|
Beardless Riker posted:As a white person I would completely understand if the other races rose up and burned us off of this goddamn planet So you're saying that 'white men' should be killed because a Latino man was found not guilty of killing an African-American? I also don't understand why people keep bringing up the warning gunshots case, those are two different cases that have nothing to do with each others.
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 05:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 01:01 |
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Not enough evidence/testimony to convict on murder charges, suspect goes free, system's broke. Yeah, pretty much. At the end of the day, our system is based on innocent until proven guilty, and reasonable doubt. The State absolutely failed to make a case that he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt, therefore he's a free man. The system absolutely worked. I don't understand why people are treating this like it's the worst thing that has happened in a decade.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 05:32
|
|
|
the posted:There's a thing called "passing as White." And the guy is it. And where does that guy pass as white? 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 05:34
|
|
|
the posted:It doesn't matter. In the end it really boils down to Black vs. "A lighter shade than Black." So now you're saying that anyone who isn't black is now white? So the Chinese, the Arab world and South Americans are all white now according to you? What are you even trying to say?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 05:41
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:People shouting racism using racism to say he looks "close enough" Yeah I've just learned that anyone who isn't black is therefore white or something. Why do people absolutely feel the need to make this a racial issue? That's not why that happened and it's only making things worse by artificially loading it with even more emotions than this case needed.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 05:42
|
|
|
the runs formula posted:~*race speculation*~ See this absolutely has to be about racism, because otherwise they might be forced to admit that Zimmerman might not have been in the wrong, or even right to do what he did. But when you say it's about race (He's white, no African-Americans on the jury, and so on) then you can keep the same positions you had before and not only feel vindicated but some righteous outrage that you are getting it right while those juries got it wrong because you know better than them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 05:45
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:If Trayvon Martin was white George Zimmerman wouldn't have thought there was anything suspicious about some kid in a hoodie wandering around a neighborhood looking lost. Do you have any shred of proof that what you are saying is true? I also notice that what you just wrote actually does not in any way have any bearings on what actually transpired in that T intersection.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 05:47
|
|
|
Quixotic posted:Meanwhile, in reality: Meanwhile in reality a complete unsourced chart is useless. SocketWrench posted:That's nice. Now then, if we could end the "a white man walked free because of racism" and desperately trying to swing this as a race issue between blacks and whites, perhaps things would be a bit less lovely. Yeah hopefully.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 05:55
|
|
|
donJonSwan posted:Who was following him because he looked suspicious because... Because he was apparently walking in the rain, looking like he was high and walking on the grass looking at houses that had been burgled in the recent past, according to Zimmerman. That's why he said he called, do you have any proof that he in fact just called because he was a black teen walking and not because Martin was exhibiting suspicious behavior?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 06:04
|
|
|
Pokaroo posted:Yeah you're right so you can go around picking fights while carrying - WHICH IS WHAT HE DID - And then murder the person. And you think you can get away with it? Go ahead and do that to a white person. Actually go to a rich neighborhood and do that to the first white person you see. Please. Look, here's how it is: In America, it is 100% your right to follow someone in the street. It's even your right to walk up to them and tell them that you think they are horrible pieces of poo poo, that their mothers are whores and even use racial slurs. If you assault them, you are the one who is guilty of a crime, not them. Being a complete rear end in a top hat is not a felony, while assaulting people is. You can go around picking fights with people as much as you want, as long as you are not throwing any punches first, you're still in the right. Even if Zimmerman was following Martin, looked creepy and insulted him, the second Martin jumped on him and started to beat him up, that opened a window for Zimmerman to defend himself with lethal force. That's the reality of things. You can be an rear end in a top hat in America. You can't punch someone because they are one. If you assault someone you might end up dead. Does this mean that justice always prevails? No. But that's how the system works.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 06:08
