Fair enough, Bricker.
So my question is this:
are there cases in Florida that are (somewhat) similar to Zimmerman’s?
What were the outcomes?
And Zimmerman had plenty of time to stay in his car and mind his own fucking business too. But then, I guess there’s nothing really wrong with chasing down one of those punk-assholes who always get away if you you’re packing. That way if he “brings the situation to you” you can just shoot him, free and clear.
Stand your ground. Yee haw!
There would be a lot wrong with him chasing someone down. Kindly show any evidence that he did that.
ime w/ T3h int4rwebz, it would save a step or two if you would go ahead and carefully define what “chasing someone down” means.
Generally that’s like the next couple of steps.
Person B comes back with evidence x, y, and z.
Then person A says, “Well x is not a true x. And y doesn’t really apply. And since you have no x and you have no y, the fact that there’s a z doesn’t matter.”
and then the conversation devolves into a sideline debate about whether or not x is a true x and whether or not y applies.
So, in my way of thinking, if you could go ahead and carefully define “chasing someone down” the conversation could go straight to the debate over what that ill-defined phrase actually means and we could skip some steps. Person B could avoid providing unacceptable xs and ys.
just a thought.
And this is the problem I have with Zimmerman’s defenders.
They really don’t care about Zimmerman’s actions–but they’ll turn around and say they are only interpreting the law.
I hope they understand that their viewpoints (if it were indeed law) can be used to a GREAT ADVANTAGE by sociopaths and unsavory people.
Who is to say that a guy can’t pick someone to rob (for example), the victim fights him back, gets killed in the process and then the robber claims self defense.
The robber might then lie and say that he wasn’t trying to rob anyone.
According to their views, that robber should not face charges if we can’t directly prove he attempted to rob someone and then killed a person because he fought back.
What they don’t understand is that criminals and sociopaths say these things ALL THE TIME…ALL the damn time.
**
I know, because I spent time dealing with people like this.
**
Again, time and place has to be accounted for. We have to look at the big picture that a person who WAS IN initial pursuit over someone HE (in that sick, sick mind) labeled as a criminal. He had a fucking gun.
The person who he pursued was doing nothing wrong and minding his business until coming into contact with Zimmerman and ended up dead by that gun.
This is the big picture.
Some people can say whatever the fuck they want, but that is the gist.
Even if I could imagine myself in Zimmerman’s shoes, there would be no damned way that I would expect not to see some prison time. No way.
If you can’t take the heat, stay the fuck out of the kitchen.
Zimmerman took the heat, and when Martin didn’t obey him, he shot him.
If you don’t want confrontations, don’t start them.
In my view, Zimmerman initiated it and was the aggressor.
There would be no fucking way I would follow someone that long (IN THE DAMN DARK) and not expect them to freak out. No way. You know why? I have common sense. Something like that where I live might get you shot or in a knife fight if you do it to the wrong person. And I would understand…no one wants to be followed. It’s threatening. No one wants to feel like prey.
Maybe it’s my experiences that have shaped my opinion. I grew up in some very trying (to say the least) environments.
Maybe some of the Zimmerman defenders don’t have these experiences. Maybe that’s why they take the positions they take and I am starting to see that.
Some of them have negative views of Martin, like some of the posters here. Some of them have a problem with African-Americans and don’t want to admit it.
That’s not quite correct - they should possibly face charges. What should not happen is them being convicted if we can’t prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that they were committing a crime.
Of course I understand that. It’s irrelevant to the fact that we have to prove them guilty, not just assume they are lying.
Shut up about the fucking gun. He was perfectly entitled to have it, and perfectly entitled to use it if he needed to in self defence.
Also, he didn’t pursue anyone - if you have evidence to the contrary, please share it.
Your view is based solely on your prejudice, not on the law or the evidence.
To recap. Following someone, even whilst carrying a concealed gun, is not initiating conflict. Phoning the police about someone you find suspicious is not initiating conflict. Asking someone what they are doing is not initiating conflict.
What did Zimmerman do that counts as initiating conflict? Please refer to actual laws, and actual evidence, rather than pulling an answer out of your arse.
