Trayvon Martin

Gern Blansten

Last-12-Exit wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

It will ALWAYS come down to Trayvon walking home with a bag of skittles and an iced tea and Zimmerman trailing him and shooting him.

If Zimmerman would have stayed in his car and minded his own business it wouldn't have happened. He wouldn't have gotten his ass beat and Trayvon wouldn't have been shot.

One of the jurors said that they wished they could have found him guilty but they couldn't. The case points out a big hole in the law.

If I follow a little old lady around a grocery store because I think I saw her put a bottle of Metamucil in her pants and I confront her and she hits me with a cane and I shoot her and kill her.....is that right? This is no different.

AND, if trayvon had just went home instead of confronting Zimmerman after he left his vehicle, he'd still be alive.

Zimmerman was the one playing policeman....Trayvon was just going home. Does he have the right to ask someone why they are following him? Maybe he felt like a punch in the nose was his best defense at that point. He was 17.

Last-12-Exit

Gern Blansten wrote:

Last-12-Exit wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

It will ALWAYS come down to Trayvon walking home with a bag of skittles and an iced tea and Zimmerman trailing him and shooting him.

If Zimmerman would have stayed in his car and minded his own business it wouldn't have happened. He wouldn't have gotten his ass beat and Trayvon wouldn't have been shot.

One of the jurors said that they wished they could have found him guilty but they couldn't. The case points out a big hole in the law.

If I follow a little old lady around a grocery store because I think I saw her put a bottle of Metamucil in her pants and I confront her and she hits me with a cane and I shoot her and kill her.....is that right? This is no different.

AND, if trayvon had just went home instead of confronting Zimmerman after he left his vehicle, he'd still be alive.

Zimmerman was the one playing policeman....Trayvon was just going home. Does he have the right to ask someone why they are following him? Maybe he felt like a punch in the nose was his best defense at that point. He was 17.

Yup, just as Zimmerman had the right to shoot Martin as Martin was beating him.

aerial

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

aerial wrote:

First Zimmerman is not white as someone posted earlier....trayvon was beating Zimmerman which means he was breaking the law/ committing a crime..... Zimmerman defended himself is the reason he was not arrested.....then it turned into a race issue so to appease the racist the FBI investigated and found NO reason to arrest Zimmerman......so they imported Angela Corey from my town and since she is trying to climb the political ladder she withheld evidence to the defence team which is a another scandal...... so one of her employees knowing she was trying to railroad Zimmerman told the defence and now she fired his ass for outing her.....this trial should never have happened.......the only reason it happened is because the media had the public believing Zimmerman was white, when looking at him there was no mistaking that he was NOT white......it's easy to brain wash the ignorant...

just to be clear, I posted what the media had made this story out to be. I wasn't saying he was white. I know he's not.

and how do you know "trayvon was beating Zimmerman"? And if he was, would it not be justified had he been thinking his life was in danger. You don't just get a beat down and run away from a dude with a gun. You STAND YOUR GROUND. Ironically.

Personally I will run away from a guy with a gun....this guy was 17 old enough to be considered an adult....he thought he was a bad ass......lesson here is don't screw with people "you never know if they have a gun" ...............Trayvon did not just punch him in the nose he was bashing his head on the road..... No matter how the two met, it is Trayvon who broke Zimmerman’s nose and beat his head severely. Trayvon threw the first, last, and only punches. Only wound Trayvon had was the gunshot wound which proves he started the confrontation......

callen

Can come up with all justifications you want. Fact is if Zimmerman wasnt a scared little puss with gun muscles this would not have happened.

Gern Blansten

aerial wrote:

Personally I will run away from a guy with a gun....this guy was 17 old enough to be considered an adult....he thought he was a bad ass......lesson here is don't screw with people "you never know if they have a gun" ...............Trayvon did not just punch him in the nose he was bashing his head on the road..... No matter how the two met, it is Trayvon who broke Zimmerman’s nose and beat his head severely. Trayvon threw the first, last, and only punches. Only wound Trayvon had was the gunshot wound which proves he started the confrontation......

