Trayvon

[Snaggletiger]

I'm gonna' use some deadly force and whip err'body's ass up in here.

[JR4AU]

Also at the end of the day, Zimmerman "started it" by following this kid to a point where he felt threatened enough to try to run away from Zimmerman, who chased him on foot and lamented that "the assholes always get away", and then when that didn't work resulted to attacking him. And then Zimmerman shot and killed someone who was unarmed, which is not equal force.

 

[Kaos]

Also at the end of the day, Zimmerman "started it" by following this kid to a point where he felt threatened enough to try to run away from Zimmerman, who chased him on foot and lamented that "the assholes always get away", and then when that didn't work resulted to attacking him. And then Zimmerman shot and killed someone who was unarmed, which is not equal force.

We're all glad you were there to see what happened. 

Please call Nancy Grace and give your eyewitness account. 

[JR4AU]

How did the media "paint it" that way?

• Zimmerman followed the kid through the neighborhood - Confirmed by the 911 call, and Zimmerman's accounts
• Martin felt threatened enough to try to run away from Zimmerman, who chased him on foot and lamented that "the assholes always get away" - Confirmed by the 911 call.
• And then Zimmerman shot and killed someone who was unarmed, which is not equal force - Is this not completely fact? Maybe there's room for debate as to whether or not Martin's attack should be considered "deadly force", but typically fisticuffs are not.

I listened to the 911 tape.  What I heard was not Zimmerman ever running.  And he clearly had lost sight of him.  If it's as you say, and I think it is, Trayvon had an easy way to "escape", and decided to instead re-engage, and went on the attack.

One doesn't have to be armed to present a threat of serious bodily injury, or death.   And that really is the only issue here, is whether Zimmerman reasonably feared serious bodily injury or death.   And one of the considerations is, that if you're armed with a gun, and lose the physical fight, it's reasonable to assume you'll lose your weapon and be in serious danger.  Zimmerman is claiming Trayvon tried to take the gun, and that is enough to use deadly force to stop it.

And again, the "stand your ground law" doesn't allow you to go on the attack when you're scared someone might be following you.

[djsimp]

How did the media "paint it" that way?

By the initial info and opinions being one sided thats how. I am of belief that the initial info released by the national media was not fully objective and skewed.

[JR4AU]

By the initial info and opinions being one sided thats how. I am of belief that the initial info released by the national media was not fully objective and skewed.

Heard some idiot sports talk dude on Yahoo radio yesterday talking about someone in FL getting arrested for something minor...said apparently in FL you get arrested for stealing, but not for shooting unarmed kids.  People ignore facts that matter, or ignore the fact that there are lots of missing facts, to get where they want to be emotionally.

[Token]

Also at the end of the day, Zimmerman "started it" by following this kid to a point where he felt threatened enough to try to run away from Zimmerman, who chased him on foot and lamented that "the assholes always get away", and then when that didn't work resulted to attacking him. And then Zimmerman shot and killed someone who was unarmed, which is not equal force.

Because you haven't been asked, and you obviously feel as though "equal force" is relevant in this case.  Why do you think the DA and police agency in this case didn't charge Zimmerman?

[GarMan]

Just laugh it off guys...  We need to be glad that people like AUJizzad are not in the majority yet. 

Oh...  I got a new toy this weekend. 


I was thinking of nicknaming it Zimmerman, but Trayvon may be more appropriate for obvious reasons.   

[JR4AU]

Because you haven't been asked, and you obviously feel as though "equal force" is relevant in this case.  Why do you think the DA and police agency in this case didn't charge Zimmerman?

Awe come on, it's racial and you know it.  Zimmerman chased down a young black kid in a hoodie with a pocket full of skittles, and gunned him down just for shits and giggles.

[GarMan]

Awe come on, it's racial and you know it.  Zimmerman chased down a young black kid in a hoodie with a pocket full of skittles, and gunned him down just for shits and giggles.

Well, I did hear that Zimmerman was Mexican, so that's obviously what happened.  Poor Trayvon... 

[AUChizad]

I listened to the 911 tape.  What I heard was not Zimmerman ever running.

ORLY?

At 2:10: "Shit, he's running" (Wind noise would seem to indicate he's following on foot)  This is when dispatch says: "Are you following him?" "We don't need you to do that".    To which Zimmer replied "Ok".

