Trayvon Martin

Hugh Freaking Dillon

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Last-12-Exit wrote:

No, I believe Sharpton and Jackson would have somehow forced their way into the case some other way. That's how they make a living.

i wholeheartedly disagree.

sharpton and jackson get involved when bullshit happens.

an unarmed kid get shot and killed and the killer does not even get charged for 44 days. it was swept under the rug by a corrupt police department. this is the part that is bullshit.

if zimmerman gets arrested right away, proper procedures had been followed and there is no cause for outrage. when a killer walks around for 44 days and no arrest or investigation happens, that is bullshit and sharpton and jackson are gonna get involved.

they are social activists. this is what they do.

they over-dramatize shit that they don't know enough about until it's too late and by then it's national fucking chaos. doesn't matter to them that it really isn't a race issue. but it serves their agenda. even if he had been arrested immediately, and had gone free, damn straight they would have been telling people to turn over cars and fear The Man. THAT'S what they do. They try to be MLK and they fail miserably.

not everything is about race. but to them, it is.

hedonist

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

they over-dramatize shit that they don't know enough about until it's too late and by then it's national fucking chaos. doesn't matter to them that it really isn't a race issue. but it serves their agenda. even if he had been arrested immediately, and had gone free, damn straight they would have been telling people to turn over cars and fear The Man. THAT'S what they do. They try to be MLK and they fail miserably.

not everything is about race. but to them, it is.

One of the best posts I've read amongst these manymanymany pages.

Its Evolution Baby

aerial wrote:

Gern Blansten 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...

How do you know Trayvon wasn't standing his ground? If someone follows you into a dark alley would you possibly feel the need to punch them in the nose if you're a 17 year old kid?

he did not follow him in a dark ally......and there was an eyewitness

I disagree with most of your assement becuase you are basically taking Zimmerman at his word (and the Pope he is not) but that is fine I'm done debating that part. I do have to mention that the eyewitness only saw the end of the skirmish and didn't see the shooting. Not much of an eyewitness if you ask me.

IF there was an eyewitness that saw every detail there wouldn't be so much heresay involved with this case.

Gern Blansten

aerial wrote:

he did not follow him in a dark ally......and there was an eyewitness

The area where Trayvon was shot was very dark...not an alley, ok...same as a dark alley

He did follow him. He was trying to locate him and Trayvon approached him. Maybe Trayvon didn't want the guy seeing where he was staying? Maybe Zimmerman lied and was in pursuit.....we'll never know because one of the two is dead. The "eyewitness" didn't see it develop. He just saw the beatdown.

How do you know Zimmerman didn't pull the gun and Trayvon was trying to keep from getting shot? We don't know....

It still comes down to a 17 year old kid going to the store and in an attempt to return home from that store he was trailed by Zimmerman and killed.

callen

Gern Blansten wrote:

aerial wrote:

It still comes down to a 17 year old kid going to the store and in an attempt to return home from that store he was trailed by Zimmerman and killed.

Yep...if Zimmerman didn't have his gun muscles, Trayvon would still be alive. puss.

Godfather.

horse shit !


The father of one of three Florida teens charged in a vicious school bus attack said his son is “sorry” for taking part in the July beating that made national headlines.

Julian McKnight said his son Julian, 15, has also suffered in the aftermath of the July 9 attack on a Pinellas County school bus after it left Lealman Intermediate School in the St. Petersburg-area community of Gulfport as the trio head to court on Tuesday.

“All I can say is he’s had his consequences already, you know?” McKnight said. “We’re sorry what happened to the victim, but that’s just the way it is. My son ain’t never been no bad person, he just got mixed [up] with bad people, that’s all … He’s sorry.”



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/13/fa ... z2brXLMXoN

Godfather.

Its Evolution Baby

I have yet to see a proper case that is comparable to the Martin Case. I swear the Zimmerman supporters are the one's who see race by posting examples of Blacks beating up whites. That's not the point. And frankly I don't know what you're even trying to prove. And besides the kid got beat up for tattling. I'm pretty sure that happens everyday in High Schools around the country. The visicousness of the attack crossed the line but the kids were instantly arrested and charged.

