Trayvon Martin

[mr_genius]

overall George Zimmerman is a ridiculous person. I would find his story very amusing if not for the killing part.

[Soxbadger]

In Jenks world you have to let the other guy do something first. So as long as he touches you, you can shoot him. But if he follows you around while you are going home, you cant be fearful and defend yourself.

 

Interesting logic.

 

And the testimony is meaningless. Dead men tell no tales. I could be scared s***less and acting with bravado. I can be around the girl of my dreams and dying inside and act like I dont even know her name.

 

How does any of that truly tell what Martin felt that night?

 

Its entirely speculative.

 

Heres what is not speculative.

 

Zimmerman killed an unarmed teenager.

 

If Zimmerman had not followed Martin, no one dies.

 

Maybe he will get away with it, but thats only because there is no real justice in the world.

 

(edit)

 

And its not shocking you dont want me on your jury. Its kind of a compliment actually, it just shows that my compass is still pointing the right way.

 

(edit 2)

 

And even more interesting is that Im generally almost always pro-defendant so for me to be arguing for a conviction means that something super shady had to go down.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Soxbadger

[Jenksismyhero]

Best-case scenario for Zimmerman, he stalked this innocent teenager around the neighborhood while carrying a deadly weapon and then Martin physically confronted him, leading to a fight and then to Zimmerman shooting Martin to death.

 

Look at your own phrasing, "he went after him" while carrying a loaded gun. Why shouldn't that immediately disqualify any claims of self-defense?

 

Because I don't believe having a gun and walking down a street means you intend to shoot someone. He's legally allowed to carry that gun and he's legally allowed to use that gun to defend himself if he feels like he's about to die. You can't punish him for not agreeing with that law.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Because I don't believe having a gun and walking down a street means you intend to shoot someone. He's legally allowed to carry that gun and he's legally allowed to use that gun to defend himself if he feels like he's about to die. You can't punish him for not agreeing with that law.

 

Now you're excluding context. He wasn't simply walking down the street. He was following somebody for several minutes, including chasing after them on foot once the person began to flee.

[Soxbadger]

Because I don't believe having a gun and walking down a street means you intend to shoot someone. He's legally allowed to carry that gun and he's legally allowed to use that gun to defend himself if he feels like he's about to die. You can't punish him for not agreeing with that law.

 

I dont either.

 

I believe walking down the street and following after being told explicitly not to creates a dangerous situation that you need to take responsibility for if it turns sideways.

 

Plenty of people walk down the street with guns in Florida every day, Id say 99% of them do not fail to follow a 911 operators instructions.

 

But lets just keep pretending that in this world the facts are:

 

George Zimmerman was walking down the street, minding his own business. Out of nowhere a large teenage boy attacked him knocking him to the ground. George screamed for help as the teenager bashed his skull into the pavement, fearing for his life. After no one responded to his pleas, George asked the teenager to stop hurting him and the teenager replied "I am going to kill you sucker", then George, with no other option, pulled his gun and warned the teen again. At that point the teen turned into a zombie so George did the only thing he could, he shot the zombie teen and saved Florida from a zombie apocalypse.

 

lol

[Jenksismyhero]

I still come back to the example of the subway robber. Your s*** is stolen by a mob of teens, you go after them, they end up jumping you and beating you until the brink of death and you shoot and kill on of them (unarmed) in self defense. Based on your guys' logic, the mere fact that you stepped foot in their direction to recover your phone means you lose all arguments of self-defense. Based on SB's ridiculous logic, the only facts that matter is that you went after them and an unarmed teen was shot. Case closed. Go to jail for 30 years. f*** that.

 

I have no problem if you want to convict Zimmerman of manslaughter. If you don't buy his story, that's fine, I think that's reasonable. But it's BS to say that you lose your self defense rights just for doing something that's not advisable. Tailing someone and keeping track of what someone is doing is not provoking a confrontation. Its' further BS to ignore context and claim that shooting an unarmed teen means you have no defense whatsoever.

