PDA

View Full Version : Our Commander in Chief has spoken...we should all honor Trayvon Martin



Pages : [1] 2

ROAD
07-14-2013, 07:33 PM
I agree, any death is a tragedy

TSgt"M"
07-14-2013, 08:38 PM
I'm trying to decided if this statemet is worse than "If I had a son". Wasted no time in waving Trayvon's bloody hoodie around to fire up the anti-gun agenda. I will not "honor" this troubled youth. He played the "knock out game" and got his heart blown out by a leagal carrying citizen who was defending himself leagally. President Obama needs to give more honor statements for the servicemen/women who die in service to our nation.

sandsjames
07-14-2013, 09:09 PM
How about we avoid the tragedy of letting the media convict a man before they have any actual details. As GZ's lawyers said, the death is a tragedy, the whole circus around it was a travesty. Did my former CiC mention that we need to fix that and several of our issues could be much easier resolved?

imnohero
07-14-2013, 09:51 PM
This IS a tragedy. A young man is dead. The person that killed him has to live with his actions and will likely never be the same. Regardless of the legal outcome, this case has highlighted (or started) a number of worthwhile discussions about our society and laws. The appeal to calm and reflection on this case with regard to these larger issues is evident in the Presidents statement.

Was Trayvon a wanna be gangsta? Was George a wanna be cop? Had either one of them stopped to think instead of living up to stereotypes, both would likely be alive and none the worse for wear. That is why this is a tragedy. Tragedy in this sense: "a disastrous event marked by great loss and lasting distress and suffering" (Merriam-Webster, calamity) And tragedies that could have been avoided deserve sober reflection and respect for the dead. We extend that respect (read: honor) by consideration of the loss and suffering and how to avoid it in the future.

I think that is what the president meant by "honor."

imported_KnuckleDragger
07-14-2013, 10:16 PM
All the POTUS meant was PLEASE DON'T RIOT

TSgt"M"
07-14-2013, 10:46 PM
All the POTUS meant was PLEASE DON'T RIOT

POTUS needs to keep his oppions to himself. He doesn't have that privilage as POTUS. His comments need to be for the greater good of the USA. Not his popularity.

cloudFFVII
07-14-2013, 11:08 PM
Tragedy definitely describes this entire incident.

The prosecution screwed up by going for a Grand Slam when they only had the power to hit a Single. The defense had to contend with everyone finding Zimmerman guilty in the court of public opinion. No one would have won no matter which way the verdict went.

Zimmerman will look over his shoulder for the rest of the night and is the only living person who knows the truth about what happened that night.
Trayvon Martin's parents and family has suffered an unimaginable loss, regardless if they take Zimmerman to civil court and win a judgment against him. Nothing can bring their son back.

VFFTSGT
07-14-2013, 11:13 PM
What about this tragedy? Why hasn't the President spoke about this vicious act?

Baby shot dead in stroller; 2 Georgia [black] teens charged with murder
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/22/us/georgia-baby-killed

Or what about this case of racism?

This is for Trayvon. Kill that white': Six youths 'beat man, 78, in alleged racial revenge attack'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2126003/Trayvon-Martin-case-6-youths-beat-man-78-twisted-racial-revenge-attack.html

And Trayvon was NOT some innocent kid...he had a history (he could have easily been sizing up houses):
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/04/16/part-7-the-trayvon-martin-cover-up-sgt-lourdes-hodges-trayvon-foia-14/#more-61679

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/23/justice/florida-zimmerman-defense

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trayvon-martin-texts-reference-guns-fighting-pot-article-1.1353832

I remember the Trayvon's parents saying something to the effect before about just want a trial so justice can prevail. Well, justice prevailed and the state failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

USMC0341
07-14-2013, 11:31 PM
I have an issue with the POTUS singling this case out. I think he should worry more about the violence that occurs every single day across the country, from gangbangers killing innocent bystanders, muggings, rapes, drug trade etc... Why don't we hear about that. What kind of message does it send when he is basically indicting Zimmerman himself, fuck the jury and the system, not good enough because the result was not what he wanted; too bad we don't have a dictatorship. How do you think this case would have ended then?

technomage1
07-14-2013, 11:36 PM
I personally think both Zimmerman and Martin made mistakes that night. Zimmerman should've listened to his watch training and the police operator and stopped following Martin. Martin should not have confronted Zimmerman. We'll never know for sure who thre the first punch, but a young man is now dead and zimmerman's life is ruined. I do think Zimmerman should have paid some price for his error in judgement, maybe not murder, but restitution or something like that.

Having said that, the jury made the right call based on the scarce evidence. That doesn't mean Zimmerman is innocent but the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.

technomage1
07-14-2013, 11:51 PM
I have an issue with the POTUS singling this case out. I think he should worry more about the violence that occurs every single day across the country, from gangbangers killing innocent bystanders, muggings, rapes, drug trade etc... Why don't we hear about that. What kind of message does it send when he is basically indicting Zimmerman himself, fuck the jury and the system, not good enough because the result was not what he wanted; too bad we don't have a dictatorship. How do you think this case would have ended then?

I agree, nicely put.

Mr. Squid
07-15-2013, 12:41 AM
Ok, so I'm supposed to honor someone who wrote stuff like this. Roger that. I grieve for Trayvon's parents, I truly do. But as someone who's been both the perpetrator and victim of violence growing up, I'd rather honor the youth who can acknowledge their "limits."

http://s22.postimg.org/qi2w5lws1/The_Last_Tweets_Of_Obama_s_No_Limit_Nigga_Tra.jpg

USMC0341
07-15-2013, 12:53 AM
Ok, so I'm supposed to honor someone who wrote stuff like this. Roger that. I grieve for Trayvon's parents, I truly do. But as someone who's been both the perpetrator and victim of violence growing up, I'd rather honor the youth who can acknowledge their "limits."

http://s22.postimg.org/qi2w5lws1/The_Last_Tweets_Of_Obama_s_No_Limit_Nigga_Tra.jpg

Except for the first one, I have not a clue as to wtf he was saying. I'm pretty sure I speak and comprehend English, wtf was that?

imnohero
07-15-2013, 01:17 AM
I have an issue with the POTUS singling this case out. I think he should worry more about the violence that occurs every single day across the country, from gangbangers killing innocent bystanders, muggings, rapes, drug trade etc... Why don't we hear about that. What kind of message does it send when he is basically indicting Zimmerman himself, fuck the jury and the system, not good enough because the result was not what he wanted; too bad we don't have a dictatorship. How do you think this case would have ended then?

