Trayvon Martin: Cellphone pics of guns and drugs

reply to post by GrantedBail


All GZ knew was someone not usually in his neighborhood (because he was suspended from school FOR 10 DAYS and had to stay at his father's place) was walking around late. And thanks for pointing out the hooded sweatshirt...obviously if GZ was following him from behind he never knew the race, age, gender of the person he was following until he confronted them or they confronted him.

Originally posted by WP4YT

Originally posted by stormson
what some people arent saying is that trayvon was actually using the syg law as well.

he was being followed by a stranger, he felt threatened, so he stood his ground against the aggressor.
now hes dead.

without the gun, zimmerman wouldnt have gotten out of his truck to begin with.

theres a reason hes not using the syg law as a defense.

Sorry but point me to where it says you can commit aggravated assault against someone you suspect is following you?

p.s. this why i dont believe in "concealed carry". i believe in "open carry". i want to know who has the gun, and who doesnt.

I Can however point to where the law says you can shoot someone that is assaulting you.

Bad news for the treyvan lovers, zimmerman didnt follow treyvan with his gun out like a cowboy. If he was, treyvan never would have attacked Zimmerman and "stood his ground" against Zimmerman (who would be stupid enough to attack someone you know has a gun.)

If there is any justice in this case instead of political bs, Zimmerman will walk free. He did no wrong and shouldn't even be on trial.since when do we prosecute people who broken no laws, in this country? Oh yeah since the commies took over...

thats part of the syg law. if i feel threatened, i dont have to back down. i can, by law, beat you to defend myself.

if you are following me, and i feel threatened, why am i going to lead you to my house? im going to confront you, and beat you to defend myself and prevent you from knowing where i lived.

now why didnt z have a non-lethal method? spray or a tazer? even the cops carry that.

oh yeah, he was acting rogue.

through a statement released by the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) — the parent organization of USAonWatch-Neighborhood Watch — it has been revealed that Zimmerman was not a member of any group recognized by the organization.

reply to post by parkwoods21


Oh for the love of all things holy. You obviously don't have kids. My youngest never got suspended but my oldest 4.0, high school football star did. That doesn't mean crud. Especially in Florida; Where their prisons and juvenile detention centers are privatized. So what. The kid never was arrested for anything...ever.

You know we see OPs here everyday about the heavy handedness of the police. Shooting innocent people while out on routine calls.

I know you are not about to change your position, and neither will I.

I just hope that you are willing to look at your racist application of coincidence and law. IMO, that is exactly what it is. It has been since the beginning.

Originally posted by stormson

Originally posted by WP4YT

Originally posted by stormson
what some people arent saying is that trayvon was actually using the syg law as well.

he was being followed by a stranger, he felt threatened, so he stood his ground against the aggressor.
now hes dead.

without the gun, zimmerman wouldnt have gotten out of his truck to begin with.

theres a reason hes not using the syg law as a defense.

Sorry but point me to where it says you can commit aggravated assault against someone you suspect is following you?

I Can however point to where the law says you can shoot someone that is assaulting you.

Bad news for the treyvan lovers, zimmerman didnt follow treyvan with his gun out like a cowboy. If he was, treyvan never would have attacked Zimmerman and "stood his ground" against Zimmerman (who would be stupid enough to attack someone you know has a gun.)

If there is any justice in this case instead of political bs, Zimmerman will walk free. He did no wrong and shouldn't even be on trial.since when do we prosecute people who broken no laws, in this country? Oh yeah since the commies took over...

thats part of the syg law. if i feel threatened, i dont have to back down. i can, by law, beat you to defend myself.

if you are following me, and i feel threatened, why am i going to lead you to my house? im going to confront you, and beat you to defend myself and prevent you from knowing where i lived.

now why didnt z have a non-lethal method? spray or a tazer? even the cops carry that.

oh yeah, he was acting rogue.

through a statement released by the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) — the parent organization of USAonWatch-Neighborhood Watch — it has been revealed that Zimmerman was not a member of any group recognized by the organization.

So by this logic, if I "feel" threatened by some guy following me it is within my right to turn around and start beating him to death?

Also we should make it a law that everyone that carries a licensed firearm "has" to also carry mace and a tazer with them at all times!

