Not on the day of the Martin affair but eight years ago when he was arrested. See post #34.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spafranco
Printable View
Not on the day of the Martin affair but eight years ago when he was arrested. See post #34.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spafranco
You obviously need help, however I am not sure if I am the right person to teach your to read English.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Or maybe you can tell me where did I say that he was doing something illegal by following M?! LOL
What I said is that GZ was lying about his doings. There you go, I've helped you out with this one.
LOL, you really have a reading issue now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Well well! Thanks for confirming that this 'Batman' is out looking for violence. To me it was obvious from the first second that he was not out protecting the 'hood.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Alca-Tazizzle
He wasn't looking after anyone else' interest, he was out to pick a fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
So no thanks, I rather not have someone like him around at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Being this thread is intended at evidence and what the jury was allowed to hear, what facts do you have that support such an opinion?Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Fair point air' but I think io' has a pretty fair picture of what this freakin' guy was about. Isn't it ironic that a man who has an arrest record that includes two felonies, kills an adolescent with NO criminal record, is viewed by some as an upstanding citizen, which he may have turned into after his serious brush with the law earlier in his life. Martin as it has comes out was no angel, however he never got the chance to become a responsible citizen after his 20's because some vigilante punk blew him away after stalking him to the point of the freakin' guy just wanting to kick his ass! These matters in this exact situation are best left to the authorities, not wannabe’s like jerk-off.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Alca-Tazizzle
IMO only if you grossly twist the facts can you find Zimmerman guilty of any wrong or even possibly illegal act. Prior arrests did not lead to charges or convictions of any felony. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned his recent warning for speeding.
As I said in a previous post, people with nothing to hide generally don't try to hide anything. We had quite a few people in my area out watching the neighborhood, and even the people up to know good didn't try to ambush them or start any physical confrontation. I'm sure with all the controversy that if they could have charged Zimmerman with a lesser crime they would have given it a try.... but they didn't.
We had a kid up the street that was heading down a road worse than all evidence suggests Trayvon was heading down. It was the actions of residents, not police, that made him see the light that what he was doing could land him in prison when he became of age. I spoke with him about 2am one morning and had a great number of things to say that he didn't want to hear, including how his actions reflected on his family. Yet there was no confrontation, no violence, and no threat to either person. If there was any evidence that Zimmerman started the physical actions or provoked them beyond reasonable, I'd condemn him in a second. But I've yet to see any such evidence.
Or perhaps try out his new skill set.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
I guess we'll never really know. However I'm still glad Z received a thorough ass-whippin'.Quote:
A physician's assistant reveals that George Zimmerman had been 'training intensely' in MMA in the weeks leading up to his confrontation with Trayvon Martin.
Who is twisting facts here?Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
So you don't think it is illeagle to strike a police officer while she is detaining one of your bro's :confused: :laugh:Quote:
•In 2005, Zimmerman, then 20, was arrested and charged with “resisting officer with violence” and “battery of law enforcement officer,” both which are third-degree felonies.
He wasn't prosecuted because his attorney negotiated a bro deal/plea.
The full quote, not the partial you used. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
He wasn't convicted because the charges were reduced, then dropped. You can never be convicted of a crime you don't go to court for. And let's be real here... if he was even remotely violent with the cop they wouldn't have reduced or removed the charges IMO. Beating on a cop will get you a record in a hurry. I fully admit felony charges were initially made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Alca-Tazizzle
In the case of the shooting, the jury was allowed to consider the charge of manslaughter as well, but didn't convict him of any charge.
The arrests resulted in felony charges never tried. But you can be charged with anything that is dropped, or arrested for a felony but never charged. Neither makes you guilty of a felony.
