17 year old kid shot dead by Neighborhood Watch "Captain"

[griffin]

My point is we have very few facts in this case.

Not true.

We don't know who attacked who first

We have, apparently, one single statement on this. Could he be lying? May I refer you to this post?

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ighborhood_watch_captain-354.html#post2946197

we don't know if Martin took off running

Sure we do. It's all on the police audio. Don't you remember Zimmerman stating so? Don't you remember the police call taker asking Zimmerman if he was running after him, and then telling him they didn't need him to follow?

I don't see how Zimmerman's accounts after he got off of the phone are even relevant to the case. He can say whatever he wants, obviously he's not going to tell them he wanted one less "f***ing c***" wandering his neighborhood, he's going to tell them Martin started it. Who wouldn't if they were facing second degree murder charges?

May I refer you to this post?

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ighborhood_watch_captain-354.html#post2946197

I just don't see how Zimmerman wasn't in the wrong by escalating the situation (following Martin even after being advised not to) and not just waiting for the police.

Um, that's exactly what happened. Zimmerman stopped following and began waiting for the police. Did you listen to the police audio? He was coordinating where the police should meet him, etc. And didn't you just say above that you didn't know if Trayvon was running, now you say he was? Which is it?

 

[hornadylnl]

You'd think if anyone would be skittish over a young black kid with his hood up, it'd be a convenience store clerk.

 

[griffin]

You'd think if anyone would be skittish over a young black kid with his hood up, it'd be a convenience store clerk.

But I thought the narrative was that Trayvon didn't even put his hood up until after he was being eyeballed by Zimmerman?

You actually watched the 7-11 videos, didn't you?

 

[CarmelHP]

Eh whats the point, I know what you are saying but anytime one of the skeptics try and make any kind of point some sarcastic answer follows. This is going nowhere, I guess its agree to disagree time.

Both sides seem to agree on that Zimmerman followed Martin and imo that is doing nothing but escalating the situation. Who is to say that Martin wasnt justified in punching Zimmerman to begin with? Maybe he felt threatened that he was being followed and was standing his ground. Why does one person have the right to self defense and the other doesnt? Id probably be kinda nervous/edgy if someone I didnt know was following me home from the gas station at night.

But using Griffins logic, Martin should have just shot Zimmerman because his word would have been good enough since the other guy was dead and everyone else really seemed to have little to no real account of what they saw.

Where is there any evidence at all that Zimmerman made the initial contact, "started a confrontation," or that Martin was defending himself? Defending himself from what? Someone watching him? You don't have legal justification to pounce on someone watching you.

 

[Benny]

If Zimmerman confronted Trayvon, he did. Got any evidence of that? Even if that did happen, and there is no evidence to show that to be the case, the legal problem is, once Trayvon is on top of Zimmernan beating him, he has stopped the threat.

ROFL, on what planet is a threat stopped by being on top of them? Certainly not this one.

What about if, during the pummeling, Trayvon saw Zimmerman's holstered weapon and went for it?

What if that is why he was doing the pummeling? I don't think I'd stop punching someone that was following me and I got them to the ground, only to find out they were armed.

Seriously, where are you getting your logic? On one hand the threat is stopped when Trayvon is on top of him, but on the other he could have been reaching for the side-arm of the still very conscious Zimmerman. I just don't get it.

Not true.We have, apparently, one single statement on this. Could he be lying? May I refer you to this post?

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ighborhood_watch_captain-354.html#post2946197

That that the fella that changed his statement weeks after the shooting? Yeah, it's a possibility that he could be lying.

Um, that's exactly what happened. Zimmerman stopped following and began waiting for the police. Did you listen to the police audio? He was coordinating where the police should meet him, etc. And didn't you just say above that you didn't know if Trayvon was running, now you say he was? Which is it?

I must have missed the video posted of Trayvon running. I don't give a **** what Zimmerman "said" happened. Everything he said works in his favor except the fact that he admitted to following Martin. You aren't going to lie about something that completely works against your case if you didn't actually do it.

I bet I can find a 911 call about an alien encounter taking place at the moment of the call...Are you going to take that as gospel as well?

Where is there any evidence at all that Zimmerman made the initial contact, "started a confrontation," or that Martin was defending himself? Defending himself from what? Someone watching him? You don't have legal justification to pounce on someone watching you.

Zimmerman admitted to pulling up, getting out of his vehicle and following Martin. How is that not starting a confrontation?

 

[CarmelHP]

Zimmerman admitted to pulling up, getting out of his vehicle and following Martin. How is that not starting a confrontation?

How is it? Unless he attacked him, impeded him, or at least called him an SOB, its not "starting a confrontation." Starting a confrontation is getting ****ed at someone watching you, jumping him and trying to beat the **** out of him. Why do I keep getting the feeling in this thread that I'm trying to teach Mandarin Chinese grammar? Is "you don't have the right to attack someone for ****ing you off" such a hard concept to grasp?

 

[griffin]

I must have missed the video posted of Trayvon running. I don't give a **** what Zimmerman "said" happened. Everything he said works in his favor except the fact that he admitted to following Martin.

I bet I can find a 911 call about an alien encounter taking place at the moment of the call...Are you going to take that as gospel as well?

Damn, Zimmerman is smart. He crafted the entire 911 call way beforehand so he could use it as evidence later on when he hunted Martin down and murdered him in cold blood! He knew he was going to do it. I see it all now so clearly.

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

Where is there any evidence at all that Zimmerman made the initial contact, "started a confrontation," or that Martin was defending himself? Defending himself from what? Someone watching him? You don't have legal justification to pounce on someone watching you.

