# George Zimmerman sues NBC and reporters



## Onomatopoeia (Dec 7, 2012)

> ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) ? George Zimmerman sued NBC on Thursday, claiming he was defamed when the network edited his 911 call to police after the shooting of Trayvon Martin to make it sound like he was racist.
> 
> The former neighborhood watch volunteer filed the lawsuit seeking an undisclosed amount of money in Seminole County, outside Orlando. Also named in the complaint were three reporters covering the story for NBC or an NBC-owned television station.
> 
> ...



http://news.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-sues-nbc-reporters-221734555.html

Thoughts?


----------



## Roman (Dec 7, 2012)

He waits this long to sue NBC? If he was so concerned, why didn't he sue them right away or take it up with the court dealing with the trial? There's still a lot of uncertainty around the case for there to be a clear answer.


----------



## God (Dec 7, 2012)

unsure...


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 7, 2012)

Freedan said:


> He waits this long to sue NBC? If he was so concerned, why didn't he sue them right away or take it up with the court dealing with the trial? There's still a lot of uncertainty around the case for there to be a clear answer.



Simple answer is look at the situation he is in. I doubt you would be thinking about or wanting to be tied up in more of a mess than being on trial for murder and everything that comes with it. 

And just guessing here as I know little about what lawyers would be doing but the timing may be good to help his image as well. Now that the trial is under way and is (seemingly) looking fairly good for him it can only help to look a victim as well. 


In any case he should win this case and could probably sue others as well for how bad he was portrayed before all of the facts were out. From what I remember NF members are lucky he can't/won't come after them either


----------



## lucky (Dec 7, 2012)

> The call viewers heard was trimmed to suggest that Zimmerman volunteered  to police, with no prompting, that Martin was black:* "This guy looks  like he's up to no good. He looks black."*
> 
> But the portion of the tape that was deleted had the 911 dispatcher*  asking Zimmerman if the person who had raised his suspicion was "black,  white or Hispanic," to which Zimmerman responded, "He looks black."*



i've no idea what happened then and won't judge...


But damn.  The context between the differences between the two.  Like fucking heaven and earth.


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 7, 2012)

It was clear attempts to manipulate events by MSNBC's part, and was not only dishonest reporting but also dangerous and could have incited further racial violence. They do deserve a good lawsuit to deter them from that kind of behavior in the future, but I wish it was from a less-wacky guy.


----------



## Mansali (Dec 7, 2012)

He still deserves to go to prison after what he did. Running after the kid and them starting the confrontation.


----------



## On and On (Dec 7, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> From what I remember NF members are lucky he can't/won't come after them either



friend please, I wish this stupid bastard would stroll up to my house. I be laying in the bushes to light that ass up 


Anyway, he should win this lolsuit, but let's give him the chair anyway for being such a fucktard.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 7, 2012)

SonVegeta said:


> He still deserves to go to prison after what he did. Running after the kid and them starting the confrontation.



I haven't been fully keeping up but the evidence seems to be pointing to him not starting the confrontation. Again, without knowing every single detail it looks like he should get off for self defense. 



On and On said:


> friend please, I wish this stupid bastard would stroll up to my house. I be laying in the bushes to light that ass up



Be that as it may, you all did jump the gun and slander the guy before you knew shit. IIRC I was the only one who gave the guy any kind of a fair chance. Of course everyone hated that I did that


----------



## Mansali (Dec 7, 2012)

He saw a kid with skittles and than started running after him. The police told Zimmerman to not follow the kid but he did it anyway. Then when Zimmerman got into the fight he took out a gun and shot the kid. 

All Zimmerman had to do was to not follow the kid.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 7, 2012)

SonVegeta said:


> He saw a kid with skittles and than started running after him.



1. Don't be dense.

2. He is allowed to do that. 



> The police told Zimmerman to not follow the kid but he did it anyway.



Again, he is allowed to do that. They told him he didn't need to follow but he did. That isn't against the law. Is it dumb? Yeah, you could say that. But that isn't really relevant. 



> Then when Zimmerman got into the fight he took out a gun and shot the kid.



Well, if you were being attacked and beaten badly would you not do anything in your power to come out of that safely? I am not saying I would personally shoot the kid or even be carrying a gun but Zimmerman was allowed to have that gun and I am sure we can all at least agree that we understand self defense isn't illegal either. 

If Trayvon started the fight (which appears to be the case from what I have seen) Zimmerman will get off and should get off. 



> All Zimmerman had to do was to not follow the kid.



True, and nobody disagrees with this. The problem is that it isn't really a relevant argument. As long as Zimmerman wasn't hindering Martin or trying to harm him he was within his rights.


----------



## Blue (Dec 7, 2012)

SonVegeta said:


> He still deserves to go to prison after what he did. Running after the kid and them starting the confrontation.



He doesn't, not even for manslaughter, much less murder. Being a dick is not a crime.

There is absolutely no question now, given the evidence that's been released, that Martin assaulted him and that he was in danger when he pulled his gun.


----------



## On and On (Dec 7, 2012)

^ He wouldn't've been in danger if he minded his own fucking business, which is exactly what the police told him to do. Instead he felt it was appropriate for him to follow and confront said person, even though he was told not to. He was operating completely, knowledgably, on the opposite side of the law, if the cops told him to stay the fuck home.

And now an INNOCENT teenager is dead. So we let George Zimmerman go simply because "well, he didn't exactly kill him for no reason" - even though he did?

Bitch please, get fucking serious, there is absolutely no justice in that scenario. A hate crime charge likely wouldn't pass, but he certainly at the very least deserves a manslaughter charge for voluntarily putting himself in a situation the LAW told him to avoid and killing someone as a result of it, "self-defense" or not. Besides - who is really defending oneself - the confronter, or the person they're going after?





Cyphon said:


> Be that as it may, you all did jump the gun and slander the guy before you knew shit.



Not really. He enticed the entire situation even when he was told not to, and I don't care what anyone says, I can't help but feel this would've been less likely to happen to the kid if he was white. Same thing with the dude who shot the black guy at the gas station recently. But that's entirely my opinion~



> IIRC I was the only one who gave the guy any kind of a fair chance.



No, you weren't, stop giving yourself so much credit.


----------



## Mansali (Dec 7, 2012)

Zimmerman should save his money. NBC edited out about 10 seconds of audio from that 911 recording. What they left out did nothing to alter the conclusion drawn by Zim's report. Zim ignored the police, went after Martin and shot the unarmed boy. Zim will be back in prison soon..l

I doubt he will win this case at all.

If there was a fight... it was Travon Martin who was the one who used self defense.How does someone as big as Zimmerman even lose to that kid? 

And this stupid stand your ground law needs to end.


----------



## stream (Dec 7, 2012)

lucky said:


> i've no idea what happened then and won't judge...
> 
> 
> But damn.  The context between the differences between the two. Like fucking heaven and earth.



Yeah, it's fairly impressive how much taking words out of their context makes a difference. I think he has a good case against NBC; the least they could have done is put a [?] between the two sentences, and even then I would have thought it a bit dodgy. Just sticking the two together? That is just wrong.

NBC also seems to think so, considering they fired three employees involved in the reporting:


> On its blog, NBC says on April 3, it apologized for the edited call saying it 'deeply regrets' the 'error'. It adds that NBC fired three employees involved in the reporting who also worked for a local NBC station. Two of the dismissed employees are also named in Zimmerman's lawsuit, which also names NBC reporter Ron Allen as a defendant.


He is right to sue them. He has a good chance of getting money out of it for defamation of character. It might also help him get out of his second-degree murder charge.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 7, 2012)

On and On said:


> ^ He wouldn't've been in danger if he minded his own fucking business, which is exactly what the police told him to do.



Again, this is true and nobody disagrees. Still, it isn't really relevant. We should probably stick to what actually matters. 



> He was operating completely, knowledgably, on the opposite side of the law, if the cops told him to stay the fuck home.



Well, he was already away from his home so they didn't tell him to stay home. And he didn't do anything against the law by following. So again, not relevant. 



> And now an INNOCENT teenager is dead. So we let George Zimmerman go simply because "well, he didn't exactly kill him for no reason" - even though he did?



If the details we have are correct Trayvon attacked Zimmerman meaning he wasn't exactly innocent. Assuming he had lived and we weren't so caught up in race he would likely be charged with assault and battery. And just to continue being clear, I don't think Trayvon deserved to be shot or anything like that. 

Second thing is, you are twisting the scenario. We would be letting him go because he commited no crime based on the law. That is how our justice system works. If you don't like that or the law then argue that, not Zimmerman being a racist or whatever. 



> Not really. He enticed the entire situation even when he was told not to,





> No, you weren't, stop giving yourself so much credit.



Obviously you don't remember much of that thread. There may have been 1 or 2 people who kind of agreed with me or whatever but for the most part it was a giant circle jerk trash heap from a bunch of you talking out of your asses. 



SonVegeta said:


> What they left out did nothing to alter the conclusion drawn by Zim's report.



What they left out can COMPLETELY change how we view Zimmerman. One scenario makes it seem like he followed based on race and put a lot on the fact Martin was black. In the other scenario he answered a question asked by a dispatcher. 



> I doubt he will win this case at all.



He will likely get a settlement because NBC knows they fucked up regardless of what they are saying now. 



> If there was a fight... it was Travon Martin who was the one who used self defense.



So if you are walking behind me down the street I can just start kicking your ass and call it self defense?





> How does someone as big as Zimmerman even lose to that kid?



Zimmerman isn't even that big. Trayvon was a lot taller and likely in better shape based on the pics I have seen of Zimmerman. 

And anyone who knows anything about fighting knows size isn't that relevant in a street fight. There are many other factors that are more important. 

One obvious example here is how a weapon changes a fight regardless of size or circumstance. 



> And this stupid stand your ground law needs to end.



Now here is the argument that can be made. Instead of the rest of this nonsense you guys are throwing out there.


----------



## On and On (Dec 7, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> Again, this is true and nobody disagrees. Still, it isn't really relevant. We should probably stick to what actually matters.



What everyone can agree upon is what's relevant 



> Well, he was already away from his home so they didn't tell him to stay home. And he didn't do anything against the law by following. So again, not relevant.



Except they told him to leave the situation alone 



> If the details we have are correct Trayvon attacked Zimmerman meaning he wasn't exactly innocent.



You mean the ones from the guy that killed the other guy and we don't have any witnessess, except for people who believe they heard something, on BOTH sides of the story?



> Assuming he had lived and we weren't so caught up in race he would likely be charged with assault and battery.



Depends on what his story would've been. Here you assume he wasn't defending himself, which, btw, doesn't have to start AFTER someone attacks you 



> Second thing is, you are twisting the scenario. We would be letting him go because he commited no crime based on the law.



Killing someone isn't a crime? Even when you "didn't mean to"? 



> Obviously you don't remember much of that thread. There may have been 1 or 2 people who kind of agreed with me or whatever but for the most part it was a giant circle jerk trash heap from a bunch of you talking out of your asses.



There was more than one or two, and you weren't the only person on NF, let alone the internet, so stop acting like you deserve some reward or something.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 7, 2012)

On and On said:


> Except they told him to leave the situation alone



I know this is going to be an annoying thing to say but it does fit. If they told him to jump off a bridge should he have? Just so he could say he "sided" with the law? 



> You mean the ones from the guy that killed the other guy and we don't have any witnessess, except for people who believe they heard something, on BOTH sides of the story?



I get where you are coming from but in our system it is innocent until proven guilty. We don't just assume guilt because he is the only one who can tell a story. Without evidence against him he is innocent. So again, if you don't like the system or the laws feel free to argue that and I will do my best to add to the discussion. What you are arguing now though is basically just an emotional reaction to a situation you aren't personally happy with. 



> Here you assume he wasn't defending himself, which, btw, doesn't have to start AFTER someone attacks you



I am not really assuming anything. I am basing it off of the evidence we have. And claiming self defense when someone hasn't attacked you or threatened you is a shaky defense to try standing on. You would be attacking based off of suspicion which is no different than what you are getting on Zimmerman for. He followed someone based off of suspicion and you are mad at that but you seem okay with Martin attacking him based off of suspicion (if that is what happened).



> Killing someone isn't a crime? Even when you "didn't mean to"?



Uh.....You do realize this whole case is about self defense right? Do you even know the laws? Again, stop twisting shit and playing ignorant because you are emotionally drawn in. 



> There was more than one or two, and you weren't the only person on NF, let alone the internet, so stop acting like you deserve some reward or something.



I certainly don't deserve a reward for being one of the only level headed people in the Cafe at that time, but I see nothing wrong with reminding you all how you ignorantly jumped the gun. It is best to learn from the past so we don't repeat our mistakes. 

And yeah, there were maybe one or 2 people who played it fair besides myself. On NF mind you, not the entire internet.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Dec 7, 2012)

Fine, let him get a cash settlement from the news organization then send his ass to jail.

This seems pretty cut and dry to me, you can't stalk someone with a gun (especially after the cops told you NOT to) then claim self defense when that person acts in what they probably view as defense against YOU.

If that's the new definition of the self defense justification then its lost a lot of meaning.


----------



## hadou (Dec 7, 2012)

SonVegeta said:


> Zimmerman should save his money. NBC edited out about 10 seconds of audio from that 911 recording. What they left out did nothing to alter the conclusion drawn by Zim's report. Zim ignored the police, went after Martin and shot the unarmed boy. Zim will be back in prison soon..l
> 
> I doubt he will win this case at all.
> 
> ...



Zim will win the case, the law will stand, and he might win the trial against MSNBC. Try to be objective and less subjective.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 7, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> you can't stalk someone with a gun (especially after the cops told you NOT to) then claim self defense when that person acts in what they probably view as defense against YOU.



Well.....That isn't really what happened. He didn't stalk anyone with a gun. He had a gun on his person while reporting a suspicious person. 2 different things depending on how you twist the wording. Though I prefer the honest wording myself. And again, the police telling him not to follow means little or nothing. They made a suggestion and he didn't listen. Dumb on his part but not against the law. 

And as for your last part. How far do you extend this "defense against you" thing? If I walk up to a girl to ask for her number am I guilty of attacking her? If she views me as a threat and attacks is she within her rights? Do you see how shaky that argument is?


----------



## Mansali (Dec 7, 2012)

hadou said:


> Zim will win the case, the law will stand, and he might win the trial against MSNBC. Try to be objective and less subjective.



I am the one being onjective here. 

The Law is not going to punish MSNBC just because of the deletion. 

Zimmerman's side has to prove that the deletion caused a huge change in the perception people had about Zimmerman. What I am saying is that Zimmerman doesnt have much to go on. People would have accused him of being racist either way. So the deletion (in my opinion) did not influence public perception at all.


----------



## hadou (Dec 7, 2012)

SonVegeta said:


> *I am the one being onjective here*.
> 
> The Law is not going to punish MSNBC just because of the deletion.
> 
> Zimmerman's side has to prove that the deletion caused a huge change in the perception people had about Zimmerman. What I am saying is that Zimmerman doesnt have much to go on. People would have accused him of being racist either way. So the deletion (*in my opinion*) did not influence public perception at all.



Come again


----------



## Bishop (Dec 7, 2012)

Fcuk NBC, he needs to sue NF Cafe for how bad we defamed his character, over 400 pages of pure filth spread all throughout the world


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Dec 7, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> Well.....That isn't really what happened. He didn't stalk anyone with a gun. He had a gun on his person while reporting a suspicious person. 2 different things depending on how you twist the wording. Though I prefer the honest wording myself. And again, the police telling him not to follow means little or nothing. They made a suggestion and he didn't listen. *Dumb on his part but not against the law.*



Yes it is not against the law, but it kills any claim of self defense.  Self defense means you're in a situation where you have no choice but to defend your life, he had MANY choices.  He could have turned around and walk away, hell he could have stood there and done NOTHING and the "threat" would have gone away.

When the cops told him not to chase the kid that was an indication that cops were on their way.  There was absolutely no need for him to follow Trayvon Martin at all, especially no need to do so armed with a deadly weapon.



Cyphon said:


> And as for your last part. How far do you extend this "defense against you" thing? If I walk up to a girl to ask for her number am I guilty of attacking her? If she views me as a threat and attacks is she within her rights? Do you see how shaky that argument is?



Ah yes because that's EXACTLY what happened here.  If you stalk a girl then you're definitely acting in a threatening manner.


----------



## Mansali (Dec 7, 2012)

hadou said:


> Come again



I Know right!!!!!

The KKK are much more objective than I'll ever be


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 7, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Yes it is not against the law, but it kills any claim of self defense.



No it doesn't. 



> Self defense means you're in a situation where you have no choice but to defend your life, he had MANY choices.  He could have turned around and walk away, hell he could have stood there and done NOTHING and the "threat" would have gone away.



This really all depends. He had choices but then choices can change. He followed to give the dispatcher details and then ended up in a situation where he had no choice. You can fault him and I get it, but you also have to fault Martin. If Martin walked away and didn't attack he is still alive and we aren't even having this discussion. So both of them had choices. The difference here is that Zimmerman didn't "force" any choice on Martin (at least from the evidence) but Martin did force Zimmerman into a choice. Again, not to say he forced him to shoot him but he did force him to defend himself. 



> There was absolutely no need for him to follow Trayvon Martin at all, especially no need to do so armed with a deadly weapon.



Nobody has ever once disagreed with this so why do all of you continue to repeat it? 

If it helps I will say it with you:

There was absolutely no need for him to follow Trayvon Martin. I agree. You happy now? 



> Ah yes because that's EXACTLY what happened here.  If you stalk a girl then you're definitely acting in a threatening manner.



So asking a girl for her number is stalking her? Is saying hi to her stalking her? Again, this is to shaky and too much opinion based to be any kind of solid defense.

So the question becomes was Zimmerman actually doing something threatening or did Martin just attack him? Who defines what can be viewed as threatening?

I get that a discussion on the finer points could go on forever. I am pointing it out though, to show that we have 2 completely different "strengths" of case. If Martin were alive and they fought this in court his case is very shaky whereas Zimmerman has an almost bulletproof case. He has all of the injuries and he was physically assaulted whereas Martin wasn't (again, viewing a scenario where he wasn't shot). 

So basically you are guessing that Zimmerman is guilty and that isn't how the law works.


----------



## On and On (Dec 7, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> I know this is going to be an annoying thing to say but it does fit. If they told him to jump off a bridge should he have? Just so he could say he "sided" with the law?



That's not only annoying, it's stupid, trivial, and is a false comparison.



> I get where you are coming from but in our system it is innocent until proven guilty. We don't just assume guilt because he is the only one who can tell a story. Without evidence against him he is innocent. So again, if you don't like the system or the laws feel free to argue that and I will do my best to add to the discussion.



I don't have to, that's why he has charges against him right meow  



> What you are arguing now though is basically just an emotional reaction to a situation you aren't personally happy with.



Not really, which is why he has charges against him. If it has no basis in logic/reason, they wouldn't've charged him.



> I am not really assuming anything. I am basing it off of the evidence we have.



Yes you are, even if you are basing it off of evidence.



> And claiming self defense when someone hasn't attacked you or threatened you is a shaky defense to try standing on.



How do we know he wasn't threatened?  Someone following me down the street and then confronting me is pretty threatening, and who knows what he ACTUALLY said or did to elicit such a response him 



> You would be attacking based off of suspicion which is no different than what you are getting on Zimmerman for.



Nope. You are perfectly within your rights to attack someone if you feel that your life is in imminent danger, and a failure to do so would result in your own injury. 



)

Who is in the bigger right to defend themself? The armless, innocent individual walking down the street or the person stalking him with a gun when the police has already told him to back the fuck off? 

The only way the second is right is if you -assume- Martin turned around and ran up on Zimmerman's car (which had no place being there), in which case Zimmerman's life wasn't in anyway in immediate danger since he could've driven away, or just not gotten out, not to mention HE SHOULDN'T'VE BEEN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE 

His entire defense is around the stand-your-ground law bullshit thing, which is a crock of shit, and even police chiefs and prosecutors within the law agree. 



> He followed someone based off of suspicion and you are mad at that but you seem okay with Martin attacking him based off of suspicion (if that is what happened).



I didn't say I was okay with Martin attacking him based on suspicion, I'm okay with Zimmerman intimidating Martin and making him feel like he was in physical danger, and responding with violent self-defense. 



> Uh.....You do realize this whole case is about self defense right?



Self-defense went out the window the second he followed a potentially violent criminal who he had already told the police about, who had told him they were already looking into it and to stand down. You don't have to lose ground to your supposed assailant, but that doesn't mean you can approach them either and shoot them while claiming self-defense. This is what his -likely- conviction in this courtcase will prove in Florida law.

He's nothing more than a vigilante.



> Do you even know the laws? Again, stop twisting shit and playing ignorant because you are emotionally drawn in.



No one's twisting anything


----------



## Yagami Light (Dec 7, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> 1. Don't be dense.
> 
> 2. He is allowed to do that.
> 
> ...



Actually the evidence points to him not following after being told he didnt need to follow him(not NOT to follow)


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Dec 7, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> No it doesn't.



How can you willingly chase down a threat when you didn't have to (and were told not to) and then claim self defense?



Cyphon said:


> This really all depends. He had choices but then choices can change. He followed to give the dispatcher details and then ended up in a situation where he had no choice. You can fault him and I get it, but you also have to fault Martin. If Martin walked away and didn't attack he is still alive and we aren't even having this discussion. So both of them had choices. The difference here is that Zimmerman didn't "force" any choice on Martin (at least from the evidence) but Martin did force Zimmerman into a choice. Again, not to say he forced him to shoot him but he did force him to defend himself.



He WILLINGLY put himself in that situation.  Again, all he had to do is stand there and he would NEVER have been in that sitaution.



Cyphon said:


> Nobody has ever once disagreed with this so why do all of you continue to repeat it?
> 
> If it helps I will say it with you:
> 
> There was absolutely no need for him to follow Trayvon Martin. I agree. You happy now?



You say you agree but then you ignore everything that it means.



Cyphon said:


> *So asking a girl for her number is stalking her? Is saying hi to her stalking her? *Again, this is to shaky and too much opinion based to be any kind of solid defense.
> 
> So the question becomes was Zimmerman actually doing something threatening or did Martin just attack him? Who defines what can be viewed as threatening?
> 
> ...



See when you start out with bullshit examples like that it shows me that you either are being purposefully obtuse or have no idea what you're talking about.  How is following someone with a gun even in the same universe as asking a girl for her number?


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 7, 2012)

On and On said:


> That's not only annoying, it's stupid, trivial, and is a false comparison.



Not false at all. Because it changes nothing regardless. In any case we can move on from the irrelevant point. 



> Not really, which is why he has charges against him. If it has no basis in logic/reason, they wouldn't've charged him.



That isn't true. Our system does have its flaws which is why dumb cases happen all of the time. Not to say that this one is dumb, but still.....



> How do we know he wasn't threatened?



Because the evidence we have tells you he wasn't. I am not going to see here and guess at 1000 different details. Zimmerman may be lying but how will we ever know or prove it?



> Nope. You are perfectly within your rights to attack someone if you feel that your life is in imminent danger, and a failure to do so would result in your own injury.



But how do you prove that? I could be at a table in a resturaunt and you could look at me and I feel threatened. Am I allowed to jump across your table and start beating you? I highly think that would stand up in court. 

Again, what I am pointing out here are the major differences in what we are trying to argue. You are guessing Martin was in danger or felt threatened. We KNOW Zimmerman was in danger. We are talking about what would be 2 completely different cases. 



> Who is in the bigger right to defend themself? The armless, innocent individual walking down the street or the person stalking him with a gun when the police has already told him to back the fuck off?



Well, I will stick with the honest scenario to give my answer. Zimmerman (easily) had the bigger right to defend himself. He was being attacked. Martin was in absolutely no danger (that we know of) and had no right to self defense. If Zimmerman threatened him or attacked him and you can show that to me, I will change my stance immediately. 



> I didn't say I was okay with Martin attacking him based on suspicion, I'm okay with Zimmerman intimidating Martin and making him feel like he was in physical danger, and responding with violent self-defense.



But you don't even know that is what happened and there isn't even really evidence to support that. 



> He's nothing more than a vigilante.



While this may be true he still has the right to defend himself from an attacker. The same as you claim for Martin (even though Martin wasn't attacked). 



> No one's twisting anything


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 7, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> How can you willingly chase down a threat when you didn't have to (and were told not to) and then claim self defense?



Because following someone doesn't mean they can attack you. Not to mention (at the time) Martin wasn't necessarily a threat. So we can't say Zimmerman willingly chased down a threat. 

Again, what if you put this in another scenario. Lets say you are walking down the street and you continuously make the same turns as someone else (you are going to the same place as them but neither of you know that) they notice you and think you are following them and view you as a threat so they confront you. You then view that as a threat and start to fight. Who has the right of it? Who do we extend the protection to? Both have a valid case.

And yes, this is a completely different scenario but the point is how shaky the conversation is. Even if Zimmerman willingly followed when he was told not to he doesn't lose his rights as a citizen. And if he does do we talk about how the dispatcher should know that and disclose that to him? Should they say "you lose all protection of the laws if you follow"?

IMO it just gets way too sketchy in the argument you are making. 



> You say you agree but then you ignore everything that it means.



Can you quote an example of where I have ignore something?



> How is following someone with a gun even in the same universe as asking a girl for her number?



Well, if you stop taking it out of context it is exactly the same in relation to the argument we are having. 

When Zimmerman was following Martin, Martin didn't know Zimmerman had a gun (you keep talking as if Zimmerman was running with his gun out yelling at Martin). So as far as Martin knew there was just some guy walking behind him. You can argue he viewed that as a threat and I wouldn't say you can't argue that. At the same time (based on our society and rape and all of that) a women could make a valid case that she felt threatened by some guy who was only coming up to ask for her number. 

The point here is that it is all simply in someones mind. How do you prove what someone was thinking or if they truly felt threatened? That is way too shaky of a case to try and make. So can you prove Martin felt threatened? Or do we just guess he felt threatened, take away Zimmermans right to self defense and throw him in jail?

In Zimmermans case we have absolute proof he had a chance of being harmed or was harmed. So he has a valid self defense case. Him following someone doesn't change that as far as I can tell. Granted, I may be wrong on that. I don't know the intricacies of how they word and view these laws.


----------



## God (Dec 7, 2012)

zimmerman still isn't in jail though bruh? 


dude stalked him after cops told him to fuck off, made up his own retarded conclusions about martin being up to no good (when we know he was going to an anniversary) and then shot him (when we've heard audio of martin actually taking off)


----------



## kazuri (Dec 7, 2012)

Gotta love how so many here still dont understand innocent until proven guilty, or that popular opinion/mob mentality can be wrong, or that the media tries as much as it can to create ratings by manipulation.




> How can you willingly chase down a threat when you didn't have to (and were told not to) and then claim self defense?



You cant tell youre biased simply by how you worded that? How many times are you going to lie knowing they did not say not to, just that they didn't need him to? You start off by saying follow and now you have escalated it to chase. You are completely biased.



> dude stalked him after cops told him to fuck off,



False, double false.


----------



## Blue (Dec 7, 2012)

Yeah, Zimmermann stalked Martin. Thing is, that was kind of his job, and it's not illegal. Like I said, being a dick isn't against the law. After 911 told him to back off? Dumb, yes, but again not illegal.

Then we have Zimmermann with lacerations on his head, a broken nose, bruising and grass on his back.

And Martin completely untouched besides cuts _on his knuckles_ and a bullet hole.

If you think Zimmermann is a murderer or even guilty of manslaughter you're either ignorant of the facts or frightfully biased.


----------



## αce (Dec 7, 2012)

> And anyone who knows anything about fighting knows *size isn't that  relevant in a street fight.* There are many other factors that are more  important.



:sanji
Time to go take a nap.


I'm not getting into this debate again. Don't chase after someone you think is suspicious with a gun (asking for a fight) on you when the 911 dispatcher tells you to fuck off. End of story.


----------



## God (Dec 7, 2012)

kazuri said:


> False, double false.



lol at you


----------



## αce (Dec 7, 2012)

Not a murderer. Just a retard.
And yes, that should be worthy of conviction.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Dec 7, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Yeah, Zimmermann stalked Martin. Thing is, that was kind of his job, and it's not illegal. Like I said, being a dick isn't against the law. After 911 told him to back off? Dumb, yes, but again not illegal.



He was a _self-appointed_ community watch captain, no one authorized him to do this on behalf of the neighborhood so it was not his job at all.



Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Then we have Zimmermann with lacerations on his head, a broken nose, bruising and grass on his back.
> 
> And Martin completely untouched besides cuts _on his knuckles_ and a bullet hole.
> 
> If you think Zimmermann is a murderer or even guilty of manslaughter you're either ignorant of the facts or frightfully biased.



His justification is self defense.  I don't think you should be allowed to claim self defense when you had every opportunity NOT to be in that situation and were even told by the cops not to put yourself in that situation.

Self defense is supposed to be for when you have no alternative but to kill in order to protect yourself.  If you're coming at me with a knife but I can hit a button that will drop me into a panic room I'm not justified in using deadly force, I have a viable option to remove myself from the threat and make myself safe.

All Zimmerman had to do was stand still and the "threat" would have gone away, if he was really that scared he could have even turned around and run away as fast as he could.  Both were perfectly viable options.


----------



## αce (Dec 7, 2012)

Again...chasing after a "suspicious" kid with a gun is asking for a fight. What did he expect Trayvon to do? His dad said that he went to pull out a cell phone when he caught up with Trayvon (assuming he didn't change his story). Yeah, good idea. Where was that cell phone relative to his gun? My guess is Trayvon threw down the moment he saw it.

I would have too.


Zimmerman was asking for a conflict. Grade A retard.


----------



## Blue (Dec 7, 2012)

Yeah, well, unfortunately that's not how the law works. You can stalk, verbally abuse, and accost someone to your heart's content. It's the person who physically assaults another who is at fault.

And if you're seriously trying to tell me that being a dick is a terrible crime and jumping on someone and beating the shit out of them isn't, all I have to say is wat.


----------



## God (Dec 7, 2012)

stalking



> The first state to criminalize stalking in the United States was California in 1990[50] due to several high profile stalking cases in California, including the 1982 attempted murder of actress Theresa Saldana,[51] the 1988 massacre by Richard Farley,[52] the 1989 murder of actress Rebecca Schaeffer,[53] and five Orange County stalking murders also in 1989.[52][54] The first anti-stalking law in the United States, California Penal Code Section 646.9, was developed and proposed by Municipal Court Judge John Watson of Orange County. Watson with U.S. Congressman Ed Royce introduced the law in 1990.[54][55] Also in 1990, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) began the United States' first Threat Management Unit, founded by LAPD Captain Robert Martin.
> 
> Within three years[54] thereafter, every state in the United States followed suit to create the crime of stalking, under different names such as criminal harassment or criminal menace.



talking shit (supreme court)



> There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
> 
> — Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942



zimmerman was out of line in both instances, no matter how you try to spin it


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Dec 7, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> *Yeah, well, unfortunately that's not how the law works. You can stalk, verbally abuse, and accost someone to your heart's content.* It's the person who physically assaults another who is at fault.
> 
> And if you're seriously trying to tell me that being a dick is a terrible crime and jumping on someone and beating the shit out of them isn't, all I have to say is wat.



You actually think you can stalk someone to your hearts content?  Are you familiar with an actress by the name of Rebecca Schaeffer?  She was stalked and murder by someone in the late 80s which led to California passing several anti-stalking laws.  As I've heard (and maybe someone can verify this) all other states have since followed suit to some degree or another.


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 7, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> You actually think you can stalk someone to your hearts content?  Are you familiar with an actress by the name of Rebecca Schaeffer?  She was stalked and murder by someone in the late 80s which led to California passing several anti-stalking laws.  As I've heard (and maybe someone can verify this) all other states have since followed suit to some degree or another.



I'll back you up.





> United States
> 
> The first state to criminalize stalking in the United States was California in 1990[50] due to several high profile stalking cases in California, including the 1982 attempted murder of actress Theresa Saldana,[51] the 1988 massacre by Richard Farley,[52] the 1989 murder of actress Rebecca Schaeffer,[53] and five Orange County stalking murders also in 1989.[52][54] The first anti-stalking law in the United States, California Penal Code Section 646.9, was developed and proposed by Municipal Court Judge John Watson of Orange County. Watson with U.S. Congressman Ed Royce introduced the law in 1990.[54][55] Also in 1990, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) began the United States' first Threat Management Unit, founded by LAPD Captain Robert Martin.
> 
> Within three years[54] thereafter, every state in the United States followed suit to create the crime of stalking, under different names such as criminal harassment or criminal menace. The Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) was enacted in 1994 in response to numerous cases of a driver's information being abused for criminal activity, examples such as the Saldana and Schaeffer stalking cases.[56][57] The DPPA prohibits states from disclosing a driver's personal information without consent by State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). As of 2011, stalking is an offense under section 120a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).[58] The law took effect on 1 October 2007.


----------



## Blue (Dec 7, 2012)

If you guys want to be pedantic, what Zimmermann was doing was in no way stalking. No neighboorhood watch douchebag would ever be charged with criminal harassment for following some dude around his neighborhood.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 7, 2012)

I hope NBC buries his murderer ass.



Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> If you guys want to be pedantic, what  Zimmermann was doing was in no way stalking. No neighboorhood watch  douchebag would ever be charged with criminal harassment for following  some dude around his neighborhood.



He had a fucking gun, something neighborhood watch shouldn't have.


----------



## Blue (Dec 7, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> He had a fucking gun, something neighborhood watch shouldn't have.


I don't see how you figure. Anyone can own a handgun of that sort, and someone who rides around looking for criminals has more reason than most to carry one.

I certainly wouldn't have carried one myself, but he was within his rights to, and he was within his rights to pull the trigger when he did. End of story.

Honestly it's no fucking wonder he was never arrested. The evidence is overwhelming.


----------



## Amrun (Dec 7, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> I don't see how you figure. Anyone can own a handgun of that sort, and someone who rides around looking for criminals has more reason than most to carry one.
> 
> I certainly wouldn't have carried one myself, but he was within his rights to, and he was within his rights to pull the trigger when he did. End of story.
> 
> Honestly it's no fucking wonder he was never arrested. The evidence is overwhelming.



This is the most debatable case of recent years.  It is in NO WAY "end of story."

You're welcome to your opinion, but stop acting like you have the right to dictate other people's morals for them.

Many people believe that he WAS NOT within his rights to shoot when he did.  You don't get to be the judge here for anyone but yourself.  Get off your high horse.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 7, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> I don't see how you figure. Anyone can own a handgun of that sort, and someone who rides around looking for criminals has more reason than most to carry one.
> 
> I certainly wouldn't have carried one myself, but he was within his rights to, and he was within his rights to pull the trigger when he did. End of story.
> 
> Honestly it's no fucking wonder he was never arrested. The evidence is overwhelming.


He wasn't arrested because of who he was related to by the time the public outcry forced them to do something about it, it was too late to have any fair inquiry into the whole thing.


----------



## Blue (Dec 7, 2012)

Amrun said:


> This is the most debatable case of recent years.  It is in NO WAY "end of story."
> 
> You're welcome to your opinion, but stop acting like you have the right to dictate other people's morals for them.
> 
> Many people believe that he WAS NOT within his rights to shoot when he did.  You don't get to be the judge here for anyone but yourself.  Get off your high horse.



Y'know, when this story first broke, I was very much on Martin's side; it looked all the world like this guy hunted him down and shot him from a distance out of malice or panic.

But the evidence that has emerged since then is insanely telling. There's simply no credible scenario where Zimmermann could be convicted of murder beyond a reasonable doubt, or even beyond common sense.

As I said...


			
				Kunoichi no Kiri said:
			
		

> we have Zimmermann with lacerations on his head, a broken nose, bruising and grass on his back.
> 
> And Martin completely untouched besides cuts on his knuckles and a bullet hole.


The shot was also less than 12 inches away.

You can make up insane scenarios for why a person would attack a man with a gun or how Zimmermann managed to start a fight with Martin without leaving a single bruise, and they might even be true, but they'd still be insane coincidences and worthless in a court of law where doubt is king.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Dec 7, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> I don't see how you figure. Anyone can own a handgun of that sort, and someone who rides around looking for criminals has more reason than most to carry one.
> 
> I certainly wouldn't have carried one myself, but he was within his rights to, and he was within his rights to pull the trigger when he did. End of story.
> 
> Honestly it's no fucking wonder he was never arrested. The evidence is overwhelming.



