BTW---Does this constitute a hate crime, this "open letter to Zimmerman that clearly threatens him because of racial issues:http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1244310/original.jpg
Printable View
BTW---Does this constitute a hate crime, this "open letter to Zimmerman that clearly threatens him because of racial issues:http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1244310/original.jpg
or this--is it a hate crime?? Where is the FBI ??? Why are they not investigating this???:Zimmerman's Parents in Hiding from 'Enormous Amount of Death Threats': ABC News Exclusive - ABC News Another quote from the same source:Quote:
The Zimmermans said that because of "an enormous amount of death threats," they, too, have remained in hiding and still don't feel safe enough to return to their home in Orlando, Fla
Quote:
In talking about Zimmerman's character, his parents painted a portrait of a young, outgoing, philanthropic man who looked out for his neighbors, who would buy fast food gift certificates for homeless people, who took care of family members, and as someone who mentored two young black siblings on some weekends.
isn't that all some of your lovely free speech?
That's true, BUT it's common sense advice and what a Police officer would have said to him, there was no need for him to pursue Martin.....Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Whilst I don't agree with what Zimmerman did, let's not pretend that Martin is blameless in this, Zimmerman was a dimwit and needlessly pursued Martin, but it would seem that Martin is the idiot who picked a fight with someone with a gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spafranco
If Trayvon hadn't lost his rag just because some seemingly wannabe cop was following him, then he wouldn't be kicking up the daisies right now.
This is the problem you get when you have a high concentration of stupidity in such a small area, people die.
Freedum ov speechQuote:
Originally Posted by markabilly
Hardly anyone is disputing that. It was bad judgement for sure. It still does not justify being attacked though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
And I think that some people on here are overlooking the fact that no one other than Spafranco seems to hold that opinion, but then again we're all oppressed liberals so we all agree with Spafranco....Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Sarcasm, the lowest form of wit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
The phrase most commonly used by those don't have the brainpower to be sarcastic :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Spafranco
Well, this thread is likely to be closed soon :s
[/QUOTE]Quote:
Crime under Hitler and Stalin was low also.
Tell that to the 6 million Jews or the 20 + million Russians. All of the gypsies, homosexuals and the handicapped whether it were physical or mental.
In your miniscule space occupying too much space and absorbing too much air I would consider any insult from you as a compliment fromQuote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
someone who does not know or understand any better.
Some of the attitudes towards human life displayed in the thread is truly shocking.
In what way?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
In what way? Suggesting that a trespasser should be treated like a stray dog in a herd of sheep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
'zimmerman should have wait until the "Punk" was within 20 ft and then shot him. That way is would have still been innocent but without a broken nose and head injuries.'
The overriding impression I'm getting is that you guys across the pond value your constitution over human life. And it seems to me that the US constitution created this situation. If Zimmerman didn't have a gun he probably wouldn't have approached Martin, if he hadn't approached him the said fight and 'self-defence killing' wouldn't have happened. Martin would have been arrested and none of this thread would exist.
Sadly it says a lot about the country you live in when you had to ask that question......Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
You have several misunderstandings above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
1) A trespasser (your word) is, by definition, a criminal - though trespassing is a minor crime. Why should such a person be allowed to continue his/her crime?
2) Our Constitution embodies the freedoms we have. And you don't have - that's why we fought against you back in our revolutionary war.
3) The Constitution nowhere values itself over human life. But it is the Constitution which allows us (legally) to protect ourselves.
4) There is nowhere in the trial testimony where Z approached M - in fact exactly the opposite seemed to have been true. So who was the aggressor? Who initiated physical contact? Who used their weapon late in the situation instead of at the beginning? Hardly the act of a "cowboy" looking to shoot someone.
So all trespassers should be shot dead and this is okay because your guys fought for the right to do this against my guys in the 1800s?
Is this nonsense the best you can come up with?
Point 4 you make is possibly true (most of what I really know about this case is what I've read from on this thread), but it doesn't change some of the pathetic views that have come across on this thread.
If only point 4 was actually true............Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...tin.html?_r=2&
Dude, stop living in the past :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
1) So the answer to every crime is to kill the perpetrator?
2) The freedom to run around and pursue people needlessly knowing that you can create a confrontation and then shoot him when he smashed your fat head against the pavement?