[EvilMonkey]

Nice to see all the people on here who would just do nothing if they noticed a strange person walking around their neighborhood in the dark rain for 20 minutes or more, when the whole neighborhood is only about 3 blocks long. Don't look twice at him, that might be profiling, and certainly don't call the police, if he happens to be black that's racist.

[Jenksismyhero]

Now you're excluding context. He wasn't simply walking down the street. He was following somebody for several minutes, including chasing after them on foot once the person began to flee.

 

Is that a crime?

[Soxbadger]

I still come back to the example of the subway robber. Your s*** is stolen by a mob of teens, you go after them, they end up jumping you and beating you until the brink of death and you shoot and kill on of them (unarmed) in self defense. Based on your guys' logic, the mere fact that you stepped foot in their direction to recover your phone means you lose all arguments of self-defense. Based on SB's ridiculous logic, the only facts that matter is that you went after them and an unarmed teen was shot. Case closed. Go to jail for 30 years. f*** that.

 

Nope not at all.

 

In this scenario the TEEN STOLE MY s***.

 

WHERE DID MARTIN STEAL ANYTHING FROM ZIMMERMAN?????

 

Jesus this is absurdly bad, which is why I have to make jokes, because im seriously saddened.

 

If Zimmerman stole Martins wallet... But he didnt...

[EvilMonkey]

I dont either.

 

I believe walking down the street and following after being told explicitly not to creates a dangerous situation that you need to take responsibility for if it turns sideways.

 

Plenty of people walk down the street with guns in Florida every day, Id say 99% of them do not fail to follow a 911 operators instructions.

 

But lets just keep pretending that in this world the facts are:

 

George Zimmerman was walking down the street, minding his own business. Out of nowhere a large teenage boy attacked him knocking him to the ground. George screamed for help as the teenager bashed his skull into the pavement, fearing for his life. After no one responded to his pleas, George asked the teenager to stop hurting him and the teenager replied "I am going to kill you sucker", then George, with no other option, pulled his gun and warned the teen again. At that point the teen turned into a zombie so George did the only thing he could, he shot the zombie teen and saved Florida from a zombie apocalypse.

 

lol

I believe the dispatcher testified that he never told him NOT to, because if they told someone what to do or not to do they could be open to all sorts of liability issues.

[Soxbadger]

Nice to see all the people on here who would just do nothing if they noticed a strange person walking around their neighborhood in the dark rain for 20 minutes or more, when the whole neighborhood is only about 3 blocks long. Don't look twice at him, that might be profiling, and certainly don't call the police, if he happens to be black that's racist.

 

I hope your child never gets accidentally shot by the neighborhood watch.

 

Sorry but no amount of valuables in your home is worth the life of an innocent person.

 

Thats why you call the police, because you dont know the situation.

[Jenksismyhero]

I dont either.

 

I believe walking down the street and following after being told explicitly not to creates a dangerous situation that you need to take responsibility for if it turns sideways.

 

Plenty of people walk down the street with guns in Florida every day, Id say 99% of them do not fail to follow a 911 operators instructions.

 

But lets just keep pretending that in this world the facts are:

 

George Zimmerman was walking down the street, minding his own business. Out of nowhere a large teenage boy attacked him knocking him to the ground. George screamed for help as the teenager bashed his skull into the pavement, fearing for his life. After no one responded to his pleas, George asked the teenager to stop hurting him and the teenager replied "I am going to kill you sucker", then George, with no other option, pulled his gun and warned the teen again. At that point the teen turned into a zombie so George did the only thing he could, he shot the zombie teen and saved Florida from a zombie apocalypse.

 

lol

 

What's funny is that they homeowners association guy testified that the cops advised them that tailing someone was perfectly acceptable. And I believe one of the cops testified that although he would prefer people wait for the cops, there's nothing wrong with going after someone to see what they're doing. I don't get why you think the 911 operator saying stay where you are really means that much.

[Jenksismyhero]

Nope not at all.

 

In this scenario the TEEN STOLE MY s***.

 

WHERE DID MARTIN STEAL ANYTHING FROM ZIMMERMAN?????

 

Jesus this is absurdly bad, which is why I have to make jokes, because im seriously saddened.

 

If Zimmerman stole Martins wallet... But he didnt...

 

Then stop talking in absolutes if you admit context matters. It's not as simple as: man had a gun, unarmed teen dead, give him the chair!

Edited July 12, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[Soxbadger]

I believe the dispatcher testified that he never told him NOT to, because if they told someone what to do or not to do they could be open to all sorts of liability issues.

 

Right semantically the dispatcher said "We dont need you to do that"

 

Also lets remember Zimmerman had already prejudged Martin, associating Martin with a criminal that would "get away".

 

And like I said, this case will come down to the jury. I cant predict what people will think on this one.

 

You have classic defendant's rights people like myself arguing for conviction, so its not really about the facts, its about your impression of the incident.

 

My impression is that Zimmerman shouldnt have started it, so he deserves some sort of punishment.

 

Another persons impression may be that Zimmerman was absolutely in the right and thus he deserves nothing.

 

Its just boring to say that somehow the law is on one side or the other, when clearly its a very grey area.

[Soxbadger]

Then stop talking in absolutes if you admit context matters. It's not as simple as: man had a gun, unarmed teen dead, give him the chair!

 

Um, Ive always said in this case and then brought out multiple examples why what Zimmerman did is not self defense and should not be protected under the law.

 

You dont think Zimmerman did anything wrong, I get it.

[EvilMonkey]

My impression is that Zimmerman shouldnt have started it, so he deserves some sort of punishment.

And do you think that his life will even be the same again? Looking over his shoulder for that one crazy-ass douchbag that thinks he is gonna up his street cred by taking care of this crazy-ass cracker? Yeah, he is still alive, for now, but unless he moves across the country in some sort of witness relocation type of thing he will be punished every remaining day of his life, guilty verdict or no.

[southsider2k5]

I used "gets into an altercation" neutrally there as we don't know who started it. Whether Trayvon stopped and decided to stand his ground against this creep who was following him or whether Zimmerman caught up to him and started the altercation is immaterial to my claim that Zimmerman's course of actions should not be legal.

 

What is to stop me from arming myself, stalking people around until I provoke a physical response and then shooting them in "self defense?"

 

What it is to stop people from attacking people who are "following" them and then claiming they were stalking you?

[mr_genius]

My impression is that Zimmerman shouldnt have started it, so he deserves some sort of punishment.

 

it really boils down to what exactly was it that Zimmerman did to start the altercation.

 

IF

 

1) Zimmerman was following from a reasonable distance

2) Martin ducked around a corner to hide in some bushes to ambush Zimmerman

3) then Zimmerman went to investigate where Martin went

4) then Martin attacked Zimmerman and is totally kicking his ass

5) Zimmerman shoots Martin

 

in this scenario Zimmerman is not-guilty

Edited July 12, 2013 by mr_genius

[Soxbadger]

And do you think that his life will even be the same again? Looking over his shoulder for that one crazy-ass douchbag that thinks he is gonna up his street cred by taking care of this crazy-ass cracker? Yeah, he is still alive, for now, but unless he moves across the country in some sort of witness relocation type of thing he will be punished every remaining day of his life, guilty verdict or no.

 

In what world is Zimmerman a "cracker".

 

And you pay for the consequences of your actions. If you are not willing to live with them, dont do them. Simple advice to live by.

[EvilMonkey]

In what world is Zimmerman a "cracker".

 

And you pay for the consequences of your actions. If you are not willing to live with them, dont do them. Simple advice to live by.

Travon's and his 'friend's'. or did you not hear that part of the testimony?

[illinilaw08]

Nice to see all the people on here who would just do nothing if they noticed a strange person walking around their neighborhood in the dark rain for 20 minutes or more, when the whole neighborhood is only about 3 blocks long. Don't look twice at him, that might be profiling, and certainly don't call the police, if he happens to be black that's racist.

 

Walking on the sidewalk. He's not walking on people's lawns and peering in windows. He's not walking up the driveway of a house where you know the owner is on vacation. He's just walking around the neighborhood... on the sidewalk.

 

While it's unreasonable (in my opinion) to call the police in that situation, it is certainly a better option than following him around and creating a confrontation.

 

I don't know how the jury comes out on this. I think there's a decent chance the self-defense argument sticks given the level of the burden. But I think Zimmerman will be paying the Martin family a significant amount of money if there's a civil trial with a reduced burden.

 

The other point that cannot be driven home enough is this:

 

Martin was not breaking the law. Zimmerman followed a 17 year old kid while carrying a firearm. Zimmerman's act of following Martin led to the confrontation. As a result, Martin is dead. Anyone that fails to see the tragedy in Martin's death... I just don't know what to say...

[Soxbadger]

it really boils down to what exactly was it that Zimmerman did to start the altercation.

 

IF

 

1) Zimmerman was following from a reasonable distance

2) Martin ducked around a corner to hide in some bushes to ambush Zimmerman

3) then Zimmerman went to investigate where Martin went

4) then Martin attacked Zimmerman and is totally kicking his ass

5) Zimmerman shoots Martin

 

in this scenario Zimmerman is not-guilty

 

Id semi-agree, the problem I have with 1 is that Martin was absolutely aware that Zimmerman was following him. So to me that indicates it was not "reasonable" because it was close enough that someone noticed and changed their actions due to the following.

 

The only way I can really justify "self-defense" is if there was some evidence that Martin was out that night looking for trouble. Because even just "hiding to ambush" could merely be Martin trying to "self defend".

 

And that is ultimately the problem, can 2 people both be using "self-defense" at the same time, to therefore make it impossible for either party to be charged with the crime?

 

My answer would be no. I would actually think that if both parties are "defending" that means neither party really is, and thus both should be able to be convicted.

 

Since Martin is dead we cant punish him, but if this had gone different (martin just being wounded), I would have absolutely been fine with both Martin and Zimmerman facing battery charges.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

In what world is Zimmerman a "cracker".

 

And you pay for the consequences of your actions. If you are not willing to live with them, dont do them. Simple advice to live by.

 

Right, so Martin should have thought twice about ambushing a guy. He might have a gun. And he might shoot you if you start bashing his head into a curb.

[EvilMonkey]

Walking on the sidewalk. He's not walking on people's lawns and peering in windows. He's not walking up the driveway of a house where you know the owner is on vacation. He's just walking around the neighborhood... on the sidewalk.

 

While it's unreasonable (in my opinion) to call the police in that situation, it is certainly a better option than following him around and creating a confrontation.

 

I don't know how the jury comes out on this. I think there's a decent chance the self-defense argument sticks given the level of the burden. But I think Zimmerman will be paying the Martin family a significant amount of money if there's a civil trial with a reduced burden.

 

The other point that cannot be driven home enough is this:

 

Martin was not breaking the law. Zimmerman followed a 17 year old kid while carrying a firearm. Zimmerman's act of following Martin led to the confrontation. As a result, Martin is dead. Anyone that fails to see the tragedy in Martin's death... I just don't know what to say...

Look at a map of the neighborhood. the sidewalk was between the rows of houses, not bordering the street. That is why Zimmerman had to get out of his car. The only reason to be on that sidewalk is if your house is on that sidewalk. Being unrecognized, he is suspicious.

[Soxbadger]

Travon's and his 'friend's'. or did you not hear that part of the testimony?

 

So because teenage kids are idiots, you are going to keep parroting idiocy?