The president could not possibly comment on every case of violence in the country. However, I think it is the role of the President to comment on cases which have larger impacts on the country, of which this is one.

Mr. Squid
07-15-2013, 01:19 AM
Except for the first one, I have not a clue as to wtf he was saying. I'm pretty sure I speak and comprehend English, wtf was that?I haven't the foggiest clue. The jargon of each new generation mutates so damn fast like influenza that there's hardly any instances of keeping up by anyone past puberty, and even I'm alarmed to say that as a Generation X'er.

USMC0341
07-15-2013, 01:32 AM
The president could not possibly comment on every case of violence in the country. However, I think it is the role of the President to comment on cases which have larger impacts on the country, of which this is one.

Agreed, but the media made this case have an impact, not the case itself.

imnohero
07-15-2013, 01:53 AM
Agreed, but the media made this case have an impact, not the case itself.

Yes, I suppose that's true. But there have been other cases that got media attention, that he didn't comment on.

imported_Joker76
07-15-2013, 03:19 AM
The point is, Trayvon was a helpless little kid and Mr. Martin was a full grown adult. There was no need for a full grown man to shoot a little kid in order to defend himself.

http://www.bet.com/news/national/2012/03/18/police-release-911-tapes-in-the-trayvon-martin-case-fueling-more-outrage/_jcr_content/featuredMedia/newsitemimage.newsimage.dimg/031212-national-trayvon-martin.jpg

Seriously, look at that little guy, can't believe anyone buys the story about him beating up a grown man.

technomage1
07-15-2013, 12:15 PM
www.cnn.com/2013/07/13/justice/zimmerman-trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t1#cnn-disqus-area

"Trayvon Martin will forever remain in the annals of history next to Medgar Evers and Emmett Till as symbols for the fight for equal justice for all," (Martin family attorney Benjamin) Crump said."

WTF? Seriously? Let me see - a 14 year old teenager who was viciously beaten to death, shot through the head and dumped in a river for flirting with a white woman and key member of the NAACP who was assassinated have NOTHING in common with this case. It is an insult to both to be compared to Trayvon Martin.

By that criteria I'm the same as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

RobotChicken
07-15-2013, 01:25 PM
www.cnn.com/2013/07/13/justice/zimmerman-trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t1#cnn-disqus-area

"Trayvon Martin will forever remain in the annals of history next to Medgar Evers and Emmett Till as symbols for the fight for equal justice for all," (Martin family attorney Benjamin) Crump said."

WTF? Seriously? Let me see - a 14 year old teenager who was viciously beaten to death, shot through the head and dumped in a river for flirting with a white woman and key member of the NAACP who was assassinated have NOTHING in common with this case. It is an insult to both to be compared to Trayvon Martin.

By that criteria I'm the same as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

"Sgt Medgar Evers, USA, '43-'45, Normandy invasion, etc. Honorable Discharge; BURIED AT ARLINGTON National Cemetery June 19th,'63. USNS ship named after him. Do not think TM rates that cemetery."

71Fish
07-15-2013, 02:08 PM
POTUS needs to keep his oppions to himself. He doesn't have that privilage as POTUS. His comments need to be for the greater good of the USA. Not his popularity.

You are right, the POTUS should not get involved in every local issue that turns bigger. Remember "the police acted stupidly"? Not his place.

imported_oih82w8
07-15-2013, 02:22 PM
Anyone who thought that this would be over with a "Not Guilty" verdict is definitely a fool. :outtahere:

technomage1
07-15-2013, 02:23 PM
"Sgt Medgar Evers, USA, '43-'45, Normandy invasion, etc. Honorable Discharge; BURIED AT ARLINGTON National Cemetery June 19th,'63. USNS ship named after him. Do not think TM rates that cemetery."

Yep. Medgar Evers was a hero by anyone's standards, not an ounce of doubt in my mind. If not for his civil rights activism then for what you noted. Both = True American Hero.

Sergeant eNYgma
07-15-2013, 04:42 PM
It's over and it's time to move on, I'd wish he'd attack current and fomrer veterans issues with the same vigor...

Sergeant eNYgma
07-15-2013, 04:55 PM
What about this tragedy? Why hasn't the President spoke about this vicious act?

Baby shot dead in stroller; 2 Georgia [black] teens charged with murder
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/22/us/georgia-baby-killed

Or what about this case of racism?

This is for Trayvon. Kill that white': Six youths 'beat man, 78, in alleged racial revenge attack'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2126003/Trayvon-Martin-case-6-youths-beat-man-78-twisted-racial-revenge-attack.html

And Trayvon was NOT some innocent kid...he had a history (he could have easily been sizing up houses):
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/04/16/part-7-the-trayvon-martin-cover-up-sgt-lourdes-hodges-trayvon-foia-14/#more-61679

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/23/justice/florida-zimmerman-defense

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trayvon-martin-texts-reference-guns-fighting-pot-article-1.1353832

I remember the Trayvon's parents saying something to the effect before about just want a trial so justice can prevail. Well, justice prevailed and the state failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

It doesn't fit their agenda that's why. I've also read other crimes like 4 black guys beating a recently seperated Marine to death outside a party...Marine was white these 4 tough guys were black. Also read about a white couple being abducted by 4 blacks....so where is their family justice? Where is Al Sharpton there? I'm black and HATE him and Jesse Jackson with the fire of 1000 suns. Tired of the "Blame whitey for everything" angle. It makes us look quite stupid.

tiredretiredE7
07-15-2013, 07:30 PM
[QUOTE=ROAD;640126]"As citizens, that’s a job for all of us. That’s the way to honor Trayvon Martin."

