Trayvon Martin: Cellphone pics of guns and drugs

Wow, never ceases to amaze me how the Martin supporters will continually twist this story. According to them, Martin was chased, Zimmerman started a fight, Zimmerman had no right to observe suspicious people in his neighborhood, Zimmerman had no right to carry a weapon, Zimmerman was ordered by police to STOP, Martin was just an innocent boy, Zimmerman was a bully who put his gun on and chased an innocent angel...etc.. Goes to show how media can shape and form opinions by repeating phrases like "All this young boy had on his person was a bag of Skittles and Ice-T" and showing pictures of a 13yr old smiling kid.

reply to post by jheated5


You can see the difference between being approached by an old lady with a cell phone and being approached by an angry looking adult male whose hand is hovering around his back pocket, whilst you're in a dimly lit passageway, can't you?

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by jheated5

 

You can see the difference between being approached by an old lady with a cell phone and being approached by an angry looking adult male whose hand is hovering around his back pocket, whilst you're in a dimly lit passageway, can't you?

What a bunch of bullocks. A prime example of my last post. Keep making up fantasy to support your ill-founded opinion.

Deny Ignorance!

Here is the thing back in the dayz,if I was a scared lil punk with a gun I could have killed any amount of White kids with a bad hair cut wearing Dock Martin boots who I imagined sneered at me, luckily I wasn't that guy ,I got to know the difference between neo-Nazi skins and original skins who were just in a rebel phase of their lives, bad taste in dress is not a crime punishable... BY DEATH!!..

Originally posted by jheherrin
Wow, never ceases to amaze me how the Martin supporters will continually twist this story. According to them, Martin was chased, Zimmerman started a fight, Zimmerman had no right to observe suspicious people in his neighborhood, Zimmerman had no right to carry a weapon, Zimmerman was ordered by police to STOP, Martin was just an innocent boy, Zimmerman was a bully who put his gun on and chased an innocent angel...etc.. Goes to show how media can shape and form opinions by repeating phrases like "All this young boy had on his person was a bag of Skittles and Ice-T" and showing pictures of a 13yr old smiling kid.

Well lets here your side of the story and see if it's any better...

Originally posted by jheherrin

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by jheated5

 

You can see the difference between being approached by an old lady with a cell phone and being approached by an angry looking adult male whose hand is hovering around his back pocket, whilst you're in a dimly lit passageway, can't you?

What a bunch of bullocks. A prime example of my last post. Keep making up fantasy to support your ill-founded opinion.

Deny Ignorance!

The wilfully ignorant are those who want to believe the self-serving lies of a sad, wannabe neighbourhood watch guy who couldn't keep his hands to himself while attempting to question what he mistakenly believed was a burgling scumbag.

Originally posted by Tribunal
reply to post by jrod

 

Zimmerman had no legal obligation to take the 911 operator's recommendation. It was Zimmerman's neighborhood and he was trying to protect it.

Did he have a legal obligation to confront a young man walking home, unarmed, not committing any crimes, while he was carrying a firearm himself, and didn't have any form of legal, moral, recognisable, or even physical authority over Martin?

edit on 31-5-2013 by Tribunal because: (no reason given)

Except he did none if that. He saw a suspicious person, followed him, called the cops, and then was assaulted while he was returning to his truck.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by jheated5

 

You can see the difference between being approached by an old lady with a cell phone and being approached by an angry looking adult male whose hand is hovering around his back pocket, whilst you're in a dimly lit passageway, can't you?

No because I realized I was not in my neighborhood and out of my element.... If I'm walking at night in a gated community with my hoodie up and someone asks me what I'm doing in their neighborhood, I will comply.... Being ignorant of a situation doesn't give me the right to be violent....

Originally posted by jheherrin
Wow, never ceases to amaze me how the Martin supporters will continually twist this story.

my man...(or lady)...IT IS ZIMMERMAN who continuously switched the story!

Originally posted by peashooter
Article from today: "Al Sharpton Confronts George Zimmerman's Lawyer Over Trayvon Martin Case"

Quoting from article:

"Sharpton pressed O'Mara on the issue, saying that experts have said that the screams for help in the background of a 911 call belonged to Martin. O'Mara said that other experts have said the voice is not easily identifiable."

Although not solid evidence Trayvon's lawyer hammers home the point some of us are trying to make:

"The probable cause is that you have the dead body of an unarmed person and there was no crime and there was no reason the police could determine at the scene. That's probable cause. Otherwise, anyone in this country could be shot and killed and the police could just decide in the police station, 'We'll decide whether they go or not.' That's a dangerous precedent, wouldn't you think so Attorney O'Mara?"

www.huffingtonpost.com...

edit on 31-5-2013 by peashooter because: spelling

edit on 31-5-2013 by peashooter because: (no reason given)

After the Tawana Brawly case, Sharpton (who should be in jail for fraud) has absolutely zero credibility.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Tribunal
reply to post by jrod

 

Zimmerman had no legal obligation to take the 911 operator's recommendation. It was Zimmerman's neighborhood and he was trying to protect it.

Did he have a legal obligation to confront a young man walking home, unarmed, not committing any crimes, while he was carrying a firearm himself, and didn't have any form of legal, moral, recognisable, or even physical authority over Martin?

edit on 31-5-2013 by Tribunal because: (no reason given)

Except he did none if that. He saw a suspicious person, followed him, called the cops, and then was assaulted while he was returning to his truck.

If i had to follow and call the cops on all suspicious looking persons around my hood i would have a full time job and the neighbours would think i was an idiot.

reply to post by Paschar0


Treyvon Martin was a petty want to be thug and trash to boot.
His parents are even bigger trash to push this idea that he was a saint that was unfairly attacked. They are trash because they allow themselves and their dead son to be used as a talking point by race pimps like Jackson and Sharpton.