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Except that "fighting words" are a well-established exception to first amendment rights to free speech, so it's okay for jurisdictions to ban them (or, say, to place fault in the speech itself). Maybe you should read what fighting words are about, and how many times they've actually been legally followed-up on, before you quote it the next time.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 06:13
|
|
|
fursmbrero posted:Remind me again, who had the gun and who had the pack of skittles? I'll get right on that after you tell me who was, according to all witnesses, on top of whom and who was being bashed on concrete by whom. the posted:-Public disturbance I'm sorry but at the end of the day it's absolutely legal to walk up to someone and call them an rear end in a top hat, it's not going to be a public disturbance, certainly not menacing or threatening anyone. As far as using foul language in public, are you serious? Following someone is not stalking either. That's not what stalking is.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 06:16
|
|
|
The Worst Unicorn posted:Was he supposed to control the weather or change his route after using esp to know which houses had been burgled? As for looking high, what does that mean even? At the end of the day, even if he was being followed by Zimmerman, Martin had no place assaulting him, as it seems every witnesses testified is what happened in the end. He had many other avenues, but sadly chose one that ended up being deadly for him. It's sad that a 17 year old man died. It really is. However, based on all the evidence we've seen justice was served. Zimmerman's defense certainly passed the threshold for reasonable doubt.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 06:19
|
|
|
Blast of Confetti posted:Zimmerman could have obeyed the police advice and not followed Martin. I'm hosed if I disobey a police order and refuse to give them my license at a traffic check, but if I refuse orders and shoot someone to death then apparently I'm a-okay. Except this is 100% unadulterated dross. The 9-1-1 was played over and over, and all the officer said was that following Trayvon was not necessary 'We don't need you to do that' which is a neutral statement and the guy made a point on the stand to stay that he did not tell Zimmerman not to follow Martin or to follow him, as they have to stay neutral when they talk to people over the phone or they could be held liable. Blast of Confetti posted:According to Zimmerman, anyway. No, according to Florida laws and what was stated during the case.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 06:23
|
|
|
The Worst Unicorn posted:There's no 'even if' though, it's a fact he followed him, after being told not to. The assault's debatable, but if a hostile stranger with a gun was following you'd do whatever to not get shot, wouldn't you? I don't think it was planned murder, but it's certainly not justifiable self-defense. Just because you wish really hard for something to be a fact won't transform it into one: The 9-1-1 tape was played over and over, and all the officer said was that following Trayvon was not necessary 'We don't need you to do that' which is a neutral statement and the guy made a point on the stand to stay that he did not tell Zimmerman not to follow Martin or to follow him, as they have to stay neutral when they talk to people over the phone or they could be held liable.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 06:30
|
|
|
Blast of Confetti posted:
So you're also going to ignore the medical expert who came on the stand and testified that he could have been greatly injured or even killed based on those wounds, since the external damage is not a reflection of internal damage when it comes to having your head bashed in concrete? Have you seen actual pictures of what being bashed on concrete looks like so you can compare?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 06:34
|
|
|
Following a guy for less than 5 minutes while talking to the police on their phone is now 'stalking'? Are you guys serious?The Bible posted:Yeah, I replied to that scenario earlier. If that's exactly how it went down, then I get the self-defense argument. If Martin came back looking for him, that is a clear and definite threat. Zimmerman should have listened to the police and stay put, but that still wouldn't justify Martin's attack. The police never said Zimmerman should stay put, they said it was not necessary for him to follow Martin.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 06:35
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:It was more about walking up and grabbing him, I thought. We have zero evidence that this happened. Blast of Confetti posted:Yes, and they're a lot meaner looking than those boo boos. Like, to the point where most people who get their faces smashed on concrete wind up hooked to a few machines so they don't die. So why should I trust your medical opinion over an expert, exactly?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 06:37
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Well I'm sorry you didn't take Jeantel's word for it. Claims of someone talking to someone else over the phone is not evidence.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 06:41
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:What was Zimmerman's call with the dispatcher then? Circumstantial at best, and in no way proof of what actually went down. The only people who can tell us what went down are Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman, and the eyewitnesses to this whole thing. We never got to hear Martin's dide, but George Zimmerman, the eyewitnesses and all the forensic evidence tell the same story. That's why he walked.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 06:44
