Black Teen Shot, Killed By Neighborhood Watch

[quote name='dohdough']I just found out that a black family, friends of mine in matter of fact, got beaten up by a bunch of white punks just because they were black. An entire family of 3. SICK!11!!oneONEoNeone!11!!

But hey, at least I'm not defending someone that killed an unarmed minor.

Check and mate.

You'll have to excuse me for not believing a single fucking word you say.:roll:[/QUOTE]
Again, micro anecdote for a macro issue, it's ridiculous.
 
[quote name='dohdough']There shouldn't be anything confusing about it. It has been historically used by a particular group in power, whites, to oppress another group, black people. The Civil Rights Act doesn't suddenly make that go away and wipe the slate clean. Not to mention that it still hasn't even been 50 years. The reason why intent doesn't matter is because despite there being some progress in how black people are treated, we're still not all that removed from that period. Whites using that term only reinforces the acceptability of casual racism regardless of intent.

Btw, derogatory language used to describe women have been used in music for thousands of years. The fact that n****r is used is irrelevant.e.[/QUOTE]

I agree. Shouldnt be confusion whatsoever. My main reason for the post was that you brought in other terms used to be racist/sexist towards others, but the main difference is that I never hear other races/sexes refer to each other in those words. I personally find it weird that blacks would be so casual with the word n*gg*r considering its history. But Im a white male. Its not my place to be concerned how they talk to each other. I hate the word and dont use it in any context unless its quoting a song or joke, and thats as far as Ill go.

Regarding women in music, just because its been around for a long time doesnt make it any less sexist. It may be acceptable, but doesnt make it right. There are plenty of women who get disgusted by the leisurely remarks of the terms, and they have just as much right to be upset with its use like blacks do with n*gg*r.

I just find it funny when people hate racist/sexist terms used that can be used on them, but turn around and do the same damn thing to another race/sex. They all have history of prejudice and discrimination, and its not their place to say who had it worse or how they should "feel" about it.
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']I know, right? Because accused criminals don't deserve to be defended by anyone, and we are all guilty until proven innocent! Oh wait, we're in America. Nevermind...fucking moron...[/QUOTE]
Uhhh...the fact that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin is not in dispute. We're also not members of a jury and have absolutely no impact on the outcome of the case by discussing issues surrounding it. Call me whatever you want, but it doesn't change those facts. But hey, I'm the moron for getting the basic facts of this case straight.

[quote name='4thHorseman']I agree. Shouldnt be confusion whatsoever. My main reason for the post was that you brought in other terms used to be racist/sexist towards others, but the main difference is that I never hear other races/sexes refer to each other in those words. I personally find it weird that blacks would be so casual with the word n*gg*r considering its history. But Im a white male. Its not my place to be concerned how they talk to each other. I hate the word and dont use it in any context unless its quoting a song or joke, and thats as far as Ill go.[/quote]
Exactly. It's not your place.

Regarding women in music, just because its been around for a long time doesnt make it any less sexist. It may be acceptable, but doesnt make it right. There are plenty of women who get disgusted by the leisurely remarks of the terms, and they have just as much right to be upset with its use like blacks do with n*gg*r.
Click to expand...
Of course it doesn't make it acceptable, but you made a correlation between the use of the word to sexism and misogyny while ending that argument with "Just sayin!"

I just find it funny when people hate racist/sexist terms used that can be used on them, but turn around and do the same damn thing to another race/sex. They all have history of prejudice and discrimination, and its not their place to say who had it worse or how they should "feel" about it.
Click to expand...
It's almost as if those forms of oppression are so deeply engrained in society that it's rampant even in those groups that it negatively affects. Almost...
 
[quote name='dohdough']There shouldn't be anything confusing about it. It has been historically used by a particular group in power, whites, to oppress another group, black people. The Civil Rights Act doesn't suddenly make that go away and wipe the slate clean. Not to mention that it still hasn't even been 50 years. The reason why intent doesn't matter is because despite there being some progress in how black people are treated, we're still not all that removed from that period. Whites using that term only reinforces the acceptability of casual racism regardless of intent.

Btw, derogatory language used to describe women have been used in music for thousands of years. The fact that n****r is used is irrelevant.

[/QUOTE]

It's strange that intent and context don't matter when a racial slur is used, but using derogatory language to describe women is acceptable, even when that language is openly used with an oppressive intent. I'm not talking about you specifically, DD, but our society in general.
 
[quote name='chiwii']It's strange that intent and context don't matter when a racial slur is used, but using derogatory language to describe women is acceptable, even when that language is openly used with an oppressive intent. I'm not talking about you specifically, DD, but our society in general.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's really fucked up.
 
