"If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon." - Obama. What the MSM isn't telling you.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by stanats

 

The obvious answer to your question is another question. Where is your proof that things didn't occur as Mr. Zimmerman described it? He is innocent until proven guilty.

Right... Zimmerman however is guilty of chasing down someone he did not know for walking in a way he did not like and confronting him when he was told not to all FOR NO REASON WHAT SO EVER. THAT, in my opinion, is not the actions of someone who only wanted to defended himself.

Zimmerman's actions were normal however, he was a member of neighborhood watch and had similarly made 46 previous police calls in the past year. The derelict drug dealer Martin on the other hand was out of place walking in a neighborhood that was not his own.
Zimmerman was doing what he always does and what he's allowed to do by law as member of the neighborhood watch.

reply to post by MrWendal


I understand it prefectly...it's you that has the problem. You should really revisit your posts, maybe you truly don't understand what you've type? Due process is taking place, regardless of what you think or type.

Like I said before, settle down and give your emotions a rest...it's not good for your blood pressure.

Originally posted by rufusdrak
I don't quite understand the people saying Martin acted out of "self defense".

Can someone please answer, self defense from WHAT? Zimmerman did not physically attack Martin as far as ANY evidence whatsoever is concerned, so what is the self defense? From following him? So let me get this straight, proponents of this theory are saying the following:

In America, our law dictates that if you are being followed, you are allowed to violently and aggressively assault the party following you. This is "self defense" and is correct by law? Are you people serious with this? Under no circumstance should Martin have been allowed to assault Zimmerman even if Zimmerman was illegally following him (which he wasn't.)

I have no horses in this race, but to me it sounds very clearly that Martin had unjustifiably assaulted Zimmerman (yes, being followed does NOT by any law in the United States of America serve as justification to assault someone) and thus DID in fact gave full justification to Zimmerman to shoot him dead which is allowed in Florida Stand Your Ground law.

If you are being stalked by a person and you fear for the safety of your person then yes, you do have the right to defend yourself. Of course if Martin wasn't dead any debate on this would be able to be straightened out in court, but in general, yes.

I dunno about you but being followed by someone who is not a police official, in the dead of night, by car and by foot, would be enough for Martin to use Florida's Stand Your Ground Law, not Zimmerman!

reply to post by rufusdrak

If you believe Zimmerman ASSASULTED Martin first, well then I ask: where is your proof/evidence? You have zero. In America we have something called: Innocent until proven guilty.

NO ONE can speak on who assaulted who. But we do know that Zimmerman actively seeked out a confrontation with Martin.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by Drew99GT

 

First: That witness clearly saw the middle of the fight, after it already started. It tells us NOTHING about who initiated the fight.

Second: That other news story is unrelated.

Irrelevant. If the witness did indeed see Trayvon on top of and beating Zimmerman, then he saw what precipitated the shooting. Zimmerman could've shot him any time during the entire ordeal, yet he waited (assuming the eye witness report is reliable) until he was on the ground being beaten by another person to shoot. Deadly force in that case is justified.

/TOA

In what universe do you live in where losing a fight you started constitutes shooting someone? Totally does not hold water.

Certainly not your universe. I live in a universe of sense and logic. There are no witnesses as to who got physical first. It could just as easily been Trayvon as Zimmerman. However, there is no evidence for or against Trayvon or Zimmerman throwing the first punch. You're assuming Zimmerman is the aggressor, when in fact there is no evidence supporting your assumption. You weren't the one under Trayvon, so you can't reliably say that Zimmerman didn't feel his life was threatened.

You're working on emotion and assumption. You'd be a prosecutor's wet dream as a juror.

/TOA

Originally posted by xEphon

Originally posted by rufusdrak
I don't quite understand the people saying Martin acted out of "self defense".

Can someone please answer, self defense from WHAT? Zimmerman did not physically attack Martin as far as ANY evidence whatsoever is concerned, so what is the self defense? From following him? So let me get this straight, proponents of this theory are saying the following:

In America, our law dictates that if you are being followed, you are allowed to violently and aggressively assault the party following you. This is "self defense" and is correct by law? Are you people serious with this? Under no circumstance should Martin have been allowed to assault Zimmerman even if Zimmerman was illegally following him (which he wasn't.)

