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

[ClosedCaption]

They let Zimmerman go? That is the general process if there is no evidence of a crime. You're making far too many assumptions - including the assumption of guilt. That is not our process. Trial by media is a very dangerous precedent to set... and yet you seem determined to support it.

Uh, why did they drug test the dead kid and not the shooter? Ever watched CSI? Can you at least say that that is a strange thing to do? Or are you rendered speechless until after a judge has banged his gavel?

You are aware that CSI is fiction, right?

It is SOP to drug test - that's police procedure. Nothing to do with anything other than process.

I notice you didnt touch my question...Why didnt they test the shooter? Isnt that SOP? or is this where you start up with the "I dont knows"?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Al Sharpton had nothing to do with this going on national news, CC.

He had and has nothing to do with anything more than fanning the flames.
You're just blind to reality with your race-colored glasses on. Your worship of Sharpton is disappointing.

Fanning what flames...The flames of a dead kid? Your trolling use of the word worship is disappointing. Cant you have a serious discussion without making accusations?

Would "praise" be a better word for you? The guy is a damn clown out to make a buck and get some tv face time off of someone else's misery.

You'll see.

I'll repeat...Fanning the flames of what? Dead Kids? Trying to insult me is not addressing the topic. Sharpton was asked to be there. Problem with the families wishes? Why?

 

[rightwinger]

I add this to the list of terrible things that we humans do to each other...This poor kid should be alive. But, all the hollering and childish tantrums being thrown on this issue by blacks are counter productive. I think most whites and certainly the media are overly sensitive to events like this... If this had this been a white kid murdered by blacks, it would be ignored and downplayed. Any one here doubt that for a second? Whites get victimized by blacks all the time. I can speak from personal experience. What about that high black crime rate? What about black crime against whites? They can construed as racial /hate crimes. But that rarely happens. If we are going to be realistic here, everyone everywhere should be an activist to stop any hate crimes, not just blacks. But there is only concern when it happens to a black person, but blacks should be just as pissed off when innocent whites are killed by a black person. Then we might a have solidarity on this issue.

Whites do get murdered by blacks all the time, but blacks are filling our prisons. They do not get sent home after a murder with a pat on the back

I think the whole thing was a tragic mistake. But one person was innocent and the other was overstepping his bounds. Carrying a gun is a constitutional right But that right comes with certain responsibilities. Zimmerman pushed the confrontation, his responsibility was to follow the kid and then report him. Because of his mishandling of the situation, a kid ended up dead.

Was it murder? I don't think so
Manslaughter? based on the investigation, it very well may be

 

[Peach]

The way people are politicizing this tragedy that never shouldve happened is sickening. With the evidence we as those on the outside looking in should, to any reasonable person, show you Zimmerman should at the very least be charged and put on trial. You've got Al Sharptongue out there leeching off the situation and a bunch of assholes trying to link this to the Stand Your Ground law in FL and bringing up the banning of guns. The guy obviously went after the kid and started the whole thing. I don't have any respect for these people trying to promote their pet causes piggy backing off the unnecessary death of a young man.

I feel for the family and believe that they are right in demanding he be charged and tried, I wouldn't blame them for wanting Zimmerman put to death. But these marching idiots making it a racial issue are nothing more than agitators. I can understand Trayvon's family, friends, neighbors protesting. But alot these people making speeches and marching and commenting on the news who don't know him are just out to promote their causes, they didn't know this young man, nor do they genuinely care about his death in general, and it shows when they turn it into a race issue.

I don't believe in hate crime legislation. Murder is murder, the reasoning for the murder should only count if it proves intent. As far as sentencing it should have no bearing. No life is worth more than another. So let's knock off the bullshit and just let what happens happen. If Zimmerman faces trial, as I believe he should, it shouldnt be because of marches, tv comments, and peoples feelings.

It should be because of the evidence.

Alright.... Done ranting. I had to get that off my chest. Spent a good hour arguing with my father over this this morning.

As far as I'm concerned, if Sharpton is involved, Zimmerman should get off just on principle. Sharpton never did apologize for what he did to the Duke Lacross players.

Seriously, I haven't followed this case very closely so I don't know if Zimmerman is guilty or not, but with Sharpton defending Travon Martin, and me not knowing all the facts, I have to side with Zimmerman.

The blacks should get rid of that guy if they want to be taken seriously.

How does Sharpton's appearance negate a POSSIBLE murder? And do all African Americans in the US have the authority to "get rid of" Al Sharpton? Can ALL Caucasion Americans GET RID of David Duke?

