To Kill A Kid

[freedombecki]

He had a right to attack the person who was following him, and who refused to identify themselves.

He'd be alive today if he had simply kept going home.

That is very retarded.

Retardation is smarter than you?

Well, I knew that, but I was just trying to be polite until you brought it front and center.

 

[Sunshine]

Some of the most vicious soldiers the world has ever seen were children.

The kid attacked the wrong person, and died for it. Next.

He had a right to attack the person who was following him, and who refused to identify themselves.

No he did not. You return force with like force. Just walking behind someone does not give them the right to turn around at clobber you. Next time you go to the mall, walk behind someone and then picture them turning around and decking you. Zimmerman was in his OWN housing complex. He had ever right to be where he was.

 

[Sunshine]

Do you know that it is possible to injure yourself to add weight to your claims that you were attacked?

Really? Did he manage to punch himself in the face with Trayvon's fists too?

The only person who could tell us what happened is dead.

That would only be true if BOTH parties were dead. The one alive IS telling what happened. You just want to believe that walking behind someone is a crime punishable with a physical attack.

 

[Sunshine]

Please give me a link to the "You can't follow me" law.

Its called common sense.

If you follow someone you suspect of committing a crime, you suffer the consequences of that.

What should the consequences be for repeatedly bashing someone's skull into the pavement? Should a white guy do time for following a black, but the black get a free ride for bashing a skull?

You are arguing from an emotional position, Noomi. Try to put the emotions aside and look at this from logic.

She seems unable to see both sides or use any logic.

 

[Sunshine]

If Zimmerman stayed in his car, Trayvon would be alive today.

You are absolutely right, but Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer and his job was to protect his neighbors' property. He broke no laws in leaving his car, He broke no law following Martin.
Martin, however attacked and assaulted Zimmerman. Zimmerman had every right to defend himself IF we are to believe Zimmerman's account that is supported by the time line and forensic evidence.
There is NO evidence that supports Zimmerman killing Martin because of his complexion, no matter how much you emote on the case.

Zimmerman had a history of making 911 calls regarding black youth in the area.

So? If you call 911 in the past, you have no right to defend yourself from a physical attack?

 

[Sunshine]

What should the consequences be for repeatedly bashing someone's skull into the pavement? Should a white guy do time for following a black, but the black get a free ride for bashing a skull?

You are arguing from an emotional position, Noomi. Try to put the emotions aside and look at this from logic.

I don't think I am arguing from an emotional point of view, I think I am seeing that Zimmerman made choices that led to the confrontation and therefore the death of a child.
Zimmermans choice to follow Trayvon resulted in the death of the boy. That fact cannot be disputed.

You are right. But, you must be made to understand that following an unfamiliar character in the neighborhood was his job.

Years ago, I did a couple of shifts/week on the neighborhood watch. After a while, you learned who belonged and who didn't. You learned to look for specific behavior and yes, specific types of people.
The 75 year old lady that lives in the corner house with the white fence arouses no suspicion when she walks to the store a block over, but the 18 year old black kid that doesn't live on that block and is walking slow, sets off bells and whistles. I would watch him until he left the area and if he left thesidewalk and I lost sight of him, I may just follow.
If then, he ran up to me, punched me in the face hard enough to break my nose, then jumped on top of me and started bashing my head into the pavement, I would put 2 rounds in his chest.

When I first moved here, I didn't have a job in this area and I had to travel to work. On Friday, it would most always be late when I got in because I had a long drive, then would stop at the grocery, pharmacy, etc. on the way in. The neighborhood watch car would always be sitting at the end of my road. As soon as I turned in they were behind me. After a few times of them seeing my garage door open and me drive into it, they stopped. But they were behind me every Friday night there for several months, and I'm sure part of that was because of the rotation they had going. The two from last Friday aren't on, it's two new ones who don't know the car this Friday. That's what neighborhood watch is about. I wonder how sympathetic a jury would be to me if I had ever stopped threw my car into reverse and slammed into them from the rear. Not very, I'm guessing.

 

[Sunshine]

Zimmerman had a history of making 911 calls regarding black youth in the area.

Zimmerman also had history supporting blacks that were mistreated by cops.

Link?

There have been multiple published reports of this. Where have you been?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Zimmerman also had history supporting blacks that were mistreated by cops.

Link?

There have been multiple published reports of this. Where have you been?

yes but one would not know that

by funneling all their world view through

msnbc

--LOL

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

(Laughs deep within myself at the utter absurdities and legalistic gymnastics being performed in order to slander an unarmed kid in favor of a misguided trigger-happy vigilante)

The unarmed "kid" who was beating on GZ.

If George was trigger-happy, he would have shot TM before getting his head beat against the pavement, not after.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Just so I have the facts straight.

Armed man, out of the blue, begins chasing unarmed 17 year old.

Armed man with gun told to stop chasing unarmed 17 year old.

Man corners 17 year old anyway, shoots and kills unarmed 17 year old.

Man with gun pleads self defense and stand your ground? Is that what happened?

No.

 

[Ernie S.]

(Laughs deep within myself at the utter absurdities and legalistic gymnastics being performed in order to slander an unarmed kid in favor of a misguided trigger-happy vigilante)

"Armed" does not equal "misguided trigger-happy vigilante".
Sounds to me like you are employing utter absurdities and emotional gymnastics in order to convict a man who was legally performing a service to his community.

Treyvon Martin was hardly a "kid" He was a full grown adult male in every way except for chronological age.
17 year old black kids are some of the most violent creatures on this planet. Usually, they just beat and kill other 17 year old kids. This night, Treyvon Martin made the mistake of trying to beat the wrong man.
The circumstances that brought them together are immaterial. No crime was committed until Martin assaulted Zimmerman. At that point Zimmerman was within his rights to defend himself.

