happening in his neighborhood. I can guarantee you that I'm not a cop wannabe, but I would have done basically the same thing if I had been in his shoes.
I can tell you a story about how I lived on a street that a lot of people would drive though going 50+ mph. We lived in the house on the corner of the block, and there were four young children that lived there, and who would play outside, riding bikes around, or just crossing the street to go to their friends houses. Every time I saw a car going fast through the neighborhood, it would **** me off, because someday, they would end up running over one of my nieces or nephews, and then I would have to hunt them down and kill them. And it would have been impossible for anyone to make me feel guilty about it.
On multiple occasions, I would get in my car and chase these punk kids down and have a talk with them about riding through my neighborhood at 50 mph or more in a 25 mph zone. I never had a single one of them ever argue with me about it, they either apologized to me or said nothing and nodded their head. And generally, they would avoid driving in front of my house after I had a talk with them.
With that said. If I believed there was someone acting strangely in my neighborhood(on drugs?), that I didn't recognize, and was dressed like a gangster. I wouldn't hesitate to ask them what they were doing in my neighborhood. I would do so in a respectable manner. And it would be wise of them to be respectful back to me in response.
If I had been Zimmerman acting as a pseudo neighborhood watch. And I had been following a suspected thief. And if I asked him why he was in the neighborhood(which is what Martin's friend said he said). And he then got angry and punched me in the nose and was banging my head into the concrete. I probably wouldn't have waited nearly as long as to kill him.
As I always told my nieces and nephews when they would get in a fight. There isn't a fight until someone lays their hands on someone else. Up until someone physically does something to someone else, it is simply an argument. If you want to escalate an argument to a fight, you better have a really good reason for it. Otherwise, you are in the wrong.
I don't see how Trayvon Martin believed that he was in the right when he laid his hands on George Zimmerman. He wasn't in the right, he was in the wrong, he was just angry. If he was scared, he would have just run home. He was angry that some "creepy ass cracker" was following him, and so he wanted to beat him up. The question is, do you have the right to beat someone up who is following you? No. Do you have the right to follow someone who you believe is robbing houses in your neighborhood? Yes. Can you continue following them even if the police say "we don't need you to do that." Yes. Do you have the right to follow someone you believe is robbing houses with a concealed gun if you have a license to do so? Yes.
What you seem to be advocating by arguing that Trayvon Martin should have the right to beat someone up who is following him. Is arguing that you should not have the right to pursue anyone who you think is committing a crime. Or possibly, that you don't even have the right to walk anywhere near someone else, if you think that it could make them nervous, and thus cause them to possibly attack you.
You seem to be advocating that if a person is looking into the windows of your neighbors house, you don't even have the right to ask him what he is doing. And if he is angry by you questioning him, he should be able to turn around and punch you in the face.
Basically, you are arguing that no matter what kinds of crimes are happening in the world around us, that we should not be allowed to respond in any way, other than to just call the police. Pretending as if the police always handle situations perfectly, and never cause the needless death of what they believe is a dangerous suspect.
If you take the man in Texas for instance, who shot the two men who were breaking into his neighbors home. Did he have the right to defend his neighbors home?
The whole thing is absolutely ridiculous. Had Trayvon Martin kept his hands to himself, he would still be alive today, period. His mother should have taught him to keep his hands to himself. But she didn't. Because we know that he thought of himself as quite the gangster, and that he was getting in fights at school and most likely elsewhere as well. Trayvon was a violent young man, who chose to use violence against George Zimmerman, and it cost him his life.
The most simple way, would be to sort of switch the roles in a weird way. Lets pretend that Trayvon had the gun and Zimmerman was following him. And out of supposed fear for his life, Trayvon shot Zimmerman who was following him. Would that have been OK? No.
Lets pretend that we used the above situation and that Trayvon had been white and Zimmerman black, and that Trayvon had the gun and shot the black Zimmerman who was following him. Would that have been legal? No.
In no context was it ever OK for Trayvon to attack Zimmerman, unless Zimmerman attacked him first. Or at least was reasonably fearful of his life. You can't even distort the facts that create that kind of environment. And thus, in all circumstances, Trayvon was wrong.
And no, it should not be illegal to follow someone with a gun. Because it doesn't even take a gun to kill someone. It shouldn't be illegal to follow someone at all. The paparazzi does it all the time. I mean, as long as it isn't harassment anyway.
Reasonable post, however I disagree on a few things.
1. Following someone at night? That will make anyone feel threatened.
2. Acting suspicious? On drugs? What about walking down the street = suspicious?
3. You are assuming that GZ told the truth about TM touching him first. We don't know this to be a fact. We don't know who attacked who first.
As far as violence goes, GZ has his own past with violence as well.
I am no supporter of TM. I just feel a man should be able to walk home without being harrassed, followed or given the third degree. GZ without ever talking to TM determined he was a punk, an a-hole and on drugs. The suspicious behavior was following someone at night.
Talk is circulating that there are incriminating text messages on St. Trayvon's phone where he said something to the extent that his arms hurt from fighting earlier that day and that he had lost round one but won rounds two and three of the fight. Trayvon also may have sought to purchase a gun illegally. We may have grounds for a mistrial if the prosecution concealed this evidence from the defense.