I really don't see how anyone can justify this. If Zimmerman was being beat up so badly and Trayvon was in control there would be no way Zimmerman was getting that gun out.

Do you really not see any fault with Zimmerman? His injuries weren't even bad enough to get medical treatment.

Blockhead

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Well, if you want to take it to the next level of raping our daughters, then I should be able to say, perhaps Treyvon wanted to punch Zimmreman in the face and go home. Generally, most people would assume Treyvon wasnt trying to murder zimmerman. Thats where its all subjective and open to interpretation. Would Zimmerman have lived had he not shot treyvon dead? If I was going to make an idiotic claim, I could also say that a few days ago when my neighbor came up behind me in the dark that he startled me and I thought my life was in danger for a millisecond, therefore it was OK for me to kill him. See how it can easily go either way? The problem with the Zimmerman case is that he broke no laws, but the situation he got himself in was just irresponsible and stupid. And guns will do that to some folks. Look, my analogy was perfect for the argument your trying to make. If someone is trying to rape someone (obviously that person is fearing their life) and all the rapist could manage to do was rip the blouse before the person shot the rapist. You're saying that the injuries are not sufficient enough for the rapist to die, because (like "a punch in the face) it does not meet your definition of your "life threatening situation" and you would assume that killing someone over a ripped blouse is "excessive"... Right?
How could you possibly know what treyvon's intentions were? So just because you don't "THINK" someone is going to murder you, you can't defend yourself?
To your idiotic scenaro your missing a KEY component - Your neighbor coming up behind you is not against the law and he is not attacking you (while being on top of you) Treyvon did something broke the law by Attacking Zimmerman and hitting him. Getting scared because someone "jumped around the corner" to scare you DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO DEFEND YOUR SELF BECAUSE THAT PERSON IS NOT DOING ANYTHING ILLEGAL OR ATTEMPTING TO HARM YOU IN ANYWAY.

You're curious why Zimmerman should take that risk with his life? well, I'm curious why he got out of the car with a gun and followed a kid? yeah, we all know what he said, but some of us just think he created the situation, and if things like this go without criticism, what we allow could escalate and get worse. It would be unhealthy to just assume Zimmreman is telling the truth about everything. It must be questioned, especially since he's the only real witness.
If you payed any attention to the trial you would know why zimmerman got out of the car. Again, nothing illegal about that...
Zimmerman had a legal CC, again, nothing illegal about that...
The problem is you don't know if zimmerman created the situation. He lost sight of Treyvon, and to find his nearest location he got out of his car. We know that. We also know that Treyvon had 4 minutes to get 100yds (when he knew Zimmerman got out of his car). Everything after that is assumptions and speculations, which are not facts. And I find it pathetic that you want a man convicted of murder when you have nothing to go on but assumptions and speculations.
to your last sentence. Zimmerman is to be proven guilty. Your questioning him and assuming he is guilty and wanting him to prove his innocence. Thats not how the courts work.
Yes, Zimmerman did what he had to do to sto pan attacker.But were there other options? Have you or your friends ever been in a fist fight? If you or your friends instigated it, they deserve to die?

So now your going to start question peoples methods of self defense?
They should evaluate all their options before they can act in self defense?
No one is saying Treyvon deserved to die, but that was the consequence of his actions. Don't attack someone, don't commit a crime to someone and threaten their life.

Blockhead

Gern Blansten wrote:

It will ALWAYS come down to Trayvon walking home with a bag of skittles and an iced tea and Zimmerman trailing him and shooting him.

If Zimmerman would have stayed in his car and minded his own business it wouldn't have happened. He wouldn't have gotten his ass beat and Trayvon wouldn't have been shot.

One of the jurors said that they wished they could have found him guilty but they couldn't. The case points out a big hole in the law.

If I follow a little old lady around a grocery store because I think I saw her put a bottle of Metamucil in her pants and I confront her and she hits me with a cane and I shoot her and kill her.....is that right? This is no different.