And I am glad another houdilam, punk, drug addict is gone from the face of the earth. !!! AmenQuote:
Originally Posted by Mr Alca-Tazizzle
Either way you were wrong on the point I emboldened :bulb: ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
air' I never contended he was tried or convicted, only arrested, and as a consequence did a diversion program or face prosecution (for the reduced offense).Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Z's father at that time was a retired Magistrate for the Supreme Court of Virginia, and his mother a Court Clerk. I'm willing to bet he had some pretty good legal advice. Understand one thing; if he didn't accept diversion he would have been prosecuted for the reduced offense, so there were consequences to his illegal action, period. And as I have stated twice already on this thread I believe the jury came back with the correct verdict in his trial :bulb:
So, in your opinion and the opinion of Starter the person doing the following,armed and with no evidence of any wrong doing, ignoring the advise of a dispatcher from the police is effectively a hero and not an "aggressor" in this case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
The person that deserved to be shot,in both of your opinions, is Trayvon Martin an unarmed 17 year old coming home from a convenience store. His life ended because he looked "suspicious" was black wearing a hoody or hoodie or whatever the damn thing is named.
Once more the right wingers are all pumped up with synthetic testosterone injected by the likes of draft dodger Limbaugh, Hannity O'Reilly and others. Better to kill him than have him break into a home. Well done fellow citizens. You have once again shown how barbaric and savage we have become when a 17 year old, no matter what he looked like nor where he was coming from can be shot dead by an adult wielding a gun.
This is another fine example of why the second amendment is a redundant piece of heralded constitutional law reflecting 1700's attitudes in 2013. It seems we are doing one thing really well. We are devolving rather than evolving.
I suggest that if the case were that your child was killed by a person like Zimmerman you would not be as vocal about his stand your ground.
You would also know about the actual injuries inflicted on the killer that never seem to be discussed. All you hear is "bashing" his head into the ground or "slamming" his head into same.
The injuries do not substantiate this argument. One of the most prone areas for excessive bleeding due to the number of small vessels, Zimmerman did not have anything but superficial injuries that would be more consistent with a marked abrasion as the result of the surface with which he struck his head.
So Daniel and Stater, if you are a parent , Caucasian and you child is killed while coming back from the store (regardless of you child's record) I'm glad to see that you are in favor of your child being killed.
So all of you Urpean librals. Welcome to USAOK corral. Anything goes, as the name suggests, it is AOK!
I find it funny how s0ome of the 'law abiding' citizens around here are taking the side of a violent person with a record of hitting a police officer when he he shot a black young person who might have been doing something wrong in an unclear situation.
They also go to great lengths to twist truth to make this prick look like an angel.
Disgusting!
They're not 'law-abiding citizens'. They are people with a desperate desire to take the law into their own hands — nothing more than vigilantes.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Glad you used the word "some". The trial was only about THAT ONE DAY and the events which transpired between Martin and Zimmerman. Most, but not all, of the posters have confined their comments to the issues covered in the trial. So your comment is otherwise overly broad and attempts to paint a picture not in evidence. What either M or Z had done previously isn't really pertinent to what happened that day.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Your assertion that ...."when he he shot a black young person who might have been doing something wrong".... ignores that the evidence indicates that the shot didn't occur until the physical altercation was well under way. Assaulting someone and hitting their head on the ground is not what most people would call "might have been doing something wrong". In this country it's pretty much illegal to physically attack another person just because they're watching you or following you. Just as some have said that Z should have ended his involvement when the 911 operator suggested it, M should also have continued straight home and called 911 if he felt that he had been threatened. Neither chose to do it. Still, in my mind, the physical assault trumps the stalking as the worse of the two offenses.
I also wonder from your comment "a violent person with a record of hitting a police officer" if it means that you are suggesting that people should be judged forever on the worst thing they have ever done previously?
Absolutely. Less criminal scum there is in the world, the better. A good burglar is a dead one. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Spafranco
I guess you would have loved him to have been beaten up properly, with preferably a skull fracture before being allowed to defend himself? If three intruders enter my home, threaten me with a knife and in defence of my family I shoot them all, but I escape without injury despite my life having been in danger, would you say I have gone too far? Or should I have allowed them to cut my throat first and only then defend my family? It seems you would prefer the second option.Quote:
The injuries do not substantiate this argument. One of the most prone areas for excessive bleeding due to the number of small vessels, Zimmerman did not have anything but superficial injuries that would be more consistent with a marked abrasion as the result of the surface with which he struck his head.