Because that "innocent" man followed and shot an unarmed kid. Why is this concept so difficult for you all to grasp?

And he also lied about the amount of funds he had during his bail hearing, so there's that now as well.
 
[quote name='Purple Flames']Because that "innocent" man followed and shot an unarmed kid. Why is this concept so difficult for you all to grasp?

And he also lied about the amount of funds he had during his bail hearing, so there's that now as well.[/QUOTE]

And he lied about having his passport stolen to get a second one.
 
[quote name='Purple Flames']Because that "innocent" man followed and shot an unarmed kid. Why is this concept so difficult for you all to grasp?[/QUOTE]

Because he's not "innocent"...he's innocent. Until a jury finds him guilty, he's innocent. Why can't you people grasp that? It's amazing to me how quickly people are willing to ignore the basic rights we are afforded in this country all because they are "outraged" at something.
 
[quote name='elessar123']And he lied about having his passport stolen to get a second one.[/QUOTE]
Let's not read too much into that. He said he lost his original in March of 2004 or something and got a replacement a month after. Unless it can be proved that he purposely lied about it, it's irrelevant to the case because there's no way that it's reasonable that he planned on killing Martin 8 years after the fact.

The lying comes into play at the bond hearing when assessing flight risk while purposely misleading the judge on the passport and access to funds, to which the wife lied under oath while crying poverty.

There are enough facts that damn him, so we don't need to stretch the truth.

[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']Because he's not "innocent"...he's innocent. Until a jury finds him guilty, he's innocent. Why can't you people grasp that? It's amazing to me how quickly people are willing to ignore the basic rights we are afforded in this country all because they are "outraged" at something.[/QUOTE]
Innocent of what? And that outrage got him to court to answer for what he did instead of walking. Victims have rights too and in case you forgot, Martin was the one that was killed.

And like I said before, we're not in any position to have any effect on the outcome of the case. Innocent until proven guilty is for the judicial system and not for the realm of public opinion. For someone that complains about not understanding things, you sure don't seem to understand a lot yourself.
 
[quote name='dohdough']
Innocent of what? And that outrage got him to court to answer for what he did instead of walking. Victims have rights too and in case you forgot, Martin was the one that was killed.

And like I said before, we're not in any position to have any effect on the outcome of the case. Innocent until proven guilty is for the judicial system and not for the realm of public opinion. For someone that complains about not understanding things, you sure don't seem to understand a lot yourself.[/QUOTE]

Quoted for contradiction.

Might or might not tear this apart later..:)
 
LMAO...only a dumbass completely contradicts himself within a matter of a couple of sentences. Fortunately, I have the bigoted moron blocked, so I only have to suffer through his stupidity when someone quotes him. That was definitely worth it, though.

As far as his absolutely insane question goes, innocent of everything. Once again, the alleged crime took place in America. In America, you are innocent until proven guilty. He has not been proven guilty. He's innocent. Deal with it. I am really gonna die laughing if he's found not guilty. Well, actually not, because the same animals that made him have to hide before he was even arrested will probably try to kill him...which again shows how completely insane and hypocritical these jackasses are...
 
[quote name='Pliskin101']Quoted for contradiction.

Might or might not tear this apart later..:)[/QUOTE]
We both know that you won't.

Oscar Grant and Kelly Thomas. Figure it out.

[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']LMAO...only a dumbass completely contradicts himself within a matter of a couple of sentences. Fortunately, I have the bigoted moron blocked, so I only have to suffer through his stupidity when someone quotes him. That was definitely worth it, though.[/QUOTE]
Looks like someone else doesn't understand the difference between the court of public opinion and a court of law. But hey, it's far easier to just toss insults without having to address any arguments or to defend one's stances.

As far as his absolutely insane question goes, innocent of everything. Once again, the alleged crime took place in America. In America, you are innocent until proven guilty. He has not been proven guilty. He's innocent. Deal with it. I am really gonna die laughing if he's found not guilty. Well, actually not, because the same animals that made him have to hide before he was even arrested will probably try to kill him...which again shows how completely insane and hypocritical these jackasses are...
Click to expand...
So Zimmerman didn't kill Martin or lie about his passport and finances? Or are you just being pedantic? So where does Martin come into play? Does he get a trial to determine if he's innocent? You sure as hell must think Martin is 100% responsible for his own killing if you think Zimmerman is 100% innocent of anything related to the case.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[FONT=&quot]He is not innocent... he without doubt is a moron and did shoot Trayvon. What remains to be determined is what is he guilty of and at question in determining that is the circumstances of the actual shooting. Is he innocent and his hands clean? No his actions have to be answered for even if the final encounter ends up being that trayvon attacked george first and he was defending himself. That is my opinion. Is he innocent of 2nd degree yes until proven otherwise and imo yes.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...tin_shot_in_self_defense_24_say_it_was_murder

http://www.washingtontimes.com/poll...mmerman-be-found-guilty-second-degre/results/

Polls...:roll:
[/FONT]
 
So what exactly is Zimmerman innocent of?

