Michael Brown v. Trayvon Martin

[The Rabbi]

again zero evidence...

You need to learn the meaning of the word evidence.

you need to learn one sided story, and how there was zero evidence Martin jumped Zimmerman. You have a better case to say Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked, pulled a gun and killed Martin.

again for the 300th time because you people are moron and deserve to be thrown in a volcano. After Zimmerman hangs up with 911, nobody knows what happens. Now because you happen to think Zimmerman was right and it helps your bias. you decide Zimmermans testimony is all you need.

Like i said. You are a hack moron, who thinks he is always right.

When you disagree with me I know I am right.
The story was pretty consistent. It was consistent with the observable facts. It was consistent with the eyewitness testimony such as it was. The police on the scene were convinced of it.
SO all you have is your own bias against white police to back you up. No evidence. No arguments. Nothing. Just a lot of bullshit. IOW, yet more posts from the dick.

 

[The Rabbi]

There was no evidence that shows how the fight started. The jury had to make a verdict. I think it is possible that Zimmerman killed Martin because he was over powered and got his ass kicked. However I also think Zimmerman's completely unnecessary gun is what ultimately provoked the fight. Self defense or not, it was completely idiotic Zimmerman had a gun to begin with. That's what makes him a douchebag.

I have no idea why you are bringing up this recent case. I already said I am giving the cop the benefit of the doubt.

I didn't bring it up. the OP did. If GZ did not have a gun, he would be dead, and the story would never have made the national news.

liberalism and racism are partners in the destruction of the USA.

You don't know that. You are making assumptions based on no evidence. Tell me what would you do if you were walking to your relative's house and a random guy in civilian clothing came up to you with a gun to confront you for no legitimate reason?

There's that low information narrative cropping up.
There is no evidence anything remotely like that happened.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

I don't see how they are comparable.

First off Martin was clearly self defense from the story of the only eye witness. And it didn't involve police officers.

Second, Brown is not clearly self defense from the multiple eye witnesses. It may be if the facts are significantly different than what has been reported. Precisely why we need an investigation. this case does involve police officers.

Let the investigation be conducted and then let's make decisions based on facts.

Trayvon doesn't have the right to defend himself from armed stalkers?

You mean George Zimmerman doesn't have the right to defend against a stalker?

 

[Zmrzlina]

I don't see how they are comparable.

First off Martin was clearly self defense from the story of the only eye witness. And it didn't involve police officers.

Second, Brown is not clearly self defense from the multiple eye witnesses. It may be if the facts are significantly different than what has been reported. Precisely why we need an investigation. this case does involve police officers.

Let the investigation be conducted and then let's make decisions based on facts.

Trayvon doesn't have the right to defend himself from armed stalkers?

Jumping a man walking back to his car and beating him against the cement is hardly defending oneself against armed stalkers.

First that is Zimmerman's account of how things went down. Regardless, I believe you have a right to use force to defend yourself against people who are stalking you. So yes you are admitting a double standard where the adult with a gun has a greater right to self defense than the unarmed minor.

 

[RKMBrown]

I don't see how they are comparable.

First off Martin was clearly self defense from the story of the only eye witness. And it didn't involve police officers.

Second, Brown is not clearly self defense from the multiple eye witnesses. It may be if the facts are significantly different than what has been reported. Precisely why we need an investigation. this case does involve police officers.

Let the investigation be conducted and then let's make decisions based on facts.

Trayvon doesn't have the right to defend himself from armed stalkers?

You mean George Zimmerman doesn't have the right to defend against a stalker?

George followed the boy, first by car, then by foot, not the other way around.

 

[Zmrzlina]

I don't see how they are comparable.

First off Martin was clearly self defense from the story of the only eye witness. And it didn't involve police officers.

Second, Brown is not clearly self defense from the multiple eye witnesses. It may be if the facts are significantly different than what has been reported. Precisely why we need an investigation. this case does involve police officers.

Let the investigation be conducted and then let's make decisions based on facts.

Trayvon doesn't have the right to defend himself from armed stalkers?

You mean George Zimmerman doesn't have the right to defend against a stalker?

