Support NeoGAF

[biggersmaller]

Eh...above your post?

I meant those media outlets, specifically - but I'll take a GAF post and read it in the voice of Sean Hannity.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Where's the conservative radio/FOX News Zimmerman defense force now?

Now that his GF is dropping charges, everyone's feeling brave enough to reusme e-jerking their hero for putting down that savage thug.

 

[ElFly]

Your interpretation was horribly off. What I had said is that it wasn't the government's place to tell the baker's that they were wrong, it was society's for the reason that being fined by the government doesn't make someone just go "Gee, I was dumb to discriminate against gays. I see why I was wrong." Society pointing out your ignorance and showing support to the couple *does*.

Then I continued to say that discrimination, no matter against who, is dumb. Including against concealed weapon holders.

If you actually read this thread, you'd also of picked up on the fact that I am not in favor of Zimmerman. I just see reasonable doubt in the fact that he should've been charged in that case.

But hey, I must just be a redneck racist gun toting republican/libertarian!

The racists/crazios have had a story in gaf of defending zimmerman and then hiding behind the reasonable doubt claim. Going to bet the trend holds out.

The very fact that you compared you being discriminated for carrying, with an homosexual couple is p much confirming my bet.

 

[BeFlatLine]

Now that his GF is dropping charges, everyone's feeling brave enough to reusme e-jerking their hero for putting down that savage thug.

I don't see any of that going on here. I don't think anyone thinks a death is a thing to be celebrated . . . well, at least not on these forums.

There's a big difference between saying "dude should've been found guilty!" and "reasonable doubt and the law let him off, despite him being an idiot." The only people praising him are extremists.

 

[BronsonLee]

I don't see any of that going on here. I don't think anyone thinks a death is a thing to be celebrated . . . well, at least not on these forums.

There's a big difference between saying "dude should've been found guilty!" and "reasonable doubt and the law let him off, despite him being an idiot." The only people praising him are extremists.

I have some bad news.

 

[BeFlatLine]

The racists/crazios have had a story in gaf of defending zimmerman and claiming reasonable doubt. Going to bet the trend holds out.

The very fact that you compared you being discriminated for carrying, with an homosexual couple is p much confirming my bet.

In the same thread, I also mentioned being discriminated for age too. The point being, there's plenty of businesses that I could take my business and receive proper service without funding idiots. I may not of made my point very well, but you really didn't grasp any of it, did you?

 

[Seeds]

In the same thread, I also mentioned being discriminated for age too. The point being, there's plenty of businesses that I could take my business and receive proper service without funding idiots. I may not of made my point very well, but you really didn't grasp any of it, did you?

Being discriminated because of age?

Are you serious?

 

[Gattsu25]

I don't see any of that going on here. I don't think anyone thinks a death is a thing to be celebrated . . . well, at least not on these forums.

There's a big difference between saying "dude should've been found guilty!" and "reasonable doubt and the law let him off, despite him being an idiot." The only people praising him are extremists.

'The guy's an idiot, and he lied to the courts to try to withhold his wealth, and he conspired with his wife to further hide his wealth from the courts, and he was the only person in the incident with an actual police record, but I trust his version of events, implicitly.'

Not sure how you don't see anything wrong with that.

 

[BeFlatLine]

'The guy's an idiot, and he lied to the courts to try to withhold his wealth, and he conspired with his wife to further hide his wealth from the courts, and he was the only person in the incident with an actual police record, but I trust his version of events, implicitly.'

Not sure how you don't see anything wrong with that.

When his version of the events actually line up with evidence more than the prosecutors, there's a problem with the case. Doesn't mean there isn't a problem with Zimmerman, but you have to actually prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Gatygun]

"Shit, I'm being followed."

And then, maybe, I don't know, go home. Lock the door. Call the police.

He had a cell phone on him. He was talking to a girl before the encounter. He hung up without there being any conflict with Zimmerman, but he noted that was being followed. Wouldn't that of been a good time to call the police? Maybe run in the *opposite* direction of Zimmerman?

In what world is it alright to just punch someone based off a perceived threat that the person is following you? It happens all the time when I'm on my way to work. Should I just punch everyone that is taking the same exact route to work? Sheesh.

But you have to support assaulting people with no good reason. Specially if it's a white person and you are a black person. You have to assault him don't you get it?

It's a pretty simple case, but people are too busy looking at skin colors and jumping through conclusions because they simple are racists.

( from what i recall of reading about it )

1) black dude walks on the streets
2) Zimmerman thinks he is the one that robbed a store and follows him to see where he's going
3) kid loses his mind and jumps on Zimmerman.
4) Zimmerman thinks he deals with a highly mentally unstable person that robs shops and probably has no regret of cutting him open. The fact that he jumps him already confirms it and shoots him ( because he has no clue how that night is going to end, talking about it when all events are set in stone is a hell lot more easier then when you are currently experiencing it )
5) court.

Massive group of black people jump forwards and support the victim because for the sole reason of him being black "racist much'.

But in the reality, the kid triggered the events that resulted in his own death.

Now Zimmerman was pulled in court. court decided he was free to go because there really wasn't much else then self defense in this case.

But some black people go ballistic because the guy is black. Or somehow they are totally for assaulting people when they move the same way as you.

A normal person would react in the following way:

1) see a dude walking my way
2) speed up walking to my home
3) lock the door + call the police.
4) police comes, talks with both party's and done deal.

But somehow he needed to assault this "evil white men" and ended up catching bullits from his gun.

Got a hint for people in general "don't assault people that have guns, that could go very very wrong".

If i was zimmermen i would still be in court today to sue every single party that placed any statement around me being a racist.