- Following Martin in his car?

- Disregarding the 911 dspatcher when he was told not to follow Martin?

- Getting out of his car to follow Martin on foot?

- Approaching Martin and creating the cirumstances for the shooting?

- Pulling out his gun and shooting Martin dead?

- Lying at his bail hearing?

Please point out which ones show that Zimmerman's hands are clean of any wrongdoing in this case.
 
I thought libtards were the ones always on the the side of the person commiting the crime, isn't that the conservative narrtive? We're living in fucking bizzaro world.
 
[quote name='Purple Flames']So what exactly is Zimmerman innocent of?

- Following Martin in his car?

- Disregarding the 911 dspatcher when he was told not to follow Martin?

- Getting out of his car to follow Martin on foot?

- Approaching Martin and creating the cirumstances for the shooting?

- Pulling out his gun and shooting Martin dead?

- Lying at his bail hearing?

Please point out which ones show that Zimmerman's hands are clean of any wrongdoing in this case.[/QUOTE]

Here's a hint those are rhetorical questions.
 
[FONT=&quot][quote name='bigdaddybruce44']LMAO...only a dumbass completely contradicts himself within a matter of a couple of sentences. Fortunately, I have the bigoted moron blocked, so I only have to suffer through his stupidity when someone quotes him. That was definitely worth it, though.

As far as his absolutely insane question goes, innocent of everything. Once again, the alleged crime took place in America. In America, you are innocent until proven guilty. He has not been proven guilty. He's innocent. Deal with it. I am really gonna die laughing if he's found not guilty. Well, actually not, because the same animals that made him have to hide before he was even arrested will probably try to kill him...which again shows how completely insane and hypocritical these jackasses are...[/QUOTE]

Yep contradicting himself so quickly was pretty funny.

I don't think zimmerman's hands are clean as he was a complete idiot. But the lynch mob has sickened me. The racist bs, the media flaming that, the uncivil rights workers and groups doing the same. They didn't want justice they wanted a hanging [/FONT][FONT=&quot]in THEIR MIND (they made it what they wanted it to be for their own [/FONT][FONT=&quot]selfish reasons) of a whitey who saw a black person and made zimmerman to be like " my god it's a black kid... I am going to hunt em down with the purpose of killing and then kill him in cold blood, just walk up to him and shoot the black kid flat-out".

From the facts at this point none of that seems to be the case. Reckless endangerment maybe or involuntary man slaughter [/FONT][FONT=&quot]but that is not the charge.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. Even if ends up it was self-defense he wasstill reckless as hell.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]It angers me and reading your last part about the animals angers me too...not you...but the mob does.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

I have to agree with you that he is innocent and could very well be found innocent by the court. "Found innocent" that saying is ridiculous since he is already supposed to be innocent until proven otherwise...that is your point isn't it? If so as I just said I agree.

The consensus seems to be, from what I have read in the "court of public opinion" (lol), it was NOT MURDER or RACIAL. Which to me lowers my anger and restores some of my faith in people as a whole. Though not much since the mob and the mob media were so crazy to begin with and ruled the day and did what they accused him of doing... racially profiled him and hunted him which could have and still could lead to his very real MURDER. Strange how that works.

[/FONT][quote name='Clak']I thought libtards were the ones always on the the side of the person commiting the crime, isn't that the conservative narrtive? We're living in fucking bizzaro world.[/QUOTE]

That is the problem you thought and by your statement you are the one living in bizarro land.

[quote name='dohdough']
So where does Martin come into play? Does he get a trial to determine if he's innocent? You sure as hell must think Martin is 100% responsible for his own killing if you think Zimmerman is 100% innocent of anything related to the case.[/QUOTE]

Don't you mean guilty? As he (martn) is already innocent until proven otherwise. Didn't the OUTRAGE you mentioned get the "trial" that the OUTRAGE wanted?
Damn you are all over the place.

[quote name='dohdough']
Innocent of what? And that outrage got him to court to answer for what he did instead of walking. Victims have rights too and in case you forgot, Martin was the one that was killed.