No, Zimmerman doesn't have the right to stalk minors or anyone for that matter.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

See. THeres the narrative kicking in, despite the evidence nd facts.

How do you know Martin didn't throw the first punch because Zimmerman drew his gun? No of course you don't consider that because in your mind he was a dumb ****** who had it coming.

The jury had all of the evidence, the jury found GZ not guilty--------------------its over.

How about if we wait for the trial on the current case? If the cop is guilty, lock him up for life or execute him. If it was self defense, set him free.

thats why we have a court system and juries.

Let me ask you, would this be a story if the cop was black?

why should there be a trial? The cop was doing his job.

 

[RKMBrown]

How do you know Martin didn't throw the first punch because Zimmerman drew his gun? No of course you don't consider that because in your mind he was a dumb ****** who had it coming.

The jury had all of the evidence, the jury found GZ not guilty--------------------its over.

How about if we wait for the trial on the current case? If the cop is guilty, lock him up for life or execute him. If it was self defense, set him free.

thats why we have a court system and juries.

Let me ask you, would this be a story if the cop was black?

why should there be a trial? The cop was doing his job.

His job was protecting people, not killing them.

 

[The Rabbi]

Trayvon doesn't have the right to defend himself from armed stalkers?

Jumping a man walking back to his car and beating him against the cement is hardly defending oneself against armed stalkers.

First that is Zimmerman's account of how things went down. Regardless, I believe you have a right to use force to defend yourself against people who are stalking you. So yes you are admitting a double standard where the adult with a gun has a greater right to self defense than the unarmed minor.

There is no other account so Zimmerman's stands.
I dont care what you believe. You are simply wrong on the facts. You do not have the right to shoot people stalking you.

 

[Zmrzlina]

I don't see how they are comparable.

First off Martin was clearly self defense from the story of the only eye witness. And it didn't involve police officers.

Second, Brown is not clearly self defense from the multiple eye witnesses. It may be if the facts are significantly different than what has been reported. Precisely why we need an investigation. this case does involve police officers.

Let the investigation be conducted and then let's make decisions based on facts.

Trayvon doesn't have the right to defend himself from armed stalkers?

Wow, bingo. The low information crowd chimes in.

What do you mean low information? I'm not the one that extracts all context from the situation and looks at a single snapshot in time when Trayvon had the upper-hand. I look at the big picture when a adult is breaking the law and stalking a minor. Do you know that for a police officer to detain someone they have to have reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) that a crime has been committed or is currently being committed by the suspect. I'll clear this up for you, having similar melanin content in your skin as a suspect is not legitimate RAS. RAS only applies to police encounters and Zimmerman was not a police officer therefore under the law he was stalking a minor. That minor had ever right to use force to defend himself.

 

[The Rabbi]

Trayvon doesn't have the right to defend himself from armed stalkers?

You mean George Zimmerman doesn't have the right to defend against a stalker?

George followed the boy, first by car, then by foot, not the other way around.

Following someone isnt putting them in fear of imminent death or severe bodily harm.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Why are the protesters standing around and marching with their arms up in the air?

International sign for don't shoot me.

. Peacefully marching is legal here. The don't Need to raise the arms.

 

[The Rabbi]

Trayvon doesn't have the right to defend himself from armed stalkers?

Wow, bingo. The low information crowd chimes in.

What do you mean low information? I'm not the one that extracts all context from the situation and looks at a single snapshot in time when Trayvon had the upper-hand. I look at the big picture when a adult is breaking the law and stalking a minor. Do you know that for a police officer to detain someone they have to have reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed or is currently being committed by the suspect. I'll clear this up for you, having similar melanin content in your skin as a suspect is not legitimate RAS. RAS only applies to police encounters, Zimmerman was stalking a minor. That minor had ever right to use force to defend himself.

Zimmerman was breaking no laws. He was not stalking anyone. Zimmerman didnt detain anyone. You are simply making it up.
The relevant question is whether Zimmerman was reasonably in fear of his life when he shot. The answer is yes. Zimmerman was not guilty by reason of self defense.
You are a low information poster. You dont know what self defense law is all about. I'd suggest getting some education on it before posting so you dont look like an idiot.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Trayvon doesn't have the right to defend himself from armed stalkers?

