George Zimmerman Trial


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

George Zimmerman Trial

Postby dustoff » Sat Jun 29, 2013 6:35 am

So who has been following the trial so far? What are everybody's thoughts?
dustoff
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:58 pm

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby TrakFan » Sat Jun 29, 2013 9:58 am

What the heck -- I'll add my 2 cents before this thing is locked.

I feel many in the civilized world (rightfully) think we are a backwards and dangerous society when we have LAWS that ALLOW an armed individual to claim self defense after pursuing and killing an unarmed individual.
TrakFan
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Colorado Springs

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby dustoff » Sat Jun 29, 2013 10:11 am

TrakFan wrote:What the heck -- I'll add my 2 cents before this thing is locked.

I feel many in the civilized world (rightfully) think we are a backwards and dangerous society when we have LAWS that ALLOW an armed individual to claim self defense after pursuing and killing an unarmed individual.


Do you not believe that people should be allowed to use weapons in the case of self-defense? Following somebody in a public area isn't a crime, by the way. Being unarmed is kind of irrelevant, since the physical aggressor was punching the guy in the head.

Before I read more into the details, I had a pretty unfavorable view of the defendant. Through the trial though, it appears the media portrayed a lot off the details completely inaccurately. The evidence indicates that it wasn't GZ that initiated any physical conflict and that, in fact, he had stopped pursuing him, but TM came back and attacked the guy. Pretty open and close case of self-defense, it seems.
dustoff
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:58 pm

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby jeremyp » Sat Jun 29, 2013 10:20 am

Nothing I've seen has changed my initial opinion. Zimmerman brought a gun to a fist fight. I'd go for manslaughter.
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby dustoff » Sat Jun 29, 2013 10:24 am

jeremyp wrote:Nothing I've seen has changed my initial opinion. Zimmerman brought a gun to a fist fight. I'd go for manslaughter.


Do you believe he started the fight or threw any punches?
dustoff
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:58 pm

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby TrakFan » Sat Jun 29, 2013 10:28 am

dustoff wrote:
Do you not believe that people should be allowed to use weapons in the case of self-defense? ...he had stopped PURSUING ...


TrakFan wrote:I feel many in the civilized world (rightfully) think we are a backwards and dangerous society when we have LAWS that ALLOW an armed individual to claim self defense after pursuing and killing an unarmed individual.


I have nothing new to add, and stick by my original stament.
TrakFan
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Colorado Springs

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby dustoff » Sat Jun 29, 2013 11:10 am

TrakFan wrote:I have nothing new to add, and stick by my original stament.


Context is pretty important. After Zimmerman was told to stay where he was, the evidence seems to show that he did. The altercation took place just feet from his vehicle, which corroborates what he said, which is that TM came up to him to confront and attack him.

Pursuing somebody in public isn't a crime, if you didn't know, and certainly doesn't require a physical beating.
dustoff
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:58 pm

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Jun 29, 2013 12:29 pm

dustoff wrote:
TrakFan wrote:I have nothing new to add, and stick by my original stament.


Context is pretty important. After Zimmerman was told to stay where he was, the evidence seems to show that he did. The altercation took place just feet from his vehicle, which corroborates what he said, which is that TM came up to him to confront and attack him.

Pursuing somebody in public isn't a crime, if you didn't know, and certainly doesn't require a physical beating.

Let me weigh in before this thread inevitably gets locked. The idea that Zimmerman would follow Martin, a guy minding his own business, get out of his car with a gun and aggressively confront Martin, and then shoot Martin just because he's losing a fight that he started, and then claim self-defense, is absolutely absurd. There once was a time when White folks in the South could kill Black folks with impunity. I thought those days were over with but evidently you want to bring back those "good ole days".
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby dustoff » Sat Jun 29, 2013 12:54 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:Let me weigh in before this thread inevitably gets locked. The idea that Zimmerman would follow Martin, a guy minding his own business, get out of his car with a gun and aggressively confront Martin, and then shoot Martin just because he's losing a fight that he started, and then claim self-defense, is absolutely absurd. There once was a time when White folks in the South could kill Black folks with impunity. I thought those days were over with but evidently you want to bring back those "good ole days".