George Zimmerman was a want to be tough guy but was "soft". Trayvon Martin was totally kicking George Zimmerman's @$$ so roly poly George shot Trayvon. There have been an estimated 2000 black teenagers killed by other black teenagers since Trayvon was killed. Where is the news coverage of their death? I can see a Trayvon Martin day where everyone in DoD has to where a black hoodie (I actually have one) for the entire day. Imagine how awesome a black hoddie would look with ABUs?

VFFTSGT
07-15-2013, 07:44 PM
It doesn't fit their agenda that's why. I've also read other crimes like 4 black guys beating a recently seperated Marine to death outside a party...Marine was white these 4 tough guys were black. Also read about a white couple being abducted by 4 blacks....so where is their family justice? Where is Al Sharpton there? I'm black and HATE him and Jesse Jackson with the fire of 1000 suns. Tired of the "Blame whitey for everything" angle. It makes us look quite stupid.

How would Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton survive without "racism" in America? Their livelihoods depend on perpetual "racism" in America. In reality though, there would be less racism without these two in the public; they do more harm for race relations and cause more racism than all white people combined.

I have never personally met a black person who liked Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. I know they do not represent the views of the general black population. I do despise the media and how they provide them a platform. If the media cared about journalism they wouldn't give that platform to them. But American media is an entertainment industry; not a news industry. It is all about ratings and money and the more "controversy" the media stirs up the higher their ratings and revenue tend to be.

Rusty Jones
07-15-2013, 07:45 PM
There have been an estimated 2000 black teenagers killed by other black teenagers since Trayvon was killed. Where is the news coverage of their death?

The news coverage is out there. It just happens to end when their black killer is actually arrested. And the reason it ends there, is because you don't have half of white America speeding through traffic and jumping over fences to support the killer.

Juggs
07-15-2013, 07:50 PM
The news coverage is out there. It just happens to end when their black killer is actually arrested. And the reason it ends there, is because you don't have half of white America speeding through traffic and jumping over fences to support the killer.

The killer that was prosecuted due to political and social pressure?

TJMAC77SP
07-15-2013, 07:58 PM
The news coverage is out there. It just happens to end when their black killer is actually arrested. And the reason it ends there, is because you don't have half of white America speeding through traffic and jumping over fences to support the killer.

Too bad Martin didn't have any support like that.

Rusty Jones
07-15-2013, 08:16 PM
The killer that was prosecuted due to political and social pressure?

Yeah. It's sad that it took that, isn't it?

Rusty Jones
07-15-2013, 08:17 PM
They'd be out of jobs point blank. They SHOULD be but everytime something small (Not calling this situation small) happens the balck man is being held down...just STFU already. Was reading about people trying to riot and all fo that...then when you get arrested by the police or shot by the National Guard let me guess...white man fault to? Here's an idea...how bout black people give a shit about their children, how bout black people not have stupid ass rappers raise their children, how bout black people man the fuck up and stop crying that the system is racist becasue they got a speeding ticket when they were doing 79 in a 35 mph zone. Tired of it...tired of it all.

Tsk, tsk.

VFFTSGT
07-15-2013, 10:19 PM
Racism is not tolerated on MTF.

There's been racism here?

Juggs
07-15-2013, 10:23 PM
FA, you tolerated the use of the word cracker. Just sayin'

RJ its sad that it went to trial. Sure get prosecuted for defending yourself against a racist thug.

technomage1
07-15-2013, 10:26 PM
Racism is not tolerated on MTF.

What are you referring to in this thread? A little lost here.

VFFTSGT
07-16-2013, 12:28 AM
I figured out what post was deleted...it was Sergeant eNYgma's post in response to me.

That post was not racism. Sergeant eNYgma is a black guy.

He was exposing the viewpoint made by some people of the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

I think it was racist to remove the post.

VFFTSGT
07-16-2013, 12:39 AM
Blanket statements by anyone about an entire ethnicity are racially motivated remarks, whether it is socially acceptable or not.

So a black guy cannot speak honestly about a small segment of his race?

Censorship.

Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.

Capt Alfredo
07-16-2013, 12:49 AM
So a black guy cannot speak honestly about a small segment of his race?

Censorship.

Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.

This is a privately-owned forum. They can do whatever they want and enforce any rule they want, no matter how capricious you may find the decision.

VFFTSGT
07-16-2013, 12:51 AM
This is a privately-owned forum. They can do whatever they want and enforce any rule they want, no matter how capricious you may find the decision.

Dosn't mean I have to like it. :damnit-sign2:

imnohero
07-16-2013, 01:06 AM
Dosn't mean I have to like it. :damnit-sign2:

[nasty comment deleted, sensitive PC replacement follows]

I'm sorry that it upsets you that you are unable to express your emotional self in the manner you would prefer.

VFFTSGT
07-16-2013, 01:24 AM
[nasty comment deleted, sensitive PC replacement follows]

I'm sorry that it upsets you that you are unable to express your emotional self in the manner you would prefer.

It wasn't my comment that was removed. It was someone else's. A black guy's comment about other black people.

It was a straight forward dialogue going on about the viewpoints of some people, but as typical in America, we cannot have conversations about sensitive subjects because someone's feelings might get hurt.

imnohero
07-16-2013, 01:28 AM
It wasn't my comment that was removed. It was someone else's. A black guy's comment about other black people.

Yes, I know. I meant it to be amusing. Guess I didn't succeed.

After thinking about it most of the day, I still don't think the president was out of line. A politically targeted statement, undoubtedly, but not out of line.

VFFTSGT
07-16-2013, 01:36 AM
Yes, I know. I meant it to be amusing. Guess I didn't succeed.

