Troubling news for the Trayvon Martin camp

[Joseg]

Where did I say I was Happy? And yes it's PLAIN WRONG, because he will never live a normal life again!

He does have a wife. And she's in trouble for LYING to the Judge. Pity? Really?

We don't know where this would be if the "peanut gallery" had stayed out. However, the COMMUNITY wanted justice in this matter.

So the MEDIA says. Because you know only what I know, and we both heard it on the NEWS...there you have it!

 

Dave S

 

 

You didn't but you consider "Justice" being served due to his suffering, based on your statement.   Community didn't want justice, mob rule wanted Justice.  If the Community wants Justice, then they would do the right thing and turn in all the Dope Dealers, Thieves, Shooters, Gang Bangers, and every one that is committing crime in the Community and/or against the Community. Ooops wait, you can't do that because you'll be labeled a snitch, but let's use this shooting and a catalyst to deflect the true issue. 

 

The Peanut Gallery, should probably spent time in Chicago where Black on Black crime happens on the Daily, Or in St. Louis where a Police Chief trying to police up his city almost died this week by an assailant while driving in a unmarked Police Impala wearing Police Uniform. 

 

Like I said, I can debate all day and find it entertaining, just found your statement disrespectful and unbecoming of a civilized person.  

Edited June 13, 2013 by Joseg

[KKing]

So, how bout them Braves?

[Guest nra37922]

Who here would not have followed someone that you considered suspicious walking through your neighborhood and report it to the Police?   And I'll ask again where is the outcry on why TM just didn't keep on walking and avoid GZ?

[Patton]

Even the most honest of people will lie when it comes to talking about their finances. Here is what sucks, anyone of us could have been Martin or Zimmerman. What I do believe is that Zimmerman was wrong to stalk (not illegal in FL in this situation) and Martin should have called the police himself. All evidence supports that Martin could have very easily made it home but instead decided to confront Zimmerman(Martin may have had a fear in this unknown guy knowing where he lived).
I hate it that both men are in the situation they are in now. It's unlikely that Martin would have killed Z but he could have. All it takes is a light hit to the right spot of the head to kill you.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Who here would not have followed someone that you considered suspicious walking through your neighborhood and report it to the Police?   And I'll ask again where is the outcry on why TM just didn't keep on walking and avoid GZ?

 

I might call the police if I was certain enough that the fella is suspicious-looking, but NOPE, no way would I track the fella in the dark. Somebody starts following me at night, that would get the spidey sense tingling fer sure.

[RobertNashville]

I’ve had four college classes (many, many years ago) that had I continued, would have eventually earned me a bachelor degree in criminal justice. So needless to say, my “book knowledge” of law enforcement/criminal justice is outdated and limited and my real-world street experience is non-existent. So; I acknowledge that I may be missing something here that those of you with real law-enforcement or legal experience may not be missing.

That said, if we can, let’s forget for the moment that this is the Zimmerman/Martin case, and also forget the “Neighborhood Watch” issue and what race anyone was and let’s just deal with person “A” and person “B” for now.

I don’t see/don't understand how person “A” is doing anything illegal by following person “B”…if it is illegal could someone enlighten me on why/how it is???

Maybe there is something critical that I’m “missing”, however, I just don’t see how person “A” following person “B” (because “A” thinks person “B” is “suspicious”) in any way gives person “B” the legal right to physically attack person “A”. Am I wrong about that and if so, could someone explain how I’m wrong/what I’m missing???

I also don’t see how person “A” following person “B” constitutes any sort of a threat to person “B”; at least not if “following” is all person “A” is doing…am I wrong about that and if so, enlighten me, please because it seems to me that person “A” would have to do something overtly hostile (threatening language, demeanor, perhaps showing a weapon, disparity of force, etc) before person “B” has any legitimate reason for attacking person “A” and frankly, I’m not even sure person “B”, even then, has the legal "right" to start a physical confrontation with person “A”???

Now, bringing this back to the Zimmerman/Martin case, I freely admit that Zimmerman may have acted stupidly. However, “stupid” or not, all I can see that Zimmerman did (at least as much as we know he did) is that he was following and/or somehow trying to keep an eye on Martin because the thought Martin was “suspicious”. I don’t for a moment think his intent was to “just go shoot Martin” as was suggested above. At the very least, there is no way in hell anyone here could know that!

