I Don't Think Many Of You Know What "Confronted" Means

[earlycuyler]

Mark who's supporting the murderer and who's bashing the victim. You'll notice certain similarities among them.

And also note who is automatically calling Zimmerman a murderer and assuming that Martin is completely innocent.

The facts may prove you right, but they may prove you wrong.

Zimmerman had no authority to do anything other then call the police. He had no authority to follow the kid either. It was a 1000% avoidable situation. Those are facts. In this day and age, if I am walking down the street and I am being followed by some fat slob, then the fat slob has an ass whipping coming. The kid had no way of knowing why he was being followed and was under no obligation to stop and answer any question Zimmerman may have had. Zimmerman acted foolishly. Was it an act of racizem ? no, it was an act of bad judgment that got a kid shot.

 

[Si modo]

Mark who's supporting the murderer and who's bashing the victim. You'll notice certain similarities among them.

And also note who is automatically calling Zimmerman a murderer and assuming that Martin is completely innocent.

The facts may prove you right, but they may prove you wrong.

Zimmerman had no authority to do anything other then call the police. He had no authority to follow the kid either.
....

Bullshit. Nowhere in the USA is it against the law for a citizen to follow someone, except in very limited circumstances (orders of protection, for example).

It was a 1000% avoidable situation. Those are facts. In this day and age, if I am walking down the street and I am being followed by some fat slob, then the fat slob has an ass whipping coming. ....

And, if that fat slob has a gun and shoots you because he is afraid for his life - and he can legally do that in all states if you are "whooping his ass" and being a fat slob, he can't get away - I hope you survive.

.... The kid had now of knowing why he was being followed and was under no obligation to stop and answer any question Zimmerman may have had. Zimmerman acted foolishly. Was it an act of racizem ? no, it was an act of bad judgment that got a kid shot.

Very true.

 

[8537]

At the time after the accident, what was the probable cause other than the kid being dead, wounds on the shooter, a witness seeing the shooter on the ground before the shooting, and in consideration of the LAW?

A gunshot that killed this kid was not an "accident," nor has anyone claimed as much .

 

[Si modo]

At the time after the accident, what was the probable cause other than the kid being dead, wounds on the shooter, a witness seeing the shooter on the ground before the shooting, and in consideration of the LAW?

A gunshot that killed this kid was not an accident, nor has anyone claimed as much .

Nor have I.

Your point?

 

[earlycuyler]

And also note who is automatically calling Zimmerman a murderer and assuming that Martin is completely innocent.

The facts may prove you right, but they may prove you wrong.

Zimmerman had no authority to do anything other then call the police. He had no authority to follow the kid either.
....

Bullshit. Nowhere in the USA is it against the law for a citizen to follow someone, except in very limited circumstances (orders of protection, for example).

It was a 1000% avoidable situation. Those are facts. In this day and age, if I am walking down the street and I am being followed by some fat slob, then the fat slob has an ass whipping coming. ....

And, if that fat slob has a gun and shoots you because he is afraid for his life - and he can legally do that in all states if you are "whooping his ass" and being a fat slob, he can't get away - I hope you survive.

.... The kid had now of knowing why he was being followed and was under no obligation to stop and answer any question Zimmerman may have had. Zimmerman acted foolishly. Was it an act of racizem ? no, it was an act of bad judgment that got a kid shot.

Very true.

And if I am being followed by some one at night who has not identified him self when you hear five stories a night on the news about some sicko doing horrible things to kids and has 100 pounds on my I am well within my rights to defend my self. That is a fact. Zimmerman was a block Capetian for his neighborhood watch. He knew he was pushing it. Sure, he can follow whom ever he likes, but he has no authority to detain any one. And zero authority to follow anyone with the intent of detaining them for any reason. As a matter of fact, he was ordered to stop by the 911 operator. Zimmerman was wrong. He needs to be prosecuted.

 

[Si modo]

Zimmerman had no authority to do anything other then call the police. He had no authority to follow the kid either.
....

Bullshit. Nowhere in the USA is it against the law for a citizen to follow someone, except in very limited circumstances (orders of protection, for example).

And, if that fat slob has a gun and shoots you because he is afraid for his life - and he can legally do that in all states if you are "whooping his ass" and being a fat slob, he can't get away - I hope you survive.