The point of contention in the Zimmerman case was that an unarmed teenager was killed by an adult male and it looked like no charges were going to be filed. I'm sorry but since Martin BELONGED in the neighborhood and Zimmerman admitted to following there should have been an instant arrest and manslaughter charge. Yea we had the Rev Sharptons and Jacksons of the world make it racial but it did get an arrest and trial so I can't fault there methods.

That is the only reason why this story became national news, is that it looked like no one in Florida cared. Also one of the jurors pretty much admitted they thought he was guilty but didn't have the evidence to convict. Thats why we have a trial. Anyone who gets off you can't say, WELL THERE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN AN ARREST. THIS SHOULD HAVE NEVER GONE TO TRIAL.

There should have been an arrest, there should have been an trial, and the results were what they were. So basically everything has been done at this point so its offiically time to move on.

On a personal note I can't believe I'm still talking about this case. I can't help myself. Is there a way to block a thread so I don't see new posts in it? LOL

Godfather.

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

I have yet to see a proper case that is comparable to the Martin Case. I swear the Zimmerman supporters are the one's who see race by posting examples of Blacks beating up whites. That's not the point. And frankly I don't know what you're even trying to prove. And besides the kid got beat up for tattling. I'm pretty sure that happens everyday in High Schools around the country. The visicousness of the attack crossed the line but the kids were instantly arrested and charged.

The point of contention in the Zimmerman case was that an unarmed teenager was killed by an adult male and it looked like no charges were going to be filed. I'm sorry but since Martin BELONGED in the neighborhood and Zimmerman admitted to following there should have been an instant arrest and manslaughter charge. Yea we had the Rev Sharptons and Jacksons of the world make it racial but it did get an arrest and trial so I can't fault there methods.

That is the only reason why this story became national news, is that it looked like no one in Florida cared. Also one of the jurors pretty much admitted they thought he was guilty but didn't have the evidence to convict. Thats why we have a trial. Anyone who gets off you can't say, WELL THERE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN AN ARREST. THIS SHOULD HAVE NEVER GONE TO TRIAL.

There should have been an arrest, there should have been an trial, and the results were what they were. So basically everything has been done at this point so its offiically time to move on.

On a personal note I can't believe I'm still talking about this case. I can't help myself. Is there a way to block a thread so I don't see new posts in it? LOL

:yawn: yeah some argument over and over and zimmerman is still free.

Godfather.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

I have yet to see a proper case that is comparable to the Martin Case. I swear the Zimmerman supporters are the one's who see race by posting examples of Blacks beating up whites. That's not the point. And frankly I don't know what you're even trying to prove. And besides the kid got beat up for tattling. I'm pretty sure that happens everyday in High Schools around the country. The visicousness of the attack crossed the line but the kids were instantly arrested and charged.

I don't know that anyone is actually a Zimmerman "supporter". I know I'm not. I'm a supporter of truth. Which I think most people. And some people are tired of some groups being labeled the automatic victim just because they belong to one of those groups. Who knows. Maybe Zimmerman was telling the truth? We don't know. Nobody knows but him. But way too many people are ASSUMING he's lying because of appearances and the media and nothing else.

Hell, Trayvon even used a racial slur about Zimmerman on the phone. He called him a "crazy ass cracker". I don't hear anybody up in arms over the possibility of Trayvon profiling Zimmerman, and the possibility that caused this conflict. I didn't hear Sharpton or Jackson addressing that. Had it been reversed and Z said "a crazy ass n-word" is following me, that would have been splashed all over the place.

I still think it's sick that stand your ground is actually a fucking law. I still think it's sick that people are allowed to conceal and carry. I still think it's sick that a young man is dead for potentially no reason. But that doesn't mean I automatically believe something because of appearances, real or imagined.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

On a personal note I can't believe I'm still talking about this case. I can't help myself. Is there a way to block a thread so I don't see new posts in it? LOL

I think because we all know it's an important discussion to engage in.

Blockhead

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

On a personal note I can't believe I'm still talking about this case. I can't help myself. Is there a way to block a thread so I don't see new posts in it? LOL

I can't believe your still talking about it either... I mean with the trial over with and all the evidence that is public information, you're still telling the story the way media represented it...