3 rounds in a fight? what kind of fight? I practice martial arts and spar friends. Does this mean I am a violent thug?
Talk is circulating that there are incriminating text messages on St. Trayvon's phone where he said something to the extent that his arms hurt from fighting earlier that day and that he had lost round one but won rounds two and three of the fight. Trayvon also may have sought to purchase a gun illegally. We may have grounds for a mistrial if the prosecution concealed this evidence from the defense.
Not "earlier that day" but allegedly few weeks earlier in Miami. The prosecution did not conceal evidence. There were hidden and password protected files on the phone that the prosecution was unaware of. The defense hired a security expert who was able to crack the security and view the photo and text files. Based on the heated end of day discussion (see below) it's likely the judge will rule against allowing this evidence based on precedence and authentification issues.
Talk is circulating that there are incriminating text messages on St. Trayvon's phone where he said something to the extent that his arms hurt from fighting earlier that day and that he had lost round one but won rounds two and three of the fight. Trayvon also may have sought to purchase a gun illegally. We may have grounds for a mistrial if the prosecution concealed this evidence from the defense.
Mistrial? I doubt that, the defense could not have asked for a better set of witnesses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katzpaw
Not "earlier that day" but allegedly few weeks earlier in Miami. The prosecution did not conceal evidence. There were hidden and password protected files on the phone that the prosecution was unaware of. The defense hired a security expert who was able to crack the security and view the photo and text files. Based on the heated end of day discussion (see below) it's likely the judge will rule against allowing this evidence based on precedence and authentification issues.
The prosecution did conceal evidence that's why the defense moved to have the prosecution sanctioned.
Reasonable post, however I disagree on a few things.
1. Following someone at night? That will make anyone feel threatened.
2. Acting suspicious? On drugs? What about walking down the street = suspicious?
3. You are assuming that GZ told the truth about TM touching him first. We don't know this to be a fact. We don't know who attacked who first.
As far as violence goes, GZ has his own past with violence as well.
I am no supporter of TM. I just feel a man should be able to walk home without being harrassed, followed or given the third degree. GZ without ever talking to TM determined he was a punk, an a-hole and on drugs. The suspicious behavior was following someone at night.
I agree that someone following me at night would make me feel threatened. With that said. There is no physical evidence that George Zimmerman "touched" Trayvon Martin first. But why would anyone possibly believe that Zimmerman touched Trayvon anyway? The facts don't exactly paint a picture that would make a person believe that Zimmerman touched Trayvon.
I mean, first, Zimmerman completely lost sight of Trayvon for over a minute, while sitting on the phone with the dispatcher. In fact, Trayvon could have walked home in the time that Zimmerman lost sight of him and sat on the phone.
Secondly, if Zimmerman touched Trayvon at all that might have started a fight, it had to have been a push. But it doesn't really make sense for Zimmerman to push him, and after Trayvon jumped on him, not to have at least tried to hit him. If Zimmerman wanted a fight with Trayvon enough to have walked up and pushed him, and had a violent past. You would think Zimmerman would have tried to hit him, and at least landed a couple to the side or back of the head or something. Instead of just laying on the ground screaming for help.
In my opinion, the only logical thing that could have happened was that. Trayvon was being followed. Was annoyed that he was being followed by some creepy white guy. He wasn't scared, he didn't want to go home where it was safe. Trayvon wanted to beat this "creepy white guy" up that was following him. I don't know where Trayvon was located when Zimmerman was on the phone with the police, or whether or not he could hear him on the phone talking. But regardless. He popped back out of where ever he was and at the very least asked Zimmerman why he was following him. In which Zimmerman replied, why are you here? And instead of simply stating that he lived there, or just keeping his mouth shut. He punched Zimmerman in the face and then took him down to the ground, and eventually Zimmerman shot him.
Since it is so supremely unlikely that Zimmerman put his hands on Trayvon Martin first. We basically know that the first and only person to get physical was Trayvon Martin. And secondly, we know that Trayvon Martin could have easily just went home, but chose not to. So we know that Trayvon was angry and was looking for a fight, in which he got a fight after punching Zimmerman. And in that fight he was shot.
The real question doesn't seem to be about who got physical. The real argument that people seem to keep wanting to have is whether or not someone with a gun should be allowed to follow someone at night. Of course the gun is irrelevant, you can kill someone with other weapons, or even your bare hands. The real question should be, should a person be allowed to follow someone at night? Or in the context of this incident, should a person be allowed to follow someone who they believe is going to perpetrate a crime?
Whether or not you like the idea of people being able to follow you at night. If you desire to make it a crime to follow someone who you believe is a criminal, you are a moron. And you are effectively inviting more crime. Especially if you are against being able to follow someone if you possess a dangerous weapon.
You really need to rethink your position.
If there was any solution to this problem. It isn't to get rid of guns, or make it illegal to follow someone. If anything, you should demand a law to be passed that requires people to explain to someone else why they are following them if they are confronted. Of course, I don't know that if George Zimmerman had told Trayvon Martin he was neighborhood watch, that it would have stopped him.
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.
