Yes, the coward knew he would not have to lift a finger to defend himself because of SYG, and this infuriates me more than the profiling does.
George Zimmerman found Not Guilty.
- Thread starter Saturnine Pariah
- Start date
Yes, the coward knew he would not have to lift a finger to defend himself because of SYG, and this infuriates me more than the profiling does.
I'm concerned they all ready gave zimmerman back his gun. irrespective to the facts of the case( zimmerman basicly hunting martin down) you just don't give a gun back to someone after they have killed someone. killing someone screws up your head unless your psychotic. either way your asking for trouble.
Prevents him from walking away? How do we know this was the case?
Doesn't need to be complete physical entrapment - simply impeding or interfering, forcing one to walk out of the path, etc, is a direct threat, if backed by force it is assault.
We know that Zimmerman was armed, angry, and out of his truck following Martin; and the incident took place less than 200 feet from Martin's door - he would have been leery of leading the creep to his house, if he were me, and so cornered. Zimmerman apparently had him pinned, in a sense.
.
A huge difference between follow and chase. Follow basically means you are maintaining a distance for observation in these instances. Chase implies that you are attempting to over take them. We know that Jenteal testified that Zimmerman was following him and that he wasn't gaining. We know that Martin successfully shook Zimmerman off his trail.
I would also point out that Zimmerman was neighborhood watch in the area and knew there was several break in by individuals matching the description of Martin's outfit. Martin was out at a time and in a condition that would make anyone slight suspicious.
Actually I am basing the follow part based off Jenteal testimony who was talking to Martin on the phone as he was being followed. As well as the transcripts from the Dispatcher who was on the line with Zimmerman.
If martin was concerned for his life he would have called 911 or had Jenteal do it. If he wasn't intending on attacking Zimmerman why did he go back after successfully losing him?
Now you're just trolling. Anyone with the slightest bit of common sense understands what the statement means. No, having an irrational fear is not a basis for self defense. However even a troll like your self must admit having your head pounded on the pavement for a minute after having your nose broken is self defense. And we KNOW Zimmerman did not throw the first punch. Autopsy does not lie.
If he is that big that one blow could kill you then you would be dead before self defense became an issue when you start a fight. Just the way it is. As for kicking your ass in a fight, unless you are in serious fear of your life ending there is going to be issues. You can have you ass be kicked and know that aside from the aches you'll be fine. Having your head pounded on the cement repeatedly for a minute is NOT one of those times.
Because he did not want to use it if he didn't have to. Why does everyone think that just because you have a gun you want to use it? It's a last line of defense.
Actually that is not uncommon. Some people in shock mistake it for calm.
Actually, some officers can get pretty assholish. They can trump up charges for any reason whatsoever, including you placing your hands on them in a non violent way. I've seen it happen. If it had been a real assault there would have been no pleading it away. It also would have kept him from getting a CCW.
Martin phone call with his girlfriends did not as you claim suggest that he confronted Zimmerman, no where does she says Martin turns around and tries to find Zimmerman. Martin may have eluded Zimmerman for a few minutes and then Zimmerman reaquired him, that all.
This does not mean they should chase/follow him.
Please point out where specifically in these tesimonies and transcripts, that they varify your claims.
Again no proof what so ever he "went back" to find Zimmerman. Martin like many black people have a deep suspicion (often rightfully so ) of the law, and thus calling 911 is not a thought that comes up or has to be thought about and weigh in the propbability police will arrest or shot him, the caller, out of prejudice.
No no see if I can get a child to fight me back, and claim I was in "fear of my life" and that why I shot him, I can get away with it. Of course it's all up to how well the jury beleives me, now if that child is black boy of 17 I have a good chance of getting the jury to beleive me, espically a jurry of 5 white women and one hispanic.
Please explain to me how the autopsy found that Martin throw the first punch.
You put your hands on a cop while he's trying to do his job and you'll generally be going to jail. You can disagree with cops all you want, but lay hands on them and you'll be going for a ride.
Not unless your father was on the state Supreme Court, that is.
you do know that neighborhood watch people are forbidden to carry guns. as he was carrying his gun according to policy he wasn't a neighborhood watchman.
your analysis of the 'evidence' is so evident just like juror b37. we all know she is a dolt who should only be allowed to decide a parking ticket. really? u have the nerve to be that biased and so sure about what happened by one person's account?
and your bias is extremely evident when you add that a wannabe gangsta messed with the wrong dude? u ignore that bloated pig with a concealed weapon was targeting and following this boy and from the tapes very clear and eager to 'get' someone. he couldn't even answer what that 'wannabe gangsta' was doing wrong with any specific answer and so he rambled and mumbled.
anybody can be threatening and a big man with a gun. zimmerman was a big fish in a little pond with the little authority he had as a neighborhood watchmen carrying a gun picking on children. do u understand children at all either? that wannabe gangsta, as you call him, described zimmerman as 'creepy' and mentioned he was also concerned for his little sibling from this guy, this indicates he feels he is being followed or harassed without due cause.