Just to clarify, because it seems that you did not know this.
In our judicial system, you are innocent until proven guilty.

In the Zimmerman case he was guilty by the media/black community/ Dems/ President Obama... Before the trial.
And during the trial he had to prove his innocence.

Anybody that thinks it should be like that, I assume wishes they were living in New England in the 1690's...

JonnyPistachio

Blockhead wrote:

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

On a personal note I can't believe I'm still talking about this case. I can't help myself. Is there a way to block a thread so I don't see new posts in it? LOL

I can't believe your still talking about it either... I mean with the trial over with and all the evidence that is public information, you're still telling the story the way media represented it...

Just to clarify, because it seems that you did not know this.
In our judicial system, you are innocent until proven guilty.

In the Zimmerman case he was guilty by the media/black community/ Dems/ President Obama... Before the trial.
And during the trial he had to prove his innocence.

Anybody that thinks it should be like that, I assume wishes they were living in New England in the 1690's...

That's what made this case a bit unique. Since we're not on the jury, we're allowed to talk about it and discuss whether we think Zimmerman did something wrong or not, inside or outside the law. I said all along that he would get off because of the laws...but at the same time, I dont think laws should be written to allow someone to kill someone dead if they are punched in the face. The stand you ground is vague and controversial. I know, I know, you say that wasnt their defense...but it was still a major point during the act and proceedings.

You did hear what several of the jurors said after the case, right?

Blockhead

JonnyPistachio wrote:

That's what made this case a bit unique. Since we're not on the jury, we're allowed to talk about it and discuss whether we think Zimmerman did something wrong or not, inside or outside the law. I said all along that he would get off because of the laws...but at the same time, I dont think laws should be written to allow someone to kill someone dead if they are punched in the face. The stand you ground is vague and controversial. I know, I know, you say that wasnt their defense...but it was still a major point during the act and proceedings.

You did hear what several of the jurors said after the case, right?

To the bold... I agree, we should allow our wives and daughters to be raped first before they are allowed to defend themselves with a gun... Because you can't have laws that allow someone to kill someone dead if all they did was ripped your blouse... :roll:

Who cares what the jurors said AFTER the case. They did their job, with the evidence presented in the courtroom there was no proof that zimmerman didn't act in self-defense.

The stand your ground law was not used by the defense... Why do you feel the need to bring this law up when discussing the Zimmerman trial?

JonnyPistachio

Blockhead wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

That's what made this case a bit unique. Since we're not on the jury, we're allowed to talk about it and discuss whether we think Zimmerman did something wrong or not, inside or outside the law. I said all along that he would get off because of the laws...but at the same time, I dont think laws should be written to allow someone to kill someone dead if they are punched in the face. The stand you ground is vague and controversial. I know, I know, you say that wasnt their defense...but it was still a major point during the act and proceedings.

You did hear what several of the jurors said after the case, right?

To the bold... I agree, we should allow our wives and daughters to be raped first before they are allowed to defend themselves with a gun... Because you can't have laws that allow someone to kill someone dead if all they did was ripped your blouse... :roll:

Who cares what the jurors said AFTER the case. They did their job, with the evidence presented in the courtroom there was no proof that zimmerman didn't act in self-defense.

The stand your ground law was not used by the defense... Why do you feel the need to bring this law up when discussing the Zimmerman trial?

Do you often talk to people like this, condescendingly in real life too? You really love to spin things in an idiotic way dont you....First of all, we're not talking about "rape of our daughters" :fp: and whether or not guns should be legal or not. :roll: (see i can use the stupid roll-eyes face too!) So, if someone rips someones blouse, its ok to blow their head off, Ok got it. :? That is really the most ignorant and pathetic thing ive heard on here in awhile in response to what I said earlier.

I care what the jurors said after the case, and apparently, since they were all over the news, so do a ton of other folks. the point that you've obviously missed is that lots of people believe Zimmerman is a piece of shit who did something wrong, and that it just so happens that how it went down and how the laws are structured, he got away with killing someone for punching him. Its easy for me to see why people are so polarized, and its even evident with the juror's post rial statements. Its just a point to entertain and discuss, relax dude. I've also said, I think what Treyvon did (according to Zimmerman, if it was the truth), was very wrong. Some people simply dont think he deserved to DIE, thats all...and that includes several of the jurors.