So where would you lead a guy following you to exactly? A dark alley maybe so you can beat him to within a inch of his life? Maybe if he went into his home this incident maybe not have happened? or if Z busted into his home and killed him this would be a clear cut case now wouldn't it?

reply to post by GrantedBail


No kids...but even when I was in high school (4 years ago) getting in a fist fight was only 5 days suspension. And sure say the Pokemon Master is racist. People use that as their last line of defense or as a crutch for their position on something fueled by race by the media.

reply to post by jheated5


Hey tough guy.

I double dare you to go into ANY neighborhood and start stalking an innocent man (just a little bit bigger than you) just walking. If you get your rear handed to you, IMO you had it coming.

reply to post by parkwoods21


OK, not knowing the discipline schedule for the school district it does seem like a long suspension. Do we have any verification of that? Or is that just a rumor?

All and all does that make him ripe for execution? Does that even make sense to you?

reply to post by GrantedBail


It doesn't. But don't make it seem like Trayvon was that 5 year old picture the media kept using to heat up this race war. Both sides should have done things way differently. And based on both parties pasts' it could have gone down either way. But the contusions and cuts all over GZ head and arms would suggest he was probably on his back most of the altercation.

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by jheated5

 

Hey tough guy.

I double dare you to go into ANY neighborhood and start stalking an innocent man (just a little bit bigger than you) just walking. If you get your rear handed to you, IMO you had it coming.

You summed up my post to perfection.... You have just condoned an illegal activity "assault" and "attempted murder" because you felt threatened..... Where was stalking involved? Is there evidence to suggest someone was being cased out for several days and specifically targeted, if you have the evidence I would sure love to hear it....

i see a lot of z supporters trying to shift and deflect on here. "what about m's bravado and past fights?" (past fights with no fatalities shows he knows when to stop, btw, so z was not in a life and death situ).

however, the past of both is irrelevant.

what matters is what happened.

z, a self-appointed "captain" of the neighborhood watch, followed and confronted m.
m may have felt threatened and attacked. or z attacked first.
z shot and killed m.

z instigated by confronting. he was doing the right thing at first, following and reporting, then he overstepped by confronting.

even z's lawyers said the syg law did not apply in this case. "In this particular case, George did not have an ability to retreat because he was on the ground with Trayvon Martin mounting him, striking blows, therefore the Stand Your Ground 'benefit' given by the statute simply does not apply to the facts of George's case: it is traditional self-defense," Zimmerman's attorneys said on the web site detailing his legal case.

Originally posted by stormson
i see a lot of z supporters trying to shift and deflect on here. "what about m's bravado and past fights?" (past fights with no fatalities shows he knows when to stop, btw, so z was not in a life and death situ).

however, the past of both is irrelevant.

what matters is what happened.

z, a self-appointed "captain" of the neighborhood watch, followed and confronted m.
m may have felt threatened and attacked. or z attacked first.
z shot and killed m.

z instigated by confronting. he was doing the right thing at first, following and reporting, then he overstepped by confronting.

even z's lawyers said the syg law did not apply in this case. "In this particular case, George did not have an ability to retreat because he was on the ground with Trayvon Martin mounting him, striking blows, therefore the Stand Your Ground 'benefit' given by the statute simply does not apply to the facts of George's case: it is traditional self-defense," Zimmerman's attorneys said on the web site detailing his legal case.

Where is your source for Z's alleged confrontation? If Z did in fact start some confrontation than I will probably change my tune but I don't have all the facts, just like most of us don't and that is what courts are for.....

Originally posted by jheated5

Originally posted by stormson

Originally posted by WP4YT

Originally posted by stormson
what some people arent saying is that trayvon was actually using the syg law as well.

he was being followed by a stranger, he felt threatened, so he stood his ground against the aggressor.
now hes dead.

without the gun, zimmerman wouldnt have gotten out of his truck to begin with.

theres a reason hes not using the syg law as a defense.

Sorry but point me to where it says you can commit aggravated assault against someone you suspect is following you?

I Can however point to where the law says you can shoot someone that is assaulting you.

Bad news for the treyvan lovers, zimmerman didnt follow treyvan with his gun out like a cowboy. If he was, treyvan never would have attacked Zimmerman and "stood his ground" against Zimmerman (who would be stupid enough to attack someone you know has a gun.)