And like I said before, we're not in any position to have any effect on the outcome of the case. Innocent until proven guilty is for the judicial system and not for the realm of public opinion. For someone that complains about not understanding things, you sure don't seem to understand a lot yourself.[/QUOTE]

remember that gem by you? LOL.

So both parties ARE INNOCENT...until proven guilty of a crime otherwise...right?

I know I know....you are not sure or have any clue how all that works.
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
[quote name='Purple Flames']So what exactly is Zimmerman innocent of?

- Following Martin in his car?[/quote]
Not a crime.

- Disregarding the 911 dspatcher when he was told not to follow Martin?
Click to expand...
Not a crime.

- Getting out of his car to follow Martin on foot?
Click to expand...
Not a crime.

- Approaching Martin and creating the cirumstances for the shooting?
Click to expand...
TDB.

- Pulling out his gun and shooting Martin dead?
Click to expand...
Not a crime if the defense can create enough reasonable doubt with a claim of self-defense.

- Lying at his bail hearing?
Click to expand...
Already punished for this.
 
Illegal or not, this goes back to the original point that had Zimmerman just waited for the cops to arrive instead of taking matters into his own hands, then we wouldn't even be talking about this right now. His actions were the catalyst for this whole incident, and that irrefutable fact.

And I love how only the animals as you so lovingly put it only seem to exist on the side of the people defending Martin. Need I remind you all of this gem:

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/05/14/man-sells-out-of-trayvon-martin-gun-range-targets/
 
Oh yes, because putting a product out in in awful taste is exactly the same as issuing death threats to another human being. If you seriously believe that, get a grip on reality. And yes, they are animals. Animals. Animals. And cowards, too, because they don't have the balls to put their name to the threat.

The questionable judgement shown by Zimmerman is not on trial. A bad decision does not necessarily equate to a crime. At the end of the day, if the jury finds that Zimmerman was defending himself against Martin, he will walk.
 
[quote name='Purple Flames']Illegal or not, this goes back to the original point that had Zimmerman just waited for the cops to arrive instead of taking matters into his own hands, then we wouldn't even be talking about this right now. His actions were the catalyst for this whole incident, and that irrefutable fact.[/quote]Would this justify a second degree murder charge, though? You might get manslaughter with that line of thinking if you've got a sympathetic jury, but murder?
 
[quote name='Spokker']Not a crime.
[/QUOTE]

Do me a favor: Tomorrow night get out of your car and start aggressively following some random stranger down a secluded street until they notice you. Later on report back here and tell us all how kindly they and the cops take it.
 
[quote name='Purple Flames']Illegal or not, this goes back to the original point that had Zimmerman just waited for the cops to arrive instead of taking matters into his own hands, then we wouldn't even be talking about this right now. His actions were the catalyst for this whole incident, and that irrefutable fact.[/quote]
If the cops there are anything like the ones here, then Zimmerman would've been standing there alone waiting for the cops to arrive, since more than likely they would've taken forever and Martin would likely not have stuck around to answer Zimmermans' questions as to why he was taking a shortcut through his neighborhood. Of course, this is all conjecture, just like most of the rhetoric on why Zimmerman is Satan and should be hung without a trial or similar sounding sentiments in this thread.
 
[quote name='Purple Flames']Do me a favor: Tomorrow night get out of your car and start aggressively following some random stranger down a secluded street until they notice you. Later on report back here and tell us all how kindly they and the cops take it.[/QUOTE]


WTF would the cops be involved? It's not a crime. Understand? Unless they trespass into your residence or assault you or violate a PFA or restraining order explain to me how I can't walk down a public "secluded" walk way and follow who I want.
 
Last time I checked, you're allowed to walk in your own neighborhood and make sure someone you clearly don't know isn't up to no good. I've done it a number of times...with a little more grace than Mr. Zimmerman might have used, and I certainly didn't jump in my car to do it. Never got arrested, though, and never got assaulted. Nothing that Zimmerman did up until that point was illegal. Now, if he instigated the fight, he will end up spending some time in prison. If Martin attacked him for no other reason than he was following him, guess what? That's called assault. And Zimmerman will likely walk.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']If the cops there are anything like the ones here, then Zimmerman would've been standing there alone waiting for the cops to arrive, since more than likely they would've taken forever[/QUOTE]
Cops got there 2 minutes after he hung up with non-emergency 911. This is a fact.

and Martin would likely not have stuck around to answer Zimmermans' questions
Click to expand...
Why would Martin need to stick around for some paranoid asshole that was stalking him?

as to why he was taking a shortcut through his neighborhood.
Click to expand...
What shortcut and who's neighborhood? Technically speaking, that was Martin's neighborhood too while he was staying there.