I feel that unless you have actually watch or read the case you should not be allowed to post in this thread.

Blockhead

Gern Blansten wrote:

aerial wrote:

Personally I will run away from a guy with a gun....this guy was 17 old enough to be considered an adult....he thought he was a bad ass......lesson here is don't screw with people "you never know if they have a gun" ...............Trayvon did not just punch him in the nose he was bashing his head on the road..... No matter how the two met, it is Trayvon who broke Zimmerman’s nose and beat his head severely. Trayvon threw the first, last, and only punches. Only wound Trayvon had was the gunshot wound which proves he started the confrontation......

I really don't see how anyone can justify this. If Zimmerman was being beat up so badly and Trayvon was in control there would be no way Zimmerman was getting that gun out.

Do you really not see any fault with Zimmerman? His injuries weren't even bad enough to get medical treatment.

You do realize that they have already had a trial on this?
Your asking questions that were already answered in the trial.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Blockhead wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

It will ALWAYS come down to Trayvon walking home with a bag of skittles and an iced tea and Zimmerman trailing him and shooting him.

If Zimmerman would have stayed in his car and minded his own business it wouldn't have happened. He wouldn't have gotten his ass beat and Trayvon wouldn't have been shot.

One of the jurors said that they wished they could have found him guilty but they couldn't. The case points out a big hole in the law.

If I follow a little old lady around a grocery store because I think I saw her put a bottle of Metamucil in her pants and I confront her and she hits me with a cane and I shoot her and kill her.....is that right? This is no different.

I feel you unless you have actually watch or read the case you should not be allowed to post in this thread.

Can you please edit your sentence so that it reads the way you likely intended it to?

People should not be allowed to post in this thread until they pass grade 4 grammar.

Blockhead

callen wrote:

Can come up with all justifications you want. Fact is if Zimmerman wasnt a scared little puss with gun muscles this would not have happened.

You can come up with all the assumptions and speculations you want.
Fact is Martin was the only one who committed a crime that night...

Blockhead

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

It will ALWAYS come down to Trayvon walking home with a bag of skittles and an iced tea and Zimmerman trailing him and shooting him.

If Zimmerman would have stayed in his car and minded his own business it wouldn't have happened. He wouldn't have gotten his ass beat and Trayvon wouldn't have been shot.

One of the jurors said that they wished they could have found him guilty but they couldn't. The case points out a big hole in the law.

If I follow a little old lady around a grocery store because I think I saw her put a bottle of Metamucil in her pants and I confront her and she hits me with a cane and I shoot her and kill her.....is that right? This is no different.

I feel you unless you have actually watch or read the case you should not be allowed to post in this thread.

Can you please edit your sentence so that it reads the way you likely intended it to?
People should not be allowed to post in this thread until they pass grade 4 grammar.

Thanks, I just edited it. I forgot to put "that" and instead put "you" twice.

Gern Blansten

Blockhead wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

It will ALWAYS come down to Trayvon walking home with a bag of skittles and an iced tea and Zimmerman trailing him and shooting him.

If Zimmerman would have stayed in his car and minded his own business it wouldn't have happened. He wouldn't have gotten his ass beat and Trayvon wouldn't have been shot.

One of the jurors said that they wished they could have found him guilty but they couldn't. The case points out a big hole in the law.

If I follow a little old lady around a grocery store because I think I saw her put a bottle of Metamucil in her pants and I confront her and she hits me with a cane and I shoot her and kill her.....is that right? This is no different.

I feel that unless you have actually watch or read the case you should not be allowed to post in this thread.

Are you suggesting that I don't have knowledge of it? I bet I know more about it than you do....I watched the whole thing start to finish.

Gern Blansten

Blockhead wrote:

callen wrote:

Can come up with all justifications you want. Fact is if Zimmerman wasnt a scared little puss with gun muscles this would not have happened.

You can come up with all the assumptions and speculations you want.
Fact is Martin was the only one who committed a crime that night...

Fact is you don't know that for sure. The other party to the argument is dead.

