Trayvon

[Vandy Vol]

Please tell me what relevance there is to Trayvon's purpose in going to the store, or in what he purchased as to whether or not he may or may not have attacked Zimmerman?

Science tells us that Snapple Tea has a very soothing effect, and thus Trayvon Martin would have been too calm to attack anyone.

[CCTAU]

His argument is emotional, and based around base facts, from which he's extrapolates to his own "facts" to support such things as characterizing Zimmerman as "stalking him with a gun".  It's why when you question him about "facts" he defaults to "Zimmerman shot an unarmed 17 year old, is that disputed?"  No, it's not, and it's not near enough facts for intelligent people to make a decision one way or the other. We don't know if Zimmerman did anything other than follow him at a distance.  We don't know when he drew his gun.  Rational people who wait on facts don't know much of what would be needed to make a decision, but chizads dumb fuck ass made a decision long ago, and nothing will dissuade him and he'll frame his arguments around his "facts" to persuade anybody that will listen.   Please tell me what relevance there is to Trayvon's purpose in going to the store, or in what he purchased as to whether or not he may or may not have attacked Zimmerman?

Nice response, but I think it will just be ignored. It would seem that the indoctrination of America's young men into the beta male society has been a success. The idea of personal responsibility and common sense has been tempered with feelings and emotion. (Many back home would not be impressed)

WE ALL KNOW TRAYVON DIDN'T HAVE NO GUN.

Well we do now. Now that he is dead and one can search his body to see what was being hidden. Only an idiot states the obvious AFTER the fact. But there is one fact that does not get repeated enough. Nobody knew Trayvon was not armed before they were able to search his body. In the real world, you don't get to pause the TV and go back and search for a weapon.

And some of you need to learn the legal definition of stalking. Following someone while operating in a watch program is not in that definition.

[JR4AU]

I posted it in response to "There's only a witness that said Zimmerman was being attacked" "There are no witnesses that say it was the other way around."

That's just not a true statement. There are more witnesses claiming Trayvon was the one being attacked.

I haven't seen anyone saying they saw Martin beating the shit out of Zimmerman.

Then you're being willfully blind.  There are at least 2 witnesses reported to have SEEN Trayon top of Zimmerman.  ALL the "witnesses" you cited only heard something and formed an opinion based off that. 

Further, police reports cite that Zimmerman's back was wet and had grass on it, consistent with having been on his back on the ground.  They also cite minor injuries and bleeding.

In the last month I prosecuted, and sent 2 young men to prison for killing a man.  At the time of the crime, they tried to rob him.  They had no weapons.  There was 1 lookout, and 2 actual attackers.  No weapons.  The attack, which was caught on a grainy video, lasted less than 10 seconds, from which the victim walked away.  The soon to be deceased was conscience, and walking around when police arrived.  He even initially refused treatment, and wanted to finish his store closing duties, even though he had minor injuries to his face and head.  His boss made him go to the hospital via ambulance.  He was treated for minor injuries and released.  A few hours later, he began to act strange, and became agitated and disoriented.  He went to the hospital again.  They released him again, and by the time his family got him home, he was unresponsive, and they returned to the hospital.  His brain was swelling, and they had to literally remove the top of his skull to attempt to relieve the pressure.  He later died of his injures. 

The evidence suggests that one of the 3 was already at the store and had bought a cold drink, when the other 2 showed up and convinced him to help them rob the old guy.

The defendants ages at the time?  15, 16, and 16.


So, I don't want to hear any of you fuckers gawddamn shit about "just going to the store for skittles and sweet tea".  That means exactly jack shit as to what happened in that minute or so of time where the incident happened, and the reason folks keep parroting it, is that if you keep on saying he was a "just kid that went to the store for candy", the mental picture you (those of you that are prone to buy in to such suggestions) get of Trayvon is more childlike.   The skittles in his pocket are as irrelevant as the fact that he'd been suspended from school sometime in the past. 

I'm going to go with FACTS!  Not the opinions of based on what someone thinks they heard.  Facts and eye witnesses.  They all seem to point to the fact that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman.  And, No, Chizad, Trayvon couldn't claim "primal instincts" as a defense for attacking the neighborhood watch, which is completely legal.  In fact, "primal instincts" are the very reason so many young idiots wind up in jail/prison for hurting killing people, or in some case wind up dead when trying to hurt or kill people. 

There are still things we don't know, namely forensics.  If the forensic evidence supports Zimmerman's account, then he's legally in the clear.  If it's contradictory, then he's got a problem. 