 

[Againsheila]

The way people are politicizing this tragedy that never shouldve happened is sickening. With the evidence we as those on the outside looking in should, to any reasonable person, show you Zimmerman should at the very least be charged and put on trial. You've got Al Sharptongue out there leeching off the situation and a bunch of assholes trying to link this to the Stand Your Ground law in FL and bringing up the banning of guns. The guy obviously went after the kid and started the whole thing. I don't have any respect for these people trying to promote their pet causes piggy backing off the unnecessary death of a young man.

I feel for the family and believe that they are right in demanding he be charged and tried, I wouldn't blame them for wanting Zimmerman put to death. But these marching idiots making it a racial issue are nothing more than agitators. I can understand Trayvon's family, friends, neighbors protesting. But alot these people making speeches and marching and commenting on the news who don't know him are just out to promote their causes, they didn't know this young man, nor do they genuinely care about his death in general, and it shows when they turn it into a race issue.

I don't believe in hate crime legislation. Murder is murder, the reasoning for the murder should only count if it proves intent. As far as sentencing it should have no bearing. No life is worth more than another. So let's knock off the bullshit and just let what happens happen. If Zimmerman faces trial, as I believe he should, it shouldnt be because of marches, tv comments, and peoples feelings.

It should be because of the evidence.

Alright.... Done ranting. I had to get that off my chest. Spent a good hour arguing with my father over this this morning.

As far as I'm concerned, if Sharpton is involved, Zimmerman should get off just on principle. Sharpton never did apologize for what he did to the Duke Lacross players.

Seriously, I haven't followed this case very closely so I don't know if Zimmerman is guilty or not, but with Sharpton defending Travon Martin, and me not knowing all the facts, I have to side with Zimmerman.

The blacks should get rid of that guy if they want to be taken seriously.

How does Sharpton's appearance negate a POSSIBLE murder? And do all African Americans in the US have the authority to "get rid of" Al Sharpton? Can ALL Caucasion Americans GET RID of David Duke?

I apologize for the way I phrased it. What blacks should do is disown Sharpton and not let him in any way represent them. And yes, whites should do the same for Duke. I sure don't want him representing me...of course, I've never seen Duke parade and cry racism against whites when a white is killed by a black, and I've certainly never seen him defending a false cry of rape from a white woman against a team of black players, have you?

 

[Si modo]

And the law, as i have already shown, does not protect him at all. The 911 call backs up what I am saying perfectly.

He was instructed to not intiate a confontation and did anyway, by intiating a confrontation with the other person he lost all protection under the law according to the language of the law. This law is worded to protect those defending themselves, not to protect those initiating a situation.

Where have you shown where the law doesn't apply? That's what I am asking.

The 9/11 call doesn't back that up at all, either. What the 9/11 operator says is not legally binding. Show me the law that says it is, please.

Show me where in the law that it says someone who initiates this is no longer covered.

Show me the law, please.

It isn't binding, but it does show that he wasn't acting from a fear of Martin, but rather for some other reason, notably, not letting the assholes get away (based on what he said on tape during the 911 call). That is perhaps what PP is trying to say.

Yes, that seems to be the case - that Zimmerman had no fear at the time he left his vehicle. I beleive that any reasonable person would think that.

However, at the time he came into contact with Martin, that may have changed.

 

[Too Tall]

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!

According to the police report the back of Zimmerman's shirt was wet and had a lot of grass on it, and he had blood on his face as well as on the back of his head and was given first aid at the scene by an EMT. SOMEONE, perhaps a 17 year old that played football, knocked Zimmerman on his ass and started to punch him out after he stopped running away.

That is clearly "confrontation."

 

[LockeJaw]

Fanning what flames...The flames of a dead kid? Your trolling use of the word worship is disappointing. Cant you have a serious discussion without making accusations?

Would "praise" be a better word for you? The guy is a damn clown out to make a buck and get some tv face time off of someone else's misery.

You'll see.

I'll repeat...Fanning the flames of what? Dead Kids? Trying to insult me is not addressing the topic. Sharpton was asked to be there. Problem with the families wishes? Why?

CC I'm not insulting you, you were praising him, holding him up as a hero. Take issue with yourself if you take issue with my description of your posts about Sharpton.

I've explained as much as I need to. The fact you are acting oblivious to the point doesn't negate the point made, bro.

I'm sure we both want justice in this case. Let's not argue about this, fair?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Would "praise" be a better word for you? The guy is a damn clown out to make a buck and get some tv face time off of someone else's misery.

You'll see.

I'll repeat...Fanning the flames of what? Dead Kids? Trying to insult me is not addressing the topic. Sharpton was asked to be there. Problem with the families wishes? Why?

