Printable View
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.