Author Topic: Zimmerman Verdict  (Read 11948 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Spit

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 83
  • Darwins +8/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #145 on: July 21, 2013, 08:42:36 PM »
Dumbest post in the history of the internet. Congrats.  :blank:
I thought it was a pretty good post, myself.

Considering that my entire life has crumbled before my eyes recently, criticism from someone who refers to himself as "Spit" and who's entire repertoire of posts on this forum makes Wayne and Garth look like geniuses I find this inconsequential.
I'm here for you nonetheless!  ;D

Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #146 on: July 21, 2013, 09:00:21 PM »
Grey, youre usually on point, but here youre using an idiots rationale.

Lori is 100% correct.

Nothing that he did in his past justifies a grown bafoon stalking him with a loaded pistol and shooting him. Any discussion outside of those facts are an attempt to justify a murder.

Offline Quesi

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1986
  • Darwins +371/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #147 on: July 21, 2013, 09:18:24 PM »
I don't know if anyone already said this but bringing up anything in Trayvon's past and saying it was somehow less wrong for Zimmerman to shoot him is similar to saying it is less wrong for a man to stalk and then shoot a woman because she is a prostitute or was dressed provocatively.
Dumbest post in the history of the internet. Congrats.  :blank:

I'm wondering if you could elaborate.  In what ways do you think that the two situations are different? 

I do hope you respond and bring something constructive to the discussion.   

Offline DumpsterFire

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
  • Darwins +61/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • The Flaming Duck of Death!
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #148 on: July 21, 2013, 10:51:52 PM »
Spit, I too would like to know exactly what about Lori's statement you find to be so ignorant. Also, if you consider that the dumbest thing ever posted on the internet, then you must have just gotten Comcast installed in your cave this morning.
Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

Think for yourself.

Offline Bereft_of_Faith

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 911
  • Darwins +39/-2
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #149 on: July 22, 2013, 02:27:31 AM »
I've been keeping away from this whole thing for reasons I'm reluctant to share, but I have a few things to say regarding some of the posts in this thread

It is difficult for me to understand anyone who is trying to bring up the victim's 'past' in order to explain away the murder/manslaughter.  (italicized since that's my personal belief, not the legal determination).

As for part of that past... marijuana?  Jesus Christ!  Really?  Mari-F'in-Jaua?  The only downside to recreational marijuana use is the wrong-headed, head up the ass thinking that made it a criminal activity.  Do me a favor.  Smoke some.  See how many people you want to assault and how much jewelry you want to steal. 

Oh, and jewelry?  Let's say that pot caused TM to routinely go around robbing houses... So he deserves to be shot dead by a... what the hell is Z?  A rent-a-cop?  No?  Z is actually something much more than a rent-a-cop?  I'm Sorry:  Still not an excuse for killing another person.  Oh, he was defending himself?  Has this pussy never gotten a beat down, and was so afraid for his life that he had to use a gun?  Just my opinion, but TM should never have been killed, regardless of his past, whatever the hell it was. 

Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #150 on: July 22, 2013, 02:48:05 AM »
Zimmerman could not have known anything about Martin's past. 

The only things he had to go on, the things that activated Zimmerman, were Martin's appearance and the fact that he knew NOTHING about Martin (but assumed a lot).  That's where all the wrong commenced.

Git mit uns

Online Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6557
  • Darwins +503/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #151 on: July 22, 2013, 08:34:59 AM »
Grey, youre usually on point, but here youre using an idiots rationale.

Lori is 100% correct.

Nothing that he did in his past justifies a grown bafoon stalking him with a loaded pistol and shooting him. Any discussion outside of those facts are an attempt to justify a murder.

I think I should have spent a little more time explaining the significance of
why Trayvon Martin was made out to be as pure as the driven snow;
why Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson set him up as a symbol of racial oppression;
why, before the justice system had taken its course, there were calls for Zimmerman's head;
why the family would accept no other verdict but guilty;
why, when both before and after the justice process has taken its course, there were (and still are) those who are immorally using the incident to further their own ends by causing and perpetuating division.

If you are looking for problems, you need look no further than the armed neighbourhood watch, which was apparently approved and authorised (both to be armed and to challenge subjectively identified suspicious characters) by somebody.

In short, this has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the "I'm anti-social and I'm a victim" attitude meeting "I've got a badge so I'm authority." and neither of them were victim or authority.

(Interesting example by LoriPA that worked out much differently here: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25199.msg563349.html#msg563349)

Quote
Nothing that he did in his past justifies a grown bafoon stalking him with a loaded pistol and shooting him. Any discussion outside of those facts are an attempt to justify a murder.

I don't see that as "fact". It seems very emotive and not at all helpful.

Quote
Nothing that he did in his past justifies a grown bafoon stalking him with a loaded pistol and shooting him. Any discussion outside of those facts are an attempt to justify a murder.

There was no murder. You know that. You also know that by making those sort of statements, you too are causing and perpetuating division.

If you want an example of injustice, you need look no further than the beating of Rodney King and what he said: "Can't we all get along?"
« Last Edit: July 22, 2013, 08:38:30 AM by Graybeard »
RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable. Ambrose Bierce

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12125
  • Darwins +645/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #152 on: July 22, 2013, 08:50:01 AM »
the right wingers freak the flip out over the president's remarks:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/20/1224979/-Saturday-nutpick-a-palooza-Obama-and-Trayvon?showAll=yes

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/19/1225006/-Roundup-Obama-remarks-on-Trayvon-Martin

I can hardly believe people are this stupid/ crazy/ racist.  But they are.
 