I have no horses in this race, but to me it sounds very clearly that Martin had unjustifiably assaulted Zimmerman (yes, being followed does NOT by any law in the United States of America serve as justification to assault someone) and thus DID in fact gave full justification to Zimmerman to shoot him dead which is allowed in Florida Stand Your Ground law.

If you are being stalked by a person and you fear for the safety of your person then yes, you do have the right to defend yourself. Of course if Martin wasn't dead any debate on this would be able to be straightened out in court, but in general, yes.

I dunno about you but being followed by someone who is not a police official, in the dead of night, by car and by foot, would be enough for Martin to use Florida's Stand Your Ground Law, not Zimmerman!

No it wouldn't you're dead wrong and know nothing about law. You can't "defend yourself" by assaulting someone who has not assaulted you. That's a complete joke, you would get thrown out of any debate in the court of law with that utterly juvenile assumption.

reply to post by TsukiLunar

Yah, and it has been thrown out in court before. And if Zimmerman feared for his life, why did he follow Martin?

Plenty of people have walked too.

Did Zimmerman fear for his life before following Martin? Probably not.
But the point is more about if he feared for his life when Martin was on top of him , beating him.. According to eyewitness accounts.

Its to the point now where im considering getting a CC permit to carry a gun to protect me not from criminals with guns but those carrying them legally.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by rufusdrak

 

If you believe Zimmerman ASSASULTED Martin first, well then I ask: where is your proof/evidence? You have zero. In America we have something called: Innocent until proven guilty.

NO ONE can speak on who assaulted who. But we do know that Zimmerman actively seeked out a confrontation with Martin.

Wrong. No we don't. We only know that Zimmerman followed Martin. We can assume he did NOT seek a confrontation. In fact the evidence points to the contrary. Witnesses seem to report Martin ambushed Zimmerman from behind a bush so you're proven wrong again and your argument holds zero water.

Originally posted by stanats

Originally posted by TsukiLunar

Originally posted by sjorges2002
And the skittles on him could have been used to announce that he was skittling.- Know one but Trayvon knows and he's been shot dead for attacking zimmerman.

reply to post by TsukiLunar

 

Or he was eating the skittles and where is your proof that Martin attacked Zimmerman first?

edit on 24-3-2012 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)

The obvious answer to your question is another question. Where is your proof that things didn't occur as Mr. Zimmerman described it? He is innocent until proven guilty.

edit on 24-3-2012 by stanats because: spelling

The proof that it did not happen the way Zimmerman says it happened is in the public statement of Martin's girlfriend who claims to have been on the phone with Martin at the time. This fact was confirmed from the local news who pulled the phone records that showed, Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend just prior to the shooting.

She states that Martin told her he was being followed. He tried to run. At some point, Zimmerman approaches Martin. At this point Martin asked, "Why are you following me?" Zimmerman replied, "What are you doing here" and which point the phone call id disconnected and she speculates Martin was pushed which caused the headset to fall off.


The problem here is that local police claim that Zimmerman was justified. Many people disagree. There was no chance for innocent until proven guilty. The Police decided he was innocent. As you can tell from this thread, there are many questions that have not been answered.

Originally posted by rufusdrak

Originally posted by xEphon

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by Drew99GT

 

First: That witness clearly saw the middle of the fight, after it already started. It tells us NOTHING about who initiated the fight.

Second: That other news story is unrelated.

Irrelevant. If the witness did indeed see Trayvon on top of and beating Zimmerman, then he saw what precipitated the shooting. Zimmerman could've shot him any time during the entire ordeal, yet he waited (assuming the eye witness report is reliable) until he was on the ground being beaten by another person to shoot. Deadly force in that case is justified.

/TOA

Getting your butt handed to you after you incite a confrontation is not a reason to use deadly force.
Its manslaughter.