 

[Particle Physicist]

When his version of the events actually line up with evidence more than the prosecutors, there's a problem with the case. Doesn't mean there isn't a problem with Zimmerman, but you have to actually prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Except that it really didn't. I am not going to go through this shit again, but I knew there was something off last night when you were defending this shitbag's violent past against women.

 

[Dubbmobile]

But you have to support assaulting people with no good reason. Specially if it's a white person and you are a black person. You have to assault him don't you get it?

It's a pretty simple case, but people are too busy looking at skin colors and jumping through conclusions because they simple are racists.

( from what i recall of reading about it )

1) black dude walks on the streets
2) Zimmerman thinks he is the one that robbed a store and follows him to see where he's going
3) kid loses his mind and jumps on Zimmerman.
4) Zimmerman thinks he deals with a highly mentally unstable person that robs shops and probably has no regret of cutting him open. The fact that he jumps him already confirms it and shoots him ( because he has no clue how that night is going to end, talking about it when all events are set in stone is a hell lot more easier then when you are currently experiencing it )
5) court.

Massive group of black people jump forwards and support the victim because for the sole reason of him being black "racist much'.

But in the reality, the kid triggered the events that resulted in his own death.

Now Zimmerman was pulled in court. court decided he was free to go because there really wasn't much else then self defense in this case.

But some black people go ballistic because the guy is black. Or somehow they are totally for assaulting people when they move the same way as you.

A normal person would react in the following way:

1) see a dude walking my way
2) speed up walking to my home
3) lock the door + call the police.
4) police comes, talks with both party's and done deal.

But somehow he needed to assault this "evil white men" and ended up catching bullits from his gun.

Got a hint for people in general "don't assault people that have guns, that could go very very wrong".

If i was zimmermen i would still be in court today to sue every single party that placed any statement around me being a racist.

Problem here is this an assumption as no one knows what triggered the confrontation between the two besides the survivor of it.

Some of your facts are a bit off as well about the case. Zimmerman never thought he robbed a store only didn't recognize him from the neighborhood and thought he looked suspicious according to his own words.

 

[Seeds]

But you have to support assaulting people with no good reason. Specially if it's a white person and you are a black person. You have to assault him don't you get it?

It's a pretty simple case, but people are too busy looking at skin colors and jumping through conclusions because they simple are racists.

( from what i recall of reading about it )

1) black dude walks on the streets
2) Zimmerman thinks he is the one that robbed a store and follows him to see where he's going
3) kid loses his mind and jumps on Zimmerman.
4) Zimmerman thinks he deals with a highly mentally unstable person that robs shops and probably has no regret of cutting him open. The fact that he jumps him already confirms it and shoots him ( because he has no clue how that night is going to end, talking about it when all events are set in stone is a hell lot more easier then when you are currently experiencing it )
5) court.

Massive group of black people jump forwards and support the victim because for the sole reason of him being black "racist much'.

But in the reality, the kid triggered the events that resulted in his own death.

Now Zimmerman was pulled in court. court decided he was free to go because there really wasn't much else then self defense in this case.

But some black people go ballistic because the guy is black. Or somehow they are totally for assaulting people when they move the same way as you.

A normal person would react in the following way:

1) see a dude walking my way
2) speed up walking to my home
3) lock the door + call the police.
4) police comes, talks with both party's and done deal.

But somehow he needed to assault this "evil white men" and ended up catching bullits from his gun.

Got a hint for people in general "don't assault people that have guns, that could go very very wrong".

If i was zimmermen i would still be in court today to sue every single party that placed any statement around me being a racist.

You do understand that a kid is dead because he under a stressful situation decided to confront a stranger that was following him on his way home after he already had made attempts to get away from him, right?

 

[User 100115]

Your interpretation was horribly off. What I had said is that it wasn't the government's place to tell the baker's that they were wrong, it was society's for the reason that being fined by the government doesn't make someone just go "Gee, I was dumb to discriminate against gays. I see why I was wrong." Society pointing out your ignorance and showing support to the couple *does*.

Then I continued to say that discrimination, no matter against who, is dumb. Including against concealed weapon holders.

If you actually read this thread, you'd also of picked up on the fact that I am not in favor of Zimmerman. I just see reasonable doubt in the fact that he should've been charged in that case.

But hey, I must just be a redneck racist gun toting republican/libertarian!

It's just hard to believe you aren't in favor of Zimmerman when you claim it's reasonable to defend him. And in another thread say that armed citizens would stop active shooter citizens. Instead of the reasonable assumption that they would instead turn it into a crossfired meatgrinder of chaos.

I am not one of those people that thinks 'taking away the guns!' is in away way a workable solution, btw. I think guns should be treated like cars; registered, forced to take classes, and if you mess up, you get it taken away.

 

[Big Baybee]

"Shit, I'm being followed."

And then, maybe, I don't know, go home. Lock the door. Call the police.

He had a cell phone on him. He was talking to a girl before the encounter. He hung up without there being any conflict with Zimmerman, but he noted that was being followed. Wouldn't that of been a good time to call the police? Maybe run in the *opposite* direction of Zimmerman?

In what world is it alright to just punch someone based off a perceived threat that the person is following you? It happens all the time when I'm on my way to work. Should I just punch everyone that is taking the same exact route to work? Sheesh.

GZ was not just merely following him. Trayvon took off running and GZ got out of his truck and ran after him. How is that not threatening behavior?

Trayvon was a kid, btw. Maybe in this stressful situation he wasn't thinking as clearly as he could. I'd be fucking scared at that age and some dude is just randomly chasing me.

 

[Jest Chillin]

But you have to support assaulting people with no good reason. Specially if it's a white person and you are a black person. You have to assault him don't you get it?