[CCTAU]

There are still things we don't know, namely forensics.  If the forensic evidence supports Zimmerman's account, then he's legally in the clear.  If it's contradictory, then he's got a problem.

He'll never be in the clear. Too many people (like the ones we have on here even) already have him tried and convicted.

I mean he shot that poor innocent little black boy cause he was cold from dranking his sweet tea and had to put his hoodie on at night......Damn WHITE RACIST shot him in cold blood! I just know he did. Eerybody heard that little innocent black boy screaming as big bad whitey tortured him......

Never mind the facts. I just "FEEL" it.

[AUChizad]

His argument is emotional, and based around base facts, from which he's extrapolates to his own "facts" to support such things as characterizing Zimmerman as "stalking him with a gun".  It's why when you question him about "facts" he defaults to "Zimmerman shot an unarmed 17 year old, is that disputed?"  No, it's not, and it's not near enough facts for intelligent people to make a decision one way or the other. We don't know if Zimmerman did anything other than follow him at a distance.  We don't know when he drew his gun.  Rational people who wait on facts don't know much of what would be needed to make a decision, but chizads dumb fuck ass made a decision long ago, and nothing will dissuade him and he'll frame his arguments around his "facts" to persuade anybody that will listen.   Please tell me what relevance there is to Trayvon's purpose in going to the store, or in what he purchased as to whether or not he may or may not have attacked Zimmerman?

Your belligerence astounds me. No matter how many leather bound books you have, or what they smell like.

I don't think you even read my posts. You see my avatar and fly into a rage.

GarMan says some pretty outrageous shit that you just can't respond to like "That wasn't ebonics" or "I didn't say anything racist". So you just have to let it go.

You acting like I'm a blathering drooling idiot for answering his questions with facts. Factual facty facts.

    Why was he walking the streets after hours?

Because he wanted some skittles.

    Why was he in that neighborhood?

Because it was on the way back to his house from the store where said Skittles were purchased.

    If he was concerned about Zimmerman, why didn't he just call the police on his cell phone?

Easy for you to say after the fact. I'm pretty sure if you're being followed by a guy with a gun, primitive instincts are gonna take over. What's he going to do, call the cops right in front of the gunman? "Hey man, can you wait right there a second? I'm gonna call the cops on you. Just hang tight with that gun, and please refuse from using it. Thanks, bro."
Quote

    Why did he think it was appropriate to attack an adult?

Because the adult had a gun and was stalking him on his way home?

Three of the four questions had factual answers. No opinion, or uncorroborated accounts. These are universal truths that every single version of the story, from all parties involved, agree upon.

As for "Why didn't he answer his cell phone", that one question required an opinion. It is my opinion that if you are being threatened by someone following you, it makes zero sense to call the cops on them with them right behind you. If anything that would just initiate the attack you are anticipating.***

From the way you guys tell it, Zimmerman was just minding his own business, sipping on an iced tea and eating some Skittles in his neighborhood (oh wait, that was Trayvon. Fact.) and Trayvon just flew into an unprovoked rage and started beating this man within an inch of his life. As if black teenagers behave like wild African Lions. Just thoughtless killing machines.

In this thread, I have railed against people who have their minds made up about this entire case (that includes you). I have not said that I know for a fact how this went down. I'm certainly not saying Trayvon was some kind of Mother Teresa. I think that is clear to intelligent people.

Maybe the law will find that Zimmerman "stood his ground", and acted in self defense. If that's the way the law is written, then no gripes from me if he walks. I'm just saying, looking at the facts of the case, to say that it was Trayvon who was "looking for trouble" and "had it coming" is ludicrous on its face. Even if Zimmerman walks, in my eyes, he was the aggressor for following an unarmed kid through a neighborhood with a gun, even after police told him to stop doing that***. And we all know how it ended. He shot an unarmed kid, and killed him. This is a fact.

***(Note: These three sentences are opinions that you're welcome to disagree with. Most intelligent people would recognize this by the "in my opinion" and "in my eyes" qualifiers)

[CCTAU]

I told you he wouldn't get it.

[JR4AU]

The problem with the "facts" you keep citing:

Why was he walking the streets after hours?

Because he wanted some skittles.  completely irrelevant as to whether he later attacked Zimmerman or not

    Why was he in that neighborhood?

Because it was on the way back to his house from the store where said Skittles were purchased.  Once again, completely irrelevant

    If he was concerned about Zimmerman, why didn't he just call the police on his cell phone?