I thought his remarks were rather mild and measured.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #153 on: July 22, 2013, 10:18:10 PM »
Grey, youre usually on point, but here youre using an idiots rationale.

Lori is 100% correct.

Nothing that he did in his past justifies a grown bafoon stalking him with a loaded pistol and shooting him. Any discussion outside of those facts are an attempt to justify a murder.

I think I should have spent a little more time explaining the significance of
why Trayvon Martin was made out to be as pure as the driven snow;
why Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson set him up as a symbol of racial oppression;
why, before the justice system had taken its course, there were calls for Zimmerman's head;
why the family would accept no other verdict but guilty;
why, when both before and after the justice process has taken its course, there were (and still are) those who are immorally using the incident to further their own ends by causing and perpetuating division.

If you are looking for problems, you need look no further than the armed neighbourhood watch, which was apparently approved and authorised (both to be armed and to challenge subjectively identified suspicious characters) by somebody.

In short, this has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the "I'm anti-social and I'm a victim" attitude meeting "I've got a badge so I'm authority." and neither of them were victim or authority.

(Interesting example by LoriPA that worked out much differently here: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25199.msg563349.html#msg563349)

Quote
Nothing that he did in his past justifies a grown bafoon stalking him with a loaded pistol and shooting him. Any discussion outside of those facts are an attempt to justify a murder.

I don't see that as "fact". It seems very emotive and not at all helpful.

Quote
Nothing that he did in his past justifies a grown bafoon stalking him with a loaded pistol and shooting him. Any discussion outside of those facts are an attempt to justify a murder.

There was no murder. You know that. You also know that by making those sort of statements, you too are causing and perpetuating division.

If you want an example of injustice, you need look no further than the beating of Rodney King and what he said: "Can't we all get along?"
Youre not using your brain Grey.
How was Trayvon made to be "pure" as driven snow?
by innocent it simply means he was not in the act of any crime, unless of course walking home with skittles is prohibited.
You wouldnt use such moronic justifications to support the Sandy Hook shooter. Think any of those kids ever stole a cookie from the cookie jar? Well, then the murder is justified, no?

TM is a symbol of racial oppression. Because these morons supporting Zimmerman are supporting A) his profiling of TM, b) justifying his apparent fear of Martin, C) Acting as if TM could not have feared for his own life (as the white guy is not the threat) D) Even after the facts come out painting the dead kid as the guilty party, why? Dont answer on the board, answer with what you know is the truth.

People called for that piece of shits head because he murdered a kid with skittles and iced tea. No excuses are needed as to why.

There is no reasonable verdict other than guilty.

There is a division when you can stalk and shoot a kid armed with skittles and the police dont go as far as to make an arrest. There is a division in the justice system.

I tell you what Grey, come out to Chicago, let me drop you off in a neighborhood, I'll get some armed guys to stalk you around a neighborhood and shoot you in the heart after you feel threatened enough to defend yourself. See if you defend plain outright stupidity after that. Then we can talk about how this is your fault. Use your damn brain.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4727
  • Darwins +535/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #154 on: July 22, 2013, 11:26:42 PM »
With all due respect, The Gawd, the news coverage of the Zimmerman-Martin incident was not particularly good, and it distorted the facts.  This is evidenced by the tendency a lot of people have to think that Zimmerman got out of his car to hunt Martin down, ignored the 911 dispatcher telling him he didn't need to follow Martin, and then shot him dead because he felt 'threatened'.  I fell for that distortion too until I actually did some research.

My criticism of Graybeard was his use of a WND op-ed as a source for several statements, most notably that Martin should have been arrested long prior to the incident and the school district hushed things up to protect its reputation (which was also repeated in the article).  I am still waiting for him to address that particular point of mine.  But he does have a point about the fact that the reports in the news media got blown way out of proportion to what actually happened, and made Martin look like a victim despite the fact that he wasn't.

In actual point of fact, it would have been entirely possible for Martin to have beaten Zimmerman to death, or to have pulled his gun and shot him in the heat of the moment.  In my opinion, that would not have been self-defense any more than Zimmerman's actions were self-defense - and that's because both of them broke the rules of self-defense.  In short, they are:  you don't go looking for trouble; you withdraw if at all possible; and you try to keep things from becoming violent if you can't withdraw.  Zimmerman went looking for trouble (going after Martin at all) and failed to withdraw when he had the chance.  Martin did the same when he went back to find Zimmerman and he appears to have thrown the first punch to boot.

And no, that does not justify Zimmerman's actions.  When it comes to self-defense, you cannot use someone else's errors to make up for your own.  They both screwed up, and Martin was killed because of his mistakes, while Zimmerman survived.  But it could easily have gone the other way.

EDIT: To put it another way, Martin going back after he'd successfully retreated from Zimmerman and confronting him was where he messed up.  Zimmerman had lost track of him at that point.  Martin could have gone in the residence he was staying at - and Zimmerman wouldn't have known where to go in order to follow him.  Meaning, he would still be alive today.  Instead, he decided to go back and find Zimmerman - I don't know why - and after confronting him, apparently attacked him.