Gern Blansten

"George Zimmerman got away with murder, but you can't get away from God. And at the end of the day, he's going to have a lot of questions and answers he has to deal with," Maddy said. "[But] the law couldn't prove it."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerm ... d=19770659

This is a direct quote from a juror. You want to tell me that she doesn't know what she's talking about? It doesn't get any more involved than that.

Blockhead

Gern Blansten wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

callen wrote:

Can come up with all justifications you want. Fact is if Zimmerman wasnt a scared little puss with gun muscles this would not have happened.

You can come up with all the assumptions and speculations you want.
Fact is Martin was the only one who committed a crime that night...

Fact is you don't know that for sure. The other party to the argument is dead.

Your bringing up arguments that have already been discussed in the first few pages of this 129 page thread in which the trial has already answered.

Fact is, we know that treyvon was the only one who had injuries to his hand that were consistent with zimmermans story.
We also know how/where he was shot, which again is consistent to zimmermans story of being on bottom.
We also know, zimmerman had no injures to his hands. only to his face/head showing martin was the one who was attacking him.
Witness also heard zimmerman yelling help with him on bottom.
All these facts were proven in court.

Your right we don't know for sure, or who started what, but we do know the zimmermans story consistant with the injuries and the state could not PROVE that zimmerman didn't act in self defense.
So why do you continue with your assumptions?

Blockhead

Gern Blansten wrote:

"George Zimmerman got away with murder, but you can't get away from God. And at the end of the day, he's going to have a lot of questions and answers he has to deal with," Maddy said. "[But] the law couldn't prove it."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerm ... d=19770659

This is a direct quote from a juror. You want to tell me that she doesn't know what she's talking about? It doesn't get any more involved than that.

Its sad that I knew which one she was without clicking on the link. You know the minority one with 8 kids.
Here is what else she said -
"That's where I felt confused, where if a person kills someone, then you get charged for it," Maddy said. "But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty."

I guess shes never heard of self defense.

The fact that she was pushing for murder two when even the prosecutor's had basically accepted that they didn't have the case for it, shows what an emotionally-driven simpleton she is.

This is how our court systems works - You are innocent until proven guilty.
Its sad that you wish to live in a world where people have to prove their innocence.

Gern Blansten

My point is that this person was on the jury. You weren't. She says that the jury agreed that it was unjust but that the law just didn't allow for Zimmerman to be punished.

That's what I'm saying as well.

I've got the juror on my side....you've got....nothing

Blockhead

Gern Blansten wrote:

My point is that this person was on the jury. You weren't. She says that the jury agreed that it was unjust but that the law just didn't allow for Zimmerman to be punished.

That's what I'm saying as well.

I've got the juror on my side....you've got....nothing

Ummmm...
You need to read her quote again, the one I posted. the one you clearly left out....

"That's where I felt confused, where if a person kills someone, then you get charged for it," Maddy said. "But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty."

Blockhead

Gern Blansten wrote:

My point is that this person was on the jury. You weren't. She says that the jury agreed that it was unjust but that the law just didn't allow for Zimmerman to be punished.

That's what I'm saying as well.

I've got the juror on my side....you've got....nothing

So what your saying is people don't have the right to defend them selves.
That any time you kill someone, even if they are trying to kill you or your family you should be convicted of murder?

JonnyPistachio

Blockhead wrote:

Look, my analogy was perfect for the argument your trying to make. If someone is trying to rape someone (obviously that person is fearing their life) and all the rapist could manage to do was rip the blouse before the person shot the rapist. You're saying that the injuries are not sufficient enough for the rapist to die, because (like "a punch in the face) it does not meet your definition of your "life threatening situation" and you would assume that killing someone over a ripped blouse is "excessive"... Right?
How could you possibly know what treyvon's intentions were? So just because you don't "THINK" someone is going to murder you, you can't defend yourself?
To your idiotic scenaro your missing a KEY component - Your neighbor coming up behind you is not against the law and he is not attacking you (while being on top of you) BUT IF HE TOUCHED ME AND I CLAIMED MY LIFE WAS IN JEOPARDY, I COULDVE KILLED HIM BY LAW AND GOTTEN AWAY WITH IT similarly to the Zimmreman case. Treyvon did something broke the law by Attacking Zimmerman and hitting him. Getting scared because someone "jumped around the corner" to scare you DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO DEFEND YOUR SELF BECAUSE THAT PERSON IS NOT DOING ANYTHING ILLEGAL OR ATTEMPTING TO HARM YOU IN ANYWAY.