Easy for you to say after the fact. I'm pretty sure if you're being followed by a guy with a gun, primitive instincts are gonna take over. What's he going to do, call the cops right in front of the gunman? "Hey man, can you wait right there a second? I'm gonna call the cops on you. Just hang tight with that gun, and please refuse from using it. Thanks, bro."  You keep trying to advance the idea that Zimmerman not only had a gun, which we all know, but that he had it where Trayvon could see it, and/or was threatening him with it while "stalking him".  FAIL!  Nothing to support that, but thanks for playing "see it my way because I'm emotional and irrational" bro!


    Why did he think it was appropriate to attack an adult?

Because the adult had a gun and was stalking him on his way home? Once again, you use your own characterizations to attempt to influence anybody that will listen.  You characterize Zimmerman as, a neighborhood watch member who owned a firearm, as "stalking him with a gun."  Once again, it's your slant, and a biased one at that.  It's the same thing as when you keep mentioning skittles with every breath to attempt to paint Trayvon as non threatening.

Moreover, if I were he were following Trayvon at a safe distance, and Trayvon felt threatened, Trayvon had the right to STAND HIS GROUND, NOT GO ON THE ATTACK!  If Zimmerman had brandished a gun, even from a distance, that would certainly change things, and Trayvon, unarmed, would have a choice to run, or neutralize the perceived threat.  What would an intelligent person do?  In the absence of Zimmerman advancing on him as he stood his ground (as opposed to following him to keep him in sight), or brandishing a weapon, Trayvon had no legal right to close the gap, and go on the attack.  And the fact is, there's nothing to suggest Trayvon knew he had a gun until he was shot.  There is circumstantial evidence to suggest the contrary, namely that he attacked Zimmerman, which a rational person wouldn't normally do if they had an escape, and Zimmerman, had he had his gun drawn, would never have let Trayvon get within striking distance to knock him to the ground. of which there is physical and eye witness evidence to support.   

You also once again have tried to paint someone with an opposing point of view as being in a rage, and this time, in your weakest attempt ever, in a rage over your fucking avatar.

  

[AUChizad]

So, I don't want to hear any of you fuckers gawddamn shit about "just going to the store for skittles and sweet tea".  That means exactly jack shit as to what happened in that minute or so of time where the incident happened, and the reason folks keep parroting it, is that if you keep on saying he was a "just kid that went to the store for candy", the mental picture you (those of you that are prone to buy in to such suggestions) get of Trayvon is more childlike.   The skittles in his pocket are as irrelevant as the fact that he'd been suspended from school sometime in the past. 

Who here's using the Skittles and iced tea defense? Who's saying that matters? He asked a question about why was walking the streets at that time. The answer to that question is he was going to the store to buy Skittles and tea.
[/quote]

I mean he shot that poor innocent little black boy cause he was cold from dranking his sweet tea and had to put his hoodie on at night......Damn WHITE RACIST shot him in cold blood!

I bet these pictures terrify you. Good luck trying to ever sleep again.

[AUJarhead]

Chizad, my problem with your argument basically stems from this statement.

Zimmerman shot and killed a kid for no goddamn reason. He should be locked up.

You said yourself, you want to get the facts in, but that statement doesn't go hand in hand with wanting the facts.  It appears as if you've already made up your mind.

We don't know where the weapon was on Zimmerman when he confronted Martin.  Was it in his hand?  Was it aimed at Martin?  I have no idea, neither do you.  I'm sure that the forensic people are looking at this right now.  How close was Martin to Zimmerman when the fatal shot occurred?

If the DA presses charges, and Zimemerman is found guilty of manslaughter or murder, then he should go to jail.  I'm content to let the law enforcement officials do their jobs.

[AUChizad]

completely irrelevant as to whether he later attacked Zimmerman or not

Who's saying it is? It's the answer to the fucking question that was asked. YOU'RE the one making up that anyone is using Skittles as a fucking defense. It is the answer to the question that was asked.

Once again, completely irrelevant

Once again, the answer to the goddamn question.

You keep trying to advance the idea that Zimmerman not only had a gun, which we all know, but that he had it where Trayvon could see it, and/or was threatening him with it while "stalking him".  FAIL!  Nothing to support that, but thanks for playing "see it my way because I'm emotional and irrational" bro!

Play the semantics game if you wish. But the fact that we all know as truth is that Zimmerman was following Trayvon for quite a while through the neighborhood. He admitted on the 911 tape that he was pursuing the kid. He was most likely following him in his car, going slower than Trayvon was walking in order to follow him, since we know the car was near the scene. Would that not concern a rational person? If it's your kid, and some car is clearly following them walk through a neighborhood, and then gets out of the car, whether or not they see the gun that he factually had on him, what do you want him to do? Stand his ground.