So, if what Zimmerman did was not illegal and if what Zimmerman did, did not constitute an “imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury” then wasn’t Martin’s attack illegal (assault)?

Further, if Zimmerman was did not present an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to Martin then wasn’t Martin’s physical attack not only an illegal assault but, if it put Zimmerman in legitimate fear for his life, didn’t Martin’s attack give Zimmerman the legal right to defend his life and use deadly force to do so?

I suppose what I’m trying to say is that if I’m not doing anything illegal nor anything that would present an imminent threat of death/serious bodily injury to a person but that person violently attacks me I AM going to defend myself and if the attack is violent enough to put me in legitimate fear for my life I’m going to use deadly force to defend myself.

 

Isn’t that what anyone here would do?

 

Isn’t that precisely WHY we carry a firearm???

[RobertNashville]

Where did I say I was Happy? And yes it's PLAIN WRONG, because he will never live a normal life again!
He does have a wife. And she's in trouble for LYING to the Judge. Pity? Really?
We don't know where this would be if the "peanut gallery" had stayed out. However, the COMMUNITY wanted justice in this matter.
So the MEDIA says. Because you know only what I know, and we both heard it on the NEWS...there you have it!
 
Dave S

What I pity are those folks who are so damn sure about "facts" they have absolutely no way of knowing and who rejoice that a man (Martin) is dead OR who wishes that another man's (Zimmerman) life is ruined regardless of the outcome of the trial (even to the point of saying they hoped Zimmerman would be forever broke and in fear for his life from "hits" placed on his head).
 

...I personally hope Zman gets off the hook. I also hope he gets sued for millions for "wrongful death" and the dude (cowboy) cop wanna be, will never get to live a normal life. There are "hits' on him and he will always be looking over his shoulder and watching the shadows for the rest of his life. The jury can render a verdict of "innocent" and he'll pay for his stupidity for the rest of his life (how ever long that will last).

I find the above ^^^ pretty disgusting; most especially for someone who passes himself of as some highly experienced LEO. Edited June 13, 2013 by RobertNashville

[mikegideon]

I’ve had four college classes (many, many years ago) that had I continued, would have eventually earned me a bachelor degree in criminal justice. So needless to say, my “book knowledge” of law enforcement/criminal justice is outdated and limited and my real-world street experience is non-existent. So; I acknowledge that I may be missing something here that those of you with real law-enforcement or legal experience may not be missing.

That said, if we can, let’s forget for the moment that this is the Zimmerman/Martin case, and also forget the “Neighborhood Watch” issue and what race anyone was and let’s just deal with person “A” and person “B” for now.

I don’t see/don't understand how person “A” is doing anything illegal by following person “B”…if it is illegal could someone enlighten me on why/how it is???

Maybe there is something critical that I’m “missing”, however, I just don’t see how person “A” following person “B” (because “A” thinks person “B” is “suspicious”) in any way gives person “B” the legal right to physically attack person “A”. Am I wrong about that and if so, could someone explain how I’m wrong/what I’m missing???

I also don’t see how person “A” following person “B” constitutes any sort of a threat to person “B”; at least not if “following” is all person “A” is doing…am I wrong about that and if so, enlighten me, please because it seems to me that person “A” would have to do something overtly hostile (threatening language, demeanor, perhaps showing a weapon, disparity of force, etc) before person “B” has any legitimate reason for attacking person “A” and frankly, I’m not even sure person “B”, even then, has the legal "right" to start a physical confrontation with person “A”???

Now, bringing this back to the Zimmerman/Martin case, I freely admit that Zimmerman may have acted stupidly. However, “stupid” or not, all I can see that Zimmerman did (at least as much as we know he did) is that he was following and/or somehow trying to keep an eye on Martin because the thought Martin was “suspicious”. I don’t for a moment think his intent was to “just go shoot Martin” as was suggested above. At the very least, there is no way in hell anyone here could know that!

So, if what Zimmerman did was not illegal and if what Zimmerman did, did not constitute an “imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury” then wasn’t Martin’s attack illegal (assault)?

Further, if Zimmerman was did not present an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to Martin then wasn’t Martin’s physical attack not only an illegal assault but, if it put Zimmerman in legitimate fear for his life, didn’t Martin’s attack give Zimmerman the legal right to defend his life and use deadly force to do so?