He attacked Zimmerman and was dealt with accordingly. No tears from me.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Tribunal
reply to post by jrod

 

Zimmerman had no legal obligation to take the 911 operator's recommendation. It was Zimmerman's neighborhood and he was trying to protect it.

Did he have a legal obligation to confront a young man walking home, unarmed, not committing any crimes, while he was carrying a firearm himself, and didn't have any form of legal, moral, recognisable, or even physical authority over Martin?

edit on 31-5-2013 by Tribunal because: (no reason given)

Except he did none if that. He saw a suspicious person, followed him, called the cops, and then was assaulted while he was returning to his truck.

If it had happened like George describes in his joke of a re-enactment, the fight would have been over before the first 911 calls were being made. Go on, let's hear your understanding of how George can be punched in one direction, and as he is falling, do a u-turn and end up going in the almost opposing direction of his truck? Do you really buy that story that George had passed the junction of the T when Trayvon came out of his hiding place and then totally gave up his advantage by alerting Zimmerman to his presence?

Originally posted by Soloprotocol

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Tribunal
reply to post by jrod

 

Zimmerman had no legal obligation to take the 911 operator's recommendation. It was Zimmerman's neighborhood and he was trying to protect it.

Did he have a legal obligation to confront a young man walking home, unarmed, not committing any crimes, while he was carrying a firearm himself, and didn't have any form of legal, moral, recognisable, or even physical authority over Martin?

edit on 31-5-2013 by Tribunal because: (no reason given)

Except he did none if that. He saw a suspicious person, followed him, called the cops, and then was assaulted while he was returning to his truck.

If i had to follow and call the cops on all suspicious looking persons around my hood i would have a full time job and the neighbours would think i was an idiot.

When I was a kid people would be up at night sitting on their porches looking for trouble to happen and report it to the cops, it's was called the neighborhood watch or something like that.....

Originally posted by supremecommander
Had Zimmerman not tried to play vigilante, he wouldn't have gotten his ass kicked by a 17 year old, and he wouldn't have had to use his gun..

1 - So you admit that Zimmerman was the one assaulted?
2 - So you admit that he had to use his gun?

You do realize that attacking someone for allegedly having followed you is against the law ... right?

Originally posted by Tribunal
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

This is all completely besides the point, your rape exemple, these pics they found on his phone, all completely irrelevant in this case.

Martin was not armed, and wasn't committing any crimes when this vigilante, who was armed, was stalking him.

I'm digusted to see this many people here that seem all too willing to accept any piece of irrelevant personal information to justify the killing.

I can really sense the hate for this black stereotype.

Almost a sense of vindication.

Again, truly disgusting.

It was not my rape example, I was responding to someone else's post about acting when seeing a rape in progress. Reading is fundimental.

Martin did commit a crime...he physically assaulted another citizen. Armed or unarmed, if you are bashing someone's head into the pavement, the person being beaten has a right to defend himself.

Being followed on a public street is not justification for violent assault.

The only racists in this thread are the TM defenders. It is rather disgusting when people pull the race card for everything and anything.

Originally posted by SuicideBankers
Why was TM beating him? Couldn't be that GM had been following him around like a crazed vigilante?

If someone follows another person ... the person being followed has no right to attack the follower. That's a crime. It is NOT a crime to follow another person and report their movements to the police.

Whoever did the attacking .. that is the perp.

If Zimmerman attacked Martin, then Zimmerman is the perp.
If Martin attacked Zimmerman, then Martin is the perp.

It is irrelevant that Zimmerman followed Martin for a while.
There is nothing illegal in his doing so.

Originally posted by jheated5

When I was a kid people would be up at night sitting on their porches looking for trouble to happen and report it to the cops, it's was called the neighborhood watch or something like that.....

When i was a Kid we had no need for a porch as it was always bloody freezing...also, if there was trouble out with your own home you closed the blinds and let the ones involved deal with it until the cops arrived..

reply to post by Tribunal


You're the one living in fantasy land my friend. Go ahead believe what MSM and Al Sharpton say.

I wasn't there and neither were you so all you stated is pure speculation and a laid out some FACTS about the case.

There is no way if given a fair a trial a jury will convict Zimmerman

I'm done with this thread.

jrod

Originally posted by jrod

Originally posted by Tribunal


Did he have a legal obligation to confront a young man walking home, unarmed, not committing any crimes, while he was carrying a firearm himself, and didn't have any form of legal, moral, recognisable, or even physical authority over Martin?

edit on 31-5-2013 by Tribunal because: (no reason given)

You facts are skewed.

Lets set this straight, the police NEVER told Zimmerman not to pursue, it was a 911 operator and that recommendation means NOTHING in legal terms.

How do you know he wasn't committing any crimes, he could have been 'window shopping' looking for unlocked cars when Zimmerman spotted him, I don't know and neither do you.

The fact is there was a confrontation and Zimmerman has the wounds to prove it.

Another fact is Trayvon was a punk kid who his friends called a hoodlum, he was expelled from school, and was a wanna be gangster. He was no innocent 17 year old kid, that is a fact.

Your arguments for Trayvon are based on emotion NOT facts.

I just hope there aren't riots when Zimmerman walks!

No point in have 911 anymore then according to you. Whats the point of following their "recommendations". I mean they are the ones relaying the information to police and I will go out on a limb and say that the officers advise the dispatcher on what they are doing and as to what should be going on at the scene of the crime. I mean its not like they are not trained to advise people on what the should be doing in an emergency.