You also once again have tried to paint someone with an opposing point of view as being in a rage, and this time, in your weakest attempt ever, in a rage over your fucking avatar.

 

Once again you miss the point.

Seeing my avatar = knowing the post is from me. Not this specific particular avatar, dumbshit.

[AUChizad]

Chizad, my problem with your argument basically stems from this statement.

You said yourself, you want to get the facts in, but that statement doesn't go hand in hand with wanting the facts.  It appears as if you've already made up your mind.

We don't know where the weapon was on Zimmerman when he confronted Martin.  Was it in his hand?  Was it aimed at Martin?  I have no idea, neither do you.  I'm sure that the forensic people are looking at this right now.  How close was Martin to Zimmerman when the fatal shot occurred?

If the DA presses charges, and Zimemerman is found guilty of manslaughter or murder, then he should go to jail.  I'm content to let the law enforcement officials do their jobs.

Fair enough.

I agree with everything you're saying.

My point was this.

Maybe the law will find that Zimmerman "stood his ground", and acted in self defense. If that's the way the law is written, then no gripes from me if he walks. I'm just saying, looking at the facts of the case, to say that it was Trayvon who was "looking for trouble" and "had it coming" is ludicrous on its face. Even if Zimmerman walks, in my eyes, he was the aggressor for following an unarmed kid through a neighborhood with a gun, even after police told him to stop doing that***. And we all know how it ended. He shot an unarmed kid, and killed him. This is a fact.

As far as the order of the law, that fuzzy window of what transpired mattered. As far as Zimmerman being an upstanding citizen that was 100% justified in following this unarmed kid and ultimately shooting him, to me, it doesn't matter a whole lot. Even if Trayvon Stood His Ground and attacked Zimmerman physically first, which I personally believe he did, in my opinion, he was justified in doing so because a stranger was following him for several blocks, looking for trouble.

[Saniflush]

So without wading through all these pages, have we found out why the Hispanic was following the African American instead of installing drywall?

[AUJarhead]

So without wading through all these pages, have we found out why the Hispanic was following the African American instead of installing drywall?

Because he had to leave the State of Alabama, since you fuckers there hate Mexicans.

[GarMan]

This is pointless...  Even though the evidence overwhelmingly supports what most of us have been saying, AUJizzad will never accept that he is wrong.  Just look at his response...

As far as Zimmerman being an upstanding citizen that was 100% justified in following this unarmed kid and ultimately shooting him, to me, it doesn't matter a whole lot. Even if Trayvon Stood His Ground and attacked Zimmerman physically first, which I personally believe he did, in my opinion, he was justified in doing so because a stranger was following him for several blocks, looking for trouble. 

The relevant facts don't matter a whole lot to him.  It's his emotional based opinion of the situation that trumps all legal relevance. 

You just can't counter that sort of infantile reasoning. 

[GarMan]

Because he had to leave the State of Alabama, since you fuckers there hate Mexicans.

Wait...  I knew he was Hispanic, but he's Mexican?  He's guilty.  Poor Trayvon... 

[JR4AU]

As far as the order of the law, that fuzzy window of what transpired mattered. As far as Zimmerman being an upstanding citizen that was 100% justified in following this unarmed kid and ultimately shooting him, to me, it doesn't matter a whole lot. Even if Trayvon Stood His Ground and attacked Zimmerman physically first, which I personally believe he did, in my opinion, he was justified in doing so because a stranger was following him for several blocks, looking for trouble.

You were almost coming around, then you wrote that.  It's a good thing too, because you make the case against yourself.  If Trayvon felt threatened, which may or may not have been reasonable, he had a right to "stand his ground" not advance on and attack Zimmerman.  You can't stand your ground and, at the same time attack.  Zimmerman wasn't "looking for trouble" and his 911 call pretty well confirms what he was doing.   Your understanding of what is justified under the law is wrong. 



On the phone with 911, calm, or apparently so.  Don't know if he's in or out of the vehicle. 

At the one minute mark Zimmerman says: "Now he's coming towards me".  "He's got his hand in his wasteband."