That is not justifiable in my opinion.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2013, 11:32:54 PM by jaimehlers »

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6344
  • Darwins +809/-5
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #155 on: July 22, 2013, 11:58:50 PM »
It sounds like Trayvon might have had bad judgment. If he had lost Zim, and then found him again, instead of going home, he was acting like an idiot. I know I would not go looking for a scary guy who had been following me.

Unfortunately, Zim also had bad judgment. As well as a loaded gun. He, after having lost sight of his "suspicious character", could have returned to his car and gone home. Then nobody would have gotten hurt or killed. Again, I would not have gone on looking for a scary guy who had disappeared.

I can't figure out why Zim. was out there with a gun in the first place, unless he was looking for trouble of some kind. Trayvon was out there because he was coming back from the store, not looking for trouble.

When my brother was younger, we worried about him getting beaten up by gang members, or hassled by police. We did not have to worry about him getting shot by armed "law-abiding" citizens back in those days. My 14-year-old dope-smoking miscreant relative also has bad judgment. I hope he never finds himself in the situation Trayvon was in. Because stupid mistakes can get you killed these days. :(
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline LoriPinkAngel

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1206
  • Darwins +124/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • I'm Your Nurse, Not Your Waitress...
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #156 on: July 23, 2013, 12:38:31 AM »
This brings me back to my penis theory...



Am I way off in saying this isn't all about race?  This is somewhat about men and their penises?!?  A little man wants to show how big his is and persue a boy that he finds suspicious.  A teenaged boy wants to show how big his is when confronted by a "creepy ass cracker."  A District Attorney  wants to show how big his is by bringing charges bigger than he can prove. The Defense Attorney showed how big his was making the victim look like a perp. Nobody wins.  A boy is Dead.  A mother is forever heartbroken.  A man has blood on his hands.  A legal system is tainted.  A nation is divided.  Six women  had to make a heart wrenching decision.  Because some men wanted to show their dicks.
It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long.  But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

Offline Bereft_of_Faith

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 911
  • Darwins +39/-2
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #157 on: July 23, 2013, 01:50:17 AM »
It could be said that this tragedy is almost inevitable.

For almost my entire life, ordinary citizens had to make do with talk, reason, avoidance, capitulation of some kind, flight or fight.  They didn't have the option of carrying a gun.  I've gotten into fights (when I stupidly chose option 5 above), and have even had my ass kicked a couple of times.  When did we become such a bunch of pants wetting sissies that we needed a gun to protect ourselves? 

Now that people can carry guns, some will be less likely to take any of the options above.  God forbid their actions provoke a fight and they have to get their lip split, lose a tooth, or get a rib taped.  Every confrontation could be 'He could beat me to death therefore I have to shoot him'.

This shit is the slippery slope, the thin edge... Everyone knows it.  What's next?  Dirty looks?  Black people frighten me?  The girl was asian, and knew knug fu and could have killed me with her thumb?

Yes, all of that was silly, but so is thinking that the only way to defend oneself is by using a deadly weapon.

Z should not have been armed.  If he hadn't been armed, he wouldn't have had the stones to go looking for trouble, he wouldn't have found it, and he wouldn't have had to kill a kid to avoid getting his ass beaten.

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6344
  • Darwins +809/-5
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #158 on: July 23, 2013, 10:46:03 AM »
Yep. Stupidity has always existed. Stupidity plus a gun is an entirely different story.

I find it interesting that the larger, older, presumably more mature and thoughtful person in the situation (Zim.) is not supposed to try to de-escalate the situation, maybe remove himself and call the police if he really thinks the other guy is dangerous, but is supposed to "stand his ground".

New rules:
You don't bring a gun to a knife fight, but you do bring a gun to a fist fight.  :?

How dangerous could the kid have seemed if Zim. did not feel threatened enough to get in his car and leave? Did Zim. assume that Trayvon would just do whatever he told him to, having no idea who the hell he was and what he was up to? It does look like Zim. thought he was in control of the scenario, until he wasn't.  :(
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #159 on: July 23, 2013, 12:08:16 PM »
Martin could have gone in the residence he was staying at - and Zimmerman wouldn't have known where to go in order to follow him.  Meaning, he would still be alive today.  Instead, he decided to go back and find Zimmerman - I don't know why - and after confronting him, apparently attacked him.

That is not justifiable in my opinion.

This is a moment of clarity that almost no one else has expressed.  If Z's story is to be believed, then he did lose sight of M.  Any reasonable, rational, innocent teen would have continued to a safe abode rather than confront someone like this. 

Here's another take.



Odin, King of the Gods

Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #160 on: July 23, 2013, 12:42:17 PM »
With all due respect, The Gawd, the news coverage of the Zimmerman-Martin incident was not particularly good, and it distorted the facts.  This is evidenced by the tendency a lot of people have to think that Zimmerman got out of his car to hunt Martin down, ignored the 911 dispatcher telling him he didn't need to follow Martin, and then shot him dead because he felt 'threatened'.  I fell for that distortion too until I actually did some research.