Here is the thing about a self defense claim.  Its an affirmative defense to something that would otherwise be a crime.  He's saying "yes I did it, but I had no choice because of X".

He did something which under normal circumstances is very illegal, which is kill someone.  This becomes legal if he can show he had no other alternative to protect himself.  I fail to see how he can claim he had no alternative when he was given one by the cops, which was do nothing.

I'm curious at what level of provocation you would say is needed before a self defense claim is invalid.  Are you saying I would be free to walk up and punch you in the face, and then if you fight back and start kicking my ass badly I can pull out a knife and shoot you because I'm afraid of the beating I'm getting form you?

When you provoke a confrontation you didn't need to provoke the fault lies with you.  I doubt Trayvon Martin randomly decided to attack this guy for kicks, he obviously felt threatened himself and was acting against a perceived threat.  That's Zimmerman's fault entirely, he made himself seem like a threat.


----------



## Blue (Dec 7, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Here is the thing about a self defense claim.  Its an affirmative defense to something that would otherwise be a crime.  He's saying "yes I did it, but I had no choice because of X".
> 
> He did something which under normal circumstances is very illegal, which is kill someone.  This becomes legal if he can show he had no other alternative to protect himself.  I fail to see how he can claim he had no alternative when he was given one by the cops, which was do nothing.


By that reasoning self-defense claims are never valid, because you can simply choose to never leave your house.
The crux of the matter is that prior to pulling the trigger, the evidence all points to a single conclusion: he did nothing illegal. Stupid, possibly. But if confronting a person walking at night is stupid, I have been the victim of stupidity myself more than once. Many, many people have. I never attacked anyone because of it.



> I'm curious at what level of provocation you would say is needed before a self defense claim is invalid.  Are you saying I would be free to walk up and punch you in the face, and then if you fight back and start kicking my ass badly I can pull out a knife and shoot you because I'm afraid of the beating I'm getting form you?


No. But no evidence suggests that Zimmerman ever hit Martin, first or otherwise.



> When you provoke a confrontation you didn't need to provoke the fault lies with you.  I doubt Trayvon Martin randomly decided to attack this guy for kicks, he obviously felt threatened himself and was acting against a perceived threat.  That's Zimmerman's fault entirely, he made himself seem like a threat.


Fortunately that reasoning doesn't stand in a court of law. If you are threatened, you run away or call the police. You are not entitled to defend yourself physically against verbal threats.
You are entitled to defend yourself physically when someone is beating the fuck out of your face.
It's quite a double standard you're using here. Are you thinking before you make these arguments?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Dec 7, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> By that reasoning self-defense claims are never valid, because you can simply choose to never leave your house.



That's not even remotely similar and you know it.  There is a universe of difference between simply choosing to leave your house in the morning not knowing whats going to happen, and getting a weapon and stalking someone you believe is a threat (we know he did, otherwise why call 911).



Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> The crux of the matter is that prior to pulling the trigger, the evidence all points to a single conclusion: he did nothing illegal. Stupid, possibly. But if confronting a person walking at night is stupid, I have been the victim of stupidity myself more than once. Many, many people have. I never attacked anyone because of it.





Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> No. But no evidence suggests that Zimmerman ever hit Martin, first or otherwise.



The point is he was being provocative.  We've all had people walk behind us on the street before, by Zimmerman was chasing after Trayvon Martin in such a way as to portray himself a serious threat.



Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Fortunately that reasoning doesn't stand in a court of law. If you are threatened, you run away or call the police. *You are not entitled to defend yourself physically against verbal threats.*
> You are entitled to defend yourself physically when someone is beating the fuck out of your face.



You keep saying things that are clearly legally not true.  It depends entirely on the verbal threat.  If I come at you saying "I'm going to slit your fucking throat" that is a threat you are justified in physically defending yourself from if I come too close for comfort.



Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> It's quite a double standard you're using here. Are you thinking before you make these arguments?



It would appear I'm thinking this through far more than you are.  Numerous people have shown several things you've said to be demonstrably false, and rather than admit it like an adult you call us pedantic.


----------



## neko-sennin (Dec 7, 2012)

Aggressors have no claim to self-defense. 



On and On said:


> ^ He wouldn't've been in danger if he minded his own fucking business, which is exactly what the police told him to do.



This.

/thread


----------



## Blue (Dec 7, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> You keep saying things that are clearly legally not true.  It depends entirely on the verbal threat.  If I come at you saying "I'm going to slit your fucking throat" that is a threat you are justified in physically defending yourself from if I come too close for comfort.



I'm not, actually, unless I have just cause to believe you're serious, for instance, you producing a knife. 

If you walk up to me without touching me or having a weapon, and I hit you first, that is assault, no matter what you've said.
If you do have a weapon you're threatening me with (for no good reason, I'm not in your house, for instance) that is also assault and I could then defend myself.

Zimmerman clearly did not produce his weapon until it was needed. That was the responsible choice. He might have prevented the altercation by brandishing the weapon, but besides being illegal, 99 times out of 100 threatening an unarmed person with a gun is reckless and dangerous.


----------



## All The Good Names Are Taken (Dec 7, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> I'm not, actually, unless I have just cause to believe you're serious, for instance, you producing a knife.
> 
> If you walk up to me without touching me or having a weapon, and I hit you first, that is assault, no matter what you've said.
> If you do have a weapon you're threatening me with (for no good reason, I'm not in your house, for instance) that is also assault and I could then defend myself.
> ...



Your obviously ignoring  the circumstances and state of minds, but okey dokey


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 7, 2012)

♠Ace♠ said:


> I'm not getting into this debate again. Don't chase after someone you think is suspicious with a gun (asking for a fight) on you when the 911 dispatcher tells you to fuck off. End of story.



Good. Because you would be wrong for a second time. Best to learn from your mistakes. 

Also, he didn't appear to ever be asking for a fight. I would say (if anyone) that was Martin. Hence why he attacked Zimmerman.


----------



## Blue (Dec 7, 2012)

All The Good Names Are Taken said:


> Your obviously ignoring  the circumstances, but okey dokey



I'm not. On the contrary, the circumstances were everything. I was suggesting 2nd degree murder charges for Zimmerman back when only manslaughter was being considered, because I could think of no circumstance where a 210lb man could be justified in shooting an unarmed teenager.

But lo and behold, the evidence. He got the shit beaten out of him, and was still getting the shit beaten out of him when he drew his weapon and fired, since Martin had powder burns showing the shot was from less than a foot away. He was on his back at the time, evidenced by the grass stains and bloody back of his head, and his personal safety was threatened, as evidenced by his broken nose.
Martin had lacerations on his knuckles proving he was throwing punches at hard things (like faces) but was otherwise unharmed; getting hit by a 210+ lb guy leaves marks, but he had none.

Eye (and ear)witness accounts support Zimmerman's story that he was physically assaulted prior to firing. 

Legally, the fact that Zimmerman confronted Martin just doesn't fucking matter at all. He was allowed to do that, even if the 911 operator told him not to.


----------



## NanoHaxial (Dec 7, 2012)

One of the investigators for the prosecution said during a hearing earlier on that they had no evidence as to who approached who or who started the fight. He also said Zimmerman's injuries were consistent with his story.

The only thing they do have to contradict his claims is a few unreliable eyewitness reports that haven't been consistent.


----------



## drache (Dec 7, 2012)

clearly MSNBC was in the wrong but at the same time I rather don't like this suit



Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> I'm not. On the contrary, the circumstances were everything. I was suggesting 2nd degree murder charges for Zimmerman back when only manslaughter was being considered, because I could think of no circumstance where a 210lb man could be justified in shooting an unarmed teenager.
> 
> But lo and behold, the evidence. He got the shit beaten out of him, and was still getting the shit beaten out of him when he drew his weapon and fired, since Martin had powder burns showing the shot was from less than a foot away. He was on his back at the time, evidenced by the grass stains and bloody back of his head, and his personal safety was threatened, as evidenced by his broken nose.
> Martin had lacerations on his knuckles proving he was throwing punches at hard things (like faces) but was otherwise unharmed; getting hit by a 210+ lb guy leaves marks, but he had none.
> ...


 
right because a 210+ lb adult is clearly threatened by a skinny teenager.....


----------



## NanoHaxial (Dec 7, 2012)

drache said:


> right because a 210+ lb adult is clearly threatened by a skinny teenager.....


Did you look at the damage to his face/head?

Also, Martin was 160lbs and around 6'3". Zimmerman was 5'7" and 200lbs.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 7, 2012)

I still laugh at people talking about size like it actually means something 

I think people forget being big doesn't teach you how to fight or defend yourself. Not to mention there wasn't even a major disparity in size here and I would be willing to bet 90% of the people here would rather fight Zimmerman than Martin if they had to choose based on size/appearance.


----------



## Taco (Dec 8, 2012)

Not only did he kill the kid (the confrontation should not have happened in the first place, the police told him not to follow) but he's looking to cash out because of it?

Yeah get rid of this lard.


----------



## drache (Dec 8, 2012)

NanoHaxial said:


> Did you look at the damage to his face/head?
> 
> Also, Martin was 160lbs and around 6'3". Zimmerman was 5'7" and 200lbs.


 
right the damage that appeared the day after that just as likely could have been a result of Traven  Martin defending himself 



Cyphon said:


> I still laugh at people talking about size like it actually means something
> 
> I think people forget being big doesn't teach you how to fight or defend yourself. Not to mention there wasn't even a major disparity in size here and I would be willing to bet 90% of the people here would rather fight Zimmerman than Martin if they had to choose based on size/appearance.


 
and I laugh at people suggesting some skinny teenager heading home is going to physically assault some guy just because he's following him

And just what is 'not a major dispartity'? Martin outwieghed by at least 50 lbs. I think your definition of 'major' needs work.


----------



## Blue (Dec 8, 2012)

The problem, Drache, is that Martin had no injuries whatsoever, not so much as a bruise, save the gunshot of course - except the cuts on his knuckles.

He was giving a one-sided beatdown.


----------



## Taco (Dec 8, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> The problem, Drache, is that Martin had no injuries whatsoever, not so much as a bruise, save the gunshot of course - except the cuts on his knuckles.
> 
> He was giving a one-sided beatdown.



But there's a reason he attacked him in the first place. There's no doubt he was attacked, I don't think that's the issue anymore. If someone with a gun was following you around, what would you do? Just keep on going your way??? Is it honestly a surprise that Martin beat the shit out of Zimmerman for stalking him?

Zimmerman was ASKING for a confrontation. That is the only explanation. Why else would he follow around the kid when the cops told him they had everything under control?

Trayvon Martin would not have died that day if Zimmerman wasn't feeling so trigger happy.

Edit: vvv jk maybe he wasn't attacked. My point still stands though.


----------



## drache (Dec 8, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> The problem, Drache, is that Martin had no injuries whatsoever, not so much as a bruise, save the gunshot of course - except the cuts on his knuckles.
> 
> He was giving a one-sided beatdown.


 
The problem KNK is that we're recieving conflicting reports 





so until the trial I'm not going to say anything about any injuries Martin may or may not had.

What I do know is that Zimmerman disregarded police advice multiple times and speaking for myself personally I would be likely to confront someone stalking me like Zimmerman was. Frankly the first alone should be enough to put a giant fucking hole in this bullshit of self defense and the fact that I think it unlikely that Martin intitated the situation (from teh second) further means that I think it likely that Martin did anything but defend himself.

You know what else I know? That the police arrived to find Martin face down on the grass.

All in all I find 'self defense' absolutely absurdly unjustified. The man decided to be rambo in the real world


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 8, 2012)

drache said:


> and I laugh at people suggesting some skinny teenager heading home is going to physically assault some guy just because he's following him



I don't know if you have already been a teenager or are still going through it or how many friends your had or whatever but a good deal of teenagers are touchy, prideful, haughty or whatever you want to call it. Fighting with little provocation (if any) is not even remotely unheard of.

Now add onto that, that this was a black teen who would likely be even more inclined to have a me against the world attitude (and rightfully so) in many cases. 

What is so funny about it? 

Seriously man, some of you are in so much denial over this because you let emotion overrule thought.  



> And just what is 'not a major dispartity'? Martin outwieghed by at least 50 lbs. I think your definition of 'major' needs work.



Not at all. Most of you just have what amounts to no clue how fighting works. Weight gives you basically one advantage in a fight and that is that you are harder to move. So if you manage to get on top of someone and can use your weight you have gained your one advantage. Or if someone were trying to pick you up or whatever.

On the other hand Martin has the height and reach advantage which can be a big deal in a fight. And based on appearance I would guess Martin was faster and in better shape. He did play football IIRC and Zimmerman seems kind of flabby. 

Following along those lines Martin may have been stronger given that you typically workout a lot if your play highschool sports, although Zimmerman may have worked out as well. 

And lastly (and most importantly) you have to account for experience/skill. I don't care if you are 6'4 250 lbs fighting someone 5'10 170 lbs. If the 5'10 has the fighting demeanor and tons of experience and skill at fighting while the 6'4 guy is the nicest guy in the world who has never been in a fight, that 5'10 guy is likely going to beat his ass. Or give him one helluva a fight.

In this case we know very little of either of them when it comes to most of this but it is laughable that you think Zimmerman should have been able to stomp this kid when you have very little information and what information we do have you either ignore or don't know how to apply it in regards to fighting.


----------



## drache (Dec 8, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> I don't know if you have already been a teenager or are still going through it or how many friends your had or whatever but a good deal of teenagers are touchy, prideful, haughty or whatever you want to call it. Fighting with little provocation (if any) is not even remotely unheard of.
> 
> Now add onto that, that *this was a black teen who would likely be even more inclined to have a me against the world attitud*e (and rightfully so) in many cases.
> 
> ...



wow nice racism there bud

frankly we can play what if all day in the end this point can be easily discarded and the point that this is Zimmerman's fault still stands (whether he is convicted in a legal sense)




Cyphon said:


> Not at all. Most of you just have what amounts to no clue how fighting works. Weight gives you basically one advantage in a fight and that is that you are harder to move. So if you manage to get on top of someone and can use your weight you have gained your one advantage. Or if someone were trying to pick you up or whatever.



yes yes yes I forgot you are a internet badass so  awesome that you make Bruce Lee quake in terror



Cyphon said:


> On the other hand Martin has the height and reach advantage which can be a big deal in a fight. And based on appearance I would guess Martin was faster and in better shape. He did play football IIRC and Zimmerman seems kind of flabby.
> 
> Following along those lines Martin may have been stronger given that you typically workout a lot if your play highschool sports, although Zimmerman may have worked out as well.



now you're over analyzing and supposing senarios that may or may not be true. 



Cyphon said:


> And lastly (and most importantly) you have to account for experience/skill. I don't care if you are 6'4 250 lbs fighting someone 5'10 170 lbs. If the 5'10 has the fighting demeanor and tons of experience and skill at fighting while the 6'4 guy is the nicest guy in the world who has never been in a fight, that 5'10 guy is likely going to beat his ass. Or give him one helluva a fight.
> 
> In this case we know very little of either of them when it comes to most of this but it is laughable that you think Zimmerman should have been able to stomp this kid when you have very little information and what information we do have you either ignore or don't know how to apply it in regards to fighting.



so basically this was just an oppurtunity then to spend like an expert?


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 8, 2012)

drache said:


> wow nice racism there bud



It isn't racist at all. Just a simple truth. Again, if you take emotion out of this you would understand that. Seriously man, stop being in denial about so many things. You act as if you have never met people or experienced the real world 



> and the point that this is Zimmerman's fault still stands (whether he is convicted in a legal sense)


 
It is really only partially his fault based off of what we know. He put himself in a situation he didn't need to be in but Martin was still the attacker so it is his fault as well. The only way that will ever change is if evidence comes forward that Zimmerman in some way started it. 



> yes yes yes I forgot you are a internet badass so  awesome that you make Bruce Lee quake in terror



Not sure where you got that idea. I have personally never been in a fight in my life. But you don't have to do something to be knowledgable about it. 



> now you're over analyzing and supposing senarios that may or may not be true.



And that is different than you assuming because Zimmerman is fatter he should have kicked Martins ass? At least I am applying the evidence and previous knowledge to what I am saying as opposed to just spouting whatever comes into my head.



> so basically this was just an oppurtunity then to spend like an expert?



Huh?


----------



## Roman (Dec 8, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> He doesn't, not even for manslaughter, much less murder. Being a dick is not a crime.
> 
> There is absolutely no question now, given the evidence that's been released, that Martin assaulted him and that he was in danger when he pulled his gun.



Can you specify what kind of evidence was found as I haven't kept up with the case (nor read through the thread). Did Martin threaten him with a weapon? If he didn't, the worst that would've happened to him was getting the crap beaten out of him but nothing life threatening, which is also something he could've avoided if he just let it go like the police asked him to. Was Martin also in the middle of a drug deal or something illegal?


----------



## Blue (Dec 8, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Can you specify what kind of evidence was found as I haven't kept up with the case (nor read through the thread). Did Martin threaten him with a weapon? If he didn't, the worst that would've happened to him was getting the crap beaten out of him but nothing life threatening, which is also something he could've avoided if he just let it go like the police asked him to. Was Martin also in the middle of a drug deal or something illegal?


The evidence was that Zimmerman was on the ground on his back getting the machine-gun-punch when he fired his gun.

Getting the crap beaten out of you is very much life threatening. Repeated blows to the head - which Zimmerman was recieving - can very very easily cause concussion, hemorrhage, asphyxiation, brain damage and disfigurement. And death. 

"Let him beat the fuck out of your face so you don't have to shoot him" is a patently absurd argument. 

Could he have avoided it? Sure. But what he did doesn't even remotely in the realm of reason qualify as reckless endangerment, assault, or anything else that he could be legally found accountable for.

Being a dick certainly does not translate into murder.



drache said:


> The problem KNK is that we're recieving conflicting reports


Does that look like a credible source to you, drache? I hope not.



Cyphon said:


> You act as if you have never met people or experienced the real world


(He hasn't.)


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 8, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Did Martin threaten him with a weapon?



If I have it right Martin had no weapon and made no threat with one but according to Zimmermans account Martin noticed the gun and went for it at Zimmermans belt. 



> If he didn't, the worst that would've happened to him was getting the crap beaten out of him but nothing life threatening, which is also something he could've avoided if he just let it go like the police asked him to.



You do know you can be beaten to death right? So the worst thing that could have happened was Zimmerman dying. I won't argue that was Martins intention but IIRC he was slamming Zimmermans head against the ground as well as punching him. And regardless, the law just says you have to think you were in that danger or whatever (bad as that may be). 

And again, the "avoiding" argument holds no relevance. 



> Was Martin also in the middle of a drug deal or something illegal?



Nope. But again, not relevant.


----------



## Roman (Dec 8, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> If I have it right Martin had no weapon and made no threat with one but according to Zimmermans account Martin noticed the gun and went for it at Zimmermans belt.



And avoiding him would've prevented that from happening. Simple.



Cyphon said:


> You do know you can be beaten to death right? So the worst thing that could have happened was Zimmerman dying. I won't argue that was Martins intention but IIRC he was slamming Zimmermans head against the ground as well as punching him. And regardless, the law just says you have to think you were in that danger or whatever (bad as that may be).
> 
> And again, the "avoiding" argument holds no relevance.



The avoiding argument holds every bit of relevance actually. He was a volunteer neighborhood watchman. It was not his place to act as law enforcer. He should've let the police handle it.

And yes, I do know, but what are the chances of that happening? What are the chances of a fist killing someone against the chances of a gun killing someone? And just because the law orders people to believe that if they're in any situation, they risk their life doesn't mean it's true.



Cyphon said:


> Nope. But again, not relevant.



It's absolutely relevant. Knowing if Martin was doing something illegal would've proven Zimmerman's idea that Martin was a suspicious person. If that was not what Martin was doing, Zimmerman not only had no right, but no reason to tail him.


----------



## Blue (Dec 8, 2012)

Freedan said:


> And avoiding him would've prevented that from happening. Simple.



Yes. But we're not arguing that. We're arguing if Zimmerman did anything illegal, up to and including murder.

From the evidence we've seen, the answer is a solid no. 

Zimmerman didn't know he would be put in a situation where he would be forced to defend himself with deadly force, any more than Martin knew the person he was attacking was armed. And just as Martin didn't commit suicide, neither did Zimmerman murder.


----------



## Roman (Dec 8, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Yes. But we're not arguing that. We're arguing if Zimmerman did anything illegal, up to and including murder.
> 
> From the evidence we've seen, the answer is a solid no.
> 
> Zimmerman didn't know he would be put in a situation where he would be forced to defend himself with deadly force, any more than Martin knew the person he was attacking was armed. And just as Martin didn't commit suicide, neither did Zimmerman murder.



I'm not saying it was illegal for Zimmerman to tail Martin. Only that it wasn't his duty to do so as a volunteer neighborhood watchman. It wasn't his job, but that of actual law enforcers. I'm not at all arguing the legality of his actions, but simply that if he avoided Martin, none of this would've happened and a proper investigation on him would've ensued and prolly turned out nothing to prove Zimmerman's suspicions of him.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 8, 2012)

Freedan said:


> And avoiding him would've prevented that from happening. Simple.



Everyone knows this. What is your point? It holds very little relevance. Why is this such a popular point with everyone? 



> The avoiding argument holds every bit of relevance actually. He was a volunteer neighborhood watchman. It was not his place to act as law enforcer. He should've let the police handle it.



And as far as any of the evidence shows he never tried to act as any law enforcer. He reported what he thought was a suspicious person and continued to try and report him. 

As I have said from the beginning, if Zimmerman did actually confront Martin in a threatening way this whole thing changes. Until then though, Zimmerman is innocent under self defense protection as Martin attacked him. 

So at this point the avoiding situation holds no relevance. Walking in his neighborhood isn't a crime and doesn't take away his right to self defense. 



> And yes, I do know, but what are the chances of that happening?



There is really no accurate answer. It would depend on the health of the individual as well as health complications and history. It would also depend on where the impacts are being taken and what is being damaged etc etc...So it could be a high or low chance. 



> And just because the law orders people to believe that if they're in any situation, they risk their life doesn't mean it's true.



But who can prove the truth of what someone believed at the time? 

(I hope I am understanding what you said here the right way. Correct me if I was off)



> It's absolutely relevant. Knowing if Martin was doing something illegal would've proven Zimmerman's idea that Martin was a suspicious person. If that was not what Martin was doing, Zimmerman not only had no right, but no reason to tail him.



It holds 0 relevance. Martin could have been going to church to feed cancer patients for the make a wish foundation. Zimmerman can still call the cops and say he thinks he is suspicious and he is also allowed to walk through his neighborhood. No part of that gives Martin the right to attack him or cancels out a claim of self defense once attacked. 

On the flip side, if Martin _was_ dealing drugs and Zimmerman attacked him, Zimmerman would be at fault. As you say he is not law enforcement and has no place to do that.


----------



## Unimportant (Dec 8, 2012)

@Cyphon
Why are implying that stalking someone at night is OK?


----------



## Roman (Dec 8, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> Everyone knows this. What is your point? It holds very little relevance. Why is this such a popular point with everyone?



Because everyone is acting like they don't know this 



Cyphon said:


> And as far as any of the evidence shows he never tried to act as any law enforcer. He reported what he thought was a suspicious person and continued to try and report him.
> 
> As I have said from the beginning, if Zimmerman did actually confront Martin in a threatening way this whole thing changes. Until then though, Zimmerman is innocent under self defense protection as Martin attacked him.
> 
> So at this point the avoiding situation holds no relevance. Walking in his neighborhood isn't a crime and doesn't take away his right to self defense.



Like I said, nothing that Zimmerman did was illegal, but at the same time not pursuing him to continue reporting on him based on what were likely to be false suspicions was something he shouldn't have done and let the police handle (something we both apparently agree on).

Now, if we're arguing whether or not what Zimmerman did to defend himself was legal, all I can really say is considering his chances of actually getting beaten to death were slim to none, I see no reason why he should've pulled the gun out. Given Martin may have been going for it, that gives him reason to defend himself with it but not with the intention of killing him. The fact remains Zimmerman wasn't simply walking in his neighborhood. He was tailing a potentially false suspect of a yet nonexistent crime. He had every right to take a walk in the park. But we all know that's not what he was doing.



Cyphon said:


> There is really no accurate answer. It would depend on the health of the individual as well as health complications and history. It would also depend on where the impacts are being taken and what is being damaged etc etc...So it could be a high or low chance.



Afaik, Martin wasn't a trained boxer, and Zimmerman was much bigger than him. I don't see how the chances of Zimmerman dying in a fistfight against Martin could've happened at all.



Cyphon said:


> But who can prove the truth of what someone believed at the time?
> 
> (I hope I am understanding what you said here the right way. Correct me if I was off)



All I'm saying is people shouldn't let the law decide their every action and belief. Indeed, there's no way to prove it in this case, but just because the law says any situation is life threatening doesn't mean any situation is life threatening.



Cyphon said:


> It holds 0 relevance. Martin could have been going to church to feed cancer patients for the make a wish foundation. Zimmerman can still call the cops and say he thinks he is suspicious and he is also allowed to walk through his neighborhood. No part of that gives Martin the right to attack him or cancels out a claim of self defense once attacked.



Fair enough but like I said, Zimmerman wasn't just walking through the neighborhood. He was deliberately tailing him on unproven suspicions as if trying to take the law in his own hands. It's true that it does not give Martin the right to attack him, but no one can truly blame him for getting paranoid that someone was intentionally following him.



Unimportant said:


> @Cyphon
> Why are implying that stalking someone at night is OK?



Excellent.

Zimmerman was giving every impression of being a stalker by tailing Martin. It's extremely likely Martin thought that's what Zimmerman was and seeing the gun only fueled this thought. It's not farfetched to say Martin reached for the gun to take it away from Zimmerman before HE got shot (which is ultimately what happened anyways).


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 8, 2012)

Unimportant said:


> @Cyphon
> Why are implying that stalking someone at night is OK?



I'm not. As far as I know that never happened. 



Freedan said:


> Because everyone is acting like they don't know this



I haven't seen one person who has done that. Most have specifically typed it out and others have agreed.

In any case it really holds little relevance to the topic though. 



> I see no reason why he should've pulled the gun out.



To defend himself. Basic survival instinct. The fact is, he was getting his ass kicked. You don't know if the other persons aim is to beat you to death or continue beating you once you are knocked out. As we are also talking about mindset here, keep in mind 2 things for Zimmermans defense in this case.

1. He himself knew he had a gun. So he doesn't know if once he is out the other guy sees it and uses it.

2. He was already suspicious of the person and apparently had a suspicious mindset to begin with. So there is no telling how fearful or worried he was about the most common things, let alone getting his ass kicked. 

I don't personally carry a gun but I think most of us would agree that if you feared for your safety/life, in the moment you would use whatever you had available to help you.



> Given Martin may have been going for it, that gives him reason to defend himself with it but not with the intention of killing him.



Well, nobody will ever be able to say if his intention was to kill or simple self defense but for the case specifically you could never come close to proving his intent was to kill based on the evidence. Being that he was getting beaten and in a struggle you could never properly aim and choose where exactly to shoot. Aiming for a fatal shot I mean. 



> The fact remains Zimmerman wasn't simply walking in his neighborhood. He was tailing a potentially false suspect of a yet nonexistent crime. He had every right to take a walk in the park. But we all know that's not what he was doing.



I say it that way because it amounts to the same thing. The same way he has the right to walk through his neighborhood, he has the right to keep his eye on what he thought was a potential criminal. Nothing he did was unlawful or even threatening (again, according to the evidence). 

If he actually did something like threatening Martin or physically trying to stop him then the story completely changes and I think we are all in agreement. 



> I don't see how the chances of Zimmerman dying in a fistfight against Martin could've happened at all.



As I said, it all depends. Head injuries aren't really changed by how big you are. Zimmerman was having his head slammed against the concrete IIRC, which could lead to death or brain damage. It wasn't just a simple fist fight. Though punches can kill as well given enough damage to the right places. 

Keep in mind I am not saying it _was_ likely, just that we have no way to really make a call on. What I will argue is that it is believable Zimmerman feared for his life. 



> just because the law says any situation is life threatening doesn't mean any situation is life threatening.



Oh, I agree 100%. That is why I brought up the argument with asking a girl for her number. The situation just gets way to messy. But in this case we have clear evidence Zimmerman was being harmed pretty badly. It wasn't just him guessing he was in trouble or might be. 



> but no one can truly blame him for getting paranoid that someone was intentionally following him.



Agreed. I don't blame Martin and we will never know the whole story. Maybe Zimmerman was close or looking threatening or said something to him.


----------



## αce (Dec 8, 2012)

> I'm not. As far as I know that never happened.



Come on now


----------



## αce (Dec 8, 2012)

> The problem, Drache, is that Martin had no injuries whatsoever, not so  much as a bruise, save the gunshot of course - except the cuts on his  knuckles.
> 
> He was giving a one-sided beatdown.



Except _why_ was he giving him a beating exactly? He didn't just see Zimmerman and conclude he wanted to knock some fucking teeth in that day. He was either provoked or he saw the gun - which caused him to retaliate. If anything, Trayvon was the one doing self defense, not the guy who chased after him with a fire arm.

Chasing after someone with a gun, provoking them, then having your ass beat only to end up killing the person is the definition of a grade A fucking jack ass. Murderer? No, probably not. But the guy can't walk off free. He started the whole confrontation.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 8, 2012)

♠Ace♠ said:


> He started the whole confrontation.



There is no evidence of that Ace. You are just assuming he started it.


----------



## αce (Dec 8, 2012)

So Trayvon was the one stalking Zimmerman with a gun.
Okay, this is new.


----------



## Blue (Dec 8, 2012)

You're seriously suggesting Martin started a fistfight with a guy with a visible gun.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 8, 2012)

♠Ace♠ said:


> So Trayvon was the one stalking Zimmerman with a gun. Okay, this is new.



Where did you read that at? That is definitely new. Changes the whole case!


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 8, 2012)

♠Ace♠ said:


> I just have no logical reason to believe a beat down occurred just because he felt like initiating one. And yes, in cases like this, some assumptions have to be made. As with any legal case.



I think we are on the same page here. I don't think Martin was out looking for a fight. However, there has to at least be a _reasonable_ reason. The issue (where the case is involved) is defining what _is_ reasonable and if anything considered reasonable occured. That is the issue I have. Assumptions have to be made but we need at least something to validate them. So do we look into the pasts of the individuals or what? How do we find something to validate the assumptions?

There could be more evidence on the way that makes things more clear but until then, we are stuck wondering. 



> But stalking someone with a gun after law enforcement tells you not to, confronting them, only to end up eventually killing someone is enough to get some type of punishment in my view.



But Ace, look at the way you are wording this. We don't even know it happened that way (or do we? I don't remember reading anything like it). From what I read Zimmerman was looking for Martin to keep the dispatcher updated on his location. Stalking seems like an odd way to define that. Secondly, you say stalking someone with a gun like he actually had it out chasing Martin and that Martin was aware of the gun. 

Lastly, we don't know that he confronted him. According to his story he was confronted by Martin and there has been no evidence shown to frefute that at this point IIRC. 

Anyway, lets assume there is evidence and it did happen close to the way you say. What punishment would you think appropriate?


----------



## Roman (Dec 8, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> You're seriously suggesting Martin started a fistfight with a guy with a visible gun.



What would you expect him to do? Run? Martin probably thought the guy was a serial killer stalking him. He didn't know the neighborhood, who lived there and who didn't. How was Martin supposed to know Zimmerman was a volunteer neighborhood watchman?



Cyphon said:


> I think we are on the same page here. I don't think Martin was out looking for a fight. However, there has to at least be a _reasonable_ reason.



I'd say someone stalking you with a gun is enough to a reason to think you might actually be in danger, and Martin had no way of knowing who was following him.



Cyphon said:


> The issue (where the case is involved) is defining what _is_ reasonable and if anything considered reasonable occured. That is the issue I have. Assumptions have to be made but we need at least something to validate them. So do we look into the pasts of the individuals or what? How do we find something to validate the assumptions?



Well, it's not like stalking someone with a gun in the middle of the night is unacceptable, right? 



Cyphon said:


> But Ace, look at the way you are wording this. We don't even know it happened that way (or do we? I don't remember reading anything like it). From what I read Zimmerman was looking for Martin to keep the dispatcher updated on his location. Stalking seems like an odd way to define that. Secondly, you say stalking someone with a gun like he actually had it out chasing Martin and that Martin was aware of the gun.



It may well be an odd way to define it, especially since that wasn't Zimmerman's intention, but try putting yourself in Martin's shoes as well. You're only there for a short while visiting family, so you would hardly know anyone. Of course, Zimmerman is only a volunteer so it's unlikely many people would know him to begin with. Knowing that, it's not so hard to imagine that if a guy is following you in the middle of the night packing heat, he could be a pretty dangerous person. 

Of course, looking at it from Zimmerman's perspective, we know that's not true, but Martin didn't know that. It was impossible for him to know. No one is saying he had it out when chasing Martin, but if Martin had a clear enough view of it to have tried disarming Zimmerman, then you'd still have a good reason to think this was someone who wasn't intending to have a friendly chat over tea. Martin was enough aware of the gun to be able to see it and try taking it from him.



Cyphon said:


> Lastly, we don't know that he confronted him. According to his story he was confronted by Martin and there has been no evidence shown to frefute that at this point IIRC.



And I'm willing to believe that Martin confronted him first. That's not so hard to imagine when you see someone tailing you in the middle of the night for no apparent reason. I imagine he'd have wanted to know what he was doing, but perhaps later he became aware of the gun, which made his already existing paranoia skyrocket.



Cyphon said:


> Anyway, lets assume there is evidence and it did happen close to the way you say. What punishment would you think appropriate?



Knowing that Zimmerman had no intention to harm anyone, I would say placing him in jail for several years (on the count of killing an innocent) and later doing community service under probation seems enough to me. What is required of him is to learn not to take the law into his own hands.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 8, 2012)

Freedan said:


> but try putting yourself in Martin's shoes as well. You're only there for a short while visiting family, so you would hardly know anyone. Of course, Zimmerman is only a volunteer so it's unlikely many people would know him to begin with. Knowing that, it's not so hard to imagine that if a guy is following you in the middle of the night packing heat, he could be a pretty dangerous person.



The problem with your scenario is that you assume Martin knew he had a gun. There is no evidence of that until late in the struggle when Martin started to reach for it.

As far as someone following me in the night.....No doubt, we would all be wary if someone were following us but I don't think most of us would just attack that person. We might stop and question them or whatever. And again, that may have happened but we don't know. 



> Knowing that Zimmerman had no intention to harm anyone, I would say placing him in jail for several years (on the count of killing an innocent) and later doing community service under probation seems enough to me. What is required of him is to learn not to take the law into his own hands.



That seems fair given the scenario.


----------



## Agmaster (Dec 8, 2012)

Sure...take NBC's money.  Still, shouldn't something besides this slander (and consequential love by ...let's just use the term 'conservatives') have happened to this guy?  This is still so ugly to me.


----------



## Agmaster (Dec 8, 2012)

Ok, so teenagers are bundles of hormones, aside from getting beaten up..what is Zim's excuse?  I mean, noone will ever really know what was said before the conflict.  Everything else is buildup and aftereffect of that conversation.

Conserbias will claim Zim accosted the guy, asked some questions and then went for his gun.  Liberakids will likely claim that Zim was flexing his affluence in his swagger when said accosting happen.


----------



## Roman (Dec 8, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> The problem with your scenario is that you assume Martin knew he had a gun. There is no evidence of that until late in the struggle when Martin started to reach for it.
> 
> As far as someone following me in the night.....No doubt, we would all be wary if someone were following us but I don't think most of us would just attack that person. We might stop and question them or whatever. And again, that may have happened but we don't know.



You said yourself he went for the gun. Even if he didn't see it at first (like I said), he had to have seen it later (like I said) which didn't help to soften his paranoia (again, like I said).