Have you actually listened to or followed the case? I only made this thread after the fact because I found it very interesting. What you have described is contrary to the facts of the case.

The evidence indicates that it was Trayvon Martin that approached Zimmerman, initiated the fight, and was on top of Zimmerman, punching him in the face and head numerous times before GZ shot him. There is no evidence that GZ 'aggressively' confronted him or even threw a punch.

Now, following him to begin with may have been inappropriate; I am not sure. That isn't an illegal act in itself though and not deserving of violence.

You have basically made-up a different version of events that don't fit with the evidence presented in the trial, including facts that even the prosecution agrees with.
dustoff
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:58 pm

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby kuha » Sat Jun 29, 2013 1:19 pm

kuha
 
Posts: 9036
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby dustoff » Sat Jun 29, 2013 1:32 pm



This is definitely a factor I was hoping would be discussed.

I think where the differences come in is largely due to misrepresentation by the media. I myself was one of these people, hoping to see GZ in prison in due time. The facts as presented in the trial though tell a much different story and it has steadily come out that many of the aspects reported about the case were either outright lies or carefully edited bits to portray a different narrative. The Wiki entry does a surprisingly good job covering a lot of these issues.
dustoff
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:58 pm

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby odelltrclan » Sat Jun 29, 2013 1:59 pm

dustoff wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Let me weigh in before this thread inevitably gets locked. The idea that Zimmerman would follow Martin, a guy minding his own business, get out of his car with a gun and aggressively confront Martin, and then shoot Martin just because he's losing a fight that he started, and then claim self-defense, is absolutely absurd. There once was a time when White folks in the South could kill Black folks with impunity. I thought those days were over with but evidently you want to bring back those "good ole days".


Have you actually listened to or followed the case? I only made this thread after the fact because I found it very interesting. What you have described is contrary to the facts of the case.

The evidence indicates that it was Trayvon Martin that approached Zimmerman, initiated the fight, and was on top of Zimmerman, punching him in the face and head numerous times before GZ shot him. There is no evidence that GZ 'aggressively' confronted him or even threw a punch.

Now, following him to begin with may have been inappropriate; I am not sure. That isn't an illegal act in itself though and not deserving of violence.

You have basically made-up a different version of events that don't fit with the evidence presented in the trial, including facts that even the prosecution agrees with.


The media tried to paint this as a racial issue from day one to serve their own agenda. Like Mr. you know who "if I had a son he would look like Trayvon". This is somewhat surprising considering Zimmerman is a minority. The star witness for the state had less than stellar testimony. The defense has an eyewitness who saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman beating the crap out of him. Zimmerman had a CCW license and in such a situation was entitled to use the gun to defend himself. But this is not the message the MSM wanted to convey. It is one reason they continually post the innocent looking 12 year old picture of Trayvon rather than one around the time of this unfortunate accident.

Zimmerman will walk.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby jeremyp » Sat Jun 29, 2013 6:42 pm

dustoff wrote:
jeremyp wrote:Nothing I've seen has changed my initial opinion. Zimmerman brought a gun to a fist fight. I'd go for manslaughter.


Do you believe he started the fight or threw any punches?

When you follow an innocent person so doggedly that's harassment, so he started the escalation. What happened after that is unclear. If Zimmerman was attacked by Trayvon, the latter had just cause. Since Z had the gun, he had a distinct advantage.
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Jun 29, 2013 6:45 pm

Let's remember what Zimmerman told the 911 dispatcher:

"Fucking punks. These assholes. They always get away."

Considering Zimmerman's mindset before he spoke to the dispatcher, it's hard for me to believe that he approached Martin in anything less than a belligerent manner.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby jeremyp » Sat Jun 29, 2013 6:47 pm

dustoff wrote:
Have you actually listened to or followed the case? I only made this thread after the fact because I found it very interesting. What you have described is contrary to the facts of the case.

The evidence indicates that it was Trayvon Martin that approached Zimmerman, initiated the fight, and was on top of Zimmerman, punching him in the face and head numerous times before GZ shot him. There is no evidence that GZ 'aggressively' confronted him or even threw a punch.