At the 2:40 mark Zimmerman: "He ran"

One doesn't have to be armed to present a threat of serious bodily injury, or death.   And that really is the only issue here, is whether Zimmerman reasonably feared serious bodily injury or death.   And one of the considerations is, that if you're armed with a gun, and lose the physical fight, it's reasonable to assume you'll lose your weapon and be in serious danger.  Zimmerman is claiming Trayvon tried to take the gun, and that is enough to use deadly force to stop it.

Fair enough. I'll give you that. Although, that is more of a hypothetical than anything I've stated to get a collective  from everyone in this thread.

By the initial info and opinions being one sided thats how. I am of belief that the initial info released by the national media was not fully objective and skewed.

I completely agree with this statement. Again, how do they affect any of the facts that I just listed? That's the disconnect here. I tend to agree that the media overblew and skewed this to manufacture as much public outcry as possible, but you people are facepalming at facts like "Zimmerman followed him through the neighborhood" or "Martin tried to run away" or "Zimmerman killed an unarmed kid".

You're sarcastically saying things like "Yeah, you know everything that went on cause you were there," when I mention corroborated facts, and then in the same breath declare emphatically that you know everything that went on, such as Zimmerman being within an inch of his life and Trayvon was trying to take his gun, when those are only Zimmerman's accounts of what happened. And you're oblivious to the irony.

[AUChizad]

Awe come on, it's racial and you know it.  Zimmerman chased down a young black kid in a hoodie with a pocket full of skittles, and gunned him down just for shits and giggles.

Like clockwork, yet another exaggerated straw man you all can rail against instead of my actual posts.

[JR4AU]

ORLY?

RLY.  I said I didn't hear him running, as in out of breath.  He clearly was out of the car, he followed for some unknown distance, and that's not in dispute.  He said "he ran".  That to me, in the past tense, indicates he lost sight of Trayvon, and I never heard anything on the tape to indicate he chased him down.  When the dispatcher told him not to follow him, he said "ok".   

You can ignore facts, or lack of facts, and you clearly started out with a preconceived notion of what happened, and had chosen a side, when you stated this:

Zimmerman shot and killed a kid for no goddamn reason.

Zimmerman gives a reason, self defense.  It's a viable defense.  I pretty well expect the forensics to back it up, but they may not. 

[JR4AU]

Like clockwork, yet another exaggerated straw man you all can rail against instead of my actual posts.

Would you prefer I simply make up "facts" to suit my feelings the matter.  Maybe resort to hyperbole to paint the picture I want people to see?

[AUChizad]

RLY.  I said I didn't hear him running, as in out of breath.  He clearly was out of the car, he followed for some unknown distance, and that's not in dispute.  He said "he ran".  That to me, in the past tense, indicates he lost sight of Trayvon, and I never heard anything on the tape to indicate he chased him down.  When the dispatcher told him not to follow him, he said "ok".

The point is, Trayvon ran, and he was following him. He sounded slightly out of breath to me, but I know there's no room for my opinions in this discussion. Also, it's possible that it was a windy day, but it's also highly possible that the wind noises were from him running while on the cell phone.   

You can ignore facts, or lack of facts, and you clearly started out with a preconceived notion of what happened, and had chosen a side, when you stated this:

Zimmerman gives a reason, self defense.  It's a viable defense.  I pretty well expect the forensics to back it up, but they may not.

Keep ignoring context. Yes, that is an oversimplication of the events that took place. Zimmerman started it by following the kid around reporting him to the police "for no goddamn reason". This resulted in him shooting and killing a kid. Do you believe that Trayon just attacked him 100% unprovoked? They were both just strolling along minding their own business and then Trayvon came up and attacked him?

[JR4AU]

The point is, Trayvon ran, and he was following him. He sounded slightly out of breath to me, but I know there's no room for my opinions in this discussion. Also, it's possible that it was a windy day, but it's also highly possible that the wind noises were from him running while on the cell phone.   

Keep ignoring context. Yes, that is an oversimplication of the events that took place. Zimmerman started it by following the kid around reporting him to the police "for no goddamn reason". This resulted in him shooting and killing a kid. Do you believe that Trayon just attacked him 100% unprovoked? They were both just strolling along minding their own business and then Trayvon came up and attacked him?

Zimmerman didn't look to be a particularly "in shape" guy.  Keeping up with a running 17 year old would have left him a bit winded IMO, and I didn't hear that. 

Again, you start from a preconceived point of view that "Zimmerman started it".   Zimmerman didn't do anything illegal by following him.  Could he reasonably expect that in doing so, he might some day be the victim of an illegal assault?  Yes!  Does that make someone who assaults him justified in doing so?  Seems to in your mind, if I read you correctly. 