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 8, 2012)

Freedan said:


> You said yourself he went for the gun. Even if he didn't see it at first (like I said), he had to have seen it later (like I said) which didn't help to soften his paranoia (again, like I said).



But if he saw it and went for it after he had already attacked it doesn't matter anymore. The question is if he knew before he attacked and had a "major" reason to attack or defend himself.


----------



## All The Good Names Are Taken (Dec 8, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> I'm not. On the contrary, the circumstances were everything. I was suggesting 2nd degree murder charges for Zimmerman back when only manslaughter was being considered, because I could think of no circumstance where a 210lb man could be justified in shooting an unarmed teenager.
> 
> But lo and behold, the evidence. He got the shit beaten out of him, and was still getting the shit beaten out of him when he drew his weapon and fired, since Martin had powder burns showing the shot was from less than a foot away. He was on his back at the time, evidenced by the grass stains and bloody back of his head, and his personal safety was threatened, as evidenced by his broken nose.
> Martin had lacerations on his knuckles proving he was throwing punches at hard things (like faces) but was otherwise unharmed; getting hit by a 210+ lb guy leaves marks, but he had none.
> ...


So he has the right to murder someone because he couldn't defend himself against a teen with no killing intent and lets not forget about the racial profiling "_These guys always get away._" this is why cowards shouldn't own guns; it makes killing too easy.It's utterly inexcusable that people defend this guy.


----------



## Petes12 (Dec 8, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> I'm not. On the contrary, the circumstances were everything. I was suggesting 2nd degree murder charges for Zimmerman back when only manslaughter was being considered, because I could think of no circumstance where a 210lb man could be justified in shooting an unarmed teenager.
> 
> But lo and behold, the evidence. He got the shit beaten out of him, and was still getting the shit beaten out of him when he drew his weapon and fired, since Martin had powder burns showing the shot was from less than a foot away. He was on his back at the time, evidenced by the grass stains and bloody back of his head, and his personal safety was threatened, as evidenced by his broken nose.
> Martin had lacerations on his knuckles proving he was throwing punches at hard things (like faces) but was otherwise unharmed; getting hit by a 210+ lb guy leaves marks, but he had none.
> ...



well it does matter if they can say it wasn't self defense since he initiated the conflict.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 8, 2012)

You can't escalate a fist fight to shooting someone just because they're kicking your ass, especially after you followed them, I don't know how much simpler this concept could get.


----------



## All The Good Names Are Taken (Dec 8, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You can't escalate a fist fight to shooting someone just because they're kicking your ass, especially after you followed them, I don't know how much simpler this concept could get.



I know. it seems cut and dry to me; apparently it's not the same to some


----------



## Lindsay (Dec 8, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You can't escalate a fist fight to shooting someone just because they're kicking your ass, especially after you followed them, I don't know how much simpler this concept could get.



You know that someone can literally pummel you to death with their fists right?


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 8, 2012)

Lindsay said:


> You know that someone can literally pummel you to death with their fists right?



Probably not. Most people in here have shown ignorance as to how fights and these things work. They also consistently seem to ignore the evidence such as Zimmerman having his head repeatedly slammed against the concrete. Somehow that translates to "just a fist fight" 



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You can't escalate a fist fight to shooting someone just because they're kicking your ass, especially after you followed them, I don't know how much simpler this concept could get.



Under the law you can. I don't know how much simpler this concept could get. You only have to _believe_ in the danger. 


So yeah, argue the law is dumb, but not what you and others continue to argue.


----------



## NanoHaxial (Dec 8, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You can't escalate a fist fight to shooting someone just because they're kicking your ass, especially after you followed them, I don't know how much simpler this concept could get.



There was no fist fight. There was just Martin smashing Zimmerman's head after punching him in the face.


----------



## drache (Dec 8, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> It isn't racist at all. Just a simple truth. Again, if you take emotion out of this you would understand that. Seriously man, stop being in denial about so many things. You act as if you have never met people or experienced the real world


 
saying that black teenagers are more prone to violence is racist and there's absolutely no emotion involved in that at all

Perhaps if you would stop replying to everything as if I'm being some shakespearan actor we could move this along, or is that all you got?



Cyphon said:


> It is really only partially his fault based off of what we know. He put himself in a situation he didn't need to be in but Martin was still the attacker so it is his fault as well. The only way that will ever change is if evidence comes forward that Zimmerman in some way started it.


 
bullshit Zimmerman was told to back off by the police and he didn't. If he had there would have been no confrontation and Martin would be alive today



Cyphon said:


> Not sure where you got that idea. I have personally never been in a fight in my life. But you don't have to do something to be knowledgable about it.


 
you certainly act like it



Cyphon said:


> And that is different than you assuming because Zimmerman is fatter he should have kicked Martins ass? At least I am applying the evidence and previous knowledge to what I am saying as opposed to just spouting whatever comes into my head.


 
because fights don't work like that there's way too many unknowns for all we know Zimmerman started it and Martin was going to finish it. Or the witnesses could have been wrong or Martin scraped his hand as he fell etc etc etc

You're inventing senarios to fit the outcome you favor which is not how you should be






Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> The evidence was that Zimmerman was on the ground on his back getting the machine-gun-punch when he fired his gun.
> 
> Getting the crap beaten out of you is very much life threatening. Repeated blows to the head - which Zimmerman was recieving - can very very easily cause concussion, hemorrhage, asphyxiation, brain damage and disfigurement. And death.


 
1. we don't know that for sure
2. Zimmerman initatied the altercation 
3. None of Zimmerman's injuries were life threatening or close to it. I would certainly be more sympathic if he had had broken bones, concussion, etc etc instead it looks like he picked a fight and then paniced



Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Does that look like a credible source to you, drache? I hope not.


 
not credible in what way? he would have had the same access as the ME and understand conditions identical to an examine



Lindsay said:


> You know that someone can literally pummel you to death with their fists right?


 
do you have any idea how hard that is to actually do unless you are trained or get in a one in a million shot?


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 8, 2012)

drache said:


> saying that black teenagers are more prone to violence is racist and there's absolutely no emotion involved in that at all



I never said that. I said something along the lines of black folk being more likely to have a me/us against the world attitude while also mentioning that was understandable. I think we would all be the very same way if we went through the same treatment. It isn't even a negative as far as I am concerned. If any black people have seen this and took offense I apologize and assure them I mean nothing bad by it. They can let me know and I will apologize again. 



> Perhaps if you would stop replying to everything as if I'm being some shakespearan actor we could move this along, or is that all you got?


 
When it seems you ignore the facts and logic I have little choice but to assume your argument is based on emotion. 



> bullshit Zimmerman was told to back off by the police and he didn't. If he had there would have been no confrontation and Martin would be alive today


 
Or you know.....If Martin didn't attack somebody just for walking through a neighborhood he would be alive today. Until you can show some proof that Zimmerman threatened him you should stop making up stories. 

The fact is what the police said is irrelevant and this continues to be a terrible argument. If I go to a club and get shot I guess the guy is innocent because I chose to go to the club right? 



> you certainly act like it


 
Well now you know. 



> because fights don't work like that *there's way too many unknowns* for all we know Zimmerman started it and Martin was going to finish it.



What I have been saying since this first thing ever happened while you all were jumping the gun and continue to do so. You are right....WE.....DON'T......KNOW. Yet you assume Zimmerman chased him down with his gun out, pistol whipped him and then faked all of his injuries.


----------



## NanoHaxial (Dec 8, 2012)

> Florida teenager Trayvon Martin died from a single gunshot wound to the chest fired from “intermediate range,” according to an autopsy report reviewed Wednesday by NBC News.
> 
> The official report, prepared by the medical examiner in Volusia County, Fla., also found that the 17-year-old Martin had one other fresh injury – a small abrasion, no more than a quarter-inch  in size –  on his left ring finger below the knuckle.
> 
> Separately, a medical report on Martin’s alleged killer, 28-year-old George Zimmerman, prepared by his personal physician the day after Martin’s shooting in Sanford, Fla., on Feb. 26, found that the Neighborhood Watch volunteer suffered a likely broken nose, swelling, two black eyes and cuts to the scalp. That report, first reported Tuesday by ABC News, also was reviewed by NBC News.







> UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So do you know who started the fight?
> 
> GILBREATH: Do I know?
> 
> ...


----------



## drache (Dec 8, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> I never said that. I said something along the lines of black folk being more likely to have a me/us against the world attitude while also mentioning that was understandable. I think we would all be the very same way if we went through the same treatment. It isn't even a negative as far as I am concerned. If any black people have seen this and took offense I apologize and assure them I mean nothing bad by it. They can let me know and I will apologize again.


 
what you said was racist no matter how you spin it 




Cyphon said:


> When it seems you ignore the facts and logic I have little choice but to assume your argument is based on emotion.


 
according to whom? *you*? yeah because you such an unbiased neutral party




Cyphon said:


> Or you know.....If Martin didn't attack somebody just for walking through a neighborhood he would be alive today. Until you can show some proof that Zimmerman threatened him you should stop making up stories.


 
pure speculation on your part



Cyphon said:


> The fact is what the police said is irrelevant and this continues to be a terrible argument. If I go to a club and get shot I guess the guy is innocent because I chose to go to the club right?


 
wtf?

So if the police tell you to stop putting yourself in danger and possibly escalating the situation you should ignore that?

that's fucked and just plain stupid and your attempt at an analogy sucks



Cyphon said:


> Well now you know.


 
when you are consistent then yes I will know



Cyphon said:


> What I have been saying since this first thing ever happened while you all were jumping the gun and continue to do so. You are right....WE.....DON'T......KNOW. Yet you assume Zimmerman chased him down with his gun out, pistol whipped him and then faked all of his injuries.


 
I assume nothing the known facts point to Zimmerman being guilty of *at least* manslaughter for his reckless actions. Zimmerman *choose* to continue to pursue Martin *even after* by Zimmerman's *own words* Martin ran away from him there by creating a dangerous situation that ended in Martin losing his life

And let's be clear here, the bold is because you tend to have a problem with reading so I tried to highlight the important points.


----------



## Lindsay (Dec 8, 2012)

drache said:


> do you have any idea how hard that is to actually do unless you are trained or get in a one in a million shot?



It is much less than a one in a million shot. 

One punch to your neck can crush your windpipe and deprive your brain of oxygen. A heavy punch to the head can put pressure on the vertebrae and cause it to 'snap', thus paralyzing you for life at best. Alternatively it can tear your lower jaw off and you'd die from blood loss. Teeth can be knocked out and swallowed allowing you to choke to death on your own teeth. Also a punch can cause you to bite your own tongue off, leading to death by either choking on your own tongue or from blood loss. Pounding on the ribs can cause a rib to break and puncture your lung. Blows to the soft, internal organs can cause internal bleeding. The eyes can be gauged to permit death from blood loss or a infection to the nerves in your head. Breaking a limb can cause a bone to puncture body tissue and bleed you to death. A scratch on any of the body's numerous blood vessels can cause you to bleed to death.

So yes, one can pummel someone to death and much easier than you think. Every time you start beating someone with your fists, you're putting them at risk of dying.


----------



## drache (Dec 8, 2012)

Lindsay said:


> It is much less than a one in a million shot.
> 
> One punch to your neck can crush your windpipe and deprive your brain of oxygen. A heavy punch to the head can put pressure on the vertebrae and cause it to 'snap', thus paralyzing you for life at best. Alternatively it can tear your lower jaw off and you'd die from blood loss. Teeth can be knocked out and swallowed allowing you to choke to death on your own teeth. Also a punch can cause you to bite your own tongue off, leading to death by either choking on your own tongue or from blood loss. Pounding on the ribs can cause a rib to break and puncture your lung. Blows to the soft, internal organs can cause internal bleeding. The eyes can be gauged to permit death from blood loss or a infection to the nerves in your head. Breaking a limb can cause a bone to puncture body tissue and bleed you to death. A scratch on any of the body's numerous blood vessels can cause you to bleed to death.
> 
> So yes, one can pummel someone to death and much easier than you think. Every time you start beating someone with your fists, you're putting them at risk of dying.


 
Throat strikes are indeed dangerous but not as deadly as you might think given that your throat is actually rather strong and resistant. Similarly sure you might be able to punch hard enough to effectively 'snap' someone's vertebra but the fact is that if you've not been trained you're just as likely to break your hand trying.

Frankly all your senarios are long shots, if you want to quibble over whether they are 'one in a million' or 'one in a thousand' or whatever that's fine the fact remains none of them are likely results and *none* of Zimmerman's injuries indicated anything close to the level of violence needed tto achieve these senarios of yours and it *absolutely postively*  does not justify lethal force in an altercation *he started.*


----------



## On and On (Dec 8, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Yeah, Zimmermann stalked Martin. Thing is, that was kind of his job, and it's not illegal.



Neighborhood watch isn't a "job", and the police told him to mind his own business. So nope. And it's no one's "job" to stalk someone, wtf is wrong with you?



> And Martin completely untouched besides cuts _on his knuckles_ and a bullet hole.
> 
> If you think Zimmermann is a murderer or even guilty of manslaughter you're either ignorant of the facts or frightfully biased.



Except not  Murderer? Debatable. Manslaughter? Absolute truth 

"Stand your ground" likely won't apply here since he -followed- the "assailant", unless the DA is a total n00b, which she isn't. Stand your ground only states you don't have to "lose ground to your assailant". Following someone around (even after you were told not to) is the complete opposite, actually



> O'MARA: Since. Today. Do you have any evidence that conflicts with his suggestion that he had turned around and went back to his car?
> 
> GILBREATH: Other than his statement, no.



And he admits he got out of his car? , yea, Stand your ground kinda goes out the window when you approach someone,


----------



## NanoHaxial (Dec 8, 2012)

> Stand your ground kinda goes out the window when you approach someone


Obviously you didn't read. There's no evidence that Zimmerman approached Martin (or vice versa).

EDIT: To add, a guy chased down a man who stole from him and stabbed him to death after the guy swung a bag of radios at him.  He wasn't convicted.


----------



## Lindsay (Dec 8, 2012)

drache said:


> Throat strikes are indeed dangerous but not as deadly as you might think given that your throat is actually rather strong and resistant. Similarly sure you might be able to punch hard enough to effectively 'snap' someone's vertebra but the fact is that if you've not been trained you're just as likely to break your hand trying.
> 
> Frankly all your senarios are long shots, if you want to quibble over whether they are 'one in a million' or 'one in a thousand' or whatever that's fine the fact remains none of them are likely results and *none* of Zimmerman's injuries indicated anything close to the level of violence needed tto achieve these senarios of yours and it *absolutely postively*  does not justify lethal force in an altercation *he started.*



If someone had climbed on top of me and began to strike my head continuously, I wouldn't consider death a "long shot". Supposing I had a gun while in such a situation, I would fire it to protect myself. 

A broken nose should qualify. If you can break a nose then you can get close enough to gauge an eye.

What evidence is there that indicates Zimmerman started a physical alteration? The autopsy report only showed a small abrasion on one of Martin's chuckles besides the gunshot wound from what I've read. There has been nothing to cast aside "reasonable doubt" regarding Zimmerman's self-defense claim as far as I can tell.


----------



## On and On (Dec 8, 2012)

NanoHaxial said:


> Obviously you didn't read. There's no evidence that Zimmerman approached Martin (or vice versa).



Except for Zimmerman's statement, you fool 



> EDIT: To add, a guy chased down a man who stole from him and stabbed him to death after the guy swung a bag of radios at him.  He wasn't convicted.



Doesn't have anything to do with stand your ground.


----------



## NanoHaxial (Dec 8, 2012)

On and On said:


> Except for Zimmerman's statement, you fool


Except Zimmerman never said he approached Martin. The operator told him he didn't need Zimmerman to follow, and Zimmerman said "Ok". There's no evidence that he continued to follow or that he approached Martin, and his story is that Martin approached him as he walked back to his car.

The timing of the whole incident also makes it unlikely that Zimmerman was following Martin.




> Doesn't have anything to do with stand your ground.


Except that it does.



> ack in January, Garcia, 25, saw Pedro Roteta, 26, trying to steal the radio from his truck, which was parked outside Garcia's Miami apartment. Garcia grabbed a large knife, ran downstairs and chased Roteta for at least a block. The incident was caught on tape and showed that Garcia stabbed Roteta to death. At the time Roteta was carrying a bag with stolen radios "but no weapon other than a pocketknife, which was unopened in his pocket and which police said he never brandished."
> 
> *The Herald reports that a judge threw out the charges against Garcia, citing the state's "stand your ground" law.*


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 8, 2012)

drache said:


> what you said was racist no matter how you spin it


 
I don't view as racist. Like I said, if I offended anyone they can come forward and let me know. Only if they are black or half black though 




> according to whom? *you*? yeah because you such an unbiased neutral party


 
As I have pointed out before, I have been one of the only posters on NF consistently giving this thing a fair shake. 



> pure speculation on your part


 
The same as you. Again though, mine is closer to the story we actually have. 



> So if the police tell you to stop putting yourself in danger and possibly escalating the situation you should ignore that?


 
No. I would recommend following their advice but being dumb isn't the same as being guilty. So again, this point continues to be completely irrelevant at all. But continue hanging on to it. You really have nothing else. 



> that's fucked and just plain stupid and your attempt at an analogy sucks


 
The analogy works just fine. Maybe you simply didn't understand it. Your fault though, not mine. 

when you are consistent then yes I will know



> I assume nothing the known facts point to Zimmerman being guilty of *at least* manslaughter for his reckless actions. Zimmerman *choose* to continue to pursue Martin *even after* by Zimmerman's *own words* Martin ran away from him there by creating a dangerous situation that ended in Martin losing his life



Hard to be guilty when you have self defense to fall back on. Again, if Martin wouldn't have attacked him (based off of the known facts we have) he wouldn't have died. 

It is sad the kid died and Zimmerman made a poor choice but there is no denying Martin is at fault as well. You aren't allowed to just attack people based on a suspicion.


----------



## drache (Dec 8, 2012)

Lindsay said:


> If someone had climbed on top of me and began to strike my head continuously, I wouldn't consider death a "long shot". Supposing I had a gun while in such a situation, I would fire it to protect myself.
> 
> A broken nose should qualify. If you can break a nose then you can get close enough to gauge an eye.
> 
> What evidence is there that indicates Zimmerman started a physical alteration? The autopsy report only showed a small abrasion on one of Martin's chuckles besides the gunshot wound from what I've read. There has been nothing to cast aside "reasonable doubt" regarding Zimmerman's self-defense claim as far as I can tell.


 
*Zimmerman* started this altercation so frankly I have zero sympathy *if* he was recieving a beating 

And no a broken nose doesn't qualifiy and besides none of the reports I have read mention such a thing

And what evidence? He *ran* after Martin after Martin attempted to ran away by Zimmerman's own words

This wasn't self defense at best Zimmerman is an idiot and guilty of reckless behavior, frankly I think he should be convicted of at least manslaughter though 2nd degree murder isn't a strecth



NanoHaxial said:


> Except Zimmerman never said he approached Martin. The operator told him he didn't need Zimmerman to follow, and Zimmerman said "Ok". There's no evidence that he continued to follow or that he approached Martin, and his story is that Martin approached him as he walked back to his car.
> 
> The timing of the whole incident also makes it unlikely that Zimmerman was following Martin.
> 
> ...


 
except that the next that happened is Zimmerman confirming that he is running after Martin, that's not 'stand your ground'



Cyphon said:


> I don't view as racist. Like I said, if I offended anyone they can come forward and let me know. Only if they are black or half black though


 
well you're welcome to believe what ever you wish including the moon is made of cheese doesn't make it true




Cyphon said:


> As I have pointed out before, I have been one of the only posters on NF consistently giving this thing a fair shake.


 
yes yes we know you're so awesome blah blah blah



Cyphon said:


> The same as you. Again though, mine is closer to the story we actually have.


 
no its not you're still in as you wish to make your conclusion appear to be valid



Cyphon said:


> No. I would recommend following their advice but being dumb isn't the same as being guilty. So again, this point continues to be completely irrelevant at all. But continue hanging on to it. You really have nothing else.


 
actually you can be criminally reckless/neglient which is effectively the same thing as being dumb. He was told to not follow, he did that's reckless behavior and you have nothing to counter this



Cyphon said:


> The analogy works just fine. Maybe you simply didn't understand it. Your fault though, not mine.


 
lol no it doesn't it makes absolutely no sense and has no relation to the actual events



Cyphon said:


> when you are consistent then yes I will know


 
huh? are you just repeating me now?



Cyphon said:


> Hard to be guilty when you have self defense to fall back on. Again, if Martin wouldn't have attacked him (based off of the known facts we have) he wouldn't have died.


 
'self defense' is not picking a fight then killing someone because you were losing which is about the most generous possible senario for Zimmerman. At worst Zimmerman commited 2nd degree murder and you have no actual facts to back up Martin attacking anyone let alone Zimmerman



Cyphon said:


> It is sad the kid died and Zimmerman made a poor choice but there is no denying Martin is at fault as well. You aren't allowed to just attack people based on a suspicion.


 
bullshit Zimmerman is an adult and it is hardly unreasonable for him to have know his actions were reckless *especially* after he was told to back off by the actual authorities.

You can keep spinning this till you're dizzy, nothing changes that


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 8, 2012)

drache said:


> well you're welcome to believe what ever you wish including the moon is made of cheese doesn't make it true


 
Why is it you always say things to me that seem to apply to you more?



> yes yes we know you're so awesome blah blah blah


 
As long as you are willing to give credit where credit is due we can move on. 



> no its not you're still in as you wish to make your conclusion appear to be valid



Feel free to prove me wrong. All you continue to do is say I am wrong without coming close to proving it or supporting your argument.

Try again. 



> He was told to not follow, he did that's reckless behavior and you have nothing to counter this


 
If walking through your neighborhood talking about people is reckless I guess we would all be guilty of being attacked. 



> lol no it doesn't it makes absolutely no sense and has no relation to the actual events


 
Still don't get it? Move on then. You aren't doing anything to move the debate along. 

huh? are you just repeating me now?



> 'self defense' is not picking a fight



Stopped here. Show some evidence Zimmerman started the fight. Otherwise you are talking out of your ass. Right now all evidence points to Martin starting the fight. Unless I have missed some evidence or there are some new releases. However, if you can provide some evidence I will immediately concede the point. 



> bullshit Zimmerman is an adult and it is hardly unreasonable for him to have know his actions were reckless *especially* after he was told to back off by the actual authorities.



It isn't unreasonable at all. I doubt people walk around expecting to be attacked just for walking behind someone. Again, if you can show some proof Zimmerman actually confronted him or attacked him my side changes immediately. You have yet to do that though. 

As a matter of fact, if you can't provide said evidence in your next post I am not responding. So if you are looking for a response make sure and provide some of that.


----------



## NanoHaxial (Dec 8, 2012)

> except that the next that happened is Zimmerman confirming that he is running after Martin, that's not 'stand your ground'


Except you're wrong. He was following. The operator said they didn't need him to. He said "ok" and stopped. He was then on the phone with the operator for* several minutes* afterwards. 

If he was still following Martin, why did he stop giving updates? Why wasn't he out of breath or breathing heavily? How did he not manage to catch up to Martin before Martin made it home? Martin even told his girlfriend over the phone that he had lost Zimmerman.


----------



## Lindsay (Dec 8, 2012)

drache said:


> *Zimmerman* started this altercation so frankly I have zero sympathy *if* he was recieving a beating



You stated Zimmerman started a physical confrontation but I've seen no evidence to support that. There is a difference between initiating a physical altercation and following somebody. Zimmerman following Martin, for at least a time, has solid evidence. Zimmerman attacking Martin in a physical manner has none to my knowledge.




drache said:


> And no a broken nose doesn't qualifiy and besides none of the reports I have read mention such a thing




Here is evidence Zimmerman's nose was broken if you truly doubt it:



> ABC News Exclusive: Zimmerman Medical Report Shows Broken Nose, Lacerations After Trayvon Martin Shooting





drache said:


> And what evidence? He ran after Martin after Martin attempted to ran away by Zimmerman's own words



Wrong. Zimmerman said he was heading back to his truck when Martin attacked him.



> Zimmerman said he was heading back to the vehicle when Martin jumped out, asking him, "What the f***'s your problem?"






drache said:


> This wasn't self defense at best Zimmerman is an idiot and guilty of reckless behavior, frankly I think he should be convicted of at least manslaughter though 2nd degree murder isn't a strecth



Zimmerman may be an idiot for initially following Martin but there is no solid evidence to overcome "reasonable doubt" in court.


----------



## drache (Dec 8, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> Why is it you always say things to me that seem to apply to you more?


 
because you're one of the least self aware individuals I've met and generally seem to decieve yourself with ease?



Cyphon said:


> As long as you are willing to give credit where credit is due we can move on.


 
:rofl

sure whatever



Cyphon said:


> If walking through your neighborhood talking about people is reckless I guess we would all be guilty of being attacked.


 
That's not what he did, Zimmerman followed Martin, chased after him by his own account (well as he phrased it Zimmerman just 'happened' to go in the same direction as Martin looking for a street for the police) and generally did everything he could to provoke a conflict



Cyphon said:


> Still don't get it? Move on then. You aren't doing anything to move the debate along.


 
oh and you are by being a pompous windbag? 



Cyphon said:


> Stopped here. Show some evidence Zimmerman started the fight. Otherwise you are talking out of your ass. Right now all evidence points to Martin starting the fight. Unless I have missed some evidence or there are some new releases. However, if you can provide some evidence I will immediately concede the point.


 
see above, Zimmerman may or may not have started the fight *physically* we'll likely never know but his behavior was designed to provoke a conflict and you can see that in all the muttering he does to himself.



Cyphon said:


> It isn't unreasonable at all. I doubt people walk around expecting to be attacked just for walking behind someone. Again, if you can show some proof Zimmerman actually confronted him or attacked him my side changes immediately. You have yet to do that though.


 
Zimmerman followed him in a vechile and then *chased* after him, if someone you didn't know had been following you in a vechile then ran after you what would you do?



Cyphon said:


> As a matter of fact, if you can't provide said evidence in your next post I am not responding. So if you are looking for a response make sure and provide some of that.


 
do what you wish but you've got nothing but arrogance which while cute doesn't mean much



NanoHaxial said:


> Except you're wrong. He was following. The operator said they didn't need him to. He said "ok" and stopped. He was then on the phone with the operator for* several minutes* afterwards.
> 
> If he was still following Martin, why did he stop giving updates? Why wasn't he out of breath or breathing heavily? How did he not manage to catch up to Martin before Martin made it home? Martin even told his girlfriend over the phone that he had lost Zimmerman.


 


Lindsay said:


> You stated Zimmerman started a physical confrontation but I've seen no evidence to support that. There is a difference between initiating a physical altercation and following somebody. Zimmerman following Martin, for at least a time, has solid evidence. Zimmerman attacking Martin in a physical manner has none to my knowledge.


 
no I started Zimmerman started the confrontation, we likely will never know who threw the first punch or whatever but we do know that it was Zimmerman that provoked the confrontation





Lindsay said:


> Here is evidence Zimmerman's nose was broken if you truly doubt it:


 
interesting, I'd prefer a nonbiased source but interesting



Lindsay said:


> Wrong. Zimmerman said he was heading back to his truck when Martin attacked him.


 

Wrong Zimmerman *says* that is what we are doing however that makes absolutely no fucking sense. This wierd guy follows you in a vechile and you run away only to come back? That's hardly reasonable and certainly doesn't make sense

By his own words Zimmerman chased after Martin (or as he tried to spin it Zimmerman just 'happened' to go the same way looking for a street) we know from the transcript that Zimmerman was agitated and irrate he obviously was looking to settle the score in his mind. Never mind Martin was innocent.





Lindsay said:


> Zimmerman may be an idiot for initially following Martin but there is no solid evidence to overcome "reasonable doubt" in court.


 
you are absolutely wrong and if Zimmerman isn't convicted for his reckless behavior it will be a sad day in America and a continuation of dumbass cowboy behavior


----------



## drache (Dec 8, 2012)

*text limit*



NanoHaxial said:


> Except you're wrong. He was following. The operator said they didn't need him to. He said "ok" and stopped. He was then on the phone with the operator for* several minutes* afterwards.
> 
> If he was still following Martin, why did he stop giving updates? Why wasn't he out of breath or breathing heavily? How did he not manage to catch up to Martin before Martin made it home? Martin even told his girlfriend over the phone that he had lost Zimmerman.


 
No Zimmerman *claims* he wasn't following him despite admitting he was still traveling in the same direction by 'happenstance' while looking for a street for the police, Zimmerman *claims* that after getting away from the weird guy following him around Martin returned to confront him and that's supposed to make sense?

Also Martin hung up not long after saying 'ok' so you're reccord there is not so solid


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 8, 2012)

Still no evidence? Thats cool. Didn't expect it from you.


----------



## NanoHaxial (Dec 8, 2012)

> No Zimmerman claims he wasn't following him despite admitting he was still traveling in the same direction by 'happenstance' while looking for a street for the police


And there's zero evidence to contradict his claims.



> Zimmerman claims that after getting away from the weird guy following him around Martin returned to confront him and that's supposed to make sense?


It makes more sense than Zimmerman somehow being to catch Martin several minutes after losing sight of him, despite the fact that Martin's home was half a minute away from where this whole thing took place at a run.



> Also Zimmerman hung up not long after saying 'ok' so you're reccord there is not so solid


He was on the phone for around 1:20-1:30 after saying that Martin was gone. Plus another minute or two until the confrontation began.


----------



## NanoHaxial (Dec 8, 2012)

> In an interview two weeks after the incident, Lee said witness statements and physical evidence backed up Zimmerman's version of events. He suggested that based on the timing of the call, he believed that Trayvon went out of his way to approach the person tailing him and mouth off.
> 
> "If Trayvon has made it that far, and Zimmerman is getting out of his truck, why doesn't Trayvon keep walking?" Lee said. "He's 70 yards from his house. I think based on the timing of the call and Zimmerman losing sight of him that he had made it to that 'T' (at the end of the path) and was starting to walk toward his house.
> 
> "My wish is that he would have kept walking."


----------



## Lindsay (Dec 8, 2012)

drache said:


> no I started Zimmerman started the confrontation, we likely will never know who threw the first punch or whatever but *we do know that it was Zimmerman that provoked the confrontation*


 
I haven't seen any evidence that Zimmerman confronted Martin. If you have it then please post it so you can nullify Zimmerman's claim that he didn't want to confront Martin as seen below: 



> He [Zimmerman] said he didn't speak to Trayvon because he was fearful. "I didn't want to confront him," Zimmerman said.


 



drache said:


> interesting, I'd prefer a nonbiased source but interesting



It is acceptable evidence in court and that is all that counts.




drache said:


> Wrong Zimmerman *says* that is what we are doing however that makes absolutely no fucking sense. This wierd guy follows you in a vechile and you run away only to come back? That's hardly reasonable and certainly doesn't make sense



The problem for prosecuting Zimmerman is that there is NO EVIDENCE  to the contrary as far as I'm aware of. If you have such evidence please provide it. Otherwise you haven't overcome ''reasonable doubt". People make illogical decisions all the time and Martin may have made one here.


----------



## drache (Dec 8, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> Still no evidence? Thats cool. Didn't expect it from you.


 
still a loud mouth with nothing? i see didn't expect anything less from you



NanoHaxial said:


> And there's zero evidence to contradict his claims.


 
actually pretty much everything about the known facts either contradicts Zimmerman's alleged actions or is utterly unreasonable




NanoHaxial said:


> It makes more sense than Zimmerman somehow being to catch Martin several minutes after losing sight of him, despite the fact that Martin's home was half a minute away from where this whole thing took place at a run.


 
who says he caught him? maybe Martin turned to face the strange guy stalking him? Maybe Martin tripped, maybe he got tired

We'll never know because Zimmerman killed Martin and all we have is Zimmerman's story 




NanoHaxial said:


> He was on the phone for around 1:20-1:30 after saying that Martin was gone. Plus another minute or two until the confrontation began.


 
and what does any of this have to do with anything? not to mention where are you getting these numbers?


not really much help at all


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 8, 2012)

So they provide evidence and it means nothing but your own made up assumptions are accurate drache? Cool story bro. Try again.


----------



## drache (Dec 8, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> So they provide evidence and it means nothing but your own made up assumptions are accurate drache? Cool story bro. Try again.


 
good fucking gods cyphon *what evidence*? you've yet to offer anything other then theories that meet the conculsion you want which is dishonest at least

The only evidence, the only indisputable facts have been put forth showing reckless behavior on Zimmerman's part.

That his defenders can't admit that is very troubling


----------



## All The Good Names Are Taken (Dec 8, 2012)

Everyone is quoting tabloids for evidence After reading all that's been posted I think everyone needs to take a deep breath;wish I was an observer for this trial. this story needs to go away


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 8, 2012)

You'd think this was a forum for republican bigots.


----------



## Daxter (Dec 9, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Fine, let him get a cash settlement from the news organization then send his ass to jail.
> 
> This seems pretty cut and dry to me, you can't stalk someone with a gun (especially after the cops told you NOT to) then claim self defense when that person acts in what they probably view as defense against YOU.
> 
> If that's the new definition of the self defense justification then its lost a lot of meaning.



Basically this.

NBC is scummy, but they were only being the vultures they are. They swooped in and fed on what was already established defamation; everyone already hates his ass anyway. He's a disgusting asshole that needs to rot in jail, so let him grasp for what's left of his dignity against NBC, then haul him away.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 9, 2012)

drache said:


> good fucking gods cyphon *what evidence*?



That is actually what I am asking you. Where is your evidence for what you are claiming or evidence that refutes Zimmerman. You should already know the evidence supporting Zimmerman. We have his story (which makes him innocent until proven otherwise) and we have pictures and forensices supporting his story. 

Is this really that hard for you drache. PROVIDE EVIDENCE to support your opinion. All you are basically saying is that you don't believe something or saying someone is wrong. You haven't once supported any of it. Do we have a witness to prove Zimmerman is lying? Is there some piece of forensics that may show he is full of shit? Has his story kept changing over time? Give me something.

We already agree Zimmerman made a bad choice in ignoring the cops. Nobody is arguing that. But show me what exactly he is guilty of based on the story, evidence and the law. You WANT him to be guilty. You have made that very clear. Now show us something to prove he is.

The second you do I will be right with you saying that Zimmerman should go to jail. This is not that complicated my man.


----------



## drache (Dec 9, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> That is actually what I am asking you. Where is your evidence for what you are claiming or evidence that refutes Zimmerman. You should already know the evidence supporting Zimmerman. We have his story (which makes him innocent until proven otherwise) and we have pictures and forensices supporting his story.


 
no *you* are the one positing and making claims about what happened which means it's on *you* to support that with something other then fairy dust.



Cyphon said:


> We already agree Zimmerman made a bad choice in ignoring the cops. Nobody is arguing that. But show me what exactly he is guilty of based on the story, evidence and the law. You WANT him to be guilty. You have made that very clear. Now show us something to prove he is.
> 
> The second you do I will be right with you saying that Zimmerman should go to jail. This is not that complicated my man.


 
i've answered this multiple times you either can not read or are being dishonest


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 9, 2012)

drache said:


> no *you* are the one positing and making claims about what happened which means it's on *you* to support that with something other then fairy dust.


 
It has been supported over and over again. Try reading it. I am sure you are also familiar with the story in general as well. I just hope you don't continue sticking the one that came from media bias :/



> i've answered this multiple times you either can not read or are being dishonest



I have seen things that you think or don't believe but you have shown nothing to support them. Still waiting.....


----------



## drache (Dec 9, 2012)

Lindsay said:


> I haven't seen any evidence that Zimmerman confronted Martin. If you have it then please post it so you can nullify Zimmerman's claim that he didn't want to confront Martin as seen below:


 
Zimmerman talked Martin, followed him despite the police saying not to and said many things on the phone indicating his anger and that he would have welcomed a confrontation

counter to this is Zimmerman's word which well is not worth a lot given that he and his wife were caught lying to the court.



Lindsay said:


> It is acceptable evidence in court and that is all that counts.


 
fair enough and what the morgue tech/person say can be presented too




Lindsay said:


> The problem for prosecuting Zimmerman is that there is NO EVIDENCE to the contrary as far as I'm aware of. If you have such evidence please provide it. Otherwise you haven't overcome ''reasonable doubt". People make illogical decisions all the time and Martin may have made one here.