There is no such thing as "inciting a confrontation". By law any verbal incitement will never justify being assaulted. Zimmerman could have said anything to Martin and that still does not give Martin justification to assault Zimmerman.

If you believe Zimmerman ASSASULTED Martin first, well then I ask: where is your proof/evidence? You have zero. In America we have something called: Innocent until proven guilty.

I never said Zimmerman assaulted Martin first. I said his action could have been interpreted as aggressive by Martin which caused him to react the way he did.
And I'm well aware of what innocent until proven guilty is thank you very much.

Some black kids tend to have bad attitudes, especially when it comes to interactions with others. They suffer from the black identity complex that makes them feel they are better or more "gangsta" than everyone else. It has somthing to do with this thought that since they are more gangsta than others they therefor should not have to act respectful since acting kind and respectful would be a sign of weakness. Maybe if society didn't put so much pressure on youth to be cool this wouldn't of happend.

Simple courteous communication and a kid would be alive.

Or I'm totally wrong and this vigilanty guy just felt like busting a cap but I don't think so.

reply to post by MrWendal


On the contrary I read Martin's girlfriend told him to run and Martin said that he would do no such thing (acting manly I assume). So this seems to fly in the face of your assumption that Martin "tried to run".

Originally posted by xEphon

Originally posted by HereAgainGoneTomorrow
reply to post by MrWendal

 

I've been reading your rantings since yesterday and you've been on your own lil soapbox spewing nonsense regard this poor young kid. You have absolutely no idea who, what or where this kids mind set was at this time. Yet you've chosen to color him as a pure innocent boy and Zimmerman as a monster on the prowl.

Only pointing out the obvious....and since you don't understand terms such as what I've used, I'll try not to use those in the future...OMG?

Also, what part of my statement didn't you get...the innocent or guilty part??????

I've been following along as well and I completely agree with Wendel.
It's more than obvious that Zimmerman, neighborhood watch or not, was the aggressor in this confrontation.
And his aggression, despite being told to back down, caused the death of a person.

Sounds like manslaughter to me, but let's see what a jury says.

Now you're starting to make sense....but agreeing with someone who doesn't have the evidence in front of them is, at the very least, shaky grounds to stand on.

reply to post by rufusdrak

Zimmerman's actions were normal however, he was a member of neighborhood watch and had similarly made 46 previous police calls in the past year.

No, chasing down someone for NO REASON is not normal. Neighbor Hood Watch does not NOT mean Neighbor Hood Chasing Down Random Passerby's. Hear that sound? Thats all that water slipping through the cracks.

The derelict drug dealer Martin on the other hand was out of place walking in a neighborhood that was not his own.

Im sorry, even if Martin was a drug dealer\ it certainly has NOTHING to do with this case. SPLASH

Zimmerman was doing what he always does and what he's allowed to do by law as member of the neighborhood watch.

Again, No. Zimmerman did NOT abide by the NHW rules. And not only that, he was told to stop following and to not confront Martin.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by TsukiLunar

 

Yah, and it has been thrown out in court before. And if Zimmerman feared for his life, why did he follow Martin?

Plenty of people have walked too.

Did Zimmerman fear for his life before following Martin? Probably not.
But the point is more about if he feared for his life when Martin was on top of him , beating him.. According to eyewitness accounts.

edit on 24-3-2012 by butcherguy because: Spelling

See its this weird twisting of facts that is embarrassing. Martin was chased down by Zimmerman. Zimmerman was not "just attacked" for no reason. He seeked a confrontation with Martin. Not Self defense no matter how you look at it.

Originally posted by rufusdrak

Originally posted by xEphon

Originally posted by rufusdrak
I don't quite understand the people saying Martin acted out of "self defense".

Can someone please answer, self defense from WHAT? Zimmerman did not physically attack Martin as far as ANY evidence whatsoever is concerned, so what is the self defense? From following him? So let me get this straight, proponents of this theory are saying the following:

In America, our law dictates that if you are being followed, you are allowed to violently and aggressively assault the party following you. This is "self defense" and is correct by law? Are you people serious with this? Under no circumstance should Martin have been allowed to assault Zimmerman even if Zimmerman was illegally following him (which he wasn't.)

