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.
I have read and been somewhat dismayed at the contentions of many liberals in "Zimmerman case". It appears as though the theme has been this-
"Zimmerman was FOLLOWING Martin, therefore he DESERVED to be attacked. In that regard, the FOLLOWING was the agressive act and that "stand your ground" does not apply".
So the question is:
If you are walking down a crowded urban street for several blocks, and someone ten feet in front of you "thinks" that you are following them, are they (under liberal law) allowed to beat you to death? I just want to get these "rules" straight, if and when the situation arises.
He wasn't following Trayvon... the minute Trayvon became spooked and ran away out of fear, Zimmerman jumped out of his car and hurried after him. At that point GZ is chasing TM. When GZ meets up with him again, does not identify himself, and reaches into his pocket for a unknown object (or towards his holster) TM has every right to fear what is going to happen and go on the offensive.
If you were on a crowded urban street then there would be witnesses as to who did what to whom.
If the Jenteal testimony is accurate then we had a full on confrontation between Martin and Zimmerman. A bigger question is if Zimmerman shoved Martin does Martin have the right to punch Zimmerman,,,,,,,,,,,,,,or shoot him if Martin were armed.
I hopefully you with your 21 referred journal papers can understand the fact that nobody saw the fight start and that is the whole problem in coming up with a just verdict in the Zimmerman trial.
I have read and been somewhat dismayed at the contentions of many liberals in "Zimmerman case". It appears as though the theme has been this-
"Zimmerman was FOLLOWING Martin, therefore he DESERVED to be attacked. In that regard, the FOLLOWING was the agressive act and that "stand your ground" does not apply".
So the question is:
If you are walking down a crowded urban street for several blocks, and someone ten feet in front of you "thinks" that you are following them, are they (under liberal law) allowed to beat you to death? I just want to get these "rules" straight, if and when the situation arises.
*Strawman alert!*
Conservatives - does someone deserve to be shot?
How about the Zimmerman case was a difficult one to understand just what happened - there were no witnesses. It's just become yet one more thing to become polarized over.
I have read and been somewhat dismayed at the contentions of many liberals in "Zimmerman case". It appears as though the theme has been this-
"Zimmerman was FOLLOWING Martin, therefore he DESERVED to be attacked. In that regard, the FOLLOWING was the agressive act and that "stand your ground" does not apply".
So the question is:
If you are walking down a crowded urban street for several blocks, and someone ten feet in front of you "thinks" that you are following them, are they (under liberal law) allowed to beat you to death? I just want to get these "rules" straight, if and when the situation arises.
How is this a liberal vs conservative question. Do all conservatives think that Zimmerman was in the right? I doubt it.
Regardless
1) if you were being followed, you may confront the follower. WTF are you following me. I thinks that a personal choice
2) Attacking the follower, for no reason, seems a bad decision. Of course, you could think the follower means you harm and you are trying to apply your own self defense?
3) we don't know the level of instigation at the time the fight began. i.e. follow plus getting called names may cause people to punch
He wasn't following Trayvon... the minute Trayvon became spooked and ran away out of fear, Zimmerman jumped out of his car and hurried after him. At that point GZ is chasing TM. When GZ meets up with him again, does not identify himself, and reaches into his pocket for a unknown object (or towards his holster) TM has every right to fear what is going to happen and go on the offensive.
Racist and homophobe Trayvon Martin jumped Zimmerman to impress his girlfriend and establish some "street cred" with his peers.
I have read and been somewhat dismayed at the contentions of many liberals in "Zimmerman case". It appears as though the theme has been this-
"Zimmerman was FOLLOWING Martin, therefore he DESERVED to be attacked. In that regard, the FOLLOWING was the agressive act and that "stand your ground" does not apply".
So the question is:
If you are walking down a crowded urban street for several blocks, and someone ten feet in front of you "thinks" that you are following them, are they (under liberal law) allowed to beat you to death? I just want to get these "rules" straight, if and when the situation arises.
it wasn't a crowded urban street, it was a dark rainy night with no witnesses could you at least make a reasonable argument.
How is this a liberal vs conservative question. Do all conservatives think that Zimmerman was in the right? I doubt it.
Regardless
1) if you were being followed, you may confront the follower. WTF are you following me. I thinks that a personal choice
2) Attacking the follower, for no reason, seems a bad decision. Of course, you could think the follower means you harm and you are trying to apply your own self defense?
3) we don't know the level of instigation at the time the fight began. i.e. follow plus getting called names may cause people to punch
I am more a person who like to look at facts. There is not a shred of evidence showing Zimmerman was lying. Everything is consistent to what he said.
If you were on a crowded urban street then there would be witnesses as to who did what to whom.
If the Jenteal testimony is accurate then we had a full on confrontation between Martin and Zimmerman. A bigger question is if Zimmerman shoved Martin does Martin have the right to punch Zimmerman,,,,,,,,,,,,,,or shoot him if Martin were armed.
I hopefully you with your 21 referred journal papers can understand the fact that nobody saw the fight start and that is the whole problem in coming up with a just verdict in the Zimmerman trial.
In your scenario that wouldn't be an issue.
So it appears, in your mind, a lethal beating is customary and acceptable as a "rational" response to the perception of being followed? Got it.
Be careful on those streets- you may be following someone.
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.