 
Zimmerman engaged in reckless behavior and sought out a confrontation, that's not self defense 



Cyphon said:


> It has been supported over and over again. Try reading it. I am sure you are also familiar with the story in general as well. I just hope you don't continue sticking the one that came from media bias :/
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen things that you think or don't believe but you have shown nothing to support them. Still waiting.....


 
and this is why discussions with you are inane, all you do is talk and never bother to actually support what you're saying

the fact is you've made your conclusion now you're just trying to post defacto support it


----------



## Lindsay (Dec 9, 2012)

drache said:


> good fucking gods cyphon *what evidence*? you've yet to offer anything other then theories that meet the conculsion you want which is dishonest at least
> 
> *The only evidence, the only indisputable facts have been put forth showing reckless behavior on Zimmerman's part.*
> 
> That his defenders can't admit that is very troubling



This is just dishonest. 

I showed you Zimmernan's medical report stating he had a broken nose when you stated you never heard of it. 

When you posted a statement that implied (or seemed to imply) Zimmerman said he kept chasing down Martin until he confronted him, I posted a refutation in which Zimmerman states he never kept chasing Martin and Martin initiated the confrontation.

You stated that while you didn't know who swung first, that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation. I have asked you politely for evidence of this several times but you have yet to post it. So I'll ask you again; if you have evidence of this please post it so I can complete a informed opinion about this case. Otherwise the only other evidence I have is Zimmerman's testimony which nothing refutes.

Plus the onus is on the prosecution. Zimmerman is considered innocent until you can remove "reasonable doubt" about his guilt. if I was a juror, then at this point I don't think "reasonable doubt" is gone. I need more evidence to substantiate your claims about the confrontation. Will you give that to me?




All The Good Names Are Taken said:


> *Everyone is quoting tabloids for evidence* After reading all that's been posted I think everyone needs to take a deep breath;wish I was an observer for this trial. this story needs to go away



I've quoted USA Today, ABC News, and CNN. Hardly "tabloid news".



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You'd think this was a forum for republican bigots.



Calling people names? You are better than that CTK.


----------



## Petes12 (Dec 9, 2012)

lindsay you're a dumb fuck aren't you

it always amazes me how far some people will bend over backwards to defend anyone who kills a black person.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 9, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> lindsay you're a dumb fuck aren't you
> 
> it always amazes me how far some people will bend over backwards to defend anyone who kills a black person.



Yup. You have to twist into pretzels to follow the evidence on this one.

Seriously, do you guys even care what actually happened or are you just angry a black teen is dead?

You are seriously starting to look pretty racist Petes. I didn't really want to get on you about the other thread (giving you benefit of the doubt) but now you continue on the same path.....


----------



## Lindsay (Dec 9, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> lindsay you're a dumb fuck aren't you
> 
> it always amazes me how far some people will bend over backwards to defend anyone who kills a black person.



Why are you using insults and insinuating that I'm a racist? I have not made one comment about the race of Zimmerman or Martin nor do I let race influence my judgement of this case.

I even stated I was willing to change my mind if drache posts evidence that I haven't seen if it overturns "reasonable doubt".


----------



## fantzipants (Dec 9, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> Yup. You have to twist into pretzels to follow the evidence on this one.
> 
> Seriously, do you guys even care what actually happened or are you just angry a black teen is dead?
> 
> You are seriously starting to look pretty racist Petes. I didn't really want to get on you about the other thread (giving you benefit of the doubt) but now you continue on the same path.....



Yes, I am angry that a black teen is dead. Zimmerman should have stayed put and this should have never happened.  he isn't a cop and isn't trained to deal with those things bottom line.


----------



## All The Good Names Are Taken (Dec 9, 2012)

Lindsay said:


> I've quoted USA Today, ABC News, and CNN. Hardly "tabloid news".



The point I'm trying to make is we weren't there.I viewed the links you provided and there are still holes in the narrative; Not to mention we are missing one critical account and as always the truth lies in the middle of both extremes. The media fails sometimes anyway lolBenghazi Raid and the Sandusky conviction etc.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 9, 2012)

fantzipants said:


> Yes, I am angry that a black teen is dead. Zimmerman should have stayed put and this should have never happened.  he isn't a cop and isn't trained to deal with those things bottom line.



Cool story bro. Thanks for agreeing with me. However, us agreeing and repeating this same thing 1000 times doesn't make Zimmerman guilty, which is the entire point of this discussion.

Did Zimmerman make a mistake? Yes. We all agree no?

Is it a tragedy Martin (a teen with a lot of life left to live) died prematurely because of a major misunderstanding? Yes. We all agree no?

Is there evidence that Zimmerman wasn't using self defense or that he provoked the fight? I haven't seen any. If it comes out we will all agree that he is guilty and should be in jail yes? I say yes.


Now, does anyone here have a problem with anything stated above? If so, what is your problem with it? Do you HAVE the evidence I am looking for? Or is your problem either

A. Based on an emotional reaction

or

B. Based on not liking the stand your ground law?

I am willing to discuss any of the points so long as you can present a reasonable argument.


----------



## drache (Dec 9, 2012)

Lindsay said:


> This is just dishonest.
> 
> I showed you Zimmernan's medical report stating he had a broken nose when you stated you never heard of it.


 
a broken nose means nothing other then a broken nose, it's not a life threatening injury and it certainly doesn't prove that Zimmerman didn't confront Martin or even didn't take the first swing




Lindsay said:


> When you posted a statement that implied (or seemed to imply) Zimmerman said he kept chasing down Martin until he confronted him, I posted a refutation in which Zimmerman states he never kept chasing Martin and Martin initiated the confrontation.


 
and we should just take Zimmerman at his word? A man that was caught lying repeatedly to the court and on the reccord?

You either have a strange sense of humor or trust




Lindsay said:


> You stated that while you didn't know who swung first, that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation. I have asked you politely for evidence of this several times but you have yet to post it. So I'll ask you again; if you have evidence of this please post it so I can complete a informed opinion about this case. Otherwise the only other evidence I have is Zimmerman's testimony which nothing refutes.


 
And I've given it to you if you have questions then be specific, if you want to object to part or all of it, do it. Don't pretend that I haven't answered you because *that* would be dishonest




Lindsay said:


> Plus the onus is on the prosecution. Zimmerman is considered innocent until you can remove "reasonable doubt" about his guilt. if I was a juror, then at this point I don't think "reasonable doubt" is gone. I need more evidence to substantiate your claims about the confrontation. Will you give that to me?


 
You already have your conclusion so of course you have all the reasonable doubt in the world which is why you shouldn't be on the jury


----------



## Lindsay (Dec 9, 2012)

drache said:


> a broken nose means nothing other then a broken nose, it's not a life threatening injury and it certainly doesn't prove that Zimmerman didn't confront Martin or even didn't take the first swing



You did doubt that Zimmerman had a broken nose so I gave you a link providing evidence. If Martin can get close enough to break Zimmerman's nose, then do you agree that he could get close enough to gauge a eye out? That was my original point.

I never implied it proved Zimmerman swung or confronted Martin first. You stated it was unlikely Martin could put Zimmerman in mortal danger with his fists. I disagree since if Martin can get close enough to break Zimmerman's nose, then it is very likely he can get close enough to gauge a eye out.





drache said:


> and we should just take Zimmerman at his word? A man that was caught lying repeatedly to the court and on the reccord?
> 
> You either have a strange sense of humor or trust



No. But I cannot discard his testimony just because he lied in others instances. Even if he is a liar, I must give Zimmerman a fair trial and collect enough evidence to overcome "reasonable doubt".





drache said:


> And I've given it to you if you have questions then be specific, if you want to object to part or all of it, do it. Don't pretend that I haven't answered you because *that* would be dishonest



Okay then I will ask again. Do you have evidence that Zimmerman started a confrontation or initiated violence against Martin? If so, I wish see it to obtain a informed opinion about the case. I don't want your opinion or statement about the subject but a outside source like a police report, autopsy report, eyewitness statement, etc.





drache said:


> You already have your conclusion so of course you have all the reasonable doubt in the world which is why you shouldn't be on the jury



I've reached a conclusion based on the evidence I have. I'm willing to change it if I see new evidence.


----------



## drache (Dec 9, 2012)

Lindsay said:


> You did doubt that Zimmerman had a broken nose so I gave you a link providing evidence. If Martin can get close enough to break Zimmerman's nose, then do you agree that he could get close enough to gauge a eye out? That was my original point.


 
there was never dispute as to how close Martin was, the fact that the gun shot was either a contact shot or within 3 meters established that. I appreicate you providing the link but you are making too many logical leaps



Lindsay said:


> I never implied it proved Zimmerman swung or confronted Martin first. You stated it was unlikely Martin could put Zimmerman in mortal danger with his fists. I disagree since if Martin can get close enough to break Zimmerman's nose, then it is very likely he can get close enough to gauge a eye out.


 
that makes no sense just because you are close to someone does not put them in iminent danger which by the by is the actual criteria for self defense.




Lindsay said:


> No. But I cannot discard his testimony just because he lied in others instances. Even if he is a liar, I must give Zimmerman a fair trial and collect enough evidence to overcome "reasonable doubt".


 
I'm all for Zimmerman being given a fair trial but you can in fact discard his testimony if you think it's worthless and I do. I don't trust anything the man has to say, he has everything to gain and everything to lose.




Lindsay said:


> Okay then I will ask again. Do you have evidence that Zimmerman started a confrontation or initiated violence against Martin? If so, I wish see it to obtain a informed opinion about the case. I don't want your opinion or statement about the subject but a outside source like a police report, autopsy report, eyewitness statement, etc.


 
The fact that Zimmerman followed Martin after being told not to, the fact that Zimmerman said more then a couple things on the phone indicating that he was in a confrontational frame of mind more then show that Zimmerman initated this.

All Zimmerman had to do was call the police and back off, instead he decided that he was Rambo.

Further the fact is that the confrontation itself is at best odd given that Zimmerman's account is basically 'he got away then came back to confront me' which makes no sense at all and is certainly not reasonable.

That is going to be the last time I repeat myself, if you choose to ignore this then I am going to decide you are not being honest.





Lindsay said:


> I've reached a conclusion based on the evidence I have. I'm willing to change it if I see new evidence.


 
what evidence besides what you want to have happened?


----------



## Lindsay (Dec 9, 2012)

drache said:


> there was never dispute as to how close Martin was, the fact that the gun shot was either a contact shot or within 3 meters established that. I appreicate you providing the link but you are making too many logical leaps




So you do admit that eye gauge is possible yes? This is a very important point for my next statement.





drache said:


> that makes no sense just because you are close to someone does not put them in iminent danger which by the by is the actual criteria for self defense.



Closeness alone does not put one in imminent danger, I agree. However, if I am being attacked plus my nose just got broken and their hand is capable is reaching out to gauge my eyes out, then I consider myself to be in danger of dying. At that point, if I have a firearm, I'm going to shoot you because it is way too risky to depend on your good graces not to jab your finger in my eye as you attack me.






drache said:


> I'm all for Zimmerman being given a fair trial but you can in fact discard his testimony if you think it's worthless and I do. I don't trust anything the man has to say, he has everything to gain and everything to lose.



Yet I cannot dismiss is simply because he said such a thing with a past history of lying. There is the possibility that it did occur and I must take it into consideration. Because if it did occur then he has a right to claim self defense. That alone makes makes "reasonable doubt" stand so long as there is no evidence to the contrary.






> The fact that Zimmerman followed Martin after being told not to



Hold on, stop right here. How is this established? After the dispatcher told him "we don't need you to do that" Zimmerman said "Okay". What evidence shows that he continued to follow Martin after Zimmerman said "okay"?



> the fact that Zimmerman said more then a couple things on the phone indicating that he was in a confrontational frame of mind more then show that Zimmerman initated this.



Saying things on the phone in no way means Zimmernman initiated a confrontation with Martin. Your conclusion on that is not supported by the facts you have presented.



> All Zimmerman had to do was call the police and back off, instead he decided that he was Rambo.



But you haven't established that he kept pursuing Martin as seen two quotes above.



> Further the fact is that the confrontation itself is at best odd given that Zimmerman's account is basically 'he got away then came back to confront me' which makes no sense at all and is certainly not reasonable.



That isn't enough to overcome reasonable doubt. For all I know Martin could be a jackass and wanted to launch a sneak attack against Zimmerman in revenge for a busted heist. Now I'm not saying that is true but it can be one of many possible reasons that fits Zimmerman's version of events and I have to consider it as a possibility.



> That is going to be the last time I repeat myself, if you choose to ignore this then I am going to decide you are not being honest.



I haven't ignored your posts. You cite _*only *_1 outside source with Zimmernan's call to the police.



drache said:


> what evidence besides what you want to have happened?



What are you talking about? You cited Zimmerman's call to the police once and nothing else. No autopsy report, no eyewitness testimony, nothing from the police report, nothing that contradicts Zimmerman's story except for your own conclusions.  Without the evidence backing your claims or evidence that contradicts what Zimmerman said happened, I cannot find him guilty since reasonable doubt is not overcome.

drache the burden of proof is on you to overcome reasonable doubt with evidence. You can state Zimmerman kept pursing Martin and started a confrontation until the moon turns blue. But it won't be accepted, at least by me, unless you have a outside source like a police report, a witness statement, a picture, a eyewitness, a video feed, forensic reports, autopsy reports, etc. and that is what you are missing.


----------



## drache (Dec 9, 2012)

Lindsay said:


> So you do admit that eye gauge is possible yes? This is a very important point for my next statement.


 
many things are possible that doesn't the happened or even could have happened




Lindsay said:


> Closeness alone does not put one in imminent danger, I agree. However, if I am being attacked plus my nose just got broken and their hand is capable is reaching out to gauge my eyes out, then I consider myself to be in danger of dying. At that point, if I have a firearm, I'm going to shoot you because it is way too risky to depend on your good graces not to jab your finger in my eye as you attack me.


 
this is pure supposition on your part and as such means absolutely nothing




Lindsay said:


> Yet I cannot dismiss is simply because he said such a thing with a past history of lying. There is the possibility that it did occur and I must take it into consideration. Because if it did occur then he has a right to claim self defense. That alone makes makes "reasonable doubt" stand so long as there is no evidence to the contrary.


 
considering he has already been caught lying in this case I very strongly disagree

and I don't think you understand what 'self defense' means legally nor what Zimmerman is claiming so let's make sure we're on the same page.

'Self Defense' is allowed only when there is a real, reasonable and iminent danger to the a person's well being. For example if someone pulls a knife on me from 100 feet away and I shot him that's not self defense as there is no iminent danger, however if the same person pulls a knife on me with well it varies by state but I think the most common is 15 feet then me shooting him is self defense. However self defense also demands that the person not put himself or herself in unjustified danger. Florida's 'stand your ground' law changes that and changes the nature of 'self defense' to if you are threatened you are not required to make all reasonable attempts to extricate yourself and instead you may 'stand your ground'. That is Zimmerman's particular claim though I think if that fails he will claim self defense.






Lindsay said:


> Hold on, stop right here. How is this established? After the dispatcher told him "we don't need you to do that" Zimmerman said "Okay". What evidence shows that he continued to follow Martin after Zimmerman said "okay"?


 
he admitted following the incident to the police that he 'just happened' to go the same way as Martin as he looked for a street to direct the police to which from the handy map from before is bullshit as the street doesn't change. Not only that he could have chosen to go the other way. He ididn't.

My understanding is Zimmerman has since tried to deny he did this or said it but it's their in the original police investigation



Lindsay said:


> Saying things on the phone in no way means Zimmernman initiated a confrontation with Martin. Your conclusion on that is not supported by the facts you have presented.


 
sure but it's pretty damning circumstancial evidence as to the state of his mind



Lindsay said:


> But you haven't established that he kept pursuing Martin as seen two quotes above.


 
yes I have and I redid so above



Lindsay said:


> That isn't enough to overcome reasonable doubt. For all I know Martin could be a jackass and wanted to launch a sneak attack against Zimmerman in revenge for a busted heist. Now I'm not saying that is true but it can be one of many possible reasons that fits Zimmerman's version of events and I have to consider it as a possibility.


 
ck


seriously? what if giant space monkey launched tiny parasites into Martin's brain and took him over as a puppet?

I don't think you understand that there is *NO* evidence Martin was commiting any crime and that your objections are hardly reasonable and more like 'what can I come up with to defend Zimmerman now?' 



Lindsay said:


> I haven't ignored your posts. You cite _*only *_1 outside source with Zimmernan's call to the police.


 
there is absolutely  nothing outside of medical accounts, the transcripts of the phone calls and parts of the original investigation to actuall cite

All your 'sources' are opinion pieces that have nothing to back them up but what the authors' imagine happened



Lindsay said:


> What are you talking about? You cited Zimmerman's call to the police once and nothing else. No autopsy report, no eyewitness testimony, nothing from the police report, nothing that contradicts Zimmerman's story except for your own conclusions. Without the evidence backing your claims or evidence that contradicts what Zimmerman said happened, I cannot find him guilty since reasonable doubt is not overcome.


 
I have and I very nicely just redid so which is not something I often do
drache the burden of proof is on you to overcome reasonable doubt with evidence. You can state Zimmerman kept pursing Martin and started a confrontation until the moon turns blue. But it won't be accepted, at least by me, unless you have a outside source like a police report, a witness statement, a picture, a eyewitness, a video feed, forensic reports, autopsy reports, etc. and that is what you are missing.[/quote]


----------



## Level7N00b (Dec 9, 2012)

You don't start none, there won't be none.

Zimmerman put himself in this situation.


----------



## Mathias124 (Dec 9, 2012)

Level7N00b said:


> You don't start none, there won't be none.
> 
> Zimmerman put himself in this situation.



Ill tell this to rape victims.


----------



## Surreal (Dec 9, 2012)

Mathias124 said:


> Ill tell this to rape victims.



Do rape victims follow their soon to be rapists, stalk them and then call 911 informing them that the person in question looks like they might rape someone? 

Does the dispatch then tell them to stay away but they decide that, fuck it, I'm bored and have nothing to do anyway, might as well follow the potential rapist into this isolated, poorly lit alley?

Not going into the whole "justified shooting or not" thing but your comment was pretty absurd, at best.


----------



## Ceria (Dec 9, 2012)

SonVegeta said:


> He still deserves to go to prison after what he did. Running after the kid and them starting the confrontation.



Um... no... Treyvon was kicking his ass, as pictures have confirmed. He had every right to defend himself with the gun, he shouldn't have even been charged. According to stand your ground, George had done nothing wrong. But the blacks in Sanford pressured the police who eventually complied, when they were not going to charge him originally.


----------



## Mathias124 (Dec 9, 2012)

Surreal said:


> Do rape victims follow their soon to be rapists, stalk them and then call 911 informing them that the person in question looks like they might rape someone?
> 
> Does the dispatch then tell them to stay away but they decide that, fuck it, I'm bored and have nothing to do anyway, might as well follow the potential rapist into this isolated, poorly lit alley?



Bad arguments all the way, wont even bother explaining why.

Needless to say bad things happen to you without cause once in a while, and sometimes lives are saved by men like him who scares off a potential rapist stalking the streets looking for a victim.

God knows how many times i've been hustling garages, if some of the people who looked weird at us had followed us and said "hey im calling the cops ect. We'd probably just had gone home with the stolen booze, however nobody ever did so we kept right on. 

On topic: its obvious the media manipulated the conversation so he'd look like a racist, they should pay a HEAVY fine and the journalist who took the discision should have his/her license taken away.


----------



## Surreal (Dec 9, 2012)

Mathias124 said:


> Bad arguments all the way, wont even bother explaining why.



You won't, because you can't. You compared an innocent rape victim to someone who was actively a part of what has happened. In the future, if you can't answer someone's argument it's better not to say anything at all, this is just silly. 



> -snip-



Has absolutely zero relevance to anything I've said. You made a stupid comparison, and you are now trying to change the scope of the discussion.


----------



## drache (Dec 9, 2012)

Ceria said:


> Um... no... Treyvon was kicking his ass, as pictures have confirmed. He had every right to defend himself with the gun, he shouldn't have even been charged. According to stand your ground, George had done nothing wrong. But the blacks in Sanford pressured the police who eventually complied, when they were not going to charge him originally.



Ceria Zimmerman was told to back off, he didn't he had no right to use that gun and frankly if he had acted like anything but a rambo wannabe Martin would be alive today

Zimmerman should be convicted of at least reckless manslaughter


----------



## EJ (Dec 9, 2012)

I'm honestly still surprised people are defending George Zimmerman.


----------



## Ceria (Dec 9, 2012)

drache said:


> Ceria Zimmerman was told to back off, he didn't *he had no right to use that gun *and frankly if he had acted like anything but a rambo wannabe Martin would be alive today
> 
> Zimmerman should be convicted of at least reckless manslaughter



Treyvon would've killed him with that gun had he not used it to protect himself. While it's evident he started the confrontation when it came down to it, George had the right to defend himself against the ass kicking he was getting.


----------



## Mathias124 (Dec 9, 2012)

Surreal said:


> You won't, because you can't. You compared an innocent rape victim to someone who was actively a part of what has happened. In the future, if you can't answer someone's argument it's better not to say anything at all, this is just silly.
> 
> Has absolutely zero relevance to anything I've said. You made a stupid comparison, and you are now trying to change the scope of the discussion.



No i just didnt bother.

I can Pm the reasons if you want, so you wont be embarrassed.


----------



## EJ (Dec 9, 2012)

No, post it here.


----------



## Surreal (Dec 9, 2012)

Mathias124 said:


> No i just didnt bother.
> 
> I can Pm the reasons if you want, so you wont be embarrassed.



Post them here. I want to see your reasoning. I want to see how did you connect someone who followed a person, was warned by the police not to do it and then ended up shooting them as a direct consequence of his actions (regardless if it was self defence or not) with a rape victim.


----------



## All The Good Names Are Taken (Dec 9, 2012)

Prosecutors are going to have a heck of a time with this one;they should probably go after Zimmerman with Disorderly Conduct,Racial profiling,Disturbing the peace and carrying an unregistered firearm.those can be definitively proven too.  

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL72w4xiTVU[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 9, 2012)

All The Good Names Are Taken said:


> Prosecutors are going to have a heck of a time with this one;they should probably go after Zimmerman with Disorderly Conduct,Racial profiling,Disturbing the peace and carrying an unregistered firearm.those can be definitively proven too.



I was under the impression the gun was legal and I think the race angle has already been discussed and I don't think they can prove he was racial profiling. He never gave any indication he thought Martin was suspicious due to race. Everything he said had to do with the way Martin was behaving. The only time race was brought up was when the dispatcher wanted that information.

As for the other 2.....Not sure if they would stick or not. Don't really know what all qualifies under each.


----------



## Unimportant (Dec 9, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> I was under the impression the gun was legal and I think the race angle has already been discussed and I don't think they can prove he was racial profiling. He never gave any indication he thought Martin was suspicious due to race. Everything he said had to do with the way Martin was behaving. The only time race was brought up was when the dispatcher wanted that information.
> 
> As for the other 2.....Not sure if they would stick or not. Don't really know what all qualifies under each.


You're aware that Martin was within 70 yards of his own home when he was killed, and also that he was talking to his friend on a cell phone, complaining that a creepy and crazy guy was tailing him in a vehicle?


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 9, 2012)

Unimportant said:


> You're aware that Martin was within 70 yards of his own home when he was killed, and also that he was talking to his friend on a cell phone, complaining that a creepy and crazy guy was tailing him in a vehicle?



What does that have to do with anything I said?


----------



## IchLiebe (Dec 9, 2012)

All The Good Names Are Taken said:


> Prosecutors are going to have a heck of a time with this one;they should probably go after Zimmerman with Disorderly Conduct,Racial profiling,Disturbing the peace and carrying an unregistered firearm.those can be definitively proven too.
> 
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL72w4xiTVU[/YOUTUBE]



Can you prove that without any doubt?

Disorderly conduct-Misdem.
Racial Profiling- Zimmerman wasn't law enforcement so no.
Disturbing the peace- He was keeping the peace.
Carrying an unregirested firearm is completely legal just as long as it isn't concealed. 

See you have yet to proven that Zimmerman did broke any laws much less being a racist hate monger that some have depicted him to be.

From the evidence provided to the public by law enforcement(videos and audio recordings) then George Zimmerman is 100% innocent. Quite said that black people make everything that happens to their communities seem like it was fuel by race when in all actuality it was their fault to begin with.


----------



## IchLiebe (Dec 9, 2012)

Unimportant said:


> You're aware that Martin was within 70 yards of his own home when he was killed, and also that he was talking to his friend on a cell phone, complaining that a creepy and crazy guy was tailing him in a vehicle?



You are aware that just because he was within 70 yards of his own doesn't mean that his is impervious to outside influences. A creepy crazy guy was "Tailing him" not "beating the shit out of him" or "threatening" or "harasshing".

Also @Drache- a Broken nose isn't life threatening but when someone breaks your nose; Your momentarily stunned, can't see, lose his balance, and other factors that, if someone doesn't have experience w/ fighting, tell someone they are in danger of being injured or is injured. And I can kill a man w/ one hand within a distance of 3meters. Just because Travyon didn't have a gun/knife/weapon doesn't mean that he wasn't able nor in the position to cause serious harm to Zimmerman.

A broken nose shows that Martin was able to break his nose(fresh blood in the picture) before being shot, and coupled w/ the head wounds on the back of Zimmerman's head, it was self defense.

You can say that he could've avoided the situtation by not following Martin, but he did, and didn't provoke Martin at all(that i know of). Zimmerman is freely able to follow anyone that deems suspicious or not, just like you got the right to ask someone who keeps walking by your house on a dead end road wtf they are doing. But Martin doesn't have the ability to freely(legally) kick the shit out of someone for no reason.


----------



## Blue (Dec 9, 2012)

♠Ace♠ said:


> That [Martin punched a guy with a visible gun is] exactly what I'm suggesting. It's not like I said he was holding it in his hand. He wasn't from what I've heard. I just have no logical reason to believe a beat down occurred just because he felt like initiating one. And yes, in cases like this, some assumptions have to be made. As with any legal case.





Freedan said:


> What would you expect him to do? Run? Martin probably thought the guy was a serial killer stalking him. He didn't know the neighborhood, who lived there and who didn't. How was Martin supposed to know Zimmerman was a volunteer neighborhood watchman?



These are the dumbest things I have ever heard, and I've heard some crazy shit.


----------



## EJ (Dec 9, 2012)

^Post why they are, other wise you're just spouting stuff off without posting a legit reason as to why you feel the way you do. 

In essence, you're flame-baiting.


----------



## Blue (Dec 9, 2012)

I don't need to post why someone punching a guy holding a gun is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

_I do not._


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 9, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> I don't need to post why someone punching a guy holding a gun is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
> 
> _I do not._



I think you do. Remember, people who are fat can magically fight better than others (according to most in here) so maybe skinny highschool kids have special skills at disarming people with weapons. 

We are on a Naruto site so magic fights are what we do


----------



## EJ (Dec 9, 2012)

^^ The problem is, you aren't an investigator, you weren't there, and there are other factors within it.


EDIT:

Directed at both of you. And lol, are we all going to be schooled on self defense classes on who has the better advantage in a fight?

I forget, most of us were here when all of this shit took place.


----------



## Unimportant (Dec 9, 2012)

Alright so, Martin was own his own neighborhood at night walking around. Zimmerman decides he's suspicious and follows him. Martin is freaked out because someone is following him in his own neighborhood at night. He's talking on the phone until Zimmerman directly confronts him (gets out of the vehicle he was driving to question Martin).

All witness testimony says that the fight occurred on grass, which leads me to wonder how it is that Zimmerman had his head bashed on concrete. Witness testimony is mixed, as to whether Zimmerman was on the top, or Martin was on the top, it was dark and no one really knows. It is known that at the time of the gunshot, Zimmerman was straddling Martin's body (on top).

Additionally, expert analysis of the audio clips "Help! Help!" that occured during 9-1-1 calls do not coincide with Zimmerman's testimony. The expert decision was that Martin was the person screaming for help, while Zimmerman and Zimmerman's family/close friends claim the opposite is true. Audio analysis does not agree.

Overall, I find the picture to be suspicious at best. I of course, have no way of knowing what is really true. However, to brush the whole thing off as a cut-and-dry case of self defense seems irrational at best.


----------



## All The Good Names Are Taken (Dec 9, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> I was under the impression the gun was legal and I think the race angle has already been discussed and I don't think they can prove he was racial profiling. He never gave any indication he thought Martin was suspicious due to race. Everything he said had to do with the way Martin was behaving. The only time race was brought up was when the dispatcher wanted that information.
> 
> As for the other 2.....Not sure if they would stick or not. Don't really know what all qualifies under each.



He had a license to carry a concealed weapon but the gun wasn't registered.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 9, 2012)

Unimportant said:


> All witness testimony says that the fight occurred on grass, which leads me to wonder how it is that Zimmerman had his head bashed on concrete.



The evidence picture showed a concrete path between 2 sides of grass. I believe Zimmerman was getting his head based and slid into the grass during the struggle (according to his story). 



> The expert decision was that Martin was the person screaming for help, while Zimmerman and Zimmerman's family/close friends claim the opposite is true. Audio analysis does not agree.



From what I have read the experts said the quality is too bad to come to any conclusions.

On top of that I have seen stories about Martins dad initially saying it wasn't his sons voice on the phone. Not sure of the truth to that but I have seen that story in multiple places. 



> However, to brush the whole thing off as a cut-and-dry case of self defense seems irrational at best.



It is cut and dry at this point as far as there being nothing to really counter Zimmermans story. Until the story is filled in as to how the fight started we just don't know if he is telling the truth or not. 

The problem with the arguments in this thread are that because people have gotten so emotional over this they ignore the laws and the fact that our system is innocent until proven guilty, not the opposite.


----------



## All The Good Names Are Taken (Dec 9, 2012)

IchLiebe said:


> Can you prove that without any doubt?
> 
> Disorderly conduct-Misdem.
> Racial Profiling- Zimmerman wasn't law enforcement so no.
> ...


How was he keeping the peace by disturbing someone who was minding their own business. he infringed on his 5th amendment rights too but that has a shaky basis in court. 


> *See you have yet to proven that Zimmerman did broke any laws much less being a racist hate monger that some have depicted him to be.
> *


I never said I thought he was a bad person or racist so stop putting words in my mouth. 


> From the evidence provided to the public by law enforcement(videos and audio recordings) then[*B] George Zimmerman is 100% innocent.* Quite said that black people make everything that happens to their communities seem like it was fuel by race when in all actuality it was their fault to begin with.[/B]


You know damn well there's plenty of blame to go around on both parties; so don't try to say he's in the right completely.What do you suppose you know about Black communities , cute.You can't run around like a cowboy; we have laws and a police force.I don't think Zimmerman should be charged with murder though he deserves a second chance at life after all this.


----------



## Unimportant (Dec 9, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> From what I have read the experts said the quality is too bad to come to any conclusions.






> *Experts Tom Owen and Edward Primeau concluded that the screams did not  come from Zimmerman*, who told police that Martin rushed him after they  exchanged words, knocked him to the ground and repeatedly hit his head  against the concrete sidewalk.


----------



## Blue (Dec 9, 2012)

I don't think it's surprising that Martin screamed when he was shot. Most people probably would. Contrary to what Hollywood might have taught you, you don't die immediately from a gunshot, even to the heart.

Excepting head injuries, of course.

Well, also excepting bullets of large enough calibre to induce hydrostatic shock. Which this one wasn't.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 9, 2012)

Take a look at this:



> Another key question has been the identity of the voice heard yelling for help on the 911 calls witnesses made that night. Martin?s mother has said it was her son?s voice, and the special prosecutor's office cited her in their affidavit when they charged Zimmerman.
> 
> The newly released records reveal complicated and contradictory new information about the cries for help: the police initially believed it to be Zimmerman?s voice, *and FBI forensics experts could not make a determination.*
> 
> ...



I did a quick google search and found it at this link but there are multiple places with similar articles or whatever.


----------



## Mathias124 (Dec 9, 2012)

Surreal said:


> Post them here. I want to see your reasoning. I want to see how did you connect someone who followed a person, was warned by the police not to do it and then ended up shooting them as a direct consequence of his actions (regardless if it was self defence or not) with a rape victim.



If you dont start none, nothing will happen.

The whole argument can be turned around 180 degrees and have the same effect, which makes it piss poor and embarrasing.

Then you say that zimmerman stalked and chased his victim, which is true, but you also forget that he did so because he thought he was dangerous, *and it was not based on racial profiling as the article proves.* The fact that his "victim" resorted to violence only shows that the guy he stalked had potential for violence.

Which means he followed a person he believed might be a potential threat, a man cabable of easily breaking a nose is a potential threat.

The dispatcher told him to stay away? *i was once told to let a guy keep sleeping outside at 3am while it was snowing seeing as i had said he wore warm clothes*, the dispatchers may not see things the way you do...

Lastly if your point is that Zimmerman did something wrong by doing his duty and follow a guy he thought is suspicious then you're wrong.


----------



## Surreal (Dec 9, 2012)

Mathias124 said:


> If you dont start none, nothing will happen.
> 
> The whole argument can be turned around 180 degrees and have the same effect, which makes it piss poor and embarrasing.
> 
> ...



No it can't be turned around. You are not grasping the fundamental issue here. There is nothing comparable to a rape victim because rape victims are stalked and attacked by predators and in no way, shape or form provoke them. 

They don't follow their potential predators, they don't seek confrontation with their rapists and they sure as hell don't ignore the police telling them to back away from someone who can inflict them physical harm.

Justifiable or not, he put himself in a position where he could cause or suffer harm. Rape victims don't do that, so no, the argument can't be turned around in any way except maybe in a mind of a sick moron who somehow believes rape victims "ask for it". 

Racial profiling? I never once mentioned it nor do I care about it, just how I don't care about your personal anecdotes. The root of my argument was always the same:

You can't compare a rape victim with Zimmerman in any shape or form. The two issues are fundamentally different and why you choose that route is still beyond me. 

Everything else you brought up is irrelevant in this discussion.

I was calling you out on your bullshit comparison, that's all.


----------



## Ceria (Dec 9, 2012)

Ultimately this is what it comes down to:


*Spoiler*: __ 









People magazine pulled this same kind of shit, having a cover with 5-7 year old shot of Treyvon. George should sue them for slander.


----------



## Chains (Dec 9, 2012)

IchLiebe said:


> Can you prove that without any doubt?
> 
> Disorderly conduct-Misdem.
> Racial Profiling- Zimmerman wasn't law enforcement so no.
> ...



He stalked the kid. How is that keeping the peace?


----------



## Damaris (Dec 9, 2012)

Ceria said:


> Ultimately this is what it comes down to:
> 
> 
> *Spoiler*: __
> ...



1. that's not a picture of travyon martin
2. it doesn't matter if it was a picture of trayvon martin. he was still a kid walking home in his own neighborhood with a bag of skittles, and zimmerman deserves to be in jail for killing him.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 9, 2012)

Kurapika King said:


> He stalked the kid. How is that keeping the peace?



I think he was referring to Zimmerman reporting what he thought was a suspicious person. Technically he was attempting to keep the peace and if his story holds true that never changed. Martin was the attacker, not Zimmerman. 



Anony34215 said:


> it doesn't matter if it was a picture of trayvon martin. he was still a kid walking home in his own neighborhood with a bag of skittles, and zimmerman deserves to be in jail for killing him.



A couple of things here:

1. I believe you missed the point of what the poster was getting at. Which is the biased coverage we saw when this story first came out. If you were posting around that time you would have seen the same crazy bias here in the Cafe. People immediately playing the race card, age card, weight card etc....Without having or waiting for a lot of the details. 

2. You (like others) continue to harp on shit that holds no importance. Skittles and tea hold no relevance to this story. So stop saying it like it changes events. He could have had a lb of weed and that doesn't really change much in the overall scheme of things. What it comes down to is whether this is a legitimate case of self defense or not. 

