[quote]bpick86 wrote:
He wasn’t TOLD to stay in the car. The dispatcher said “We don’t need you to do that”. That is far from being told to do something and it was more of a suggestion for Zimmerman’s own protection than for anything else.[/quote]
Not my recollection but you could be right. Still if he had heeded the “suggestion” this would all be a moot point.[/quote]
A suggestion from a dispatcher.
Dispatchers have no authority lol[/quote]
Nor did Zimmerman.
[/quote]
What’s your point?
You don’t have to be an authority figure to ask questions or defend yourself.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
If you go around confronting people you should expect to get knocked on your ass. [/quote]
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
I agree about expectations, but you should not go into any potentially violent confrontation without expectations of death or serious injury.
[/quote]
These statements apply to Martin as well ya know?
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
He wasn’t TOLD to stay in the car. The dispatcher said “We don’t need you to do that”. That is far from being told to do something and it was more of a suggestion for Zimmerman’s own protection than for anything else.[/quote]
Not my recollection but you could be right. Still if he had heeded the “suggestion” this would all be a moot point.[/quote]
Yes, yes you do. In a gated communities no less, he certainly had every right to speak to another human being.
So your contention is the man who was on the watch, and has a much less violent and criminal past, escalated the confrontation and shot a perfectly innocent man, who happened to just be strolling along, for what reason? (Not to mention, under your scenario, beat himself up after to cover his own tracks, after alerting the police he was about to murder someone…)
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
He wasn’t TOLD to stay in the car. The dispatcher said “We don’t need you to do that”. That is far from being told to do something and it was more of a suggestion for Zimmerman’s own protection than for anything else.[/quote]
Not my recollection but you could be right. Still if he had heeded the “suggestion” this would all be a moot point.[/quote]
A suggestion from a dispatcher.
Dispatchers have no authority lol[/quote]
Nor did Zimmerman.
[/quote]
What’s your point?
You don’t have to be an authority figure to ask questions or defend yourself.
[/quote]
My point is that if he had kept his dumb ass in the car none of this would have happened. you are right, you can ask all the questions you want. You don’t have a right to expect answers though. I’m not saying he didn’t have a right to defend himself, but we don’t know what happened.
If you need to rehash this there is a giant thread from a year ago covering all the same topics. I’m out.
Zimmerman the closet racist, jumps from his car, shoots martin and then proceeds to bash his OWN face in, because he already called the police alerting them to the fact he was about to commit a hate crime
OR
Some punk couldn’t let his ego go and thought he was billy badass. because some dude asked him while he was walking down the street in the middle of the night, dressed like the people that have broken into houses in the neighborhood before, Martian had to defend his honor. Just so happens he went to far in put Zimmerman in a fight or flight position, and flight wasn’t an option as his skull bounced off the sidewalk. [/quote]
You forgot #3:
Self-appointed neighborhood watch tough guy sees a kid walking and contrary to any recognized municipal watch guidelines, decides to confront the kid while armed. After the kids rightly tells him to fuck off a couple times, Zimmerman proceeds to shove him around. After all, these kids nowadays have no respect for authority. Zimmerman quickly finds the tables turned, draws, and kills Trayvon.
Yes, yes you do. In a gated communities no less, he certainly had every right to speak to another human being.
So your contention is the man who was on the watch, and has a much less violent and criminal past, escalated the confrontation and shot a perfectly innocent man, who happened to just be strolling along, for what reason? (Not to mention, under your scenario, beat himself up after to cover his own tracks, after alerting the police he was about to murder someone…)
How does that make any sense?
[/quote]
There was no imminent threat. What made him a threat?
You are being obtuse. Yes you have the right to talk to other people. They also have the right to tell you to blow it out your ass.
Please quit with the he was on watch. No he wasn’t, and if he were it was against their covenant for him to carry.
My contention is that a guy with a Napoleon complex that had tried and failed to get into the police force, felt like a big man because he had a gun and bit off more than he could handle without it.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
My contention is that a guy with a Napoleon complex that had tried and failed to get into the police force, felt like a big man because he had a gun and bit off more than he could handle without it.[/quote]
But regardless of how we got to the confrontation, Zimmerman did nothing illegal leading up to the confrontation and for the most part it appears to me that you are 100% correct about him ending up in a situation where he bit off more than he could chew without his gun. However, Martin, by being extremely aggressive in the physical confrontation, made that situation a self defense situation. Because of that, there is no crime. Maybe some bad decisions, but no crime on Zimmerman’s part.
The subtle troll mode? I use the term “ape shit” about twenty times a day. And I’m sorry, but if you don’t think that at least part of the black community in that area is going to flip the fuck out if Zimmerman is found guilty, then you are completely out of touch with reality.[/quote]
Oh, I’m sure there will be a reaction.
[/quote]
This could throw a monkeywrench in the discussion.
And lets not forget that it is not very far outside the realm of possibility that Martin was actually scouting houses to grab some stuff out of easily as Zimmerman thought. The kid had women’s jewelry found on him in a separate incident at school.