3) You mean the constitution seems to encourage idiots to go out and cause a confrontation that doesn't need to happen and then kill the other guy.
4) :rotflmao:
You Americans have a warped view of the value of life.....
The Constitution enumerates the powers that the Federal Government (all of the three rings of it) does and doesn't have the power to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
The Constitution doesn't - you as a people do though; this is proven to the tune of more than 10,000 deaths a year and billions of dollars spent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Again, the trial testimony is and can only the record of one witness because the other one is dead. That one witness is by definition a biased sample.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
This is now the third time that I've had to labour the point that no-one apart from Martin and Zimmerman can actually know the circumstances which happened; of those two, Zimmerman is hardly going to present a case which proves his guilt in this.
And since the prosecution can not build a case which provides proof beyond reasonable doubt, the jury can not delivered anything but a "not guilty" verdict.
wrong again - all martin had to do is not attack zimmerman- pretty simpleQuote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
I neither said nor implied that. And you know it. Your comment is one of the reasons it's hard to have a reasonable conversation these days. It would seem from the evidence that Z acted rashly and foolishly yet did not initiate physical contact. M did. Lacking the physical confrontation neither would be dead. What part of that don't you understand? Also, just exactly where, when someone is beating your brains out, at least from your point of view (the beatee), do you decide to use any means at your disposal to stop it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
Not to put words in your mouth, but are you suggesting that Z should have just taken it and, maybe, M would get his just deserts by serving a life sentence for murder? Because no one, especially Z, will ever know if it would have not have gone that far.
More to the point, what would you have done if someone was sitting on you and bashing your head on the ground and you had any sort of weapon at hand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
What a bunch of illogical babble. Even if Martin had survived the shot, his testimony, according to you, would be just as biased as Zimmerman. Then we are left with a mountain of physical evidence that indicates Zimmerman as merely a concerned neighbor and Martin the aggressor, an aggressor who did not cease his assault even when requested by a different witness entirely. It's convenient you forgot about that witness, huh?
?? How so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
I never said nor implied that as you well know.Quote:
1) So the answer to every crime is to kill the perpetrator?
There is nothing in evidence to support that view with the exception of Z's over zealousness. I don't think anyone has suggested that Z was out to shoot anyone that night.Quote:
2) The freedom to run around and pursue people needlessly knowing that you can create a confrontation and then shoot him when he smashed your fat head against the pavement?
You're a bright guy and that last line is such an incredibly bad attempt at baiting the discussion it definitely does not become you.Quote:
3) You mean the constitution seems to encourage idiots to go out and cause a confrontation that doesn't need to happen and then kill the other guy.
Well yes. That should be obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by vhatever
Every witness; in fact every person is a well of internal biases and filling in the gaps of our recollection. I can tell you from my time as a court recorder (I worked in nine different Federal jurisdictions here) that oh so many cases have a component of "he said, she said" about them. Two witnesses can have wildly different stories of the same event. That's part of the reason why courts demand proof "beyond reasonable doubt" in criminal cases but only "'the balance of probabilities" in civil cases.
And if I've violated the rules of logic, I'd like to know how.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
I disagree with your premise that one witness's version of events constitutes a biased sample, when that same version of events is not presented in some kind of vacuum. There were tons of other evidence, from witness to physical.it's not one persons story versus no-one else's story.
Where did point 4 go? Just saying :dozey:Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
That much is obvious, but if Zimmerman hadn't tried to play Dirty Harry then Martin never would have felt threatened and attacked an armed man.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Roamy
There is no question in my mind that both of them overreacted and both are guilty of bad judgement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Exactly. As ridiculous as what I'm about to say sounds, people are focusing on the legalities of the matter far too much, sure Zimmerman was doing nothing illegal (which is true), but did he actually need to pursue someone whose only crime (which wasn't actually a crime) was to look suspicious? This is what set off the chain of events which could have resulted in either of them being killed. If Martin had smacked Zimmerman's head into the pavement properly then the same laws would have applied.Quote:
Originally Posted by zako85
As for the trespass, what a load of rubbish, if someone is chasing me then the law isn't going to prosecute me for trespass if I feel like I'm threatened and choose to hide one someone elses property.
