Zimmerman Trial

[Manatee]

For some reason, the ignore feature didn't work.

The "context" was Florida, it's quirky trial results and the stand your ground decisions to date.

If you're really interested in prior decisions, there is a Tampa Bay paper that's reviewed many of the stand your ground acquittals. I don't have a link to it any more. Sorry.

 

[jbombelli]

For some reason, the ignore feature didn't work.

The "context" was Florida, it's quirky trial results and the stand your ground decisions to date.

If you're really interested in prior decisions, there is a Tampa Bay paper that's reviewed many of the stand your ground acquittals. I don't have a link to it any more. Sorry.

You can spin it all you want, you said what you said. You said you'd kill someone for following you.

And we have no duty to retreat here, either.

 

[Manatee]

And, if I was followed/stalked in my neighborhood, you can bet I would be prepared to respond to a provocation. If you wouldn't, you're either misguided or on the wrong website.

 

[jbombelli]

And, if I was followed/stalked in my neighborhood, you can bet I would be prepared to respond to a provocation. If you wouldn't, you're either misguided or on the wrong website.

Being prepared is fine. But that's not really what you said, is it? Do I need to quote your exact words yet again, since you obviously have a hard time remembering them?

 

[Manatee]

If you wish. But, put the entire quote in there. If you have trouble discerning the intent, put the bottle away for awhile.

 

[jbombelli]

If you wish. But, put the entire quote in there. If you have trouble discerning the intent, put the bottle away for awhile.

You said " ... the answer is to put a bullet in him ..."

That pretty much nails down your intent to shoot and kill, not "be prepared." If you meant "... be prepared ... " you might want to take a remedial writing course and learn how to accurately convey a thought.

 

[terrehautian]

And, if I was followed/stalked in my neighborhood, you can bet I would be prepared to respond to a provocation. If you wouldn't, you're either misguided or on the wrong website.

Being followed is not illegal. If you provoke someone physically, aka illegal, and put a bullet in them, you should be put up on murder charges. Now, if you are provoked physically by someone, then it could be self defense.

 

[Manatee]

Whyizzit you fellas have to parse words? Responding to a provocation is not the same as provoking someone.

Do you really mean to say that if someone was following you for a block or two in a dark neighborhood and you were not engaging in ANY criminal conduct, you wouldn't be concerned? That your awareness wouldn't be intensified? That you might not view the person following as a threat with intent to harm you?

C'mon. If that's the case, I'm surprised you've lived this long. Your survival skills are dull.

 

[jbombelli]

Whyizzit you fellas have to parse words? Responding to a provocation is not the same as provoking someone.

Do you really mean to say that if someone was following you for a block or two in a dark neighborhood and you were not engaging in ANY criminal conduct, you wouldn't be concerned? That your awareness wouldn't be intensified? That you might not view the person following as a threat with intent to harm you?

C'mon. If that's the case, I'm surprised you've lived this long. Your survival skills are dull.

You didn't say you'd be concerned. You didn't say your awareness would be intensified. You didn't say you'd be prepared to do something. You said "... the answer is to put a bullet in him ..."

We're not parsing words. You said what you said, and it was very definitive and specific.

 

[Manatee]

Obviously, the bagpipes and drums (and likely a great deal of whisky) have affected your reading comprehension skills.

Move along. Nothing to see here.

 

[jbombelli]

Obviously, the bagpipes and drums (and likely a great deal of whisky) have affected your reading comprehension skills.

Move along. Nothing to see here.

Ad hominem - the last bastion of someone losing an argument.

You said what you said. There is no question as to the meaning and intent of your words.

 

[Manatee]

No, the last bastion is to tell you to "F" off.

I really don't care what you think I said. It's obvious you are unable to comprehend the nature of a hypothetical question in the context of the entire post or within the context of the debate.

The comment was a generic hypothetical related to a Florida activity. Why you are unable to understand that is beyond me.

