Black Teen Shot, Killed By Neighborhood Watch

Yeah I'm done trying to talk sense in to the Zimmerman defenders in this thread since they've made it abundantly clear they don't give a damn about facts and evidence.
 
[quote name='Purple Flames']Yeah I'm done trying to talk sense in to the Zimmerman defenders in this thread since they've made it abundantly clear they don't give a damn about facts and evidence.[/QUOTE]

The only "point" they have is that Zimmerman might get off because the law is so atrocious you could shoot up a bus load of nuns and get away with it so long as you keep a straight face saying you felt threatened.
 
[quote name='Purple Flames']Yeah keep sticking your head in the sand and moving that goal post there, buddy.

I swear it's like arguing with a creationist. Everytime someone makes a valid point that debunks your stance you ignore what they're saying and double down on your rhetoric.[/QUOTE]
It's easier if you just stop. For some people you can't win arguments with facts or common sense.
 
[quote name='Msut77']The only "point" they have is that Zimmerman might get off because the law is so atrocious you could shoot up a bus load of nuns and get away with it so long as you keep a straight face saying you felt threatened.[/QUOTE]

LMAO...yeah, because that's the same as a guy who was visibly bloodied and battered after his confrontation with Martin. You people make me fucking sick. You're all willing to ignore things like due process and innocent until proven guilty, because you're "outraged." What a joke. I really wish some of you would walk through a gated community with a hoodie on...I really do...
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']LMAO...yeah, because that's the same as a guy who was visibly bloodied and battered after his confrontation with Martin. You people make me fucking sick. You're all willing to ignore things like due process and innocent until proven guilty, because you're "outraged." What a joke. I really wish some of you would walk through a gated community with a hoodie on...I really do...[/QUOTE]

Nice use of coded language there. Who's the savage now?

Also, once again, you seem to be implying that Martin had zero right to defend himself from a guy who followed and accosted him in a place he had every right to be in. I know you're gonna ignore this like you've been doing for hundreds of pages now, but Stand Your Ground applies to Martin as Zimmerman was the aggressor.

I await your response where to continue to claim intellectual dishonesty.
 
[quote name='Purple Flames']Nice use of coded language there. Who's the savage now?

Also, once again, you seem to be implying that Martin had zero right to defend himself from a guy who followed and accosted him in a place he had every right to be in. I know you're gonna ignore this like you've been doing for hundreds of pages now, but Stand Your Ground applies to Martin as Zimmerman was the aggressor.

I await your response where to continue to claim intellectual dishonesty.[/QUOTE]


I missed the part where zimmerman was the physical aggressor. Just because you think someone is following your, or even if they actually are following you, doesn't give you the right to put your hands up them.

I suppose following someone can be twisted into a sign of aggression (if you're doing it to benefit your stance) but no one in this country has the right to attack someone else just because they believe they are being followed.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']

Lol. If Zimmerman wanted to kill some black kids I think he could pick better shot placement then in the chest---not exactly known as the best spot for a clean kill.

Interesting.

I don't carry and I'm not a supporter of it but if someone was carrying and you ended up on top of them banging their head off the ground as Zimmerman is claiming that Martin did to him, then it is fair to say that you run the risk of getting shot.[/QUOTE]

Yes because they never teach anyone in any weapons course to shoot CENTER MASS!
 
Well I figured I'd google Florida's Stand Your ground law and read the actual text. I found some rather interesting tidbits:

quote:
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
Click to expand...

So, as we've already established in this case, Martin was staying with his dad's fiancee in the gated community, which means that he had every right to be where he was the night he was killed, and unless he bought black market iced tea and Skittles, he wasn't breaking any laws that night either.

Also, thanks to what we know about his phonecall with his girlfriend that night, he knew he was being followed and ran AWAY from Zimmerman since he felt he was in danger, but he was caught up to and accosted and subsequently killed. Both Zimmerman's 911 call and the Martin's phone records coincide with this.

So according to Stand Your Ground which you can plainly see here, Martin had every right to defend himself and bash Zimmerman's head into the pavement that night (I worded it this way intentionally because know you guys love to dwell on that).
 
[quote name='GBAstar']I missed the part where zimmerman was the physical aggressor. Just because you think someone is following your, or even if they actually are following you, doesn't give you the right to put your hands up them.

