There are all kinds of legal things that I prefer not to see. Now answer my question.
You’ve said that, like, three times. Do you have hoopified-itisor something?
Will you just tell me what fucking point you’re trying to make, ferchrissakes?
So it was okay to do Martin, but not to you. Thanks for proving my point, coward hypocrite. Doesn’t matter if it’s legal, you just stated it’s not okay to do it to you, therefor it’s not okay to do to Martin.
For fuck’s sake. Let me fucking google that for you.
How many times does Rand Rover have to tell you? STOP USING FACTS. They have a well-known liberal bias.
Once again, please cite the law that Zimmerman broke as he followed Martin.
[quote=“The_Tao_s_Revenge, post:623, topic:616881”]
It’s possible that an adult who stalks a minor with the intent to murder him is already breaking the law; that’s kind of a moot point. Certainly, when he executed Martin for being black in a white neighborhood then conspired with the police to lie about it, many laws were broken.
Prove intent. Show the law that doesn’t allow you to follow someone on public property.
Depending on circumstances, about which you have no idea, the shooting was either lawful or unlawful.
What is “unknowable” about talking on the phone to his girlfriend? What is wrong about wandering around the neighborhood he had a right to be in, talking on the phone? Is it wearing a hoodie? All along I’ve thought that Zimmerman said “there is something wrong with hiim” and “he looks like he’s on drugs” because he was talking to himself, maybe smiling or frowning and gesturing with his hands. We know he was having a conversation but Zimmerman never described it that way. He saw a young black male, hoodie, unfamiliar… and therefore drug-crazed criminal.
I keep expecting you people to think. When will I learn that I’m expecting too much?
All of the news articles about “the police corrected witnesses” say just that–a report says that a witness says that the police corrected them or another witness. They don’t ever report more than that, such as details of the conversation, what it means for the police to “correct” a witness exactly, they just say that “the police corrected the witness.” That’s not a fact, that’s someone’s opinion.
Again, if you idiots would just wait, all of this would shake out. But no, you have to construct your personal narrative of the events based on your own biases.
You’re like a broken doll. One of those ones that says things, except your playback thing got stuck looping the same brainless recording.
It’s okay to do to Martin, but not to you. That’s all we need to know about your position.
And still you cannot cite the law. Yet you for some reason insist that Zimmerman had “no right” to follow Martin.
Hey, you lying, racist idiot:
Two very specific accounts, one of which NAMES the witness whose testimony was doctored by the police.
This isn’t hard to find, and the English teacher bit has been out there for days.
I guess this is the part where you say this evidence doesn’t count because we’re just committing the sin of “supporting ideas with facts,” yell your non-hilarious catchphrase “mic check,” and pretend anyone doesn’t realize you’re just defending the principle of white people murdering black people without consequence.
+1
Well, shit, you caught me. The jig is up, I admit it. I’m totally down with white people killing black people without consequence. I’m a lying racist, you found me out. Good job, sir, my hat is off to you.
The only problem is that for some folks, the answer to “what is the most likely cause of the events” seems to be “I don’t know, and I don’t want to know - let’s just believe what the only living witness tells us”
Most people want to have a thorough and unbiased investigation. That’s where the trouble starts - it is increasingly looking like the police/authorities were NOT interested in a thorough and unbiased investigation. It looks very much like they simply wanted to brush the whole incident under the carpet, and do virtually no investigating off what actually happened.
This is what has pissed people off.
When a violent incident happens, you can be assured that the parties on both sides will have two very different stories of why it transpired. Each party has incentive to paint themselves in the best light and their opponent in the worst light. Trouble is when there is a case like this when one of the parties is dead and cannot tell their story.
To simply believe the obviously biased statements of the (living) party to a violent act, and not even investigate properly is an affront to justice. This is what folks are pissed about. The dead youth could not speak for himself, and the justice system appeared to be completely uninterested in finding out the truth.
Rio Bravo:
Joe Burdette: It wasn’t murder.
Nathan Burdette: If he says it wasn’t murder, why do you say it was?
John T. Chance: Man gets shot that’s got a gun, there’s room for reasonable doubt. Man gets shot that hasn’t got a gun, what would you call it? But, you knew that already otherwise you wouldn’t have set things up the way you did.
QFT
No, that’s your bench. I’m on the side saying shut the fuck up with the conjecture and let the courts handle it. You know, the intelligent side.
This deflection is popping up everywhere, and I think it needs to be corrected:
No one said anything about Zimmerman breaking any laws by following Martin - they said that doing so initiated the confrontation.
To belabor the point:
Person A: We don’t know who initiated the confrontation.
Person B: Yes we do - Zimmerman was in a car, following Martin, and then proceeded to get out of the car to continue following him.
Person A: There are no laws against getting out of your car and following someone!
To show you the starting posts:
Jack Batty: He [Martin] had a right to do what he was doing: walking down a sidewalk.
Terr: And Zimmerman had a right to do what he was doing. All the way to the point of physical confrontation - whoever initiated it.