If you payed any attention to the trial you would know why zimmerman got out of the car. Again, nothing illegal about that...
Zimmerman had a legal CC, again, nothing illegal about that...
The problem is you don't know if zimmerman created the situation. He lost sight of Treyvon, and to find his nearest location he got out of his car. We know that. We also know that Treyvon had 4 minutes to get 100yds (when he knew Zimmerman got out of his car). Everything after that is assumptions and speculations, which are not facts. And I find it pathetic that you want a man convicted of murder when you have nothing to go on but assumptions and speculations.
to your last sentence. Zimmerman is to be proven guilty. Your questioning him and assuming he is guilty and wanting him to prove his innocence. Thats not how the courts work.

So now your going to start question peoples methods of self defense?
They should evaluate all their options before they can act in self defense?
No one is saying Treyvon deserved to die, but that was the consequence of his actions. Don't attack someone, don't commit a crime to someone and threaten their life.

Ok, so now, you know someones motives if they rip someones blouse, that measn they automatically want to rape them? Got it. So that kid I knew in 9th grade who went up to a girl and snapped the button off her shirt as a joke should die? Perfect.

Yes, i think its perfectly healthy to question peoples methods of self defense. If we dont question it, I reiterate, things could get out of hand. I dont know why you keep forgetting that I said Zimmerman will get off during the trial. This is AGAIN, why this case is so interesting and easy to discuss with people that see it differently...because some people simply dont think killing someone with a gun is necessary in some instances. I find it surprising that some people refuse to consider both options when looking at this case.

I've accepted that Zimmerman is innocent. I tried to see this from both sides. But that doesnt mean I cant criticize his ridiculous judgement and his constant lies. And if you wan to believe he got out of his car and lied to the dispatcher about where he would be, later claiming he was looking for a street sign, thats fine with me. But I simply think his he lied about a lot of things and isnt trustworthy. his word is really the only one that could sway anyone either way. And if I were on the jury, I wouldve had to let him go too. But there's still no telling if Zimmerman came around the corner with his gun out and Treyvon decked him. Some people just refuse to believe that was a possibility, but thats fine too I guess..

And again, I'll say this a million times over. Both parties were wrong in so many ways in this case. But this trial mostly depended on Whether or not Zimmerman felt his life was in danger. So his freedom teeter-tottered on personal feelings and emotion. That's why is a fascinating and tough case to me. and thats also why rape, to me is a differnt story...it would definitely depend on the factors leading to that rape. For instance, if a guy comes out of the bushes and growls at a woman, she might think she is about to get raped. She can therefore shoot and kill that man. But maybe he was mentally unstable and crazy and her decision was to kill him was misguided. We can talk about rape and specific rape cases if you want to start another thread, but a "speculative" idea of rape all depends on the factors and the situation.

JonnyPistachio

Blockhead wrote:

Your right we don't know for sure, or who started what, but we do know the zimmermans story consistant with the injuries and the state could not PROVE that zimmerman didn't act in self defense.
So why do you continue with your assumptions?

I know this wasnt directed at me, but this is the point ive been making all along, since none of us are on the jury, we can assume what we want all day long, because most of the facts came from a liar with a sketchy track record during the trial (Zimmerman)... Just as you said, we dont know for sure who started what .Honestly, thats the only thing I'd like Zimmerman supporters to admit. Its healthy to question Zimmerman's claims, thats all.