3. Keeping in mind point 2, you don't deserve to be in jail for defending yourself from an attacker. So stop with that nonsense as well until you have some proof Zimmerman started the fight. There is no law against walking behind someone, there is no law against ignoring police advice, there is no law against talking to someone. So.....Show me the actual crime he should be in jail for or gtfo. 

And I will finish once again by saying the minute one of you can actually provide some sort of evidence, I will be right on your side.


----------



## NanoHaxial (Dec 9, 2012)

Kurapika King said:


> He stalked the kid. How is that keeping the peace?


Speaking from a legal standpoint, stalking requires repeated behavior. It also requires that the following be of a malicious nature, which would be hard to argue in this case.


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Dec 9, 2012)

The only thing I still don't understand is why would you stalk someone even though the actual authorities have told you to just drop it and go home ? How can someone be so dumb as to purposely look for trouble ? This guy deserves a medal for stupidity.


----------



## Ceria (Dec 9, 2012)

Anony34215 said:


> 1. that's not a picture of travyon martin
> 2. it doesn't matter if it was a picture of trayvon martin. he was still a kid walking home *in his own neighborhood* with a bag of skittles, and zimmerman deserves to be in jail for killing him.



Wrong. His own neighborhood was down in the miami area, he was suspended from school for drug possession, that's why he was up here in orlando with his father. He wasn't the innocent boy that he's been depicted to be.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 9, 2012)

Normality said:


> The only thing I still don't understand is why would you stalk someone even though the actual authorities have told you to just drop it and go home ? How can someone be so dumb as to purposely look for trouble ? This guy deserves a medal for stupidity.



I believe one of the authorities who interviewed/questioned him said he thought it had to do with wanting to be a hero. Not sure of his exact wording but that is probably an accurate call. With Zimmermans record of calling the police and being in the neighborhood watch it is hard to believe the guy could be wrong in his guess.


----------



## Damaris (Dec 9, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> 1. I believe you missed the point of what the poster was getting at. Which is the biased coverage we saw when this story first came out. If you were posting around that time you would have seen the same crazy bias here in the Cafe. People immediately playing the race card, age card, weight card etc....Without having or waiting for a lot of the details.



i didn't miss the point. i don't see how trying to counter alleged crazy bias by presenting another set of false bias accomplishes anything, and so i was pointing out that his portrayal of travyon martin in that picture was false, given that that isn't even a picture of trayvon martin.



> 2. You (like others) continue to harp on shit that holds no importance. Skittles and tea hold no relevance to this story. So stop saying it like it changes events. He could have had a lb of weed and that doesn't really change much in the overall scheme of things. What it comes down to is whether this is a legitimate case of self defense or not.



what it comes down to is whether zimmerman tracked down and killed a helpless kid for the fact that he was black.



> 3. Keeping in mind point 2, you don't deserve to be in jail for defending yourself from an attacker.



the broken legal system doesn't support this, unfortunately



> So stop with that nonsense as well until you have some proof Zimmerman started the fight. There is no law against walking behind someone, there is no law against ignoring police advice, there is no law against talking to someone. So.....Show me the actual crime he should be in jail for or gtfo.



if you honestly think that an unarmed child picked a fight with a grown man with a gun and that this situation has any sort of gray area where we don't know what happened, i worry about you.



Ceria said:


> Wrong. His own neighborhood was down in the miami area, he was suspended from school for drug possession, that's why he was up here in orlando with his father. He wasn't the innocent boy that he's been depicted to be.



his father's neighborhood = his own neighborhood. he was staying there. it was his place of residence at the time. he had every right to be where he was.

also if being in possession of an empty weed bag = you're no longer an innocent child and you deserve to be killed, we're about to lose 80 percent of american high schoolers.


----------



## Ceria (Dec 9, 2012)

Anony34215 said:


> also if being in possession of an empty weed bag = you're no longer an innocent child and you deserve to be killed, we're about to lose 80 percent of american high schoolers.



I never said he deserved to be killed, only that the usage of his childhood photos compared to george wearing county orange wasn't a fair representation of the events. They also tried to play the race card as if george was white killing a black kid. Media bias, the very reason he's suing NBC.


----------



## Chains (Dec 9, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> I believe one of the authorities who interviewed/questioned him said he thought it had to do with wanting to be a hero. Not sure of his exact wording but that is probably an accurate call. With Zimmermans record of calling the police and being in the neighborhood watch it is hard to believe the guy could be wrong in his guess.



Sounds like hero syndrome. Those people are dangerous.


----------



## Chains (Dec 9, 2012)

Ceria said:


> Wrong. His own neighborhood was down in the miami area, *he was suspended from school for drug possession*, that's why he was up here in orlando with his father. He wasn't the innocent boy that he's been depicted to be.




I remember Glenn Beck on Fox Propaganda saying the same thing.

Why does it matter why he was suspended? Why did you feel the need to point that out? Just because he had some weed doesn't mean anything.


----------



## drache (Dec 9, 2012)

Ceria said:


> Treyvon would've killed him with that gun had he not used it to protect himself. While it's evident he started the confrontation when it came down to it, George had the right to defend himself against the ass kicking he was getting.



and if Zimmerman had backed the fuck off none of what followed would have happened

You don't have the right to 'self defense' when you've started it and certainly not with lethal force



Cyphon said:


> I believe one of the authorities who interviewed/questioned him said he thought it had to do with wanting to be a hero. Not sure of his exact wording but that is probably an accurate call. With Zimmermans record of calling the police and being in the neighborhood watch it is hard to believe the guy could be wrong in his guess.



which is *exactly* why Zimmerman's behavior was at best reckless and why he should go to jail


----------



## On and On (Dec 10, 2012)

Ceria said:


> Wrong. His own neighborhood was down in the miami area, he was suspended from school for drug possession, that's why he was up here in orlando with his father. He wasn't the innocent boy that he's been depicted to be.



Kindly shut the fuck up regarding who is and who isn't likely to get caught with drugs (here likely for recreational use), and why that makes it okay for whatever happens to them to happen.

It wasn't "his" neighborhood?  Didn't his father live there? Meaning it was? 

Tempted to neg you.


----------



## Ceria (Dec 10, 2012)

Kurapika King said:


> I remember Glenn Beck on Fox Propaganda saying the same thing.
> 
> *Why does it matter why he was suspended? Why did you feel the need to point that out?* Just because he had some weed doesn't mean anything.



Because it helps illustrate his true character, and not the innocent boy that was plastered on the cover of people magazine. it helps identify the reason george thought he was suspicious.



drache said:


> and if Zimmerman had backed the fuck off none of what followed would have happened
> 
> You don't have the right to 'self defense' when you've started it and certainly not with lethal force
> 
> which is *exactly* why Zimmerman's behavior was at best reckless and why he should go to jail



He felt it was his duty as neighborhood watch, it wasn't the correct choice but when it came down to the fact he might've been killed, i think he had the right to defend himself.



On and On said:


> Kindly shut the fuck up regarding who is and who isn't likely to get caught with drugs (here likely for recreational use), and *why that makes it okay for whatever happens to them to happen.*
> 
> It wasn't "his" neighborhood?  Didn't his father live there? Meaning it was?
> 
> Tempted to neg you.



I guess you didn't see this:



Ceria said:


> *I never said he deserved to be killed,* only that the usage of his childhood photos compared to george wearing county orange wasn't a fair representation of the events. They also tried to play the race card as if george was white killing a black kid. Media bias, the very reason he's suing NBC.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 10, 2012)

Anony34215 said:


> i didn't miss the point. i don't see how trying to counter alleged crazy bias by presenting another set of false bias accomplishes anything



Depends on what viewpoint you are taking. From a trial viewpoint it helps to paint a picture not so bias towards Zimmerman. The initial media hype painted Zimmerman as a racist out for trouble and Martin to be a choir boy out doing charity work. In fact, Zimmermans lawyers made a big deal of it, because of the effects it could have on finding a fair jury. 

From my personal viewpoint I think their pasts are mostly irrelevant when determining _just_ this situation unless there was something there that is related to this specific incident. For example, if Zimmerman were a major thief in his past I don't see what that has to do with the current situation. 



> what it comes down to is whether zimmerman tracked down and killed a helpless kid for the fact that he was black.



And based on all of the _relevant_ evidence (ie not skittles and tea) that didn't happen. 

Now there may be more evidence we haven't seen yet or more to the story we haven't heard but until then we have our answer or what the answer is likely to be. 



> the broken legal system doesn't support this, unfortunately



Not sure what you are saying here. Are you arguing that under current laws you can't kill in self defense? Because if so you are incorrect. 



> if you honestly think that an unarmed child picked a fight with a grown man with a gun and that this situation has any sort of gray area where we don't know what happened, i worry about you.



What is more worrying is your (and the general populaces) ignorance when it comes to this situation. Not only do you harp on irrelevant points and word things poorly to try and support a failing argument, but you continuously ignore the facts of the case.

1. Why do you talk about Skittles and call Martin a child? He was a 6'3 teenager, far from helpless in the real world. You talk as if he were coming back from pre school and being offered candy. 

2. Do you have some evidence that supports the fact that Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun before the fight was started? The only timeframe we have for that knowledge is based on Zimmermans story which was, during the fight Martin had went for his gun at some point. 

So now that you should have that clear my answer is no. I don't believe Martin picked a fight with a "grown man" who had a gun. I think he *MAY* have started a fight with Zimmerman. At this point the evidence supports what I think. 




drache said:


> which is *exactly* why Zimmerman's behavior was at best reckless and why he should go to jail



If wanting to be a hero means you should go to jail us and every other child ever would be guilty. That is not how the law works drache. 

Try again.


----------



## EJ (Dec 10, 2012)

.......


Pretty sure he called Martin a child because well, HE IS A CHILD. 

I honestly can't believe people are still defending Zimmerman. Well no, not really. When all of this shit was going down months ago, Cyphon was here defending Zimmerman, bringing up Zimmerman's "evidence" but denouncing any evidence that Zimmerman was just plain fucking guilty.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 10, 2012)

Flow said:


> Pretty sure he called Martin a child because well, HE IS A CHILD.



16-17 years old is not a child in any part of the world. In some parts they are considered adults long before then or around then and in America they are 1 or 2 years off being a "full grown man". 



> I honestly can't believe people are still defending Zimmerman.



A lot of you don't seem to like living in the real world which is why you can't believe it. The simple fact is, you (and many others) have no leg to stand on outside of an emotional argument that Martin shouldn't be dead. We all agree on that but it ultimately doesn't help decide whether Zimmerman is guilty or not. 



> Well no, not really. When all of this shit was going down months ago, Cyphon was here defending Zimmerman, bringing up Zimmerman's "evidence"



So you are mad I used evidence to make my decisions and form my opinions 

Damn I love the Cafe. You don't see this stuff anywhere else 



> but denouncing any evidence that Zimmerman was just plain fucking guilty.



Well, I covered already how you are in denial and refuse to live in the real world but I will also point out your lack of reading comprehension. Not only have I considered and talked about whatever evidence has been provided but I have said repeatedly that if someone provides any or more to support their argument I will be right on their side.


----------



## EJ (Dec 10, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> 16-17 years old is not a child in any part of the world. In some parts they are considered adults long before then or around then and in America they are 1 or 2 years off being a "full grown man".



ITT: Cyphon gives his own definition to terms, and denounces the world/history on the fact that different cultures look at age groups/accomplishments differently on what they would call a child. 

Not surprised. 




> A lot of you don't seem to like living in the real world which is why you can't believe it. The simple fact is, you (and many others) have no leg to stand on outside of an emotional argument that Martin shouldn't be dead. We all agree on that but it ultimately doesn't help decide whether Zimmerman is guilty or not.



Or how about:


A lot of us aren't defending a guy that stalked a child, and ended up shooting him causing the conflict. 



> So you are mad I used evidence to make my decisions and form my opinions



I remember a lot of your credibility was taken away in the thread at many points, the more the story unfolded and I believe it even pointed towards Zimmerman being a liar (I would have to reread the thread), you still defended him and said  something like"Well, come on guys. We weren't there."

"There." "There." "We weren't there"

Oh god, the fucking irony. 




> Damn I love the Cafe. You don't see this stuff anywhere else



I agree!



> Well, I covered already how you are in denial and refuse to live in the real world but I will also point out your lack of reading comprehension. Not only have I considered and talked about whatever evidence has been provided but I have said repeatedly that if someone provides any or more to support their argument I will be right on their side.



you have always been saying this, towards anyone who disagrees with you. "You lack reading comprehension.

On another note, it's nice to see that you didn't actually put me on ignore. You probably don't remember me from the other thread.


----------



## IchLiebe (Dec 10, 2012)

All The Good Names Are Taken said:


> How was he keeping the peace by disturbing someone who was minding their own business. he infringed on his 5th amendment rights too but that has a shaky basis in court.


DTP is where someone is creating the unsettling of proper order by a various means that include: Loud Music, Shouting, Fighting, Using offensive words to incite violence, or challenging someone to a fight. If anything both parties are guilty of disturbing the peace but as far as I can tell, Zimmerman didn't incite violence, loud music, nor shouting. Also many local noise ordinances are vague and most courts deem them illegal or violative of Due process. The 5th amendment has nothing to do w/ this case at all, if anything Zimmerman is the only one it applies to since Martin is... well dead. And George Zimmerman can't violate the 5th amendment vs Martin as he is not law enforcement or in an authoritive position of law.[/quote]

I never said I thought he was a bad person or racist so stop putting words in my mouth. 
[/quote] I said "some people" not "you people". See the difference. Also read the OP this is what this thread is about, people conveying and portraying him as a racist hate monger.





> You know damn well there's plenty of blame to go around on both parties; so don't try to say he's in the right completely.What do you suppose you know about Black communities , cute.You can't run around like a cowboy; we have laws and a police force.I don't think Zimmerman should be charged with murder though he deserves a second chance at life after all this.


Yes they can both be blamed on different variables that led to the situation. He is in the right completely, according to the law. Damn I live in Mississippi we have a large black population and towns where there is only black people and Greenwood, MS, 5 years ago, was still fucking segerated. So tell me wtf do you know about a 100% black community. Not 70% or 80%, 100 god damn percent. I can run around like a cowboy if I wanted, hell I got a horse, a six shooter, a poncho, and a somberaro. I can't be an outlaw. You know the difference of an outlaw and cowboy I hope. And If Im clad in my cowboy gear, or got a pistol and I deem someone to be a pyshical threat to me I can gun him down... legally.

I agree he shouldn't be charged with murder but the charges you applied mainly disturbing the peace can't be convicted on since there wasn't any deputies to actually witness the crime happening. To give a better example- Me and a dude got in a fight at McDonald's parking lot, well by the time the cops got there the fight was over and they didn't actually witness anyone fighting(disturbing the peace) and explicitly said there was nothing they could do unless the person who owned the McDonald's wanted to press charges, and most time property owners won't unless property was damaged.

Also 17 years old isn't a child. You can sign up for active duty at the age of 17 and have the responsibilty to be your own guardian if a court approves. At 17 I was in far better shape and more fearsome than I am 3 years later.


----------



## EJ (Dec 10, 2012)

Are people still debating with IchLiebe? Hasn't he openly stated that he doesn't like black people? Or at LEAST something along those lines. I bring this up since it's apparent what side he is going to take in this situation.


----------



## Joker J (Dec 10, 2012)

Wait... Is Cyphon proud to be defending a person who killed someone? It seems like it.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 10, 2012)

Flow said:


> Cyphon gives his own definition to terms, and denounces the world/history on the fact that different cultures look at age groups/accomplishments differently on what they would call a child.



Just proving what I said about your reading comprehension. Thats for the assitance. 



> A lot of us aren't defending a guy that stalked a child, and ended up shooting him causing the conflict.



I wouldn't defend a guy like that either. However, that isn't the truthful or whole story. Once you realize that you may end up taking a different stance. It is all about opening your eyes first.

Like I said, the moment you can provide some evidence that shows Zimmerman started the fight I will be on your side. Until then, what we "know" is that Martin started the fight and was beating the crap out of Zimmerman. 

As I have said numerous times:

1. There is no law against reporting a suspicious person. So Zimmerman did nothing wrong by calling the cops. Again, *if you have proof to the contrary I will concede the point*.

2. There is no law against following someone through your neighborhood. If you attempt to stop them or harm them or some such then that changes. As far as we know, that didn't happen. Again, *if you have proof to the contrary I will concede the point*. 

3. There is no law against ignoring a suggestion from a dispatcher. Again, *if you have proof to the contrary I will concede the point*. 

4. There is no law against talking to someone on the street. Again, *if you have proof to the contrary I will concede the point*. 


So there you go flow. I made it easy for you to follow and respond back to. If you can provide any 1 piece we will be 1 step in the direction you want this to go. It isn't hard, research the case and show me the evidence I am missing or that validates your point. Until that time, you have nothing but your emotional bs. 



> I remember a lot of your credibility was taken away in the thread at many points,



Add poor memory to bad reading comprehension and living in denial.

Your list just continues to get worse flow. 



> you have always been saying this, towards anyone who disagrees with you. "You lack reading comprehension.



Wrong again (how many times is that now?). When people mistate or misquote what I say I let them know they have poor reading comprehension. Disagreeing with me is fine so long as you disagree with what I actually say and not something that you make up in your own mind, apply to me and then proceed to disagree with. 



> On another note, it's nice to see that you didn't actually put me on ignore. You probably don't remember me from the other thread.



Actually you were on ignore and will likely go back. I took you off to see if you have improved on your previous "skills" and that doesn't seem to be the case.



Joker J said:


> Wait... Is Cyphon proud to be defending a person who killed someone? It seems like it.



Nah. You just haven't been following along. I am proud to be doing what is right when so many refuse to actually admit they follow the wrong course. In this case you would say I am proud to be defending an innocent person. Or innocent according to evidence so far. As I have said, if any evidence comes out (or is out that I haven't seen) I will no longer take this stance. 

I don't like the outcome of what happened anymore than anyone else here, but that doesn't alter what is right and wrong.


----------



## IchLiebe (Dec 10, 2012)

Flow said:


> ITT: Cyphon gives his own definition to terms, and denounces the world/history on the fact that different cultures look at age groups/accomplishments differently on what they would call a child.


 Our ancestors thought 13 year olds where grown men and they was before us. Also if you can be tried as an adult your an adult.


> A lot of us aren't defending a guy that stalked a child, and ended up shooting him causing the conflict.


 Understand we aren't defending Zimmerman, We defending justice and the truth. Criminal harassment is an offence in the Criminal Code. It is harassing behaviour that includes stalking. The behaviour must give you good reason to fear for your personal safety and it must have no legitimate purpose. Generally, the behaviour must happen not just once but repeatedly. However, where the behaviour is overtly threatening, a single incident may be considered criminal harassment. But in this case Zimmerman wasn't threatening Martin in any way and Zimmerman was following him for a legitimate purpose. No what caused the conflict was Martin attacking Zimmerman which as a result of that conflict caused Zimmerman to shoot Martin ending the conflict. He didn't shoot Martin to start the fight, see Zimmermans broken nose and bashed in head for evidence.





> I remember a lot of your credibility was taken away in the thread at many points, the more the story unfolded and I believe it even pointed towards Zimmerman being a liar (I would have to reread the thread), you still defended him and said  something like"Well, come on guys. We weren't there."


 Just because he is a liar doesn't mean that he is lying. Understand that investigators deal with liars on a regular basis and usually have a number of various ways to actually figure out the truth. And in this case I don't need anything from Zimmerman, we got all the evidence we need w/ just the phone calls and injuries acquired by both men. If Martin was shot in the back, he would be guilty of murder but he didn't. Im about to take all credibility away from you Martinistas.





> "There." "There." "We weren't there"
> 
> Oh god, the fucking irony.


 Neither was the police, the judge, nor the jury.





> I agree!


 That he's innocent.. ok





> you have always been saying this, towards anyone who disagrees with you. "You lack reading comprehension.
> 
> On another note, it's nice to see that you didn't actually put me on ignore. You probably don't remember me from the other thread.



I tend to agree with him that most people's reading comprehension is very low. I think people actually need to read up on what grounds your legal and what grounds your breaking the law because the line is very thin. You have yet to prove that he is guilty w/o reasonable doubt, which you need to convict someone of murder. Whereas we have given numerous reasons why it was self defense and that he didn't incite violence or use offensive words, racial profiling, or even stalking(since he did have a legit purpose for tailing Marting).


----------



## Roman (Dec 10, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> 16-17 years old is not a child in any part of the world. In some parts they are considered adults long before then or around then and in America they are 1 or 2 years off being a "full grown man".



Legally and mentally, he was still a child. He was still at the age where most people are in High School, would still have to go through university, and was by no stretch completely independent. So no, Martin wasn't an adult.



Cyphon said:


> A lot of you don't seem to like living in the real world which is why you can't believe it. The simple fact is, you (and many others) have no leg to stand on outside of an emotional argument that Martin shouldn't be dead. We all agree on that but it ultimately doesn't help decide whether Zimmerman is guilty or not.



Let's take a look at Zimmerman's actions here:

He instantly became suspicious of Martin on sight. He never met him before, doesn't know who he is, and therefore should have absolutely no reason to find him suspicious. And yet he does. That is plain wrong, yet not illegal.

He tells the police he might have found a suspicious person. This is fair. However, the police tell him explicitly not to pursue him. He does. Is this illegal? No. Is this wrong? Absolutely.

Up to this point, it's unclear what could've happened and who started the confrontation first. For argument's sake, I'm going to assume it was Martin. Most of those who support Zimmerman are of the opinion Martin had no reason to because what Zimmerman was doing up to this point was not illegal. However, Martin does have a good reason, something I mentioned earlier on. That is Martin never knew Zimmerman either, and he couldn't have known why he was being followed. 

Anyone would assume that the person following them wasn't up to anything good toward them. The person might be a stalker, or even a serial killer. Martin had no way of knowing this so it's not unfeasible that he could've turned, walked up to him and asked him who he is (perhaps rather nervously or even angrily, we'll never know). It could be at this point that Martin spotted the gun. Considering his paranoia triggered by a stranger following him in the middle of the night, it didn't help to reassure him Zimmerman was innocent. That's when he tried to reach for the gun in an attempt to disarm him. That's how the fight ensued and escalated to his death.

As a result, it's not clear exactly who's innocent and who isn't, and it's not quite clear whether or not Zimmerman was truly acting in self defense considering it was his actions that led to the confrontation at all. Likely, Martin would not have done anything at all if Zimmerman had simply listened to the police and took a walk in the park somewhere else. Even if Martin confronted him, this remains true. The main lesson to be learned here is that an average person should not take the law in his own hands, and this is why Zimmerman needs to serve time.


----------



## Joker J (Dec 10, 2012)

Im pretty sure everyone agrees that they would be ready to defend themselves at night if followed by a stranger. If not, why?


----------



## Roman (Dec 10, 2012)

Joker J said:


> Im pretty sure everyone agrees that they would be ready to defend themselves at night if followed by a stranger. *If not, why?*



Because we know that stranger is reporting us to the police and we should do our civic due to submit to that stranger in order to clear our innocence


----------



## Joker J (Dec 10, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> Nah. You just haven't been following along. I am proud to be doing what is right when so many refuse to actually admit they follow the wrong course. In this case you would say I am proud to be defending an innocent person. Or innocent according to evidence so far. As I have said, if any evidence comes out (or is out that I haven't seen) I will no longer take this stance.
> 
> I don't like the outcome of what happened anymore than anyone else here, but that doesn't alter what is right and wrong.



I've been lurking for quite a while, even back in the old thread. Have you ever watched the show called DEXTER?




Freedan said:


> Because we know that stranger is reporting us to the police and we should do our civic due to submit to that stranger in order to clear our innocence



Damn Psychics! If only Martin was one.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 10, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Legally and mentally, he was still a child.



Eh.....Not really. We call them teenagers or young adults and people his age can be tried as adults in the court of law. Unless he was mentally handicapped in some way, he is no way, shape or form a "child". 



> So no, Martin wasn't an adult.



I don't recall ever saying that he was. 



> He instantly became suspicious of Martin on sight. He never met him before, doesn't know who he is, and therefore should have absolutely no reason to find him suspicious. And yet he does. That is plain wrong, yet not illegal.



There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. Although I will say it depends on the exact reasons for being suspicious. In Zimmermans case he listed his reasons and I see nothing wrong with them and I doubt you do either.

I am not going to list them all as I assume you have followed the story and know them. But if you don't recall them exactly you should view them again and rethink your suspicion.

Outside of any of that, there still is little wrong with it. We all become naturally suspicious of people we don't know all of the time. 



> He does. Is this illegal? No. Is this wrong? Absolutely.



Right on both points. I have never argued otherwise though.



> Martin had no way of knowing this so it's not unfeasible that he could've turned, walked up to him and asked him who he is (perhaps rather nervously or even angrily, we'll never know).



And I am totally fine with this version of events or even if you wanted to argue Zimmerman was the first one to speak. However, neither scenario changes anything. There is nothing illegal about talking to someone either. 



> It could be at this point that Martin spotted the gun. Considering his paranoia triggered by a stranger following him in the middle of the night, it didn't help to reassure him Zimmerman was innocent. That's when he tried to reach for the gun in an attempt to disarm him. That's how the fight ensued and escalated to his death.



This could EASILY be the real story. However, there is nothing at all to support it. You have completely made up a scenario. The argument I make is that we have a "real" scenario already. Which is Zimmermans story. I even admit he may be lying his ass off but that needs to be proven. Our law is innocent until proven guilty. So whether it be lie detector or truth syrum or whatever else is allowed to prove it....That needs to happen. 



> The main lesson to be learned here is that an average person should not take the law in his own hands, and this is why Zimmerman needs to serve time.



And this is a terrible lesson to learn. So you want to make an example out of someone you are _GUESSING_ is guilty? Hell no. That is some shit and you know it man.

You do have the first part of the lesson right, I will give you that. But hell no to the latter part until you can provide some evidence. 

I think what you should be more focused on is that this is an oppurtunity to review some of these laws and maybe find a better way to view self defense. For example, I have no clue how you judge "fearing for your life or great injury" because almost anyone could tell a convincing story if they wanted to. So that part of the law just seems.......Wrong.



Joker J said:


> I've been lurking for quite a while, even back in the old thread. Have you ever watched the show called DEXTER?



Fair enough. And no I haven't but my fiance and I are actually about to start it up. We have heard good things. 

Why do you ask?


----------



## Roman (Dec 10, 2012)

Joker J said:


> Damn Psychics! If only Martin was on.



It's not even psychic powers! We should simply know this automatically! :WOW


----------



## Joker J (Dec 10, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> Fair enough. And no I haven't but my fiance and I are actually about to start it up. We have heard good things.
> 
> Why do you ask?



There is also a innocent person on Dexter right now who killed a lot of people, but in court like I said she was proved innocent but only only Dexter knows otherwise.

Im basically saying, calling someone innocent doesn't really mean that person is innocent. It's a great show you should really watch from the 1st season.



Freedan said:


> It's not even psychic powers! We should simply know this automatically! :WOW



Should there be a thread created stating *"What would you do if you felt threaten by a stranger approaching you from behind at night alone"*?


----------



## Roman (Dec 10, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> Eh.....Not really. We call them teenagers or young adults and people his age can be tried as adults in the court of law. Unless he was mentally handicapped in some way, he is no way, shape or form a "child".



They can be tried as adults. That doesn't mean they should.



Cyphon said:


> There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. Although I will say it depends on the exact reasons for being suspicious. In Zimmermans case he listed his reasons and I see nothing wrong with them and I doubt you do either.
> 
> I am not going to list them all as I assume you have followed the story and know them. But if you don't recall them exactly you should view them again and rethink your suspicion.
> 
> Outside of any of that, there still is little wrong with it. We all become naturally suspicious of people we don't know all of the time.



I actually don't know what his suspicions are apart from the fact he was wearing a hoodie (on a night in which it was raining), that he was alone and that he was someone he never met before (as if he knew every single person in the city). Those are not reasonable suspicions. Wearing a hoodie at night when it's cold and rainy is not unusual. It's also not unusual to see a person you've never seen before, and there's no curfew in the area either. Let me know if I'm missing anything.



Cyphon said:


> And I am totally fine with this version of events or even if you wanted to argue Zimmerman was the first one to speak. However, neither scenario changes anything. There is nothing illegal about talking to someone either.



Just because something isn't illegal doesn't make it acceptable. Being sexist isn't illegal. But I think we can all agree that it's wrong. It wasn't illegal for Zimmerman to tail him under the pretense he was just taking a walk in the park, but that was clearly not what was going on and Martin wasn't that stupid.



Cyphon said:


> This could EASILY be the real story. However, there is nothing at all to support it. You have completely made up a scenario. The argument I make is that we have a "real" scenario already. Which is Zimmermans story. I even admit he may be lying his ass off but that needs to be proven. Our law is innocent until proven guilty. So whether it be lie detector or truth syrum or whatever else is allowed to prove it....That needs to happen.



What? You say Zimmerman's story is the true story yet go on to say he could be lying? The bottom line is we've only heard Zimmerman's side of the tale and no way to know what the other side of the argument is. Yes, I did make it up, but it's not, as you say, an illogical scenario. Zimmerman only has evidence that a fight occurred between him and Martin. There's no evidence on how it occurred, and that's why I don't believe it's ok to just say Zimmerman defended himself from an assaulter (one that I should probably remind you he was following, not the other way around).



Cyphon said:


> And this is a terrible lesson to learn. So you want to make an example out of someone you are _GUESSING_ is guilty? Hell no. That is some shit and you know it man.



When did I say Zimmerman is guilty? I said he was innocent of murder, but it's still a death that was caused by his actions, a death that could've been avoided if he did the RIGHT thing and left him for the police to handle. Even you agreed earlier that he needs to serve some time in jail followed by community service.



Cyphon said:


> I think what you should be more focused on is that this is an oppurtunity to review some of these laws and maybe find a better way to view self defense. For example, I have no clue how you judge "fearing for your life or great injury" because almost anyone could tell a convincing story if they wanted to. So that part of the law just seems.......Wrong.



This can be done as well as what I suggested (and you agreed with earlier on, I don't know what made you change your mind so abruptly).


----------



## IchLiebe (Dec 10, 2012)

Joker J said:


> Im pretty sure everyone agrees that they would be ready to defend themselves at night if followed by a stranger. If not, why?



Im pretty sure everyone needs to be ready to defend themselves at all times, not when they are being followed at night.

And also, you said ready to "defend themselves" not "Attack someone".

Also a cop can deem you suspicious if he hasn't seen you around the neighborhood before or your someone where you ain't supposed to be, usually White people in the black community, usually buying drugs.


Also @ JokerJ, everyone is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. So as of right now, Zimmerman is innocent and you Martinistas keep calling him guilty w/o evidence.


----------



## Roman (Dec 10, 2012)

IchLiebe said:


> Also a cop can deem you suspicious if he hasn't seen you around the neighborhood before or your someone where you ain't supposed to be, usually White people in the black community, usually buying drugs.



Zimmerman wasn't a cop. Martin was coming out of a convenience store with candy.

I see nothing wrong with this picture.


----------



## IchLiebe (Dec 10, 2012)

Except that he turned around and attacked Zimmerman.

We don't know how certain people deem others suspicous but either way, Zimmerman wasn't breaking any laws and didn't incite the violence through pyshical actions or offensive language.


----------



## Roman (Dec 10, 2012)

IchLiebe said:


> Except that he turned around and attacked Zimmerman.
> 
> We don't know how certain people deem others suspicous but either way, Zimmerman wasn't breaking any laws and didn't incite the violence through pyshical actions or offensive language.



And not without reason. Assuming Martin was nervous or angry with Zimmerman for tailing him in the middle of the night for no given reason, his reaction was perfectly understandable. Even you said someone should be prepared to defend themselves. Looking at it from the perspective of someone being followed at night by someone you don't know, and to later discover the man was carrying a gun (and please don't pretend that's normal even by US standards), I can't fault Martin for trying to take the gun away. For all Martin knew, Zimmerman could've been a serial killer. 

Granted, he was not, but the point is Zimmerman came off as dangerous to Martin. That's why it's unclear whether or not Zimmerman acted in self-defense. I seriously doubt Martin didn't just turn around and attack him for no reason because Zimmerman stalking him was absolutely legal.


----------



## Joker J (Dec 10, 2012)

IchLiebe said:


> Im pretty sure everyone needs to be ready to defend themselves at all times, not when they are being followed at night.



Naw I feel pretty safe where im at right now, im not going to be paranoid 24/7.



> And also, you said ready to "defend themselves" not "Attack someone".



I know what I said. Defend was the correct word to use in my post.



> Also a cop can deem you suspicious if he hasn't seen you around the neighborhood before or your someone where you ain't supposed to be, usually White people in the black community, usually buying drugs.



There is no *usually*, that's what you think. 



> Also @ JokerJ, everyone is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. So as of right now, Zimmerman is innocent and you Martinistas keep calling him guilty w/o evidence.



OH by the way, have you ever watched the the show called DEXTER?


----------



## IchLiebe (Dec 10, 2012)

Joker J said:


> Naw I feel pretty safe where im at right now, im not going to be paranoid 24/7.


 I do to, but at any time someone can pull up to my house, threaten to whoop my ass, and I can shoot them dead if I deem it necessary. Life is short and can be taken at anytime. Its no being paranoid just safe and surviving.





> I know what I said. Defend was the correct word to use in my post.


 Yes, Zimmerman defended himself... Martin  attacked Zimmerman.





> There is no *usually*, that's what you think.


 There is a usually ask police.





> OH by the way, have you ever watched the the show called DEXTER?


Yea I did like up to season 3 w/ the old dude killing people and killed his GF, wife or w/e in the bathtub. I see no relevance between the two.



			
				freednan said:
			
		

> And not without reason. Assuming Martin was nervous or angry with Zimmerman for tailing him in the middle of the night for no given reason, his reaction was perfectly understandable. Even you said someone should be prepared to defend themselves. Looking at it from the perspective of someone being followed at night by someone you don't know, and to later discover the man was carrying a gun (and please don't pretend that's normal even by US standards), I can't fault Martin for trying to take the gun away. For all Martin knew, Zimmerman could've been a serial killer.


 First of it happened at 7 oclock pm, not Midnight or in the wee hours of the morning. Ready to defend, not ready to attack. I don't think you nor Joker J know the difference of Defending and Attacking. Also Martin wouldn't have known that Zimmerman had a weapon unless Zimmerman was brandishing it out in the open and Martin had stopped to confront Zimmerman. Don't know where you live but in Mississippi its hard to find someone who doesn't carry atleast one firearm in their vehicle or person, if not multiple ones. I live in a respectable community that surrounds a lake, people follow me all the time at all times of the day asking what I'm doing when I'm walking around, thats because its a private lake and community just like this "gated" community of Zimmerman's.





> Granted, he was not, but the point is Zimmerman came off as dangerous to Martin. That's why it's unclear whether or not Zimmerman acted in self-defense. I seriously doubt Martin didn't just turn around and attack him for no reason because Zimmerman stalking him was absolutely legal.


Im just stating by the pyshical evidence of the case that Zimmerman, so far, is innocent:

Zimmerman- Multiple blunt force wounds
Martin- One bullet hole in the chest from the front, which indicates they was facing each other. If Martin and Zimmerman are walking the same way, to be facing each other Martin would've have turned to face Zimmerman.

If I want someone dead I don't shoot them once. Unless someone can prove that Zimmerman provoked, harrassed Martin than by law its self defense.


Also Martin's father didn't live in the community his fiancee' did.

And had been suspended from school 3xs that year, 1 for tardiness, another for destruction of property and when a  Miami Dade Police searched him found; Women's jewelery(of which he said not his), a screwdriver(also said not his). He was not charged of any crimes.

George Zimmerman was also about to get an associates degree in Criminal Justice.


----------



## Joker J (Dec 10, 2012)

IchLiebe said:


> I do to, but at any time someone can pull up to my house, threaten to whoop my ass, and I can shoot them dead if I deem it necessary. Life is short and can be taken at anytime. Its no being paranoid just safe and surviving.




