Michael Brown v. Trayvon Martin

[Billy000]

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.

Um no those are the facts. He was on his way to a house in the neighborhood that welcomed him there. He got followed for no good reason.

 

[Zmrzlina]

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.

18 USCS § 2261A. Stalking. (2013)
Whoever--
(1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce or is present within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or enters or leaves Indian country, with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, and in the course of, or as a result of, such travel or presence engages in conduct that--

(A) places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to--

(i) that person;

(ii) an immediate family member (as defined in section 115) of that person; or

(iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person; or

(B) causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A); or

(2) with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, uses the mail, any interactive computer service or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that--

(A) places that person in reasonable fear of the death of or serious bodily injury to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (1)(A); or

(B) causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (1)(A),

shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b) of this title.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Not sure what is confusing you. You follow me in your car as I'm walking home, then illegally park your car, get out of your car and follow me all the way to my home, I'm going to challenge you. You reach for your gun I'm gonna punch your lights out or shoot you plain as day. I don't care whether or not you think you are justified to stalk me in that fashion. One of three things are gonna happen. You're gonna back off and explain yourself or I'm gonna go inside and call the cops if you just stand there like the stalker you are. If however you reach into your pocket when I confront you I'm gonna put you down one way or the other.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

18 USCS § 2261A. Stalking. (2013)
Whoever--
(1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce or is present within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or enters or leaves Indian country, with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, and in the course of, or as a result of, such travel or presence engages in conduct that--

(A) places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to--

(i) that person;

(ii) an immediate family member (as defined in section 115) of that person; or

(iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person; or

(B) causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A); or

(2) with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, uses the mail, any interactive computer service or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that--

(A) places that person in reasonable fear of the death of or serious bodily injury to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (1)(A); or

(B) causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (1)(A),

shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b) of this title.

Thanks. Yes, nothing in there remotely describes what Zimmerman was doing, which is more accurately termed keeping an eye on him. You've proven my point.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Not sure what is confusing you. You follow me in your car as I'm walking home, then illegally park your car, get out of your car and follow me all the way to my home, I'm going to challenge you. You reach for your gun I'm gonna punch your lights out or shoot you plain as day. I don't care whether or not you think you are justified to stalk me in that fashion. One of three things are gonna happen. You're gonna back off and explain yourself or I'm gonna go inside and call the cops if you just stand there like the stalker you are. If however you reach into your pocket when I confront you I'm gonna put you down one way or the other.

You again are misinformed. I am free to follow anyone on public property. You walk up your walkway and if I follow I am trespassing. As long as I don't demonstrate intent to harm I have done nothing illegal. If you demonstrate intent to harm then I am justified in capping your cracka azz.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Not sure what is confusing you. You follow me in your car as I'm walking home, then illegally park your car, get out of your car and follow me all the way to my home, I'm going to challenge you. You reach for your gun I'm gonna punch your lights out or shoot you plain as day. I don't care whether or not you think you are justified to stalk me in that fashion. One of three things are gonna happen. You're gonna back off and explain yourself or I'm gonna go inside and call the cops if you just stand there like the stalker you are. If however you reach into your pocket when I confront you I'm gonna put you down one way or the other.

You again are misinformed. I am free to follow anyone on public property. You walk up your walkway and if I follow I am trespassing. As long as I don't demonstrate intent to harm I have done nothing illegal. If you demonstrate intent to harm then I am justified in capping your cracka azz.

No, I'm not misinformed. You don't seem to understand. You stalk me to my house and reach for your gun I'm gonna shoot your stalking ass.

 

[The Rabbi]

Not sure what is confusing you. You follow me in your car as I'm walking home, then illegally park your car, get out of your car and follow me all the way to my home, I'm going to challenge you. You reach for your gun I'm gonna punch your lights out or shoot you plain as day. I don't care whether or not you think you are justified to stalk me in that fashion. One of three things are gonna happen. You're gonna back off and explain yourself or I'm gonna go inside and call the cops if you just stand there like the stalker you are. If however you reach into your pocket when I confront you I'm gonna put you down one way or the other.

You again are misinformed. I am free to follow anyone on public property. You walk up your walkway and if I follow I am trespassing. As long as I don't demonstrate intent to harm I have done nothing illegal. If you demonstrate intent to harm then I am justified in capping your cracka azz.

No, I'm not misinformed. You don't seem to understand. You stalk me to my house and reach for your gun I'm gonna shoot your stalking ass.

So now you've distorted the situation. Do you do this intentionally or do you honestly not realize you're lying?

 

[RKMBrown]

You again are misinformed. I am free to follow anyone on public property. You walk up your walkway and if I follow I am trespassing. As long as I don't demonstrate intent to harm I have done nothing illegal. If you demonstrate intent to harm then I am justified in capping your cracka azz.

No, I'm not misinformed. You don't seem to understand. You stalk me to my house and reach for your gun I'm gonna shoot your stalking ass.