Demagogy.Quote:
So Daniel and Stater, if you are a parent , Caucasian and you child is killed while coming back from the store (regardless of you child's record) I'm glad to see that you are in favor of your child being killed.
Firstly, I hope my child won't turn out a burglar and a druggie. Secondly, if my child attacked someone without any cause and that person in self-defence shot him, well, I wouldn't be happy obviously, but my stance on this issue would not change.
It is funny that idiots with some certain political agendas are still trying to make this a race issue.
Florida blacks benefit from Florida 'Stand Your Ground' | The Daily Caller
:laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
What an idiotic "assessment". The only vigilante here was the one who attacked first and rather deservingly, got shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Any proof of that? Thought so.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
You asked Ioan a question and assumed the answer in your own post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
That is exactly what most of us here that believe there was a miscarriage of justice feel. You have had him(Trayvon Martin) tried and convicted and as you state above without a sense of dignity to a young victim of gun violence "criminal scum". What would you really like to have said, Walker?
"What the jury heard" convinced them that killing Martin was a shooting justified in self defense. So in reality the law and the jury decided that the young man some are attempting to paint as innocent was endangering another persons life to the point that his shooting did not result in any conviction of wrongdoing.
I'm curious for all those so opposed to the "stand your ground" laws, why only Zimmerman shouldn't have stood his ground? If in fact nobody could legally stand their ground the first aggressor would be the one in the right, and the other should flee. But, what if you can't flee due to being less capable? Do you just scream for help and take a beating?
I'm not at all surprised that a question I posed much earlier during this issue was never answered by many. If the same circumstances took place, but Zimmerman killed Martin with a lethal blow, would people think of the issue different?
Except the answer he assumed is precisely the opposite of the one he intended, because of his poor English. 'Thought not' would have been accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spafranco
I'd still think there was a blood lust on the part of some.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Oh funny, more personal attacks from dunnell. What a surprise :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
As I have said before, english is not my native language. So please be so kind and do enlighten me on why was what I said incorrect. Show us your wisdom.
Young victim? He was a druggie, with criminal past who attacked someone who perhaps was not doing something smart, but it sure was not illegal. Martin was no victim in this case. By all accounts, he brought this on himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spafranco
Not a personal attack, just a legitimate correction. 'Thought so' indicates that the person of whom you were asking the question does actually have proof for their statement. 'Thought not' does not. Quite easy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
A druggie? A criminal? Attacked a person?Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
Gary, please do me a favor. Why not admit your real reason for calling the death of the young man a good thing and in the process you will cleanse yourself of everything that is hindering or may be hindering your vision of reality. This is not an insult. It is a proven and credited point of view that people who have a right wing view differ from those with a left wing view. However, critical thinking can allow the person to take a more thought provoking analysis of the events during certain times.
Critical thinking?
Illegal drugs in his system, burglary tools hidden during the incident, and at a bare minimum engaged in a violent fight in which the jury decided was sufficient enough for a second party to fear for his life to the extent of justification of deadly force.
What the jury heard was not the entire story, but it was enough to decide that it was legal for this person to be killed in another persons self defense. A lot of the "critical thinking" seems based on emotions rather than facts, which is a very flawed model of critical thinking IMO.
Fact > fiction in critical thinking skills.
Once more another person has decided Trayvon Martin's guilt and the jury did also. That much I cn agree with you. Beside that, I look at it and peruse the situation and without a shadow of a doubt in any other western/industrialized country, Zimmerman would be in prison. No if's ad's or but's. I could almost guarantee it.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
A person being followed for no reason other than suspicion and the fact that he had tools that were "supposedly for a burglary" was shot dead because he accosted or was said to have because he was being followed. Where is the aggression. Only with Zimmerman. Oh, and in every industrialized/western country he would NOT have had the gun as it would be illegal.
Gary Walker could have his "druggie, criminal" to fret about. Let he without sin cast the first stone.
Critical thinking Airshifter does not explain your answer as you assume and presume all at once.