It's a pretty simple case, but people are too busy looking at skin colors and jumping through conclusions because they simple are racists.

( from what i recall of reading about it )

1) black dude walks on the streets
2) Zimmerman thinks he is the one that robbed a store and follows him to see where he's going
3) kid loses his mind and jumps on Zimmerman.
4) Zimmerman thinks he deals with a highly mentally unstable person that robs shops and probably has no regret of cutting him open. The fact that he jumps him already confirms it and shoots him ( because he has no clue how that night is going to end, talking about it when all events are set in stone is a hell lot more easier then when you are currently experiencing it )
5) court.

Massive group of black people jump forwards and support the victim because for the sole reason of him being black "racist much'.

But in the reality, the kid triggered the events that resulted in his own death.

Now Zimmerman was pulled in court. court decided he was free to go because there really wasn't much else then self defense in this case.

But some black people go ballistic because the guy is black. Or somehow they are totally for assaulting people when they move the same way as you.

A normal person would react in the following way:

1) see a dude walking my way
2) speed up walking to my home
3) lock the door + call the police.
4) police comes, talks with both party's and done deal.

But somehow he needed to assault this "evil white men" and ended up catching bullits from his gun.

Got a hint for people in general "don't assault people that have guns, that could go very very wrong".

If i was zimmermen i would still be in court today to sue every single party that placed any statement around me being a racist.

So many of these details are completely and utterly wrong it's actually amazing.

Unbiased facts of the case:

-Trayvon Martin was walking from a convenient store back to his Father's house, which is in the same gated community that Zimmerman lived.
-Zimmerman was on his way to a store, notices Trayvon walking with a hoodie on in the rain and thinks his pace and mannerisms are suspicious.
-Zimmerman passes Trayvon Martin in his car and pulls over. He then calls the Police.
-Trayvon walks past Zimmerman's vehicle. Still on the way home.
-Zimmerman begins to follow Trayvon in his car.
-Police operator informs Zimmerman that there's no need to follow Trayvon.
-Trayvon takes a walking path that travels in between houses.
-Zimmerman exits his vehicle and travels down the same path Trayvon followed.
-There is an altercation between Trayvon and Zimmerman during which Trayvon is shot and killed.

-Police at the crime scene violate several investigative rules including: Questioning Zimmerman before allowing him to tell his story, failing to check if Zimmerman had any prior record, and correcting witness statements.
-After the general details of the shooting were made public (Unarmed teenager on the way home from convenient store shot and killed in an altercation) there was a public outcry for a more thorough investigation and for charges to be filed.
-Sanford PD turns investigation over to the State Attorney's Office.
-46 days after the shooting, Zimmerman was officially charged with 2nd Degree Murder.


As for the trial details.. both sides presented evidence, however neither side was able to factually prove who initiated the confrontation or assault. The Not Guilty verdict only represents that the jury did not feel beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty of Second Degree Murder. It does not mean the jury believed every detail of Zimmerman's story. It does not mean that Zimmerman's story is the truth. It does not mean that Trayvon imitated an attack or confrontation.

 

[BeFlatLine]

It's just hard to believe you aren't in favor of Zimmerman when you claim it's reasonable to defend him. And in another thread say that armed citizens would stop active shooter citizens. Instead of the reasonable assumption that they would instead turn it into a crossfired meatgrinder of chaos.

I am not one of those people that thinks 'taking away the guns!' is in away way a workable solution, btw. I think guns should be treated like cars; registered, forced to take classes, and if you mess up, you get it taken away.

I'm defending the outcome of the trial. Not Zimmerman. He's far from a responsible gun owner. I hope he gets tagged, but until there's evidence, he's going to keep slipping through the cracks. It happens more than you'd like to know.

I've had the training required to carry in Pistol Free Zones. Well, the training required to carry in PFZs if I was in another state. It includes simunition training in the exact situations you've outlined. They don't turn into meatgrinders of chaos because you drill shoot and no shoot situations non-stop, with live role players. They disorientate you, blindfold you, and toss you into a situation with no previous knowledge of what's going on around you. You have seconds to determine threats (if there are any) and react. It's about as close to the actual situation you can get without actually killing someone.

I don't believe in registration, as it has lead to confiscation in a lot of instances. During Katrina, this actually took place in New Orleans. NY recently sent out notices for the same reason, and may actually be taking place in a forced confiscation soon (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/28/nyc-alarms-notice-immediately-surrender-your-rifle/).

I do agree with classes, and if you mess up, you should absolutely lose it. Having a wife that wants me to come home every night, and my field of work, I've taken it upon myself to spend more on training than my guns. The only reason my wife has agreed to allow me to continue with this line of work is due to the training. Assuming I continue to progress further, I should be able to carry in PFZs due to federal law in the near future. It's just disheartening that I will be able to, but those that trained me can't, despite their proficiency.

GZ was not just merely following him. Trayvon took off running and GZ got out of his truck and ran after him. How is that not threatening behavior?

Trayvon was a kid, btw. Maybe in this stressful situation he wasn't thinking as clearly as he could. I'd be fucking scared at that age and some dude is just randomly chasing me.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...n-martin-timeline-florida-shooting/54129274/1 - Look at this map, read the timestamps, and look at the distance (using the scale). Assuming Martin was walking at a low speed (3 mph, which is on the low end of a walking speed), he shouldn't of been where the shooting took place. Zimmerman would of needed to be right on top of him to catch him according to the timestamp and distance, or Trayvon had to backtrack. All in all, reasonable doubt.

It's a tragedy, because mistakes were probably made by both parties. At that age, I'd of been freaked out to. But I'd never straight up attack someone. I'd dial 911 immediately and get out of dodge.