Gern Blansten

Blockhead wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

My point is that this person was on the jury. You weren't. She says that the jury agreed that it was unjust but that the law just didn't allow for Zimmerman to be punished.

That's what I'm saying as well.

I've got the juror on my side....you've got....nothing

Ummmm...
You need to read her quote again, the one I posted. the one you clearly left out....

"That's where I felt confused, where if a person kills someone, then you get charged for it," Maddy said. "But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty."

I don't disagree that there was no proof that he killed him intentionally.

It was a perfect crime in a sense. The guy was a cop wannabe who got to shoot his little gun after he got in over his head. That Trayvon wasn't mature enough to just let it go (if you believe that he confronted Zimmerman by choice) shouldn't result in the loss of his life. He was taking Skittles home to his little brother....that was his mission. Zimmerman decided to get involved in his mission.

Blockhead

JonnyPistachio wrote:

That's why is a fascinating and tough case to me. and thats also why rape, to me is a differnt story...it would definitely depend on the factors leading to that rape. For instance, if a guy comes out of the bushes and growls at a woman, she might think she is about to get raped. She can therefore shoot and kill that man. But maybe he was mentally unstable and crazy and her decision was to kill him was misguided. We can talk about rape and specific rape cases if you want to start another thread, but a "speculative" idea of rape all depends on the factors and the situation.

For some reason your having an extremely hard time grasping what is and what isn't against the law.
growling at someone - Is not illegal, and also not "life threatening"
Your neighbor tapping you on the shoulder - is not illegal, and also not "life threatening" (since in your scenario your trying to conclude the something as an innocent tap from an innocent person, may catch someone off guard and cause them to kill them out of perceived self defense.)

Attacking/Assaulitng someone - IS illegal - Also it is life threatening if someone is on top of you (while your in a helpless position) hitting and slamming your head into the concrete. The concrete in this scenario can also be used as a weapon. (which is what treyvon did)

My point on the rape analogy which you still can't seem to get.
If the rapist has you on the ground taking his pants off trying to pin you down to rape you and then rips your blouse. According to you a ripped blouse is not a sever enough injury or action to defend your self with a gun.
Just like you said that zimmerman with martin on top of punching him in the nose/slamming his head into the concrete yet only leaves scrapes and a broken nose.
According to you a punch in the face not a sever enough injury or action to defend your self with a gun.
So in both of these cases the injuries are minimal, and I assume since your consistent, that in both of these instances that using a gun to shoot/kill the person on top of you out of fear for your life (self defense) is both excessive and should be charged with manslaughter right?

Blockhead

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

Your right we don't know for sure, or who started what, but we do know the zimmermans story consistant with the injuries and the state could not PROVE that zimmerman didn't act in self defense.
So why do you continue with your assumptions?

I know this wasnt directed at me, but this is the point ive been making all along, since none of us are on the jury, we can assume what we want all day long, because most of the facts came from a liar with a sketchy track record during the trial (Zimmerman)... Just as you said, we dont know for sure who started what .Honestly, thats the only thing I'd like Zimmerman supporters to admit. Its healthy to question Zimmerman's claims, thats all.

That's fine to question his claims. But you still need to prove that he was guilty, which they couldn't,

And for someone who continually bashes Zimmerman for a sketchy track record and continually calls him a liar, let me remind you this his story is consistent with the facts of the trial and the injuries, to which the pathologist testified to.
So you continually call him a liar, yet his story held up to all the evidence produced in the court room.

So again, why are you wanting him to prove his innocence.
Because that is what you are doing, your basically saying " you killed someone, I don't believe you, prove your innocence"


Which again, is not how the court works, nor should it work that way...

Gern Blansten

Blockhead wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

My point is that this person was on the jury. You weren't. She says that the jury agreed that it was unjust but that the law just didn't allow for Zimmerman to be punished.

That's what I'm saying as well.

I've got the juror on my side....you've got....nothing

So what your saying is people don't have the right to defend them selves.
That any time you kill someone, even if they are trying to kill you or your family you should be convicted of murder?