Good day.

 

[jbombelli]

No, the last bastion is to tell you to "F" off.

I really don't care what you think I said. It's obvious you are unable to comprehend the nature of a hypothetical question in the context of the entire post or within the context of the debate.

The comment was a generic hypothetical related to a Florida activity. Why you are unable to understand that is beyond me.

Good day.

There was nothing generic in what you said when you put it in first person context.

And more ad hominem? LOL. I guess I shouldn't expect any better out of someone who posts on the internet for the entire world to see, that he would murder someone simply for following him.

 

[BogWalker]

No, the last bastion is to tell you to "F" off.

I really don't care what you think I said. It's obvious you are unable to comprehend the nature of a hypothetical question in the context of the entire post or within the context of the debate.

The comment was a generic hypothetical related to a Florida activity. Why you are unable to understand that is beyond me.

Good day.

Oh, okay. So you would only shoot them if they followed you in Florida?

 

[jbombelli]

Oh, okay. So you would only shoot them if they followed you in Florida?

Be careful. He'll insult you.

 

[HoughMade]

I would shoot them near a fox,
I would shoot them in a box,
I would shoot them in the air,
I would shoot them at the fair,
I would shoot them at the store,
I would shoot them on the floor,
I would shoot them here and there,
I would shoot them anywhere!

 

[jamil]

Whyizzit you fellas have to parse words? Responding to a provocation is not the same as provoking someone.

Do you really mean to say that if someone was following you for a block or two in a dark neighborhood and you were not engaging in ANY criminal conduct, you wouldn't be concerned? That your awareness wouldn't be intensified? That you might not view the person following as a threat with intent to harm you?

C'mon. If that's the case, I'm surprised you've lived this long. Your survival skills are dull.

Please. Some perspective? If someone is following you, and you lose them, do you go back to find them so you can confront and MMA their ass? All other decisions made prior to that are at that point no longer relevant. I think that's what the jury decided as well. Trayvon made the decision to bring into the confrontation. He didn't deserve to die for that poor decision. And Z didn't deserve to have his head pounded into the concrete just for trying to help the police know where T went.

This is about a person having the right to use lethal force to stop the use of potentially lethal force against him. This has nothing to do with race or SYG. Yet that's what's playing in the media all day long. Do you buy into that bull****?

 

[Dirtebiker]

Let's get the order right. Here's a section of the transcript:

Zimmerman: ....****, he's running.
Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
Zimmerman: The back entrance...****ing [disputed/unintelligible]
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Okay, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Okay.

So, first the dispatcher is asking Zimmerman information about where Martin is headed, direction, destination, etc. Zimmerman wants to answer the questions the dispatcher had asked him. How would he do that? Seems like it might be necessary to follow.

However, when the dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that," the uncontroverted evidence at trial was that Zimmerman STOPPED following and started to return to his car, but was confronted by Martin on his way back.

So, where's the evidence that he ignored the dispatcher? I won't say "disobeyed" because that would imply a duty to obey. In any event, there is NO EVIDENCE THAT HE CONTINUED TO FOLLOW after the dispatcher made the suggestion to him.

This ^^^^ exactly!
It seems Zimmerman DID stop following, even though he had no duty too!

 

[churchmouse]

I would shoot them near a fox,
I would shoot them in a box,
I would shoot them in the air,
I would shoot them at the fair,
I would shoot them at the store,
I would shoot them on the floor,
I would shoot them here and there,
I would shoot them anywhere!

I think I see what you did right there

 

[churchmouse]

This ^^^^ exactly!
It seems Zimmerman DID stop following, even though he had no duty too!

And was then jumped by a doubling back with intent "T" with a beat down on his mind.
His "Girl"??? friend stated on Piers Morgan last night that "T" thought "Z" was a Gay creepy ass cracka (this is her spelling) and "T" felt the same so is this a hate crime on "T"
The sound bites from the interview were played on Rush today.