.... The kid had now of knowing why he was being followed and was under no obligation to stop and answer any question Zimmerman may have had. Zimmerman acted foolishly. Was it an act of racizem ? no, it was an act of bad judgment that got a kid shot.

Very true.

And if I am being followed by some one at night who has not identified him self when you hear five stories a night on the news about some sicko doing horrible things to kids and has 100 pounds on my I am well within my rights to defend my self. That is a fact. Zimmerman was a block Capetian for his neighborhood watch. He knew he was pushing it. Sure, he can follow whom ever he likes, but he has no authority to detain any one. And zero authority to follow anyone with the intent of detaining them for any reason. As a matter of fact, he was ordered to stop by the 911 operator. Zimmerman was wrong. He needs to be prosecuted.

Still bullshit. Anyone can follow anyone for any reason they want, except when ordered by a COURT not to. We are still - barely still - a free country.

No one is obligated to do what a 9/11 operator tells them to do. You know that, right? And, the 9/11 operator did not make any "order", rather the operator said, "We don't need you to do that".

I agree that Zimmerman was wrong. If Zimmerman broke the current law in Florida, yes he needs to be prosecuted. Given the information in the press - certainly by no means at any evidentiary standard - and given the LAW, I'm not so sure he should be prosecuted.

 

[Amelia]

At the time after the accident, what was the probable cause other than the kid being dead, wounds on the shooter, a witness seeing the shooter on the ground before the shooting, and in consideration of the LAW?

A gunshot that killed this kid was not an accident, nor has anyone claimed as much .

Nor have I.

Your point?

 

[Si modo]

A gunshot that killed this kid was not an accident, nor has anyone claimed as much .

Nor have I.

Your point?

Well, thanks. I meant to write incident.

 

[earlycuyler]

Bullshit. Nowhere in the USA is it against the law for a citizen to follow someone, except in very limited circumstances (orders of protection, for example).

And, if that fat slob has a gun and shoots you because he is afraid for his life - and he can legally do that in all states if you are "whooping his ass" and being a fat slob, he can't get away - I hope you survive.

Very true.

And if I am being followed by some one at night who has not identified him self when you hear five stories a night on the news about some sicko doing horrible things to kids and has 100 pounds on my I am well within my rights to defend my self. That is a fact. Zimmerman was a block Capetian for his neighborhood watch. He knew he was pushing it. Sure, he can follow whom ever he likes, but he has no authority to detain any one. And zero authority to follow anyone with the intent of detaining them for any reason. As a matter of fact, he was ordered to stop by the 911 operator. Zimmerman was wrong. He needs to be prosecuted.

Still bullshit. Anyone can follow anyone for any reason they want, except when ordered by a COURT not to. We are still - barely still - a free country.

No one is obligated to do what a 9/11 operator tells them to do. You know that, right? And, the 9/11 operator did not make any "order", rather the operator said, "We don't need you to do that".

I agree that Zimmerman was wrong. If Zimmerman broke the current law in Florida, yes he needs to be prosecuted. Given the information in the press - certainly by no means at any evidentiary standard - and given the LAW, I'm not so sure he should be prosecuted.

Maybe so, but if he were a cop here, he would be facing charges, and we have the same law. He went out of his way to confront the boy, he had no right to do that. For all the kid knew, he was about to be robbed and acted to defend him self against a man considerably larger then him. Zimmerman went out of his way to escalate the situation. He wanted the confrontation, and when the kid got the better of him, Zimmerman shot him down. We are arguing semantics here not much more. The law is not bad, the fact this retard got a CCW is. The fact he is a neighborhood watch captain is bad. He will catch charges in this. Maybe nothing to heavy, but he will get some.

 

[Ariux]

if I am walking down the street and I am being followed by some fat slob, then the fat slob has an ass whipping coming.

And, that's why Zimmerman acted in self-defense. The black thought he's whip the fat slob's ass, but he got his own butt capped instead.

 

[Si modo]

And if I am being followed by some one at night who has not identified him self when you hear five stories a night on the news about some sicko doing horrible things to kids and has 100 pounds on my I am well within my rights to defend my self. That is a fact. Zimmerman was a block Capetian for his neighborhood watch. He knew he was pushing it. Sure, he can follow whom ever he likes, but he has no authority to detain any one. And zero authority to follow anyone with the intent of detaining them for any reason. As a matter of fact, he was ordered to stop by the 911 operator. Zimmerman was wrong. He needs to be prosecuted.