Now, following him to begin with may have been inappropriate; I am not sure. That isn't an illegal act in itself though and not deserving of violence.

You have basically made-up a different version of events that don't fit with the evidence presented in the trial, including facts that even the prosecution agrees with.

It seems to me you haven't been following the case with an open mind. So far no evidence shows your side of it. Both sides have evidence that helps their case, and it's still a draw, but the bottom line is if you bring a gun to a fist fight you're not playing fair.
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Jun 29, 2013 7:04 pm

jeremyp wrote:but the bottom line is if you bring a gun to a fist fight you're not playing fair.

Especially if you provoke a fight.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby odelltrclan » Sat Jun 29, 2013 7:19 pm

jeremyp wrote:It seems to me you haven't been following the case with an open mind. So far no evidence shows your side of it. Both sides have evidence that helps their case, and it's still a draw, but the bottom line is if you bring a gun to a fist fight you're not playing fair.


"Your" side? You think he has a rooting interest?

Zimmerman had a concealed carry permit. He didn't flash just flash a gun and wave it in his face. He pulled it out after he was sucker-punched and was being pulverized lying on his back on the ground. At that point he had a legal right to use it.

As for "provoking a fight". I haven't seen or heard any definitive evidence of who did. Following a person at a distance in a car is not provoking a fight. The phone call with Trayvon's friend showed a state of mind of Trayvon that easily could have started the physical confrontation.

Lets also not forget that NBC conveniently edited the 911 dispatcher calls they released to the public in such a manner as to convey the message they wanted to portray.

I am all for Zimmerman being convicted if he is truly guilty. I just don't see the evidence to do so. They will not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Not even close.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Jun 29, 2013 7:57 pm

odelltrclan wrote:Zimmerman had a concealed carry permit. He didn't flash just flash a gun and wave it in his face. He pulled it out after he was sucker-punched and was being pulverized lying on his back on the ground. At that point he had a legal right to use it.

As for "provoking a fight". I haven't seen or heard any definitive evidence of who did. Following a person at a distance in a car is not provoking a fight. The phone call with Trayvon's friend showed a state of mind of Trayvon that easily could have started the physical confrontation.

Did Martin stalk Zimmerman or did Zimmerman stalk Martin? Did Zimmerman get out of his car voluntarily or did Martin pull him out of his car? Was Martin looking for trouble or just minding his own business as he walked home from a convenience store?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby TrakFan » Sat Jun 29, 2013 8:22 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:Did Martin stalk Zimmerman or did Zimmerman stalk Martin? Did Zimmerman get out of his car voluntarily or did Martin pull him out of his car? Was Martin looking for trouble or just minding his own business as he walked home from a convenience store?


Ironically, many of those claiming media bias do not realize the media biases they've been exposed to over a lifetime that result in them thinking it's okay for an armed individual to pursue a teenager, get into an altercation, kill the teen, and then claim self-defense.
TrakFan
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Colorado Springs

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby odelltrclan » Sat Jun 29, 2013 9:25 pm

TrakFan wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Did Martin stalk Zimmerman or did Zimmerman stalk Martin? Did Zimmerman get out of his car voluntarily or did Martin pull him out of his car? Was Martin looking for trouble or just minding his own business as he walked home from a convenience store?


Ironically, many of those claiming media bias do not realize the media biases they've been exposed to over a lifetime that result in them thinking it's okay for an armed individual to pursue a teenager, get into an altercation, kill the teen, and then claim self-defense.


Both of these statements are showing your own bias. Is it really hard to believe someone who is on a neighborhood watch (which had had a problem with crime no less) would follow someone they felt to be suspicious [you label as stalking because it is a more appropriate word for your agenda]? Is it hard to believe they could have had words? Is it hard to believe that someone who undertook such a task [neighborhood watch in a neighborhood with a history of crime] and had a CCW license might carry for safety? I know you want the picture painted that Zimmerman was a vigilante looking for blood, so that is all you are looking for. Your comments from the beginning show your minds were made up from the beginning.