 

[Gamerloid]

Did we ever find out the details about him being kicked out of college for being "a danger to the campus?" That's a very serious thing if you had to be thrown out for being dangerous when you're studying law. This man never needs to be in a position of power. Heck, he has enough power seeing that he keeps getting his charges dropped.

 

[User 100115]

I'm defending the outcome of the trial. Not Zimmerman. He's far from a responsible gun owner. I hope he gets tagged, but until there's evidence, he's going to keep slipping through the cracks. It happens more than you'd like to know.

I've had the training required to carry in Pistol Free Zones. Well, the training required to carry in PFZs if I was in another state. It includes simunition training in the exact situations you've outlined. They don't turn into meatgrinders of chaos because you drill shoot and no shoot situations non-stop, with live role players. They disorientate you, blindfold you, and toss you into a situation with no previous knowledge of what's going on around you. You have seconds to determine threats (if there are any) and react. It's about as close to the actual situation you can get without actually killing someone.

I don't believe in registration, as it has lead to confiscation in a lot of instances. During Katrina, this actually took place in New Orleans. NY recently sent out notices for the same reason, and may actually be taking place in a forced confiscation soon (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/28/nyc-alarms-notice-immediately-surrender-your-rifle/).

I do agree with classes, and if you mess up, you should absolutely lose it. Having a wife that wants me to come home every night, and my field of work, I've taken it upon myself to spend more on training than my guns. The only reason my wife has agreed to allow me to continue with this line of work is due to the training. Assuming I continue to progress further, I should be able to carry in PFZs due to federal law in the near future. It's just disheartening that I will be able to, but those that trained me can't, despite their proficiency.



http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...n-martin-timeline-florida-shooting/54129274/1 - Look at this map, read the timestamps, and look at the distance (using the scale). Assuming Martin was walking at a low speed (3 mph, which is on the low end of a walking speed), he shouldn't of been where the shooting took place. Zimmerman would of needed to be right on top of him to catch him according to the timestamp and distance, or Trayvon had to backtrack. All in all, reasonable doubt.

It's a tragedy, because mistakes were probably made by both parties. At that age, I'd of been freaked out to. But I'd never straight up attack someone. I'd dial 911 immediately and get out of dodge.

It's great that you've had training; I wish not everyone with a bit of money could pick up a weapon with no questions. That'd be amazing. But until we stop fetishizing guns and worshiping idiots like Zimmerman, any little tiny change to make things safer for everyone is going to be met with 'OMG THEY WANT TO TAKE ALL THE GUNS NO'.

The last part of your post, though, is again, assuming that Trayvon for some reason waited in the bushes and then jumped out and attacked Zimmerman. We have no idea if that actually happened. If we want to go by straight up evidence, at the end of the day, an innocent, unarmed child was shot and killed by someone who has a history of violence.

Also, you have to take into consideration Martin's mindset. He was a black teenager. Calling 911 is one of those things that is ingrained in a lot of black teens (hell, black adults even) as a Very Bad Thing To Do. Considering the history of the police force and black males, it's hard not to blame them. (I have no problem with cops, but it's hard to deny the history) And as a teen, I also wouldn't have wanted to lead a crazy stalker to my house.

Considering then, that Zimmerman is a 'gun fetishist' (I have no problem with gun owners, just the fetishists), has a history of violence, delusions of being a cop, etc, how is it unreasonable to assume that Zimmerman confronted Martin with his weapon visible, maybe even drawn, and that Martin felt the need to fight for his life? I just don't understand why you are so set on the belief that Martin hid and then jumped him. Especially considering who out of the two of them had an actual history of violence.

 

[vas_a_morir]

Did we ever find out the details about him being kicked out of college for being "a danger to the campus?" That's a very serious thing if you had to be thrown out for being dangerous when you're studying law. This man never needs to be in a position of power. Heck, he has enough power seeing that he keeps getting his charges dropped.

Media must be underreporting this. I have never heard this one. Was this before or after his unfortunate meeting with Trayvon Martin?

 

[Gamerloid]

Media must be underreporting this. I have never heard this one. Was this before or after his unfortunate meeting with Trayvon Martin?

Well I first read it here when he was found not guilty:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/14/george-zimmerman-law-school_n_3595945.html

It never did give an exact time for when he was kicked out, but now I see that it was due to the killing of Trayvon:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/23/trayvon-martin-shooting-g_n_1375357.html

I guess it was much harder to find with results giving out the court case.

 

[BeFlatLine]

Considering then, that Zimmerman is a 'gun fetishist' (I have no problem with gun owners, just the fetishists), has a history of violence, delusions of being a cop, etc, how is it unreasonable to assume that Zimmerman confronted Martin with his weapon visible, maybe even drawn, and that Martin felt the need to fight for his life? I just don't understand why you are so set on the belief that Martin hid and then jumped him. Especially considering who out of the two of them had an actual history of violence.

Oh, I'm not saying he jumped him at all. I'm saying he backtracked. Instead of continuing on his way (either at a walking speed or running), he had to of stopped dead in his tracks while out of site of Zimmerman, or turned around and went towards Zimmerman. Even if words were exchanged, unless Zimmerman attacked him, Trayvon should not of hit him. Even then though, you lose the case of "self defense" when you mount and pummel an aggressor, even in a Stand Your Ground state (from my understanding, at least). That is the fine line of self-defense and aggression that makes or breaks the reasonable doubt aspect. It's for that reason, I can't find Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There's too many options that could've happened.

Trust me, with all the negative press, I wish the prosecutors came up with a strong enough case to get rid of this guy. He's done nothing positive for the gun community at all.