With the situation you have created, while inside your home, a person on the outside wants "whoop your ass" you wouldn't call the police and let them take care of it, but instead your first action is to shoot the person if it was necessary" lol



> Yes, Zimmerman defended himself... Martin  attacked Zimmerman



If you read my post again this is what I said, *"Im pretty sure everyone agrees that they would be ready to defend themselves at night if followed by a stranger."* You agreeing to me post by saying Yes and the other statements you made in that sentence does not compare to what I said.

The unarmed person who was being followed attempted to defend themselves not the other way around. Ask yourself why would Martin defend himself against a man following him at night alone?




> There is a usually ask police.



You go ahead and find out.



> Yea I did like up to season 3 w/ the old dude killing people and killed his GF, wife or w/e in the bathtub. I see no relevance between the two.



That never happen in season 3 and you not being up to date right now shows that the word innocent sometimes doesn't really means they're innocent.


----------



## On and On (Dec 10, 2012)

Bottom line in all of this: "stand your ground" gives you the right to not have to retreat before defending yourself, NOT the right to follow someone around who you apparently perceive to be a threat (which begs the question why you're following them, if you believe they're a threat, which obviously Zimmerman did or he wouldn't've called the police) kill them "in self-defense", and then get off scot-free.

Another bottom line: if he gets off I would argue it's simply because no one cares about a dead teenage minority male, not because "he didn't do anything wrong".


----------



## On and On (Dec 10, 2012)

Ceria said:


> I guess you didn't see this:



I did, doesn't change the fact that you're bringing up his completely irrelevant past. By doing so you're attempting to under cut his innocence, thereby desensitizing us to the fact that this individual was, in fact, a fucking VICTIM.


----------



## Blue (Dec 10, 2012)

On and On said:


> Bottom line in all of this: "stand your ground" gives you the right to not have to retreat before defending yourself, NOT the right to follow someone around who you apparently perceive to be a threat (which begs the question why you're following them, if you believe they're a threat, which obviously Zimmerman did or he wouldn't've called the police) kill them "in self-defense", and then get off scot-free.


1. He couldn't have retreated while lying on the ground getting pummeled.
2. He had the right to follow someone, stand your ground or no.
3. And killing someone in self-defense and getting off is EXACTLY what Stand Your Ground gives you the right to do.



> Another bottom line: if he gets off I would argue it's simply because no one cares about a dead teenage minority male, not because "he didn't do anything wrong".


I would argue that it's because the jury aren't complete and total morons.

The trial is a wash. They could've pressed for negligent homicide charges and MAYBE stuck them, but 2nd degree murder is ludicrous. 

Your bottom lines suck. I'm shopping somewhere else for a better deal.


----------



## Damaris (Dec 10, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> Not sure what you are saying here. Are you arguing that under current laws you can't kill in self defense? Because if so you are incorrect.



no, you said that you can't go to jail for defending yourself from an attacker. but that's patently untrue, and has been demonstrated in the florida legal system quite recently. a black woman shot at the ceiling with her registered gun to scare off her abusive husband, and was sentenced to twenty five years, despite the stand your ground law. i'm just saying, laws are laws, but they're influenced by the society that carries them out. in this case, the law would indicate that she shouldn't go to jail, but because we don't live in an objective society that isn't so.



> 1. Why do you talk about Skittles and call Martin a child? He was a 6'3 teenager, far from helpless in the real world. You talk as if he were coming back from pre school and being offered candy.



he was coming back from the store to get something for a sick sibling or cousin iirc. that's pretty damn harmless.



> 2. Do you have some evidence that supports the fact that Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun before the fight was started? The only timeframe we have for that knowledge is based on Zimmermans story which was, during the fight Martin had went for his gun at some point.



oh god are we going to play this game? do you have evidence he didn't? do you think it's likely that zimmerman would have confronted him without indicating he had a weapon?


----------



## reiatsuflow (Dec 10, 2012)

Zimmerman probably shouldn't have followed the 'suspicious' person in his neighborhood and Martin probably shouldn't have gotten in his face about it, but people are being obtuse. Cool your geometry. It's sad what happened for both parties, but it's a sad situation of _accidents_ and accidents are hard to correlate into substantive things like racism and injustice (although discussion about the Florida law is its own thing and I'm not responding to that).

I'm assuming nobody here idles behind strangers in their neighborhoods with a loaded weapon in their car whether or not they have a 'right' to, because that's crazy as shit. I'm also going to assume few if any posters have the habit of aggressively confronting strangers they think might be following them whether or not they have a 'right' to - at least not anymore, since one time is enough times to realize it doesn't end well and is crazy as shit the sequel. Most of us wouldn't even aggressively confront a neighbor of ours over some noise ordinance issue out of concern for escalation, so it's obtuse for us to be defending everybody's 'right' to react to social situations in ways that we tactfully understand _not_ to. I understand doing so out of sympathy for the people in this situation, and as I said, there is some talk here about the law, in which case 'rights' are pertinent.

Otherwise...

The behaviors in this case aren't the normal reactions, and their escalations shouldn't make anybody feel personally fearful. We already know that we might get ourselves into some shit if we honk our horn and yell at the wrong car in traffic, much less storm up to a car we think might be following us and start hollering. I don't even tangle with cars when I'm out cycling and they act dangerously when passing, or honk at me to startle me, or shout something out the window. I have the 'right' to, but I know better, because it took me one time doing it to the wrong guy to realize I probably shouldn't roll those dice. Now thank god the angry bastard didn't try to shoot me or hit me with his car, because it only takes one accident for a situation like this to end in this kind of tragedy and once again - we all sympathize.

But this isn't surprising new information that should make us double check our first impressions of society. Stepping off the soapbox, it's a sad situation that doesn't surprise me at all, and probably doesn't surprise any of you. Aggression between strangers escalates into this stuff more often than it should.

/aside


----------



## On and On (Dec 10, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> 1. He couldn't have retreated while lying on the ground getting pummeled.



He wouldn't've been getting his ass beat if he would've:
a) minded his own business as he was told
b) wouldn't've stepped out of his car and APPROACHED the person who claims is the assailant?



> 2. He had the right to follow someone, stand your ground or no.



Sure he did, but the police told him to mind his own business and they were looking into it. So therefore he has the right and duty to bear the consequences of what happens when he does the complete opposite of what law enforcement tells him, and from his own actions.



> 3. And killing someone in self-defense and getting off is EXACTLY what Stand Your Ground gives you the right to do.



Stand Your Ground gives you the right to not retreat and still claim self-defense. PURSUING/FOLLOWING/STALKING SOMEONE you apparently believe is a threat (enough to call the police) is the complete OPPOSITE of no duty to retreat.



> The trial is a wash. They could've pressed for negligent homicide charges and MAYBE stuck them, but 2nd degree murder is ludicrous.



Murder is a bit of a stretch (although I personally think this was premeditated to the level to warrant a murder charge, certainly second degree not first), manslaughter or a variant or a homicide charge is more appropriate, I agree. 



> Your bottom lines suck. I'm shopping somewhere else for a better deal.



I don't want your money, keep da shit


----------



## On and On (Dec 10, 2012)

Oh and before I see some bullshit about "OMG HE WAS NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH"

Bitch, MY family is part of neighborhood watch  And we don't follow people around in cars (that's not fucking intimidating? and if they truly are a threat, i'm sorry but you opened YOURSELF up to whatever happens to you after following around someone you've already cast out as suspect/up to no good) we find suspicious with fully loaded guns.

The only duty of neighborhood WATCH is to look out for suspicious activity and report it. Not to STALK these fucking people like some sort of vigilante


----------



## Darth inVaders (Dec 10, 2012)

Zimmerman's stalking of Martin clearly made Martin fear for his own safety - this is obvious and indisputable since its in Zimmerman's own account (the part where Zim describes Martin running away from him as he continues to chase him). Therefore it is clear that the one standing his ground and is defending himself is Martin.


----------



## EJ (Dec 10, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> Just proving what I said about your reading comprehension. Thats for the assitance.



It's not my reading comprehension, it's just something you bring up when you have really nothing else to say, but would rather like to leave a comment that is snippy and comes across as if you "left your mark"

lol





> I wouldn't defend a guy like that either.



YOU ARE THOUGH

OH MY GOD 


> Like I said, the moment you can provide some evidence that shows Zimmerman started the fight I will be on your side. Until then, what we "know" is that Martin started the fight and was beating the crap out of Zimmerman.



Haha, I like how you leave a large portion of the story out of it. 




> As I have said numerous times:



"Let me make a whole bunch of claims that have been pushed down/debunked already in this thread."





> Add poor memory to bad reading comprehension and living in denial.
> 
> Your list just continues to get worse flow.



And yet, I still am able to see why Zimmerman is in the wrong and guilty. What does this say about you? 




> Actually you were on ignore and will likely go back. I took you off to see if you have improved on your previous "skills" and that doesn't seem to be the case.



Actually, you responded to my post in other threads out of anger I believe. You never put me on ignore, and you know it. 



> Nah. You just haven't been following along. I am proud to be doing what is right when so many refuse to actually admit they follow the wrong course. In this case you would say I am proud to be defending an innocent person. Or innocent according to evidence so far. As I have said, if any evidence comes out (or is out that I haven't seen) I will no longer take this stance.




No, you're proud to defend a guy that stalked a kid through the neighborhoods, denounced any evidence that countered Zimmerman's claims while trying to seem unbiased, you actually weren't. I believe it was even you who tried to say "Well, he did wear a hoodie. So all in all, it was Trayvon's own doing that got attention to himself. 

And then when people called you out on this, you backpedaled.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 10, 2012)

Freedan said:


> They can be tried as adults. That doesn't mean they should.



That comes down to a case by case basis. However, most people realize you are old enough to know better long before you are 18 and considered an adult. 



> I actually don't know what his suspicions are



I honestly don't remember all of it either. I think he said he was walking slow looking at houses and such. You could probably google the 911 transcript to find out the exacts. 



> Just because something isn't illegal doesn't make it acceptable.



Okay....But then all you can really do is tell someone you don't like it or make a law forbidding it. Before we go on though, are you saying he should be punished because you find it unacceptable or are you saying we should take a look at this and maybe change some things for the future?  



> What? You say Zimmerman's story is the true story yet go on to say he could be lying?



Yeah. That is what is going on. Until someone proves Zimmerman is lying, his story is the truth. And there is evidence to support his story.

I am merely pointing out that I recognize the fact that he could very well be lying. We just don't know if he is or not. 



> There's no evidence on how it occurred, and that's why I don't believe it's ok to just say Zimmerman defended himself from an assaulter



It is okay unless you can prove Zimmerman is lying. Again, our legal system is innocent until proven guilty. You are just assuming he is probably guilty while not supporting that with any evidence. As I have said before, if you don't like the system cool, lets talk about that and how you would change it. But you have no ground to stand on saying he is guilty as you can't point to any crime he has commited. 



> When did I say Zimmerman is guilty?



If you are saying he should be punished you are saying he is guilty. Unless you are saying he as innocent and that we should punish an innocent man just to make an example. In which case I would have no respect for you as a human being. 



> Even you agreed earlier that he needs to serve some time in jail followed by community service.



That is only if we find out he is actually guilty of something. 



> I don't know what made you change your mind so abruptly).



What did I change my mind about? I am confused on this one. 



Anony34215 said:


> no, you said that you can't go to jail for defending yourself from an attacker. but that's patently untrue, and has been demonstrated in the florida legal system quite recently. a black woman shot at the ceiling with her registered gun to scare off her abusive husband, and was sentenced to twenty five years, despite the stand your ground law. i'm just saying, laws are laws, but they're influenced by the society that carries them out. in this case, the law would indicate that she shouldn't go to jail, but because we don't live in an objective society that isn't so.



I could have worded it better. What I should have said is "Zimmerman _should_ be protected by the law given the evidence so far" or something like that. Obviously there are and have been miscarriages of justice, but that isn't really the point I was going for. 



> he was coming back from the store to get something for a sick sibling or cousin iirc. that's pretty damn harmless.



And pretty damn irrelevant. My point is, you are trying to paint this picture through words to make Martin look like an angel as if it would change the ultimate outcome. Whether he was an angel or satans spawn is irrelevant. 



> do you have evidence he didn't?



I don't need evidence that he didn't. If you claim he saw the gun or likely saw it you have to prove or support your claim. From the story we have heard the time Martin saw the gun and went for it was sometime after the fight had already started and ended up on the ground. That may or may not be true, I admit, but it is the story we have. If you want to tell another story go ahead, but support it with evidence. 



> do you think it's likely that zimmerman would have confronted him without indicating he had a weapon?



I can only put that at 50/50. Who can say? Again, the story we have doesn't say that he did though. And there are no witnesses to counter claim or any evidence to the contrary.


----------



## PureWIN (Dec 10, 2012)

In short, Zimmerman was trying to be Batman, but once he started getting beat up, he decided to kill his 'perp'. Did I get anything wrong? 

While I understand that this was an accident, I don't believe Zimmerman should be let off. Doing so would set a dangerous precedent that a person is allowed to stalk someone they believe to be 'suspicious', but then kill them in self-defense if the person being stalked decides to retaliate.

Martin probably did overreact, but it was Zimmerman's blatant negligence that created this entire situation. If he's not charged criminally, then he definitely deserves to get a civil case thrown in his direction.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 10, 2012)

PureWIN said:


> In short, Zimmerman was trying to be Batman, but once he started getting beat up, he decided to kill his 'perp'. Did I get anything wrong?



Not necessarily wrong. We don't know that Zimmerman was aiming to be Batman. He might have thought he was Spiderman or something. 



> Doing so would set a dangerous precedent that a person is allowed to stalk someone they believe to be 'suspicious', but then kill them in self-defense if the person being stalked decides to retaliate.



Not true, since that isn't what happened. Or at least not that we know of. Zimmerman had _followed_ (not sure why people keep using the word stalk) Martin to keep an eye on him and a fight ensued that was started by Martin (according to Zimmermans story). You aren't allowed to beat people up who follow you. "Retaliate" would be Martin following or keeping an eye on Zimmerman. Which while odd, would be all good. 



> If he's not charged criminally, then he definitely deserves to get a civil case thrown in his direction.



He probably will and if he does he can use the money NBC is going to be giving him to cover whatever costs come about.


----------



## Chains (Dec 10, 2012)

Ceria said:


> *Because it helps illustrate his true character, and not the innocent boy that was plastered on the cover of people magazine. it helps identify the reason george thought he was suspicious.
> *
> 
> 
> ...



So just how does doing weed change your character? And why can't an innocent boy do weed?


----------



## PureWIN (Dec 10, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> Not true, since that isn't what happened. Or at least not that we know of. Zimmerman had _followed_ (not sure why people keep using the word stalk) Martin to keep an eye on him and a fight ensued that was started by Martin (according to Zimmermans story). You aren't allowed to beat people up who follow you. "Retaliate" would be Martin following or keeping an eye on Zimmerman. Which while odd, would be all good.



No, no. You're not allowed to just casually follow people teenagers around any time late at night unarmed carrying a _gun_, and just expect them to move along as if you're not there. 

Have you ever been followed by a stranger late at night? It is extremely uncomfortable. As I've already said, Martin probably overreacted. They probably should have had a conversation first.

However, from my understanding, there was a chase that involved running at some point? If Zimmerman was chasing Martin, then there's NO case for self-defense. In that case, Martin was defending himself from a strange lunatic _carrying a gun and following him late at night_.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 10, 2012)

Okay I stayed out of this quite some time but I will apply some of my good old fashion Canuck reasoning.

A Neighbourhood watch is exactly whats in the job title a watch. You report it to your authorities and in the rare few cases when the crime is already in progress you take action at your own risk mind you. However it does not include preemptive strike base upon suspicion.  Sounds to me if this Trayvon was locked out his own house and had to sneak into his bedroom window Zimmerman would have laced him in the back with a couple rounds because better safe than sorry right?

Now if I was being stalked by someone carrying a gun who purposely started an altercation I would have defended myself and the person on the other side would have been the assaulter period. 

The defence would been laughed at especially since they have evidence the Police told him to leave the Teen alone.


----------



## Blue (Dec 10, 2012)

Danger Doom said:


> Okay I stayed out of this quite some time but I will apply some of my good old fashion Canuck reasoning.
> 
> A Neighbourhood watch is exactly whats in the job title a watch. You report it to your authorities and in the rare few cases when the crime is already in progress you take action at your own risk mind you. However it does not include preemptive strike base upon suspicion.  Sounds to me if this Trayvon was locked out his own house and had to sneak into his bedroom window Zimmerman would have laced him in the back with a couple rounds because better safe than sorry right?
> 
> ...



Nobody got chased and so far as anyone can tell, Zimmerman never touched his weapon until after he was on his back getting the fuck beaten out of his face.

You could call confronting Trayvon stupid, but it's not criminally unreasonable. I've been confronted by douchebags like Zimmerman before, walking at night. I clued them into the fact that I'd lived right next door to them for six years and have a nice night asshole. I did not attack them or assault them, verbally or otherwise. Honestly I think the shittiest thing Zimmerman did that night was call the police on someone he hadn't even spoken to yet.


----------



## All The Good Names Are Taken (Dec 10, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Nobody got chased and so far as anyone can tell, Zimmerman never touched his weapon until after he was on his back getting the fuck beaten out of his face.
> 
> You could call confronting Trayvon stupid, but it's not criminally unreasonable. I've been confronted by douchebags like Zimmerman before, walking at night. I clued them into the fact that I'd lived right next door to them for six years and have a nice night asshole. I did not attack them or assault them, verbally or otherwise. Honestly I think the *shittiest thing Zimmerman did that night *was call the police on someone he hadn't even spoken to yet.



Killing someone who hadn't even reached their twentieth birthday yet


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Dec 10, 2012)

I know I'd be scared if some creepy white guy decides to stalk me late at night. What a dumb fuck.


----------



## baconbits (Dec 10, 2012)

Danger Doom said:


> The defence would been laughed at especially since they have evidence the Police told him to leave the Teen alone.



But the evidence shows that Trayvon jumped on Zimmerman and was smacking his head into the ground.  Something happened after what all the Zimmerman haters are mentioning and that's what led to the fatality.

And yes, we all wish this situation would have never happened, but that doesn't make Zimmerman guilty of murder.


----------



## Ceria (Dec 10, 2012)

On and On said:


> He wouldn't've been getting his ass beat if he would've:
> a) minded his own business as he was told
> b) wouldn't've stepped out of his car and APPROACHED the person who claims is the assailant?
> 
> ...



The problem with this, *is that police dispatch doesn't have the authority to tell anyone to do anything. *So the police "ordering him" really has no weight. George thought the kid was suspicious and given the fact that his neighborhood had been burglarized several times (around the time of this incident) he took it upon himself to figure out who the kid was and it escalated from there. 

What it comes down to is that i think George made the wrong call by confronting Treyvon, but when it came to blows i think he had the right to defend himself against the beating he was taking. I don't think Treyvon deserved to die nor do i think George went into it with the intent to kill. 

Msnbc took the 9/11 call out of context, making George appear racist, that's not fair and i think him suing them is justifiable.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 10, 2012)

baconbits said:


> But the evidence shows that Trayvon jumped on Zimmerman and was smacking his head into the ground.  Something happened after what all the Zimmerman haters are mentioning and that's what led to the fatality.
> 
> And yes, we all wish this situation would have never happened, but that doesn't make Zimmerman guilty of murder.



Yes but was he not told to leave the Teen alone and mind his own business?

Thats the point he put himself in that position.

If you see a beware dogs sign at your neighbour house would you still try jump the fence and if you do would you feel like you have a right to complain if said dog tear you a new one?


----------



## Ceria (Dec 10, 2012)

Danger Doom said:


> *Yes but was he not told to leave the Teen alone and mind his own business?*
> 
> Thats the point he put himself in that position.
> 
> If you see a beware dogs sign at your neighbour house would you still try jump the fence and if you do would you feel like you have a right to complain if said dog tear you a new one?



Dispatch doesn't have that authority, they can suggest it to him but their words have no weight.


----------



## On and On (Dec 10, 2012)

Ceria said:


> The problem with this, *is that police dispatch doesn't have the authority to tell anyone to do anything. *So the police "ordering him" really has no weight.



Except for showing he was operating on the opposite side of the law  If a cop tells me not to do something and then I do it doesn't that just make me look more guilty?

 I never said anything otherwise.


----------



## God (Dec 10, 2012)

Ceria said:


> Dispatch doesn't have that authority, they can suggest it to him but their words have no weight.



the dispatch is the mouthpiece of the authorities when they are not currently present. how do they have no authority  again?


----------



## EJ (Dec 10, 2012)

Ceria said:


> Dispatch doesn't have that authority, they can suggest it to him but their words have no weight.



I'm curious, what if it turns out they did have the authority? Would your argument change?


----------



## Ceria (Dec 10, 2012)

Flow said:


> I'm curious, what if it turns out they did have the authority? Would your argument change?



He was still within his rights to check the kid out, given recent burglaries.


----------



## EJ (Dec 10, 2012)

^No, I mean specifically they had the authority to tell Zimmerman to stop stalking the kid.


----------



## Ceria (Dec 10, 2012)

Cubey said:


> the dispatch is the mouthpiece of the authorities when they are not currently present. how do they have no authority  again?





> Mr. Zimmerman did not break any laws, according to Florida?s law. He was told not to follow Trayvon by police dispatch, *whose advice he is not legally obligated to follow.*


----------



## Darth inVaders (Dec 10, 2012)

Zimmerman was overcharged - this is a clear, cut and dry case of manslaughter (his stalking indisputably made Martin fear for his safety - Martin was the one defending himself and standing his ground), but not murder.

NBC should not have done what they did either, that is a huge hit to their cred and they do deserve to be sued - hopefully the money Zim gets goes to the Martin family (one way or another).

Regardless, the only real victim here is Martin because of Zimmerman's recklessness.


----------



## On and On (Dec 10, 2012)

Ceria said:


> He was still within his rights to check the kid out, given recent burglaries.



This doesn't _give_ him the "right" to do shit, neighborhood watch or not,


----------



## kazuri (Dec 10, 2012)

If you keep saying stalk enough times it might make it true.


----------



## Ceria (Dec 10, 2012)

On and On said:


> This doesn't _give_ him the "right" to do shit, neighborhood watch or not,



how do you figure that?


----------



## baconbits (Dec 10, 2012)

Danger Doom said:


> Yes but was he not told to leave the Teen alone and mind his own business?
> 
> Thats the point he put himself in that position.
> 
> If you see a beware dogs sign at your neighbour house would you still try jump the fence and if you do would you feel like you have a right to complain if said dog tear you a new one?



Good point.  But let me give a counter example.  You yell at a neighbor's dog - not illegal but not nice - and he breaks out of the yard and runs at you.  Can you defend yourself?

This is more analogous to the situation.  Zimmerman is an idiot - no doubt about that - but once he's getting his head slammed into the ground he does have a right to defend himself.


----------



## Lurko (Dec 10, 2012)

About time he decided to do it, too many people jumped to conclusions.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 10, 2012)

PureWIN said:


> No, no. You're not allowed to just casually follow people teenagers around any time late at night unarmed carrying a _gun_, and just expect them to move along as if you're not there.



Uh.....Actually you are allowed to follow people. What if 2 people are going to the same place? You have to go a different direction so they don't decide you are suscpicious and start beating you?

Obviously what it would ultimately come down to is intention/further action. In this case Zimmerman was following to keep an eye on him to let the police know where he was. He wasn't trying to rape him or lure him home with candy.

You would also not be allowed to physically impede a person and more obviously, not try and harm them. From what we know Zimmerman did none of those things.

And yes, you can even follow someone around while you are carrying a gun on your person. If the gun is legal and you are now threatening someone with a gun you are allowed to do so. 



> Have you ever been followed by a stranger late at night? It is extremely uncomfortable. As I've already said, Martin probably overreacted. They probably should have had a conversation first.



I keep an eye on every person I see regardless if it is night or day. In any case I would agree it is uncomfortable to be followed at night and I would be wary of someone following me. I wouldn't start fighting them though, unless they attacked me first. 



> However, from my understanding, there was a chase that involved running at some point?



I believe Martin ran at some point and Zimmerman lost him so he continued looking for him. I am unclear on exactly what happened after that point. I don't know if Martin was running and saw Zimmerman right behind him chasing and turned to fight or what.


----------



## On and On (Dec 10, 2012)

Ceria said:


> how do you figure that?



Simple, just because everyone else around you is breaking the law doesn't give you the right to act like you're the person in charge to stop it. That's a scary train of thought when you put it in the wrong hands..

..which is precisely what happened


----------



## Unimportant (Dec 10, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> I believe Martin ran at some point and Zimmerman lost him so he continued looking for him. I am unclear on exactly what happened after that point. I don't know if Martin was running and saw Zimmerman right behind him chasing and turned to fight or what.


Zimmerman followed him in a vehicle, presumably driving way too slowly. Eventually, he got out of his vehicle [with his weapon] and confronted Martin while Martin was talking on his cell phone. At that point, Martin had noticed him for quite some time, and was specifically retreating away from a person he perceived as dangerous.

It is therefor completely safe to infer that Zimmerman provoked the altercation by getting out of his car with a weapon and confronting Martin (about what, exactly?). Martin is stupid for throwing the first punch, that's for sure. It could also be possible that Zimmerman's wounds were self inflicted.


----------



## Chains (Dec 10, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> Uh.....Actually you are allowed to follow people. What if 2 people are going to the same place? You have to go a different direction so they don't decide you are suscpicious and start beating you?
> 
> Obviously what it would ultimately come down to is intention/further action. In this case Zimmerman was following to keep an eye on him to let the police know where he was. He wasn't trying to rape him or lure him home with candy.
> 
> ...



Why did Zimmerman continue to look for him?  You can say he has a right to follow trayvon, but so? That doesn't tell me WHY he continued to follow someone who he suspected to be a criminal when the dispatcher told him not to while it's night and raining. No reasonable neighborhood watch person would do that.  Want to know what I think? Zimmerman is a violent (he attacked a cop ), arrogant vigilante who was looking for a fight.


----------



## Blue (Dec 10, 2012)

All The Good Names Are Taken said:


> Killing someone who hadn't even reached their twentieth birthday yet



Killing someone who was beating the shit out of his face. Are you purposefully being dense? Have you never been punched? Want me to give you a weapon and someone to beat on you and see how long it takes you to squeeze it?


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 10, 2012)

Unimportant said:


> It is therefor completely safe to infer that Zimmerman provoked the altercation by getting out of his car with a weapon and confronting Martin (about what, exactly?). Martin is stupid for throwing the first punch, that's for sure. It could also be possible that Zimmerman's wounds were self inflicted.



The weapon isn't relevant unless he threatened Martin with it or showed it to him which we have no proof of. So lets stop harping on the irrelevant and stick to whats important.

In the end it still comes down to what I have been saying this entire time and that is ultimately who started the altercation. Zimmerman looking suspicious doesn't take away his right to self defense if Martin attacked him.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 10, 2012)

Kurapika King said:


> Why did Zimmerman continue to look for him?



After looking at the transcript I would guess it had to do with "these fuckers always get away" or whatever he said. He likely followed in order to be able to update the police on where Martin was or was headed. 



> No reasonable neighborhood watch person would do that.  Want to know what I think? Zimmerman is a violent (he attacked a cop ), arrogant vigilante who was looking for a fight.



The problem is, that you have to be able to support the claim that he was looking for a fight and/or started it.


----------



## Adrianhamm (Dec 10, 2012)

On and On said:


> Simple, just because everyone else around you is breaking the law doesn't give you the right to act like you're the person in charge to stop it. That's a scary train of thought when you put it in the wrong hands..
> 
> ..which is precisely what happened


----------



## Chains (Dec 10, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> After looking at the transcript I would guess it had to do with "these fuckers always get away" or whatever he said. He likely followed in order to be able to update the police on where Martin was or was headed.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, that you have to be able to support the claim that he was looking for a fight and/or started it.



But he didn't need to update the police or really help them in any way. The dispatcher said so. He just needed to go home or back to hatever he was doing.

And about my claim, 



May not  prove he started the fight, but it shows how violent he is. To my knowledge, Trayvon has no record of violence in school, but look at Zimmerman.


----------



## kazuri (Dec 10, 2012)

> I wouldn't recommend it, but you can actually make them.



haha, thats a great episode.

[YOUTUBE]9efgLHgsBmM[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 10, 2012)

Kurapika King said:


> But he didn't need to update the police or really help them in any way. The dispatcher said so. He just needed to go home or back to hatever he was doing.



Agreed. But as I have told like 30 of you already. It is irrelevant and adds little to the discussion.



> May not  prove he started the fight, but it shows how violent he is. To my knowledge, Trayvon has no record of violence in school, but look at Zimmerman.



Again, none of this is really that relevant in the end. Past crimes/problems don't prove anything. To my knowledge Martin was suspended from school and in trouble on multiple occasions and had marijuana in his system the night he died. That doesn't mean Martin WAS doing anything wrong that night or deserved to die.


----------



## Chains (Dec 10, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> Agreed. But as I have told like 30 of you already. It is irrelevant and adds little to the discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, none of this is really that relevant in the end. Past crimes/problems don't prove anything. To my knowledge Martin was suspended from school and in trouble on multiple occasions and had marijuana in his system the night he died. That doesn't mean Martin WAS doing anything wrong that night or deserved to die.



It is very relevant. Just because he doesn't need to follow the dispatcher's advice doesn't mean he shouldn't. I have a right to hate speech, racism, sexism, etc. Does that mean I should? NO.

And yes, Zimmerman's past crimes should impact this case. It shows how violent he could be. Don't compare trayvon having an EMPTY bag of weed to Zimmerman assaulting an officer. And what does weed in his system have to do with anything here? Don't you know it can stay there for 2 weeks?


----------



## Adrianhamm (Dec 10, 2012)

Kurapika King said:


> It is very relevant. Just because he doesn't need to follow the dispatcher's advice doesn't mean he shouldn't. I have a right to hate speech, racism, sexism, etc. Does that mean I should? NO.
> 
> And yes, Zimmerman's past crimes should impact this case. It shows how violent he could be. Don't compare trayvon having an EMPTY bag of weed to Zimmerman assaulting an officer. And what does weed in his system have to do with anything here? Don't you know it can stay there for 2 weeks?



And what was Zimmerman actually convicted of? Allegations aren't convictions.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 10, 2012)

Kurapika King said:


> It is very relevant. Just because he doesn't need to follow the dispatcher's advice doesn't mean he shouldn't.



Okay. You win. So explain to me how that is relevant? If a cop tells me to go kill myself and I don't do it, am I a criminal? Do I lost all rights and protections of the law?



> And yes, Zimmerman's past crimes should impact this case. It shows how violent he could be.



Could be =/= was. So no, it isn't relevant.



> Don't compare trayvon having an EMPTY bag of weed to Zimmerman assaulting an officer.



And why not? You are bringing up past transgressions as if they are relevant so lets talk about all of them. You can't just pick and choose things that support your argument. 



> And what does weed in his system have to do with anything here? Don't you know it can stay there for 2 weeks?



The same thing Zimmerman having a potentially violent past has to do with. Absolutely nothing. You seem to like discussing irrelevant points though.


----------



## NanoHaxial (Dec 10, 2012)

> And yes, Zimmerman's past crimes should impact this case. It shows how violent he could be. Don't compare trayvon having an EMPTY bag of weed to Zimmerman assaulting an officer.


That incident happened over half a decade ago, and the charges were reduced to “resisting officer without violence” and then waived when he entered an alcohol education program. Zimmerman also claims that the undercover officer didn't identify himself, and the school where the incident occurred has had other incidents involving undercover officers. 

As for Martin, he wasn't only suspended for the drugs. He had a previous suspension for graffiti (and was found to have jewelry that didn't belong to him), and another one for attendance issues.


----------



## Adrianhamm (Dec 10, 2012)

Found them. A pre-trial diversion(in order to get that, you can't have any convictions) for pushing an ABC officer for arresting his friend and dueling accusations for domestic violence between him and an ex.


----------



## NanoHaxial (Dec 11, 2012)

> As Dershowitz points out, the evidence released in this case means Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law isn’t even a factor in Zimmerman’s defense.  Much political hay has been made out of this law, but if Zimmerman was on the ground getting beaten to a pulp, withdrawal from the encounter was physically impossible for him.  “A defendant, under Florida law, loses his ‘stand your ground’ defense if he provoked the encounter,” observes Dershowitz, “but he retains traditional self-defense if he reasonably believed his life was in danger and his only recourse was to employ deadly force.”
> 
> For that matter, as Dershowitz notes, there is not one shred of evidence to support the prosecutor’s contention that Zimmerman provoked the encounter.  Neighborhood Watch patrols are not illegal.  There is no evidence that Zimmerman shouted any “fighting words” at Martin.




There's also the supposed video of Trayvon refereeing a fight, although the quality is too poor to make out if it is really him.


----------



## Chains (Dec 11, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> Okay. You win. So explain to me how that is relevant? If a cop tells me to go kill myself and I don't do it, am I a criminal? Do I lost all rights and protections of the law?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Killling yourself is against the law however.

Ok, Zimmerman _was_ violent. Happy?

Again, stop comparing weed to attacking an officer or domestic abuse. What does him smoking weed have to do with anything? Does it make him more violent? No.

And yes, Zimmerman's violent past has a lot to do with this case. If there was a kid with bad grades who got into a lot  of fights, and nerd who got good grades and didn't get into  fights, who would would you expect to fight next year? Why? According to you, your past didn't matter. And I'm not trying to say Trayvon was an angel, because he wasn't.


----------



## Chains (Dec 11, 2012)

NanoHaxial said:


> There's also the supposed video of Trayvon refereeing a fight, although the quality is too poor to make out if it is really him.



I hate to double post, but you can't make out any faces in that video. THe video quality is so poor, like 1999 poor.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 11, 2012)

Kurapika King said:


> Killling yourself is against the law however.



Not really. _Attempting_ to kill yourself is against the law. Kind of hard for the law to apply if you ain't alive  



> Again, stop comparing weed to attacking an officer or domestic abuse.



I will. As soon as you stop talking about things that are irrelevant. 



> What does him smoking weed have to do with anything? Does it make him more violent? No.



What does Zimmermans past have to do with anything? Does it mean he started the fight with Martin? No. 



> And yes, Zimmerman's violent past has a lot to do with this case.



No it doesn't. Not anymore than Martins past. 



> If there was a kid with bad grades who got into a lot  of fights, and nerd who got good grades and didn't get into  fights, who would would you expect to fight next year? Why? According to you, your past didn't matter.



I wouldn't expect to fight either because I don't fight and people don't fight me. At least so far in my life. In any case your question isn't relevant.


----------



## baconbits (Dec 11, 2012)

Kurapika King said:


> It is very relevant. Just because he doesn't need to follow the dispatcher's advice doesn't mean he shouldn't. I have a right to hate speech, racism, sexism, etc. Does that mean I should? NO.
> 
> And yes, Zimmerman's past crimes should impact this case. It shows how violent he could be. Don't compare trayvon having an EMPTY bag of weed to Zimmerman assaulting an officer. And what does weed in his system have to do with anything here? Don't you know it can stay there for 2 weeks?



You're not making sense.  First, whether Zimmerman should have followed the dispatcher's advice does not affect whether or not he ought to be convicted of murder.  You should treat those as separate events.

Second, Zimmerman's past does not determine what happened in this case.  It should only impact his character and how you receive his testimony.  Third, Trayvon isn't a perfect angel and Zimmerman isn't Satan, himself.  It wouldn't matter if Trayvon was perfect and Zimmerman was the leader of the KKK - what matters are the facts of the case itself.  When you bring up things about their character you're only bringing up reasons we should accept their testimony or not, not reasons we should accept a different interpretation of the facts of the case.


----------



## Chains (Dec 11, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> Not really. _Attempting_ to kill yourself is against the law. Kind of hard for the law to apply if you ain't alive



Depends where you live Actually.







> I will. As soon as you stop talking about things that are irrelevant.



Everything I have said is relevant.






> What does Zimmermans past have to do with anything? Does it mean he started the fight with Martin? No.




It means he is a violent person. Explain how this isn't relevant. And please don't say that past crimes have nothing to do with this case, because they do. 




> I wouldn't expect to fight either because I don't fight and people don't fight me. At least so far in my life. In any case your question isn't relevant.



