Liberals- Does following someone deserve a beating?

[mohawkx]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

You mean like an armed adult being told by a 911 operator that he shouldn't pursue a teen, nor confront him, and then when realizing that he got into more than he could handle, then shooting the unarmed teen to "defend" himself. If the teen had a gun he too could of defended himself and killed his attacker.

The way the situation went down, If Trayvon actually had a gun and had used it first, he most likely would have been acquitted. He did nothing wrong. He was walking home from the FF store when someone was stalking him. He confronted the stalker, they fought, he shot the stalker. End of story.

Anybody following you has a reason. Not those people walking home in the same direction, but people actually following and stalking you. I, want to know the reason right up front and will confront them. That is exactly what Treyvon did. I would have done it differently, but the reaction would have been the same. Treyvon acted out on Zimmerman. It got him killed and it got George what he thought he wanted. In his mind, He saved society from a dangerous thug. In reality, he killed a 17 year old child who had his whole life to live. Now George's only option is to become a hero to the rabid gun owning faction of the far right conservative. A dubious distinction at best.

There were two telling quotes from each party involved, that encapsulates the whole situation. It is not a stretch to project exactly what the confrontation would ultimately come to between the two, just based on those words.

"Creepy Assed Cracker" Treyvon Martin

And

"They always get away" George Zimmerman

Both attitudes are already set in stone and each acted out based on those attitudes. They were doomed before they met.

[hawkeye2009]

Originally Posted by desertdetroiter

Must've been the softest basketball team in the country. LOL

And i mean REAL soft.

They were "soft" compared to an average male. Two were from Flint (where you are from)- one of which played in the NBA later (and won several NBA titles). Two were from Central Illinois, one of which played in the NBA.

These "inner city" tough guys were little girls. Put them up against midwestern national wrestling champs and it was quick, easy, "child's play". They literally cried like little girls (that is your ghetto tough guys for you) and cried for their mamma's. It was pathetic, yet funny.

If this is "your guys" from Detroit , Desert Detroiter, perhaps they need to be raising men, rather than girls in the inner city. One of "our guys" still trains MMA fighters in California for cage fighting. It appears as though the cage fighters realized that wrestling was an added and distinct adjunct to martial arts in cage fights.

[L'Artiste]

Originally Posted by eddie gein

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.

Is your s/n named after Ed Gein, the killer

[L'Artiste]

Originally Posted by Rakin

You know... If Trayvon had landed the 1 punch on the nose then stopped he might be alive today. The beating he continued after was what got him killed.

It was excessive and was a potential deadly assault.

That's where TM crossed the line.

Yes stop fighting when your being attacked by a strange adult man who's following you.

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by LostInHouston

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.

That is an interesting perspective - it makes Harrier wonder if the opponents of SYG support Trayvon Martin standing his ground.

Could there be selective outrage at work here?

[antredd]

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

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.

The problem with your scenario is that Zimmerman was following Trayvon in the dark and in the rain. I am already apologizing for being long winded in my response to your post, but I hope you respect my points.

First of all, Trayvon didn't know what Zimmerman's intentions were when Zimmerman was following him. Yes, Trayvon probably should have gone straight home to let his father deal with Zimmerman following him or better yet Trayvon probably should have asked Zimmerman why was he following him and allowed Zimmerman to explain what his reasons were for following Trayvon. But that didn't happen and so now we are discussing this tragic incident.

Wasn't Zimmerman recorded by the 911 operator saying that these guys think that they can get away? So it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that Zimmerman was showing some bias toward Trayvon, and the fact that he began profiling Trayvon by ASSUMING that Trayvon COULD have been one of the same black guys burglarizing his neighborhood. This is why I don't understand how some people think that race isn't a big factor here.

The fact of the matter too is that Trayvon was innocently walking back to his father's house from the store with a bag of Skittles. Zimmerman didn't know who Trayvon was, didn't recognize him as living in the neighborhood, and, unfortunately, Zimmerman ASSUMED that Trayvon was probably up to no good because it was dark, it was raining, and why was this black male walking in the neighborhood in the rain in the first place?

Even laying all of this fully out, unfortunately, the law says that Zimmerman had the right to follow Trayvon because he became reasonable suspicious of Trayvon walking through his neighborhood even though Trayvon was not literally committing a crime or was one of the black males who was described by witnesses to have committed any type of crime in the neighborhood.

The problem that I have with this is the fact that even though Zimmerman had the right to follow Trayvon. Trayvon also had to the right to protect himself if he also ASSUMED that Zimmerman was up to no good and was going to attack, molest, or rob him as well. To me, it seems as if conservatives want to see it is as a defense case only. But when you look at the matter, its more than that. It's defending Zimmerman for protecting himself even though he's just as responsible for killing Trayvon and should be at least liable for it.

[Nonarchist]

Originally Posted by antredd

Wasn't Zimmerman recorded by the 911 operator saying that these guys think that they can get away? So it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that Zimmerman was showing some bias toward Trayvon, and the fact that he began profiling Trayvon by ASSUMING that Trayvon COULD have been one of the same black guys burglarizing his neighborhood. This is why I don't understand how some people think that race isn't a big factor here.

Zimmie guilty-eyezed Trayvon.