All that is really known is that GZ followed Martin and there was a verbal confrontation. GZ was overzealous in his actions, sure. That does not mean he did not kill in self-defense. The evidence points far more to that than what you are claiming, that he was some vigilante hell bent on looking for blood. If GZ would have driven away after his 911 call nothing would have happened for sure. But, if Trayvon would not have tried to use physical violence in confronting him he would still be alive today. There is no evidence of what took place in that verbal exchange. There is evidence of Trayvon beating GZ to the point where it could be self-defense.

If Zimmerman is guilty he should go to jail. I just don't see it or see it happening. The only real evidence they have is a phone call [with racial slurs by Trayvon also showing a dangerous mindset] that ended before any real confrontation began. It was unfortunate and a tragedy for both.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby mump boy » Sun Jun 30, 2013 1:59 am

jeremyp wrote:
dustoff wrote:
jeremyp wrote:Nothing I've seen has changed my initial opinion. Zimmerman brought a gun to a fist fight. I'd go for manslaughter.


Do you believe he started the fight or threw any punches?

When you follow an innocent person so doggedly that's harassment, so he started the escalation. What happened after that is unclear. If Zimmerman was attacked by Trayvon, the latter had just cause. Since Z had the gun, he had a distinct advantage.


This ^^

If anything it was TM who was defending himself, after being followed, at night by a bigger, armed man.

Of course there are grey areas and no one saw the whole altercation but it was undoubtably GZ who initiated the whole thing. He my well have been defending himself at that specific point but he initiated the whole thing, when he was specifically told not to by the police and as was pointed out earlier, who shoots a kid in a first fight ??!!

On a track related subject, i see Lolo Jones has to crassly stick her oar in, just to centre of attention as always :roll:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/2 ... 13071.html
mump boy
 
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby mump boy » Sun Jun 30, 2013 2:09 am

ALso i'm not sure there is a particular racial element to the crime but i'm 100% sure there was a racial element in the initial decision not to prosecute.

It is that decision and the ensuing controversy that has made this trial a whole lot more difficult to follow inpartially
mump boy
 
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby dustoff » Sun Jun 30, 2013 3:15 am

jeremyp wrote:When you follow an innocent person so doggedly that's harassment, so he started the escalation. What happened after that is unclear. If Zimmerman was attacked by Trayvon, the latter had just cause. Since Z had the gun, he had a distinct advantage.


He didn't harass the guy. That is just more exaggeration of the facts. He followed the guy from his car and appears to have stopped after calling the police.

Being followed through a public street does not give justification for violence.
Last edited by dustoff on Sun Jun 30, 2013 3:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
dustoff
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:58 pm

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby dustoff » Sun Jun 30, 2013 3:18 am

jazzcyclist wrote:Let's remember what Zimmerman told the 911 dispatcher:

"Fucking punks. These assholes. They always get away."

Considering Zimmerman's mindset before he spoke to the dispatcher, it's hard for me to believe that he approached Martin in anything less than a belligerent manner.


That has what to do with what? It doesn't indicate anything. He didn't approach Martin. the evidence indicates that Martin, in fact, approached him to provoke a physical confrontation.

You realize that there had been a number of break-ins in his neighborhood that had remained unsolved?
dustoff
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:58 pm

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby dustoff » Sun Jun 30, 2013 3:25 am

mump boy wrote:This ^^

If anything it was TM who was defending himself, after being followed, at night by a bigger, armed man.

Defending himself from what?

He was no longer being followed and he provoked physical violence. There is absolutely 0 evidence that shows anybody other than Trayvon Martin started the fight. Following somebody through a public street is not grounds for a fight.
Of course there are grey areas and no one saw the whole altercation but it was undoubtably GZ who initiated the whole thing. He my well have been defending himself at that specific point but he initiated the whole thing, when he was specifically told not to by the police and as was pointed out earlier, who shoots a kid in a first fight ??!!
Why do you say undoubtedly? What is wrong with following somebody from a distance that you believe is in the act of committing a crime? Overzealous? Perhaps. Profiling? Good chance. Illegal? Absolutely not.

'Initiated the whole thing' is irrelevant. If I say I don't like your mama, you may get upset, but you don't have a right to attack me.

