Yes it is a joke and a distraction from the Senate passing the immigration/amnesty/H1-B visa bill. They are trying to get this passed while getting people worked up over a self-defense case and we have people here falling for it!Originally Posted by RonPaulMall
Is that what I said? When I know someone is following me, in other words harassing or impeding my freedom, I will react.
The person who is following me ought to have expected a response.
What's so hard about that to understand?
You see, leave people alone and they leave you alone. What's wrong with that message? Harass people or pester or antagonize, I am not the type to feel sorry. I did say it could be taken to extremes and the implication of my "of course" was to discourage someone from using the hypothetical of "he went down the same road as me so I attacked him." That isn't what I'm saying.
Someone overtly following me, it's only happened once in my lifetime, will get a response. It isn't as if you are trying to fight someone, you are showing them that their behavior is unacceptable. Working through the situation with words is best, of course.
“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell
Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump
Before watching this dude almost got shot right? lmao
It isn't that unhuman a reaction to get upset.
I think this is the one.
ETA: This is a different one. The one prank I watched they had a guy screaming apparently on the phone with a girl he slept with's boyfriend. He'd say "Yeah, I'm right here, MF come see what happens" and then say, "Yeah I'm the guy in the white shirt" or whatever describing random people in the store. People got pissed.
Pointless thread derail but hilarious.
Last edited by kcchiefs6465; 06-28-2013 at 01:19 AM.
“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell
Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump
Stand Your Ground has nothing to do with this case. There are two kinds of broad self defense rules that exist a situation where you are being assaulted: Duty to Retreat, or Stand Your Ground. In States that go by Duty to Retreat Doctrine, if you can reasonably and safely disengage from the situation, you have a duty to do so before using deadly force. Typically, in Duty to Retreat states there is an exception for assaults that occur in the home. There is no duty to retreat in your own home. This is sometimes called the Castle Doctrine. In Stand Your Ground states, everywhere a person is legally entitled to be is essentially their castle. There is no duty to retreat anywhere a person is legally entitled to be. If someone attacks you in a way that causes you to fear great bodily harm, you can use deadly force to defend yourself even if you were physically able to safely get away.
But in the Zimmerman case, none of that matters because Zimmerman was on his back with his head being bashed against the sidewalk. Whether the attack happened in a "Duty to Retreat" state or a "Stand Your Ground" state is irrelevant because that is only an issue if Zimmerman was able to safely retreat, which clearly wasn't the case. So stop going on about Stand Your Ground. You are always allowed to use deadly force in a situation in which you can't retreat, are being assaulted, and fear great bodily harm.
The only possible way Zimmerman could lose this case is if the prosecution could show that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon. But they have no evidence to support that. The wounds on the back of Zimmerman's head in fact, suggest the opposite. There is literally nothing to back up the prosecution's charges here.
Consider you are walking home. You see a guy in a truck staring at you and talking on his phone. You start to walk away. He jumps out of his truck and starts running towards you. What do you do? Figure he is exercising his rights to freely follow whomever he wants?
Getting his head injured does not necessarily mean he did not start the confrontation. It only shows that a physical confrontation did take place before the shooting. Treyvon may have been defending himself. Why didn't Zimmerman stay at his truck? How did he end up close enough to Martin to get hit in the first place? (Martin's route indicated he was headed towards the house he was staying in- his uncle's place). Here is a map. The 7-11 he stopped at is on Oregon Avenue- just outside the upper left corner in this image.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...QEwAw&dur=5156
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 06-28-2013 at 01:37 AM.
Meh. Someone chasing another person down, I feel little sympathy when they are attacked. Wannabe pigs are just that, THOSE WITHOUT QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.
To be clear, SYG is irrelevant to this case. Zimmerman accosted, that is, chased the teen down after the teen was leaving, and initiated the confrontation. WHETHER TRAYVON THREW THE FIRST PUNCH OR NOT. What right is it of someone to harass another person? I'm not saying Zimmerman very well didn't fear for his life.. many punk, pussy, pigs state the same thing as they shoot down toy dogs and beat men to death. He wasn't one, badged that is, otherwise it wouldn't be an issue. He initiated the conflict. A few lumps, laceration included probably would have taught his ass not to go accosting people.
I know the "police scout" type. The honorary "badge" and whistle. Zimmerman is the epitome of it.
Frankly, let him be found guilty or not guilty. I do not care. I have a reasonable vision of how it went down, he was in the wrong, but whatever. We can all celebrate the victory for freedom, or as you put it, self defense. We can chase kids around the neighborhood and shoot them if they try to fight us.
As if Zimmerman is some kind of symbol of freedom. I couldn't give a damn either way. Justice isn't justice but how close to the regurgitated truth you can get. Be happy with the verdict. I won't particularly, at all really, care.
“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell
Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump
False. The 911 operator said "you don't have to do that". That is not a command. Just like when a cop asks you to "walk in a straight line", it is VOLUNTARY. A 911 operator has no authority to command you to do anything.