I suppose what I’m trying to say is that if I’m not doing anything illegal nor anything that would present an imminent threat of death/serious bodily injury to a person but that person violently attacks me I AM going to defend myself and if the attack is violent enough to put me in legitimate fear for my life I’m going to use deadly force to defend myself.

 

Isn’t that what anyone here would do?

 

Isn’t that precisely WHY we carry a firearm???

 

Racist :)

[RobertNashville]

Racist :)

Old fart ;)

[Patton]

Following someone is not illegal. Truthfully Z could have legally followed Martin all the way to his front door. Martin had the legal right to confront and use force instead of retreat under stand your ground. I can't say that I may not do the same if I was being followed.

[DaveTN]

Who here would not have followed someone that you considered suspicious walking through your neighborhood and report it to the Police?

I would. But when they start running from me; I’m not getting out and chasing them or engaging an innocent citizen walking down the street while I am armed.
 

And I'll ask again where is the outcry on why TM just didn't keep on walking and avoid GZ?

You mean why didn’t Martin have a duty to retreat? He should have run away, he could easily outrun Zimmerman. He had no right to defend himself against a fat guy chasing him with a gun? When this started it was all about “Stand Your Ground” . Now that that doesn’t fit Zimmerman, but does fit Martin; it’s not about that anymore.

The only mistake Martin made was that he wasn’t equipped to defend himself against an attacker carrying a gun.

[Patton]

When this started it was all about “Stand Your Ground” . Now that that doesn’t fit Zimmerman, but does fit Martin; it’s not about that anymore.The only mistake Martin made was that he wasn’t equipped to defend himself against an attacker carrying a gun.

I have said that from the beginning, Martin utilized stand your ground and Z resorted to self defense. I am not saying either was wrong or right.

[Joseg]

The only mistake Martin made was that he wasn’t equipped to defend himself against an attacker carrying a gun.

 

Nope, look mistakes were done on both sides, we don't know what happened that night other than the 911 call and the end result. Did they confront each other, was it a polite conversation or was it an asshat type conversation that led them to blows. We don't know and we'll never know.. But we can't just crucify someone based on mob rule. 

 

I'm going to throw this out there:

Let's say Zimmerman was a Off duty police officer that was patrolling his neighborhood and the same thing happened, would those that are calling for Zimmerman's head, would you have done the same thing if it was and office duty officer? 

 

Another What if:

What if Zimmerman was unarmed and still patrolling his neighborhood and he's the one that gets killed, would you say he shouldn't have followed the man? Would those that jumped to hoops for TM, be there now?

 

I'm sorry but play stupid games and in stupid prizes. His parents should have reign him in and none of this would have ever happened. It's easy to pawn it off on some other situation, but as a parent you need to make sure your kid walks a fine line and it reflects on you as a parent. Kid was a problem child and continued to be one, they failed him and he paid the prize for their failure, now they are trying to get rich off his death, shame on them, the lawyers, and the Peanut Gallery. 

Edited June 13, 2013 by Joseg

[RobertNashville]

I would. But when they start running from me; I’m not getting out and chasing them or engaging an innocent citizen walking down the street while I am armed.
 
You mean why didn’t Martin have a duty to retreat? He should have run away, he could easily outrun Zimmerman. He had no right to defend himself against a fat guy chasing him with a gun? When this started it was all about “Stand Your Ground” . Now that that doesn’t fit Zimmerman, but does fit Martin; it’s not about that anymore.

The only mistake Martin made was that he wasn’t equipped to defend himself against an attacker carrying a gun.

OR his mistake was starting a physical confrontation that did not have to happen.

 

Had Martin walked away (which would have been the SMART thing to do even if he had no obligation/duty to do so and which evidence suggests he had ample opportunity to do), he wouldn't have needed to "defend himself".

 

Where is the evidence that Zimmerman was "chasing" Martin OR that Zimmerman at any time "confronted" Martin?  If you want to assume that's what happened, that's fine...but at least admit that it's just assumption on your part. ;)

Edited June 13, 2013 by RobertNashville

[DaveTN]

Where is the evidence that Zimmerman was "chasing" Martin OR that Zimmerman at any time "confronted" Martin?  If you want to assume that's what happened, that's fine...but at least admit that it's just assumption on your part. ;)

It’s all arm chair quarterbacking, assumptions and wild azz guesses. Are you implying your opinions are something other than that?