My criticism of Graybeard was his use of a WND op-ed as a source for several statements, most notably that Martin should have been arrested long prior to the incident and the school district hushed things up to protect its reputation (which was also repeated in the article).  I am still waiting for him to address that particular point of mine.  But he does have a point about the fact that the reports in the news media got blown way out of proportion to what actually happened, and made Martin look like a victim despite the fact that he wasn't.

In actual point of fact, it would have been entirely possible for Martin to have beaten Zimmerman to death, or to have pulled his gun and shot him in the heat of the moment.  In my opinion, that would not have been self-defense any more than Zimmerman's actions were self-defense - and that's because both of them broke the rules of self-defense.  In short, they are:  you don't go looking for trouble; you withdraw if at all possible; and you try to keep things from becoming violent if you can't withdraw.  Zimmerman went looking for trouble (going after Martin at all) and failed to withdraw when he had the chance.  Martin did the same when he went back to find Zimmerman and he appears to have thrown the first punch to boot.

And no, that does not justify Zimmerman's actions.  When it comes to self-defense, you cannot use someone else's errors to make up for your own.  They both screwed up, and Martin was killed because of his mistakes, while Zimmerman survived.  But it could easily have gone the other way.

EDIT: To put it another way, Martin going back after he'd successfully retreated from Zimmerman and confronting him was where he messed up.  Zimmerman had lost track of him at that point.  Martin could have gone in the residence he was staying at - and Zimmerman wouldn't have known where to go in order to follow him.  Meaning, he would still be alive today.  Instead, he decided to go back and find Zimmerman - I don't know why - and after confronting him, apparently attacked him.

That is not justifiable in my opinion.

No. Youre not getting it. We have access to facts and hindsight. That is what court is about.
If there is no George Zimmerman there that night, Trayvon goes home, and there is no story. We need to determine why that is NOT what happened. It didnt happen because Zimmerman was there and followed the kid with a loaded pistol. Trayvon did not go out to the local corner store then decide to follow a white guy and beat him to death. He was forced into a situation where he felt he had to defend himself, and in hindsight he WAS CORRECT, only thing is he failed because he did not have the pistol, the guy looking for trouble had the pistol.

Remember, we have the hindsight. When a kid who wasnt doing anything deserving to be killed, gets killed, there is a crime. Anything else is an attempt to justify it. The only question is why would anyone want to justify it?

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4727
  • Darwins +535/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #161 on: July 23, 2013, 01:14:57 PM »
That Afterburner clip is little more than an attempt to demonize Trayvon Martin.  For one thing, it repeats the "burglary tool" and "stolen jewelry" accusations made against Trayvon Martin, on top of the 'disbelieving' statement that the Dade County school officials listed it as found property rather than stolen property.  It took less than an hour for me to find out that the "burglary tool" was...a flathead screwdriver (probably a small one).  As for the "stolen jewelry", it is notable that these same Dade County school officials did in fact check with the local police department, which found that none of the jewelry matched any reported stolen.

Additionally, it also makes the additional (unsupported) claim that the school officials did not report it as stolen property because they wanted to keep black crime rates in the school district low.  No, they did not report it as stolen property because they did not know whether it was stolen at the time, so they forwarded the relevant information to the police, who checked it against police reports of stolen property and did not find a single match.

But it doesn't stop there.  It also repeats another claim about the candy and fruit juice that Trayvon went to purchase - that they were components of a codeine-based mixture called "lean" in some circles (it's actually called purple drankWiki).  Which, in fact, they are[1].  But so what?  Even if he did purchase them for that reason, neither the Skittles nor the fruit drink are illegal to purchase.  If he had bought a different kind of candy, or a different kind of drink, no doubt someone would have made similar claims about him.  And in any case, it really doesn't have anything to do with the incident itself - except as an explanation for why he went to the 7-11 in the first place.

I find it rather difficult to believe that this, and the above false statement about stolen jewelry, are anything but an attempt to demonize - or perhaps start up a media lynching, to use Wittle's own words - Trayvon Martin.  And that reeks of hypocrisy, considering that he complained about Zimmerman being the target of a similar media lynching before presenting any of this.

To put it very bluntly, both Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman fucked up here.  And I am no more willing to tolerate or turn a blind eye to attempts to paint Trayvon Martin as being a vicious criminal any more than I am willing to do the same to attempts to paint George Zimmerman as a vigilante stalker.
 1. as are Sprite, Mountain Dew, and Jolly Ranchers, to name a few

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4727
  • Darwins +535/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #162 on: July 23, 2013, 01:32:15 PM »
No. Youre not getting it.
You are quite mistaken here.  I would suggest you spend a little less time declaring that other people don't get it, and a little more time reviewing the actual facts of the case.

Quote from: The Gawd
We have access to facts and hindsight. That is what court is about.
And notably, Zimmerman was already tried by a court.

Quote from: The Gawd
If there is no George Zimmerman there that night, Trayvon goes home, and there is no story. We need to determine why that is NOT what happened. It didnt happen because Zimmerman was there and followed the kid with a loaded pistol. Trayvon did not go out to the local corner store then decide to follow a white guy and beat him to death. He was forced into a situation where he felt he had to defend himself, and in hindsight he WAS CORRECT, only thing is he failed because he did not have the pistol, the guy looking for trouble had the pistol.
No, Trayvon Martin was not forced into a situation where he had to defend himself.  He was followed for roughly 150-200 feet by Zimmerman, and then Zimmerman stopped following him when told to by the dispatcher.  Martin went back and confronted Zimmerman after that.  He did not need to go back; he was essentially free and clear at that point.