I'm saying that there is no proof that Trayvon was trying to kill him. His injuries don't jive. Someone on the verge of being killed that doesn't need medical attention? come on....

I think it's more likely that Zimmerman hit his head on the concrete when he went down initially. There was only a small cut on his head. Trayvon may have been swinging some fists at him which resulted in his head making contact with the concrete but I don't believe his injuries show that his head was being slammed multiple times on the sidewalk.

Zimmerman outweighed the kid...Trayvon was tall and skinny, no way Zimmerman couldn't have taken control and ended the confrontation without killing him. He panicked like a little cop wannabe prick and shot him.

Blockhead

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

Your right we don't know for sure, or who started what, but we do know the zimmermans story consistant with the injuries and the state could not PROVE that zimmerman didn't act in self defense.
So why do you continue with your assumptions?

I know this wasnt directed at me, but this is the point ive been making all along, since none of us are on the jury, we can assume what we want all day long, because most of the facts came from a liar with a sketchy track record during the trial (Zimmerman)... Just as you said, we dont know for sure who started what .Honestly, thats the only thing I'd like Zimmerman supporters to admit. Its healthy to question Zimmerman's claims, thats all.

I also want to ask this question:
You keep making assumptions that Zimmerman made all these bad decisions, was a liar, sketchy track record, etc... And you seem more than eager to assume that Zimmerman was the one to start the confrontation... And want to convict him on those alone, and discredit his story (which again, held up to the evidence)
yet by all the accounts, Zimmerman was a stand up neighbor and actively participated in the community, mentor minorities, etc.

Yet, you never make assumptions towards treyvon's judgement or actions about him attacking zimmerman first. You seem to ignore the character and image that treyvon was trying to convey. Why don't you view treyvon as the drug dealing, assultor, suspended kid for fighting, braging about being in fights, searching/buying illegal weapon (gun), racist, kid that he was?

Why is that?

Blockhead

Gern Blansten wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

My point is that this person was on the jury. You weren't. She says that the jury agreed that it was unjust but that the law just didn't allow for Zimmerman to be punished.

That's what I'm saying as well.

I've got the juror on my side....you've got....nothing

So what your saying is people don't have the right to defend them selves.
That any time you kill someone, even if they are trying to kill you or your family you should be convicted of murder?

I'm saying that there is no proof that Trayvon was trying to kill him. His injuries don't jive. Someone on the verge of being killed that doesn't need medical attention? come on....

I think it's more likely that Zimmerman hit his head on the concrete when he went down initially. There was only a small cut on his head. Trayvon may have been swinging some fists at him which resulted in his head making contact with the concrete but I don't believe his injuries show that his head was being slammed multiple times on the sidewalk.

Zimmerman outweighed the kid...Trayvon was tall and skinny, no way Zimmerman couldn't have taken control and ended the confrontation without killing him. He panicked like a little cop wannabe prick and shot him.

OK, its official...
You don't know any about the case,trial, or evidence.
Ill ask this question again, why are you continually posting questions that were answered in the court room.
You need to leave this thread.

JonnyPistachio

Blockhead wrote:

For some reason your having an extremely hard time grasping what is and what isn't against the law. No, im not, Im just pointing out that some of these situations depend on ONE persons emotional state.
growling at someone - Is not illegal, and also not "life threatening"
Your neighbor tapping you on the shoulder - is not illegal, and also not "life threatening" (since in your scenario your trying to conclude the something as an innocent tap from an innocent person, may catch someone off guard and cause them to kill them out of perceived self defense.) Like you said earlier, what is the cut off then? someone must be bleeding? I honestly felt threatened the night my neighbor came up behind me. It was similar to the night treyvon was killed. Rainy and dark. The only difference is, the neighbor touched me but didnt draw blood?

Attacking/Assaulitng someone - IS illegal - Also it is life threatening if someone is on top of you (while your in a helpless position) hitting and slamming your head into the concrete. The concrete in this scenario can also be used as a weapon. (which is what treyvon did) Of course it is, but the many, many people that questoin Zimmerman, simply wonder if Treyvon saw a gun or felt threatened as well. Have you considered whether treyvon felt threatened?