After thinking about it most of the day, I still don't think the president was out of line. A politically targeted statement, undoubtedly, but not out of line.


It doesn't matter what ethnicity someone is, comments can be racist or of a racist
Nature, regardless of who says them. The president is trying to calm and or
Placate his base.

So, that is what he was doing when he said, 'If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon,' last year?!

It was equally as dumb as the 'Police acted stupidly' comment. http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/22/harvard.gates.interview/

The President, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc all knew what they were inciting last year when they started this escapade.

imnohero
07-16-2013, 01:48 AM
I was only commenting on the president's statement that began this thread. The president commenting on this case is, quite frankly, a minor thing and hardly worth the attention it is getting.

This sort of thing is a "no win" for any president. If they comment, they get flak from one or both sides. If they don't comment, they get criticized for that.

grimreaper
07-16-2013, 01:50 AM
Yes, I know. I meant it to be amusing. Guess I didn't succeed.

After thinking about it most of the day, I still don't think the president was out of line. A politically targeted statement, undoubtedly, but not out of line.

I think it was out of line for the simple fact that he has said he doesn't comment on matters that are currently under investigation in regards to things like Benghazi and Fast & Furious scandals (conveniently), yet he feels free to opine on this case, potentially influencing potential jurors and the investigation itself.

grimreaper
07-16-2013, 01:57 AM
This sort of thing is a "no win" for any president. If they comment, they get flak from one or both sides. If they don't comment, they get criticized for that.

Can you give examples? How many other Presidents do you recall not making comments about a single murder case, under a state's jurisdiction, and being criticized for it?

So why is a response of the effect "not commenting on cases currently investigation" good enough for scandals his Admin. is involved in where people were killed, but that "rule" of his is apparently thrown out the window for this?

sandsjames
07-16-2013, 01:59 AM
I think it was out of line for the simple fact that he has said that he has said he doesn't comment on matters that are currently under investigation in regards to things like Benghazi and Fast & Furious scandals (conveniently), yet he feels free to opine on this case, potentially influencing potential jurors and the investigation itself.

Great point. This is exactly the problem with it. Unfortunately, the pressure has always been on him to not appear as an "Uncle Tom" to the black community, so he's almost obligated to make these comments.

AJBIGJ
07-16-2013, 02:01 AM
Can you give examples? How many other Presidents do you recall not making comments about a single murder case, under a state's jurisdiction, and being criticized for it?

So why is a response of the effect "not commenting on cases currently investigation" good enough for scandals his Admin. is involved in where people were killed, but that "rule" of his is apparently thrown out the window for this?

I hate to say it, but he loves distractions, he seems to latch onto anything that distracts from what the government is actually doing. The Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman controversy must have been a gold mine.

grimreaper
07-16-2013, 02:06 AM
Great point. This is exactly the problem with it. Unfortunately, the pressure has always been on him to not appear as an "Uncle Tom" to the black community, so he's almost obligated to make these comments.

It's like the whole issue with his sexual assault comments. He decides to spell out what should happen to people who do it, and some guys are essentially going to get a lesser sentence because of unlawful command influence.

For being this supposed big-brain constitutional attorney, he hasn't impressed.

VFFTSGT
07-16-2013, 03:49 AM
This doesn't fit the narrative that has been spoon fed to America...

ZIMMERMAN COMPLAINED ABOUT SANFORD POLICE IN DEFENSE OF HOMELESS BLACK MAN

Associated Press:

George Zimmerman accused the Sanford police department of corruption more than a year before he shot Trayvon Martin, saying at a public forum the agency covered up the beating of a black homeless man by the son of a white officer.

"I would just like to state that the law is written in black and white," Zimmerman said during a 90-second statement to city commissioners at a community forum. "It should not and cannot be enforced in the gray for those who are in the thin blue line."

The forum took place on Jan. 8, 2011, days after a video of the beating went viral on the Internet and then-Sanford Police Chief Brian Tooley was forced to retire. Tooley's department faced criticism for dragging its feet in arresting Justin Collison, the son of a police lieutenant.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/24/George-Zimmerman-Black-Homeless-Man-Sanford-Police

Juggs
07-16-2013, 11:53 AM
This doesn't fit the narrative that has been spoon fed to America...

ZIMMERMAN COMPLAINED ABOUT SANFORD POLICE IN DEFENSE OF HOMELESS BLACK MAN

Associated Press:


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/24/George-Zimmerman-Black-Homeless-Man-Sanford-Police

That racist defending a black homeless man!! Zimmerman was a racists!!

Sergeant eNYgma
07-16-2013, 12:04 PM
So my post was deleted because I told black people to GAF about their kids? While being black myself and witnessing the fallout from them NOT GAF?

Copy that then...

Rusty Jones
07-16-2013, 12:32 PM
So my post was deleted because I told black people to GAF about their kids? While being black myself and witnessing the fallout from them NOT GAF?

Copy that then...

Dude, you just went all out on an Uncle Ruckus rant. Speaking on black people in general terms. And, of course, you're giving your friends the go-ahead to make similar rants; and you are their validation when they do it.

Sergeant eNYgma
07-16-2013, 12:49 PM
Dude, you just went all out on an Uncle Ruckus rant. Speaking on black people in general terms. And, of course, you're giving your friends the go-ahead to make similar rants; and you are their validation when they do it.

Who are my "friends"?

Rusty Jones
07-16-2013, 12:52 PM
Who are my "friends"?

The people defending you. Are you trying to go somewhere with that question?

Sergeant eNYgma
07-16-2013, 12:56 PM
The people defending you. Are you trying to go somewhere with that question?

I'm just trying to figure WTF you're talking about. I didn't tell anyone to agree with me they(Being grown ass men) decided to. Either way done with this topic...

Rusty Jones
07-16-2013, 01:15 PM
I'm just trying to figure WTF you're talking about.

Either you can't read, or you can and you were trying to bait me into something. Don't give me that.


I didn't tell anyone to agree with me they(Being grown ass men) decided to. Either way done with this topic...