Of course, this is all conjecture,
Click to expand...
This isn't just conjecture; this is outright completely changing the actual facts of the case. There's a difference when you're just outright making shit up, which you are.

just like most of the rhetoric on why Zimmerman is Satan and should be hung without a trial or similar sounding sentiments in this thread.
Click to expand...
You mean unlike how you, yourself, were completely demonizing and placing blame on Martin for having trace amounts of THC in his body while ignoring the fact that Zimmerman more than likely had larger concentrations of other drugs in his system that have side effects that are more consistent with what happened that night? Or how in this very post you paint him as someone that didn't belong in that area?

And maybe you could kindly point out those people in this thread that were advocating for circumventing the judicial system and executing him.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Cops got there 2 minutes after he hung up with non-emergency 911. This is a fact.

Why would Martin need to stick around for some paranoid asshole that was stalking him?

[/QUOTE]

Let's cut the bullshit and put this to rest now. Zimmerman did not disobey any 911 commands because he was NEVER commanded to do or not do anything by the dispatcher. "We do not need you do that" is not a command and a 911 dispatchers are not law officers.

Second nice colorful word DD. "Stalking" that is...

explain to me how getting out of your car and following someone you've never met before meets this legal definition:

A person who intentionally and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat, either expressed or implied, with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm is guilty of the crime of stalking. A person may be charged with aggravated stalking if they commit the crime of stalking while subject to a temporary restraining order, injunction against trespass, or similar order.


I'm sure it hurts your cause to hear but for every "If Zimmerman had" BS you pull out of your ass you know it's just as easy to counter if "Martin had"


Not left his car.... ----> Not gotten suspended from school

See how it's played?
 
[quote name='dohdough']Cops got there 2 minutes after he hung up with non-emergency 911. This is a fact.[/quote]
Well then that's some fast response time. I did not know that.
Why would Martin need to stick around for some paranoid asshole that was stalking him?
Click to expand...
To explain why he was taking a shortcut through a neighborhood, a neighborhood which had had some trouble just before this incident occurred if I remember correctly.
What shortcut and who's neighborhood? Technically speaking, that was Martin's neighborhood too while he was staying there.
Click to expand...
Unless you live there all the time, you are still a stranger in a different neighborhood imo.
This isn't just conjecture; this is outright completely changing the actual facts of the case. There's a difference when you're just outright making shit up, which you are.
Click to expand...
What exactly have I 'made up'?
You mean unlike how you, yourself, were completely demonizing and placing blame on Martin for having trace amounts of THC in his body while ignoring the fact that Zimmerman more than likely had larger concentrations of other drugs in his system that have side effects that are more consistent with what happened that night?
Click to expand...
Yeah. But last time I checked, marijuana is still ILLEGAL as opposed to the prescription drugs that Zimmerman may have had in his system.
Or how in this very post you paint him as someone that didn't belong in that area?
Click to expand...
Again, unless someone lives in an area all the time, they are a stranger/visitor when staying at someone elses' place in a different neighborhood or at least that's how I see it.
And maybe you could kindly point out those people in this thread that were advocating for circumventing the judicial system and executing him.
Click to expand...
The whole accusatory tone against Zimmerman(everything he's done is wrong wrong wrong while Martin was just an innocent lil boy:roll:) and the guilty until proven innocent attitude some posters in this thread have had regarding this case seems to lend itself to answering this last portion nicely.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']WTF would the cops be involved? It's not a crime. Understand? Unless they trespass into your residence or assault you or violate a PFA or restraining order explain to me how I can't walk down a public "secluded" walk way and follow who I want.[/QUOTE]
So in other words, you feel obligated to harass people for no other reason that your unfamiliarity with them and paranoia...and you're proud of this why? And what the fuck are you going to do if they ARE there to do something? You think YOU can stop them or that's an intelligent action to take? Or what if your harassment victim calls the cops on you?

[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']Last time I checked, you're allowed to walk in your own neighborhood and make sure someone you clearly don't know isn't up to no good. I've done it a number of times...with a little more grace than Mr. Zimmerman might have used, and I certainly didn't jump in my car to do it. Never got arrested, though, and never got assaulted. Nothing that Zimmerman did up until that point was illegal. Now, if he instigated the fight, he will end up spending some time in prison. If Martin attacked him for no other reason than he was following him, guess what? That's called assault. And Zimmerman will likely walk.[/QUOTE]
Why does SYG apply to Zimmerman and not Martin? It doesn't kick in after someone throws a punch, but the mere belief that someone is about to do you some serious bodily harm. Being followed by some strange car, running to get away, and having that person pursue you by foot are very aggressive actions that lead up to a killing in this particular case. Just because following someone is technically legal, it's not even close to being irrelevant when establishing motive. It's like googling how to poison someone, poisoning someone, and then claiming it's irrelevant because googling how to kill someone isn't illegal. No fucking shit!
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']Well then that's some fast response time. I did not know that.