I'm asking which student is more likely to fight during the school year. And it is very relevant. The student's past, like Zimmerman's shows what kind of a person they are.


----------



## Chains (Dec 11, 2012)

baconbits said:


> You're not making sense.  First, whether Zimmerman should have followed the dispatcher's advice does not affect whether or not he ought to be convicted of murder.  You should treat those as separate events.
> 
> Second, Zimmerman's past does not determine what happened in this case.  It should only impact his character and how you receive his testimony.  Third, *Trayvon isn't a perfect angel* and Zimmerman isn't Satan, himself.  It wouldn't matter if Trayvon was perfect and Zimmerman was the leader of the KKK - what matters are the facts of the case itself.  When you bring up things about their character you're only bringing up reasons we should accept their testimony or not, not reasons we should accept a different interpretation of the facts of the case.



I specifically said he wasn't. And I didn't say we should convict Zimmerman based on his past. I said we should take that into account, along with the other facts.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 11, 2012)

Kurapika King said:


> Everything I have said is relevant.



Only in your own mind. 



> It means he is a violent person.



No, it means he has the potential to do violence, as we all do. It has nothing to do with this specific situation. 



> Explain how this isn't relevant. And please don't say that past crimes have nothing to do with this case, because they do.



Past crimes have nothing to do with this case. They really don't. You would need to show a crime that was very similar in situation. Like previous instances where he got into scuffles on the street with random people or teenagers that he started or maybe other cases that prove he has a tendancy to racially profile. 

Even if you _could_ prove that those previous instances held any relevance (which they don't, no matter what you want to believe) you would _still_ have to prove he was guilty in this instance. So again, the point you keep harping on is absolutely irrelevant. 



> The student's past, like Zimmerman's shows what kind of a person they are.



No. It shows what kind of person they _were_. People can change and we don't base a new judgement off of previous action. We may watch that person with a more skeptical eye (I grant you that) but that doesn't make them guilty.

For example. You have kid A who started 2 fights in his past. 2 years later Kid A randomly gets jumped by 3 guys. Is Kid A guilty because he started 2 fights in the past? No. Him starting 2 fights before are completely independent of this event.

The ONLY thing we would use those previous fights for is that we might dig deeper into the situation to make sure kid A is as innocent as he seems. And I assure you, people are doing plenty of digging into Zimmermans life. But past actions don't make him guilty now.


----------



## baconbits (Dec 11, 2012)

Kurapika King said:


> I specifically said he wasn't. And I didn't say we should convict Zimmerman based on his past. I said we should take that into account, along with the other facts.



But subtract the character issues and the "he shouldn't have followed him" and you really don't have a case.


----------



## baconbits (Dec 11, 2012)

Let me refocus my points: Zimmerman should win in his lawsuit against NBC.  Let's face it: Zimmerman might not be a good guy but NBC essentially slandered him and they ought to pay for it.


----------



## Chains (Dec 11, 2012)

^
Yeah, I guess.



baconbits said:


> But subtract the character issues and the "he shouldn't have followed him" and you really don't have a case.



But that's why it should be manslaughter. Because of his poor descision to follow Trayvon, a life was lost.



Cyphon said:


> No. It shows what kind of person they _were_. People can change and we don't base a new judgement off of previous action. *We may watch that person with a more skeptical eye (I grant you that) but that doesn't make them guilty.*
> 
> *For example. You have kid A who started 2 fights in his past. 2 years later Kid A randomly gets jumped by 3 guys. Is Kid A guilty because he started 2 fights in the past? No. Him starting 2 fights before are completely independent of this event.*
> 
> The ONLY thing we would use those previous fights for is that we might dig deeper into the situation to make sure kid A is as innocent as he seems. And I assure you, people are doing plenty of digging into Zimmermans life. But past actions don't make him guilty now.



I never meant to say Zimmerman should be guilty because of his past actions, I just think it should be taken into consideration. Him attacking the cops shows he doesn't care for people in authority. His self appotion to the neighborhood watch shows he wants to be the one in authority. This shows that he is over zealous, which is why he took the law in his own hands, killing a guy.

Kid Abecause. He got attacked because he followed trayvon, which is equivilent to provoking.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 11, 2012)

Kurapika King said:


> But that's why it should be manslaughter. Because of his poor descision to follow Trayvon, a life was lost.



Poor decisions don't make you guilty. Again, you ignore how our justice system works. Every time a girl dresses like a slut and goes to a club it is probably a "poor decision" but that doesn't mean they deserved to be raped. 

Just like following someone doesn't mean you deserved to get beat up and just like defending yourself from a threat doesn't mean you deserve to go to jail.


----------



## Chains (Dec 11, 2012)

Yeah, but his poor dicision killed someone. Should a mother who left their child in a car in the heat go to jail according to you? It was a bad decision that killed it. This happens all the time and they go to jail.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 11, 2012)

Kurapika King said:


> Yeah, but his poor dicision killed someone. Should a mother who left their child in a car in the heat go to jail according to you? It was a bad decision that killed it. This happens all the time and they go to jail.



Tough to say because it is hard to prove intention. If it truly was accidental I would say the mother is going to suffer enough through the loss of her child. If it was intentional than obviously they should go to jail.


----------



## NanoHaxial (Dec 11, 2012)

Zimmerman wasn't a self-appointed neighborhood watch leader.



> The Neighborhood Watch at Retreat at Twin Lakes, where Zimmerman lived and was chosen as coordinator by his neighbors, was formed in September, Dorival said


----------



## Chains (Dec 11, 2012)

Every other source I found says otherwise.







Just a few.


----------



## NanoHaxial (Dec 11, 2012)

Dorival was the community coordinator for the SPD. You can also look up how the newsletter for the neighborhood recommended reporting things to Zimmerman.


----------



## Darth inVaders (Dec 11, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> Poor decisions don't make you guilty. Again, you ignore how our justice system works. Every time a girl dresses like a slut and goes to a club it is probably a "poor decision" but that doesn't mean they deserved to be raped.
> 
> Just like following someone doesn't mean you deserved to get beat up and just like defending yourself from a threat doesn't mean you deserve to go to jail.



Recklessly poor decisions can lead to charges of negligence... and negligence that leads to death is manslaughter (although it can go by other names it is just as illegal). Zim made the recklessly poor decision to continue stalking Trayvon after being told not to, and Trayvon was running away - an obvious indication of fear for his own safety (and being stalked and harassed are reasonable reasons to fear for ones own safety too, especially since both are illegal - unlike dressing "like a slut"). Zim committed manslaughter, Martin was the one defending himself and standing his ground.

Damn NBC and the prosecutor for making Zim look like a victim (by this bullshit editing and overcharging respectively) when the only victim is Trayvon Martin.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 12, 2012)

Darth inVaders said:


> Zim committed manslaughter, Martin was the one defending himself and standing his ground.



Do you have any proof of this? As far as we know based on evidence Martin was the aggressor and attacked Zimmerman without being provoked. So......As I have said probably 1000 times now, it is self defense until we see some evidence that says otherwise.

Martin defended himself from what exactly? Someone asking him questions or reporting him to the police?


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Dec 12, 2012)

A random stranger chasing him down for no reason? An armed assailant? Just throwing out random ideas here.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 12, 2012)

Onomatopoeia said:


> A random stranger chasing him down for no reason? An armed assailant? Just throwing out random ideas here.



Here is the story Zimmerman tells and to my knowledge nothing has proven his story false. Again I ask, if you have evidence otherwise please provide it so I am better informed.



> Zimmerman said he was driving to buy groceries when he spotted the unarmed teen walking near a house that he knew Martin did not live in and called police to report a suspicious person.
> 
> "I just felt like something was off about him?and there's been a history of break-ins ... so I said you know just better to call. I kept driving and I passed him, and he kept staring at me and staring around," Zimmerman said.
> 
> ...



Now maybe I have read something wrong but I don't see where this "scary chase" was that would convince Martin he was threatened. Or any point in this story where Martin would be aware Zimmerman was armed.


----------



## baconbits (Dec 12, 2012)

Darth inVaders said:


> Recklessly poor decisions can lead to charges of negligence... and negligence that leads to death is manslaughter (although it can go by other names it is just as illegal).



That isn't the case.  Negligence only applies when you have a legal responsibility to do x and fail to do so.  For example a parent leaving a kid in a locked car and the kid dies, that's negligence.  This is just reckless.  As far as I know there's nothing illegal about about following someone you think is suspicious.  It might be stupid, though.

For example, you can where a KKK outfit and walk slowly through the hood.  That's stupid but legal.  If someone tries to jump you you have the right to defend yourself.


----------



## Fojos (Dec 12, 2012)

This is what happens when most people in media are on the left side of the political spectrum.

Defending the "minority" at any cost.


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Dec 12, 2012)

baconbits said:


> That isn't the case.  Negligence only applies when you have a legal responsibility to do x and fail to do so.  For example a parent leaving a kid in a locked car and the kid dies, that's negligence.  This is just reckless.  As far as I know there's nothing illegal about about following someone you think is suspicious.  It might be stupid, though.
> 
> For example, you can where a KKK outfit and walk slowly through the hood.  That's stupid but legal.  If someone tries to jump you you have the right to defend yourself.



No Bacon stop

You aren't committing any wrong by walking into the hood with a racist outfit but stalking someone ? You aren't just inciting violence but you are no longer a victim if you do get hurt. Stalking is ILLEGAL and dressing up in a KKK outfit is not. You don't really have the right to defend yourself because you are not the victim but the perpetrator. Yes, walking into the hood with such a costume is dumb but you aren't inherently hurting someone or making people seriously fear for their lives like a stalker would.


----------



## drache (Dec 12, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> If wanting to be a hero means you should go to jail us and every other child ever would be guilty. That is not how the law works drache.
> 
> Try again.


 
you realize the narcissism inherent to that drive has lead people to do incredible dumb ass thigns? and your point means nothing, Zimmerman is a grown adult capable (supposedly) of seperating fantasy from reality. If he's not then he should submit an 'insanity defense' (mostly now call something different but the meaning is the same)

It's one thing to want to be a hero, it's another thing to allow that to push you to engage in reckless, feckless actions that cost a young adult his life


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 12, 2012)

drache said:


> you realize the narcissism inherent to that drive has lead people to do incredible dumb ass thigns?



We have discussed this already drache. Being dumb isn't really a crime. 



> It's one thing to want to be a hero, it's another thing to allow that to push you to engage in reckless, feckless actions that cost a young adult his life



Based on the story nothing Zimmerman did was truly reckless though. It isn't like he heard gunshots and ran into the middle of them saying "NOT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD!". All he did was try and tell a dispatcher the location of a teenager.....Assuming he is telling the truth of course.


----------



## On and On (Dec 12, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> Based on the story nothing Zimmerman did was truly reckless though.



Disregarding a police order recommendation to AVOID the very person you just reported is suspicious is the definition of reckless  It's right there in the dictionary



> All he did was try and tell a dispatcher the location of a teenagersuspect.....Assuming he is telling the truth of course.



Fixed.





USA Today's cover (I think it was USA..) pissed me off. "Trayvon Martin: Teenager or trouble maker"

What in the actual fuck?


----------



## drache (Dec 12, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> We have discussed this already drache. Being dumb isn't really a crime.


 
you're right we have and you refuse to acknowledge the fact that there is such a thing as criminal neglience which is in a way making 'dumb' a crime



Cyphon said:


> Based on the story nothing Zimmerman did was truly reckless though. It isn't like he heard gunshots and ran into the middle of them saying "NOT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD!". All he did was try and tell a dispatcher the location of a teenager.....Assuming he is telling the truth of course.


 
so stalking somone isn't reckless?
disregarding police instructions' isn't reckless?
bringing a loaded gun to a confrontation isn't reckless?

if you truly think that you have a far different definition of reckless then I do and frankly one that I don't believe is actually how the law and legal system define it


----------



## Darth inVaders (Dec 12, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> Do you have any proof of this? As far as we know based on evidence Martin was the aggressor and attacked Zimmerman without being provoked. So......As I have said probably 1000 times now, it is self defense until we see some evidence that says otherwise.
> 
> Martin defended himself from what exactly? Someone asking him questions or reporting him to the police?


Someone who was stalking and harassing him - both of which are illegal (I said this in the quoted post but you cut that part off). Hell I'm basing this off Zimmerman's own account and not even taking into account the girl Martin was on the phone with when Zim started stalking him that corroborates this. Zimmerman was the aggressor who was literally taking ground from Martin by stalking, Martin attempted to stand his ground - one cannot claim self defense if the other person is already defending themself.


Cyphon said:


> Here is the story Zimmerman tells and to my knowledge nothing has proven his story false. Again I ask, if you have evidence otherwise please provide it so I am better informed.
> ...
> Now maybe I have read something wrong but I don't see where this "scary chase" was that would convince Martin he was threatened. Or any point in this story where Martin would be aware Zimmerman was armed.


Being stalked is scary enough to convince someone they are under threat, that is why it is illegal.


baconbits said:


> That isn't the case.  Negligence only applies when you have a legal responsibility to do x and fail to do so.  For example a parent leaving a kid in a locked car and the kid dies, that's negligence.  This is just reckless.  As far as I know there's nothing illegal about about following someone you think is suspicious.  It might be stupid, though.
> 
> For example, you can where a KKK outfit and walk slowly through the hood.  That's stupid but legal.  If someone tries to jump you you have the right to defend yourself.


Negligence (Lat. negligentia, from neglegere, to neglect, literally "not to pick up something") is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances - so it also involves actions taken, not just actions not taken - Zim took on responsibility by taking actions he was not required to and his actions were careless and negligent of this responsibility he took on. Putting on a KKK outfit and running around a majority black area is not putting a specific threat on any specific person, but stalking a person is threatening to the person being stalked - that is why it is illegal.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 12, 2012)

On and On said:


> Disregarding a police order recommendation to AVOID the very person you just reported is suspicious is the definition of reckless



Nah, not really. Well......I will say it could go either way. You could make a good argument for it being reckless and the same for it not being reckless. 



> USA Today's cover (I think it was USA..) pissed me off. "Trayvon Martin: Teenager or trouble maker"
> 
> What in the actual fuck?



Not that I think either of their pasts are really relevant here but this is no different than the treatment Zimmerman has been given by the media and posters here. 



drache said:


> refuse to acknowledge the fact that there is such a thing as criminal neglience which is in a way making 'dumb' a crime


 
I don't refuse to acknowledge it but I don't see how it applies here. Can you give an example of a similar case that would apply to Zimmermans actions to show that he should be guilty of criminal negligence?



> so stalking somone isn't reckless?



This didn't happen but no, stalking someone isn't necessarily reckless. 



> disregarding police instructions' isn't reckless?



Not necessarily. It would vary from situation to situation.



> bringing a loaded gun to a confrontation isn't reckless?


 
Again, it would vary. In a lot of cases it would simply be considered smart. 



Darth inVaders said:


> Someone who was stalking and harassing him



I didn't see such behavior represented in Zimmermans account of what happened. Can you provide where this occured? 



> Zimmerman was the aggressor who was literally taking ground from Martin by stalking, Martin attempted to stand his ground - one cannot claim self defense if the other person is already defending themself.



Again, where is this at in the story? I just posted it like 3 or 4 posts ago and saw nothing like this.


----------



## Ceria (Dec 12, 2012)

On and On said:


> USA Today's cover (I think it was USA..) pissed me off. "Trayvon Martin: Teenager or trouble maker"
> 
> What in the actual fuck?



I didn't think the media had the balls to actually look into something like that, they've been so busy portraying him as the innocent kid, flashing that 8 year old shot of him.


----------



## On and On (Dec 12, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> Nah, not really. Well......I will say it could go either way. You could make a good argument for it being reckless and the same for it not being reckless.



Not really . The argument for it "not being reckless" would be much weaker and subjective, let's be honest, stop defending this idiot



> Not that I think either of their pasts are really relevant here but this is no different than the treatment Zimmerman has been given by the media and posters here.



Didn't people find a history of semi-racist shit in Zimmerman's past? Either way you're right that it's irrelevant since there isn't a hate crime charge here.

But I'd argue you're wrong, seeing as how the past of the perpetrator and person _giving the testimony_ is WAAAY more relevant than the victim who was entirely innocent at the time of their death.





> *Denial of the victim*. The offender believes that the victim deserved whatever action the offender committed



Because he possessed drugs previously, he's not really innocent. The next logical step for -some- people to take it "and therefore not a victim"

It's a poisonous line of thought with bigger consequences than just the now dead Martin.



Ceria said:


> I didn't think the media had the balls to actually look into something like that, they've been so busy portraying him as the innocent kid, flashing that 8 year old shot of him.



Because he was innocent, unless you believe that drug possession is some truly amoral shit


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 12, 2012)

On and On said:


> Not really . The argument for it "not being reckless" would be much weaker and subjective, let's be honest, stop defending this idiot



Nah, I think you are wrong here. If Zimmermans story is true nothing he did was actually reckless. Confronting Martin and starting a fight is reckless (which didn't happen apparently) but calling the police on a suspicious person isn't reckless nor would be "keeping an eye" on them. 



> But I'd argue you're wrong, seeing as how the past of the perpetrator and person giving the testimony is WAAAY more relevant than the victim who was entirely innocent at the time of their death.



It can become relevant if he was involved in a similar enough situation but to my knowledge he wasn't. 

However, I believe it all can become relevant when viewed purely from a perception standpoint. When someone is painted in a good light another in a bad, people stop caring about the facts and start focusing more on good vs bad regardless of the truth.



> Because he possessed drugs previously, he's not really innocent. The next logical step for -some- people to take it "and therefore not a victim"
> 
> It's a poisonous line of thought with bigger consequences than just the now dead Martin.



I agree. My only point is that similar things were happening to Zimmerman so this really comes as no surprise. The media will do anything for their ratings and people will swallow it up.


----------



## On and On (Dec 12, 2012)

You can keep an eye on someone without following them in your car with a fully loaded gun.

And you can think I'm wrong, but the majority of everyone else will certainly agree while the legality of what he did wad debatable, it's stupidity and recklessness is not.


----------



## drache (Dec 12, 2012)

What I find funny is that Cyp has been told multiple times by multiple people the same thing and yet he ignores that. Makes me think he's not interested in an actual debate and is either trolling or has his mind made up and just wants to justify that


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 12, 2012)

On and On said:


> You can keep an eye on someone without following them in your car with a fully loaded gun.



Why do you keep pointing out that he did it with a gun? 

There is nothing wrong with carrying a gun (assuming it isn't against the law where you are at). He went to the grocery store and has his gun with him. You act like he was out hunting black folk intentionally. 



> And you can think I'm wrong, but the majority of everyone else will certainly agree while the legality of what he did wad debatable, it's stupidity and recklessness is not.



I think we all agree it was dumb. Me personally....I would have never even made the phone call let alone kept an eye on him.



drache said:


> What I find funny is that Cyp has been told multiple times by multiple people the same thing and yet he ignores that.



What I have I ignored? Pretty sure I have tried to respond to every post directed at me. 



> Makes me think he's not interested in an actual debate and is either trolling or has his mind made up and just wants to justify that



Nothing to justify really. The evidence (at this point) supports my stance.

No need to try to make this a personal attack because you have little ground to stand on drache. Lets stay on topic.


----------



## On and On (Dec 12, 2012)

drache said:


> What I find funny is that Cyp has been told multiple times by multiple people the same thing and yet he ignores that. Makes me think he's not interested in an actual debate and is either trolling or has his mind made up and just wants to justify that


'

Oh his mind is certainly made up, and he obviously get some pleasure in battling people over how okay it was that Zimmerman did what he did 



Cyphon said:


> Why do you keep pointing out that he did it with a gun?



Because it shows he planned on a confrontation happening, which is premeditation. Not only did he plan a confrontation, but he planned things might get to a point that would require deadly force. 

Now you can either look at him as some sort of neighborhood watch crusader (either way being neighborhood watch doesn't give you the right to confront people, at all) who was perfectly within his rights, or a trigger-happy idiot looking for a confrontation, perhaps (depending on your opinion) a racist.



> There is nothing wrong with carrying a gun (assuming it isn't against the law where you are at). He went to the grocery store and has his gun with him. You act like he was out hunting black folk intentionally.



Not intentionally, and how interesting that you brought up race here when I didn't.


----------



## drache (Dec 12, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> Why do you keep pointing out that he did it with a gun?


 
because it's rather important?

I rather doubt Zimmerman would have tried to be a wanna be Rambo without one...



Cyphon said:


> What I have I ignored? Pretty sure I have tried to respond to every post directed at me.


 
Multiple people have explained in depth how Zimmerman's actions fit the definition of neglient behavior. You have ignored this and adopted a 'I can't hear you' approach.




Cyphon said:


> Nothing to justify really. The evidence (at this point) supports my stance.
> 
> No need to try to make this a personal attack because you have little ground to stand on drache. Lets stay on topic.


 
That wasn't a personal attack, it was a conclusion drawn by the fact that you keep insisting that you have evidence in your favor when you don't and by the *fact* you keep ignoring the actual evidence.

You want me to change my conclusion? Then act differently and hell if it's too much when it's my name attached to the point there are at least 2 other people saying the exact thing I am saying to you right now.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 12, 2012)

On and On said:


> Because it shows he planned on a confrontation happening, which is premeditation. Not only did he plan a confrontation, but he planned things might get to a point that would require deadly force.





It doesn't show any of that. I know quite a few people who carry legal firearms with no intention of using them unless for self defense. Nothing in this situation seems any different unless you think Zimmerman was going to rob the grocery store. 



drache said:


> because it's rather important?
> 
> I rather doubt Zimmerman would have tried to be a wanna be Rambo without one...


 
It really isn't that important though. Not in context at least. 



> Multiple people have explained in depth how Zimmerman's actions fit the definition of neglient behavior. You have ignored this and adopted a 'I can't hear you' approach.


 
Can you quote me doing this? I am pretty sure I have explained all of my stances in regards to each response. 



> you keep ignoring the actual evidence.


 
Again, can you show what evidence I ignored. Some quotes or links? 

You continue to make arguments you can't or won't support.


----------



## Blue (Dec 12, 2012)

If you want to call Zimmerman a dumbass or a jerk, his "behavior" is relevant.

If you want to convict him of a crime, it's totally fucking irrelevant. 

Cyphon was right to blow your arguments off. "Zimmerman shouldn't have approached him" is a pointless argument. Okay, he shouldn't have. Now what?

Now Zimmerman goes free because he was defending himself and isn't guilty of murder.


----------



## On and On (Dec 12, 2012)

> It doesn't show any of that. I know quite a few people who carry legal firearms with no intention of using them unless for self defense. Nothing in this situation seems any different unless you think Zimmerman was going to rob the grocery store.



Of course it does if he saw Martin from his house and then decided to follow.

If he saw him from his car then I beg the question why on earth are we allowed neighborhood watch leaders to stroll through our neighborhoods armed, looking for a confrontation when they're not even supposed to intervene?

I'll admit idk which it was but either way you have to remember it's coming out of the mouth of the man with the most to lose who just killed someone 



Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> If you want to call Zimmerman a dumbass or a jerk, his "behavior" is relevant.
> 
> If you want to convict him of a crime, it's totally fucking irrelevant.



If you want to convict someone of a crime their behavior (including negligent and reckless) is irrelevant?

Let me know when you start making sense again.



> Cyphon was right to blow your arguments off. "Zimmerman shouldn't have approached him" is a pointless argument.



No it's not, it's the bedrock of the entire issue  How you claim self-defense through stand your ground which only states you don't have a duty to retreat, NOT to pursue the person you view as a threat?  They're complete opposites

The only way if stand your ground would work here is if Zimmerman was strolling the block and happened to be armed, asked Martin was he was doing, and Martin suddenly beat his ass. Instead we have Zimmerman calling the police, which means he sees him as a threat, pursuing the "threat" even though he should know better as neighborhood watch, an adult, AND the police recommended he didn't, and admitting he's the one that initiated contact with the victim, who unfortunately, doesn't get to HAVE a side of the story because they're conveniently dead.



> Okay, he shouldn't have. Now what?
> 
> Now Zimmerman goes free because he was defending himself and isn't guilty of murder.



Doubtful. But then again it just takes one person to disagree to cause a hung jury


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 12, 2012)

On and On said:


> Of course it does if he saw Martin from his house and then decided to follow.



But he didn't. He was already coming back from or going to the grocery store (with his gun) when he saw Martin. That is different than seeing Martin outside and grabbing his gun to go talk to him. 



> If he saw him from his car then I beg the question why on earth are we allowed neighborhood watch leaders to stroll through our neighborhoods armed, looking for a confrontation when they're not even supposed to intervene?



It isn't specific to neighborhood watch. Anyone is allowed to carry a gun if they have a permit. Why do we allow that? Because it is a right we have. 

As for the latter part, he didn't confront Martin or intervene according to his story. If he did, then we can talk about it. 



> I'll admit idk which it was but either way you have to remember it's coming out of the mouth of the man with the most to lose who just killed someone



I agree. I think it is fine if you question Zimmermans story and want him thoroughly investigated. I agree with that as well. All I am saying is we need solid evidence that he is lying and events were different before we call him guilty of anything but being dumb.


----------



## Blue (Dec 12, 2012)

> ow you claim self-defense through stand your ground which only states you don't have a duty to retreat, NOT to pursue the person you view as a threat?


Because Zimmerman didn't consider Martin a threat until his face was being pulped. It's not a hard concept.


----------



## αce (Dec 12, 2012)

16 pages
blue do your fucking job and lock this thread


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 12, 2012)

We have barely even touched on the actual topic of this thread 

There is a megathread for this no?


----------



## On and On (Dec 12, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> But he didn't. He was already coming back from or going to the grocery store (with his gun) when he saw Martin. That is different than seeing Martin outside and grabbing his gun to go talk to him.



That's convenient, that he happened to see him right as he stepped out.  If groceries or a receipt was found in his car this would be plausible, I have a hard time believing "I just happened to see this guy, at night, at the exact same time I decided to leave to go to the grocery store. Oh and I felt the need to take my gun to the grocery store btw"



> It isn't specific to neighborhood watch. Anyone is allowed to carry a gun if they have a permit. Why do we allow that? Because it is a right we have.
> 
> As for the latter part, he didn't confront Martin or intervene according to his story. If he did, then we can talk about it.



Cruising your neighborhood with a loaded gun doesn't help curb crime in anyway. People in the hood do the same shit. The only difference is we don't see it that way.



> I agree. I think it is fine if you question Zimmermans story and want him thoroughly investigated. I agree with that as well. All I am saying is we need solid evidence that he is lying and events were different before we call him guilty of anything but being dumb.



Honestly, the fact that he says he just happened to be on the way to the grocery store just reinforces my opinion that he's probably making up a shit ton of this. I have no doubt Trayvon whooped his ass, other then that, we're really just getting his story, which is far to convenient for my tastes.




Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Because Zimmerman didn't consider Martin a threat until his face was being pulped. It's not a hard concept.



If he wasn't a threat why did he call the police on him? 

Staaaaaaahp


----------



## EJ (Dec 12, 2012)

>Not a threat.

>Gets police called on him, and is stalked by said guy.

ok.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 12, 2012)

On and On said:


> That's convenient, that he happened to see him right as he stepped out.  If groceries or a receipt was found in his car this would be plausible, I have a hard time believing "I just happened to see this guy, at night, at the exact same time I decided to leave to go to the grocery store. Oh and I felt the need to take my gun to the grocery store btw"



So you are saying it is impossible to see someone while driving through your neighborhood? What is so odd about that? 

And yeah, it isn't uncommon for people with permits to carry to take their guns anywhere they are allowed. I know in PA where I live you can wear them in stores and everything but most would leave them in their cars. 



> Cruising your neighborhood with a loaded gun doesn't help curb crime in anyway. People in the hood do the same shit. The only difference is we don't see it that way.



Okay......But this has nothing to do with the topic. That is another discussion entirely. 



> Honestly, the fact that he says he just happened to be on the way to the grocery store just reinforces my opinion that he's probably making up a shit ton of this.



I don't see why you think that. What is so strange about him having been going to the grocery store? For that matter he probably has people to support that claim, bias as you may consider them. 



> I have no doubt Trayvon whooped his ass, other then that, we're really just getting his story, which is far to convenient for my tastes.



Which is fine. I have no problem with you taking that stance. I just think if you want to call him guilty you should wait for some evidence that supports that notion. I do know there is supposed to be some phone call with a girlfriend or something. Not sure what that is all about.


----------



## Blue (Dec 12, 2012)

Vague threat to home and property: Can't shoot

Immediate threat to personal safety: Can shoot

I can't get simpler without writing a picture book.


----------



## EJ (Dec 12, 2012)

You probably shouldn't be so vague, then turn around and post a snippy comment when people take it an implied way. 


That's like a guy saying "I like 12 year olds" then getting pissed at people thinking he's a creep and not understanding he just meant "Children are alright to me. Pretty cool people"


----------



## On and On (Dec 12, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> So you are saying it is impossible to see someone while driving through your neighborhood? What is so odd about that?



No? 



> And yeah, it isn't uncommon for people with permits to carry to take their guns anywhere they are allowed. I know in PA where I live you can wear them in stores and everything but most would leave them in their cars.



Coolio



> I don't see why you think that. What is so strange about him having been going to the grocery store?



Because the other difference in seeing someone as your already outside is seeing them from your house then leaving, which would mean he was only leaving his house to pursue the suspect, and the bullshit about going to the grocery store was in fact bullshit.



> For that matter he probably has people to support that claim, bias as you may consider them.



Probably doesn't mean shit unless he actually does, and even then it would likely be people with a personal interest in keeping him out of jail.



> Which is fine. I have no problem with you taking that stance. I just think if you want to call him guilty you should wait for some evidence that supports that notion.



Well seeing as how I'm not in the court room  We'll see if he's convicted, even then considering how people are looking at this I won't be surprised if he lets go since you just need ONE person for a hung jury 



> I do know there is supposed to be some phone call with a girlfriend or something. Not sure what that is all about.



The kid was on his phone with his girlfriend saying someone was following him and it was making him scared. She tells him to run. You know, no biggie.


----------



## drache (Dec 12, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> It really isn't that important though. Not in context at least.


 
Cyp is is entirely the point and your stubborn refusal to acknowledge this shows that you know you can't win on that so you'd rather it go away



Cyphon said:


> Can you quote me doing this? I am pretty sure I have explained all of my stances in regards to each response.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, can you show what evidence I ignored. Some quotes or links?


 
go reread the last 2 pages for starters go reread on and on's posts or the guy that took the trouble to actually link you what criminal neglience



Cyphon said:


> You continue to make arguments you can't or won't support.


 
no you just refuse to do anything but support the conclusion you've already drawn 



Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> If you want to call Zimmerman a dumbass or a jerk, his "behavior" is relevant.
> 
> If you want to convict him of a crime, it's totally fucking irrelevant.
> 
> ...


 
behavior is always revelant, in fact it's largely the difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder



Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Vague threat to home and property: Can't shoot
> 
> Immediate threat to personal safety: Can shoot
> 
> I can't get simpler without writing a picture book.


 
illegally stalks a child *in defiance of police orders*, at best is getting his ass kicked in a fight......can't shoot

You can't 'self defense' yourself KNK when *you* have started the fight. And Zimmerman started this by *ignoring police orders*

You and Cyp can play all the word games you want, at the end of the day Zimmerman was told by the police to back off. He didn't and that's criminally reckless behavior.


----------



## Blue (Dec 12, 2012)

Nothing he did was illegal drache, but whatever, I'll let the trial verdict set you straight.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 12, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Because Zimmerman didn't consider Martin a threat until his face was being pulped. It's not a hard concept.



He escalated the situation, and in most states he'd have been arrested for vigilantism at the least, if not murder. I suppose Florida is one of the exceptions but you usually can't claim self-defense if you confront an individual, and against police orders at that.


----------



## NanoHaxial (Dec 12, 2012)

They also weren't technically police orders, or even orders.


----------



## Blue (Dec 12, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> He escalated the situation, and in most states he'd have been arrested for vigilantism at the least, if not murder. I suppose Florida is one of the exceptions but you usually can't claim self-defense if you confront an individual, and against police orders at that.



Vigilantism? Do you actually believe this shit? Tailing and speaking to a person on a public road is not even remotely in the realm of illegal or even questionable. They weren't police orders, it was some fat lady on the 911 line giving the standard-issue public safety instructions.

I mean do you seriously know the facts as they stand? I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that he ever could have been arrested in any state for anything he did prior to the gunshot.


----------



## drache (Dec 12, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Nothing he did was illegal drache, but whatever, I'll let the trial verdict set you straight.


 
you can't go chasing after someone then be surprised at what happens next

and I hope for the gods' sake the jury shows something other then a cowboy attitude as Zimmerman being completely innoncent would be a farce on our system



NanoHaxial said:


> They also weren't technically police orders, or even orders.


 
I believe you've said this before and you are still wrong

If the dispatchers tells you to do something it carries just as much weight as the police saying it *especially *when you are calling in as a concerned citizen

So yes they were orders and yes they were police orders


----------



## NanoHaxial (Dec 12, 2012)

drache said:


> you can't go chasing after someone then be surprised at what happens next
> 
> and I hope for the gods' sake the jury shows something other then a cowboy attitude as Zimmerman being completely innoncent would be a farce on our system


In your eyes, because you don't agree with it. If you go by the evidence, then the best you could hope for in a conviction of involuntary manslaughter. Charging him with second degree murder is a joke.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 12, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Vigilantism? Do you actually believe this shit? Tailing and speaking to a person on a public road is not even remotely in the realm of illegal or even questionable.



When on neighborhood watch, you are only supposed to do just that, watch and report not take it into your hands. Even more, you aren't supposed to be carrying a weapon. On top of all that, Zimmerman pursued the kid against police orders, which could have that pinned on him. He tried to take the law into his own hands and got a kid killed for it.



> They weren't police orders, it was some fat lady on the 911 line giving the standard-issue public safety instructions.



Which, as a member of neighborhood watch he was supposed to listen to. 



> I mean do you seriously know the facts as they stand? I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that he ever could have been arrested in any state for anything he did prior to the gunshot.



Well, if you read my post you'd see I'm talking about physical altercation. Once it got into physical altercation regardless of the result, Zimmerman would normally be in jail for that. The standard you guys have there is retarded, he wasn't standing his ground, he invaded someone else's and that person was killed over it.


----------



## NanoHaxial (Dec 12, 2012)

> When on neighborhood watch, you are only supposed to do just that, watch.


And Zimmerman's story is that he did just that, until Martin approached and attacked him.



> Even more, you aren't supposed to be carrying a weapon.


Again, according to Zimmerman he wasn't performing neighborhood watch patrols/duties at the time, but going to the store. Regardless, there's no legal requirement that says he can't carry a gun.



> Even moreso, Zimmerman pursued the kid against police orders, which could have that pinned on him.


He was never told to stop following Martin. He was told it wasn't necessary. And if you listen to him, he agrees and says that Martin was gone. His story is that Martin approached him, not that he continued to follow.

There's no evidence to support any real charge against him.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 12, 2012)

NanoHaxial said:


> And Zimmerman's story is that he did just that, until Martin approached and attacked him.



Zimmerman himself admitted he was tracking Martin, so this is complete bullshit.



> Again, according to Zimmerman he wasn't performing neighborhood watch patrols/duties at the time, but going to the store. Regardless, there's no legal requirement that says he can't carry a gun.



He can't act as neighborhood watch and carry a gun. If he was just going to the store, the only thing he had the right to do was notify the police of his suspicions and nothing more. Yet he went beyond that and tracked the kid down, which resulted in their confrontation and the Martin's death. 



> He was never told to stop following Martin. He was told it wasn't necessary. And if you listen to him, he agrees and says that Martin was gone. His story is that Martin approached him, not that he continued to follow.



He again, admitted he tracked Martin and that is what resulted in their confrontation. Zimmerman was driving in an automobile initially according to his own accounts, so how do you explain the end result of this in him getting into a scuffle with Martin and killing him?



> There's no evidence to support any real charge against him.



Maybe not yet for jailtime, but for restrictions on his handgun among other things I disagree.


----------



## NanoHaxial (Dec 12, 2012)

> Zimmerman himself admitted he was tracking Martin, so this is complete bullshit.