This isn't about agreeing. This is about you giving people the courage to say things that they otherwise wouldn't, and for those that already do... you give them validation.

Afterall, if a black man says it, it must be true; right? If a black man says it, it's okay for me to say it, right? You made yourself into the tool to be used for that.

RobotChicken
07-16-2013, 02:23 PM
Who are my "friends"?

"RobotChicken" is."

Greg
07-16-2013, 02:47 PM
Either you can't read, or you can and you were trying to bait me into something. Don't give me that.



This isn't about agreeing. This is about you giving people the courage to say things that they otherwise wouldn't, and for those that already do... you give them validation.

Afterall, if a black man says it, it must be true; right? If a black man says it, it's okay for me to say it, right? You made yourself into the tool to be used for that.

And therein lays the rub. Those who do not have the intestinal fortitude to form an educated opinion.

Juggs
07-16-2013, 04:52 PM
His attorney said Zimmerman lived with black children growing up, mentored black youth and prom date was black.

Yea, but hes a racist. He was doing that to make sure they didnt become productive members of society.

sandsjames
07-16-2013, 07:57 PM
So my post was deleted because I told black people to GAF about their kids? While being black myself and witnessing the fallout from them NOT GAF?

Copy that then...

Unfortunately, for some reason, that isn't accepted. Look at the heat Bill Cosby and others have caught for doing the same thing.

VFFTSGT
07-16-2013, 08:39 PM
Sorry, what does GAF mean?

Give a F###.

VFFTSGT
07-16-2013, 08:58 PM
Thanks, never heard that before...

Not sure it's a common acronym, but I knew what his post said so I knew what he was referring to.

Bunch
07-16-2013, 11:26 PM
I wonder why is so hard for some people to accept that many of us feel truly sorry for what happened to Treyvon Martin that night and feel that GZ is responsible for his death.

Was Treyvon a perfect 17 yearld kid? No... But who can really claim to be a perfect person at 17! Was GZ a perfect individual? No, he had issues like many of us also.

The reason why I personally put the responsibility on GZ is because the person that has the weapon needs to be extra cautious about how to proceed in certain situations. He either willingly or negligently place himself in a situation in which he ended up taking someone elses life.

In regards to the race aspect I think its being overblown, overplayed by people who have a particular agenda on BOTH sides and they are profiting from the emotion that cases like this generate. There is a definitive race angle here in the sense that GZ profiled TM because he fits the profile of the people who were comitting crimes in his neighborhood and he tought he was acting suspicious. He wasn't acting out of racism he was acting out of common sense.

I agree somewhat with what juror B37 said. I too believe that GZ heart was in the right place, but they way the events unfolded ended in tragedy and for that I blame him.

Measure Man
07-17-2013, 12:02 AM
I wonder why is so hard for some people to accept that many of us feel truly sorry for what happened to Treyvon Martin that night and feel that GZ is responsible for his death.

Was Treyvon a perfect 17 yearld kid? No... But who can really claim to be a perfect person at 17! Was GZ a perfect individual? No, he had issues like many of us also.

The reason why I personally put the responsibility on GZ is because the person that has the weapon needs to be extra cautious about how to proceed in certain situations. He either willingly or negligently place himself in a situation in which he ended up taking someone elses life.

In regards to the race aspect I think its being overblown, overplayed by people who have a particular agenda on BOTH sides and they are profiting from the emotion that cases like this generate. There is a definitive race angle here in the sense that GZ profiled TM because he fits the profile of the people who were comitting crimes in his neighborhood and he tought he was acting suspicious. He wasn't acting out of racism he was acting out of common sense.

I agree somewhat with what juror B37 said. I too believe that GZ heart was in the right place, but they way the events unfolded ended in tragedy and for that I blame him.

Yes...this is how I feel about it.

Arm yourself for self-defense, fine. But, when you choose to be armed, you owe your fellow man a higher degree of care than you might otherwise. Part of that would include not following people around out of unsubstantiated suspicion in the middle of the night.

grimreaper
07-17-2013, 12:09 AM
The reason why I personally put the responsibility on GZ is because the person that has the weapon needs to be extra cautious about how to proceed in certain situations. He either willingly or negligently place himself in a situation in which he ended up taking someone elses life.

I agree somewhat with what juror B37 said. I too believe that GZ heart was in the right place, but they way the events unfolded ended in tragedy and for that I blame him.

Why is that? Why is it the person who has the weapon is the one who "needs to be extra cautious about how to proceed in certain situations"?

I could turn that right around and put it on TM. How about you need to be extra cautious about how to proceed in certain situations (i.e. making the decision to ground and pound a "creepy ass cracker") when you don't know if the person may be armed or not?

GZ should have stayed in his truck, but following someone is not against the law. Just because he is armed, does not mean he becomes the responsible party when someone assaults him and he defends himself.

Suppose GZ wasn't armed? I guess he was just supposed to let TM continue to beat him, possibly to the point if serious injury or even death, because apparently, following someone gives the other person permission to beat the shit out of you.

VFFTSGT
07-17-2013, 12:10 AM
The reason why I personally put the responsibility on GZ is because the person that has the weapon needs to be extra cautious about how to proceed in certain situations. He either willingly or negligently place himself in a situation in which he ended up taking someone elses life.

I carry a weapon quite frequently...

If I saw someone acting suspiciously in my neighborhood, I would follow them to some extent as well to see what they are up to. Z's neighborhood had a history of people wearing hoodies scoping out houses causing trouble. [Martin probably was acting suspicious; he had a history of theft and violence. Granted Z did not know this but it goes to state of mind in Martin and his normal demeanor that explains how Z thought Martin looked suspicious] That is a justifiable "profile" of a potential suspicious individual.

Zimmerman did not ask the kid to attack him. Martin attacked him because Martin was racist. He even made racist comments on the phone call as testified by his friend he was staying with. If anyone had ill will and no respect for human life it was Martin. His parents want to act like he was an innocent teen but even Martin’s own text messages from his dad showed his dad knew he was a troubled teen.