If there is any justice in this case instead of political bs, Zimmerman will walk free. He did no wrong and shouldn't even be on trial.since when do we prosecute people who broken no laws, in this country? Oh yeah since the commies took over...

thats part of the syg law. if i feel threatened, i dont have to back down. i can, by law, beat you to defend myself.

if you are following me, and i feel threatened, why am i going to lead you to my house? im going to confront you, and beat you to defend myself and prevent you from knowing where i lived.

now why didnt z have a non-lethal method? spray or a tazer? even the cops carry that.

oh yeah, he was acting rogue.

through a statement released by the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) — the parent organization of USAonWatch-Neighborhood Watch — it has been revealed that Zimmerman was not a member of any group recognized by the organization.

So by this logic, if I "feel" threatened by some guy following me it is within my right to turn around and start beating him to death?

Also we should make it a law that everyone that carries a licensed firearm "has" to also carry mace and a tazer with them at all times!

So where would you lead a guy following you to exactly? A dark alley maybe so you can beat him to within a inch of his life? Maybe if he went into his home this incident maybe not have happened? or if Z busted into his home and killed him this would be a clear cut case now wouldn't it?

yes, if i think you are following me, i will confront, then beat you. no evidence m was trying to beat z to death. if anything, his past fights shows he knows when to stop, as he never beat anyone else to death.

if youre part of a neighborhood watch, then yes, you should have non-lethal weapons. you are not a cop.

Originally posted by stormson

Originally posted by jheated5

Originally posted by stormson

Originally posted by WP4YT

Originally posted by stormson
what some people arent saying is that trayvon was actually using the syg law as well.

he was being followed by a stranger, he felt threatened, so he stood his ground against the aggressor.
now hes dead.

without the gun, zimmerman wouldnt have gotten out of his truck to begin with.

theres a reason hes not using the syg law as a defense.

Sorry but point me to where it says you can commit aggravated assault against someone you suspect is following you?

I Can however point to where the law says you can shoot someone that is assaulting you.

Bad news for the treyvan lovers, zimmerman didnt follow treyvan with his gun out like a cowboy. If he was, treyvan never would have attacked Zimmerman and "stood his ground" against Zimmerman (who would be stupid enough to attack someone you know has a gun.)

If there is any justice in this case instead of political bs, Zimmerman will walk free. He did no wrong and shouldn't even be on trial.since when do we prosecute people who broken no laws, in this country? Oh yeah since the commies took over...

thats part of the syg law. if i feel threatened, i dont have to back down. i can, by law, beat you to defend myself.

if you are following me, and i feel threatened, why am i going to lead you to my house? im going to confront you, and beat you to defend myself and prevent you from knowing where i lived.

now why didnt z have a non-lethal method? spray or a tazer? even the cops carry that.

oh yeah, he was acting rogue.

through a statement released by the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) — the parent organization of USAonWatch-Neighborhood Watch — it has been revealed that Zimmerman was not a member of any group recognized by the organization.

So by this logic, if I "feel" threatened by some guy following me it is within my right to turn around and start beating him to death?

Also we should make it a law that everyone that carries a licensed firearm "has" to also carry mace and a tazer with them at all times!

So where would you lead a guy following you to exactly? A dark alley maybe so you can beat him to within a inch of his life? Maybe if he went into his home this incident maybe not have happened? or if Z busted into his home and killed him this would be a clear cut case now wouldn't it?

yes, if i think you are following me, i will confront, then beat you. no evidence m was trying to beat z to death. if anything, his past fights shows he knows when to stop, as he never beat anyone else to death.

if youre part of a neighborhood watch, then yes, you should have non-lethal weapons. you are not a cop.

So if I, a law abiding citizen who is legally allowed to carry a firearm believed you were in my neighborhood up to no good and followed you to see what you were doing, you would turn around and start attacking me..... In that instance I have every right to shoot you dead on the spot!

Originally posted by jheated5

Originally posted by stormson
i see a lot of z supporters trying to shift and deflect on here. "what about m's bravado and past fights?" (past fights with no fatalities shows he knows when to stop, btw, so z was not in a life and death situ).

however, the past of both is irrelevant.

what matters is what happened.

z, a self-appointed "captain" of the neighborhood watch, followed and confronted m.
m may have felt threatened and attacked. or z attacked first.
z shot and killed m.

z instigated by confronting. he was doing the right thing at first, following and reporting, then he overstepped by confronting.

even z's lawyers said the syg law did not apply in this case. "In this particular case, George did not have an ability to retreat because he was on the ground with Trayvon Martin mounting him, striking blows, therefore the Stand Your Ground 'benefit' given by the statute simply does not apply to the facts of George's case: it is traditional self-defense," Zimmerman's attorneys said on the web site detailing his legal case.