And I also already explained why I brought up the stand your ground...since it was outlined inthe jurors instructions and discussed quite a bit, its OK to talk about. Just because it wasnt their defense, doesnt make it irrelevant in the big picture. But since it bothers you so much, I'll just stick to my original point that the manner of self defense Zimmerman used, was excessive.

Blockhead

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Do you often talk to people like this, condescendingly in real life too? You really love to spin things in an idiotic way dont you....First of all, we're not talking about "rape of our daughters" :fp: and whether or not guns should be legal or not. :roll: (see i can use the stupid roll-eyes face too!) So, if someone rips someones blouse, its ok to blow their head off, Ok got it. :? That is really the most ignorant and pathetic thing ive heard on here in awhile in response to what I said earlier.

I'll just stick to my original point that the manner of self defense Zimmerman used, was excessive.

I talk to people like this who are acting purposely obtuse.
If that's not you then I apologize, and WILL try and simplify my point.

My analogy was simple and direct to your point of "I don't think laws should be written to allow someone to kill someone dead if they are punched in the face"
I am having a hard time finding out when according to you can I start to defend my life. A what point/injury severity is it ok to START to defend my life?
You can't say something is excessive if your not the persons who's life is in danger. If someone generally feels their life is in danger then they are and should be allowed to exercise any option of defending themselves. Common sense teaches most people that if you don't know your opposition, you therefore don't know their mental state.

I am curious as to why you think people should be taking that kind of risk with their life.

Zimmerman did what he had to do to stop the attacker and defend his life.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Blockhead wrote:

My analogy was simple and direct to your point of "I don't think laws should be written to allow someone to kill someone dead if they are punched in the face"
I am having a hard time finding out when according to you can I start to defend my life. A what point/injury severity is it ok to START to defend my life?
You can't say something is excessive if your not the persons who's life is in danger. If someone generally feels their life is in danger then they are and should be allowed to exercise any option of defending themselves. Common sense teaches most people that if you don't know your opposition, you therefore don't know their mental state.

I am curious as to why you think people should be taking that kind of risk with their life.

Zimmerman did what he had to do to stop the attacker and defend his life.

I'm inclined to agree with this. This comes up from time to time in Canadian law where the DA tries to paint the person defending themselves as using "excessive force". How is that possible? If you are defending yourself against an attacker, you have no idea at that moment what excessive force is! If someone attacked me, I'd smash their skull in in hopes they'd stop. That's not excessive. That's defending my right to life. I'm not going to gently nudge him in the balls and start running in hopes he won't have a gun and shoot me in the back as I flee. Or worse, catch up to me and double the beating before finishing me off.

JonnyPistachio

Blockhead wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Do you often talk to people like this, condescendingly in real life too? You really love to spin things in an idiotic way dont you....First of all, we're not talking about "rape of our daughters" :fp: and whether or not guns should be legal or not. :roll: (see i can use the stupid roll-eyes face too!) So, if someone rips someones blouse, its ok to blow their head off, Ok got it. :? That is really the most ignorant and pathetic thing ive heard on here in awhile in response to what I said earlier.

I'll just stick to my original point that the manner of self defense Zimmerman used, was excessive.

I talk to people like this who are acting purposely obtuse.
If that's not you then I apologize, and WILL try and simplify my point.

My analogy was simple and direct to your point of "I don't think laws should be written to allow someone to kill someone dead if they are punched in the face"
I am having a hard time finding out when according to you can I start to defend my life. A what point/injury severity is it ok to START to defend my life?
You can't say something is excessive if your not the persons who's life is in danger. If someone generally feels their life is in danger then they are and should be allowed to exercise any option of defending themselves. Common sense teaches most people that if you don't know your opposition, you therefore don't know their mental state.

I am curious as to why you think people should be taking that kind of risk with their life.

Zimmerman did what he had to do to stop the attacker and defend his life.

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.

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.

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?

Gern Blansten

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.

Last-12-Exit

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.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

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.

unfortunately, there's no way to know which one, if either, of them had that option.