CC I'm not insulting you, you were praising him, holding him up as a hero. Take issue with yourself if you take issue with my description of your posts about Sharpton.

I've explained as much as I need to. The fact you are acting oblivious to the point doesn't negate the point made, bro.

I'm sure we both want justice in this case. Let's not argue about this, fair?

I applaud Sharpton for getting involved at the request of the Family. Saying so isnt worship or making him a hero.

I notice that a lot of you guys say things and when pressed further cannot explain the words you type. If Sharpton is fanning the flames as you said, what Flames is he fanning?

You said it then when asked what do you mean...you dont want to talk about it. Thats what happens when you make accusations that you cant back.

 

[Ravi]

Zimmerman never knew this kid before he saw him so this is not stalking.
Not condoning what he did in any way if there was no attack from the kid.

No, it isn't stalking. Regardless, he was following Martin so that pretty much kills his defense that he was in fear of his life.

 

[Ravi]

Where have you shown where the law doesn't apply? That's what I am asking.

The 9/11 call doesn't back that up at all, either. What the 9/11 operator says is not legally binding. Show me the law that says it is, please.

Show me where in the law that it says someone who initiates this is no longer covered.

Show me the law, please.

It isn't binding, but it does show that he wasn't acting from a fear of Martin, but rather for some other reason, notably, not letting the assholes get away (based on what he said on tape during the 911 call). That is perhaps what PP is trying to say.

Yes, that seems to be the case - that Zimmerman had no fear at the time he left his vehicle. I beleive that any reasonable person would think that.

However, at the time he came into contact with Martin, that may have changed.

True enough, but that doesn't really change the fact that Zimmerman was the aggressor, if it happened that Zimmerman was following Martin, then Martin had every right to go on the offensive.

 

[Si modo]

It isn't binding, but it does show that he wasn't acting from a fear of Martin, but rather for some other reason, notably, not letting the assholes get away (based on what he said on tape during the 911 call). That is perhaps what PP is trying to say.

Yes, that seems to be the case - that Zimmerman had no fear at the time he left his vehicle. I beleive that any reasonable person would think that.

However, at the time he came into contact with Martin, that may have changed.

True enough, but that doesn't really change the fact that Zimmerman was the aggressor, if it happened that Zimmerman was following Martin, then Martin had every right to go on the offensive.

Oh, in my book, too. I see nothing wrong with confronting someone who you believe is following you. And, it appears that Martin did, according to the statement from his girlfriend.

I just really wish this law had never been on the books.

 

[Dante]

So far, what we know for a fact is Trayvon Martin initiated a verbal confrontation.

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!

According to the police report the back of Zimmerman's shirt was wet and had a lot of grass on it, and he had blood on his face as well as on the back of his head and was given first aid at the scene by an EMT. SOMEONE, perhaps a 17 year old that played football, knocked Zimmerman on his ass and started to punch him out after he stopped running away.

That is clearly "confrontation."

So far, what we know for a fact is Trayvon Martin initiated a verbal confrontation.

 

[Dante]

It isn't binding, but it does show that he wasn't acting from a fear of Martin, but rather for some other reason, notably, not letting the assholes get away (based on what he said on tape during the 911 call). That is perhaps what PP is trying to say.

Yes, that seems to be the case - that Zimmerman had no fear at the time he left his vehicle. I beleive that any reasonable person would think that.

However, at the time he came into contact with Martin, that may have changed.

True enough, but that doesn't really change the fact that Zimmerman was the aggressor, if it happened that Zimmerman was following Martin, then Martin had every right to go on the offensive.

So far, what we know for a fact is Trayvon Martin initiated a verbal confrontation.

 

[Ravi]

Yes, that seems to be the case - that Zimmerman had no fear at the time he left his vehicle. I beleive that any reasonable person would think that.

However, at the time he came into contact with Martin, that may have changed.

True enough, but that doesn't really change the fact that Zimmerman was the aggressor, if it happened that Zimmerman was following Martin, then Martin had every right to go on the offensive.

So far, what we know for a fact is Trayvon Martin initiated a verbal confrontation.

Yes, dear, and I know that makes it a-okay that he was shot in cold blood...asking, why are you following me, and all.

Shall I give you the address to the street I live on so I can do the same?

 

[LockeJaw]

I'll repeat...Fanning the flames of what? Dead Kids? Trying to insult me is not addressing the topic. Sharpton was asked to be there. Problem with the families wishes? Why?

CC I'm not insulting you, you were praising him, holding him up as a hero. Take issue with yourself if you take issue with my description of your posts about Sharpton.