I suppose following someone can be twisted into a sign of aggression (if you're doing it to benefit your stance) but no one in this country has the right to attack someone else just because they believe they are being followed.[/QUOTE]
Actually, you do in Florida. HTH.
 
[quote name='SpeedyG']Yes because they never teach anyone in any weapons course to shoot CENTER MASS![/QUOTE]

Apparently the chest is the same as when someone get shot in the shoulder (In movies) who fucking knew?
 
[quote name='Msut77']Apparently the chest is the same as when someone get shot in the shoulder (In movies) who fucking knew?[/QUOTE]
I'm honestly not sure what you meant by that...
 
[quote name='SpeedyG']I'm honestly not sure what you meant by that...[/QUOTE]

GBA said Zimmerman could have shot Martin somewhere else other than the chest if he wanted him really dead.
 
[quote name='Msut77']GBA said Zimmerman could have shot Martin somewhere else other than the chest if he wanted him really dead.[/QUOTE]


no dummy... LEO's are trained to shoot center mass to nuetralize a threat... you know when they fear for their lives...

Most premeditated murders inolving a firearm are not commited with one shot to the chest.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']no dummy... LEO's are trained to shoot center mass to nuetralize a threat... you know when they fear for their lives...

Most premeditated murders inolving a firearm are not commited with one shot to the chest.[/QUOTE]
No they're typically several shots to the chest or abdomen. And it's not just LEO's who are trained that way. Every firearms training course on this planet are trained to shoot center mass. From the local Barney Fife to the civilian course to the most elite military units. Center shots are deadly and far more reliable than attempting to "Headshot" someone.

Side note. If you want to ever get the chance to go to the range with your local law enforcement, go. It'll make you laugh and fear for your life all in one fell swoop.
 
Wrong the T is taught as the go to shot for specialized units anything else is amatuer. The only reason you go for center mass is because it is the easy shot but leaves the chance of the intended target being left alive to alert others and fight back to kill you. The T is the way true warriors are taught to shoot. Even in hunting animals...it is a waste of valuable meat/food and considered cruel and induces suffering.

edit: Oh no he turned it sideways...killshot!!! @1:42. amateurs have no clue....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-6FM6EYcYM

[quote name='GBAstar']no dummy... LEO's are trained to shoot center mass to nuetralize a threat... you know when they fear for their lives...

Most premeditated murders inolving a firearm are not commited with one shot to the chest.[/QUOTE]

100% spot on.
 
Last edited:
[quote name='GBAstar']no dummy... LEO's are trained to shoot center mass to nuetralize a threat... you know when they fear for their lives...

Most premeditated murders inolving a firearm are not commited with one shot to the chest.[/QUOTE]

100% spot on.
 
I wonder how taken in the people who donated money to Zimmerman must feel after reading this story. They thought they were helping him with his defense team, and then he turns around and uses the money to pay off his credit card and Sam's Club debts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Purple Flames']I wonder how taken in the people who donated money to Zimmerman must feel after reading this story. They thought they were helping him with his defense team, and then he turns around and uses the money to pay off his credit card and Sam's Club debts.[/QUOTE]

I don't know. How do you feel being such a bigoted ahole that makes up facts on the fly to meet your sick views?

edit: I am curious though were you born simple or were you raised simple? Is it true ignorance is bliss?
Black and white? republican democrat? evil vs good? damn you come across as a simple fucking moron. Fit the FACTS to fit your simple mind.

ignorant fuck!!
 
Last edited:
[quote name='GBAstar']I missed the part where zimmerman was the physical aggressor. Just because you think someone is following your, or even if they actually are following you, doesn't give you the right to put your hands up them.

I suppose following someone can be twisted into a sign of aggression (if you're doing it to benefit your stance) but no one in this country has the right to attack someone else just because they believe they are being followed.[/QUOTE]

As the other poster said...get over it!!! A black kid died by the hands of a non black person....therfore it was pure evil easily written off as racism and hate.

They are simple-minded folk....but please ignore the other people who die as that is complicated .....this is simple fact a non black killed a black= racist cold-blooded murder. Evil vs good. It is simple. Get it? Don't try to rationalize and look at reality. It was pure and SIMPLE for the simple.

Stupid fucking moron why don't YOU get it?
 
Oh you'll get no argument from me that we should be aiming higher than center on a stationary target, though a risky tactic on a moving target at range.

My comment was really more is response to GBA saying that Zimmerman should have chosen a better site than the chest for a clean kill.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']I missed the part where zimmerman was the physical aggressor. Just because you think someone is following your, or even if they actually are following you, doesn't give you the right to put your hands up them.