Quote from: The Gawd
Remember, we have the hindsight. When a kid who wasnt doing anything deserving to be killed, gets killed, there is a crime. Anything else is an attempt to justify it. The only question is why would anyone want to justify it?
Up until he decided to go back to where Zimmerman was, he had done nothing wrong.  But when he did that, he abandoned any right to claim self-defense - because he sought to confront Zimmerman after successfully retreating.  Furthermore, as far as anyone can tell, Martin attacked Zimmerman after confronting him.  Given that Zimmerman was wounded in the face and on the back of the head, while Martin apparently wasn't (aside from the gunshot wound), I don't think Zimmerman actually attacked him other than that.

This is not an attempt to justify Trayvon's death.  I am saying that both of them messed up here.  That no more justifies Zimmerman shooting Martin than it justifies Martin attacking Zimmerman.  It was a stupid, pointless tragedy that never needed to happen.

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #163 on: July 23, 2013, 01:40:27 PM »
No. Youre not getting it. We have access to facts and hindsight. That is what court is about.
If there is no George Zimmerman there that night, Trayvon goes home, and there is no story. We need to determine why that is NOT what happened. It didnt happen because Zimmerman was there and followed the kid with a loaded pistol. Trayvon did not go out to the local corner store then decide to follow a white guy and beat him to death. He was forced into a situation where he felt he had to defend himself, and in hindsight he WAS CORRECT, only thing is he failed because he did not have the pistol, the guy looking for trouble had the pistol.

Remember, we have the hindsight. When a kid who wasnt doing anything deserving to be killed, gets killed, there is a crime. Anything else is an attempt to justify it. The only question is why would anyone want to justify it?

Why justify it, you ask. Because with the help of hindsight and a glimpse of the situation that unfolded (assuming the info we have is true), then Zimmerman would appear to have fired his pistol in self defense. It is really as simple as that whether we like it or not. If Zims was geeting his head banged into the cement and his gun was revealed causinf Trayvon to see it and reach for it, then at that point it became a "bomb first" scenario. And if it's my life or your life, Ima bomb first.

Trayvon was doing nothing that merited Zimmerman following or using a weapon on him initially. Once the confrontation got physical and Zimmerman found himself in a situation where his life was endangered, AT THAT POINT using his weapon was justified. To say it was not is something I fail to understand in the slightest.

--------
The bigger issue to me that of what can be done in order to make being a young black male more safe. We need to figure out why it is that this segment of our society is a segment that is feared and found to be suspicious on a regular basis. We need to figure out what we can do as a society to uplift these so-called at risk youths and embrace them with open arms with actions that scream out to them that they are one of us as opposed to being outsiders in our minds as well as their own.
For the life of me, I'd love to understand what it was about Trayvon that made Zimmerman feel that calling the law on him was necessary. Additionally, I'd like for us to be able to make strides as a society to where young black and brown males like Trayvon will not only think to call the law, but will believe that doing so will be beneficial for him. It's unfortunate, but many minority males believe that the law and law enforcement is out to bother them and hinder them from exercising their freedom to enjoy themselves (and to a degree that feeling is justified).

We gotta stop making Zims a scapegoat for a bigger issue.

Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #164 on: July 23, 2013, 01:52:16 PM »
No. Youre not getting it. We have access to facts and hindsight. That is what court is about.
If there is no George Zimmerman there that night, Trayvon goes home, and there is no story. We need to determine why that is NOT what happened. It didnt happen because Zimmerman was there and followed the kid with a loaded pistol. Trayvon did not go out to the local corner store then decide to follow a white guy and beat him to death. He was forced into a situation where he felt he had to defend himself, and in hindsight he WAS CORRECT, only thing is he failed because he did not have the pistol, the guy looking for trouble had the pistol.

Remember, we have the hindsight. When a kid who wasnt doing anything deserving to be killed, gets killed, there is a crime. Anything else is an attempt to justify it. The only question is why would anyone want to justify it?

Why justify it, you ask. Because with the help of hindsight and a glimpse of the situation that unfolded (assuming the info we have is true), then Zimmerman would appear to have fired his pistol in self defense. It is really as simple as that whether we like it or not. If Zims was geeting his head banged into the cement and his gun was revealed causinf Trayvon to see it and reach for it, then at that point it became a "bomb first" scenario. And if it's my life or your life, Ima bomb first.

Trayvon was doing nothing that merited Zimmerman following or using a weapon on him initially. Once the confrontation got physical and Zimmerman found himself in a situation where his life was endangered, AT THAT POINT using his weapon was justified. To say it was not is something I fail to understand in the slightest.

--------
The bigger issue to me that of what can be done in order to make being a young black male more safe. We need to figure out why it is that this segment of our society is a segment that is feared and found to be suspicious on a regular basis. We need to figure out what we can do as a society to uplift these so-called at risk youths and embrace them with open arms with actions that scream out to them that they are one of us as opposed to being outsiders in our minds as well as their own.
For the life of me, I'd love to understand what it was about Trayvon that made Zimmerman feel that calling the law on him was necessary. Additionally, I'd like for us to be able to make strides as a society to where young black and brown males like Trayvon will not only think to call the law, but will believe that doing so will be beneficial for him. It's unfortunate, but many minority males believe that the law and law enforcement is out to bother them and hinder them from exercising their freedom to enjoy themselves (and to a degree that feeling is justified).