So? I can follow you as long as I want, as long as I don’t actively threaten you (assuming no restraining orders or anything), and I’ve broken no laws, nor put you in reasonable fear of anything.
Now you’re heading towards the actual reason you shouldn’t follow someone - because you might get hurt. As Zimmerman did. Had he been sensible, he wouldn’t have been beaten up, forced to defend himself, and been threatened with a murder charge for attempting to defend his community and himself. Because of people like you.
I take the position I take because, unlike you, I understand the law, I understand what evidence and proof are - and, equally importantly, are not, and because I am able to look at the facts dispassionately, instead of jumping to conclusions.
I have a negative view of anyone who, unprovoked, punches someone to the ground then bashes their head into the ground repeatedly. Regardless of their appearance or background.
I also suspect you don’t understand what “provocation” is. Following someone, or saying anything except an actual threat, no matter how insulting, is not sufficient provocation to be allowed to hit them.
Zimmerman could have told Martin he called the police, he hoped he got his nigger ass thrown in jail for life, and that his mother was a crack whore and his father a whole platoon of sailors, and Martin wouldn’t have had the right to hit him.
So, tell me again how Zimmerman started it.
Only in your fantasies. Not in reality.
-
NO.
-
No. It is based on my understanding of what Zimmerman did that night.
You claim he was going back to his truck…
Interesting, because you can’t really pinpoint when exactly he did…if he did, but you claim it as some damned fact.
I suggest you follow your own advice.
-
Yeah, because you’re some sick twisted fuck, that’s why. Twisted minds think alike, that’s probably why your such a Zimmerman defender.
You somehow think this behavior is acceptable—IT ISNT. -
I hope you realize that what you wrote might get Zimmerman convicted?
This is the point that many have been trying to make, and finally you made it.
Because of people like you? And who would that be (LOL)?
Thank you for showing your stripes, but I knew what I was dealing with anyway. Defending his community? You have got to be fucking kidding me. He was defending his sick ego.
**
Let me be clear about this to other sensible posters: I have no problem with the idea of Neighborhood Watch. I have a problem with the actions Zimmerman took. **Again, I strongly suspect that if Zimmerman had the sense that you just wrote about (finally), this wouldn’t have happened.
Again, a simple “Hey kid, didn’t mean to scare you, Neighborhood Watch”, I guarantee you, this shit doesn’t happen. But that wasn’t his intention.
Oh wait, he didn’t have to–that’s not illegal. :smack:
-
Typical tripe. I know the truth, you don’t. I am dispassionate, you’re not. I know the facts, you don’t.
Yeah, that’s why you turn around and write a racial slur? FUCK YOU. (Oh wait, that was only a scenario :smack:) -
Yeah, and I have a negative view of people who set up people like some fucking sociopath.
-
If you can’t define something, don’t use it. The meaning I used is extremely clear.
yeah, like it happened the way you said it did. Sure. Zimmerman was going back to his car, when No LIMIT decides to “double back” and punch him. Supposedly, Martin channeled his innate Usain Bolt (all blacks run fast) to run AWAY from him, then come back. -
It must be liberating to type that!!!
But I knew what you were–thanks for confirming that with your explicit words.
But wait, I don’t know all the facts:smack:.
"So? I can follow you as long as I want, as long as I don’t actively threaten you (assuming no restraining orders or anything), and I’ve broken no laws, nor put you in reasonable fear of anything."
Twisted, but even if I were to accept this, look at the underlined part.
People don’t think following someone the way Zimmerman followed Martin put him in fear?
Maybe in their minds that’s not possible. Wonder why? Maybe it’s their prejudices about Martin as a NO LIMIT NIGGA WITH A HAIR TRIGGA (courtesy of** Shodan**).
I guess it’s reasonable to conclude by the underlined “definition” that Zimmerman should have broken his pursuit.
Maybe there is light at the end of the tunnel for you.
No, there’s no reason to think that following someone the way Zimmerman did put Martin in reasonable fear of anything.
Are you going to explain how Zimmerman started it?