Zimmerman the closet racist, jumps from his car, shoots martin and then proceeds to bash his OWN face in, because he already called the police alerting them to the fact he was about to commit a hate crime
OR
Some punk couldn’t let his ego go and thought he was billy badass. because some dude asked him while he was walking down the street in the middle of the night, dressed like the people that have broken into houses in the neighborhood before, Martian had to defend his honor. Just so happens he went to far in put Zimmerman in a fight or flight position, and flight wasn’t an option as his skull bounced off the sidewalk. [/quote]
You forgot #3:
Self-appointed neighborhood watch tough guy sees a kid walking and contrary to any recognized municipal watch guidelines, decides to confront the kid while armed. After the kids rightly tells him to fuck off a couple times, Zimmerman proceeds to shove him around. After all, these kids nowadays have no respect for authority. Zimmerman quickly finds the tables turned, draws, and kills Trayvon.[/quote]
Fine, still much more likely than dude being a racist and beating himself up after telling the cops he was about to murder someone.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
My contention is that a guy with a Napoleon complex that had tried and failed to get into the police force, felt like a big man because he had a gun and bit off more than he could handle without it.[/quote]
But regardless of how we got to the confrontation, Zimmerman did nothing illegal leading up to the confrontation and for the most part it appears to me that you are 100% correct about him ending up in a situation where he bit off more than he could chew without his gun. However, Martin, by being extremely aggressive in the physical confrontation, made that situation a self defense situation. Because of that, there is no crime. Maybe some bad decisions, but no crime on Zimmerman’s part.[/quote]
All of this is true more or less, all I was saying was that the kids past has no bearing on the case. I think Zimmerman will walk and I don’t think he went out there with any intention of shooting someone.
There was no imminent threat. What made him a threat?[/quote]
I said: A potential threat that was traveling by foot.
Potential being the key word.
Correct. However, and this is key to this whole thing, they do not have the right to bounce your head off the pavement because you asked them a question.
Pretty sure he was on the watch, read somewhere he was the head of it I think, he may have been off duty…
Relevance? If MArtian’s past is irrelevant, so is Zimmerman’s. Please be consistent. I respect your position, but your argument can’t be “the dead boy’s past is irrelevant, but the shooter’s is paramount to my opinion of the case.” That makes no sense.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
I think Zimmerman will walk and I don’t think he went out there with any intention of shooting someone.
[/quote]
I agree with this as well.
This is tragic. One young man lost his life. Then another man who has to carry that weight with him, now has had his life ruined by the press and people with an agenda.
Relevance? If MArtian’s past is irrelevant, so is Zimmerman’s. Please be consistent. I respect your position, but your argument can’t be “the dead boy’s past is irrelevant, but the shooter’s is paramount to my opinion of the case.” That makes no sense. [/quote]
There is a difference between what is allowed in court and what is said here. I don’t really care if you say Martin was a gangbanging thug here, I just don’t think it should be introduced in court, just as I don’t think Zimmermans Napoleon complex will.
Yes, he was a member of the watch but he was not ON watch. I’m not sure how to make it clearer but he is FORBIDDEN to carry a gun while on watch. That means he cannot act in that capacity while armed.
Relevance? If MArtian’s past is irrelevant, so is Zimmerman’s. Please be consistent. I respect your position, but your argument can’t be “the dead boy’s past is irrelevant, but the shooter’s is paramount to my opinion of the case.” That makes no sense. [/quote]
There is a difference between what is allowed in court and what is said here. I don’t really care if you say Martin was a gangbanging thug here, I just don’t think it should be introduced in court, just as I don’t think Zimmermans Napoleon complex will.
Yes, he was a member of the watch but he was not ON watch. I’m not sure how to make it clearer but he is FORBIDDEN to carry a gun while on watch. That means he cannot act in that capacity while armed.[/quote]
The way I look at it, if you’re the head of the neighborhood watch you’re ALWAYS on watch. His job is to prevent/report crimes in the neighborhood for the sake of the community. What is he supposed to do if he sees something suspicious but isn’t on the clock? Just let it go? He would get fired if he saw something in progress or something suspicious, his suspicions turned out to be true and then he tried to justify his inaction by saying that he wasn’t on duty.
I know he isn’t a cop and doesn’t have the same latitude that a cop does, but police officers are ALWAYS on duty and are required to prevent crimes in progress whether or not they’re on shift or not. I tend to think that the same type of logic is applicable to Zimmerman here.
Relevance? If MArtian’s past is irrelevant, so is Zimmerman’s. Please be consistent. I respect your position, but your argument can’t be “the dead boy’s past is irrelevant, but the shooter’s is paramount to my opinion of the case.” That makes no sense. [/quote]
There is a difference between what is allowed in court and what is said here. I don’t really care if you say Martin was a gangbanging thug here, I just don’t think it should be introduced in court, just as I don’t think Zimmermans Napoleon complex will.
Yes, he was a member of the watch but he was not ON watch. I’m not sure how to make it clearer but he is FORBIDDEN to carry a gun while on watch. That means he cannot act in that capacity while armed.[/quote]
The way I look at it, if you’re the head of the neighborhood watch you’re ALWAYS on watch. His job is to prevent/report crimes in the neighborhood for the sake of the community. What is he supposed to do if he sees something suspicious but isn’t on the clock? Just let it go? He would get fired if he saw something in progress or something suspicious, his suspicions turned out to be true and then he tried to justify his inaction by saying that he wasn’t on duty.
I know he isn’t a cop and doesn’t have the same latitude that a cop does, but police officers are ALWAYS on duty and are required to prevent crimes in progress whether or not they’re on shift or not. I tend to think that the same type of logic is applicable to Zimmerman here.[/quote]
So you are applying the logic that we SHOULD give a neighborhood watch guy the same latitude as a cop.
The way I look at it, if you’re the head of the neighborhood watch you’re ALWAYS on watch. His job is to prevent/report crimes in the neighborhood for the sake of the community. What is he supposed to do if he sees something suspicious but isn’t on the clock? [/quote]