You mean George Zimmerman doesn't have the right to defend against a stalker?

No, Zimmerman doesn't have the right to stalk minors or anyone for that matter.

I think you confused the names again.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

The jury had all of the evidence, the jury found GZ not guilty--------------------its over.

How about if we wait for the trial on the current case? If the cop is guilty, lock him up for life or execute him. If it was self defense, set him free.

thats why we have a court system and juries.

Let me ask you, would this be a story if the cop was black?

why should there be a trial? The cop was doing his job.

His job was protecting people, not killing them.

Did you see that crushing blow to the neck of tiny store owner by this so-called child prior his belligerent action toward the policeman?

 

[RKMBrown]

You mean George Zimmerman doesn't have the right to defend against a stalker?

George followed the boy, first by car, then by foot, not the other way around.

Following someone isnt putting them in fear of imminent death or severe bodily harm.

When it's for as long as it was, and it continues on to your home. Yes, it is. You follow me to my door step, I'm gonna confront you. You reach for your gun I'm gonna punch your lights out or shoot you plain as day.

 

[Zmrzlina]

Wow, bingo. The low information crowd chimes in.

What do you mean low information? I'm not the one that extracts all context from the situation and looks at a single snapshot in time when Trayvon had the upper-hand. I look at the big picture when a adult is breaking the law and stalking a minor. Do you know that for a police officer to detain someone they have to have reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed or is currently being committed by the suspect. I'll clear this up for you, having similar melanin content in your skin as a suspect is not legitimate RAS. RAS only applies to police encounters, Zimmerman was stalking a minor. That minor had ever right to use force to defend himself.

Zimmerman was breaking no laws. He was not stalking anyone. Zimmerman didnt detain anyone. You are simply making it up.
The relevant question is whether Zimmerman was reasonably in fear of his life when he shot. The answer is yes. Zimmerman was not guilty by reason of self defense.
You are a low information poster. You dont know what self defense law is all about. I'd suggest getting some education on it before posting so you dont look like an idiot.

He wasn't charged with stalking but his behavior met the legal definition of stalking. Adults are not allowed to follow minors or anyone for that matter.

 

[The Rabbi]

George followed the boy, first by car, then by foot, not the other way around.

Following someone isnt putting them in fear of imminent death or severe bodily harm.

When it's for as long as it was, and it continues on to your home. Yes, it is. You follow me to my door step, I'm gonna confront you. You reach for your gun I'm gonna punch your lights out or shoot you plain as day.

No it isnt. I'd suggest you're ill informed. I am perfectly able to follow you on public property and if you confront me you put me in fear of death and I'll shoot your ass.

 

[The Rabbi]

What do you mean low information? I'm not the one that extracts all context from the situation and looks at a single snapshot in time when Trayvon had the upper-hand. I look at the big picture when a adult is breaking the law and stalking a minor. Do you know that for a police officer to detain someone they have to have reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed or is currently being committed by the suspect. I'll clear this up for you, having similar melanin content in your skin as a suspect is not legitimate RAS. RAS only applies to police encounters, Zimmerman was stalking a minor. That minor had ever right to use force to defend himself.

Zimmerman was breaking no laws. He was not stalking anyone. Zimmerman didnt detain anyone. You are simply making it up.
The relevant question is whether Zimmerman was reasonably in fear of his life when he shot. The answer is yes. Zimmerman was not guilty by reason of self defense.
You are a low information poster. You dont know what self defense law is all about. I'd suggest getting some education on it before posting so you dont look like an idiot.

Just because he wasn't charged with stalking doesn't mean his behavior didn't meet the legal definition of stalking, which it did.

No it didnt.
You're making more stuff up.

 

[RKMBrown]

why should there be a trial? The cop was doing his job.

His job was protecting people, not killing them.

Did you see that crushing blow to the neck of tiny store owner by this so-called child?

Crush blow? I saw some vague video of a fat guy in a white-t barely flexing/leaning toward some bald guy that then backed up. I assume the bald guy was the shop owner challenging the fat guy about something.

Now we kill people for flexing?