There’s no indication that Zimmerman chased down Martin. You can hear what transpired on the call to the dispatcher. There’s no indication that he stood his ground. The evidence indicates that Martin assaulted Zimmerman and he defended himself.
the lesson here is don’t assault people. It’s really not hard.
I will be nice to you Terr, because you haven’t offended me.
If you have a self-defense claim, your story better be air tight in my opinion or damned close to it. I have no problems recounting my actions (where I was, what I was doing) when I have been put in situations where I was forced to defend myself. It didn’t get to the point where law enforcement had to arrest people, but again, if I needed to, there would few issues relaying my actions to them. Sure, details like what fist i used and when might be sketchy, but I would not have any problems telling them why I was there at the time that I was and other details **THAT PLACED ME THERE **(that’s the key).
Yes, there will be speculation, because Zimmerman’s story has holes.
Trust me, when you do something like Zimmerman did, expect those holes to be filled in, and they won’t be favorable to him, and IMO, NOR SHOULD THEY.
This is common sense to me. The same way if I did the same thing Zimmerman did, I would expect people to say the same things about me. Could I blame them? No. Again, I have common sense.
You’ll have to excuse me that I choose to disbelieve the account of some gun-toting individual who admitted to profiling someone and following him (with his psychological makeup and past run-ins).
You’ll have to excuse me that I choose to disbelieve his story of someone who he admitted was running away from him and did his best Usain Bolt impersonation in “doubling back” and punching him.
Again, If I were Zimmerman, I wouldn’t expect people to believe me either.
My hunch is that he knows this too.
If a person feels threatened then the appropriate action would be to put distance between the perceived threat and call the police. Martin did the exact opposite.
Your hunches are that a judo throwing Zimmerman randomly involved one of the people living nearby to conspire to kill Martin.
You used “IF” so I am taking your conditional and giving you a plausible scenario, based on your conditional.
So then you turn around and say, we’ll there is no evidence of that one.
If I put x in reasonable fear, then y.
Me: Trayvon Martin is X.
You: Oh, Trayvon Martin can’t be x. There’s no evidence.
I am starting to see what Patriot X was talking about.
**I am getting tired of playing this fucking game.
**
Please read my entire post and respond.
In your opinion. In Florida law, the prosecution has to DISprove, beyond reasonable doubt, the self-defense claim.
People get convicted on proof. Not on speculation. Especially not on speculation (like yours) that is pulled straight out of rear ends, with no evidence to back it whatsoever.
Depends what you mean by proof.
One can make logical deductions and use analysis to fill in gaps.
If the speculation fits in, then it fits in.
Again, Zimmerman’s story has holes. Even his defenders (if they’re honest) admit this.
Sure, speculation will fill in those holes. And unfortunately for Zimmerman and other criminals, if this speculation can be supported, guess what? Zimmerman will be screwed.
What the prosecution brings to the jury might very well be enough for them to win.
This is what some don’t get. They don’t necessarily have to turn every stone.
If this was the case, then I am pretty sure many more criminals would be walking the streets.
There might very well be things that are left unexplained (as there are in many cases)–don’t mean people aren’t gonna be locked up…
The prosecution doesn’t necessarily have to be air tight.
I would expect the defense to be, especially given the circumstances. I would expect no less.
Not if there is no evidence, whatsoever, to support your speculation.
If the prosecution brings speculation to the jury without any evidence, the judge will instruct the jury to disregard the speculation.
Apparently you have very little knowledge of the judicial process.
What does “beyond reasonable doubt” mean to you other than “air tight”?
You, again, betray utter ignorance of the US judicial process. The defense doesn’t have to be “air tight”. It just has to show reasonable doubt in the guilt of the defendant, and he walks.
Maybe in your country it’s different. But that’s how it is here in the US.
You are wrong, again. We need evidence to fill any holes, not speculation. He can’t be convicted because of speculation. The prosecution’s case does have to be airtight, to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. The defence simply have to introduce reasonable doubt about any element of the crime, and he’s not guilty. This isn’t unique to this case, it’s fundamental to how the justice system works.