In regards to the black community and the lack of wanting to call 911 or deal with the police . . . well, I'm in the Detroit area. It's far from the South. And we still have exactly what you're talking about going on, despite having a largely black police force and being far from the south. I think the "no snitching" mantra needs to end. The amount of rapes, car jackings, murders, robberies, hit and runs, and other crimes going on here *with* witnesses that refuse to talk is absolutely disparaging. I'd love to see that change. Justice isn't meant to be done vigilante style.

 

[Zuhzuhzombie!!]

I wish the prosecutors came up with a strong enough case to get rid of this guy.

Example of a prosecution seeking glory instead of doing their job. If they would have charged him with assault and manslaughter he'd most likely be in jail.

 

[Enzom21]

Your interpretation was horribly off. What I had said is that it wasn't the government's place to tell the baker's that they were wrong, it was society's for the reason that being fined by the government doesn't make someone just go "Gee, I was dumb to discriminate against gays. I see why I was wrong." Society pointing out your ignorance and showing support to the couple *does*.

Then I continued to say that discrimination, no matter against who, is dumb. Including against concealed weapon holders.

If you actually read this thread, you'd also of picked up on the fact that I am not in favor of Zimmerman. I just see reasonable doubt in the fact that he should've been charged in that case.

But hey, I must just be a redneck racist gun toting republican/libertarian!

His interpretation was completely correct.
You claimed that a business not wanting you in a store because you were carrying a weapon was just as bad as business refusing to serve someone based on their race or sexuality.

When everyone told you how ridiculous that was you threw in the bit about age discrimination... which is also pretty ridiculous.

So it's not surprising to him that you would be defending Zimmerman so vehemently considering you believe that being denied service for carrying a gun is the same as being denied service for one's race or sexuality.

 

[vas_a_morir]

Example of a prosecution seeking glory instead of doing their job. If they would have charged him with assault and manslaughter he'd most likely be in jail.

Most legal experts, even those who had dogged Zimmerman for months leading up to the trial, agreed that the same problems would arise with a manslaughter trial. No witnesses or proof that he did something criminally provocative. (for example, verbally threatening him with illegal life-threatening actions, pulling your gun on him)

BTW, saying Zimmerman had a 'history of violence' is a stretch, although I understand it is just a rhetorical argument. He has never been substantially proven to be violent, but rather has been accused of crimes that were later dropped. Likewise, Trayvon has been accused of burglary, possession of stolen property, breaking and entering, and use of illegal drugs, Yet, I don't think it would be fair to say "Trayvon had a history of crime." Do you? Those accusations unsubstantiated and unproven, and thus should not be considered when rendering a criminal verdict.

However, if you feel the now multiple accusations of domestic violence for Zimmerman lead you to your own personal conclusions of what kind of person he is, that's fine. To quote Cincinnati legend Katt Williams (about Michael Jackson and Whitney Houston), "Ain't nobody say the same shit about you 20 goddamn years. If somebody says you are smoking crack for 20 years, bitch you are smoking crack." Yet, I don't feel it should be discussed as relevant to obtaining a criminal conviction, as I'm not sure it could have been legally addressed in court anyway.

If was Zim, I'd just go solo for a while. At best, he picks terrible women. At worst, he's a timebomb waiting to explode and kill his SO.

 

[BeFlatLine]

His interpretation was completely correct.
You claimed that a business not wanting you in a store because you were carrying a weapon was just as bad as business refusing to serve someone based on their race or sexuality.

When everyone told you how ridiculous that was you threw in the bit about age discrimination... which is also pretty ridiculous.

So it's not surprising to him that you would be defending Zimmerman so vehemently considering you believe that being denied service for carrying a gun is the same as being denied service for one's race or sexuality.

My argument may not of been stated eloquently. I would never say being discriminated by race or sexual preference is on the same level as being discriminated against for carrying a weapon. The point was that it is not cool to be discriminated against. Period. Ginger, black, white, gun carrier, liberal, felon, single, whatever the reason, it's not cool. My apologies for not making the point eloquently and mincing the words a bit.

 

[ElFly]

Ginger, black, white, gun carrier, liberal, felon, single, whatever the reason, it's not cool.

One of these things is not like the other.

 

[vas_a_morir]

One of these things is not like the other.

Single. It's not a choice. Proof:

The simp gene is something you're born with. Nobody would choose this lifestyle if they had a choice.

 

[BHZ Mayor]

But you have to support assaulting people with no good reason. Specially if it's a white person and you are a black person. You have to assault him don't you get it?

It's a pretty simple case, but people are too busy looking at skin colors and jumping through conclusions because they simple are racists.

( from what i recall of reading about it )

1) black dude walks on the streets
2) Zimmerman thinks he is the one that robbed a store and follows him to see where he's going
3) kid loses his mind and jumps on Zimmerman.
4) Zimmerman thinks he deals with a highly mentally unstable person that robs shops and probably has no regret of cutting him open. The fact that he jumps him already confirms it and shoots him ( because he has no clue how that night is going to end, talking about it when all events are set in stone is a hell lot more easier then when you are currently experiencing it )
5) court.

Massive group of black people jump forwards and support the victim because for the sole reason of him being black "racist much'.

But in the reality, the kid triggered the events that resulted in his own death.

Now Zimmerman was pulled in court. court decided he was free to go because there really wasn't much else then self defense in this case.

But some black people go ballistic because the guy is black. Or somehow they are totally for assaulting people when they move the same way as you.

A normal person would react in the following way:

1) see a dude walking my way
2) speed up walking to my home
3) lock the door + call the police.
4) police comes, talks with both party's and done deal.

But somehow he needed to assault this "evil white men" and ended up catching bullits from his gun.

Got a hint for people in general "don't assault people that have guns, that could go very very wrong".