Also, GZ was not 'much bigger' unless you consider shorter and fatter 'much bigger.' He certainly wasn't carrying more muscle mass. And finally, if somebody attacks you, you have a right to defend yourself however you need to. There is no obligation to stick to 'punches.' The whole point is that this wasn't mutual combat. This was one guy who decided to escalate a non-violent confrontation to a violent one and paid for it with his life. If he had been a rational person, he would be alive today.
dustoff
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:58 pm

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby dustoff » Sun Jun 30, 2013 3:28 am

mump boy wrote:ALso i'm not sure there is a particular racial element to the crime but i'm 100% sure there was a racial element in the initial decision not to prosecute.

It is that decision and the ensuing controversy that has made this trial a whole lot more difficult to follow inpartially


I initially believed the same; however, the more I see the evidence, the more I believe there is absolutely no case whatsoever. This is another Duke lacrosse case. The prosecution has no evidence other than a lying, inept, and inarticulate witness that has provided multiple accounts, none of which makes sense or even help the prosecution's case. A number of other witnesses seem to help further GZ's self-defense claim. I see no basis for which there is plausible cause to believe he should have been arrested, let alone be charged with murder 2.
dustoff
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:58 pm

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby dustoff » Sun Jun 30, 2013 3:40 am

odelltrclan wrote:If Zimmerman is guilty he should go to jail. I just don't see it or see it happening. The only real evidence they have is a phone call [with racial slurs by Trayvon also showing a dangerous mindset] that ended before any real confrontation began. It was unfortunate and a tragedy for both.


I completely agree. I was initially firmly on the side that GZ was, at best, an overzealous hothead that killed a suspected criminal; however, the fact of the matter is that there is nothing in the evidence that indicates that to be true. The evidence really does seem to show that TM approached and attacked GZ, after GZ had stopped pursuing him.

And for all the people that post pictures of little 12y/o Trayvon, maybe they forgot he was much older and quite the thug (or wannabe thug, at least): http://nyencore.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... 052313.jpg
dustoff
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:58 pm

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jun 30, 2013 4:18 am

odelltrclan wrote:Both of these statements are showing your own bias. Is it really hard to believe someone who is on a neighborhood watch (which had had a problem with crime no less) would follow someone they felt to be suspicious [you label as stalking because it is a more appropriate word for your agenda]? Is it hard to believe they could have had words? Is it hard to believe that someone who undertook such a task [neighborhood watch in a neighborhood with a history of crime] and had a CCW license might carry for safety? I know you want the picture painted that Zimmerman was a vigilante looking for blood, so that is all you are looking for. Your comments from the beginning show your minds were made up from the beginning.

I don't think he was a vigilante looking for blood. Because of his comments to the 911 dispatcher, I know that he was a vigilante looking for blood.

odelltrclan wrote:All that is really known is that GZ followed Martin and there was a verbal confrontation. GZ was overzealous in his actions, sure. That does not mean he did not kill in self-defense. The evidence points far more to that than what you are claiming, that he was some vigilante hell bent on looking for blood. If GZ would have driven away after his 911 call nothing would have happened for sure. But, if Trayvon would not have tried to use physical violence in confronting him he would still be alive today. There is no evidence of what took place in that verbal exchange. There is evidence of Trayvon beating GZ to the point where it could be self-defense.

If Zimmerman is guilty he should go to jail. I just don't see it or see it happening. The only real evidence they have is a phone call [with racial slurs by Trayvon also showing a dangerous mindset] that ended before any real confrontation began. It was unfortunate and a tragedy for both.

I have a feeling that if the situation was reversed - a White kid was shot by a Black neighborhood vigilante who saw him innocently walking through a Black neighborhood - I seriously doubt that a lot of you folks would be singing the same tune.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jun 30, 2013 4:24 am

dustoff wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Let's remember what Zimmerman told the 911 dispatcher:

"Fucking punks. These assholes. They always get away."

Considering Zimmerman's mindset before he spoke to the dispatcher, it's hard for me to believe that he approached Martin in anything less than a belligerent manner.


That has what to do with what? It doesn't indicate anything. He didn't approach Martin. the evidence indicates that Martin, in fact, approached him to provoke a physical confrontation.