To explain why he was taking a shortcut through a neighborhood, a neighborhood which had had some trouble just before this incident occurred if I remember correctly.

Unless you live there all the time, you are still a stranger in a different neighborhood imo.

What exactly have I 'made up'?

Yeah. But last time I checked, marijuana is still ILLEGAL as opposed to the prescription drugs that Zimmerman may have had in his system.

Again, unless someone lives in an area all the time, they are a stranger/visitor when staying at someone elses' place in a different neighborhood or at least that's how I see it.

The whole accusatory tone against Zimmerman(everything he's done is wrong wrong wrong while Martin was just an innocent lil boy:roll:) and the guilty until proven innocent attitude some posters in this thread have had regarding this case seems to lend itself to answering this last portion nicely.[/QUOTE]

^ Don't worry; I already explained to Dohdough, very clearly, that the only toxicology results released so far were blood samples. THC is NOT water soluble (it is fat soluble); it hangs around in your urine for weeks to months but is out of your blood very fast in as little as a day. In fact in as little as 12 hours after use it can reach undectable levels (in your blood); the fact that it was found in Martin's blood is a good indicator he smoked that day (or evening). Let's not omit that okay?


I'm not saying it matters but don't make it sound like the trace amounts of THC in his blood is an indicator that he hadn't smoked for weeks.
 
LMAO...stalking! Stalking! Wow...yeah, Zmmerman was stalking him lol...next time I see someone drive along the street near me and get out of his car, I'm gonna beat the shit out of him, because he's obviously a stalker! Maybe if he wasn't potentially under the influence of drugs, he wouldn't have been so paranoid and assumed he was being "stalked!"
 
[quote name='dohdough']So in other words, you feel obligated to harass people for no other reason that your unfamiliarity with them and paranoia...and you're proud of this why? And what the fuck are you going to do if they ARE there to do something? You think YOU can stop them or that's an intelligent action to take? Or what if your harassment victim calls the cops on you?


Why does SYG apply to Zimmerman and not Martin? It doesn't kick in after someone throws a punch, but the mere belief that someone is about to do you some serious bodily harm. Being followed by some strange car, running to get away, and having that person pursue you by foot are very aggressive actions that lead up to a killing in this particular case. Just because following someone is technically legal, it's not even close to being irrelevant when establishing motive. It's like googling how to poison someone, poisoning someone, and then claiming it's irrelevant because googling how to kill someone isn't illegal. No fucking shit![/QUOTE]


Again I never said I follow or have followed anyone let alone harrassed someone. And since I've never said I've done it how could I be proud of it?


I'm saying I have every right to follow someone and question them in a non threatening manner. There isn't a crime in the world the police could charge me for just because I decide to walk behind someone in a public alley to see what they are doing. Not a crime in the world.
 
[quote name='Purple Flames']Do me a favor: Tomorrow night get out of your car and start aggressively following some random stranger down a secluded street until they notice you. Later on report back here and tell us all how kindly they and the cops take it.[/QUOTE]
If following someone is illegal, do private dicks belong in jail?

And I'm not sure how aggressively Zimmerman followed Martin. When the dispatcher told him "we don't need you to do that" you can hear Zimmerman's breathing slow down, suggesting he stopped. He lost sight of Martin and Martin had enough time to get home and go back to where the incident ultimately occurred.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']Well then that's some fast response time. I did not know that.[/quote]
No shit.

To explain why he was taking a shortcut through a neighborhood, a neighborhood which had had some trouble just before this incident occurred if I remember correctly.
Click to expand...
What shortcut? Zimmerman was following Martin the second Martin entered through the main gate. There is NO shortcut.

Unless you live there all the time, you are still a stranger in a different neighborhood imo.
Click to expand...
Doesn't mean Martin didn't belong there, which he did.

What exactly have I 'made up'?
Click to expand...
Response time, shortcut, and not belonging in the area.

Yeah. But last time I checked, marijuana is still ILLEGAL as opposed to the prescription drugs that Zimmerman may have had in his system.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. Zimmerman couldn't have possibly known that especially when tox screens came up negative and only trace amounts remained. Martin would've passed any piss test for a job and legally driven.