furthermore, zimmerman hardly had any evidence on his body that he was beaten to any point to be 'in fear for his life'. now i don't know if you are a man or a woman, but if you are a man and you buy that, then that says a whole lot about you as a man. lol if you are a woman and buy that, you are clueless.
you also have the "preponderance" of the evidence quite backwards. it was trayvon martin who was known to study martial arts and be a good fighter and it was george zimmerman who is the one who MESSED WITH THE WRONG GUY! that is why he had to resort to using his gun with a few sissy marks on his body. btw, he hardly did anything to that man!
it's rather telling a jury full of mostly white, conservative, clueless women got this guy off and bought this coward/bully's 'i was being beaten to the point of fear for my life' bs.
don't forget that trayvon martin has no voice and george zimmerman was free to lie, omit and portray events to his advantage. people like you should never be on a jury as you don't even give the benefit of the doubt to the other side, don't consider it, don't think about it, are biased and even on top of all this are not at all suspicious of the evidence that there is which does not really match unless you easily believe anything another says.
you are defending that a grown man can follow and harass kids just completely based on that he thinks someone looks suspicious without any grounds and with a loaded weapon. you are defending that someone has a right to shoot you in the chest for even a scuffle or a fight, do you realize that? i doubt you do! you DO NOT! know who engaged who first so stop lying SO ASSUREDLY anyways!!
if he was trying to detain that boy, zimmerman could have tried to grab him and put his hands on him. i can tell you, i sure as hell would fight back and any man, and especially that teenage boy had a right to STAND YOUR GROUND as well!! don't forget that! why are you so hypocritical??? he had EVERY right to be there, he was visiting family that lived there, he was INVITED!!either way, they need to revise this law as it was ripe to be exploited by those who would not use any common sense as zimmerman did. you are the type who would defend laws just because they exist without questioning if those laws need to be revised, modified or changed. your thinking is pathetically actual non-thinking. it never brings progress or change.
you also don't question zimmerman's rap sheet but only focus on this 'wannabe gangsta'. zimmerman is has multiple, repeat, multiple felonies and misdemeanors including assault on an officer and domestic violence. does that sound like someone who has good impulse control or judgement and especially with carrying a concealed weapon??
please stop embarassing yourself as the multitudes of the monster truck, nascar and honeybooboo crowd does with their assurance that zimmerman was right and acted responsibly as an adult with good judgement.
your argument for analysis of this case is very shallow and almost juvenile. please don't serve on any jury, at least not on a case with any gravity and requires actual critical thinking ability.
but i will give your 'analysis' of the so-called facts this to your benefit: a jury found oj innocent, therefore oj was innocent. that's really the extent of your argument. lmao
Last edited:
Brian72103
Registered Member
George Zimmerman shouldn't have followed Trayvon Martin.
What part of "neighborhood watch" do you not understand?
um their not supposed to follow people
Brian72103
Registered Member
General question to think about:
Where there is a neighborhood watch in an area, there are signs throughout the area. If you are visiting, after a day or two you of being in the area - how could you have not noticed these signs?
Now, you are visiting - you know there have been break-in's in the area lately (if you are even slightly aware of what is going on in the community) - you are out when it is starting to get dark, and someone starts to follow you.
Why would you wonder why someone is following you? You can't put two and two together? Why be all defensive if someone asks you what you are doing?
Where there is a neighborhood watch in an area, there are signs throughout the area. If you are visiting, after a day or two you of being in the area - how could you have not noticed these signs?
Now, you are visiting - you know there have been break-in's in the area lately (if you are even slightly aware of what is going on in the community) - you are out when it is starting to get dark, and someone starts to follow you.
Why would you wonder why someone is following you? You can't put two and two together? Why be all defensive if someone asks you what you are doing?
What part of the word "watch" do you not understand?
This and That
Georgie Doesn't Get His Gun
It's worth noting that the killing machine that stole the life of Trayvon Martin is not being returned to George Zimmerman at this time:
While many critics suggest that it is difficult to establish racial animus in Zimmerman's actions on the night of the killing, his culpability seems pretty obvious insofar as a civil rights trial would allow prosecutors to argue Zimmerman's inconsistency. For instance, one might call his brother to the stand and interrogate him about statements he made on the news, suggesting that George said this or that. The thing is that between Zimmerman's advocates in the press, many of them claimed George said something, and the stories they then recounted are contradictory. So get his brother up on the stand and say, "You said George said this. Were you lying to the press, or did George say that?" Do that enough, and the circumstantial evidence outweighs any lingering doubt; the only question is what Zimmerman and his surrogates thought they was concealing by the constantly changing accounts given to the public in Zimmerman's defense. Furthermore, Zimmerman's awareness of culpability can be reasonably established in light of the conspiracy to defraud the court by hiding funds and a passport.