We gotta stop making Zims a scapegoat for a bigger issue.
I see youre buying into self defense after stalking, argument.

Zimmerman is not a scapegoat, and there is a bigger issue. The issue is that they just created case law that makes it legal to stalk and shoot unarmed people when you feel threatened. I was always anti-gun; I literally just sent in my FOID application because I now know there are people that feel uncomfortable with my existence (which I always knew), but now can legally shoot and kill me because of it. Like you said, "Bomb first" right? And when I have one, I will teach my son to "Bomb first" and I likely will teach my daughter to "Bomb first" and have them armed legally ASAP, and also armed with an understanding of how to make things seem like self defense if they mess up and murder an unarmed kid with candy.

What other choice do I have?

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #165 on: July 23, 2013, 02:13:50 PM »
I see youre buying into self defense after stalking, argument.

Based on the evidence that has been presented, I don't see how one could come to a different conclusion.

Zimmerman is not a scapegoat, and there is a bigger issue. The issue is that they just created case law that makes it legal to stalk and shoot unarmed people when you feel threatened. I was always anti-gun; I literally just sent in my FOID application because I now know there are people that feel uncomfortable with my existence (which I always knew), but now can legally shoot and kill me because of it. Like you said, "Bomb first" right? And when I have one, I will teach my son to "Bomb first" and I likely will teach my daughter to "Bomb first" and have them armed legally ASAP, and also armed with an understanding of how to make things seem like self defense if they mess up and murder an unarmed kid with candy.

What other choice do I have?

The whole thing about being able to use deadly force when one FEELS threatened is overstated. The law does NOT set such a precident. One must be able to prove that they not only felt threatened, but that they actually were in a threatening situation that allowed for/mandated the use of deadly force to protect oneself from becoming a victim themselves.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4727
  • Darwins +535/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #166 on: July 23, 2013, 02:34:08 PM »
What other choice do I have?
Well, for one thing, you could stop reading so much into the verdict here.

I'm reminded of someone who took Obama's speech (the one he gave a few days ago) and construed it to mean that Obama was declaring that black people should be disenfranchised.  What you're saying isn't quite as bad as that, but you are essentially jumping to the conclusion that the verdict here gives people the right to kill other people, as long as they make it look like it was self-defense first.  It doesn't.

Deadly force is only warranted when you're in deadly danger.  I don't know about you, but if I were trapped on the ground, with someone straddling me and punching me in the face, smacking the back of my head into concrete, I would probably think my life was in danger, and react accordingly.

Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #167 on: July 23, 2013, 03:24:02 PM »
What other choice do I have?
Well, for one thing, you could stop reading so much into the verdict here.

I'm reminded of someone who took Obama's speech (the one he gave a few days ago) and construed it to mean that Obama was declaring that black people should be disenfranchised.  What you're saying isn't quite as bad as that, but you are essentially jumping to the conclusion that the verdict here gives people the right to kill other people, as long as they make it look like it was self-defense first.  It doesn't.

Deadly force is only warranted when you're in deadly danger.  I don't know about you, but if I were trapped on the ground, with someone straddling me and punching me in the face, smacking the back of my head into concrete, I would probably think my life was in danger, and react accordingly.

Youre showing an inability to put yourself into the shoes of one Trayvon Martin, but finding it all too easy to put yourself into the shoes of George Zimmerman. This is where yours and others tremendous failure is coming in.

Youre being stalked by a man with a gun at night. A creepy man with a gun. What do you do and why? Youre ignoring why you are being straddled and beaten. I guess I am a different person than you as well. I was always taught there are natural consequences to my actions. If I did something that caused me to get my ass whipped, I took my ass whipping, like a man, even when I was a boy. But I was also taught not to do things that may cause me to get my ass whipped. I was also taught to defend myself.

I cant realistically magically put myself into George's shoes, because I wouldnt stalk a kid, I wouldnt stalk a kid with a loaded pistol, thus the kid wouldnt feel the need to defend himself against me. And I wouldnt have to come up with any cookoo stories about how I stalked a kid and shot him in self defense. The only way you can defend these actions is if you see Trayvon as a threat AND are unwilling to see George as a threat.

And the verdict absolutely does give people the right to put themselves into situations where others are justified in defending themselves, then murder them in cold blood.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2013, 03:26:34 PM by The Gawd »

Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #168 on: July 23, 2013, 03:29:32 PM »
I see youre buying into self defense after stalking, argument.

Based on the evidence that has been presented, I don't see how one could come to a different conclusion.

Zimmerman is not a scapegoat, and there is a bigger issue. The issue is that they just created case law that makes it legal to stalk and shoot unarmed people when you feel threatened. I was always anti-gun; I literally just sent in my FOID application because I now know there are people that feel uncomfortable with my existence (which I always knew), but now can legally shoot and kill me because of it. Like you said, "Bomb first" right? And when I have one, I will teach my son to "Bomb first" and I likely will teach my daughter to "Bomb first" and have them armed legally ASAP, and also armed with an understanding of how to make things seem like self defense if they mess up and murder an unarmed kid with candy.