When I was an augmentee and went through the crash course, we were taught someone going for your firearm (or even mace – mace b/c they can mace you and incapacitate you enough to get gun) is considered a threat to your life and lethal force is authorized. In hindsight, every ‘uneducated’ person would be like you shot an unarmed man. Yes, but he went for my gun so that made him a threat to my life.

Funny how Martin is a kid in this situation but when a 17 year murders someone they are tried as an adult. So, is a 17 year old a child or adult?

PS: I have also nearly drawn on an unarmed [white] person who had a case of road rage (I wasn't driving fast enough for him) that followed me home before. He kept approaching me, making verbal threats of breaking my neck (and he was physically capable of doing it) and I kept warning him to back up and go way. Luckily for him, he did not cross that threshold but he was literally one step from the threshold. There would have not been any witnesses either because no one was outside. If it turned out differently, it would have been my word and against a dead guy's. Granted, white on white incident wouldn't have been high profile. I just say all this because I can see it from Z perspective.

Measure Man
07-17-2013, 12:16 AM
Not sure about this, some trained professional can kill with hands and feet.
Don't think they owe fellow man anything special.

We all owe our fellow man a certain level of being responsible and careful.

What exactly that level is varies in different circumstances...and I think GZ violated that. Unfortunately, the prosecution and jury in his case focused only on the moment of physical confrontation and not his actions that led up to it, as well.

Yes, TM was also wrong...

Measure Man
07-17-2013, 12:23 AM
How did he violate it? His nose almost broke, head slammed on concrete.

When he got out of the car to follow him in them middle of the night, assuming he was an asshole and f-in punk.

yeah, he was soft and got his ass beat...but, sorry, you don't get to provoke a fight and then claim self-defense.


I've seen toughest dudes in UFC tap out, sometimes tapping not option.

Ever see them shoot the guy and call it self-defense?

grimreaper
07-17-2013, 12:24 AM
How did he violate it? His nose almost broke, head slammed on concrete.
I've seen toughest dudes in UFC tap out, sometimes tapping not option.

His nose was broken from what I read. I guess he was supposed to just let TM beat his ass.

grimreaper
07-17-2013, 12:25 AM
When he got out of the car to follow him in them middle of the night, assuming he was an asshole and f-in punk.

yeah, he was soft and got his ass beat...but, sorry, you don't get to provoke a fight and then claim self-defense.

Ever see them shoot the guy and call it self-defense?


Straw man. There's no tapping out when someone is kicking your ass in a street fight.

I doubt any MMA fighters are ever in fear of their life.

grimreaper
07-17-2013, 12:29 AM
Kicking aSs on grass, yes.
Slamming head on concrete, no.

If an MMA fighter had head slammed on concrete block in ring,
While guy covered their nose, saying you gonna die tonight,
They would tap.

That's what I'm saying....GZ did not have the option of tapping out. Comparing it to an MMA fight is just not accurate. I didn't see any evidence presented where there was a referee there to stop the fight.

VFFTSGT
07-17-2013, 12:37 AM
When he got out of the car to follow him in them middle of the night, assuming he was an asshole and f-in punk.

yeah, he was soft and got his ass beat...but, sorry, you don't get to provoke a fight and then claim self-defense.



Ever see them shoot the guy and call it self-defense?

Martin had a history of robbery and violence. This shows state of mind, demeanor, his normal character, etc. All things that go into a way a person walks, acts, etc.

Following someone is not a justifiable grounds for another individual to start a fight. For all Martin knew, Zimmerman happened to be going the same direction. But either way, following is not a hostile act justifying "self-defense."

Martin took offense to Zimmerman following him because Martin was racist (as evident in his cracka comments) and possibly because he was up to no good scoping out houses.

grimreaper
07-17-2013, 12:39 AM
Martin had a history of robbery and violence. This shows state of mind, demeanor, his normal character, etc. All things that go into a way a person walks, acts, etc.

Following someone is not a justifiable grounds for another individual to start a fight. For all Martin knew, Zimmerman happened to be going the same direction.

Martin took offense to Zimmerman following him because Martin was racist (as evident in his cracka comments) and likely because he was up to no good scoping out houses.

Not to mention, he had THC in his bloodstream. Pot is also know to cause instances of paranoia.

grimreaper
07-17-2013, 12:44 AM
A neighbor came out, said calling 911, told to stop...guy on top did not stop.
Well, until self defense shot.

Yup, and that's why GZ was justified in defending himself. For those arguing against that, they are basically saying that GZ was supposed to just continue to let TM beat his ass, and if you're GZ, you don't know at what point it will stop...when he's knocked unconscious...when he's dead, etc.

grimreaper
07-17-2013, 12:58 AM
I think if no concrete head hits, he may have been found guilty.

Possibly, but max of manslaughter IMO. Prosecution waaaay overreached with Murder 2 IMO. I think the expert medical witness really helped GZ. That guy is world-renowned and was much more credible than that hack the prosecution had.

grimreaper
07-17-2013, 01:02 AM
Well, now juror b37 was racist...of course...
The jury was.

But if guilty, they'd be brilliant.

Of course. Unfortunately, the prosecution struck a potential black juror because they happened to say they watched Fox News.



CAROL COSTELLO, HOST: So Mark, do Trayvon Martin's parents you think, I mean, when they look at the jury makeup and they look at the decision that jury came to, do they say why didn't we have an African-American on the jury? Why did we have six white women?

MARK NEJAME, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: And that's what we were saying from the beginning. You know, sometimes I've been criticized by some who don't understand that a legal opinion is very different than a personal, a social, or a philosophical opinion. When you look at the composition of Seminole County, it's eleven percent African-American. And when you look at Sanford, it’s 30 percent African-American. So when you subtract Sanford from the overall Seminole County, you have, you know, a very, very small minority, specifically African-American representation within Seminole County. So when in fact you condense that down to a jury, the odds of getting an African-American on the jury are very slim when you're in Seminole County.

