The Zimmerman Trial

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by WonderBoi

 

I didn't know I was posting in a troll thread. I have no agenda you obviously do. Have a good night, I won't be talking with you anymore. As I said it's a shame you started the thread because you will surely be back.
I hope someone educates you on what stalking is sometime tonight (again as I already have several times).

edit on 2-7-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

You know what i've learned? People name call, when they're LOSING the debate. You keep calling me a troll, and i'm beginning to take offense. You're the one that has made, how many comments, already? Why are you so interested? You made your point. Now, move along. Then, you won't have to worry about my so called: "trolling". Will you?

reply to post by WonderBoi


Lol you're readin comprehension is terrible. The reason the word MAY is included is because it may or may not include following. As in it's not the main aspect of stalking. Following is NOT always stalking, but stalking MAY include following. Give it up dude, you know it's not stalking you're just embarrassing yourself.

reply to post by Libertygal


Are you not even slightly dubious that a man who was supposedly "keeping an eye out" for a possibly armed suspect, then walked right past the dark, threatening area he'd last saw the suspect enter, and didn't even glance in that direction on his way back, so keen was he to get to his car? He knew nobody could have surprised him from the right, so it'd have been basic common sense to be looking down the T while heading back to your vehicle. Zimmerman supporters give George a pass on every inconsistency in his behaviour, but Trayvon's actions, or lack of them(like running straight home) are seen as sinister based on the most spurious reasoning.

reply to post by WonderBoi


Oh, I'm winning the debate. I just called you a troll because trolls usually do things like insist they are right despite overwhelming evidence they are wrong.

No worries though I'm done with your thread for the night. I'll be back when you aren't here to report the truth without your nonsensical interruptions.

Originally posted by WonderBoi

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by WonderBoi

 

I didn't know I was posting in a troll thread. I have no agenda you obviously do. Have a good night, I won't be talking with you anymore. As I said it's a shame you started the thread because you will surely be back.
I hope someone educates you on what stalking is sometime tonight (again as I already have several times).

edit on 2-7-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

You know what i've learned? People name call, when they're LOSING the debate. You keep calling me a troll, and i'm beginning to take offense. You're the one that has made, how many comments, already? Why are you so interested? You made your point. Now, move along. Then, you won't have to worry about my so called: "trolling". Will you?

What really rustles my jimmies is when these clowns insist that their msm bs filters are so much better than my own and that I'm only arguing Trayvon Martin's case because I've been suckered by some witch named Nancy Grace!

reply to post by IvanAstikov


He passed the the branch of the T meaning he probably thought Martin did too. He didn't know he was passing where the teen ducked to because he didn't know where he went. He likely thought he kept going straight and out of the neighborhood consider he probably didn't think someone that was living there would act so strange. It actually makes the most sense that he would think the guy took off running and ran right out of the neighborhood. You don't think Zimmerman thought he was after one of his own neighbors do you? That wouldn't make sense.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

If you couldn't read that once through and understand it, trust me it's a problem with your reading.

I can see that you're going to use deflections and arguments unrelated to the actual information.

Trust me, you're not a clear writer. If you like I'll go through and show you problems with your syntax that create issues for the reader, and your spelling is obviously all over the place.

As to the arguments, you remain unable to respond to direct points I make. I wonder why.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


Well what do you expect, you are repeating the MSMs story verbatim. We are weighing the facts and have an opinion opposite the msm. So whose filter is broken?

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by WonderBoi

 

STOP PUSHING YOUR STUPID AGENDA!

Pot, meet kettle.
Ok, done trying to talk to you.

Between that and your "You can't follow someone, it's an unspoken rule" thing, it is easy to see qhere you are coming from.

Not really going there witcha, brah.

Enjoy arguing with the few people left that will bother to.

Correction:

You're not allowed to follow people around. That's like, an unwritten
rule.

edit on 2-7-2013 by Libertygal because: correction

No, you're not allowed to follow someone around because it would be considered: STALKING.

Stalking can be defined as the willful and repeated following, watching and/or harassing of another person

Did Zimmerman REPEATEDLY FOLLOW and watch Trayvon??? YES, he did! Therefore, he could have been considered "Stalking" the victim.

What would you say to the police, if you were walking down the street, and a car was following you, suspiciously?

Lots of DOUBLE STANDARDS going around these days.

reply to post by JuniorDisco


Haha.. my spelling is great, if I make a mistake it's because I'm on a cell phone. Go ahead if you want to pick problems out with my posts, I am cranking them out as fast as I can with three people responding at a time. I think I do just fine. If we were writing seriously i'd blow you away because writing is what I do.

When you pose whatever question is is for me directly I will answer it. Likely tmrw because I'm going to bed, but I assure you, reply and ask your question and I will answer straight up first thing when I'm back. I'll even I'M you and let you know.

reply to post by WonderBoi


Wrong.

Willfull and repeated
Willfull and repeated
Willfull and repeated
Willfull and repeated
Willfull and repeated

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by WonderBoi

 

Oh, I'm winning the debate. I just called you a troll because trolls usually do things like insist they are right despite overwhelming evidence they are wrong.

No worries though I'm done with your thread for the night. I'll be back when you aren't here to report the truth without your nonsensical interruptions.

Insist you're right, is all you've been doing. So far, I've heard: he had the right to STALK Trayvon and he had the right to defend himself. Where is this "overwhelming evidence" you speak of. What i see before me, is a person that was looking for his 15 minutes of fame, trying to be Joe Schmoe Superhero to a non-existing crime. Stereotyping and Racial Profiling is what Mr. Zimmerman was doing, that night! How do you know, Mr. Zimmerman didn't have intentions on raping Trayvon? You don't know WHAT he was doing or why he was doing it because the other 1/2 of this story is dead! We only get to hear 1 side of the story and the side i'm hearing, has big holes in his testimony of events.