What other choice do I have?

The whole thing about being able to use deadly force when one FEELS threatened is overstated. The law does NOT set such a precident. One must be able to prove that they not only felt threatened, but that they actually were in a threatening situation that allowed for/mandated the use of deadly force to protect oneself from becoming a victim themselves.
I am not overstating it at all.

Imagine a guy stalking a woman. Lets say he intends on raping the woman, but the woman doesnt know that, all she knows is she's being stalked. Guy gets too close, she is trained in self defense and is defending herself successfully against the stalker. Man pulls out pistol and shoots woman to death. Is that self defense? Do you think the courts see it as self defense?

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6344
  • Darwins +809/-5
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #169 on: July 23, 2013, 05:01:45 PM »
Intent is a big part of how crime is determined. The same action is a crime or not depending on intent. If you break into a house with intent of robbery, it is different from breaking into a house because you hear a woman screaming for help.

What was Trayvon's intent? Why was he on the street? He intended to go the store and then go home. We have no indication that he was up to anything other than that. Stuff about him having been suspended or being a thug wannabe is irrelevant. He had no intention of getting into a fight that night, certainly not with a gun involved.

What was Zim's intent? Why was he on the street? He intended to follow a guy while carrying a loaded gun.  There was no reason for him to be doing that. He should have been safe in his house. But he was out looking for trouble.

As has been said, if Zim had not been out there with a gun, there would have been no fight and nobody killed or hurt. Trayvon was not the problem. Zim made him into one.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #170 on: July 23, 2013, 05:05:13 PM »
I am not overstating it at all.

I wanted to say that your comparison was not an apples to apples comparison as we have no reason to believe that Zims actually stalked Trayvon. I took a moment to look at some of the legal definitions/descriptions of stalking and at least according to ILL law, Zims may have in fact been stalking Trayvon. In Florida, however, there is some doubt that Zimmerman could actually be considered a stalker for his actions in February of 2012.

Quote
Florida Law
A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking,

Cali Law
A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family is guilty of the crime of stalking.

Ill Law
A person commits stalking when he or she knowingly engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person, and he or she knows or should know that this course of conduct would cause a reasonable person to:
(1) fear for his or her safety or the safety of a third person; or
(2) suffer other emotional distress.

Texas Law
 A person commits an offense if the person, on more than one occasion and pursuant to the same scheme or course of conduct that is directed specifically at another person, knowingly engages in conduct that would cause a reasonable person to fear:

(A) bodily injury or death for himself or herself;
(B) bodily injury or death for a member of the person's family or household or for an individual with whom the person has a dating relationship; or
(C) that an offense will be committed against the person's property.

Imagine a guy stalking a woman. Lets say he intends on raping the woman, but the woman doesnt know that, all she knows is she's being stalked. Guy gets too close, she is trained in self defense and is defending herself successfully against the stalker. Man pulls out pistol and shoots woman to death. Is that self defense? Do you think the courts see it as self defense?

If it is established that the guy was in fact stalking the woman with the intent to cause her harm (rape), then he has no ability to claim self defense and would be considered as a murderer for killing her.

Now, let's say that she thought she was being targeted by a potential rapist, but the evidence shows that the guy was in fact not pursuing her with any criminal intent and there was no evidence that the guy had any intention of ingaging her at all. The guy passes by her and she says, "You better stop following me." To which the guy responds, "I don't mean any harm, I thought you were someone I knew." If she then proceeds to go all Xena the Warrior Princess on his ass causing him to beg for mercy and in the process notices that he has a weapon, begins going after it only to get beaten to the punch by the guy. Is the guy not within his rights to use it to defend his own safety?

------------------
I find it a bit self servingly presumptous that the people that want Zimmerman hanged feel they know his intent. They seem to promote/accept the notion that Zims had malace aforethought and went in pursuit of Trayvon hoping for the chance to use his weapon against Trayvon. The problem with that line of thinking is that the evidence does not support that conclusion! The evidence we have shows Zims NOT stalking Trayvon, but rather looking for info on Trayvon's whereabouts to give to the laws. No attempt was made by Zims, according to the evidence, to confront or engage Martin at all. To ignore that is to dip ones toe in unreasonable waters. Comparing Zim scouting the area for Trayvon's whereabouts so that he could relay that to the authorities is hardly the same as a would be rapist stalking a woman with the intent to rape her. 
 


Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #171 on: July 23, 2013, 05:17:14 PM »
As has been said, if Zim had not been out there with a gun, there would have been no fight and nobody killed or hurt. Trayvon was not the problem. Zim made him into one.

Arguing against this would be foolish. There is no doubt that Zimmerman's decision that Trayvon was somehow a threat that warranted him calling the authorities was the spark behind this whole tragedy.

What we need to be asking is why the George Zimmerman's of this world justify coming to such conclusions about the Trayvon Martins of this world. That is really the root of the bigger issue.

What was Trayvon's intent? Why was he on the street? He intended to go the store and then go home. We have no indication that he was up to anything other than that. Stuff about him having been suspended or being a thug wannabe is irrelevant. He had no intention of getting into a fight that night, certainly not with a gun involved.