Are you out of your mind? How Orwellian can you be? Zimmerman stalked Martin, Martin didn't stalk Zimmerman. Facts don't change according to your ability to stomach them.

dustoff wrote:You realize that there had been a number of break-ins in his neighborhood that had remained unsolved?

What the fuck did Martin have to do with these break-ins? You obviously started this thread with an agenda. I guess you also think Emmitt Till had it coming.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby 18.99s » Sun Jun 30, 2013 4:43 am

dustoff wrote:The altercation took place just feet from his vehicle, which corroborates what he said, which is that TM came up to him to confront and attack him.


The altercation took place over 150 feet from his vehicle. If you look at the map of the complex and take note of the scale (see http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magaz ... -and-Fear/), it's clear that no car could park close to the location of the altercation, unless it drove up onto the grass and turned behind a row of townhomes.
18.99s
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby jhc68 » Sun Jun 30, 2013 7:08 am

Late at night a guy with a handgun follows another guy, first in his car and then on foot. The guy with the gun calls 911 and then instead of wating for cops to arrive, and against the advice of the emergency contact, he continues to follow. Very dumb. Not behavior that a normal person would follow.

The guy being followed, instead of calling home or 911, calls his friend who tells him to run but instead, he turns around to confront the stalker. Very dumb. But in truth, I might have done the same thing when I was 17.

A fist fight ensues and the guy with the gun uses it to kill the guy he had been stalking.

Seems to me that if someone (not a cop) decides to pursue someone else (who is minding his own business) and identifies the person being followed as one of these "Fucking punks. These assholes. They always get away." and then he kills the unarmed person with a bullet at point blank range then the guy with the gun is guilty of something... some category of manslaughter at the very least.
jhc68
 
Posts: 3291
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby 18.99s » Sun Jun 30, 2013 7:55 am

jazzcyclist wrote:I have a feeling that if the situation was reversed - a White kid was shot by a Black neighborhood vigilante who saw him innocently walking through a Black neighborhood - I seriously doubt that a lot of you folks would be singing the same tune.


If that happened, the black man absolutely would have been immediately arrested and charged and nobody except his friends and family would have an ounce of belief in his "self defense" claims.
18.99s
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jun 30, 2013 8:11 am

Well said jhc68. I couldn't have said it better myself.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby odelltrclan » Sun Jun 30, 2013 10:52 am

jazzcyclist wrote:I don't think he was a vigilante looking for blood. Because of his comments to the 911 dispatcher, I know that he was a vigilante looking for blood.


You only "know" what you want to believe. How odd that a vigilante looking for blood would even think to call 911?

jazzcyclist wrote:I have a feeling that if the situation was reversed - a White kid was shot by a Black neighborhood vigilante who saw him innocently walking through a Black neighborhood - I seriously doubt that a lot of you folks would be singing the same tune.


That is because you see this only through race colored glasses and expect everyone else to see it the same biased way you do. You completely ignore the fact that we are dealing with two minorities here, though you keep referring to Zimmerman as white. Thank God our society allows for a person to be tried in a court of law, hopefully by a jury representative of people unlike you.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:09 am

odelltrclan wrote:That is because you see this only through race colored glasses and expect everyone else to see it the same biased way you do. You completely ignore the fact that we are dealing with two minorities here, though you keep referring to Zimmerman as white. Thank God our society allows for a person to be tried in a court of law, hopefully by a jury representative of people unlike you.

Coming from an intolerant, right-wing Bible-thumper like yourself, your criticism mean absolutely nothing to me. Thank God, folks like you are going the way of the dinosaur.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby odelltrclan » Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:25 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
odelltrclan wrote:That is because you see this only through race colored glasses and expect everyone else to see it the same biased way you do. You completely ignore the fact that we are dealing with two minorities here, though you keep referring to Zimmerman as white. Thank God our society allows for a person to be tried in a court of law, hopefully by a jury representative of people unlike you.

Coming from an intolerant, right-wing Bible-thumper like yourself, your criticism mean absolutely nothing to me. Thank God, folks like you are going the way of the dinosaur.