COSTELLO: Although if I remember correctly one of the prosecutors struck a black, a potential black juror from the jury.

MICHAEL SKOLNICK, POLITICAL DIRECTOR TO RUSSELL SIMMONS, CO-PRESIDENT GLOBALGRIND.COM: Yeah, he was also, I was just, he was also a Fox News watcher. So that was, you know, problematic for the prosecution.

Bunch
07-17-2013, 01:09 AM
Why is that? Why is it the person who has the weapon is the one who "needs to be extra cautious about how to proceed in certain situations"?
Because thats part of being a responsible gun owner, at least IMO.


I could turn that right around and put it on TM. How about you need to be extra cautious about how to proceed in certain situations (i.e. making the decision to ground and pound a "creepy ass cracker") when you don't know if the person may be armed or not?

I have given this long tought. I have been victim of crime, I have been followed and jumped by people, that was just part of the area where I grew up. You never know how people is going to react when they feel threathened and TM certainly felt that way, why he decided to confront GZ instead of run the other way(if that is indeed what happened) we will never know. Still I place the burden on George for placing himself in a position where his life was compromised, it was outside of the scope he was supposed to do.


GZ should have stayed in his truck, but following someone is not against the law. Just because he is armed, does not mean he becomes the responsible party when someone assaults him and he defends himself.

But thats no how the event unfolded. I think we can all agree that the event started when GZ decided to follow TM.


Suppose GZ wasn't armed? I guess he was just supposed to let TM continue to beat him, possibly to the point if serious injury or even death, because apparently, following someone gives the other person permission to beat the shit out of you.

I seriously doubt that if GZ wasn't armed he would have gone to the lenght he went in pursuing TM. IMO the gun was what made him secure about doing what he was doing to begin with.

Bunch
07-17-2013, 01:13 AM
I carry a weapon quite frequently...

If I saw someone acting suspiciously in my neighborhood, I would follow them to some extent as well to see what they are up to. Z's neighborhood had a history of people wearing hoodies scoping out houses causing trouble. [Martin probably was acting suspicious; he had a history of theft and violence. Granted Z did not know this but it goes to state of mind in Martin and his normal demeanor that explains how Z thought Martin looked suspicious] That is a justifiable "profile" of a potential suspicious individual.

Zimmerman did not ask the kid to attack him. Martin attacked him because Martin was racist. He even made racist comments on the phone call as testified by his friend he was staying with. If anyone had ill will and no respect for human life it was Martin. His parents want to act like he was an innocent teen but even Martin’s own text messages from his dad showed his dad knew he was a troubled teen.

When I was an augmentee and went through the crash course, we were taught someone going for your firearm (or even mace – mace b/c they can mace you and incapacitate you enough to get gun) is considered a threat to your life and lethal force is authorized. In hindsight, every ‘uneducated’ person would be like you shot an unarmed man. Yes, but he went for my gun so that made him a threat to my life.

Funny how Martin is a kid in this situation but when a 17 year murders someone they are tried as an adult. So, is a 17 year old a child or adult?

PS: I have also nearly drawn on an unarmed [white] person who had a case of road rage (I wasn't driving fast enough for him) that followed me home before. He kept approaching me, making verbal threats of breaking my neck (and he was physically capable of doing it) and I kept warning him to back up and go way. Luckily for him, he did not cross that threshold but he was literally one step from the threshold. There would have not been any witnesses either because no one was outside. If it turned out differently, it would have been my word and against a dead guy's. Granted, white on white incident wouldn't have been high profile. I just say all this because I can see it from Z perspective.

The way I see is that BOTH felt threathened.

Bunch
07-17-2013, 01:17 AM
Being followed is not a justifiable reason to physically attack someone.

Says who?

Bunch
07-17-2013, 01:17 AM
Being followed is not a justifiable reason to physically attack someone.

Says who?

VFFTSGT
07-17-2013, 01:18 AM
The way I see is that BOTH felt threathened.

Being followed is not a justifiable reason to physically attack someone.

grimreaper
07-17-2013, 01:20 AM
Because thats part of being a responsible gun owner, at least IMO.


LOL, so because GZ was carrying and TM decided to break the law and assault GZ, it's GZ's fault? The whole point of concealed carry is for self defense purposes. Sounds like it worked as it was designed.


But thats no how the event unfolded. I think we can all agree that the event started when GZ decided to follow TM.

The law was broken when TM decided to assault GZ.


I seriously doubt that if GX wasn't armed he would have gone to the lenght he went in pursuing TM. IMO the gun was what made him secure about doing what he was doing to begin with.

How do you know? That's pure speculation. According to GZ, he forgot he even had the gun until TM was beating his ass and he realized TM might be getting close to getting a hold of it.

Here's a surefire way of not getting shot in that situation...don't break the law and proceed to attack a guy with a gun.

Bunch
07-17-2013, 01:21 AM
LOL, so because GZ was carrying and TM decided to break the law and assault GZ, it's GZ's fault? The whole point of concealed carry is for self defense purposes. Sounds like it worked as it was designed.



The law was broken when TM decided to assault GZ.



How do you know? That's pure speculation. According to GZ, he forgot he even had the gun until TM was beating his ass and he realized TM might be getting close to getting a hold of it.

Here's a surefire way of not getting shot in that situation...don't break the law and proceed to attack a guy with a gun.

We can agree to disagree.

grimreaper
07-17-2013, 01:23 AM
We can agree to disagree.

Yup, we can.

VFFTSGT
07-17-2013, 01:35 AM
We can agree to disagree.

No, you can just continue to buy into the hype and be wrong.

We would not even being having this conversation had the media not misidentified Zimmerman as a white male and continue to mis-label him as a white hispanic today.

The only evidence of racism is Martin and his refering to Zimmerman as a dumb @$$ cracka.

Bunch
07-17-2013, 02:37 AM
No, you can just continue to buy into the hype and be wrong.