|
|
|
Sweeney Tom posted:That came up front and center on a Google search for "stalking". Following a guy while talking to the police on their phone, no matter the length, sounds like the definition posted herein. Stalking in a legal sense has a very clear definition and in no way what George Zimmerman did was 'stalking' under the law.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 06:46
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Neither is the accused's story about what happened. Actually when it is backed up by all of the forensic evidence and eyewitnesses, yes it is.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 06:46
|
|
|
international owl day posted:Well there is proof that Zimmerman set out to apprehend Treyvon through means of force while armed. The 911 call...  Did you ever actually listen to that 911 call? mookface posted:How can you for one second justify leaving a place of security with a loaded pistol, confronting someone for no reason, and then shooting them to death when they stand up to you? None of this makes sense. It is insane. We have absolutely no proof that Zimmerman in fact confronted Martin rather than the opposite. And Zimmerman did not shoot Martin 'because he stood up to him', he shot him because he feared grave bodily injury/death as Martin was pummeling him and had been bashing his head over concrete.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 15:45
|
|
|
etalian posted:Yeah racism has nothing to do with despite all the right wing types cheering a Death Wish style vigilante killing. I don't think anyone here is cheering for the death of Trayvon Martin. Or cheering at all for that matter. At best people have exclaimed their joy that the right to self-defense was vindicated, and the fair and impartial nature of the justice system were upheld in the face of a media and population pushing for a conviction when the facts just weren't supporting it. It's absolutely do be happy about these two things without 'cheering' Martin's death or having vigilante hopes. lfield posted:There's no evidence this happened. Because the physical evidence is that Zimmerman never left that T intersection and that Martin had more than enough time to leave and to get home. We know that Zimmerman stood at that intersection while talking to the police and that he didn't see Martin around at that time. Therefore the most plausible explanation is that Martin waited until Zimmerman hung up, then confronted him. This is also backed up by the timing of the Lauer 911 call.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
Scooter_McCabe posted:The problem becomes if Zimmerman attempted to "apprehend" Martin by grabbing him and putting him to the ground in the way a real police officer would with a suspect. At that point you have some weird fat gently caress now trying to get on top of you in the night. I'm sure the potential for Martin to feel like he was in a life or death situation is there. Except we have absolutely zero proof that this is what happened, and Zimmerman had absolutely no reason to do this either. This is pure speculation that is not backed by one shred of evidence. kazmeyer posted:Hypothetical: The Sanford PD rolls up on a 28 year old black man with a gun standing over a dead 17 year old white kid who's unarmed and the excuse is "he hit me in the nose and scratched up my head." Do you think this plays out even remotely close to the same way? People are still going on about Zimmerman being white. If the roles had been reversed, with the current evidence there is on the scene, the same scenario would have unfolded.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 15:52
|
|
|
fursmbrero posted:If you feel threatened and shoot someone, that's self-defense, you should go free. If you feel your life is threatened, or that you will suffer grave bodily harm, you are absolutely permitted to use force, up to deadly force, in order to protect yourself. If you are feeling annoyed by someone following you, you are absolutely permitted to use words, up to 'Hey man, just leave me the gently caress alone or I'll call the cops, in order to tell him off. You're never allowed to assault him just because you don't like what he's doing. CheesyDog posted:The only reason the "media stirred poo poo up" is because the Sanford PD did a deliberately lovely job investigating the case, which also impacted the evidence collected. Can you please tell us how the investigation was botched, how it was deliberate and how it impacted the evidence being collected?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 15:55
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:I didn't think people were saying the system was racist, but that Zimmerman himself is. he decided to follow a black kid that was wearing a hoodie because he was a black kid wearing a hoodie and therefore looked suspicious. That seems like a pretty clear cut example of racism. It's the exact sort of racial profiling that blacks have had to deal with for a very long time now, and they are understandably tired of it. Zimmerman called the police 46 times in his role of neighborhood watch captain. Out of these 46 phone calls, only 6 of them had to do with suspicious African-American individuals. Can you show me how Zimmerman had any racist motivation to follow Martin? He has a history that actually shows the opposite of what you're claiming without a shred of evidence.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 15:59