So far I haven't seen a list of the tools said to be used for burglary . If we had seen them , we could judge as well if they were tools used for such purposes .Quote:
Originally Posted by Spafranco
As it is , we have to trust the court , if that's what they deemed them to be .
Surely , if we trust that to be true , must we not take that as some proof that there was potentially more to Trayvon's trip to the corner store than just a pack of skittles and a watermelon iced tea .
It isn't that much of a stretch to see having tools used for burglary , and stashing them , so as to avoid be caught with them , as being justification of Zimmerman's suspicion firstly , and being the reason he was acting abnormally enough to draw that suspicion in the first place .
Having stashed them backs the idea that he was returning to confront Zimmerman , who was , somewhat foolishly , following him into an ambush .
I could go to a football game with a cheese-head hat. Are you going to assume that I am a Packers fan? Is there any sense of horror in all this pertaining to Trayvon Martin. All I see is apologists for Zimmerman who, if he kept to his own business none of this would have happened. It's a disgrace and a disgrace to even go on the word of the Saintly Zimmerman for your presumed happenings of that evening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
I have assumed or presumed nothing. My thought process is based on facts. Something which it seems many keep choosing to ignore in hopes of furthering the idea that Martin was just an innocent kid doing nothing wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spafranco
Zimmerman was not tried in a country that would jail someone for defending their life. He was tried in a country that allows a person to defend their life and property.
Sure, most western countries would exonerate a person that was defending himself from an attack that was instigated by another. You did presume/assume that the tools were weapons for burglary. How do you, Zimmerman,his lawyers of the jury conclude that. You comment about defending your person and property is in direct correlation to an antiquated system of laws where an innocent can be killed carte blanche and not one person that I can see from my experience on this board that has a predominately conservative point of view has stated or even implied that Zimmerman was the aggressor. I am certainly at a loss that the victim who has not committed a crime is the criminal.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
You think this was an act that is consistent with protection of one's person and property?! Are you one of those that states USA #1?
This sure is not the country I grew up in or the morals I learned. I look at this verdict as shameful, just as in the Casey Anthony scenario. You believe she was innocent too based upon your other posts and those of many more.
I assumed nothing. The tools were stated as such by the professionals investigating the case. Though from my understanding not admitted in court, previous history of such tools and "gifts" of jewelry indicate a trend as well. Being Martin was not on trial I really don't care other than how they relate to why he was there and what he was doing. Your argument seems to be that everything thinking these were burglary tools has been fooled. What evidence exists that shows they are anything else?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spafranco
Following a person is not a crime, this has already been established as fact based on laws in this country/that location. As for the actual physical altercation nobody knows for sure other than Zimmerman who of the two elevated it to the point of physical. We do however know as fact that Martin was beating Zimmerman to a point where he was justified as defending his life when he killed Martin. Such a beating is in fact a criminal act, thus Martin was a criminal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spafranco
I have once again assumed nothing, and your stereotype of me does not fit my political point of view.
Zimmerman called the cops out of concern for property. Martin did not, but instead called his friend and made some racist remarks. If really in fear he would have called the cops. The jury determined that Zimmerman was justified in protecting his person, once again consistent with law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spafranco
As for the USA #1 thing, no I'm not one of those. I feel this country has many flaws, IMO often due to political correctness and pandering to those that don't do much to make it a better country.
Nor was it the moral values I learned. I learned to respect elders and authority, not to engage in a fight when someone approached me. I also learned that if I was in fear of a person to flee and seek an appropriate authority figure to deal with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spafranco
As for your Casey Anthony comments, based completely on assumptions made by you. Practice what you preach and accept that you do not have any real clue to my thought process or political views. Anyone that observed my posts would know that I rarely see anything as black and white but most often gray area.
But let me state very clearly.... do not state things that I have not said as opinion of fact of mine. I find it quite offensive and to be honest it simply reduces your claim of being of sound character and without bias. But feel free to quote anything I have said within the complete context of what I have said, as I have no issue supporting my views and the thought process behind them.
Having a cheese head hat on your head is one clue to you being a packers fan , but perhaps not in any way definitive , certainly .Quote:
Originally Posted by Spafranco
I hope you realize that I believe Zimmerman was an idiot for following Martin into what appears to have been an ambush .