Once again, so sad. Resorting to name calling because your arguments are weak. Who is the intolerant one? I had asked politely once before for you to put me on ignore and not respond to my posts and agreed to do the same. You started this. Once again, please put me on ignore and resist the temptation to respond.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby dustoff » Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:49 am

jazzcyclist wrote:Are you out of your mind? How Orwellian can you be? Zimmerman stalked Martin, Martin didn't stalk Zimmerman. Facts don't change according to your ability to stomach them.

What the fuck did Martin have to do with these break-ins? You obviously started this thread with an agenda. I guess you also think Emmitt Till had it coming.


First, he wasn't stalking. The legal definition of stalking is repeated following and harassing. He was followed, he was not stalked. Use the correct word.

Second, following is not a crime. Even if it were to reach the level of harassment, physical violence is not a valid solution, legally or ethically.

Third, grow-up. I never said anybody deserved anything. He was dressed in a suspicious manner, which made Zimmerman believe he could have been involved in a string of robberies. That is why he was followed, which is again, not a crime.

I am not ethnically similar to either man, so drop the race baiting and learn to discuss things like an adult.
dustoff
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:58 pm

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby dustoff » Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:51 am

18.99s wrote:The altercation took place over 150 feet from his vehicle. If you look at the map of the complex and take note of the scale (see http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magaz ... -and-Fear/), it's clear that no car could park close to the location of the altercation, unless it drove up onto the grass and turned behind a row of townhomes.


And 3-5 minutes after the phone call. There was more than enough time for TM to get home if he was in fact going there. Likewise, if GZ was actively pursuing him towards his home, he would have covered more ground if that's where TM was in fact going. 150ft is extremely close by, especially in the given timeframe. If TM was heading home, he would have arrived and there would be no altercation. It is a myth that GZ continued to pursue him.
dustoff
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:58 pm

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby TrakFan » Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:56 am

dustoff wrote:He was dressed in a suspicious manner, which made Zimmerman believe...


Now wearing a hoodie is considered suspicious? God forbid some kid decides to cover his head at night. :roll:
TrakFan
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Colorado Springs

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Postby dustoff » Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:58 am

jhc68 wrote:Late at night a guy with a handgun follows another guy, first in his car and then on foot. The guy with the gun calls 911 and then instead of wating for cops to arrive, and against the advice of the emergency contact, he continues to follow. Very dumb. Not behavior that a normal person would follow.
There is no evidence that he continued to follow TM.
The guy being followed, instead of calling home or 911, calls his friend who tells him to run but instead, he turns around to confront the stalker. Very dumb. But in truth, I might have done the same thing when I was 17.
I agree with this, but unfortunately, it does not have any legal standing in his support. Hell, in the wrong emotional state, I may even do it now. That would not, however, make me any less culpable for my actions.
[quote
A fist fight ensues and the guy with the gun uses it to kill the guy he had been stalking.

Seems to me that if someone (not a cop) decides to pursue someone else (who is minding his own business) and identifies the person being followed as one of these "Fucking punks. These assholes. They always get away." and then he kills the unarmed person with a bullet at point blank range then the guy with the gun is guilty of something... some category of manslaughter at the very least.[/quote]

First, he wasn't stalking by the legal definition. Following him was entirely in his right, even if he were to do it by foot. Second, we need to define fight. Every bit of evidence indicates TM escalated the situation to a level of violence and had no regard for the life of either of them, throwing the first punch and then mounting him, and punching him in the head repeatedly. He had every chance to choose to not escalate it to a level of violence or even stay off GZ. He chose to put himself into a position where the only option GZ seems to have had, to end the beating, was to shoot him.

Unarmed has absolutely nothing to do with it. If you start a fight and are beating somebody, they have every right to use a weapon of their choice to end the conflict. People carry guns, legally, every day and they sometimes have to use them, justifiably, even against 'unarmed' individuals. Being unarmed or gunless does not make you a safe person to be around. Judging by a broken nose and gashes on GZ's head, I think he was certainly beaten pretty viciously before the conflict ended.

If GZ was planning to use his gun or even be in a physical confrontation, I can only imagine it would have never gotten to the point that he was lucky to be alive and conscious.
dustoff
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:58 pm

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests