Y2HH Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 05:15 PM) No Im saying that when most shootings occur in Chicago, they dont know who the shooter is, and that is why there isnt a lot of national outrage about the fact that there havent been any charges pressed. What national attention should it get? That crimes are going unsolved? That isnt something that you can just wave a wand and fix. This case there is something that outrage can actually do (whether you agree or not) and that is pressure the police to charge Zimmerman. In most cases its not that they dont want to charge someone, its that they literally have no idea who is the criminal. So you can walk on the street all night long, but what will that change? The police are already trying to catch the guy, that is the difference. In this case, the police had the guy in custody and let him walk. Many people believe that the police didnt even properly investigate. That is where the outrage comes from. I completely understand this. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be more outrage about the Chicago shooting crime rate, either...how about outrage BECAUSE it's so f***ing easy to get away with it in Chicago right now. Of course they don't know who the criminal is, since getting away with murder in Chicago stands at about a 75% chance right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Y2hh, But everyone is in agreement that criminals should be caught, so once again, who are you going to be outraged against? Is it outrage against the Police because they dont catch criminals? Is it outrage against taxes because they should be raised so that we can have a police officer on every corner? Is it outrage against drug laws because police are busy arresting non-violent offenders instead of spending more time catching murderers? What is the outrage about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 05:27 PM) Y2hh, But everyone is in agreement that criminals should be caught, so once again, who are you going to be outraged against? Is it outrage against the Police because they dont catch criminals? Is it outrage against taxes because they should be raised so that we can have a police officer on every corner? Is it outrage against drug laws because police are busy arresting non-violent offenders instead of spending more time catching murderers? What is the outrage about? I'm going to outrage about YOU! How about that? I understand your point...but it's all about watching how things are done in Chicago, politically. They're putting up "speed" cameras near every park/school, but high crime areas where they have off the charts gun violence and violent crime...f*** cameras...we need them for speeding tickets! That's the outrage I have. Apparently speeding tickets are far more important. And since privacy violations seems to mean nothing to them with all the traffic cameras they're putting up...I don't see that as an excuse as to why they can't put higher quality cameras in other areas where they can actually catch some people...but hey, at least we'll make more money off of traffic tickets now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 06:32 PM) I'm going to outrage about YOU! How about that? I understand your point...but it's all about watching how things are done in Chicago, politically. They're putting up "speed" cameras near every park/school, but high crime areas where they have off the charts gun violence and violent crime...f*** cameras...we need them for speeding tickets! That's the outrage I have. Apparently speeding tickets are far more important. And since privacy violations seems to mean nothing to them with all the traffic cameras they're putting up...I don't see that as an excuse as to why they can't put higher quality cameras in other areas where they can actually catch some people...but hey, at least we'll make more money off of traffic tickets now! How do you think they're going to pay for those other cameras you'd like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 05:35 PM) How do you think they're going to pay for those other cameras you'd like? They're not going to use the traffic ticket money to do so, so what's your attempted point here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Y2hh, I agree more can be done. I just think the problem is that the "more" gets politicized so that eventually "nothing" gets done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flippedoutpunk Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Trayvon Martin the aggressor, police sources say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Ruh roh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Interesting picture I saw on FB.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 The police report, based on the testimony of Zimmerman, supports Zimmerman's story. It may be true, it may not be, but the police report is hearsay evidence that isnt admissible at trial. Furthermore there is this troubling piece of evidence: http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhood-watc...ory?id=15907136 Another officer corrected a witness after she told him that she heard the teen cry for help. The officer told the witness, a long-time teacher, it was Zimmerman who cried for help, said the witness. ABC News has spoken to the teacher and she confirmed that the officer corrected her when she said she heard the teenager shout for help. Attacking the victim isnt going to work at this point, that train has already left the station. No one is going to change their mind based on murky facts, lines have been drawn already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 26, 2012 Author Share Posted March 26, 2012 QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 06:11 PM) Interesting picture I saw on FB.... QUESTION PICTURES ORIGINATING FROM STORMFRONT, ALWAYS. This was already covered, that's the wrong Trayvon Martin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 26, 2012 Author Share Posted March 26, 2012 QUOTE (flippedoutpunk @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 06:00 PM) Trayvon Martin the aggressor, police sources say. Covered this, the witness says he say Martin on Zimmerman. The witness does not claim to have seen the start of the altercation. The only one who claims to have knowledge of that aside from Zimmerman is a friend of Trayvon who was on the phone with him. She contradicts Zimmerman's story. Sloppy writing at the Tribune there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Well well well. This story is certainly taking a turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 (edited) Shoot to injure, not to kill. Not saying either party isnt to blame. seems like both have some major fault. But aim for a leg or arm. or even a shoulder. Edited March 26, 2012 by Athomeboy_2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 26, 2012 Author Share Posted March 26, 2012 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 06:33 PM) Well well well. This story is certainly taking a turn. Not really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 26, 2012 Author Share Posted March 26, 2012 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 06:35 PM) Shot to injure, not to kill. Not saying either party isnt to blame. seems like both have some major fault. But aim for a leg or arm. or even a shoulder. Aim for center mass. You don't shoot to injure in reality unless you're highly trained to do so (e.g. special forces, not regular police). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flippedoutpunk Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 i have no knowledge of law or anything like that, but i have a question. Is there anything to be said about Zimmermans injuries i.e. his fat lip, bloodied nose, cuts on the back of his head in regards to there being a possible assault on him before he decided to use deadly force? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 06:11 PM) Interesting picture I saw on FB.... I smell fakes. Both sets are probably misleading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 QUOTE (flippedoutpunk @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 07:00 PM) Trayvon Martin the aggressor, police sources say. Sounds like exactly what you'd read if you read testimony of 1 side of a 2 person conflict where the other is dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 26, 2012 Author Share Posted March 26, 2012 QUOTE (flippedoutpunk @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 06:41 PM) i have no knowledge of law or anything like that, but i have a question. Is there anything to be said about Zimmermans injuries i.e. his fat lip, bloodied nose, cuts on the back of his head in regards to there being a possible assault on him before he decided to use deadly force? There was obviously an altercation. What nobody knows at this point is who initiated it. The closest w have is Zimmerman himself and the girl Martin was on the phone with moments before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 24, 2012 -> 10:20 AM) I'm just hoping Martin ends up being at fault so everyone who jumped on this thing looks like a moron. it's starting to look very likely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 27, 2012 Author Share Posted March 27, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 06:54 PM) Sounds like exactly what you'd read if you read testimony of 1 side of a 2 person conflict where the other is dead. The only "source" who is claiming Martin was the aggressor at this point is the man who shot him. the headline is false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 27, 2012 Author Share Posted March 27, 2012 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 06:59 PM) it's starting to look very likely Not really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 07:01 PM) Not really. Yea, really. To be perfectly honest, when the story first broke, it looked like a complete screw up due to a vague law, where Zimmerman was the aggressor. This was mostly perpetuated by the media, because it's the story they wanted to be true, so it's the story they seemed to run with, and then a lot of people hopped the bandwagon, because it was free publicity to do so. And it may end up being true...who knows. BUT...as time went by and more detailed emerged, it seems like it may be the opposite based on the accounts of witnesses...if Zimmerman was the aggressor, and had a gun, I find it HIGHLY dubious that Martin ended up on top of him, hitting him, etc...as the witness claims to have seen. Armed with a gun, if Zimmerman was the aggressor, I find it unlikely he'd let Martin get close enough to him if he was ready for it. The only way I see it happening is if he surprised him...which is what Zimmerman's story is...and logistically, trying to think about the situation, it seems likely...as said, if I had a gun and he approached me...knowing that law existed (as Zimmerman did), he'd have shot him right then and there...no way he'd let the guy get up on him and start hitting him. Just seems unlikely. Possible, sure...just unlikely. If this Zimmerman was looking to shoot and kill this kid, I think he would have without taking the chance of letting him right up on him, as is what happened based on witness accounts. Edited March 27, 2012 by Y2HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 27, 2012 Author Share Posted March 27, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 07:05 PM) Yea, really. Whys that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts