[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
The tricky part is it can be reasonably argued that both were.
[/quote]
It’s only “tricky.” If you don’t understand the law. It is irrelevant whether the Black guy’s acts were legally justified or not. All that matters is if the Hispanic guy’s actions are legally justified.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
One would have thought the lame-stream media, Sharpton, Jackson, the NAACP, and the court of public opinion would hesitate to jump to conclusions before all the facts are released after the Duke lacrosse players rape fiasco but I guess that’s asking too much.
[/quote]
You would think so huh…the good reverend “AL” stood in downtown Durham, and called for the heads of the “entitled white devils” who harmed this “innocent black girl”.
AMAZINGLY he did not show back up and issue a retraction after it was found out that the girl made it all up.
Reverend AL and Reverend Jackson…race bating is our specialty.
Oh and lovely interview with the Black Panthers on CNN last night.
“the white man has to pay”
Jesus.[/quote]
Yeah, I expect Rev. Al to show up to protest the shooting of 3 little Jewish girls and a Rabbi, any time.
And a 74 year old Jewish man beat by a man wielding a hammer screaming “Allah something.”
And the cabbie in NY who shot two Jewish boys on the Brooklyn bridge because they were Jewish.
Waiting on you Rev. Al. Let’s see a march for justice.
(This was just my perusal of the last two weeks of news.)[/quote]
Not enough press for team race baiter…needs more black panther.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
For the record, Zimmerman’s “black friend” on tv said the picture circulating of him is about 50lbs off from the way he looks now. He was not that fat when this happened. He had lost weight since that pic was taken.[/quote]
Okay, the fat bastard has lost some weight. That explains it. Weakened by weight loss. Shit, I can’t even deadlift the amount of weight I would usually do 25 pounds heavier.
Trayvon Martin’s punch was so powerful that it knocked Zimms on the ground. I’m really seeing that happening.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
The tricky part is it can be reasonably argued that both were.
[/quote]
It’s only “tricky.” If you don’t understand the law. It is irrelevant whether the Black guy’s acts were legally justified or not. All that matters is if the Hispanic guy’s actions are legally justified.[/quote]
Not the way I had it explained to me by a cop. If you hold a hair brush where the handle looks like a gun, the person who feels threatened is legally threatened whether or not the person is actually at risk. If Martin felt threatened, then following that logic, Zimmerman started the whole mess and his claim of self-defense does not hold water. I think it is this point that is being overlooked. It is not just who punched who first. It is who threatened first. Again, this is how a cop explained it to me.
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
The tricky part is it can be reasonably argued that both were.
[/quote]
It’s only “tricky.” If you don’t understand the law. It is irrelevant whether the Black guy’s acts were legally justified or not. All that matters is if the Hispanic guy’s actions are legally justified.[/quote]
Not the way I had it explained to me by a cop. If you hold a hair brush where the handle looks like a gun, the person who feels threatened is legally threatened whether or not the person is actually at risk. If Martin felt threatened, then following that logic, Zimmerman started the whole mess and his claim of self-defense does not hold water. I think it is this point that is being overlooked. It is not just who punched who first. It is who threatened first. Again, this is how a cop explained it to me.[/quote]
That was why I mentioned if the gun was visible. People seem uninterested in this important fact. All of the actions committed on both parts make sense if that gun was seen as a threat in itself first.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
The tricky part is it can be reasonably argued that both were.
[/quote]
It’s only “tricky.” If you don’t understand the law. It is irrelevant whether the Black guy’s acts were legally justified or not. All that matters is if the Hispanic guy’s actions are legally justified.[/quote]
Not the way I had it explained to me by a cop. If you hold a hair brush where the handle looks like a gun, the person who feels threatened is legally threatened whether or not the person is actually at risk. If Martin felt threatened, then following that logic, Zimmerman started the whole mess and his claim of self-defense does not hold water. I think it is this point that is being overlooked. It is not just who punched who first. It is who threatened first. Again, this is how a cop explained it to me.[/quote]
That was why I mentioned if the gun was visible. People seem uninterested in this important fact. All of the actions committed on both parts make sense if that gun was seen as a threat in itself first.
[/quote]
It does not even have to get that far. It has been argued that you can legally follow a pedestrian while in a car. Try following some kids home from school that way, or female college students around campus, and see how long it takes for the cops to show up. I think that act falls under menacing and the kids, college students, etc. would not be considerd crazy for feeling threatened. Though less threatened than if you get out of the cat and start going after them when they try to run away.
Following someone in your car can easily be conceived as threatening. Getting out of the car to pursue someone ups the threat meter. Having a visible gun UPS it even more.
I do not understand how this is not seen as threatening behavior.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
The tricky part is it can be reasonably argued that both were.
[/quote]
It’s only “tricky.” If you don’t understand the law. It is irrelevant whether the Black guy’s acts were legally justified or not. All that matters is if the Hispanic guy’s actions are legally justified.[/quote]
Not the way I had it explained to me by a cop. If you hold a hair brush where the handle looks like a gun, the person who feels threatened is legally threatened whether or not the person is actually at risk. If Martin felt threatened, then following that logic, Zimmerman started the whole mess and his claim of self-defense does not hold water. I think it is this point that is being overlooked. It is not just who punched who first. It is who threatened first. Again, this is how a cop explained it to me.[/quote]
That was why I mentioned if the gun was visible. People seem uninterested in this important fact. All of the actions committed on both parts make sense if that gun was seen as a threat in itself first.
[/quote]
That is important to know, but unfortunately we probably never will. At some point it was visible, since the kid was shot, but since the kid is dead and there are no witnesses other than Zimmerman at the start of the fight, who is not stupid enough to say “Yes, My gun was visible before the kid attacked,” this will not be a factor in any trial that may or may not happen.
I just know I wouldn’t have faith that the pasty unathletic guy with the gun would be manly enough to keep it tucked away and perfectly conceiled until the absolute last minute. I would think that line of thought is bullshit and that it is way more likely the kid knew about the gun BEFORE it was fired. I also know no one tries to unarm someone with a gun pointed at them so even if Zimmerman turned around or lost track of Trayvon, if the kid thought his life was at risk, he should just get risk getting shot instead of ever fighting back?
Honestly, if the law is designed to overlook all of this simply because one party is dead, then maybe some laws need changing…immediately.
One more point…unless Zimmerman attacking an officer is now relevant, the act of trying to dig up all dirt on Trayvon unrelated to this is a tad over the top.
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
The tricky part is it can be reasonably argued that both were.
[/quote]
It’s only “tricky.” If you don’t understand the law. It is irrelevant whether the Black guy’s acts were legally justified or not. All that matters is if the Hispanic guy’s actions are legally justified.[/quote]
Not the way I had it explained to me by a cop. If you hold a hair brush where the handle looks like a gun, the person who feels threatened is legally threatened whether or not the person is actually at risk. If Martin felt threatened, then following that logic, Zimmerman started the whole mess and his claim of self-defense does not hold water. I think it is this point that is being overlooked. It is not just who punched who first. It is who threatened first. Again, this is how a cop explained it to me.[/quote]
That was why I mentioned if the gun was visible. People seem uninterested in this important fact. All of the actions committed on both parts make sense if that gun was seen as a threat in itself first.
[/quote]
It does not even have to get that far. It has been argued that you can legally follow a pedestrian while in a car. Try following some kids home from school that way, or female college students around campus, and see how long it takes for the cops to show up. I think that act falls under menacing and the kids, college students, etc. would not be considerd crazy for feeling threatened. Though less threatened than if you get out of the cat and start going after them when they try to run away.
Following someone in your car can easily be conceived as threatening. Getting out of the car to pursue someone ups the threat meter. Having a visible gun UPS it even more.
I do not understand how this is not seen as threatening behavior.[/quote]
It is threatening, BUT as I stated earlier, IF Zimmerman had stopped following Trayvon and was on his way back to the car there was no real way to rationally consider him still a threat and approach him and attack him. It is possible that as soon as Zimmerman got out of his car, Trayvon felt threatened and attacked. I would consider that reasonable. BUT, his girlfriend and Zimmerman both stated that Trayvon was fleeing, which does not support this hypothesis. Zimmerman claims he lost Trayvon. That may or may not be true, but the burden of proof lies on the prosecution and there doesn’t seem to be much evidence to support it. The same goes for the hypothesis that the chase was only for a short distance. That may also be a plausible explanation, but in order to get a conviction, there needs to be enough evidence to remove reasonable doubt, and there just isn’t here.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
It is threatening, BUT as I stated earlier, IF Zimmerman had stopped following Trayvon and was on his way back to the car there was no real way to rationally consider him still a threat and approach him and attack him.[/quote]
I disagree. This kid was still not home yet…and if he perceived a man with a gun was chasing him, why would he think the threat was over when he was still being searched for and still was not home yet?
Some of you act like the threat was over if Zimmerman walks back to the car. That simply gives him a bigger weapon to run over Trayvon with for all the kid knew.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
The tricky part is it can be reasonably argued that both were.
[/quote]
It’s only “tricky.” If you don’t understand the law. It is irrelevant whether the Black guy’s acts were legally justified or not. All that matters is if the Hispanic guy’s actions are legally justified.[/quote]
Not the way I had it explained to me by a cop. If you hold a hair brush where the handle looks like a gun, the person who feels threatened is legally threatened whether or not the person is actually at risk. If Martin felt threatened, then following that logic, Zimmerman started the whole mess and his claim of self-defense does not hold water. I think it is this point that is being overlooked. It is not just who punched who first. It is who threatened first. Again, this is how a cop explained it to me.[/quote]
That was why I mentioned if the gun was visible. People seem uninterested in this important fact. All of the actions committed on both parts make sense if that gun was seen as a threat in itself first.
[/quote]
It does not even have to get that far. It has been argued that you can legally follow a pedestrian while in a car. Try following some kids home from school that way, or female college students around campus, and see how long it takes for the cops to show up. I think that act falls under menacing and the kids, college students, etc. would not be considerd crazy for feeling threatened. Though less threatened than if you get out of the cat and start going after them when they try to run away.
Following someone in your car can easily be conceived as threatening. Getting out of the car to pursue someone ups the threat meter. Having a visible gun UPS it even more.
I do not understand how this is not seen as threatening behavior.[/quote]
It is threatening, BUT as I stated earlier, IF Zimmerman had stopped following Trayvon and was on his way back to the car there was no real way to rationally consider him still a threat and approach him and attack him. It is possible that as soon as Zimmerman got out of his car, Trayvon felt threatened and attacked. I would consider that reasonable. BUT, his girlfriend and Zimmerman both stated that Trayvon was fleeing, which does not support this hypothesis. Zimmerman claims he lost Trayvon. That may or may not be true, but the burden of proof lies on the prosecution and there doesn’t seem to be much evidence to support it. The same goes for the hypothesis that the chase was only for a short distance. That may also be a plausible explanation, but in order to get a conviction, there needs to be enough evidence to remove reasonable doubt, and there just isn’t here.
[/quote]
Do we know were Martin was when Zimmerman said he headed back to the car? While going to his car may seem like retreating but if the act.moves him towards Martin then it would appear like pursuit whether it was intended to or not. Just because Zimmerman said he was done does not.mean Martin felt any less threatened or that Zimmermans action appear like less of a threat.
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
The tricky part is it can be reasonably argued that both were.
[/quote]
It’s only “tricky.” If you don’t understand the law. It is irrelevant whether the Black guy’s acts were legally justified or not. All that matters is if the Hispanic guy’s actions are legally justified.[/quote]
Not the way I had it explained to me by a cop. If you hold a hair brush where the handle looks like a gun, the person who feels threatened is legally threatened whether or not the person is actually at risk. If Martin felt threatened, then following that logic, Zimmerman started the whole mess and his claim of self-defense does not hold water. I think it is this point that is being overlooked. It is not just who punched who first. It is who threatened first. Again, this is how a cop explained it to me.[/quote]
That was why I mentioned if the gun was visible. People seem uninterested in this important fact. All of the actions committed on both parts make sense if that gun was seen as a threat in itself first.
[/quote]
It does not even have to get that far. It has been argued that you can legally follow a pedestrian while in a car. Try following some kids home from school that way, or female college students around campus, and see how long it takes for the cops to show up. I think that act falls under menacing and the kids, college students, etc. would not be considerd crazy for feeling threatened. Though less threatened than if you get out of the cat and start going after them when they try to run away.
Following someone in your car can easily be conceived as threatening. Getting out of the car to pursue someone ups the threat meter. Having a visible gun UPS it even more.
I do not understand how this is not seen as threatening behavior.[/quote]
It is threatening, BUT as I stated earlier, IF Zimmerman had stopped following Trayvon and was on his way back to the car there was no real way to rationally consider him still a threat and approach him and attack him. It is possible that as soon as Zimmerman got out of his car, Trayvon felt threatened and attacked. I would consider that reasonable. BUT, his girlfriend and Zimmerman both stated that Trayvon was fleeing, which does not support this hypothesis. Zimmerman claims he lost Trayvon. That may or may not be true, but the burden of proof lies on the prosecution and there doesn’t seem to be much evidence to support it. The same goes for the hypothesis that the chase was only for a short distance. That may also be a plausible explanation, but in order to get a conviction, there needs to be enough evidence to remove reasonable doubt, and there just isn’t here.
[/quote]
Do we know were Martin was when Zimmerman said he headed back to the car? While going to his car may seem like retreating but if the act.moves him towards Martin then it would appear like pursuit whether it was intended to or not. Just because Zimmerman said he was done does not.mean Martin felt any less threatened or that Zimmermans action appear like less of a threat.[/quote]
Not only that…THIS IS A GATED COMMUNITY. Even if he walks back to the car, the kid is still trapped by a man he KNOWS was chasing him…and he may have even known about the gun at that time.
I just don’t see how walking back to the car means “safety” for the kid when the kid still had to make it home and he was trapped inside.
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
The tricky part is it can be reasonably argued that both were.
[/quote]
It’s only “tricky.” If you don’t understand the law. It is irrelevant whether the Black guy’s acts were legally justified or not. All that matters is if the Hispanic guy’s actions are legally justified.[/quote]
Not the way I had it explained to me by a cop. If you hold a hair brush where the handle looks like a gun, the person who feels threatened is legally threatened whether or not the person is actually at risk. If Martin felt threatened, then following that logic, Zimmerman started the whole mess and his claim of self-defense does not hold water. I think it is this point that is being overlooked. It is not just who punched who first. It is who threatened first. Again, this is how a cop explained it to me.[/quote]
That was why I mentioned if the gun was visible. People seem uninterested in this important fact. All of the actions committed on both parts make sense if that gun was seen as a threat in itself first.
[/quote]
It does not even have to get that far. It has been argued that you can legally follow a pedestrian while in a car. Try following some kids home from school that way, or female college students around campus, and see how long it takes for the cops to show up. I think that act falls under menacing and the kids, college students, etc. would not be considerd crazy for feeling threatened. Though less threatened than if you get out of the cat and start going after them when they try to run away.
Following someone in your car can easily be conceived as threatening. Getting out of the car to pursue someone ups the threat meter. Having a visible gun UPS it even more.
I do not understand how this is not seen as threatening behavior.[/quote]
I agree. How the fuck can you conclude that someone following through with these actions is non threatening???
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
I agree. How the fuck can you conclude that someone following through with these actions is non threatening???[/quote]
Well, he isn’t young, black or hooded…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
I agree. How the fuck can you conclude that someone following through with these actions is non threatening???[/quote]
Well, he isn’t young, black or hooded…[/quote]
Oh!!! That’s what I was missing!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
One more point…unless Zimmerman attacking an officer is now relevant, the act of trying to dig up all dirt on Trayvon unrelated to this is a tad over the top. [/quote]
As I said earlier, the right wingers can’t stand that a shot young black guy has no criminal record. All blacks are criminals after all. The right wingers will go dig deep to find anything to incriminate the dead boy. Anything to justify his murderer’s action. Anything to proove Zimms was feeling threatened that night. I bet had Trayvon really been a drug dealer/ gang member they’d been congratulating his killer even more.
The fucker with a history of cop battery and domestic violence, a loose canon as described by his neighbours, is seen as a fucking hero and should be given the benefit of the doubt.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Not only that…THIS IS A GATED COMMUNITY. Even if he walks back to the car, the kid is still trapped by a man he KNOWS was chasing him…and he may have even known about the gun at that time.
I just don’t see how walking back to the car means “safety” for the kid when the kid still had to make it home and he was trapped inside.[/quote]
His father’s fiancee lives in that gated community. Trayvon died about 200 feet from her house.
If you see someone who was chasing you walking back to their car, and you are a young athlete, it makes no sense to NOT sprint that 200 feet and call the cops from your house… unless you want to physically escalate the situation. Which would make you the aggressor.
Never let facts or proof get in the way of a good lynching.
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Not only that…THIS IS A GATED COMMUNITY. Even if he walks back to the car, the kid is still trapped by a man he KNOWS was chasing him…and he may have even known about the gun at that time.
I just don’t see how walking back to the car means “safety” for the kid when the kid still had to make it home and he was trapped inside.[/quote]
His father’s fiancee lives in that gated community. Trayvon died about 200 feet from her house.
If you see someone who was chasing you walking back to their car, and you are a young athlete, it makes no sense to NOT sprint that 200 feet and call the cops from your house… unless you want to physically escalate the situation. Which would make you the aggressor.[/quote]
Uh…unless trapped because the guy chasing you is between you and the house???
[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
One more point…unless Zimmerman attacking an officer is now relevant, the act of trying to dig up all dirt on Trayvon unrelated to this is a tad over the top. [/quote]
As I said earlier, the right wingers can’t stand that a shot young black guy has no criminal record. All blacks are criminals after all. The right wingers will go dig deep to find anything to incriminate the dead boy. Anything to justify his murderer’s action. Anything to proove Zimms was feeling threatened that night. I bet had Trayvon really been a drug dealer/ gang member they’d been congratulating his killer even more.
The fucker with a history of cop battery and domestic violence, a loose canon as described by his neighbours, is seen as a fucking hero and should be given the benefit of the doubt.
[/quote]
The kid was sent home for an “empty bag of weed residue”…which means a bag that smelled like weed. Zimmerman attacked an officer…and the same department that didn’t arrest a cop’s kid for beating up a black man let him slide.