Where is your source for Z's alleged confrontation? If Z did in fact start some confrontation than I will probably change my tune but I don't have all the facts, just like most of us don't and that is what courts are for.....

“Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued.” prosecutors affidavit.

reply to post by parkwoods21


Frankly I have never seen the pictures, nor have I paid a lot of attention to this case. I just remember the reports from the MSM right after the incident. I gathered that Trayvon was followed and stalked by Zimmerman, and it ended up with the kid getting shot. I know there was a huge deal in the media and even online about the case. Everyone staked out a position based upon their own biases. For reals, I could care less what color each of the individuals were. It just didn't factor in to the early facts on the ground.

If it was in my neighborhood and I heard the same story I would have thought that Zman should have been charged. Actually if it was in my neighborhood (white as hell and real kid friendly) the neighbors would have agreed with me. No one is gonna get down with some wanna be vigilante taking a kid down in cold blood.

I don't give a rat's cheese about his past. The kid was placed on the defensive. If that chicken poop didn't have a gun there would be a different story told today.

Originally posted by stormson

Originally posted by jheated5

Originally posted by stormson
i see a lot of z supporters trying to shift and deflect on here. "what about m's bravado and past fights?" (past fights with no fatalities shows he knows when to stop, btw, so z was not in a life and death situ).

however, the past of both is irrelevant.

what matters is what happened.

z, a self-appointed "captain" of the neighborhood watch, followed and confronted m.
m may have felt threatened and attacked. or z attacked first.
z shot and killed m.

z instigated by confronting. he was doing the right thing at first, following and reporting, then he overstepped by confronting.

even z's lawyers said the syg law did not apply in this case. "In this particular case, George did not have an ability to retreat because he was on the ground with Trayvon Martin mounting him, striking blows, therefore the Stand Your Ground 'benefit' given by the statute simply does not apply to the facts of George's case: it is traditional self-defense," Zimmerman's attorneys said on the web site detailing his legal case.

Where is your source for Z's alleged confrontation? If Z did in fact start some confrontation than I will probably change my tune but I don't have all the facts, just like most of us don't and that is what courts are for.....

“Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued.” prosecutors affidavit.

Where is the link to that source please?

So if I, a law abiding citizen who is legally allowed to carry a firearm believed you were in my neighborhood up to no good and followed you to see what you were doing, you would turn around and start attacking me..... In that instance I have every right to shoot you dead on the spot!

no, you dont. you created the situ. you should call the cops, which you arent. they are the ones that are to confront me.

Originally posted by jheated5

Originally posted by stormson

Originally posted by jheated5

Originally posted by stormson
i see a lot of z supporters trying to shift and deflect on here. "what about m's bravado and past fights?" (past fights with no fatalities shows he knows when to stop, btw, so z was not in a life and death situ).

however, the past of both is irrelevant.

what matters is what happened.

z, a self-appointed "captain" of the neighborhood watch, followed and confronted m.
m may have felt threatened and attacked. or z attacked first.
z shot and killed m.

z instigated by confronting. he was doing the right thing at first, following and reporting, then he overstepped by confronting.

even z's lawyers said the syg law did not apply in this case. "In this particular case, George did not have an ability to retreat because he was on the ground with Trayvon Martin mounting him, striking blows, therefore the Stand Your Ground 'benefit' given by the statute simply does not apply to the facts of George's case: it is traditional self-defense," Zimmerman's attorneys said on the web site detailing his legal case.

Where is your source for Z's alleged confrontation? If Z did in fact start some confrontation than I will probably change my tune but I don't have all the facts, just like most of us don't and that is what courts are for.....

“Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued.” prosecutors affidavit.

Where is the link to that source please?

google it yourself. try fox news.

Originally posted by stormson

So if I, a law abiding citizen who is legally allowed to carry a firearm believed you were in my neighborhood up to no good and followed you to see what you were doing, you would turn around and start attacking me..... In that instance I have every right to shoot you dead on the spot!

no, you dont. you created the situ. you should call the cops, which you arent. they are the ones that are to confront me.

I said I was following you, not confronting you one bit, you said you would confront and attack me, which is assault on your part.... Is following someone illegal, how long does one person need to follow someone until you call it stalking?

GZ did call the cops and the cops told him to back off. He didn't. He continued to stalk TM until he forced the confrontation he was so obliviously looking for.