 

[Ernie S.]

It's amazing how people can hear what they want to hear on the 9-1-1 call. The hear things that weren't even said.

I occasionally hear the voices of the dead.

 

[Caroljo]

So what would you do if you were walking down a dark street and a stranger was following close behind you?

Zimmerman was told not to follow Trayvon, he ignored those orders because he wanted to play the hero.

he ignored those orders because he wanted to play the hero.

Orders?
Who do you feel had the authority to tell Zimmermann to walk or not walk where he wished?

He called the police, and was told to remain in his car.

Why would he call the police if he was PLANNING to murder someone??? Lol!

 

[Ernie S.]

Just so I have the facts straight.

Armed man, out of the blue, begins chasing unarmed 17 year old.

Armed man with gun told to stop chasing unarmed 17 year old.

Man corners 17 year old anyway, shoots and kills unarmed 17 year old.

Man with gun pleads self defense and stand your ground? Is that what happened?

No, Dweeb. As usual, you have twisted the story to fit an agenda.

#1 Martin was a neighborhood watch volunteer. He was observing a young man who didn't live in the area.

#2 Zimmerman was not told to stop following. He was advised that it wasn't necessary.

#3 Wrong again. Neighborhood watch volunteer looses sight of 6 foot tall person that is unfamiliar to him and looking into homes on the street. He returns to his vehicle where he is struck in the face hard enough to knock him to the ground. His attacker then straddles him and repeatedly bashes his head into the pavement.

#4 Yes, pretty much.

The time line established by the phone call, Martin's autopsy report, and a report of Zimmerman's injuries all support Mr. Zimmerman's account of the incident.

 

[king.solomon]

Some of the most vicious soldiers the world has ever seen were children.

The kid attacked the wrong person, and died for it. Next.

He had a right to attack the person who was following him, and who refused to identify themselves.

No he did not. You return force with like force.


Please read your sentence one more time Sunshine.

 

[Wake]

Aren't people supporting GZ even though Martin's dead?

Tm was the kid minding his own business.

GZ was the adult with the gun following him at night against the instructions of the police.

Martin had every right to confront a stalker.

If that stalker made a sudden move (all of this is GZ's story btw), Martin had a right to defend himself from this stalker.

Solomon... I believe you aren't considering this issue fairly. You seem to have already made up your mind against Zimmerman while asserting Martin was completely innocent. We don't know all of the facts.

This thread is not going well because you in your OP have made a definitive claim in one direction, which in turn stokes the passions of those on the very opposite side, while annoying people like me who are trying to understand this issue without rushing to judgment.

It is better to collect whatever objective evidence can be found, and list all of it: both evidence in favor and against each of the people involved. Doing so, we can then work together to try to come to fairer conclusions.

 

[Caroljo]

It's ok Noomi. We all have our days, lol.

I don't think you're really paying attention....Noomi has those days EVERY day.

 

[king.solomon]

"17 year old black KIDS are some of the most violent creatures on this planet." ~ Ernie S.


1. So, you support Zimmerman's position that night. It's likely that Zimmerman felt the same way as you do.

2. Historically, "violent creatures" are habitually HUNTED down and killed.


3. If a 17 year old black male KID is inherently a violent creature, what exactly does that make the huge black MAN who's son is gunned down in the street unarmed against a grown man, and then who sees that killer set free?

@ Ernie S.

 

[king.solomon]

@ Wake, I have a pretty good idea what happened.

Not interested in revisionist history.

Wake, the ONLY thing people are accusing TM of is something that ZIMMERMAN says he did.

That's it.

And that ONE thing is covered by Stand Your Ground law. To defend yourself if you feel your life is threatened.

I see bias here. Martin is a violent creature, a criminal, a thug, a gangster, etc. Who had no right to defend himself, but should just let strangers in the night handle him however they want.

Yet Zim has done nothing wrong, and has a right to kill a minor who Zim stalked, followed, chased, etc at night with a gun on him REGARDLESS of if TM was doing anything wrong at all.

I don't think any evidence will settle this.

I think these good people need to adjust your perspectives on certain biases.

 

[Wake]

@ Wake, I have a pretty good idea what happened.

Not interested in revisionist history.

Wake, the ONLY thing people are accusing TM of is something that ZIMMERMAN says he did.

That's it.

And that ONE thing is covered by Stand Your Ground law. To defend yourself if you feel your life is threatened.

I see bias here. Martin is a violent creature, a criminal, a thug, a gangster, etc. Who had no right to defend himself, but should just let strangers in the night handle him however they want.

Yet Zim has done nothing wrong, and has a right to kill a minor who Zim stalked, followed, chased, etc at night with a gun on him REGARDLESS of if TM was doing anything wrong at all.

I don't think any evidence will settle this.

I think these good people need to adjust your perspectives on certain biases.

There is indeed bias here, my friend, and it comes from quite a few here who have rushed to either one conclusion or another. I have not passed judgment yet, and will likely still have questions even after the case is resolved.

Zimmerman may have done nothing wrong. Martin of done nothing wrong. They both may have done something wrong. GZ is the survivor of the incident. We can consider his statements, but they don't necessarily exonerate or condemn him. That is one facet the court will have to decide.

It is my humble belief that if GZ's credibility is allowed to be judged based on outside factors like Facebook, then so, too, should TM's. It does not matter to me if one is dead or not. Either both should be allowed, or neither, otherwise it is unfair.