A few seconds later: "He's coming to check me out, he's got something in his hand"

A bit later: "These assholes, they always get away"  (At this point, it would seem clear that the distance between them is still such that Zimmerman doesn't feel an imminent threat as he calmly gives more directions to dispatch, and he's certainly not panicking, nor out of breath from "chasing" and has made no overt threat to Trayvon)

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"

It's clear that he's not giving foot pursuit, or at least not running.  He's calmly giving his name and phone number.  You can no longer hear wind noise, which seem to indicate he was back at his truck, and he's telling them where he's parked.  It's clear at the end of the call(or at least TO ME, the tone of voice and words indicate to me that Zimmerman was no longer in following, or in pursuit, and had lost sight of Trayvon, and was now going to wait for police)

[GH2001]

His argument is emotional, and based around base facts, from which he's extrapolates to his own "facts" to support such things as characterizing Zimmerman as "stalking him with a gun".  It's why when you question him about "facts" he defaults to "Zimmerman shot an unarmed 17 year old, is that disputed?"  No, it's not, and it's not near enough facts for intelligent people to make a decision one way or the other. We don't know if Zimmerman did anything other than follow him at a distance.  We don't know when he drew his gun.  Rational people who wait on facts don't know much of what would be needed to make a decision, but chizads dumb fuck ass made a decision long ago, and nothing will dissuade him and he'll frame his arguments around his "facts" to persuade anybody that will listen.   Please tell me what relevance there is to Trayvon's purpose in going to the store, or in what he purchased as to whether or not he may or may not have attacked Zimmerman?

Nailed it. I have nothing personal against Chad but he seems to pick a position based off a lot of emotion and empathy, and simply find out of context things to support the position that he wants to take. Sounds very similar to an argument from last week.

[GarMan]

Did you guys also realize that this was a gated community?  I'm sorry...  I just heard that and confirmed it online.  Trayvon had absolutely no motherfucking business being there.  END OF STORY! 

[GH2001]

Chad, I know you poked fun at JR with the leather bound books comment, but he IS a Prosecutor in an Alabama County. I know of some of the cases he has dealt with in the news. He has dealt with several similar cases and knows his shit accordingly. It doesn't mean he is the be all of everything but it does mean this is his area and he does it everyday. Is anyone else in this thread a Prosecutor of this types of cases? I think you just don't like his contribution to this because it conflicts with your opinion.

[AUChizad]

You were almost coming around, then you wrote that.  It's a good thing too, because you make the case against yourself.  If Trayvon felt threatened, which may or may not have been reasonable, he had a right to "stand his ground" not advance on and attack Zimmerman.  You can't stand your ground and, at the same time attack.  Zimmerman wasn't "looking for trouble" and his 911 call pretty well confirms what he was doing.   Your understanding of what is justified under the law is wrong. 



On the phone with 911, calm, or apparently so.  Don't know if he's in or out of the vehicle. 

At the one minute mark Zimmerman says: "Now he's coming towards me".  "He's got his hand in his wasteband."

A few seconds later: "He's coming to check me out, he's got something in his hand"

A bit later: "These assholes, they always get away"  (At this point, it would seem clear that the distance between them is still such that Zimmerman doesn't feel an imminent threat as he calmly gives more directions to dispatch, and he's certainly not panicking, nor out of breath from "chasing" and has made no overt threat to Trayvon)

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"

It's clear that he's not giving foot pursuit, or at least not running.  He's calmly giving his name and phone number.  You can no longer hear wind noise, which seem to indicate he was back at his truck, and he's telling them where he's parked.  It's clear at the end of the call(or at least TO ME, the tone of voice and words indicate to me that Zimmerman was no longer in following, or in pursuit, and had lost sight of Trayvon, and was now going to wait for police)

I think we can discuss this like adults again.

What I hear from those tapes only strengthens my position on who was looking for trouble, and whether or not Trayvon acted appropriately.

He did exactly what I would hope my kid would do if some guy is following him around a neighborhood driving slowly behind him in a car. Fucking run. Get out of there. That's what he tried to do, but Zimmerman kept up the chase. Ran after him on foot.

Him saying he's "coming towards him with something in his hand" and then a few seconds later complaining that "these assholes always get away" contradict each other. Seems like at the "He's coming toward me" portion of the call was when Trayvon became alerted that he had been following him and was surveilling him. So what did he do? He ran away. Tried to escape from the guy who had been following him for apparently no reason.

What happened when running didn't work? When the guy got out of his car and started chasing him on foot? He asked him what the fuck his problem was and attacked him (allegedly).

Given what we know transpired for a fact, and what can be gathered from the 911 call, in my opinion, Travon Martin did everything exactly as you would expect anyone to under the same situation to do. He did what I would hope my kid would do. He did what I certainly would have done. But Zimmerman, because he was so paranoid about this kid walking through his neighborhood wouldn't give it up and ended up shooting the kid.

All I'm saying.