Again, unless someone lives in an area all the time, they are a stranger/visitor when staying at someone elses' place in a different neighborhood or at least that's how I see it.
Click to expand...
Still doesn't change the fact that he belonged there.

The whole accusatory tone against Zimmerman(everything he's done is wrong wrong wrong while Martin was just an innocent lil boy:roll:) and the guilty until proven innocent attitude some posters in this thread have had regarding this case seems to lend itself to answering this last portion nicely.
Click to expand...
Everything brought up in the thread about Zimmerman's past points a huge arrow to explain what happened that night. No one said that Martin was a perfect child and no one is, but nothing he has every done paints Martin as a violent kid that hulks out after buying some skittles and iced tea. Or maybe you can explain why Martin's past is relevant and Zimmerman's isn't.
 
Look dohdough; I don't mean to sound like I'm being on the offensive. I really wish that the ENTIRE altercation was recorded because then it would make or break Zimmerman. I'm not going to feel good if he is found guilty or innocent because it's all circumstancial evidence.

For all we know he could have approached martin, called him derogatory names and attacked him. Similarily after being approached by Zimmerman, Martin could have attacked Zimmerman without being provoked and Zimmerman may have really felt like his life was in danger.

Edit: While a conclusion will be drawn as to which above scenario is more likely to have occurred then the other I don't think we'll ever know for sure. All this case has done from the start and will continue to do is divide people.

The only truth I take from this situation is that it could have been prevented and Zimmerman should not have been carrying.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']
The only truth I take from this situation is that it could have been prevented and Zimmerman should not have been carrying.[/QUOTE]

How is all the evidence circumstantial, but the one truth you can be sure of is that Zimmerman should not have been carrying? It could be the case that if Zimmerman was not carrying, he could be paralyzed or dead right now.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']^ Don't worry; I already explained to Dohdough, very clearly, that the only toxicology results released so far were blood samples. THC is NOT water soluble (it is fat soluble); it hangs around in your urine for weeks to months but is out of your blood very fast in as little as a day. In fact in as little as 12 hours after use it can reach undectable levels (in your blood); the fact that it was found in Martin's blood is a good indicator he smoked that day (or evening). Let's not omit that okay?


I'm not saying it matters but don't make it sound like the trace amounts of THC in his blood is an indicator that he hadn't smoked for weeks.[/QUOTE]
And he was not intoxicated in any legal sense.

[quote name='GBAstar']Again I never said I follow or have followed anyone let alone harrassed someone. And since I've never said I've done it how could I be proud of it?

I'm saying I have every right to follow someone and question them in a non threatening manner. There isn't a crime in the world the police could charge me for just because I decide to walk behind someone in a public alley to see what they are doing. Not a crime in the world.[/QUOTE]
So you see absolutely nothing wrong with what you're advocating? What if you were a 17 year old kid? What if it was your kid? What if it was your sister or mother? What kind of advice would you be giving them if they noticed someone doing what you, IATCG, and that other moron are proposing and advocating?

edit:
[quote name='GBAstar']Look dohdough; I don't mean to sound like I'm being on the offensive. I really wish that the ENTIRE altercation was recorded because then it would make or break Zimmerman. I'm not going to feel good if he is found guilty or innocent because it's all circumstancial evidence.

For all we know he could have approached martin, called him derogatory names and attacked him. Similarily after being approached by Zimmerman, Martin could have attacked Zimmerman without being provoked and Zimmerman may have really felt like his life was in danger.

Edit: While a conclusion will be drawn as to which above scenario is more likely to have occurred then the other I don't think we'll ever know for sure. All this case has done from the start and will continue to do is divide people.

The only truth I take from this situation is that it could have been prevented and Zimmerman should not have been carrying.[/QUOTE]
Sure, but he was legally allowed to carry. Funny how arguing the legality of an action is really kinda pointless when establishing a chain of events huh?
 
[quote name='Spokker']How is all the evidence circumstantial, but the one truth you can be sure of is that Zimmerman should not have been carrying? It could be the case that if Zimmerman was not carrying, he could be paralyzed or dead right now.[/QUOTE]


Your right that is more of my opinion but I feel pretty confident that had the situation occurred exactly the same sans Zimmerman carrying a gun no serious injury would have occurred to either party... I mean Martin didn't have a weapon and Zimmerman wouldn't have had his confidence



And he was not intoxicated in any legal sense.
Click to expand...

Dohdough a lot of states have zero tolerance in regard to THC levels and OUI/DUI; meaning if it is detectable, even trace amounts (in your urine nonetheless) you are up shit creek.