The Heart of Conservatism is Libertarianism - Ronald Reagan
Actually it was:
http://bizsecurity.about.com/od/crea...olice-Call.htmDispatcher
Are you following him?
Zimmerman
Yeah.
Dispatcher
Ok, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman
Ok.
which if an officer says that to you, that means stop doing it- you better quit doing it. Sure you have the option to obey or not to obey- he made the choice to go after Martin. You can listen here: http://www.wftv.com/videos/news/raw-...-police/vGZq9/
It does sound like he quit running shortly after that but he does say that he would meet the police by the mailboxes (#1 on the map- he was near #2 at the time) but instead ends up going the opposite direction. If Trevon was coming after him, why did the confrontation occur closer to where he was staying rather than closer to where Zimmerman told the cops where he would be? He seems to be still headed home when Zimmerman caught up to him.
"These $#@!s- they always get away!" I guess he wanted to make sure Trevon wouldn't get away.Dispatcher
Okay do you want to just meet with them right near the mailboxes then?
Zimmerman
Yeah that's fine.
Dispatcher
Alright George, I'll let them know to meet you around there, okay?
Whose actions seem more agressive? Who seemed to have a more valid reason to fear for their safety?
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 06-28-2013 at 02:20 AM.
Whether his actions seem "aggressive" or not have nothing to do with the legal charges at hand. Zimmerman says he was assaulted. The physical evidence and witness testimony is consistent with his claim of being on his back getting hit. In such a scenario, he is legally justified in using deadly force to defend himself. Whether you think it was polite or socially proper for him to confront this kid and ask him what he was doing wandering around between houses is irrelevant from a legal perspective. For the prosecution to have a case, they need to provide evidence that Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon. Not that he was bugging him, or that Trayvon found his behavior annoying or obnoxious. Zimmerman has to have physically assaulted him. They have no evidence for that other than Precious' testimony that she "heard" pushing and could "hear" that it was Zimmerman doing the pushing because her keenly developed senses can distinguish who was pushing who over the phone. In other words, they have no evidence. Arguing whether Zimmerman was being rude or needlessly aggressive in his watch over the neighborhood may be valid, but don't belong in this thread as they have nothing to do with the legal question being presented.
Good points. I'd only add that lawyers and legal positioning have $#@!ed this country six ways from Sunday.
Probably doesn't belong in this thread either as we don't need to determine what was right or wrong, just what can be verbally and 'evidencially' manipulated into reasonable doubt. - Which is a very valid point.
I believe Zimmerman was in the wrong and by and large caused the incident to unfold as it did. In the eyes of the law (lowercase intentional) that is not what matters.
Let's not forget that this is the same law who put a mother in jail for twenty years for firing warning shots at her boyfriend or the many, many, many other injustices perpetrated in Florida. Right and wrong doesn't mean anything in the "justice system." (an oxymoron in itself) Might is right. (might being money, of course) - Why some people get 20 years MMS and some people get off. So I'm clear though, everyone deserves adequate representation and the knock knock joke still was insulting to a seemingly lower than ever possibly thought low "just-us" system. Kangaroos around.
“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell
Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump
Zimmerman wasn't on watch that night- which makes the argument on his aggressiveness absolutely valid; he took things into his own hands when he was asked to stand down.
There is no spoon.
Did I wander into the wrong forum? Are people here actually complaining that Zimm DIDN'T listen to the orders of the badged madmen? Can't have it both ways, folks.
Uhhh yeah I don't think so.
#1. Since when are 911 operators cops?
#2. You do not need to abide by all commands by cops, because not all are legal.
#3. It wasn't a command, and like I previously said, it's as much of a suggestion as when cops try to get people to do sobriety tests so they can make up stuff to arrest people on a DUI (happened to me before). Suggestions by cops are meaningless in a court of law.
The Heart of Conservatism is Libertarianism - Ronald Reagan
Careful. Zippy just may report you to our ruling class masters.
You're given an order, you follow that order, civilian!
Well, not only that, but E911 dispatchers are not law enforcement officers... they are civilians. They have no authority to give you a lawful order.
Was Zimmerman stupid for getting out of his vehicle? Absolutely. Did he deserve to be assaulted like he was? No. When someone has overwhelming physical superiority over you, it doesn't matter if they are unarmed or not. Disparity of force treats that person as if they were armed even if they were not.
Now, if you initiate the confrontation (wanting a fight), then you pretty much screwed yourself because you basically asked for it. The question is did Zimmerman want to fight? If he did not, then he didn't initiate a confrontation.
Zimmerman should have stayed in his vehicle and waited for the cops to come. As a former cop myself, would I get out of my vehicle and 'talk' to a big guy wearing a hoodie? Hell no! You wait until other officers show up. Most officer shootings actually involve the cop being shot with his/her own weapon. There is always at least one gun at every situation... yours. When you get into a fight, guess what, someone might get to your weapon and you're done.