I suppose following someone can be twisted into a sign of aggression (if you're doing it to benefit your stance) but no one in this country has the right to attack someone else just because they believe they are being followed.[/QUOTE]

It's funny how these knuckleheads like to keep saying things are getting twisted, when it's them who do all the twisting. You're 100% right. There has yet to be any indication that Zimmerman was the aggressor. If I started a fight every time I thought someone was following me, I'd be in prison right now.
 
Yes, there's absolutely no indication at all...except Martin's girlfriend who heard him being pushed and yelling "get off".

As far as your trolling goes, it's pretty evident that you're just running on fumes now.
 
Yes, because a) Martin's girlfriend was actually there...oh wait, she wasn't and b) nothing can be lost in interruption over the phone...oh wait, it can and c) people have never lied to protect their loved ones...oh wait, they do all the time. We have a perfect example in Zimmerman's wife who lied to help secure Zimmerman's lowered bail. As much as you people want to continue to deny it, no one actually saw the confrontation, and if they did, they have not stepped up. The only person alive who knows what really happened that night is Zimmerman. Not Martin's girlfriend. She heard a snippet of what happened over the phone. The bottom line is, no matter how much you wanna pretend that it is, the issue is not settled. It is no where close to cut and dry who attacked who.

Are you really resorting to the "trolling" argument? I guess, when you don't have a leg to stand on, it's the only thing left to do.
 
People lie, YOU DON'T fucking SAY.

You know who had a lot of motive to lie? The fucking guy who shot and killed someone, but because of a shitty law can say "lol scared" and have a chance of getting off.
 
And I've never once said he isn't lying, either. I wasn't there, either, but unlike you people, I don't assume. You folks seem to think you all know that he attacked Martin, Martin was defending himself, and Zimmerman just shot him. Actually, most of you seem to act like Zimmerman just ran up to him, shot him, and started bouncing around like The Joker. The whole point I have been trying to make is that none of you were there, so it would be sensible if you started seeing both sides. But you refuse to, which says a lot about you.
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']And I've never once said he isn't lying, either.[/QUOTE]

73 other wankers said that in this thread, no one believes them either.
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']It's funny how these knuckleheads like to keep saying things are getting twisted, when it's them who do all the twisting. You're 100% right. There has yet to be any indication that Zimmerman was the aggressor. If I started a fight every time I thought someone was following me, I'd be in prison right now.[/QUOTE]

Let's put it this way. It doesn't matter who was the aggressor, if he would have stayed in his car and minded his own business one person wouldn't be dead and another wouldn't currently be sitting in a cell. The most basic line of reasoning says that if you don't want something to happen to don't place yourself in that position. Don't want to get involved in gang fights? Don't join a gang. Don't want to enter the world of drugs? Don't hang out with users. Don't want to have a confrontation with someone? Don't follow them around at night. This is a very simple concept.
 
Um...yes, it does matter who the aggressor was lol. That might be the silliest thing I've ever heard. So, if you're walking down the street, and someone thinks you are following them, they have the right to attack you? Is that correct?

Two wrongs don't make a right. Even if you don't think Zimmerman had the right to check out someone who he felt was acting suspicious in his neighborhood, Martin did not have the right attack him, if all Zimmerman did was follow him.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I should have said it doesn't matter who you think was the aggressor, because it is pretty obvious that the aggressor is the person who clearly goes out of his way looking for a confrontation. We have no proof that the kid ever attacked him and Zimmerman didn't start it, all we have is a story from a murderer who left his car, followed a kid around, and then at some point while stalking a person shot him. God forbid you walk to a store at night rather than drive and then walk home. I must look really suspicious when I do that at night rather than drive my car.
 
Is Sanford City Manager Norton Bonaparte Jr.black? Just curious as to why the city council rejected the police chief's resignation but yet Bonaparte takes it upon himself to fire him. Unless more comes to light on this I think the city council was right as they did not want to bow to the circus of outside forces and baiters. After all didn't the police want to charge zimmerman and the DA said no? Maybe the federal investigation turned up something? No that's probably not it not with this comment...