I've explained as much as I need to. The fact you are acting oblivious to the point doesn't negate the point made, bro.

I'm sure we both want justice in this case. Let's not argue about this, fair?

I applaud Sharpton for getting involved at the request of the Family. Saying so isnt worship or making him a hero.

I notice that a lot of you guys say things and when pressed further cannot explain the words you type. If Sharpton is fanning the flames as you said, what Flames is he fanning?

You said it then when asked what do you mean...you dont want to talk about it. Thats what happens when you make accusations that you cant back.

*face palm*

 

[Dante]

I apologize for Hawk and Ravi taking this thread off topic.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Most probably agree that the law sucks, but it IS the law. As you can see above, the cops could not legally arrest Zimmerman.

This is utter bullshit. In order to believe this, we would have to believe that the intent of the legislature was to grant Zimmerman special privileges that nobody else would possess. Zimmerman would have to have to have a special prioritization of his personal right to "self defense" that allowed him to chase down and corner other people, without that person having a right to self defense or to feel threatened by circumstances that a reasonable person would find threatening. It would have to grant Zimmerman special privileges that apparently would not apply to others, to create tense situations, and then respond with deadly force.

Stand your ground doctrine has NEVER meant that person has the right to pursue an allegedly dangerous situation, and then respond with deadly force. Your theory would require us to believe that the intent of the legislature was to not create a stand your ground law, but to create something entirely different and new, something that would be more appropriately be called a "walking into the fire" law.

Everyone is equal under the law, no matter how much we don't like the person or the law. And, we apply the CURRENT law to everyone.

Except Trayvon Martin, apparently. Zimmerman admitted that he was following Martin. He chased him down, don't you think a 17 year old kid would be feel threatened? Even if we assume that Martin threw the first proverbial punch, the idea that Zimmerman's actions were justified as self defense would require that we condemn Martin's actions as wrong and legally unjustified. Which, then, means that we are not applying stand your ground rights to Martin, only to Zimmerman.

It is absolutely insane to believe that the intent of the legislature was to create a law that allows a person, like Zimmerman, to create a situation that provokes a person like Martin to evoke his own self defense rights, and then use that as a basis to justify killing Martin in Zimmerman's own "self defense."

 

[Si modo]

Most probably agree that the law sucks, but it IS the law. As you can see above, the cops could not legally arrest Zimmerman.

This is utter bullshit. In order to believe this, we would have to believe that the intent of the legislature was to grant Zimmerman special privileges that nobody else would possess. Zimmerman would have to have to have a special prioritization of his personal right to "self defense" that allowed him to chase down and corner other people, without that person having a right to self defense or to feel threatened by circumstances that a reasonable person would find threatening. It would have to grant Zimmerman special privileges that apparently would not apply to others, to create tense situations, and then respond with deadly force.

Stand your ground doctrine has NEVER meant that person has the right to pursue an allegedly dangerous situation, and then respond with deadly force. Your theory would require us to believe that the intent of the legislature was to not create a stand your ground law, but to create something entirely different and new, something that would be more appropriately be called a "walking into the fire" law.

Everyone is equal under the law, no matter how much we don't like the person or the law. And, we apply the CURRENT law to everyone.

Except Trayvon Martin, apparently. Zimmerman admitted that he was following Martin. He chased him down, don't you think a 17 year old kid would be feel threatened? Even if we assume that Martin threw the first proverbial punch, the idea that Zimmerman's actions were justified as self defense would require that we condemn Martin's actions as wrong and legally unjustified. Which, then, means that we are not applying stand your ground rights to Martin, only to Zimmerman.

It is absolutely insane to believe that the intent of the legislature was to create a law that allows a person, like Zimmerman, to create a situation that provokes a person like Martin to evoke his own self defense rights, and then use that as a basis to justify killing Martin in Zimmerman's own "self defense."

What chase?

What cornering?

What personal law?

Read the actual law and the actual police report (both linked to numerous times in this thread by me and others). Believing what others tell you without thinking for yourself is making you look like a fool.

 

[Sarah G]

Yes, that seems to be the case - that Zimmerman had no fear at the time he left his vehicle. I beleive that any reasonable person would think that.

However, at the time he came into contact with Martin, that may have changed.

True enough, but that doesn't really change the fact that Zimmerman was the aggressor, if it happened that Zimmerman was following Martin, then Martin had every right to go on the offensive.

So far, what we know for a fact is Trayvon Martin initiated a verbal confrontation.

There are quite a few more facts than that. Like Zimmerman being asked not to follow the kid and him lying saying he won't. So now it is a fact that Zimmerman is a liar.