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.
There is no evidence whatsoever that his story is in any way false so the presumption is that it is true and he is innocent.
Apparently Martin's parents didn't teach him not to attack strangers and that's why he's dead, I truly hope you wouldn't teach your children that kind of behavior is acceptable because if you did, you'd be to blame if they attacked someone and ended up dead like Martin.
Defense is one thing, but attacking people for looking at you isn't self defense, it's begging someone to beat or kill you.
Apparently Zimmerman's parents never taught him not to follow people around at night. That to most people is construed as aggressive and threatening behavior.
There really is no justification for Zimmerman following Martin that night, especially when he was basically told not to.
According to the sponsor of the law:
Durell Peaden, who sponsored the 2005 law as a Republican state senator, told The Miami Herald Zimmerman should be charged:
They got the goods on him. They need to prosecute whoever shot the kid. He has no protection under my law.
Dennis Baxley, the chief House sponsor of the law, concurs:
Peaden and Baxley, R-Ocala, say their law is a self-defense act. It says law-abiding people have no duty to retreat from an attacker and can meet "force with force." Nowhere does it say that a person has a right to confront another.
I know, what do the sponsors of the law know about their own law right?
2. Are you stating there is absolutely no possibility a pizza guy with a large order who can't find an address might get out of his car and look for the right address before grabbing all those pizzas? You're saying that is an impossibility?
You were doing pretty good with facts up till now.
I'm not sue what happened on this silly post.
Last edited by PedroMartinez; 12-07-2019 at 07:29 AM..
Zimmerman would not have gotten the same reaction if he followed a petite white women in his truck on a dark rainy night....but all bets are off when you're a black teen.
These kind of topics just further demonstrate the lengths America will go to to deny a young, black man could be a victim. Some of the main arguments are essentially that since Trayvon Martin had a troubled history, his killing was justified. It says nothing of the fact that Zimmerman pursued and killed an unarmed teenager for no reason other than he looked kinda suspicious to him.
The only people who think he did the morally correct thing that night are internet users who never go outside. Imagine being followed at home at night, in the rain by some wanna be cop douchebag in his truck.
The character of a dead man is irrelevant, because we're not here to examine the victim since he didn't pull the trigger.
Look at their histories, Zimmerman has a lengthy criminal history, Martin does not. look at their behavior, Zimmerman is pissed and stalks Martin even after being told not to by 911, Martin runs away from him and is scared. it takes a serious leap in logic to come to the conclusion that martin was the aggressor.
Not only that, Zimmerman has had a ton of run-in's wit the law. He's been arrested for beating his ex-fiancée, punching a police officer, brandishing a gun at and beating his ex-wife and her father, and pointing a shotgun at, and beating, ANOTHER girlfriend.
The man even tried to sell and make profit off the gun he used that night. Trying to make a profit off the gun that killed a boy who just wanted to go home is inherently insane, even if you think that Zimmerman was assaulted and had a right to defend himself.
You mean like Jussie?
Lol.
Racism is so bad in the US that blacks are constantly faking racist attacks.
And therein lies the biggest problem with "stand your ground" laws. What if Trayvon had a reasonable belief that the man following him around was going to commit serious bodily harm toward him? That makes his "attack" 100% legal.
Until he starts winning the fight, I guess, then the other guy gets to "stand his ground" and be legal.
But what if guy #2 starts winning? Can then guy #1 "stand his ground" again and be legal?
It's very imprecise legislation and if one of the people involved ends up dead, we end up here with not many definitive answers.
Zimmerman didn't use 'stand your ground.' He used the plain old self defense law that exists everywhere.
Someone could bump a thread from 2012 so everyone could redo the trial. This thread is supposed to be about the lawsuit and whether Team Trayvon, including the prosecutors, conspired to frame Zimmerman.
So you wouldn't want any person watching for suspicious activity in your neighborhood? I do.
Never said that and you know it.
I said I wouldn't want someone like Zimmerman doing it. The guy has a demonstrated past with problems with anger issues. He obviously isn't stable. He's the kind of guy who makes all gun owners look like idiots.
I'll ask again. Would you want a man like Zimmerman on the neighborhood watch?
I have a black son... I absolutely wouldn't want a man like Zimmerman in my neighborhood let alone on the watch. Then again I also wouldn't live in a place with a HOA either.
Wait, Pedro. Aren't you the guy that has been criticizing "keyboard warriors" for the past several pages? Yet, here you are advocating for tough guy antics by someone's theoretical dad in a "crime infested neighborhood" filled with "street thugs". Pot meet kettle.
Two things:
1. Where did I say I was tough? A keyboard warrior says or strongly implies they are tough. You might want to learn general internet lingo. If you are going that loosiy goosy with fabricating tough guys, check what "Hooligan" implies, because if we're going to search out criticisms...
2. What was her post to me? Don't throw insult stones and expect to not get a little return fire.
Zimmerman didn't use 'stand your ground.' He used the plain old self defense law that exists everywhere.
Someone could bump a thread from 2012 so everyone could redo the trial. This thread is supposed to be about the lawsuit and whether Team Trayvon, including the prosecutors, conspired to frame Zimmerman.
Zimmerman deserves all the scorn he has received. He is a demonstrated liar, he has a history of anger issues, he has been arrested multiple times for domestic violence. The guy is a public menace.
...Someone could bump a thread from 2012 so everyone could redo the trial. This thread is supposed to be about the lawsuit and whether Team Trayvon, including the prosecutors, conspired to frame Zimmerman.
Fair enough, I let myself get dragged down a rabbit hole - my stubbornness enables that far too often.
I will bow out from all discussion of anything other than the current lawsuit.
Apparently Zimmerman's parents never taught him not to follow people around at night. That to most people is construed as aggressive and threatening behavior.
There really is no justification for Zimmerman following Martin that night, especially when he was basically told not to.
According to the sponsor of the law:
Durell Peaden, who sponsored the 2005 law as a Republican state senator, told The Miami Herald Zimmerman should be charged:
They got the goods on him. They need to prosecute whoever shot the kid. He has no protection under my law.
Dennis Baxley, the chief House sponsor of the law, concurs:
Peaden and Baxley, R-Ocala, say their law is a self-defense act. It says law-abiding people have no duty to retreat from an attacker and can meet "force with force." Nowhere does it say that a person has a right to confront another.
I know, what do the sponsors of the law know about their own law right?
I've said exactly the same in this very thread, just because Martin's actions were wrong and he deserved what happened to him does not absolve Zimmerman of his morally wrong actions. He had no business going out looking for trouble armed knowing that he was sho pathetic that if anything at all happened he'd have no alternative but to use deadly force.
As to your interpretation of the law, it's simply not an accurate one, no matter who agrees with you. Zimmerman at no point violated the law and he was well within his right to defend himself from being attacked. Martin was not legally justified in attacking Zimmerman.... someone looking at you, or following you in public is not a justification for assault.
Martin is the ONLY person who broke the law in this incident, but Zimmerman was mortally wrong for putting the violent dumb kid in a position to get himself killed for being a dumb kid.
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.