"I have determined the Police Chief needs to have the trust and respect of the elected officials and the confidence of the entire community. We need to move forward with a police chief that all the citizens of Sanford can support. I have come to this decision in light of the escalating divisiveness that has taken hold of the city”

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/06/20/sanford-police-chief-fired/

Strange he would say elected officials since the ELECTED officials declined the resignation. Who is the "we" he is talking about?

edit: one of the comments I read when looking at the articles was someone asking how long they think it will be before that "search" for a replacement will result in a black replacement.
 
Last edited:
"Divisiveness" my ass... that is what bonaparte is doing. Until more IF more comes out on this... this looks to be racially motivated and racial profiling. Nice precedent Bonaparte is setting. But hey it's his RIGHT to fire, as Lee said, "without cause".

In trayvonville Ex Chief Lee..............

"It is disappointing that, in spite of his steadfast commitment to fairness and waiting for the results of a review of the Sanford Police Department and its investigation of the Trayvon Martin case, City Manager Bonaparte has chosen to exercise his rights under the employment contract to terminate my employment without cause.

I continue to stand by the work performed by the Sanford Police Department in this tragic shooting, which has been plagued by misrepresentations and false statements for interests other than justice. As the case progresses through the justice system, the evidence will show that our investigation was a proper effort to find the truth and follow the law. This has already been validated by evidence that has since become public as well as by comments from the special prosecutor.

I appreciate the opportunity I have had to serve all the people of the City of Sanford, the City Employees and especially the men and women of the Sanford Police Department.

Read more: http://www.myfoxorlando.com/story/18839930/sanford-police-chief-bill-lee-fired#ixzz1yRZM0k4N"

edit: By some strange coincidence the NAACP held a forum at a church (lol) in sanford last week ...the "parents" pushed for the FIRING of Lee. Good old Al and Jesse's hands are all over this. The parents are victims in more ways than one.

edit2: I think it's possible bonaparte crumbled to the pressure from al and jackson and the circus. Still doesn't excuse him though. Unless of course it is none of that and he knows something that will come to light. Time will tell. But I find that hard to believe as he would have given the "real cause" so as not to divide.
.
.
​
 
Last edited:
[quote name='perdition(troy']You just sound like some stupid racist at this point pliskin101 (and yes he is black).[/QUOTE]

Thank you for your critique.

It shows how people see racism in different places and in others than others might see it. Like this (the firing) to me right now looks like racism and I guess that being my opinion at this point in time makes me look racist to you and possibly others and my reaction to you was going to be that you sound like a stupid racist for your view of me being that way, also I am certain of it that other people have viewed you that way. hmmmm.

Anyway you have a good day now.
 
Last edited:
[quote name='perdition(troy']I have no idea what race you are, so how could I be racist towards you? Your logic in regards to the firing being racist makes no sense.[/QUOTE]

Haven't you learned anything from vs.? If you're white, you're obviously racist. Hell, at this point, if you're Chinese, African, Korean, Martian or whatever, you're probably still a racist, just helping whitey maintain the status quo.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']I have no idea what race you are, so how could I be racist towards you? [/QUOTE]

1.) Seriously? You might want to go back and read it all (your comments and mine) again and then take a nap. Then rinse and repeat until you understand the many things that are wrong your statement and question.

[quote name='perdition(troy'] Your logic in regards to the firing being racist makes no sense.[/QUOTE]

2.) And Your "logic"? Seriously? See #1. Once you get that then maybe we can talk about the rest in a "logical" manner.
 
Last edited:
@ perdition(troy...nevermind.

I just had to look at the thread linked below and I noticed your comments in it. LOGIC? LOL.

"Are bike helmets safer... or even safe?" http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=323524

[quote name='perdition(troy']I never ride with a helmet on. The article makes sense, I love how it points out that car > helmet if you were to get hit. Helmets aren't much, I've never understood how a piece of plastic will protect me after I get hit by some moron in a car. You can do whatever you want as an adult (I'll never wear a helmet) but for my kids I will have them ride with helmets until 12-13 years old. A helmet will help when you are falling off at a slow speed, but they are pointless at higher speeds (which I do when I commute).[/QUOTE]

[quote name='perdition(troy']@nasum

Bike helmets are just there to be one more accessory for the adult bike rider to buy. "Look at my new helmet and how shiny it is doesn't it match my new bike so nicely".