As a member of his neighbourhood's watch team , he , although off-duty , was still watching the neighbourhood , and saw a man who he deemed to be someone acting suspiciously .
We have now seen some evidence that Zimmerman was , as you inferred , no saint .
His past is definitely checkered .
However , much of this trouble seems to have been a while back .
Of course , we shouldn't assume he is now a better person , but , given time passed , it might point to some change in character .
If you contrast that to Martin , he is said to have been a good kid , moving in a bad direction .
That this all happened is a horrible thing for all involved .
Neither of them were saints , and one of them is gone .
I started this thread to help us all understand a little more about what happened here , as new information started to come to light .
It's really more about what the jury didn't ever get to hear .
From what they heard , they deemed that Zimmerman was protecting himself , thus , not guilty .
Fair enough, I take your point. There is lots that I disagree with what Airshifter stated just as he did with what I had to say and others also. Open discussion is fine. In this case all we can do is agree to disagree :) :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
Why do we need to agree to disagree ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spafranco
I'm certainly open to your trying to convince me that Trayvon was an innocent young man .
That is the crux of everything. Right brain left brain. I am done with this topic as it pertains to certain individuals making the killer a victim and the pretentious manner in which they try to dismiss their loud exhortations for the defense of killing/in my opinion murdering young Martin. Now, there is this defense by Airshifter that I don't know his thought process. I will grant you that Airshifter every day of the week. Your conclusion that Zimmerman making a phone call to the police and Martin making one to a friend is what made Tayvon guilty and Zimmerman. I must remember the next time I walk outside and am prepared to make a call that I check with everyone else that they are calling the police. Otherwise, I will have this fat bumbling wannabe cop the favorite of the gun lobby killing an innocent 17 year or in my case....well, let's leave it at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
Zimmerman called the cops , as he should have , and was asked to watch from a distance .
He clearly didn't keep his distance , and we all agree , I think , that this was not smart .
However , once he made that decision , we might examine a little of what might have occurred , with a little logic .
Zimmerman is characterized by some as being a vigilante cowboy , but he didn't enter the potential ambush with gun drawn . This could point to his being(stupidly) blissfully unaware of any danger .
Essentially , he wasn't gunning for Martin .
You would have a very different scenario without the beating .
Had there not been a witness saying a beating occurred , I think I would also have difficulty believing Zimmerman's account , even with the displayed blood .
As it is , though I tend to agree with the jury , especially after all the extra info that has come out .
As I said , convince me .
How do you see it being played out , Spafranco ?
Haven't seen much to disagree with that. I don't disagree with it either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
All of the evidence presented at the trial seems to back this up.Quote:
Essentially , he wasn't gunning for Martin .
The jury, and all of us of course, can only come to reasonable conclusions based on the evidence and testimony presented at the trial. Without said evidence and testimony, the verdict may well have been otherwise.Quote:
You would have a very different scenario without the beating .
Had there not been a witness saying a beating occurred , I think I would also have difficulty believing Zimmerman's account , even with the displayed blood .
As it is , though I tend to agree with the jury , especially after all the extra info that has come out .
It would seem that some individuals would like to have "justice" mean only what they want it to be and not something for everybody. Sorry for you agenda driven folks, but sometimes minorities, just like everyone else, do bad things. Mentioning other cases has NO bearing on this case. It is very true that there have been, and most likely will be, many cases where the minority participants were the ones in the right. It does not seem that this was one of them - and the jury (containing NO members of this discussion board) found in Z's favor under the existing law. One fact, little noted in the various threads and ignored by some posters, is that Z's defensive team never used the so called "Stand Your Ground Law" as part of the defense. Based on the evidence, the jury found Z innocent of the charges against him anyway.
Also it should be noted that, unless you are a resident of the state of Florida (I'm not), the laws in that state are NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS and either their correctness or need for change is a concern only for the people who actually live under said laws. It's too bad some can't separate emotion from logic. Logic and rule of law enable civilization. Emotion enables lynching parties. And minority folks are all too often the guests of honor at those parties.