He was held to account. No laws broken. And nothing in his past had anything to do with this.
If Martin had not broken the law he’d be alive today. His actions put Zimmerman where he is today. There is no excuse for what Martin did.
Stop making excuses for criminals.
I’m not. There was no excuse for what Martin did.
Ghetto logic.
“Our people have it rough.” “The man is out to get us.” And other sundry assorted bullshit. Anything to avoid being held accountable for your actions.
Like the story I linked to upthread. A hotheaded young man with a history of run ins with the law encounters someone he thinks doesn’t belong in the neighborhood. They fight. The young man is losing the fight, so he uses a deadly weapon to even the score. We have a place for young men like this. It’s called prison.
Stop making excuses for criminals.
It seemed obvious to me that it was a frivolous, tongue-in-cheek comment. When he reacted as though I were seriously calling him a “lynching lyncher”, I explained to him that it was satirical. I think his outrage may be a bit disingenuous and hypocritical given his own previous comments, but I don’t have any actual problem with this person.
So we agree, 16 to life for Mr. Zimmerman. Glad you finally came around.
When he gets out, you’ll let him babysit for you?
That’s not hard to explain. He exited his car to keep an eye on Trayvon and when he didn’t see him down the walk way he continued to walk to the street to get an address.
No, we do not agree. Zimmerman doesn’t have a criminal past.
However, in Martin’s case You’re clearly making excuses for his criminal behavior. It’s illegal to attack and beat people.
Zimmerman did everything right. He called the police to report a suspicious person, followed their instructions, and agreed to meet with them. It was all recorded.
Martin on the other hand, went out of his way to approach Zimmerman while he was in his truck and again behind the houses. If he was suspicious of Zimmerman then he could have called the police or simply gone home. He had ample time to do both. Instead, he chose to beat Zimmerman without any signs of stopping. He’s the criminal.
yet again,
The ONLY evidence that Martin “broke the law”, is Zimmerman saying he was ambushed. Everything else that Martin was doing that night is legal*.
If, in fact Zimmerman tried to restrain Martin - then any punch thrown is perfectly reasonable self defence.
- I’d actually even go further than this, although legal is not a continumn, wandering through a neighbourhood in the rain is a lot less likely to cause you legal problems than getting out of your truck, with a gun, to follow someone into a back lane.
Zimmerman lives in
The
Retreat View Circle
at
Twin Trees Lane
Lakes
The only street name that isn’t also a part of neighborhood’s name is Long Oak Way. (I’m kinda surprised they didn’t name the street Tiny Pond La . . . err, Lakes Lane.)
To add injury to this insult to our intelligence.
It is impossible for Zimmerman to have ever given anyone directions to his house without telling them to turn at Twin Trees Lane.
It’s the street your on when you enter TRaTL from the North gate (the intersection of Twin Trees Lane and Oregon Avenue)
and
It’s the street your on when you enter TRaTL from the East gate (the intersection of Twin Trees Lane and South Oregon Avenue)
This isn’t “I can’t remember the names of the streets in my neighborhood”, it’s “I can’t remember the name of the one street that’s the only way to get into my neighborhood”.
'Course we do have to remember “There are no streets in the gated community.”
CMC fnord!
:dubious: Really - so when he was told “we don’t need you to do that” [follow him] and George still followed him, he was following instructions?
And now walking past to get to where you are going is “approaching”? And “going out of your way”? That’s a very interesting spin on the matter.
And by the same token, George had no need to get out of his truck, or be in the back lane - where there are no street signs. The nearest landmark, one that was very easy for the police to find him (if this was really the purpose) is the clubhouse.
What logical purpose was there for George to be where he was other than following Martin?
Makes sense. Over all, I think he did an OK job. I wouldn’t say great, but OK.
“If” is a word that requires evidence and all the evidence backs up Zimmerman’s account at this time. And a punch is perfectly reasonable but an unending beating is not. There is no indication that Zimmerman landed any blows.
You’re implying his gun was drawn and posed a threat. there is no indication of this. He didn’t use it until well into a beating that showed no signs of stopping. Zimmerman used the gun for it’s intended purpose and that was to protect himself. Prior to that everything Zimmerman did was not only legal but done using the proper channels to handle a suspicious person.
Your spirited defense of the indefensible is duly noted. Outside of those susceptible to ghetto logic, no one will be convinced.
“Those altar boys are lascivious and seductive,” said the Catholic priest. “Our men have done nothing wrong, and if they have, it’s because of the sexually permissive society,” said the Catholic Bishops.
Meanwhile, here in reality, a murderer is going on trial. His boys won’t have his back for this one. He’ll have to do the time himself. May it be hard, and may it be long. (That’s what she said!)
So he pretended not to know the street he was on to the dispatcher because he was anticipating using it as a pretext to go gun down a little black boy later? Makes no sense. Like Zimmerman, I have ADD. I couldn’t tell you what street is one down or up from mine and I’ve lived here for 9 years. He didn’t know the name of the street- that’s clear from the phone call.
From a definition of assault
If someone, bigger than you, got our of their car to follow you down the street in the dark and into a back lane - would you feel threatened by that activity?
is it reasonable to feel threatened by being very deliberately followed like this?
Note - we are not talking here about somebody walking to the same place as you, but someone that gets out of a car, in the dark, specifically to keep an eye on you. That would make me very very nervous about their intentions.
All the more so if they subsequently approached me and wanted to know what are you doing here.
- I have no idea how accurate that definition is - it was just a simple one returned by a google search
Go and take a look at the transcript of the 911 call - George was asked “are you following him” to which he replied “yeah”
He didn’t get out of the truck to get an address. He got out of the truck to follow Martin.
He had already given the police a house number.
What’s indefensible about defending yourself?
Why are you defending a street punk who went out of his way to confront Zimmerman in his truck and then attack him viciously? He was already behind the houses when Zimmerman pulled up yet he decides to approach him? Martin is the aggressor in this scenario, not Zimmerman.
See, this is why I don’t trust the motives of the Zimmerman defenders. It just doesn’t seem credible to me that a person couldn’t understand why Martin might have been in fear for his life.
A young black kid is walking down the street when an angry-looking shaved-head white guy starts slowly cruising down the street behind him. The kid gets so scared he runs, and the white guy gets out of his car and follows him.
This is got to be like the reason all the gun nuts buy guns, so they can defend themselves if they ever find themselves in this situation.
See, I don’t find this argument credible either. I think if it were a white kid and an angry-looking black man, and the kid had shot the man (instead of punching him) gun boards would have overflowed with congratulations for the kid for defending himself. If the story came out that the angry man was neighborhood watch, they would have all criticized him for behaving in a manner that put the scared white kid in fear of his life.
I just don’t believe anyone who pretends something different would happen; I no longer find them credible.
Bullshit. I saw the photos. There was no damage. Martin threw a couple of stinging punches that wouldn’t have made a grown man in fear of his life. And Zimmerman was a fucking bouncer; he wasn’t some 80-year-old woman. Zimmerman shot Martin because he was pissed and his pride was wounded. Period.
Or to see it when it obviously is there.
Oh, I strongly suspect I already know what you think.