All of this said, being 'suspicious' is not a crime. If this kid was in the process of jacking someone, then, yes... Zimmerman should have jacked him up, but that wasn't the case here. Zimmerman was an idiot, but he was technically justified (official report conclusion of the officers). They had to get a special DA to file charges because the cops knew that he was justified and were not going to file bogus charges (one of the rare cases of this lol).
Last edited by AFPVet; 06-28-2013 at 10:33 AM.
Indianensis Universitatis Alumnus
Shes illiterate methinks.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...fatal-gunshot/
This case is so over. Unless the jurors are smoking crack, no way a guilty verdict comes down. There's barely even anything to deliberate on.
But you have no proof that Zimmerman chased down anybody.. He could have followed him for a while, turned around and then been attacked from behind. In fact, that's pretty much what Zimmerman claimed happened. He claimed he was confronted by skittleboy from behind, turned around and he got attacked. Do you have any evidence that isn't what happened?
"He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
"dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
"You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
"When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q
"Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul
"Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."
Brandon I haven't watched one second of it. Yesterday on Twitter, after the bad witness, a Spanish speaking witness appeared, and Twitter seemed to think that she said Zimmerman was on top of Martin, which meant Zimmerman was lying about the escapade. Did you see any of that?
+rep
"He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
"dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
"You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
"When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q
"Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul
"Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."
No, you're wrong, read RonPaulMall's post again, it is absolutely 100% correct. This has nothing to do with any authority or neighborhood watch, forget it even exists. You are absolutely 100% wrong that Zimmerman is not allowed to walk around his neighborhood or that some how walking around your neighborhood constitutes a threat to somebody else. Unless Zimmerman attacked Trayvon, which there is no evidence of, then assuming Treyvon attacked Zimmerman which is what the only witness says happened and there is no contradictory evidence to hold Zimmerman for murder.
Once again - NOTHING illegal about walking around your neighborhood, or running for that matter, even if you are walking or running following another individual, unless you threaten them or assault them.
"He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
"dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
"You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
"When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q
"Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul
"Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."
Disagree.
Your premise is wrong. Zimmerman has a track record of an overzealous cop wannabe. He had called 911 many times for no reason and was itching to be a hero.
Trayvon didn't just wander into the community- he had left for a short time and was then coming back to the house he was staying at. If Zimmerman was around at that time, he saw him; if someone else was on watch, they too would have seen him.
The only thing wrong that Trayvon did was to wear a hoodie. Oh the horror!
Zimmerman can walk around his own neighbor, true- BUT to follow/harrass someone else who had already been in the community was negligent on his part, to say the very least.
There is no spoon.
That's not evidence of anything that happened. That is character witness stuff that is supposed to ACCOMPANY some evidence of what happened.
Well he didn't see him, he wasn't on any official 'watch', he just happened to see him on the way home and he thought he was a robber. There had been a lot of robberies, so its no wonder that somebody in the neighborhood was concerned that somebody they didn't know was just walking around the houses in a gated community.
ASSumptions make asses out of you and me. According to Zimmerman, Trayvon came up behind him and assaulted him. Is there any witness testimony or evidence contradicting this? Then I rest my case.
Zimmerman had never seen this kid before, again, he was staying there with his dad's fiance or something, he was a new person in the neighborhood.
There is nothing illegal about following somebody and even asking them questions is 100% within the law. If you are trying to tell me that if I ask somebody on the street a question who I have followed and tracked down, they have a right to assault me that is insane. That is basically what you're saying.
"He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
"dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
"You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
"When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q
"Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul
"Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."
Do you have proof of that? I mean, there certainly isn't wrong with approaching a stranger in your neighborhood, is there? If Trayvon was approached and took offense or was scared it is possible he assaulted Zimmerman upon his approach.
The problem is that there doesn't seem to be enough evidence to know who did what.
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
I talked about this incident extensively with a Florida retired detective friend of mine who stated that down there, the only people wearing hoodies are the thugs (or wannabes). Statistics provide for enough evidence to make this generalization.
Even if Martin wasn't a real 'thug', he was dressing the part.
Last edited by AFPVet; 06-28-2013 at 05:36 PM.
Indianensis Universitatis Alumnus
If the shooting had happened in July, I'd agree. But this happened in February, and it does get chilly in Florida in the winter, because the humidity makes it seem colder than it is.
When this incident happened some "conservative" forums were all abuzz about how Trayvon deserved it because he was wearing a hoodie. I was teaching at an art school and looked around at my class, who were outstanding students- everyone, including the girls, was wearing a hoodie.
There is no spoon.
Yeah, the argument that people who wear hoodies should be looked at more suspiciously is beyond ridiculous.
It's all about timing. Obviously, you wouldn't wear a ski mask in the summer time just as you wouldn't be wearing a hoodie in the summer time. Granted, the timing of this incident is key.
Let's not dodge the main issue here. As I have said before, being suspicious isn't a crime. I believe there must be a victim in order for there to be a crime. However, wrong or not, Zimmerman got his ass beat by a person who was significantly more powerful and was subsequently fighting for his life. The question is... did he go into the situation looking to fight, or was he just trying to 'talk' to the guy?
Indianensis Universitatis Alumnus
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us