[Guest nra37922]

I am afraid the old 'chip on the shoulder' cross that way to many carry may have led to TM getting himself killed.  I can see this scenario happening

 

1)  TM is actually minding his own business while walking though the neighborhood

2)  GZ is honestly actually suspicious of someone walking through his neighborhood alone at night and follows TM.

3)  TM cops the old 'I was being disrespected' BS line that we hear way too often and confronts GZ.

4)  Words are said, or maybe not, and TM jumps GZ and pounds his head into the sidewalk.

5)  GZ shoots TM

6)  TM dies and GZ is legally lynched.

7)  MS(BS)NBC doubles its viewer count to 100 for the trial.

8)  GZ found not guilty and DOJ then prosecutes him.

9)  'Run' on electronics, jewelry, clothing and alcohol in the Sanford area.

[RobertNashville]

I am afraid the old 'chip on the shoulder' cross that way to many carry may have led to TM getting himself killed.  I can see this scenario happening

 

1)  TM is actually minding his own business while walking though the neighborhood

2)  GZ is honestly actually suspicious of someone walking through his neighborhood alone at night and follows TM.

3)  TM cops the old 'I was being disrespected' BS line that we hear way too often and confronts GZ.

4)  Words are said, or maybe not, and TM jumps GZ and pounds his head into the sidewalk.

5)  GZ shoots TM

6)  TM dies and GZ is legally lynched.

7)  MS(BS)NBC doubles its viewer count to 100 for the trial.

8)  GZ found not guilty and DOJ then prosecutes him.

9)  'Run' on electronics, jewelry, clothing and alcohol in the Sanford area.

I think you nailed it...I think sweet little Trayvon is dead primarily because he had a thug-want-a-be attitude and wanted to prove he really was a thug.

 

Now I freely admit that's pure conjecture on my part but it's conjecture based on information that, unfortunately, likely won't be admitted at trial.

Edited June 13, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Links2k]

Following someone is not illegal. Truthfully Z could have legally followed Martin all the way to his front door. Martin had the legal right to confront and use force instead of retreat under stand your ground. I can't say that I may not do the same if I was being followed.

This is what most people are over looking. How far do you have to run from a stranger following you? What if Martin were a women who knew that she would eventually be caught and over powered? At some point, if you feel that you can't get away you must confront the threat. I've been in a similar situation where my fight or flight response took over. I fought and disengaged until I could get assistance.

One more thing. A lot of people are attempting to apply adult logic to Martins actions. I have a very bright young man who may be attending an Ivy League university in the near future, but sometimes he leaves me perplexed by his thought process. No matter how big, strong, smart or fast they are young people are not always equipped to make the right decisions. Yes, there are exceptions as evidenced the the thousands of us who have been in combat during our teenaged years.

Some are fast to point out Martins eminent future as a thug, yet fail to mention Zimmermans actions as a flawed adult with several run ins with the law. As I have mentioned before, this case is not about what Zimmerman and Martin were or aspired to be. This case is solely about the actions of two individuals who crossed paths on a tragic Florida evening.

[Spots]

I am afraid the old 'chip on the shoulder' cross that way to many carry may have led to TM getting himself killed. I can see this scenario happening

1) TM is actually minding his own business while walking though the neighborhood
2) GZ is honestly actually suspicious of someone walking through his neighborhood alone at night and follows TM.
3) TM cops the old 'I was being disrespected' BS line that we hear way too often and confronts GZ.
4) Words are said, or maybe not, and TM jumps GZ and pounds his head into the sidewalk.
5) GZ shoots TM
6) TM dies and GZ is legally lynched.
7) MS(BS)NBC doubles its viewer count to 100 for the trial.
8) GZ found not guilty and DOJ then prosecutes him.
9) 'Run' on electronics, jewelry, clothing and alcohol in the Sanford area.

I think you nailed it...I think sweet little Trayvon is dead primarily because he had a thug-want-a-be attitude and wanted to prove he really was a thug.

Now I freely admit that's pure conjecture on my part but it's conjecture based on information that, unfortunately, likely won't be admitted at trial.