Still, though, it's an uphill climb to convict.
The upside, of course, is that Zimmerman doesn't get his gun back yet. Of course, I doubt there's anything stopping him from getting another.
Isn't that odd? I mean, it's not like the fact that Neighborhood Watch itself says their people aren't supposed to follow and engage suspects is somehow obscure. Indeed, Neighborhood Watch was offended that their name was even associated with Zimmerman. But, you know, since those facts hit the record last year and obviously have nothing to do with anything now, perhaps our neighbor has a point.
____________________
Notes:
Stutzman, Rene. "DOJ: Don't return gun to George Zimmerman while we're investigating". Orlando Sentinel. July 18, 2013. OrlandoSentinel.com. July 18, 2013. http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...george-zimmerman-gun-20130718,0,2431785.story
Georgie Doesn't Get His Gun
It's worth noting that the killing machine that stole the life of Trayvon Martin is not being returned to George Zimmerman at this time:
Following a request from the FBI, the Sanford Police Department reported Thursday that it has halted its plan to return George Zimmerman's gun and other pieces of evidence used at his murder trial.
The move is a clear sign that the U.S. Department of Justice is moving ahead with its investigation into whether the former Neighborhood Watch volunteer violated the civil rights of Trayvon Martin, the unarmed black 17-year-old he shot in Sanford last year.
(Stutzman)
The move is a clear sign that the U.S. Department of Justice is moving ahead with its investigation into whether the former Neighborhood Watch volunteer violated the civil rights of Trayvon Martin, the unarmed black 17-year-old he shot in Sanford last year.
(Stutzman)
While many critics suggest that it is difficult to establish racial animus in Zimmerman's actions on the night of the killing, his culpability seems pretty obvious insofar as a civil rights trial would allow prosecutors to argue Zimmerman's inconsistency. For instance, one might call his brother to the stand and interrogate him about statements he made on the news, suggesting that George said this or that. The thing is that between Zimmerman's advocates in the press, many of them claimed George said something, and the stories they then recounted are contradictory. So get his brother up on the stand and say, "You said George said this. Were you lying to the press, or did George say that?" Do that enough, and the circumstantial evidence outweighs any lingering doubt; the only question is what Zimmerman and his surrogates thought they was concealing by the constantly changing accounts given to the public in Zimmerman's defense. Furthermore, Zimmerman's awareness of culpability can be reasonably established in light of the conspiracy to defraud the court by hiding funds and a passport.
Still, though, it's an uphill climb to convict.
The upside, of course, is that Zimmerman doesn't get his gun back yet. Of course, I doubt there's anything stopping him from getting another.
• • •
PJdude1219 said:
Isn't that odd? I mean, it's not like the fact that Neighborhood Watch itself says their people aren't supposed to follow and engage suspects is somehow obscure. Indeed, Neighborhood Watch was offended that their name was even associated with Zimmerman. But, you know, since those facts hit the record last year and obviously have nothing to do with anything now, perhaps our neighbor has a point.
____________________
Notes:
Stutzman, Rene. "DOJ: Don't return gun to George Zimmerman while we're investigating". Orlando Sentinel. July 18, 2013. OrlandoSentinel.com. July 18, 2013. http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...george-zimmerman-gun-20130718,0,2431785.story
Brian72103
Registered Member
If they are contacting the police (which he was) and the police want to know where this person is headed - you would have to watch them and possibly follow them for a little bit.
When you volunteer to participate in a neighborhood watch they generally want you to go to classes so they can teach you what you can and what you can not do.
According to testimony in the trial - he was told not to follow him - and he was headed back to his truck. At this point TM jumped out at GZ.
do you understand that is hardly the point and is a pisspoor excuse to justify the use of extreme force that this neighborhood watchmen used?
do you realize how discriminatory your statement is? i go for walks at night, therefore i look suspicious and should be followed? i do sometimes go for walks at night. do you realize also how stupid your statement is? you've never walked at night? you've never walked in the rain? you've never been out and been caught in the rain? i can tell by your statement that it's very selfish oriented. you have never been targeted and followed or even put yourself in the shoes of anyone else and how that would be discriminatory as well as insulting and feels like someone is violating your civil rights. zimmerman did not answer that was the case with even repeated questions to him by dispatchers, he was vague. do you know why? because he did not have grounds! he was profiling based on his looks.
zimmerman was not even arrested and really investigated until later, he had plenty of time to clean up his story. this is a botched case and the police department's actions in giving leniency to zimmerman from the getgo just by his account before this case even started was wrong.
besides all this, you and many others ignore the biggest pink elephant right in front of you: if a man would shoot dead in the chest an unarmed man for a few scratch marks or even a bloody nose is an extreme sissy/coward/fearful which makes him dangerous because of this reason and conversely any man who would do this is a dangerous bully himself and starts a dangerous precedent if society agrees to this.
can you wrap that concept around your head?