My point on the rape analogy which you still can't seem to get. Well, as I suggested, there are many ways one can rip a blouse, but if the attacker has his pants down and is about to rape a person, its evident what is happening. But where your analogy goes wrong, is there is no room for the idiotic thing we sometimes hear about rape regarding if she was asking for it, her clothes were provacative. etc (those are the worst)... meaning, that your scenario of rape completely leaves out the idea of Zimmerman (a man with a gun), following a person who might have felt threatened. Those factors CANNOT be similar to a rape case, therefore its irrelevant, sorry.

If the rapist has you on the ground taking his pants off trying to pin you down to rape you and then rips your blouse. According to you a ripped blouse is not a sever enough injury or action to defend your self with a gun.
Just like you said that zimmerman with martin on top of punching him in the nose/slamming his head into the concrete yet only leaves scrapes and a broken nose.
According to you a punch in the face not a sever enough injury or action to defend your self with a gun.
So in both of these cases the injuries are minimal, and I assume since your consistent, that in both of these instances that using a gun to shoot/kill the person on top of you out of fear for your life (self defense) is both excessive and should be charged with manslaughter right?

Injuries can be different, motive says it all. There is another factor you're leaving out, along with the important "who accosted who" angle... motive. If you want to use rape as an analogy to the Zimmerman case, then the person being raped should be tailing the rapist with a loaded gun in a dark rainy backyard too. But honestly, I get what you're saying, and I just think the two are different because of motive. and again, I think what Zimmerman did was within the law. I just think he''s a piece of shit and manslaughter was definitely something to consider.

JonnyPistachio

Blockhead wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

Your right we don't know for sure, or who started what, but we do know the zimmermans story consistant with the injuries and the state could not PROVE that zimmerman didn't act in self defense.
So why do you continue with your assumptions?

I know this wasnt directed at me, but this is the point ive been making all along, since none of us are on the jury, we can assume what we want all day long, because most of the facts came from a liar with a sketchy track record during the trial (Zimmerman)... Just as you said, we dont know for sure who started what .Honestly, thats the only thing I'd like Zimmerman supporters to admit. Its healthy to question Zimmerman's claims, thats all.

I also want to ask this question:
You keep making assumptions that Zimmerman made all these bad decisions, was a liar, sketchy track record, etc... And you seem more than eager to assume that Zimmerman was the one to start the confrontation... And want to convict him on those alone, and discredit his story (which again, held up to the evidence)
yet by all the accounts, Zimmerman was a stand up neighbor and actively participated in the community, mentor minorities, etc.

Yet, you never make assumptions towards treyvon's judgement or actions about him attacking zimmerman first. You seem to ignore the character and image that treyvon was trying to convey. Why don't you view treyvon as the drug dealing, assultor, suspended kid for fighting, braging about being in fights, searching/buying illegal weapon (gun), racist, kid that he was?

Why is that?

I already explained this. They are both pieces of shit. Its just necessary to question everything because everything Zimmerman said sounded too prefect for him to get off. he could create any scenario he wanted because he was the only survivor. he main thing that made me question him was on the recording with the dispatcher he said he'd wait by the mailboxes. From the overhead map, within minutes, he was very far from that area, following treyvon. Hes not trustworthy, is the first thing I thought when I heard each and ever thing he said. Bu thats just me judging someone describing themselves and how they carry themselves. And I also assume he wouldve never gotten out of his car without his gun. I think this mentality is pathetic and is sending our communities in the wrong direction. Its is saying its ok to accost someone, possibly provoke a fight, then kill them. (I did say "possibly" back there, trying to remain neutral.)

Gern Blansten

Blockhead wrote:

OK, its official...
You don't know any about the case,trial, or evidence.
Ill ask this question again, why are you continually posting questions that were answered in the court room.
You need to leave this thread.

What evidence are you talking about?