Well TM proved he was a thug. And now hes dead because of it. Ive stayed out of this thread, mainly because I don't want to create bad blood with friends on here over something like this, and because I don't haveenough information. Based on what Ive seen, heard and read here is my 2 cents which is pretty worthless with this inflation.

Zman saw a young thug walking through his neighborhood and called the law while keeping an eye on him. At some point between hanging up with law enforcment and getting back into his truck, Zman was jumped by TM in an effort to make sure Zman knew better than to "disrespect him" by following him. After having his head bounced off the curb Zman did the exact same thing most hcp holders would have done in fear of their life. He drew his legally carried firearm and shot and killed the man attacking him. Zman made a bad decision by following TM on foot, but he was doing what he thought he should by trying to keep thugs out of his neighborhood who may be looking for their next score on a house. Police say it was a good shoot, the race baiters get involved, police fear the mob and bring Zman up on charges at a later date. I didn't contribute to either one because I have trouble paying my bills month to month, much less helping someone else. But I'm sure as hell not going to make some hood rats parents ghetto rich because their son spun the wheel and hit the jackpot. TM was a thug who got what he deserved. The only thing I hate is that it came from a ccw holders gun who is now being brought up on murder charges for defending himself rather than in a driveby by one of his fellow bangers.

This is getting MSM attention because a 30 yr old white male shot a 17 yr old black male. Had this been the other way around, the trial wouldnt have garnered any attention. If you dont believe me look up the story on the black men who shot the kid in the stroller. Or the illegal immigrant who raped and killed a 9 month old then tried to flee back across the border. The msm has an agenda to help this administration, which means protecting the minorities and persecuting the evil, white, patriot, Christian males at every opportunity. They have hung Zman out to dry, and I will not be one who celebrates him having hits on his head and being in fincial ruin as justice for a dead thug

Sent from the backwoods of Nowhere

[Links2k]

I have said that from the beginning, Martin utilized stand your ground and Z resorted to self defense. I am not saying either was wrong or right.

That's how I see it.

[Links2k]

 
I'm sorry but play stupid games and in stupid prizes. His parents should have reign him in and none of this would have ever happened. It's easy to pawn it off on some other situation, but as a parent you need to make sure your kid walks a fine line and it reflects on you as a parent. Kid was a problem child and continued to be one, they failed him and he paid the prize for their failure, now they are trying to get rich off his death, shame on them, the lawyers, and the Peanut Gallery.

You make good points sir. Parents should do everything possible to raise their children to be good citizens. I have been rewarded with good students and a lifetime of memories. My wife and I have bent over backwards to achieve such a goal, but as evidenced by the language that I have discovered on one of my kids Facebook accounts you would swear that my child had been raised by savages. In short, regardless how we raise our kids it doesn't mean that it will always be reflected when they are out in public. Young peoples actions are not always a product of bad parenting, but of bad decision making.

[Links2k]

The msm has an agenda to help this administration, which means protecting the minorities and persecuting the evil, white, patriot, Christian males at every opportunity.

Sent from the backwoods of Nowhere

Yeah, everyone knows that the white Christian male is the most oppressed individual on the face of the earth. Someone always has their foot on that individuals neck. Some of you guys are worse than the Sharpton/Jackson crowd.

[Patton]

The play stupid games and win stupid prizes theory has been in my mind this whole time, FOR BOTH PARTIES.
I could go out at night and dress like a thug, walk the streets with a large hoodie, walk in the shadows, but I don't because I may not be able to handle the repocussions.
I could go out and play neighborhood watch commander but I don't because it's stupid. If I see something suspicious I call the police or take good notes so in case a crime occurs I can turn over information. If I am getting paid to wear my badge I will do my job.

[Spots]

The msm has an agenda to help this administration, which means protecting the minorities and persecuting the evil, white, patriot, Christian males at every opportunity.


Sent from the backwoods of Nowhere

Yeah, everyone knows that the white Christian male is the most oppressed individual on the face of the earth. Someone always has their foot on that individuals neck. Some of you guys are worse than the Sharpton/Jackson crowd.

Redacted.

Sent from the backwoods of Nowhere
Edited June 13, 2013 by Spots

[Links2k]

Spots, I apologize! I simply take great offense when any American attempts to protray themselves as a victim.