I have no horses in this race, but to me it sounds very clearly that Martin had unjustifiably assaulted Zimmerman (yes, being followed does NOT by any law in the United States of America serve as justification to assault someone) and thus DID in fact gave full justification to Zimmerman to shoot him dead which is allowed in Florida Stand Your Ground law.

If you are being stalked by a person and you fear for the safety of your person then yes, you do have the right to defend yourself. Of course if Martin wasn't dead any debate on this would be able to be straightened out in court, but in general, yes.

I dunno about you but being followed by someone who is not a police official, in the dead of night, by car and by foot, would be enough for Martin to use Florida's Stand Your Ground Law, not Zimmerman!

No it wouldn't you're dead wrong and know nothing about law. You can't "defend yourself" by assaulting someone who has not assaulted you. That's a complete joke, you would get thrown out of any debate in the court of law with that utterly juvenile assumption.

Juvenile assumption?? If someone is chasing you, then you have a right to defend yourself. There's nothing juvenile about that.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by TsukiLunar

 

Yah, and it has been thrown out in court before. And if Zimmerman feared for his life, why did he follow Martin?

Plenty of people have walked too.

Did Zimmerman fear for his life before following Martin? Probably not.
But the point is more about if he feared for his life when Martin was on top of him , beating him.. According to eyewitness accounts.

edit on 24-3-2012 by butcherguy because: Spelling

See its this weird twisting of facts that is embarrassing. Martin was chased down by Zimmerman. Zimmerman was not "just attacked" for no reason. He seeked a confrontation with Martin. Not Self defense no matter how you look at it.

Except nobody but Trayvon and Zimmerman know who the first physical aggressor was. You're still working on assumption and not intelligence. You really need to stop now. It's getting pathetic.

/TOA

Originally posted by stanats

Sad but typical that Obama's attempt to defuse the situation is interpreted as being anything but positive.

Why should he defuse a local situation,that has NO baring on his Presidency????

Originally posted by ezwip
Zimmerman pissed off Travyon by annoying and stalking his ass. Zimmerman could have stopped and likely did when he realized he was about to get his ass beat. Travyon should have taken his ass beating like a man. I got in a two on one once when my buddy bumped into some gang bangers on the street. He then said do you have your metal on you? Yes, but I'm not going to use it because you just bumped into their ass on purpose. Then he ran off and I took my ass beating. Zimmerman is the problem here as Travyon wasn't bothering anyone. In this sick twisted logic I could have shot these two guys. Better yet they could have shot me. All I wanted to do was go play some video games. Common sense needs to prevail in these instances. Zimmerman and Travyon would be here today if Zimmerman had just taken some shots and not been a sissy about it. It's your own damn fault he was going to beat you up.

edit on 24-3-2012 by ezwip because: (no reason given)

What?

Well I think the 7 grader was shot by a racist and the kid didn't know that the area was as bad as it was. Zimmerman being a racist felt that the "evil foriegn tribe member" was invading his "territory". He ambushed him and attacked a 7th grader.The 7th grader fought for his life(explains zimmerman's bruises).The 7th grader got away from him. Zimmerman saw an opportunity like a lot of murderers do to kill their victim and get away with it.
Zimmerman shot an unarmed 7th grader then made up the story about self defense and such.

This was a planned hit with maybe a few porticipating members. But guess what. This happens all the time in the south.People getting murdered by racists and they cover it up or give them a slap on the hand.
It happens all the time. A lot of white people get murdered in the same fashion. But see the TPTB can't use that as a tool to divide and conquer like this story does.

We fell for this BS psyop again.

TPTB know americans are almost psychotically obsessed with race.They use this as a tool whenever we start to catch on to the truth. This also helps the Marxist Prince/King of america Obama.
The nwo as usual is laughing at us. They think this is a joke. It proves in thier warped minds that we are animals in need of a marxist globalist controllers(nwo).