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.
Wingnuts - does someone deserve to be followed just because they are Black?
How about this sentence, the last in your post:
Good says he believes it was Zimmerman who was the one calling for help and he was the one on the bottom.
here's the transcript from good's testimony. your desperate clinging to the word 'believe' used in the earlier news story won't do you any good here, i'm afraid.
Quote:
So I opened my blinds and I see kind of like a person out there. I didn’t know if it was a dog attack or something. So I open my door. It was a black man with a black hoodie on top of the other, either a white guy or now I found out I think it was a Hispanic guy with a red sweatshirt on the ground yelling out help! And I tried to tell them, get out of here, you know, stop or whatever, and then one guy on top in the black hoodie was pretty much just throwing down blows on the guy kind of MMA-style
that's the non-existent witness d.detroiter referred to
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
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".
Only two people actually know what happened, only one got to speak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
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.
Have you ever been on a "crowded urban street"? You wouldn't know who was 10 feet away. But you're not really interested in your so-called 'rules', are you? Just another "I don't really know the facts but I'll write some anti-liberal BS", eh?
If you follow someone in your car and then get out once you can no longer continue from the car, that's menacing.
If a person speeds away from you but you do not slow down and in fact speed up to follow them, that's menacing.
If you pursue someone without identifying yourself early on (be it verbally or by uniform), that's menacing.
It's not that Zimmerman innocently crossed paths with Trayvon and then continued to go in his general direction. If I was in Trayvon's place, I would have thought that Zimmerman was targeting me for a mugging or rape.
Amazing how this thread spiraled into a zimmerman/Martin topic, truly amazing. not.
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.