Where is the evidence to prove the opposite?

 

[Benny]

How is it? Unless he attacked him, impeded him, or at least called him an SOB, its not "starting a confrontation." Starting a confrontation is getting ****ed at someone watching you, jumping him and trying to beat the **** out of him. Why do I keep getting the feeling in this thread that I'm trying to teach Mandarin Chinese grammar? Is "you don't have the right to attack someone for ****ing you off" such a hard concept to grasp?

Hang on, let me look up the non-Mandarin Chinese definition of "confrontation..."

OK, got it:

: the act of confronting : the state of being confronted: as
a : a face-to-face meeting

(keep in mind that that is the first, usually most prevalent definition)

Now tell me again how getting out of your car and following someone walking/running away from you isn't trying to start a confrontation?

What am I not grasping? Please, enlighten me.

Everything after that is pure speculation (ie, who attacked who first), because it's his word against a dead guy's and dead people aren't good witnesses.

 

[CarmelHP]

Hang on, let me look up the non-Mandarin Chinese definition of "confrontation..."

OK, got it:


(keep in mind that that is the first, usually most prevalent definition)

Now tell me again how getting out of your car and following someone walking/running away from you isn't trying to start a confrontation?

What am I not grasping? Please, enlighten me.

Everything after that is pure speculation (ie, who attacked who first), because it's his word against a dead guy's and dead people aren't good witnesses.

His word that matches the physical evidence and isn't contradicted by any other testimony. Watching someone from a distance, trailing them, is not "starting a confrontation." It's watching them. Can I prove that Zimmerman didn't start a confrontation? Can I prove a negative, no, I can't prove that Leprechauns don't exist either, but that's not proving that they do. The logic and evidence defying intransigence of the Zimmerman haters is what is so baffling. I allow for competent evidence, if it exists, to convince me that Zimmerman started some physical confrontation. The Z haters allow no such thing and declare Z guilty of something, anything, under any possible set of facts.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

This is how I am coming at this issue at this time:

Premise:

Every person in the United States of America accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Conclusion:

George Zimmerman is presumed innocent.

Also,

Premises:
So far, Mr. Zimmerman has made statements to local LE regarding this case.
So far, all known (to the general public) evidence supports Mr. Zimmerman's statements.
So far, no contradictory evidence (again, known to the general public) exists to dispute his version of events.
It is not a crime to follow someone (extraordinary circumstances aside);
It is not a crime to speak to another person in any tone asking them to explain themselves (the person questioned also has the right to tell the questioner to bugger off);

Conclusion:
Mr. Zimmerman broke no laws and is not guilty of any crime regarding the death of Trayvon Martin, barring new (to the general public) evidence.

Regards,

Doug

 

[griffin]

Well, you're no fun.

 

[jbombelli]

Tell me which is worse.

1) Punching someone in the face and knocking him down right after he gets off the phone with the 911 operator that he called about YOU, and then jumping on him and trying to beat him to death,

or

2) following a suspicious looking guy walking through your neighborhood so you can tell the police where he goes?


All cleanup begins at home, and this guy stood up and tried to make a difference in his own neighborhood. It's truly amazing watching people condemn him for doing nothing more than showing poor judgment as he did the right thing.

 

[KG1]

Exactly my point(s). There is little to no argument that Zimmerman escalated the situation by following him, then he killed him. WTF?



Who in their right mind chases after someone running from them, then kills them when they catch them?

Seriously, even if Trayvon got fed up with being chased, why didn't he have the right to stand his ground and that ***** (seriously, what kind of able-bodied, grown man gets his ass kicked by a 140 lb teenager?) Zimmerman did have that right?

I'm just having trouble wrapping my head around the idea that it is A OK to chase someone down then kill them when they get mad.

I think you are making a stretch here of your very own by saying Zimmerman chased after Martin with the intention of killing him.

The way you make it out to be is that Zimmerman walked straight up to Martin and shot him dead.

I don't think the evidence at this time supports your claims.

 

[Glock19]

Where is the evidence to prove the opposite?

Welcome to America where you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Google the Constitution.

 

[Benny]

I think you are making a stretch here of your very own by saying Zimmerman chased after Martin with the intention of killing him.

Thank you for putting words into my mouth.

Show me where I said he chased after Martin "with the intention of killing him" and I'll quit INGO forever.

I've never said anything other than he should be facing a manslaughter charge...Someone that chases down a person "with the intention of killing him" is guilty of murder, not manslaughter.

The way you make it out to be is that Zimmerman walked straight up to Martin and shot him dead.

Um no. I'm made it abundantly clear that I think he initiated the confrontation by getting out of his car and following him (again, we know this for FACT). Anything that happened after that is hearsay...Zimmerman's hearsay.

I really don't understand why I have to constantly keep repeating myself.

 

[griffin]

Anything that happened after that is hearsay...Zimmerman's hearsay.

You don't know what the word hearsay means, do you?

 

[CarmelHP]

You don't know what the word hearsay means, do you?

Obviously not.

 

[CarmelHP]

I really don't understand why I have to constantly keep repeating myself.

People are giving you a chance to write something less lacking in logical content.

 

[Benny]

You don't know what the word hearsay means, do you?

hear·say   [heer-sey] Show IPA
noun
1.
unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge

Yes, I didn't phrase the last sentence properly. Nice job just quoting that sentence to argue semantics and not bothering with the pertinent content.

People are giving you a chance to write something less lacking in logical content.

Did you and Griffin right your playbook together? That's adorable.

I guess I'll start quoting one sentence in an entire post and either breaking down the grammar or totally dodging anything worth talking about.