In moments such as this, no one gets a law book out and has the time to read through it or do anything else but react. Hindsight afterwards is always far clearer vision than foresight in what has become a life or death struggle for Zimmerman requiring instant action. What is illogical is how many think that what Martin was doing was okay, but Zimmerman attempting to talk to Martin was not okay. Zimmerman was attempting to protect people from being robbed, while they were at home. What is wrong with that? Nothing. Martin was being an example of the thug whose attitude is don't mess with me, homie, I will just whup your head.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
What I find disgusting is the people using this incident to further their own political agendas based on race. What is even more illogical is people, including a certain person in the White House, claiming we should "honor Martin". Honor him for what? Mentoring two black kids or helping people who had been the victims of violent crime in their homes like Zimmerman did? No, sir. Or getting himself killed while doing this to someone's head?http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.50346...h=171&c=7&rs=1 :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
For gods sake Markasilly, where did I say that Zimmerman was wrong to shoot Martin when he was attacked? Please quote the post where I say that :)Quote:
Originally Posted by markabilly
Then again, if Markasilly actually read my posts then him and his inbred hick colleagues wouldn't be able to characterise me as some sort of oppressed yurropean I supposeQuote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
He followed someone who clearly dressed and acted suspicious in a neighborhood that had a recent, massive surge in crime. Also there was a gang in that area whose members predominantly dress in dark clothes with hoodies No honest person would fault him for being a concerned citizen. In fact, it's sounding an awful lot like the blaming a girl who got raped for dressing a certain way scenario.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
i'll take 20 wannabe cop george zimmemerans living on my block over just one wannabe thug trayvon martin, as would any sane, honest, non-racist person in the USA.
You mean this one?Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
4) :rotflmao:
You Americans have a warped view of the value of life.....
I guess if you count valuing your own life over that of someone trying to beat your head in as warped, then yes guilty as charged.
From the stated facts in this thread , this is how I feel about it :
Zimmerman was well-known by his neighbours to be doing this . They had no issue with it that I have heard , and encouraged him to do so .
He was well-known by the police to be doing this as well , who encouraged it as well .
He was , after the phone call was initiated , apparently asked to keep a close eye on Martin .
To this point he was right in all he did .
It was suggested , as would be the norm , that he leave it to the police from there , however , he acted to keep the suspect in sight , which was the former instruction .
It's hard to know , given that I have no idea what the actual terrain in the specific area was , but the suggestion here seems to be that the act of disappearing from sight was a suspect move in itself .
They found nearby , not right at the scene , burglary tools , which more than suggests that not only was Zimmerman right about this young man being suspicious , but that the young man had ditched the tools and gone back to deal with his pursuer so as not to be caught "red-handed" with them .
At this point we need to remember that Zimmerman had a gun .
He had not drawn it , walking into what had to have been , effectively , an ambush .
Though likely pretty high on the adrenaline of keeping the "perp" in view , with senses on overload , he hadn't walked in ablazing .
He expected him , clearly , to try to flee .
He didn't , and the two began to fight .
Leaving stashed the burglary tools says that Martin either didn't think that Zimmerman had a gun (going back at all unarmed says that , too) , that he wanted to either appear innocent upon their meeting , or not be open to greater charges in the end by using a weapon for the beating .
And , we mustn't forget Martin's state of mind , either , full of adrenaline as well as a wash of teenaged hormones , having just decided to stash his tools , and guilty of being suspicious .
There does not seem to have been any discussion , as the concealed weapon would have appeared before it did .
Thus , a sort of ambush is more likely .
It seems pretty likely that the gun , itself , emboldened Zimmerman to leave his car , but as it only appeared after the two were on the ground , it doesn't suggest he was trying to apprehend anyone , but rather that he was trying , as instructed , to keep him in sight .
It doesn't really make sense that when you are beating on someone , you stop to shoot them as well .
But it does make sense that you'd shoot someone if they were beating on you .
No, the bit where you said thisQuote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Quote:
4) There is nowhere in the trial testimony where Z approached M - in fact exactly the opposite seemed to have been true. So who was the aggressor? Who initiated physical contact? Who used their weapon late in the situation instead of at the beginning? Hardly the act of a "cowboy" looking to shoot someone.