Attacking the kid's charactor is in poor taste and unmerited. The case can be made that Trayvon did NOTHING wrong that night and was well within his rights to defend himself against what he perceived was a man harassing him reaching for a gun.

What was Zim's intent? Why was he on the street? He intended to follow a guy while carrying a loaded gun.  There was no reason for him to be doing that. He should have been safe in his house. But he was out looking for trouble.

According to what was told to police, he was in his truck making a run for his wife when he saw Trayvon behaving in a manner he for whatever reason found suspicious. He was not "on patrol" and nor was he looking for trouble as some who have taken the liberty of hijacking the narrative would make people believe.
Again the question comes back to why it is that Zims found Trayvon to be criminally suspicious because it is that conclusion drawn by Zims that led to everything else.

Offline LoriPinkAngel

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1206
  • Darwins +124/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • I'm Your Nurse, Not Your Waitress...
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #172 on: July 23, 2013, 05:30:41 PM »


I find it a bit self servingly presumptous that the people that want Zimmerman hanged feel they know his intent. They seem to promote/accept the notion that Zims had malace aforethought and went in pursuit of Trayvon hoping for the chance to use his weapon against Trayvon. The problem with that line of thinking is that the evidence does not support that conclusion!

The reason I formed the opinion that Zimmerman had bad intentions toward the guy in the hoodie was while listening to the 911 call.  The tone of his voice when he said "These assholes, they always get away."  When he referred to the person he had yet to meet as a "Fucking ______"  No one confirmed what that word was but it couldn't have been good.
It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long.  But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4727
  • Darwins +535/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #173 on: July 23, 2013, 05:39:56 PM »
Youre showing an inability to put yourself into the shoes of one Trayvon Martin, but finding it all too easy to put yourself into the shoes of George Zimmerman. This is where yours and others tremendous failure is coming in.
The actual failure is your unwillingness to consider any alternative besides "George Zimmerman was at fault; Trayvon Martin was innocent".  And your example of a man pursuing a woman with intent to rape, then shooting her when she started defending herself demonstrates this.

They were both at fault.  George Zimmerman for attempting to pursue someone who wasn't committing a crime (especially since it wasn't his job to do so), and Trayvon Martin for returning after he'd gotten out of Zimmerman's sight.  That is what you're simply refusing to acknowledge - that Trayvon Martin returned to confront George Zimmerman after he had gotten away from the man.  It would be like the woman deciding after she'd gotten away that she was going go back and beat up the man who had been pursuing her because she thought he was going to rape him.

Quote from: The Gawd
Youre being stalked by a man with a gun at night. A creepy man with a gun. What do you do and why?
What do I do?  I run away as quickly as I can, and I get to a place that's well-lit and has other people there so I can safely call the police.  That's what I do.  I most assuredly do not attempt to confront the man unless I am actually trapped and unable to escape - say, I accidentally ran into a dead-end alley, or if he catches up to me and tackles me.  And at that point, I do whatever I have to do in order to break free and get away.

That did not happen here.

Quote from: The Gawd
Youre ignoring why you are being straddled and beaten.
No, you're ignoring why someone would go after someone who was possibly armed, who he'd already gotten away from, and then straddle and beat them.

Quote from: The Gawd
I guess I am a different person than you as well. I was always taught there are natural consequences to my actions. If I did something that caused me to get my ass whipped, I took my ass whipping, like a man, even when I was a boy. But I was also taught not to do things that may cause me to get my ass whipped. I was also taught to defend myself.
Meaning, I hope, that if you had gotten away from someone who was pursuing you, you wouldn't have gone back and attempted to punish him for his actions.  I honestly can't tell at this point, because this could also mean that you think Martin was justified in returning to Zimmerman's location and beating him senseless.  I think you need to clarify what you mean here.

By the way, unless you have actual legal authority over someone, like a parent has over their children, you do not have the right to punish them for something they do to you.  If you do, you're committing a crime, irrespective of whatever they might have done to you.

Quote from: The Gawd
I cant realistically magically put myself into George's shoes, because I wouldnt stalk a kid, I wouldnt stalk a kid with a loaded pistol, thus the kid wouldnt feel the need to defend himself against me. And I wouldnt have to come up with any cookoo stories about how I stalked a kid and shot him in self defense. The only way you can defend these actions is if you see Trayvon as a threat AND are unwilling to see George as a threat.
Zimmerman didn't stalk Martin - that's the point here.  He stopped when the dispatcher told him to and stayed where he was.  Have you actually looked at a map showing the layout of the place where this all went down?

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/14/2748048/interactive-map-of-trayvon-martin.html

Take a look at that, especially where Zimmerman's car was parked, where Martin's house was, and where Martin's body was found.  Notice something?  Like, oh, the fact that Martin's body was less than 200 feet from Zimmerman's car, and over 300 feet from the townhouse he was staying at?  How do you make that fit with the idea that Zimmerman was stalking Martin?

Quote from: The Gawd
And the verdict absolutely does give people the right to put themselves into situations where others are justified in defending themselves, then murder them in cold blood.
Until you actually take some time to review the facts of the case - the real facts, not the talking points repeated by people with an agenda, whatever that agenda is - then I have to say that you're not knowledgeable enough about this case to declare what 'rights' it gives.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2013, 06:05:49 PM by jaimehlers »