Yes, I believe Trayvon attacked without any legal provocation.  The problem being he, like you,  seem to think you are legally justified in going on the attack if someone is following you.  In reality, I don't think Trayvon put that much though in to it.  I think it's like you stated, his "primal instincts" kicked in.  Therein, IMHO, is the base of the problem.  Wrongheaded thinking.  "That old guy keeps following me, and I'm going to put a stop to it by kicking his ass".  People that think that way will end up one of a few ways, charged with assault, or getting the shit kicked out of them and charged with assault, or getting killed and it being justifiable due to self defense.   

The world would be better off with more proactive neighborhood watch people, and less people that think it's ok to attack the neighborhood watch because their "primal instinct" kicked in.   I put a lot of folks in jail that live their entire lives on "primal instinct".  Humans are supposed to be able to apply reason, and logical thought. 

[Snaggletiger]

All this discussion kind of hits home for me.  I live on one road in our neighborhood where mine and one house across the street are the only 2 homes on that street.  The road winds by a pond and up nto a cul-de-sac.  For years, it's been a popular place for people to park and knock off a little, party and so forth and so on.  However, over the last year, a lot of stuff has been going on that doesn't need to be happening, like these guys making moltov cocktails and blowing them up in the street.

It's kind of a joke around the neighborhood that I'm the "Keeper of the Cul-de-sac" because if I see a vehicle go by after dark...they have no business being down there.  So, I hop in the truck, keep the lights off and pop them on when I get close to whoever is down there.  I've easily chased 20-25 vehicles out of there in the last 6 months alone.  I've confronted several who refused to drive off and got the cops on the firestarters.  And yes, I carry my gun, even though I've never pulled it or flashed it.  Just there for protection.  Even though I've had a lot of fun "Busting" these people, I've started getting worried about potential problems and running into someone who might not find my little neighborhood watch activities so humorous. 

The last time kind of made me stop and think.  A few weeks ago, saw a truck go by on a Friday night.  Raining like a broke-dick dog.  I pulled down there and it turns out there were a bunch of people who had gone down to the pond.  They were partying in a dang thunderstorm.  When they saw my lights, they panicked and one truck slipped down the embankment.  Now, this cracked me up...until I saw someone running up the road to my house. I stopped him in the driveway and it turned out he was just there to beg me not to call the cops and they'd clear out as soon as they could get the truck unstuck....ya' think there might have been some drugs down there?  Hmmmm...

Anywho...after my tl;dr story...when a dude is coming out of the woods at night in a driving rainstorm to your house...I may just let the police handle that stuff from now on. 

[djsimp]

All this discussion kind of hits home for me.  I live on one road in our neighborhood where mine and one house across the street are the only 2 homes on that street.  The road winds by a pond and up nto a cul-de-sac.  For years, it's been a popular place for people to park and knock off a little, party and so forth and so on.  However, over the last year, a lot of stuff has been going on that doesn't need to be happening, like these guys making moltov cocktails and blowing them up in the street.

It's kind of a joke around the neighborhood that I'm the "Keeper of the Cul-de-sac" because if I see a vehicle go by after dark...they have no business being down there.  So, I hop in the truck, keep the lights off and pop them on when I get close to whoever is down there.  I've easily chased 20-25 vehicles out of there in the last 6 months alone.  I've confronted several who refused to drive off and got the cops on the firestarters.  And yes, I carry my gun, even though I've never pulled it or flashed it.  Just there for protection.  Even though I've had a lot of fun "Busting" these people, I've started getting worried about potential problems and running into someone who might not find my little neighborhood watch activities so humorous. 

The last time kind of made me stop and think.  A few weeks ago, saw a truck go by on a Friday night.  Raining like a broke-dick dog.  I pulled down there and it turns out there were a bunch of people who had gone down to the pond.  They were partying in a dang thunderstorm.  When they saw my lights, they panicked and one truck slipped down the embankment.  Now, this cracked me up...until I saw someone running up the road to my house. I stopped him in the driveway and it turned out he was just there to beg me not to call the cops and they'd clear out as soon as they could get the truck unstuck....ya' think there might have been some drugs down there?  Hmmmm...

Anywho...after my tl;dr story...when a dude is coming out of the woods at night in a driving rainstorm to your house...I may just let the police handle that stuff from now on.

Just one thing, how does it rain like a broke-dick dog?

[Snaggletiger]

Just one thing, how does it rain like a broke-dick dog?

That shit just pours

[djsimp]

That shit just pours

So cats have no part in this?