Except he said Martin approached him as he was walking back to his truck.



> He can't act as neighborhood watch and carry a gun


Except that he can. There's no legal requirement that says he can't.


----------



## drache (Dec 12, 2012)

NanoHaxial said:


> In your eyes, because you don't agree with it. If you go by the evidence, then the best you could hope for in a conviction of involuntary manslaughter. Charging him with second degree murder is a joke.


 
Frankly manslaughter is the least he should have been charged with


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 12, 2012)

NanoHaxial said:


> Except he said Martin approached him as he was walking back to his truck.



He's admitted to have been the one that pursued him and he's not the one dead here, so he can change his story however. Which he has.

    7:11: 33 ? Zimmerman tells the police dispatcher that Trayvon Martin is running.

    7:11:59 ? In reply to the dispatcher's question, "Are you following him?" Zimmerman says, "Yes." Dispatcher states, "OK, we don't need you to do that." Zimmerman replies, "OK."

    7:12:00 - 7:12:59 ? The girl calls Martin again at some point during this minute.

7:13:10 ? Zimmerman says he does not know where Martin is.

7:13:41 ? Zimmerman's call to Sanford police ends

7:16:00 - 7:16:59 ? Martin's call from the girl goes dead during this minute.

7:16:11 ? First 911 call from witness about a fight, calls for help heard.

7:16:55 ? Gunshot heard on 911 call.

There is a reported three minutes between the end of Zimmerman's call and the first witness of the confrontation. Zimmerman was in an automobile, where he made his call from. He took it upon himself to follow Martin, and that resulted in their confrontation that he eventually killed him in. This is entirely in his responsibility. 



> Except that he can. There's no legal requirement that says he can't.



You aren't supposed to be pursuing anybody on Neighborhood watch, period. There should be absolutely no need for one if individuals follow the guidelines.


----------



## NanoHaxial (Dec 12, 2012)

> There is a reported three minutes between the end of Zimmerman's call and the first witness of the confrontation. Zimmerman was in an automobile, where he made his call from. He took it upon himself to follow Martin, and that resulted in their confrontation that he eventually killed him in. This is entirely in his responsibility.


Except that his story is that Martin ultimately approached him, attacked him, and that he felt his life was in danger. There's no evidence to disprove this, and the timing of the whole incident may support it even further.

As far as the law is concerned, he was well within his rights the entire time. Should he have stayed in his vehicle? Would that have been the smarter decision? Yes. But that doesn't change the facts.



> You aren't supposed to be pursuing anybody on Neighborhood watch, period. There should be absolutely no need for one if individuals follow the guidelines.


Which is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 12, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> This is entirely in his responsibility.



Not if Martin approached him and started the fight as his story says. If it is Zimmermans fault you have to prove he started the confrontation. 



> You aren't supposed to be pursuing anybody on Neighborhood watch, period.



True but ultimately irrelevant. It isn't against the law and we are talking about guilty or innocent. Not should and should not. 



> There should be absolutely no need for one if individuals follow the guidelines.



This isn't about need. It is about legality. He was legally allowed to have the weapon so by him having it doesn't change the verdict. The only way it changes things is if you can prove he took the gun intentionally for this confrontation and to use it.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 12, 2012)

NanoHaxial said:


> Except that his story is that Martin ultimately approached him, attacked him, and that he felt his life was in danger. There's no evidence to disprove this, and the timing of the whole incident may support it even further.
> 
> As far as the law is concerned, he was well within his rights the entire time. Should he have stayed in his vehicle? Would that have been the smarter decision? Yes. But that doesn't change the facts.



He was in his vehicle when he initially made the call, and then decided to pursue Martin. How can Martin approach him when Zimmerman admits to pursuing him in the first place? The answer is he can't. That changes the story entirely. Zimmerman put himself into the situation that caused Martin's death. 



> Which is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned.



He was more or less taking matters of the law into his own hands, so that's wrong.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 12, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> How can Martin approach him when Zimmerman admits to pursuing him in the first place?



Zimmerman said he lost him and went to check street signs or some such to inform them exactly where he was. After that he was walking back to his vehicle and that is when Martin approached. 

I think I have that right.....


----------



## drache (Dec 13, 2012)

NanoHaxial said:


> Except that his story is that Martin ultimately approached him, attacked him, and that he felt his life was in danger. There's no evidence to disprove this, and the timing of the whole incident may support it even further.
> 
> As far as the law is concerned, he was well within his rights the entire time. Should he have stayed in his vehicle? Would that have been the smarter decision? Yes. But that doesn't change the facts.
> 
> ...


 
yes because Martin is dead thus all we have is the word of a liar and one that is very motivated to avoid jail time

but I'm sure he's telling the truth right?

And frankly I am not sure you understand how the law works because joe blow citzen is not empowered to go hunt people down *for this very reason,* tragedies like this also way the police are required by law to identify themselves immediately.




Cyphon said:


> Zimmerman said he lost him and went to check street signs or some such to inform them exactly where he was. After that he was walking back to his vehicle and that is when Martin approached.
> 
> I think I have that right.....


 
no Zimmerman addmited to checking street signs *in the same direction* as he saw Martin go 'by happenstance'

and if you believe that I have a great deal on a bridge to sell you

Besides how the hell does that make sense? You run away only to come back? Right because I am going to confront some unknown wiedo that has been stalking me. See above about that bridge.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 13, 2012)

drache said:


> no Zimmerman addmited to checking street signs *in the same direction* as he saw Martin go 'by happenstance'


 
Why did you say "no"? I already said he went to check street signs :/



> Besides how the hell does that make sense? You run away only to come back? Right because I am going to confront some unknown wiedo that has been stalking me.



Most people have been arguing that they would confront someone following them or that it was a good reason to fear someone and attack and you may have been one of them. I don't recall. 

For that matter when Zimmerman was on the phone with the dispatcher he said Martin was walking towards him and looking at him or checking him out. 

And again, if you don't believe his story or like it.....Well, that is irrelevant. You still have to prove it false with some supporting evidence.


----------



## drache (Dec 13, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> Why did you say "no"? I already said he went to check street signs :/


 
*IN THE SAME FREAKEN DIRECTION AS MARTIN RAN*

that's why I said no



Cyphon said:


> Most people have been arguing that they would confront someone following them or that it was a good reason to fear someone and attack and you may have been one of them. I don't recall.


 
here's the thing, Martin _may_ have decided to turn around and confront the guy stalking him but it is utterly unreasonable to suggest that only did he do that but he walked back (apparently faster then Zimmerman who is moving in the same direction 'by happenstance') and manages to to some some how get to the truck at the same moment that Zimmerman did.




Cyphon said:


> For that matter when Zimmerman was on the phone with the dispatcher he said Martin was walking towards him and looking at him or checking him out.


 
he never said that Martin was walking towards him he said that Martin was looking at him and the dispatcher ordered him to stay in the car. Oddly enough that first time he obeyed, if only he had later. And frankly if a wierdo was stalking me or I thought someone was I would look at them too.



Cyphon said:


> And again, if you don't believe his story or like it.....Well, that is irrelevant. You still have to prove it false with some supporting evidence.


 
actually considering all we have is Zimmerman's word, if I don't believe him then he has nothing but blood on his hands and no  credible explaination.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 13, 2012)

drache said:


> *IN THE SAME FREAKEN DIRECTION AS MARTIN RAN*
> 
> that's why I said no


 
I am not sure what your point is here. Everyone knows he tried to find out where Martin went. So I still don't get why you are saying "no". 



> here's the thing, Martin _may_ have decided to turn around and confront the guy stalking him but it is utterly unreasonable to suggest that only did he do that but he walked back (apparently faster then Zimmerman who is moving in the same direction 'by happenstance') and manages to to some some how get to the truck at the same moment that Zimmerman did.


 
Again, you are free to find it as unbelievable as you want and I am not even saying I neccessarily disagree with you. You still have to have some shred of evidence to prove that it may be lies or a stretching of the truth to cast doubt on Zimmerman. 



> he never said that Martin was walking towards him he said that Martin was looking at him and the dispatcher ordered him to stay in the car.


 
No and no.



He said "now he is coming towards me".

And the dispatcher never orders him to stay in the car. The dispatcher asks if he is following and when Zimmerman says "yeah" the dispatcher says "we don't need you to do that". 



> actually considering all we have is Zimmerman's word, if I don't believe him then he has nothing but blood on his hands and no  credible explaination.



It isn't credible to you. That doesn't mean a judge or jury will feel the same.


----------



## drache (Dec 13, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> I am not sure what your point is here. Everyone knows he tried to find out where Martin went. So I still don't get why you are saying "no".


 
because that's not what he was told to do, thus 'no he didn't the man was still chasing after Martin.



Cyphon said:


> Again, you are free to find it as unbelievable as you want and I am not even saying I neccessarily disagree with you. You still have to have some shred of evidence to prove that it may be lies or a stretching of the truth to cast doubt on Zimmerman.


 
no I can simply find his testimony and sworn word so uncredible that I throw out everything he says

That said, Zimmerman has already contradicted himself as some how in under 10 minutes, he chased Martain, lost Martin who then for some reason raced Zimmerman back to his truck then proceded to to attack Zimmerman. Don't forget while doing much of this Martin was on the phone with his girl friend.

It's a bit like saying I can run a marathon but only while you're not looking



Cyphon said:


> No and no.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Zimmerman also never says 'he's circling my car' or anything to indicate that Martin came within his immediate area


And after Zimmerman says 'okay' he does so anyways ignoring the order he was given




Cyphon said:


> It isn't credible to you. That doesn't mean a judge or jury will feel the same.


 
which is why we have the legal system we do


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 13, 2012)

drache said:


> because that's not what he was told to do, thus 'no he didn't the man was still chasing after Martin.


 
He wasn't told to do anything. So still, I don't see why you say "no" to what I originally said.  



> That said, Zimmerman has already contradicted himself as some how in under 10 minutes, he chased Martain, lost Martin who then for some reason raced Zimmerman back to his truck then proceded to to attack Zimmerman.



I think you misunderstand the order of events. Zimmerman saw Martin and called 911. He is then on the phone describing Martin and answering questions. At some time during the call Martin takes off running and Zimmerman doesn't know where he is. He walks around looking while still talking to dispatch and that call ends while Zimmerman is away from his vehicle unaware of where Martin is. 

We don't know where Martin is or what he is doing in that time frame. While Zimmerman is away Martin could have very easily circled back to the general vicinity of the vehicle/starting point. 

If I am not mistaken Martin was close to his home so if he ran away from his home it would make sense for him to come back to the area. Granted, I don't know the area and how it works with the story or whatever but it would make sense with the story. I couldn't tell you if that is how it worked out or not. Just a possibility. 



> Zimmerman also never says 'he's circling my car' or anything to indicate that Martin came within his immediate area


 
I am not sure at what point you are referring to. If you are talking about his call with 911 he wouldn't have said that because he didn't know where Martin was at the time and IIRC he was away from his vehicle. 

If you are referring to him retelling the order of events, he said Martin came behind him or from somewhere and called out to him. 

I am not sure exactly what you are trying to point out here. 



> And after Zimmerman says 'okay' he does so anyways ignoring the order he was given


 
He was never given an order. Not sure where you got that.


----------



## drache (Dec 13, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> He wasn't told to do anything. So still, I don't see why you say "no" to what I originally said.


 
He was ordered to not go after Martin, he said 'okay' which means he not only heard it he acknowledge it. 

And then proceded to go after Martin



Cyphon said:


> I think you misunderstand the order of events. Zimmerman saw Martin and called 911. He is then on the phone describing Martin and answering questions. At some time during the call Martin takes off running and Zimmerman doesn't know where he is. He walks around looking while still talking to dispatch and that call ends while Zimmerman is away from his vehicle unaware of where Martin is.


 
I think you misunderstand in  that Zimmerman first wasn't even supposed to be out of his vechile and second it's a road, his choices were forward or backwards. He choose forward, that's not 'wandering around'



Cyphon said:


> We don't know where Martin is or what he is doing in that time frame. While Zimmerman is away Martin could have very easily circled back to the general vicinity of the vehicle/starting point.


 
Unlikely unless Zimmerman's vechile ended up within 50 feet of Martin's house and with no map to compare events on well all you got is supposition after supposition



Cyphon said:


> If I am not mistaken Martin was close to his home so if he ran away from his home it would make sense for him to come back to the area. Granted, I don't know the area and how it works with the story or whatever but it would make sense with the story. I couldn't tell you if that is how it worked out or not. Just a possibility.


 
We don't know where Martin *was* he *ended up* about 50 yards from his father's house. And if he was so close why not run home? Nothing you're offering in any way mitigates the reckless decesion after reckless decesion Zimmerman made.




Cyphon said:


> I am not sure at what point you are referring to. If you are talking about his call with 911 he wouldn't have said that because he didn't know where Martin was at the time and IIRC he was away from his vehicle.
> 
> If you are referring to him retelling the order of events, he said Martin came behind him or from somewhere and called out to him.
> 
> I am not sure exactly what you are trying to point out here.


 
Yes Zimmerman *says* and given that he's facing jail for his reckless actions it's in his best interests to say whatever benefits him the most.



Cyphon said:


> He was never given an order. Not sure where you got that.


 
The dispatcher gave him an order, it may have been polite, it may have been couched in a way that could be interprated as a 'suggestion' but make no mistake that it was an order


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 13, 2012)

drache said:


> He was ordered to not go after Martin, he said 'okay' which means he not only heard it he acknowledge it.


 
Can you link me to where he was ordered to do something? I have seen you say it multiple times but no matter where I look in my searches I can find no evidence of such a thing. 



> I think you misunderstand in  that Zimmerman first wasn't even supposed to be out of his vechile



Not sure where you got this from. 



> and second it's a road, his choices were forward or backwards. He choose forward, that's not 'wandering around'


 
No. It wasn't just 1 road. He was in a neighborhood with multiple roads and cuts between buildings and such. 



> Unlikely unless Zimmerman's vechile ended up within 50 feet of Martin's house and with no map to compare events on well all you got is supposition after supposition


 
Actually someone did post a map a little while back. Although I didn't look at it much. 

In any case, that explains Zimmermans story whether you believe it or not is up to you. 



> We don't know where Martin *was* he *ended up* about 50 yards from his father's house. And if he was so close why not run home?



I can't speak for Martin on that one. I could guess at things, but only guess. 



> Nothing you're offering in any way mitigates the reckless decesion after reckless decesion Zimmerman made.


 
His decisions weren't ones I myself would make but there are hardly very reckless. In any case, a dumb decision still doesn't make him guilty or take away his rights to defend himself from at attacker.  



> Yes Zimmerman *says* and given that he's facing jail for his reckless actions it's in his best interests to say whatever benefits him the most.


 
True. But still, nothing has disproven his story as far as I know. Can't call him guilty off of guesses and assumptions. Or I guess we can but it would be a bad day for our justice system. 



> make no mistake that it was an order



It wasn't an order by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## drache (Dec 13, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> Can you link me to where he was ordered to do something? I have seen you say it multiple times but no matter where I look in my searches I can find no evidence of such a thing.
> 
> It wasn't an order by any stretch of the imagination.


 
reordered this since this is the same thing

Yes it was an order and it was an order because this is precisely what happens when civilians go fucking rambo, innocent people get hurt or die that didn't need to.

It's what any dispatcher will tell you the moment it sounds like you're going to risk your neck. Well Zimmerman risked his and he fucked up and that's on him



Cyphon said:


> Not sure where you got this from.


 
he was told to go wait for the police not go cavorting outside in what _just happened_ to be the same direction as Martin




Cyphon said:


> No. It wasn't just 1 road. He was in a neighborhood with multiple roads and cuts between buildings and such.


 
The only map of the area I've seen shows one road then again I've yet to see a    map where Zimmerman and Martin were found or one with a time line based map



Cyphon said:


> Actually someone did post a map a little while back. Although I didn't look at it much.


 
which is what I referenced and you are saying now isn't completely accurate



Cyphon said:


> In any case, that explains Zimmermans story whether you believe it or not is up to you.


 
no it doesn't not in the slightest




Cyphon said:


> I can't speak for Martin on that one. I could guess at things, but only guess.


 
and are you not guessing for Zimmerman? Why guess for him and not Martin?



Cyphon said:


> His decisions weren't ones I myself would make but there are hardly very reckless. In any case, a dumb decision still doesn't make him guilty or take away his rights to defend himself from at attacker.


 
you still have not explained this or how his actions do not meet the definition of criminal neglience?



Cyphon said:


> True. But still, nothing has disproven his story as far as I know. Can't call him guilty off of guesses and assumptions. Or I guess we can but it would be a bad day for our justice system.


 
at this point I think nothing could convince you, you have made up your mind and will ignore anything that doesn't neatly support taht conclusion


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 13, 2012)

drache said:


> Yes it was an order and it was an order because this is precisely what happens when civilians go fucking rambo, innocent people get hurt or die that didn't need to.


 
It wasn't an order.

If police say "hands in the air" or "on the ground", that is an order. There is no "we would like you to put your hands behind your back if it isn't too troublesome".

If it was an order by law he had to follow, that should have been made clear and that is on the dispatcher, not Zimmerman. Again, Zimmermans decision wasn't smart but also wasn't illegal. 



> he was told to go wait for the police


 
Honestly, drache....You should at least TRY and do some research or look at the evidence. Otherwise there is no point to this discussion. 

"we don't need you to do that"

"do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?"

"Okay do you want to just meet them right near the mailboxes then?"

*Dispatcher:* Alright George, I'll let them know to meet you around there okay? 

*Zimmerman:* Actually could you have them call me and I'll tell them where I'm at? 

*Dispatcher:* Okay, yeah that's no problem.

At no point in this conversation are there demands or orders to stay put and wait. 



> The only map of the area I've seen shows one road then again I've yet to see a map where Zimmerman and Martin were found or one with a time line based map


 
I found this on google. Don't feel like seeing how valid or close to valid it is but maybe this will help to give an idea.





> no it doesn't not in the slightest


 
Yeah it does. Completely. You questioned how Martin could get further than Zimmerman or whatever. Zimmerman lost Martin and Martins path could have easily been back towards where they had started or whatever. We don't know because we have no location on Martin until the fight.  

That may not be right but it is a plausible explanation that fits with the story. 



> and are you not guessing for Zimmerman? Why guess for him and not Martin?


 
I don't recall guessing anything on Zimmerman. Or if I did it was based on his own story. Unfortunately we don't have Martins story so I have little to go off of. 

If you want me to guess I will. Why would Martin go back to confront Zimmerman? Because he is a male teenager. There need be no more explanation than that. We were all full of hormones at that time and most of us (at least people in my area) would have no problem finding fights and causing trouble. 

And I admit, I may be completely wrong but you asked me to guess. That is where I would put my money if the Zimmerman is telling the truth.  



> you still have not explained this or how his actions do not meet the definition of criminal neglience?


 
I did some reading on this before answering and it is.....Pretty convoluted. It is basically guesswork all the way around.

From what I saw there are 2 "tests" to determine negligence:

"*subjective* - where the court attempts to establish what the accused was actually thinking at the time the actus reus was caused;"

Obviously this is almost purely guesswork. You can never know what anyone was thinking and in this case I definitely don't think this test would hold up. 

"*objective* - where the court imputes mens rea elements on the basis that a reasonable person with the same general knowledge and abilities as the accused would have had those elements"

I guess this one would come the closest to working in this instance. But I still don't see how there can be anything definitive in this situation. "Reasonable" is hardly something defined without subjectivity. For me personally, I never would have even called the police and some may call that negligent if I ignored suspicious activity. Does not calling make me unreasonable? I don't believe so. But before we get too sidetracked......This situation is more or less 50/50 depending on the actual events. 

If Zimmerman approached Martin and confronted him I think he is guilty of negligence. Most "reasonable" people wouldn't go so far IMO. Again, I still see that as just my opinion and hardly think it should be so definitive in a court of law. 

If Zimmerman is telling the truth however, I don't think anything he did was unreasonable or that others we view as "reasonable" wouldn't do similar things.  



> at this point I think nothing could convince you, you have made up your mind and will ignore anything that doesn't neatly support taht conclusion



This is funny considering how close minded everyone but myself and a couple of others has been about this entire case. Most of you don't even care what the actual facts are or complete twist the ones you do actually read so they fit in your biased little fantasy story. 

The fact is, I continue to ask people to provide any evidence they have and repeatedly state that I will concede the point if such evidence is provided. That has yet to happen though.


----------



## drache (Dec 13, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> It wasn't an order.
> 
> If police say "hands in the air" or "on the ground", that is an order. There is no "we would like you to put your hands behind your back if it isn't too troublesome".
> 
> If it was an order by law he had to follow, that should have been made clear and that is on the dispatcher, not Zimmerman. Again, Zimmermans decision wasn't smart but also wasn't illegal.


 
you apparently haven't been around a lot of law enforcement, listen to the operator's voice that's a command

And the fact is you can be polite and still have it be a command and again the fact is Zimmerman disregarded it and as such took full responsiblity for what followed.



Cyphon said:


> Honestly, drache....You should at least TRY and do some research or look at the evidence. Otherwise there is no point to this discussion.
> 
> "we don't need you to do that"
> 
> ...


 
see above and do your own reasearch first because your crtique mine, you'll look less embarrassed 

Zimmerman took his fate into this own hands and because of it he killed an innocent kid


I f





Cyphon said:


> ound this on google. Don't feel like seeing how valid or close to valid it is but maybe this will help to give an idea.


 
which doesn't look good for Zimmerman as his truck is no where near' Martin's house nor is it on the way back



Cyphon said:


> Yeah it does. Completely. You questioned how Martin could get further than Zimmerman or whatever. Zimmerman lost Martin and Martins path could have easily been back towards where they had started or whatever. We don't know because we have no location on Martin until the fight.
> 
> That may not be right but it is a plausible explanation that fits with the story.


 
none of which would have happened if that trigger happy rambo wannabe had *listened*.



Cyphon said:


> I don't recall guessing anything on Zimmerman. Or if I did it was based on his own story. Unfortunately we don't have Martins story so I have little to go off of.


 
oh bullshit you've been guessing since the begining



Cyphon said:


> If you want me to guess I will. Why would Martin go back to confront Zimmerman? Because he is a male teenager. There need be no more explanation than that. We were all full of hormones at that time and most of us (at least people in my area) would have no problem finding fights and causing trouble.
> 
> And I admit, I may be completely wrong but you asked me to guess. That is where I would put my money if the Zimmerman is telling the truth.


 
right cause he's a male teen he's going to turn away from the known safety of his house and go confront a possible serial killer/kidnapper etc etc

I know teenagers aren't always very smart but that's a stretch and you know it



Cyphon said:


> I did some reading on this before answering and it is.....Pretty convoluted. It is basically guesswork all the way around.


 
it's not convulted it's fairly clear



Cyphon said:


> From what I saw there are 2 "tests" to determine negligence:
> 
> "*subjective* - where the court attempts to establish what the accused was actually thinking at the time the actus reus was caused;"
> 
> ...


 
frankly either could work, after all Zimmerman is clearly angry on the phone and clearly unhappy that 'they always get away' and this clearly fits into a reckless frame of mind leading to reckless actions that any reasonable person would have forseen

And let's be clear Cyp the *entire* legal system is built on 'reasonable' the biggest building block is 'reasonable doubt' so if you have a problem with 'reasonable' then you have a probelm with the entire system

Further if you had never called the police nothing would have happened as Martin wasn't doing anything, Zimmerman did and his actions became unreasonable as soon as he disregarded the orders/advice/whatever you want to call it of the dispatcher



Cyphon said:


> If Zimmerman approached Martin and confronted him I think he is guilty of negligence. Most "reasonable" people wouldn't go so far IMO. Again, I still see that as just my opinion and hardly think it should be so definitive in a court of law.


 
If Zimmerman confronted Martin he's guilty of murder in the 2nd degree. He knowing brought a gun to a charged confrontation



Cyphon said:


> If Zimmerman is telling the truth however, I don't think anything he did was unreasonable or that others we view as "reasonable" wouldn't do similar things.


 
then he's at best guilty of reckless homicide or manslaughter




Cyphon said:


> This is funny considering how close minded everyone but myself and a couple of others has been about this entire case. Most of you don't even care what the actual facts are or complete twist the ones you do actually read so they fit in your biased little fantasy story.


 
you know this fanasy you have where in you and a few 'special people' get it has plain gotten old.

You're not open minded, you're anything but. You have steadfastly ignored people until it utterly got too much then want to cherry pick when you use words and how you use them.

That's not open minded and stop projecting, it's tiresome.



Cyphon said:


> The fact is, I continue to ask people to provide any evidence they have and repeatedly state that I will concede the point if such evidence is provided. That has yet to happen though.


 
the fact is you do not honestly mean this request and ignore anything people actually bring


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 13, 2012)

drache said:


> listen to the operator's voice that's a command


 
No it isn't. Not even close. 



> see above and do your own reasearch first because your crtique mine, you'll look less embarrassed



Nothing you said above helps your case. You continuously misquote the information. 



> Zimmerman took his fate into this own hands and because of it he killed an innocent kid


 
How does attacking someone equate to innocence in your mind? 



> which doesn't look good for Zimmerman as his truck is no where near' Martin's house nor is it on the way back


 
I will need to look at it. Haven't really viewed it yet. 



> none of which would have happened if that trigger happy rambo wannabe had *listened*.


 
True but irrelevant. Martin is the attacker and Zimmerman defended himself, regardless of the previous stuff. Unless Zimmerman forced the attack or caused it, there is no case. 



> oh bullshit you've been guessing since the begining


 
Somewhat, yes. But I have been doing so based on the given information and noting when I am guessing.....Mostly. 



> I know teenagers aren't always very smart but that's a stretch and you know it


 
That isn't even remotely a stretch. It is no less rational than typical male teenage behavior (and some females to be fair).  



> frankly either could work, after all Zimmerman is clearly angry on the phone and clearly unhappy that 'they always get away' and this clearly fits into a reckless frame of mind leading to reckless actions that any reasonable person would have forseen


 
I don't think it is reasonable to expect to be attacked with little to no provocation. Which is what this ultimately comes down to. 



> if you have a problem with 'reasonable' then you have a probelm with the entire system


 
In fact I do have a problem with it. Not everything of course but it is far from perfect. 



> and his actions became unreasonable as soon as he disregarded the orders/advice/whatever you want to call it of the dispatcher


 
His actions weren't unreasonable (unless the story changes). The suspicious person "got away" and he wanted to be able to inform the police of his location. Nothing unreasonable about that. Dumb in my opinion, but not unreasonable. 



> If Zimmerman confronted Martin he's guilty of murder in the 2nd degree. He knowing brought a gun to a charged confrontation


 
I don't know exactly how the charges work so I am unsure on that. Approaching someone does not give them the right to attack you so he still had the right to self defense. Unless the negligence part cancels that out. 



> then he's at best guilty of reckless homicide or manslaughter


 
Not with self defense protection.  



> you know this fanasy you have where in you and a few 'special people' get it has plain gotten old.



I wouldn't call them special. Just reasonable and clear headed in this instance. It also isn't a fantasy. You can go back and check the old threads. Again, you continue to make claims or denials with nothing to support your notions. 

In fact, if you don't imrove on that I will just stop debating you. And yes "you don't care" or "concession accepted" but if you didn't care you wouldn't continue quoting me and trying so hard after continous failures on your part. 



> You're not open minded, you're anything but.



Pot/kettle thing here. 



> You have steadfastly ignored people


 
As usual you couldn't be more wrong. I have quoted every single response I have seen addressed to me and some that weren't specifically aimed my way. I have done the exact opposite of what you claim. Unless you have proof? 



> the fact is you do not honestly mean this request and ignore anything people actually bring



Wrong again. At least you are consistent in that though


----------



## drache (Dec 13, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> No it isn't. Not even close.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing you said above helps your case. You continuously misquote the information.


 
believe what you wish I have no more desire to pound sand



Cyphon said:


> How does attacking someone equate to innocence in your mind?


 
this is called you guessing 



Cyphon said:


> I will need to look at it. Haven't really viewed it yet.


 
then you should 



Cyphon said:


> True but irrelevant. Martin is the attacker and Zimmerman defended himself, regardless of the previous stuff. Unless Zimmerman forced the attack or caused it, there is no case.


 
again this is guessing




Cyphon said:


> That isn't even remotely a stretch. It is no less rational than typical male teenage behavior (and some females to be fair).


 
believe what you wish again I have no more desire to pound sand



Cyphon said:


> I don't think it is reasonable to expect to be attacked with little to no provocation. Which is what this ultimately comes down to.


 
again guessing



Cyphon said:


> In fact I do have a problem with it. Not everything of course but it is far from perfect.


 
then this entire discussion is a farce because you are playing by a different system then the rest of us



Cyphon said:


> His actions weren't unreasonable (unless the story changes). The suspicious person "got away" and he wanted to be able to inform the police of his location. Nothing unreasonable about that. Dumb in my opinion, but not unreasonable.


 
again believe what you wish even if it flies in the face of what multiple people are saying




Cyphon said:


> I don't know exactly how the charges work so I am unsure on that. Approaching someone does not give them the right to attack you so he still had the right to self defense. Unless the negligence part cancels that out.


 
guessing some more



Cyphon said:


> Not with self defense protection.


 
guessing that it was self defense and Martin was not defending himself



Cyphon said:


> I wouldn't call them special. Just reasonable and clear headed in this instance. It also isn't a fantasy. You can go back and check the old threads. Again, you continue to make claims or denials with nothing to support your notions.
> 
> In fact, if you don't imrove on that I will just stop debating you. And yes "you don't care" or "concession accepted" but if you didn't care you wouldn't continue quoting me and trying so hard after continous failures on your part.


 
meh honestly I'm done with you on this because you're so utterly stubborn that this is rather stupid. You go on and on and on *and* on about being open minded when you are one of the most closed minded people on the forums and you're lying to us or yourself about it, massively.

And after a while it become beyond tedious



Cyphon said:


> Pot/kettle thing here.


 
believe as you wish I rather don't care



Cyphon said:


> As usual you couldn't be more wrong. I have quoted every single response I have seen addressed to me and some that weren't specifically aimed my way. I have done the exact opposite of what you claim. Unless you have proof?


 
quoting does not equal addressing


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 13, 2012)

drache said:


> this is called you guessing
> 
> again this is guessing
> 
> ...


 
I am not guessing. I am going by the testimony and evidence we have. My only "guess" is that Zimmerman is telling the truth. And I admit that may be a wrong guess, but nothing has told us that so far.  



> then this entire discussion is a farce because you are playing by a different system then the rest of us


 
Nope. As I said, there are a couple of others here who have kept there bias and emotion out of the discussion.  

again believe what you wish even if it flies in the face of what multiple people are saying



> meh honestly I'm done with you on this because you're so utterly stubborn that this is rather stupid.


 
Well, do some research on this topic and come back with some real facts or evidence and it probably won't be so hard for you to keep up in the debate. It probably makes me appear more stubborn when I have to spend as much time correcting you as making new points or addressing old one. 



> quoting does not equal addressing



Actually it does. I am speaking directly to them about what they brought up. But continue ignoring what is right in front of you. Practice (in denial) makes perfect when you have no solid ground to stand on in a debate.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 13, 2012)

Assuming Zimmerman is telling the truth is already a problem, just admit that you're being biased. We're not supposed to assume that anyone tells the truth without facts to back it up.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 13, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Assuming Zimmerman is telling the truth is already a problem, just admit that you're being biased. We're not supposed to assume that anyone tells the truth without facts to back it up.



How am I being biased? It isn't like I am friends or family with/of him 

And the only facts we have so far do support his story. 

And our legal system is innocent until proven guilty. So we should assume his innocence until proven otherwise.


----------



## On and On (Dec 13, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> How am I being biased? It isn't like I am friends or family with/of him
> 
> And the only facts we have so far do support his story.
> 
> And our legal system is innocent until proven guilty. So we should assume his innocence until proven otherwise.



Because the only objective evidence we have shows us Trayvon promptly stomped that ass LOL. Conveniently he's dead so he can't give his testimony 

Meanwhile the only other evidence we have that's being allowed (did they mention the girlfriend's cellphone call?), or interpretation of evidence we have, is coming out of the perp's mouth. What a coincidence 

Give me one or two objective truths I can spin a story too. Any amateur can.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 13, 2012)

On and On said:


> Because the only objective evidence we have shows us Trayvon promptly stomped that ass LOL. Conveniently he's dead so he can't give his testimony
> 
> Meanwhile the only other evidence we have that's being allowed (did they mention the girlfriend's cellphone call?), or interpretation of evidence we have, is coming out of the perp's mouth. What a coincidence
> 
> Give me one or two objective truths I can spin a story too. Any amateur can.



I don't disagree with any of this. That still changes nothing at this point though. 

The cell phone call I have tried to look into but got conflicting information. Someone said the evidence released (dunno if it was the call or an interview with the girlfriend) was chopped up and edited to made sound different. Need to research it some more...


----------



## baconbits (Dec 13, 2012)

Normality said:


> No Bacon stop
> 
> You aren't committing any wrong by walking into the hood with a racist outfit but stalking someone ? You aren't just inciting violence but you are no longer a victim if you do get hurt. Stalking is ILLEGAL and dressing up in a KKK outfit is not. You don't really have the right to defend yourself because you are not the victim but the perpetrator. Yes, walking into the hood with such a costume is dumb but you aren't inherently hurting someone or making people seriously fear for their lives like a stalker would.



First, you'd have to convict him of stalking.  Was he stalking or not?  You're assuming he was stalking him when all we have evidence of is that he followed Trayvon.  That isn't illegal.

Second, is it okay to beat someone up for following you?  No, it isn't.

Look at the facts of the case: Zimmerman follows Martin.  Martin jumps Zimmerman and pounds his head into the ground.  Zimmerman shoots Martin.  That's self defense by any definition.



Darth inVaders said:


> Negligence (Lat. negligentia, from neglegere, to neglect, literally "not to pick up something") is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances - so it also involves actions taken, not just actions not taken - Zim took on responsibility by taking actions he was not required to and his actions were careless and negligent of this responsibility he took on. Putting on a KKK outfit and running around a majority black area is not putting a specific threat on any specific person, but stalking a person is threatening to the person being stalked - that is why it is illegal.



You'd first have to prove he was stalking him.  Following a person is obviously not illegal.  Stalking a person is.  At some point there was a confrontation and Martin began to beat Zimmerman down.  At the point where he felt his life was threatened Zimmerman had reason to fight back with whatever he had on his person.

Second, you should also admit that Zimmerman deserves to win his lawsuit against NBC.  NBC did him a disservice and intentionally manipulated information.


----------



## drache (Dec 13, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> I don't disagree with any of this. That still changes nothing at this point though.
> 
> The cell phone call I have tried to look into but got conflicting information. Someone said the evidence released (dunno if it was the call or an interview with the girlfriend) was chopped up and edited to made sound different. Need to research it some more...


 
then you admit you're utterly guessing here and shooting blindly in the dark, thank you


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 13, 2012)

drache said:


> then you admit you're utterly guessing here and shooting blindly in the dark, thank you



Don't see how you got that.

The struggles continue for you drache.....


----------



## IchLiebe (Dec 14, 2012)

baconbits said:


> First, you'd have to convict him of stalking.  Was he stalking or not?  You're assuming he was stalking him when all we have evidence of is that he followed Trayvon.  That isn't illegal.
> 
> Second, is it okay to beat someone up for following you?  No, it isn't.
> 
> ...



Its stalking if he didn't have a good reason, given the recent buglaries in the area and Travyon weavin in between houses and hisattire had good reason.


----------



## drache (Dec 14, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> Don't see how you got that.
> 
> The struggles continue for you drache.....



you're right I often struggle to understand how your mind works and how you can say the things you say



IchLiebe said:


> Its stalking if he didn't have a good reason, given the recent buglaries in the area and Travyon weavin in between houses and hisattire had good reason.



no he didn't, he was told to back off and didn't


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 14, 2012)

drache said:


> he was told to back off and didn't



No he wasn't.

Your struggles continue drache


----------



## drache (Dec 14, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> No he wasn't.
> 
> Your struggles continue drache


 
you know instead of responding to your obvious flame baiting i'm just going to report you and ignore you


----------