|
|
|
lfield posted:There is no evidence that Zimmerman stayed at the T other than his word. He had the same amount of time to get back to his truck. What was he doing standing still in the rain at the top of the T for that long? He had enough time to walk up and down the street looking for Martin if he wanted. Well that is just absolutely false. From the moment Zimmerman said 'Oh poo poo, he's running', he lost visual contact with Martin for four minutes. This is based on the timing of the Lauer 911 call and when she said she first heard the screams for help. During that four minutes, Zimmerman spent three of them on the phone with the police. The only way this makes sense is if Martin came back to confront Zimmerman, or was hiding in the dark and came out when he hung up with the police, which is exactly what Zimmerman claimed and is backed up by all the evidence we've seen so far. quote:I don't understand why Martin is suspicious for not returning home (even though he didn't know Zimmerman had called the police or was armed), but Zimmerman is perfectly fine to stand around in the rain for no reason doing God knows what. Martin was suspicious because he had four minutes to make it to his house (which, running, should have taken about a minute or two). Instead, he ended up confronting Zimmerman and it cost him his life.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 16:09
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:Those phone calls don't say anything about the type of person Zimmerman is, other then he bugs the police a lot. Blacks have a history of being racially profiled, even more so if they are dressed a certain way. Martin's look matched what is historically a look that is used to discriminate against blacks. 'Bug the police'? He was part of neighborhood watch, and was calling on the non-emergency line. You have a weird definition of 'bugging the police'. As far as it being 'historically' the look where young African-American teens have been profiled, you still have not proved in any way that Zimmerman was a racist or profiled Martin and all of his history points to the opposite.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 16:12
|
|
|
temple posted:No no, Martin ran and probably ran behind some houses and doubled back. Zimmerman said he saw the "suspect" run between houses. Martin ran to avoid Zimmerman because Zimmerman was following him. Zimmerman walked down the dog walk. They both turned around to go back to their business and that's when they probably ran into each other. Probably scared each other. But what happened after that is between Zimmerman and Martin and only one can talk. There is no way Zimmerman would be able to ever outrun Trayvon. Be real, here. No way he could even sprint for more than what, 15 seconds? Did you listen to the gym owner? Zimmerman was a fat, soft pudgy guys with barely any muscle on. There is also no proof to back up the fact that Zimmerman ever ran. quote:Martin's phone call backs up his running from Zimmerman. But between both phone calls, there is 2 minutes unaccounted for and the only living witness didn't mention or recall what happened. I wonder why? Yeah, Martin had four minutes to run away from there. Yet he never left the very area where he ended up dead. He could have gone home and back twice. Yet he didn't. And it's not two minutes, it's less than a minute from the moment Zimmerman hung up until they were talking. quote:And Trayvon had no as in 0 boxer injuries on his hand. Zimmerman at most had a bloody nose and strangely refused going to the hospital the night of the encounter. For Martin to beat up Zimmerman, there is no evidence to support more than a pop in the nose. A medical examiner already explained the lack of apparent external injuries on the hands of Trayvon. As far as Zimmerman refusing to go to the hospital, this man was beaten up, feared for his life and had to kill someone in self-defense. He was under such a shock that it's normal for people to act that way. You routinely have people getting shot who say that it's fine, they'll walk it off no need to go to the hospital. People react in strange ways when they are victims of a trauma. As far as no evidence that Martin beat zimmerman, he had a broken nose, signs of other punches in the face, the back of his head hitting the concrete oh and multiple eyewitnesses that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and hitting him.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 16:34
|
|
|
lfield posted:I don't think Temple said that Zimmerman outran Martin. He said they took paths other than what Zimmerman said they did, which is certainly a possibility. If you look at the map of where this happened, no it's not. There is no way that Zimmerman could have somehow gotten in front of Trayvon. Nevermind that there is no physical evidence that this happened. quote:Zimmerman had the exact same time to get back to his truck as Martin had to get home. Just because he was on the phone doesn't mean he had to stand still. He was on the phone, and stopped in place to finish his phone call and was going to return to his truck. He did nothing wrong. Martin is the one who had the time to run home, and never did but rather confronted Zimmerman.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 16:41
|
|
|
temple posted:I think you are making poo poo up. Zimmerman lost a lot of weight at the time and was in shape. Testimony backs that up. Martin had no obligation to run anyway. Testimony backs that up? The gym guy who said he was a 1, maybe 1.5 out of 10? Who said he couldn't even throw a punch, and wouldn't teach him because he was still too overweight and out of shape? That testimony? Zimmerman was 5'8" and didn't have muscle according to the MMA gym owner. So he was 5'8" and 200 pounds, which qualifies him as overweight according to his BMI. quote:Martin had no obligation to go straight home regardless. Still, he didn't want someone following him so he doubted back. 'So he didn't want anyone to follow him so he doubled back?' How does that make sense. If you're being followed and you lose the person following you, you just double back if you don't want them to follow you home (when they are not following you anymore? He could have continued to another building, turn left, turn right, he did the one thing that showed he wanted to confront Zimmerman according to you: He doubled back. quote:I watched the trial and testimony by Dr. Bao so I don't remember any explanation for why Martin didn't have injuries other than the off chance Martin threw really weak punches which doesn't really justify a bullet to the heart. Not Dr. Bao, Dr. Bao himself said that he didn't do in-depth examination of this. The other medical expert. quote:Zimmerman was so in shock, he refused medical treatment? That's a stretch. That's something that happens often, as testified by a police man and that medical expert. quote:Yes witnesses saw Martin on top of Zimmerman. Now, is that murder? Attempted murder? Non lethal force does not justify the use of lethal force. But see, he was afraid .... great bodily harm....I know where this is going. Someone was on top of him, no one was coming to his help, he was being pummeled and had his head bashed into the concrete. It has been determined by the courts that it was sufficient for getting freed on self-defense. So did the police that very night when they let him go after 5 hours without pressing charges.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
ShadowCatboy posted:Honestly as much as I wanted to see Zimmerman convicted, I'd suspected that this case was going to be difficult for the prosecution since even with affirmative defenses, in Florida the burden of proof isn't on the defendant. Due to the way the law works in Florida, I can live with Zimmerman getting away with manslaughter. Reasonable doubt is not a Florida thing, it's the same thing in every state in America. lfield posted:Plus, there are plenty of possible ways that Zimmerman could have gotten in front of Martin, even without intending to. There's no physical evidence as to any path either party took other than the fact that they met at the T at the time they did. If you've seen the map of the area, no there is no possible way for that to happen. quote:Martin was also on the phone. Being on the phone doesn't mean you need to stand still. Actually, to run properly he hung up the phone and then called later. Zimmerman, who was walking, kept on talking. quote:We don't know Martin confronted Zimmerman. This is just your opinion, you're posting it as fact with absolutely no evidence. We know that Zimmerman never left the area of that T, we know that Zimmerman ended up under Martin screaming for help as he was getting assaulted a minute later, and we know Martin had more than enough time to make it home or run further away from Zimmerman and did not.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 16:52
|
|
|
temple posted:I can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt anything I say is true. However, the case isn't as clear cut as you make it. You say it's 'legal but not justice'. I say that a man who was being assaulted, corroborated by all the evidence as well as the eyewitnesses, and had to kill in self-defense getting a trial where, even though some where screaming for his blood and to railroad him to jail, got a fair and impartial trial where he was found not guilty sounds exactly like justice to me. It's sad that Martin died, but if he had never assaulted and found himself on top of Martin and hitting him, he would still be alive. Could Zimmerman have done something else than shoot him? Probably. However, the law stipulates that in a situation like that, you are allowed to use deadly force, and that was the best option for Zimmerman at that time.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Killing someone is never the best option. Well, first of all that's just false. There are many scenarios where killing someone is the best option on the table at that time. Stopping a man who is about to commit murder by killing him is certainly the best option versus letting him commit that murder. Is that the best possible optimum solution in a perfect world? Of course not. We're talking about real life, however, and things very very rarely pan out that way.