If Trayvon had been acting suspiciously and been intent on getting out of the neighbourhood because his plans for mischief had been scuppered by sharp-eyed George, he'd have rabbitted when George first set eyes on him... if it even happened as George describes. If Trayvon had been a confrontational thug with a serious attitude problem, he'd have been up in George's face while he was still in his car, and George winding his window up wouldn't have discouraged him. If Trayvon had been the "fecking goon" George had him marked down as - probably as a result of his mentoring black kids and him knowing exactly what a "fecking goon" looked like - he would have got away like the rest of the "assholes" and George would once again have been left looking as useful as a chocolate fireguard.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by WonderBoi

 

Wrong.

Willfull and repeated
Willfull and repeated
Willfull and repeated
Willfull and repeated
Willfull and repeated

Wash, rinse, REPEAT! Get the point? Repeat means a second time. Again, Zimmerman PARKED, drove, PARKED, GOT OUT! That's a repeated act. Geesh. Don't get confused with time frame.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

This is a very telling comment.
This explains a lot of your opinion on this case. What does the incident that poster mentioned have to do with events that took place 60 years ago?

Yeah, and like why does Germany have such powerful laws against extremism? And why is food good in France? And why do India and Pakistan hate each other? Why do black people live in different bits of South Africa than the whites? Why is Catalonia so keen to secede from Spain? And Scotland from England? How come those Northern Irish guys just can't get along?

Nothing that happened 60 years ago can ever possibly have any bearing on what happens now, can it?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by WonderBoi

 

My god.. yes it does make sense. There is no sense in talking to you if you just ignore information/ are incapable of understanding it. If you follow someone one time, whether for a reason (such as keeping an eye on them) or for no reasonn at all, that IS NOT stalking and it is NOT ILLEGAL.

Neither is it illegal to look at people's houses, or walk around a neighbourhood.

But apparently if you are black it excuses your being shot.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by WonderBoi

 

My god.. yes it does make sense. There is no sense in talking to you if you just ignore information/ are incapable of understanding it. If you follow someone one time, whether for a reason (such as keeping an eye on them) or for no reasonn at all, that IS NOT stalking and it is NOT ILLEGAL.

Neither is it illegal to look at people's houses, or walk around a neighbourhood.

But apparently if you are black it excuses your being shot.

Which means we have 2 people doing nothing illegal.

During the walk back to his car Zimmerman and Martin met somehow and a confrontation took place.

The question is "Who took the first swing?".

reply to post by JuniorDisco

Neither is it illegal to look at people's houses, or walk around a
neighbourhood.

Looking IN peoples' houses, there is a difference.

That is known as prowling.

Peeping.

Any sensible person knows by watching someone, especially someone raised around law enforcement in the family, what the term "a crime is afoot" means.

There's an interesting article here for those who are still on the fence, or those who are disbelieving of Zimmerman's explanation of the night's events. Here's a couple of extracts.

Contrary to reports in the media, it is possible to reenact the murder and to discredit the stories coming out of the Zimmerman camp. My own background is in martial arts and I do reenactments of street crimes for the purposes of self-defense training.

So, not someone whose opinions should be dismissed lightly, unless you think someone who has never done something is likely to be more knowledgeable than someone who has.

It’s critical to know what either party knew about martial arts or what kind of training either party had prior to the fight. Untrained fighters face major difficulties in a street fight (which is why we have martial arts schools and martial arts training). For one thing, hitting someone in the head with an unconditioned fist is as likely to injure the puncher’s hand as it is the attacked person’s head. If Martin were the attacker and throwing punches and had no martial arts training, his hands would have clearly shown injuries such as major bruising or even broken bones. This would be even more likely if he had struck Zimmerman in back of the head (as some accounts had claimed). This is why hand conditioning is part of karate training. (Punching someone in back of the head is like trying to break a coconut with one’s fist.) The second issue is the ability to fight from the mount. MMA fighters train extensively to deal with this position so that they aren’t thrown out of the position or get it reversed on them. A later witness supposedly saw Martin in a mount position doing a ground and pound on Zimmerman “MMA style.” This would require training, and to date no evidence of MMA training has been revealed in either party.

The article is from a year ago, so it'd be interesting to know what he thinks now. I've done some googling but I can't find anyone who has commented on how good a gym the one George was a member of is.

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

Neither is it illegal to look at people's houses, or walk around a
neighbourhood.

Looking IN peoples' houses, there is a difference.

That is known as prowling.

Peeping.

Any sensible person knows by watching someone, especially someone raised around law enforcement in the family, what the term "a crime is afoot" means.

How could George have seen him looking in people's houses, plural? He claims to have drove straight past Trayvon when he first saw him, only slowing down because a car was backing out of a driveway(something that not one cop seems to have attempted to corroborate. Wasn't that an important witness to confirm George's first possible sighting, or are we just to believe everything he says? well, we know the answer to that for some.), so how could he have observed him for any amount of time to consider him being suspicious? Oh wait, I forgot... Trayvon was stood in the rain wearing a hoody.

If he really thought Trayvon was suspicious, and knowing his mate Frank always left his windows and garage doors open, despite the high crime levels, shouldn't George have gone and checked his friend Frank was okay? For all he knew, Trayvon could have been keeping lookout while an accomplice was doing unspeakable things to poor old Frank. So much for George's concern about the suspicious character he'd just drove right past and parked out of sight from. And, he didn't even phone 911, so not that suspicious, after all.