^ Now I believe that is total bullshit. I don't smoke as I don't see the point but I would be okay with seeing marijuana legalized and alcohol controlled but it'll never happened (and this is coming from someone who was a heavy drinker for many years).
 
[quote name='dohdough']And he was not intoxicated in any legal sense.[/quote]
Conjecture.
So you see absolutely nothing wrong with what you're advocating? What if you were a 17 year old kid? What if it was your kid? What if it was your sister or mother? What kind of advice would you be giving them if they noticed someone doing what you, IATCG, and that other moron are proposing and advocating?
Click to expand...
:lol:Back to the insults.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Your right that is more of my opinion but I feel pretty confident that had the situation occurred exactly the same sans Zimmerman carrying a gun no serious injury would have occurred to either party... I mean Martin didn't have a weapon and Zimmerman wouldn't have had his confidence[/QUOTE]
And I happen to agree.

Dohdough a lot of states have zero tolerance in regard to THC levels and OUI/DUI; meaning if it is detectable, even trace amounts (in your urine nonetheless) you are up shit creek.

^ Now I believe that is total bullshit. I don't smoke as I don't see the point but I would be okay with seeing marijuana legalized and alcohol controlled but it'll never happened (and this is coming from someone who was a heavy drinker for many years).
Click to expand...
Urinalysis for most jobs ping a hit at 50ng per mL and the "strictest" tests ping at 25ng. The highest concentration detected in tests on Martin was less than 8ng. Which is a little more than secondhand smoke(around 5ng).

[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']Conjecture.[/QUOTE]
Martin wouldn't have even been legally drunk if it was alcohol.

:lol:Back to the insults.
Click to expand...
Funny how you focus on that rather than the more relevant aspects of my argument. Not to mention that you didn't say shit when the positions were reversed.

edit: Oh right, you don't have to address it because you already said that it'd be creepy as fuck. My mistake!
 
[quote name='Spokker']And I'm not sure how aggressively Zimmerman followed Martin. When the dispatcher told him "we don't need you to do that" you can hear Zimmerman's breathing slow down, suggesting he stopped. He lost sight of Martin and Martin had enough time to get home and go back to where the incident ultimately occurred.[/QUOTE]

This is my biggest problem with the case. None of you who are ready to crucify Zimmerman were there. You have no clue how aggressively he was followed Martin. You also have no idea if Martin attacked Zimmerman unprovoked. Now, you could argue the same for someone like me. I don't know if Zimmerman was, indeed, aggressively following and then started the altercation.

The difference is, once again, the man is innocent until proven guilty. You are all ready to sentence because he MIGHT have a committed a crime...but he might not have. Bottom line is, unless some witness mysteriously appears, the only person who truly knows EXACTLY what happened that night is Zimmerman, and he's obviously not going to tell us, "Yeah, I killed the guy for no reason." It will be up to the state to prove that Zimmerman wasn't defending himself. If they don't, Zimmerman gets the privilege of living the rest of his life in fear of these jackals who think the criminal justice system should sway to their emotions...
 
I can't say for the larger issue of whether or not Zimmerman will be found guilty... I think he'll walk based on sympathy from the jury. I might even see that this stemmed from potential self-defense, (assuming Martin started the contact, or it can't be proved either way)... But there's undoubtedly a racial aspect in THIS case. Not anyelse. Not the nation. No Al Sharpton or anybody else calling for fucking riots, just THIS case. You don't have Zimmerman's history of violence and be RECORDED using a racial slur not only to Martin, but one that indicates your entire opinion of a black kid you deem to be out of place. Sure, you can give the whole "multi-racial family, mentored black kids, reborn Gandhi" thing, but specifically, Zimmerman was racially motivated in THIS instance, in THIS case, due to Martin's appearance and his pre-conceived prejudices against a black kid in that situation. Even if you see him as Mr. Noble just wanting to check things out for his neighborhood, dude thought he was Charles Bronson since he KNEW it was still vigilante action.
 
High on what?

It hasn't been reported by any mainstream source so I've hesitated to bring it up, but conservative bloggers feel Martin may have been under the long-term effects of Lean (a.k.a. Purple Drank) abuse. They use the drug's supposed long-term effects and the state of Martin's liver, among other things, to argue that he was an abuser of Purple Drank and that it clouded his judgement that night. At least I think that's what they are saying. I didn't study it like the Torah or anything.

I don't know what to think about it yet, mostly because I know nothing about the latest drug trends (Lean? Purple Drank? Sounds retarded.) but here's the argument if you want to see for yourself.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com...-drug-use-culminates-in-predictable-violence/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top