So now you've distorted the situation. Do you do this intentionally or do you honestly not realize you're lying?

You're a lying POS ass hole that can't read. Get some new glasses ya old fart.

 

[Mr. H.]

What.....

sphinctersaywhat?

you are a moron

That's MISTER moron to you, bub.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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.

Not sure what is confusing you. You follow me in your car as I'm walking home, then illegally park your car, get out of your car and follow me all the way to my home, I'm going to challenge you. You reach for your gun I'm gonna punch your lights out or shoot you plain as day. I don't care whether or not you think you are justified to stalk me in that fashion. One of three things are gonna happen. You're gonna back off and explain yourself or I'm gonna go inside and call the cops if you just stand there like the stalker you are. If however you reach into your pocket when I confront you I'm gonna put you down one way or the other.

That's not stalking.

 

[bianco]

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.

"Stop or I'll shoot"

 

[Agit8r]

Well, in both cases an armed person initiated an unnecessary confrontation, shot an unarmed person, and then expects people to believe that it was necessary.

 

[Zmrzlina]

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.

Not sure what is confusing you. You follow me in your car as I'm walking home, then illegally park your car, get out of your car and follow me all the way to my home, I'm going to challenge you. You reach for your gun I'm gonna punch your lights out or shoot you plain as day. I don't care whether or not you think you are justified to stalk me in that fashion. One of three things are gonna happen. You're gonna back off and explain yourself or I'm gonna go inside and call the cops if you just stand there like the stalker you are. If however you reach into your pocket when I confront you I'm gonna put you down one way or the other.

You again are misinformed. I am free to follow anyone on public property. You walk up your walkway and if I follow I am trespassing. As long as I don't demonstrate intent to harm I have done nothing illegal. If you demonstrate intent to harm then I am justified in capping your cracka azz.

You are going to have a fun time explaining your actions to the police.

 

[Noomi]

Some people have already made this comparison. But the only real point of comparison is that once the media established a narrative, facts don't matter. Here the narrative is that some cop shot Brown because...well for no reason at all. In Martn's case some white Hispanic guy shot Martin because he didnt like the looks of him. Both narratives are completely wrong, not even believable. But it doesnt matter. People will insist those are the true accounts and they will dismiss, or rationalize away any contrary evidence.

The fact of the matter is that in both cases, both teenagers were unarmed.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, I'm not misinformed. You don't seem to understand. You stalk me to my house and reach for your gun I'm gonna shoot your stalking ass.

So now you've distorted the situation. Do you do this intentionally or do you honestly not realize you're lying?

You're a lying POS ass hole that can't read. Get some new glasses ya old fart.

You distort my post and claim I can't read? No. You are the problem. You cannot read something and draw reasonable inferences from it, or repeat it accurately. This marks you as having inferior intelligence.

 

[The Rabbi]

Some people have already made this comparison. But the only real point of comparison is that once the media established a narrative, facts don't matter. Here the narrative is that some cop shot Brown because...well for no reason at all. In Martn's case some white Hispanic guy shot Martin because he didnt like the looks of him. Both narratives are completely wrong, not even believable. But it doesnt matter. People will insist those are the true accounts and they will dismiss, or rationalize away any contrary evidence.

The fact of the matter is that in both cases, both teenagers were unarmed.

That is actually not a fact at all. Nor is it especially relevant in isolation.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, in both cases an armed person initiated an unnecessary confrontation, shot an unarmed person, and then expects people to believe that it was necessary.

Its that low information thing coming out again.

What is it about people they cannot think for themselves, look at evidence and make reasonable deductions as to what happened? Stupid? Blind? Lazy? I dunno.

 

[MaryL]

Legally? I have, unfortunately, experienced blacks making false allegations of racism, perjury and it was a fact. And they do it far more than we let on here. Generally, blacks love to stir up racial animosity. And that is the major factor that makes me doubt racism is even real, to begin with. Or if it IS, blacks are so filled with it, they can't see the forest for the trees. Makes the boy that cried wolf look pretty lame about now.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Important lesson - Liberals are slippery beasts and are not constrained by logic.

When the Trayvon circus was playing out the standard liberal complaint was the Zimmerman was not a cop and shouldn't have engaged Trayvon.

Now with this Brown fiasco a cop did engage Brown and this is making liberals froth at the mouth and howl at the moon.

You can't make them happy - they're mad when a citizen, instead of a cop, takes down a hood rat and they're mad when a cop does the same.

 

[RKMBrown]

So now you've distorted the situation. Do you do this intentionally or do you honestly not realize you're lying?

You're a lying POS ass hole that can't read. Get some new glasses ya old fart.

You distort my post and claim I can't read? No. You are the problem. You cannot read something and draw reasonable inferences from it, or repeat it accurately. This marks you as having inferior intelligence.

You are an idiot that can't read.