Still bullshit. Anyone can follow anyone for any reason they want, except when ordered by a COURT not to. We are still - barely still - a free country.

No one is obligated to do what a 9/11 operator tells them to do. You know that, right? And, the 9/11 operator did not make any "order", rather the operator said, "We don't need you to do that".

I agree that Zimmerman was wrong. If Zimmerman broke the current law in Florida, yes he needs to be prosecuted. Given the information in the press - certainly by no means at any evidentiary standard - and given the LAW, I'm not so sure he should be prosecuted.

Maybe so, but if he were a cop here, he would be facing charges, and we have the same law. He went out of his way to confront the boy, he had no right to do that. For all the kid knew, he was about to be robbed and acted to defend him self against a man considerably larger then him. Zimmerman went out of his way to escalate the situation. He wanted the confrontation, and when the kid got the better of him, Zimmerman shot him down. We are arguing semantics here not much more. The law is not bad, the fact this retard got a CCW is. The fact he is a neighborhood watch captain is bad. He will catch charges in this. Maybe nothing to heavy, but he will get some.

Well, unless the 'here' you refer to is Florida, the laws where you are are pretty irrelevant to what happened in Florida.

The reports I have read say Zimmerman wasn't even a part of the neighborhood's watch program; he was doing his own thing. Reeks of vigilante, but he can do his own thing.

I agree with all you say, but I am not so sure that Zimmerman will get convicted of anything. We'll see. Other states' have stand your ground laws, but they are not as all-emcompassing as those in Florida, and that's what this nerd has going for him, sadly.

 

[earlycuyler]

Still bullshit. Anyone can follow anyone for any reason they want, except when ordered by a COURT not to. We are still - barely still - a free country.

No one is obligated to do what a 9/11 operator tells them to do. You know that, right? And, the 9/11 operator did not make any "order", rather the operator said, "We don't need you to do that".

I agree that Zimmerman was wrong. If Zimmerman broke the current law in Florida, yes he needs to be prosecuted. Given the information in the press - certainly by no means at any evidentiary standard - and given the LAW, I'm not so sure he should be prosecuted.

Maybe so, but if he were a cop here, he would be facing charges, and we have the same law. He went out of his way to confront the boy, he had no right to do that. For all the kid knew, he was about to be robbed and acted to defend him self against a man considerably larger then him. Zimmerman went out of his way to escalate the situation. He wanted the confrontation, and when the kid got the better of him, Zimmerman shot him down. We are arguing semantics here not much more. The law is not bad, the fact this retard got a CCW is. The fact he is a neighborhood watch captain is bad. He will catch charges in this. Maybe nothing to heavy, but he will get some.

Well, unless the 'here' you refer to is Florida, the laws where you are are pretty irrelevant to what happened in Florida.

The reports I have read say Zimmerman wasn't even a part of the neighborhood's watch program; he was doing his own thing. Reeks of vigilante, but he can do his own thing.

I agree with all you say, but I am not so sure that Zimmerman will get convicted of anything. We'll see. Other states' have stand your ground laws, but they are not as all-emcompassing as those in Florida, and that's what this nerd has going for him, sadly.

Its Texas, and they may be more liberal here. There was one case when this drunk guy from Scotland went to the wrong door. He could not get it open and began to pound on it, so the home owner shot him dead through it. We also had that guy who shot those dudes who were robbing his neighbor a while back.

 

[MarcATL]

Zimmerman's wrong...period.

He's going to get what's coming to him...eventually.

 

[Barb]

You can't "confront" someone if you're actively trying to get away from them.

When and if they catch up with you after pursuing you, you aren't "confronting" them when you stand your ground.

What we have here is a case of standing your ground, and a criminal then gunning down the lawful citizen who was rightfully standing their ground.

Zimmerman is toast...TOAST I said!

You would convict someone without seeing any of the evidence. I am sure of that.
When the alleged victim is black.
I prefer to see all of the evidence and any witnesses before I reach a conclusion that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Something about The United States Constitution that clearly states Zimmerman is PRESUMED innocent.
I know the presumption of innocence is a difficult standard to comprehend when one's judgment is clearly grounded with prejudices and bias be they black or white.
I saw this in the 60s with whites and now I see it with blacks.