I never wear one on my motorcycle. I figure if I get hit or do something stupid and flip my bike I'm dead either way. I don't want to be a quad, I just want everything to be done at that point.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Let's put it this way. It doesn't matter who was the aggressor, if he would have stayed in his car and minded his own business one person wouldn't be dead and another wouldn't currently be sitting in a cell. The most basic line of reasoning says that if you don't want something to happen to don't place yourself in that position. Don't want to get involved in gang fights? Don't join a gang. Don't want to enter the world of drugs? Don't hang out with users. Don't want to have a confrontation with someone? Don't follow them around at night. This is a very simple concept.[/QUOTE]
And if you don't want to get shot, don't attack a man with a gun.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Who says he attacked the man with the gun, other than the man that killed the teenager he was following?[/QUOTE]

No one. It's the jury's job to decide if who attacked who. But according to a lot of you a) it doesn't matter or b) it was obviously Zimmerman who attacked, because he was on prescription medication/you saw a bad picture of him/Martin was a cute kid 5 years ago...
 
My mind boggles at how absurd even by vs. standards some of you are.

Let's just say race and gun violence were not the issues here (race and guns being something there is never a rational discussion on ever).

Let us say Trayvon was Tricia, a 17 year old white girl.

Zimmerman is out cruising around and spots Trish, who happens to be doing nothing illegal walking.

He decides to confront her just because; perhaps it gives him a little tingle.

There is a recording of him saying "I'm going after that slut".

After which he ends up shooting Trish and claiming she was the cause of her own death.

Personally I don't think the same people would be saying "we don't KNOW he was trying to rape her" or "she posted a picture of herself on facebook in a bikini".
 
Zimmerman was told not to pursue the boy by the authorities. Also, by law, he wasn't supposed to carry a firearm. He did all of this to himself and should be punished.
 
[quote name='UnlockPotential']Zimmerman was told not to pursue the boy by the authorities. Also, by law, he wasn't supposed to carry a firearm. He did all of this to himself and should be punished.[/QUOTE]
Not exactly. Contrarians will argue that it wasn't a lawful order, which is true. But by saying "We don't need you to do that," it really isn't a command insomuch as a "suggestion," albeit a strong one from an authority figure but not a law enforcement figure. Zimmerman also had a CCW permit, so he was legally allowed to carry a gun that night. What you're thinking of is probably the Neighborhood Watch guidelines which state that you're are only supposed to observe, report, and never engage or carry a firearm. There's some gray area in regards to the official capacity of that particular Neighborhood Watch because Zimmerman was the only member and wasn't officially recognized, but a neighborhood newsletter stated that he was the official representative. Those guidelines aren't laws either, but more like codes of conduct. Now, every action he took after initially seeing Martin led to the final outcome of course, but a huge problem with Zimmerman supporters is that they see themselves in his shoes and think that all if his actions, even his racist suspicions, are more than reasonable. So when people say bad things about Zimmerman, they internalize it.

Welcome to vs. I hope you enjoy your stay.:)
 
[quote name='dohdough']Not exactly. Contrarians will argue that it wasn't a lawful order, which is true. But by saying "We don't need you to do that," it really isn't a command insomuch as a "suggestion," albeit a strong one. Zimmerman also had a CCW permit, so he was legally allowed to carry a gun that night. What you're thinking of is probably the Neighborhood Watch guidelines which state that you're are only supposed to observe, report, and never engage or carry a firearm. There's some gray area in regards to the official capacity of that particular Neighborhood Watch because Zimmerman was the only member and wasn't officially recognized, but a neighborhood newsletter stated that he was the official representative. Those guidelines aren't laws either, but more like codes of conduct. Now, every action he took after initially seeing Martin led to the final outcome of course, but a huge problem with Zimmerman supporters is that they see themselves in his shoes and think that all if his actions, even his racist suspicions, are more than reasonable. So when people say bad things about Zimmerman, they internalize it.

Welcome to vs. I hope you enjoy your stay.:)[/QUOTE]


Wow... that is perhaps the most neutral post you've made in this thread!

Anyways lots of sick shit going on in the news I haven't been following this lately. I did notice on one of the TV's at the gym yesterday morning that they were showing Zimmerman's taped (by the police) reenactment.

While I have supported Zimmerman on many accounts I still find it hard to believe that Martin reached for his (Zimmerman's) gun and said "You're going to die" or something along those lines.

Also as more and more information is getting released it does appear that the police that handled the case weren't as inept as they were made out to be as it does appear that at least one of the homicide detectives were skeptical of Zimmerman's account of the events and was really pushing to get manslaughter charges brought against him from the get go
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top