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:So my takeaway from this is that if you pick fights, you should be allowed to kill the person you picked it with if they physically assault you. More or less, pretty much as long as the physical assault justifies deadly force. You can walk around and be a prick to everyone, but if one of those people snaps back at you and starts beating the poo poo out of you and you fear for your life/great bodily harm, you are absolutely justified in using up to deadly force to protect yourself. temple posted:A lot of the public was against Zimmerman and a lot of the public supported Zimmerman (for all the wrong reasons). But yes, the system works. The problem is the laws in Florida suck. So it is a triumph that the gears to the meat grinder are still turning. Reasonable Doubt is not some Florida quirk, this is the basis of the legal system and it would have unfolded that way in any other state. The Prosecution just did not have a case for what they pushed. If they'd gone with Negligent Homicide or something else, Zimmerman might have been looking at jail time right now. lfield posted:Really? So it was literally physically impossible for anything other than Zimmerman's version of events to have occurred? Not in your wildest imaginings can you even conceive of an alternative possible scenario, no matter how unlikely? How do you go from 'It was physically impossible for Zimmerman to outrun Martin' due to Zimmerman's shape and where they ended up during the assault and subsequent death of Martin with 'It's impossible for anything other than Zimmerman's version of events to have occurred'? quote:We don't know it was Zimmerman screaming for help, that's another thing that is based only on his testimony. We also don't know that Martin was committing assault; he could have been legally defending himself. Based on his testimony, as well as eyewitnesses who said the guy getting pummeled was screaming for help. We know that Martin was committing assault because we have witnesses who saw him pummeling Martin while straddling him.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 17:05
|
|
|
Feranon posted:Even if his life was in danger, which is subject to debate, it was only because of a confrontation that he started. There is no proof that he started the confrontation, there is no proof that he's a racist, there is no proof that he's a vigilante and he had a permit to carry that gun. l33t b4c0n posted:Honest question, why are you framing what Martin allegedly did as assault and not standing his ground against an approaching stranger? What exactly is the distinction in your mind? Only because Martin ran, lost Zimmerman and then a few minutes later ended up on top of him, hitting him. Nenonen posted:There are better ways of protecting yourself from being murdered, such as avoiding the situation. Flee the scene, don't stand your ground. Martin had already lost Zimmerman, yet he decided to come back and now he's dead. That's a very sad thing and if he had listened to what you said, he'd be alive today.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 17:12
|
|
|
lfield posted:I said it was possible for Zimmerman to have gotten in front of Martin, not that he outran him. Nobody has claimed Zimmerman outran Martin, that's something you brought up. It wasn't at all possible based on the way this block was. Completely impossible. Not to mention the fact that Martin lost Zimmerman and could have just kept on running or even walk home and Zimmerman never would have found him. quote:Based on his testimony? Based on the testimony of the man on trial for murder? One eyewitness said he didn't know who was screaming for help. Nobody else made a claim as to who was screaming for help. No, he said he couldn't see Zimmerman's mouth but it seemed clear to him the man getting hit was the one screaming for help. Just use logic: Why would Martin be on top of Zimmerman, punching him in the face at the same time yelling for help while Zimmerman was staying silent? quote:Could his assault have actually been justified self-defense? Is that possible? Of course. There is no one shred of proof that it was the case, however.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
l33t b4c0n posted:Can you explain Zimmerman's comment that "They always get away"? What was his intent with that comment? There had been a string of robbery, and those responsible were never caught. 'They always get away'. quote:Can you explain why Zimmerman chose to follow Martin even after the police dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." The dispatcher said that it was neutral and in no way told him not to follow Martin. Not to mention the fact that it was absolutely legal for him to follow Zimmerman and ask him what he was doing in the neighborhood. Mandrel posted:My favorite thing is people pointing out that Zimmerman was Hispanic therefore it's not racist, as if the crux of the race discussion over this trial is Zimmerman's race rather than Trayvon's. Can you show me where anyone said that since Zimmerman was Hispanic, he couldn't be a racist? All I've seen are people telling others to stop framing this as 'White against Black' or that this was motivated by racism because there's no evidence that was the case.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 01:01 |
|
|
kazmeyer posted:Hypothetically? Say Zimmerman grabs Trayvon. Trayvon yells, "Get off" and elbows Zimmerman in the face. Zimmerman goes down and hits his head on the sidewalk. Zimmerman goes for his gun, Trayvon sees it and jumps on him to try to get the gun away from him. In that case, Martin would be on top, struggling with Zimmerman, and probably screaming for help at the same time. I don't see how it's logical to think that Martin would jump on Zimmerman and start punching him if he saw he was getting out his gun instead of, you know, try and get the gun from him, or run away as it was pretty dark. No, your scenario is not logical and is absolutely disproved by the evidence and eyewitnesses testimonies.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 17:22
|
|