Well in order to see all the evidence, in the United States we first arrest and charge someone.

Except in this case, of course, we didn't arrest or charge someone. We did, however, drug test the dead body.

of course.

 

[Ariux]

He's going to get what's coming to him...eventually.

So, you think people get what's coming to them. A bullet or a big book deal?

 

[Barb]

You can't "confront" someone if you're actively trying to get away from them.

When and if they catch up with you after pursuing you, you aren't "confronting" them when you stand your ground.

What we have here is a case of standing your ground, and a criminal then gunning down the lawful citizen who was rightfully standing their ground.

Zimmerman is toast...TOAST I said!

You would convict someone without seeing any of the evidence. I am sure of that.
When the alleged victim is black.
I prefer to see all of the evidence and any witnesses before I reach a conclusion that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Something about The United States Constitution that clearly states Zimmerman is PRESUMED innocent.
I know the presumption of innocence is a difficult standard to comprehend when one's judgment is clearly grounded with prejudices and bias be they black or white.
I saw this in the 60s with whites and now I see it with blacks.

Convict is one thing...but we do have evidence!

We know for a FACT the poor kid that was shot was unarmed..we know for a FACT the poor kid that was shot had no ill intent, we know for a FACT he was simply an American going to the store, something we all do every day. We know for a FACT he was illegally confronted by a vigilante (yes, I use that word intentionally) citizen who decided this kid didn't "belong" in his neighborhood...that vigilante, ARMED with a gun went AGAINST the police dispatchers advice and both followed AND CONFRONTED this American citizen who's only crime was walking to the store!

and finally, we know for a FACT this unarmed American was gunned down on our streets by a vigilante taking the law into his own hands!

These FACTS are not up for debate! The sad thing about all of this, while you are all concerned about not "convicting" the shooter, he not only convicted this AMERICAN citizen LAWFULLY living his life...he EXECUTED HIM!

it really IS that simple

 

[Barb]

To arrest, you need probable cause. It's a constitutional thing. Under the LAW in Florida, the cops saw none.

A person shot a 17 year old kid and killed him. I don't care what the cops claim they "saw", if a person shoots another person in cold blood and kills them there's probable cause to detain and question them - if for no other reason than the fact that the police can only get one side of the story.

I agree there is probable cause to detain and question him.

Do you have evidence they did not do that?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/03/trayvon-martin-case-timeline-of-events/

Zimmerman tells police he killed Martin in self defense. Taking him at his word, police do not arrest him, nor administer a drug or alcohol test. They also did not run a background check.

.

 

[Clementine]

You can't "confront" someone if you're actively trying to get away from them.

When and if they catch up with you after pursuing you, you aren't "confronting" them when you stand your ground.

What we have here is a case of standing your ground, and a criminal then gunning down the lawful citizen who was rightfully standing their ground.

Zimmerman is toast...TOAST I said!

Are you saying you witnessed the whole ordeal? Perhaps you should call the police and give a statement since you claim to know who was doing what and why.

 

[konradv]

You can't "confront" someone if you're actively trying to get away from them.

When and if they catch up with you after pursuing you, you aren't "confronting" them when you stand your ground.

What we have here is a case of standing your ground, and a criminal then gunning down the lawful citizen who was rightfully standing their ground.

Zimmerman is toast...TOAST I said!

Are you saying you witnessed the whole ordeal? Perhaps you should call the police and give a statement since you claim to know who was doing what and why.

Well, he wasn't really standing his ground, he was in pursuit. That's evident from the 911 call.

 

[Si modo]

You can't "confront" someone if you're actively trying to get away from them.

When and if they catch up with you after pursuing you, you aren't "confronting" them when you stand your ground.

What we have here is a case of standing your ground, and a criminal then gunning down the lawful citizen who was rightfully standing their ground.

Zimmerman is toast...TOAST I said!

Are you saying you witnessed the whole ordeal? Perhaps you should call the police and give a statement since you claim to know who was doing what and why.

Well, he wasn't really standing his ground, he was in pursuit. That's evident from the 911 call.

Yes we do know that and that was before they were face to face.