If i was zimmermen i would still be in court today to sue every single party that placed any statement around me being a racist.

I swear some of these Juniors have to be RacistGAF alts. There's no way there can be a constant flow of unique new posters spouting the same bullshit over and over again.

 

[vas_a_morir]

I swear some of these Juniors have to be RacistGAF alts. There's no way there can be a constant flow of unique new posters spouting the same bullshit over and over again.

You just snitched on yourself, bro. That's definitely what somebody with an Alt would say.

 

[Zuhzuhzombie!!]

No witnesses or proof that he did something criminally provocative. (for example, verbally threatening him with illegal life-threatening actions, pulling your gun on him)

Zimmerman getting out of his truck and following him is cut and dry assault.

 

[BHZ Mayor]

You just snitched on yourself, bro. That's definitely what somebody with an Alt would say.

Lol why u mad tho?

 

[Particle Physicist]

Likewise, Trayvon has been accused of burglary, possession of stolen property, breaking and entering, and use of illegal drugs,

When was this? I know at one point there was false rumors that he had burglary tools found on him after he was killed, but that turned out completely false. Is that what you are referring to?

 

[Mammoth Jones]

"Shit, I'm being followed."

And then, maybe, I don't know, go home. Lock the door. Call the police.

He had a cell phone on him. He was talking to a girl before the encounter. He hung up without there being any conflict with Zimmerman, but he noted that was being followed. Wouldn't that of been a good time to call the police? Maybe run in the *opposite* direction of Zimmerman?

In what world is it alright to just punch someone based off a perceived threat that the person is following you? It happens all the time when I'm on my way to work. Should I just punch everyone that is taking the same exact route to work? Sheesh.

Why is the assumption that Martin just cold-cocked Zimmerman first? What proof is there of that besides the word of the man that killed him and has every reason to alter the truth to save his own ass?

I'm not saying Martin didn't strike first. I'm just saying I don't know but it's hard for me to take someone with the background Zimmerman has at his word.

As far as Martin not calling the cops, either he panicked...which tends to happen when someone is chasing you down. Or like many people of color he doesn't want to make the situation worse by having cops involved.

Here's my question: Why is it socially acceptable to suspect a Black person you don't know of committing a crime just cause he walking down the street?

 

[empty vessel]

"Shit, I'm being followed."

And then, maybe, I don't know, go home. Lock the door. Call the police.

He had a cell phone on him. He was talking to a girl before the encounter. He hung up without there being any conflict with Zimmerman, but he noted that was being followed. Wouldn't that of been a good time to call the police? Maybe run in the *opposite* direction of Zimmerman?

You realize you are arguing for the repeal of stand of your ground laws, right?

In what world is it alright to just punch someone based off a perceived threat that the person is following you?

Florida.

Unless you're a black man.

 

[User 100115]

I love how everyone ignores the girlfriends testimony entirely.

 

[empty vessel]

I love how everyone ignores the girlfriends testimony entirely.

She's a black woman, so there's no need to seriously consider it.

 

[BeFlatLine]

Why is the assumption that Martin just cold-cocked Zimmerman first? What proof is there of that besides the word of the man that killed him and has every reason to alter the truth to save his own ass?

I'm not saying Martin didn't strike first. I'm just saying I don't know but it's hard for me to take someone with the background Zimmerman has at his word.

As far as Martin not calling the cops, either he panicked...which tends to happen when someone is chasing you down. Or like many people of color he doesn't want to make the situation worse by having cops involved.

Here's my question: Why is it socially acceptable to suspect a Black person you don't know of committing a crime just cause he walking down the street?

They both have backgrounds. I don't assume he just outright cold clocked him. I assume he punched him based off the physical evidence and eyewitness testimony. Did it happen after a tussel? Could Zimmerman of tried to grab Martin? Quite possibly. It doesn't excuse the pummeling from on top though.

Every time I get into this discussion, the response I get by someone is "It's perfectly fine to punch someone if you feel threatened! And even if it's wrong, it's not a reason to die for!". It makes me worry about humanity when that's what people consider is a "fine" thing to do, instead of saying "Hey, what's up?".

You realize you are arguing for the repeal of stand of your ground laws, right?

Unless the "Stand Your Ground" law differs hugely from my local ones in Michigan, I'm not arguing to repeal them. I'm no lawyer, but I don't know of any place where it's legal to attack someone for following you.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

But you have to support assaulting people with no good reason. Specially if it's a white person and you are a black person. You have to assault him don't you get it?

It's a pretty simple case, but people are too busy looking at skin colors and jumping through conclusions because they simple are racists.

Ah, the old "If you notice racism then you're racist" bullshit.

( from what i recall of reading about it )

1) black dude walks on the streets
2) Zimmerman thinks he is the one that robbed a store and follows him to see where he's going
3) kid loses his mind and jumps on Zimmerman.
4) Zimmerman thinks he deals with a highly mentally unstable person that robs shops and probably has no regret of cutting him open. The fact that he jumps him already confirms it and shoots him ( because he has no clue how that night is going to end, talking about it when all events are set in stone is a hell lot more easier then when you are currently experiencing it )
5) court.

#2 - Wrong. Zimmerman thought he was suspicious because some Black dudes allegedly broke into some houses in the area. Then sees Martin and automatically assumes he's a suspicious threat 100% purely due to his outwardly appearance.

Massive group of black people jump forwards and support the victim because for the sole reason of him being black "racist much'.

This is just plain ignorant and I implore you to read some history about shit like this. There's a reason this touches a nerve with Black folk and it's not that we're racists. So please stop with that bullshit. You really trying to say Black people are racist for protesting a Black kid getting shot because he had the unmitigated gall to walk in a gated community minding his business?

But in the reality, the kid triggered the events that resulted in his own death.

In reality, George Zimmerman appointed himself neighborhood watch. Not neighborhood confronter. Look up the charter of any legitimate neighborhood watch program and they all state their goal is to watch and inform the police if they see anything. Not to go and confront and ask what a person is doing here.

Now Zimmerman was pulled in court. court decided he was free to go because there really wasn't much else then self defense in this case.

They let him go because it was a stacked jury full of people most likelly to have a deep seeded fear of Black people. Not to mention this atrocious prosecution.

But some black people go ballistic because the guy is black. Or somehow they are totally for assaulting people when they move the same way as you.

Let me put it to you like this: Your daughter is walking home and she calls you telling you a man is following her. First in his car, then on foot? Are you going to just tell her to shut up and it's that dudes right to walk wherever he wants? Give me a break. George Zimmerman painted himself as a false authority figure that just assumed he could go around and demand to know what someone is doing.

A normal person would react in the following way:

1) see a dude walking my way
2) speed up walking to my home
3) lock the door + call the police.
4) police comes, talks with both party's and done deal.

But somehow he needed to assault this "evil white men" and ended up catching bullits from his gun.

Got a hint for people in general "don't assault people that have guns, that could go very very wrong".

If i was zimmermen i would still be in court today to sue every single party that placed any statement around me being a racist.

Once again, why do you assume Zimmerman's versions of events is the accurate one? Why is that? Why do you assume the Black kid just went full blown crazed and became immediately violent? We don't know. So it comes down to character. Which one has the violent history? Temper issues? Restraining orders?

 

[Timedog]

You realize you are arguing for the repeal of stand of your ground laws, right?



Florida.

Unless you're a black man.

lol, ownage.

 

[Kettch]

"Shit, I'm being followed."

And then, maybe, I don't know, go home. Lock the door. Call the police.

He had a cell phone on him. He was talking to a girl before the encounter. He hung up without there being any conflict with Zimmerman, but he noted that was being followed. Wouldn't that of been a good time to call the police? Maybe run in the *opposite* direction of Zimmerman?

In what world is it alright to just punch someone based off a perceived threat that the person is following you? It happens all the time when I'm on my way to work. Should I just punch everyone that is taking the same exact route to work? Sheesh.

Witness testimony:

She said that Martin told her that a man was watching him from his vehicle while talking on the phone before the man started following Martin. Martin told his friend at one point that he had lost the man but the man suddenly appeared again. The friend, originally known only as "Witness 8" (now known as Rachel Jeantel), said that she told Martin to run to the townhouse where he was staying with his father and the father's fiancée. She then heard Martin say, "What are you following me for?" followed by a man's voice responding, "What are you doing around here?" She testified that she then heard what sounded like Martin's phone earpiece dropping into wet grass, and she heard the sound of Martin's voice saying "Get off! Get off!" The phone then went dead, she said: "I was trying to say Trayvon, Trayvon, what's going on," Jeantel testified. "I started hearing a little of Trayvon saying 'Get off, get off,'" when the phone went silent.

Yeah, why did he "hang up"?

 

[Dubbmobile]

They both have backgrounds. I don't assume he just outright cold clocked him. I assume he punched him based off the physical evidence and eyewitness testimony. Did it happen after a tussel? Could Zimmerman of tried to grab Martin? Quite possibly. It doesn't excuse the pummeling from on top though.

Every time I get into this discussion, the response I get by someone is "It's perfectly fine to punch someone if you feel threatened! And even if it's wrong, it's not a reason to die for!". It makes me worry about humanity when that's what people consider is a "fine" thing to do, instead of saying "Hey, what's up?".

But we don't know if that happened or not right? He might have done that.

And you would let a stranger that you don't know, grab you and detain you, take you off to god who knows where and not fight back? Going by one of your examples, If someone that I didn't know grabbed me against my will they are probably getting punched. I think that is a perfectly normal reaction.

 

[BeFlatLine]

Witness testimony:

Yeah, why did he "hang up"?

Good point. Interesting point. I'll let her testimony with cross examination go over what you said:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-witness-threw-punch/story?id=19504826

But we don't know if that happened or not right? He might have done that.

And you would let a stranger that you don't know, grab you and detain you, take you off to god who knows where and not fight back? Going by one of your examples, If someone that I didn't know grabbed me against my will they are probably getting punched. I think that is a perfectly normal reaction.

Punched, but not mounted and pummeled. Multiple eyewitnesses from a distance stated they saw one man on top of the other, pummeling the other with MMA styled punches. They could not identify who was doing this, but when you throw in the evidence of who had physical wounds consistent with being on the receiving end and being on the bottom, it becomes reasonable to think Zimmerman was on the bottom.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

They both have backgrounds. I don't assume he just outright cold clocked him. I assume he punched him based off the physical evidence and eyewitness testimony.

What background did Martin have? He smoked weed? Took some shitty pics for instagram? What background? He got suspended from school? What background did he have that's on the same level as getting arrested for resisting arrest and assaulting a cop, restraining orders from domestic violence and having a history of having temper issues?

What physical evidence and eyewitness testimony (other that Zimmerman) is there that conclusively determined who made first contact with who?

Did it happen after a tussel? Could Zimmerman of tried to grab Martin? Quite possibly. It doesn't excuse the pummeling from on top though.

*If* someone tries to grab you then you have a right to defend yourself. The fuck are you talking about? We don't know. We don't know if Zim had the gun already out and was brandishing. We don't know if he got RIGHT in his face and tried that type of intimidation. We don't know if he was shoved. But what bugs me is people try to go out of their way to paint this kid as someone that just SNAPPED when nice ole Ned Flanders walked on by to make sure everything is okiley-dokiley

Every time I get into this discussion, the response I get by someone is "It's perfectly fine to punch someone if you feel threatened! And even if it's wrong, it's not a reason to die for!". It makes me worry about humanity when that's what people consider is a "fine" thing to do, instead of saying "Hey, what's up?".

You know what makes me worry? When people forget that the ONLY reason Zimmerman found Martin suspicious is because he was Black. That's it. Fuck that "Oh, he had a hoodie". "Oh, he was looking at houses". He saw an unknown Black male and immediately went in. Why is that? Why don't people on your side of the argument EVER acknowledge that? It's always casually glossed over in conversation when it's crucial to understanding the events and motivation of that night.

Unless the "Stand Your Ground" law differs hugely from my local ones in Michigan, I'm not arguing to repeal them. I'm no lawyer, but I don't know of any place where it's legal to attack someone for following you.

If they put their hands on you and attempt to illegally detain you because they think the color of their skin compared to yours gives them some magical authority then you have as much of a right to stand your ground as they do.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I love how everyone ignores the girlfriends testimony entirely.

They thought she was not credible. Which is bullshit. Why the fuck would she lie yet admit Trayvon used the word "cracka"? Why would she lie to protect her friend but then say shit on the stand to make him look bad?

 

[Kettch]

Good point. Interesting point. I'll let her testimony with cross examination go over what you said:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-witness-threw-punch/story?id=19504826

You stated that Martin hung up on her before the altercation. That is factually wrong. I assume you are retracting that post?

 

[User 100115]

Good point. Interesting point. I'll let her testimony with cross examination go over what you said:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-witness-threw-punch/story?id=19504826



Punched, but not mounted and pummeled. Multiple eyewitnesses from a distance stated they saw one man on top of the other, pummeling the other with MMA styled punches. They could not identify who was doing this, but when you throw in the evidence of who had physical wounds consistent with being on the receiving end and being on the bottom, it becomes reasonable to think Zimmerman was on the bottom.

Multiple witnesses? I don't recall that.

Also, it's funny considering who had MMA training and who didn't. And again, Martin's not allowed to defend himself if he feared for his life? Which turns out, was a totally justifiable fear?

They thought she was not credible. Which is bullshit. Why the fuck would she lie yet admit Trayvon used the word "cracka"? Why would she lie to protect her friend but then say shit on the stand to make him look bad?

The only evidence and testimony that matters is the stuff that corroborates Zimmerman's story(s). Everything else is lies.

 

[YoungHav]

Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't Zimmerman grab Trayvon? Didn't Trayvon say Get off me?

 

[BeFlatLine]

What background did Martin have? He smoked weed? Took some shitty pics for instagram? What background? He got suspended from school? What background did he have that's on the same level as getting arrested for resisting arrest and assaulting a cop, restraining orders from domestic violence and having a history of having temper issues?

A history of fighting, as described from his own cell phone and friends statements? Enough of a background that when combined with other details in the case, cast enough reasonable doubt to cause a not guilty verdict to go through?

What physical evidence and eyewitness testimony (other that Zimmerman) is there that conclusively determined who made first contact with who?

There is none. Which doesn't help dispel "Reasonable Doubt".

*If* someone tries to grab you then you have a right to defend yourself. The fuck are you talking about? We don't know. We don't know if Zim had the gun already out and was brandishing. We don't know if he got RIGHT in his face and tried that type of intimidation. We don't know if he was shoved. But what bugs me is people try to go out of their way to paint this kid as someone that just SNAPPED when nice ole Ned Flanders walked on by to make sure everything is okiley-dokiley

You act like I'm characterizing Zimmerman as a saint. You do realize the only defense I've given is a lack of evidence to prove him guilty, right? Enough to dispel reasonable doubt?

You know what makes me worry? When people forget that the ONLY reason Zimmerman found Martin suspicious is because he was Black. That's it. Fuck that "Oh, he had a hoodie". "Oh, he was looking at houses". He saw an unknown Black male and immediately went in. Why is that? Why don't people on your side of the argument EVER acknowledge that? It's always casually glossed over in conversation when it's crucial to understanding the events and motivation of that night.

Let's say he is racist. Can you prove it? Can you dispel reasonable doubt? Can you show that he targeted him ONLY because he's black? There were 46 911 calls present that Zimmerman had placed (Details of calls here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...an-s-history-of-911-calls-a-complete-log.html) that were logged as evidence. Of those, at most (assuming my counting is right), there were 9 involving those described as black.

If they put their hands on you and attempt to illegally detain you because they think the color of their skin compared to yours gives them some magical authority then you have as much of a right to stand your ground as they do.

This is true. With reasonable force based off the situation. If a person grabs you, you don't get to pummel them on the ground and claim "Stand Your Ground" though. Based off the lack of defensive wounds on Martin (minus the singular gunshot wound), it doesn't appear more than a tussel took place.

You stated that Martin hung up on her before the altercation. That is factually wrong. I assume you are retracting that post?

Correct, I retract that point of hanging up. I was going off memory, not cited sources. It still stands that it is not known who threw the first punch.

Also, it's funny considering who had MMA training and who didn't. And again, Martin's not allowed to defend himself if he feared for his life? Which turns out, was a totally justifiable fear?

Last time I spoke to a lawyer on self-defense, it was stated that there's a fine line between self-defense and assault. Continuing an attack while you are on top is considered assault, and no longer self-defense. This may differ in Florida. Either way, without proof of who started the altercation, there is still reasonable doubt.

 

[inm8num2]

George Zimmerman is the perfect counter argument to the concept of karma.