We would not even being having this conversation had the media not misidentified Zimmerman as a white male and continue to mis-label him as a white hispanic today.

The only evidence of racism is Martin and his refering to Zimmerman as a dumb @$$ cracka.

But I haven't mentioned race in any of my post. Only you and others want to see this as a matter of race.

VFFTSGT
07-17-2013, 02:42 AM
But I haven't mentioned race in any of my post. Only you and others want to see this as a matter of race.

No, I don't want to see it as race. I have argued against it, because it is center of many arguments in the media, protestors, rioters, etc. This whole issue is an issue because of the race baiters Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, the President, the Attorney General, etc.

Bunch
07-17-2013, 02:42 AM
"Are you threatening me?"
- the great cornholio

Got ya!! Thanks!

Bunch
07-17-2013, 02:53 AM
No, I don't want to see it as race. I have argued against it, because it is center of many arguments in the media, protestors, rioters, etc. This whole issue is an issue because of the race baiters Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, the President, the Attorney General, etc.

And the Fox News, Limbaugh, Beck and other conservatives that have been playing this as a victory for white people. The whole things makes me sad. They are all making money and getting facetime by exploiting this tragedy. One person who had a full life ahead of him and the other who would never have his life back.

grimreaper
07-17-2013, 03:13 AM
White victory or white hispanic victory?

Heard this one earlier today...

Only in America can a brown guy shoot a black guy and it gets blamed on white people.

Vrake
07-17-2013, 03:16 AM
Heard this one earlier today...

Only in America can a brown guy shoot a black guy and it gets blamed on white people.

I hate it but it is a reflection on each side. We are way to polarized of late.

IMHO it's media seeking ratings over the truth and feeding the fire. That brings even more ratings no matter the side.

Bunch
07-17-2013, 03:20 AM
I hate it but it is a reflection on each side. We are way to polarized of late.

IMHO it's media seeking ratings over the truth and feeding the fire. That brings even more ratings no matter the side.

I agree. The media on both sides are working hard to polarize this country. Is like they really want to pin down the progressives and conservatives and watch them literally fight it out. I can't stand watching many of the media outlets for long nowadays. Unfortunately it will get worse before it gets better.

Measure Man
07-17-2013, 03:22 AM
Straw man. There's no tapping out when someone is kicking your ass in a street fight.

I doubt any MMA fighters are ever in fear of their life.

I didn't compare it to an MMA fight...GF did.

Measure Man
07-17-2013, 03:27 AM
Martin had a history of robbery and violence. This shows state of mind, demeanor, his normal character, etc. All things that go into a way a person walks, acts, etc.

Zimmerman had a history of domestic violence, assault on a police officer...


Following someone is not a justifiable grounds for another individual to start a fight.

no one ever said Martin was justified in his actions. Like a typical bar fight...two guys who think the other guy disrespected him...they get in each others face and fight...both guys wrong. Often, both charged. usually if one is killed, the other is charged.


For all Martin knew, Zimmerman happened to be going the same direction. But either way, following is not a hostile act justifying "self-defense."

So...are you going to do the experiment and start following some people around and see their reaction?

You telling me if you notice someone obviously following you around at night...approach the person and say "what's your problem?"...and he says "nothing, I got no problem"...you're gonna leave it at that?


Martin took offense to Zimmerman following him because Martin was racist (as evident in his cracka comments) and possibly because he was up to no good scoping out houses.

Death penalty!!

Even cops couldn't get away with shooting him in that situation.

GZ was irresponsibly and negligently playing cowboy.

Bunch
07-17-2013, 03:45 AM
So...are you going to do the experiment and start following some people around and see their reaction?

You telling me if you notice someone obviously following you around at night...approach the person and say "what's your problem?"...and he says "nothing, I got no problem"...you're gonna leave it at that?


Great point.

Placing the race aspect aside.

Guy A is following Guy B. Guy B feels the guy is following him suspiciously and feels he is in danger. Guy B has a gun which his allow to carry. Guy B confronts Guy A and in the heat of the moment realizing that Guy A has a gun proceeds to shoot him dead. Who's at fault?

VFFTSGT
07-17-2013, 04:03 AM
Zimmerman had a history of domestic violence, assault on a police officer...



Accused. Where is the news report showing convictions? And was 5-6 years ago. Hardly shows state of mind today (or last year). For all intents and purposes his alcohol class he attend helped him considering there were apparently no more issues for the last 5 years or so.

Martin's robbery and violence was recent and current...according to his own text messages.



You telling me if you notice someone obviously following you around at night...approach the person and say "what's your problem?"...and he says "nothing, I got no problem"...you're gonna leave it at that?


Well, in the first place, I wouldn't ask them in such confrontational manner and just start a hitting them.

Kind of like the guy that followed me home that I mentioned earlier. He didn't like my driving and had a clear case of road rage. He left his car running in the middle of the road door open and started coming after me. He kept threatening to break my neck among other things. I wasn't hostile to him or anything, gave him repeated warnings to back away and leave. He kept saying or else what. He literally came within one step away from finding out or else what.

Bunch
07-17-2013, 04:08 AM
Well, in the first place, I wouldn't ask them in such confrontational manner and just start a hitting them.

Kind of like the guy that followed me home that I mentioned earlier. He didn't like my driving and had a clear case of road rage. He left his car running in the middle of the road door open and started coming after me. He kept threatening to break my neck among other things. I wasn't hostile to him or anything, gave him repeated warnings to back away and leave. He kept saying or else what. He literally came within one step away from finding out or else what.

But according to Florida law if you had gotten into an altercation with the individual and were banging his head against the concrete and he shoots you dead he is in the right. Is that fair?

VFFTSGT
07-17-2013, 04:19 AM
But according to Florida law if you had gotten into an altercation with the individual and were banging his head against the concrete and he shoots you dead he is in the right. Is that fair?

Yes, someone being shot because they are banging a head into the concrete is justified; that would be justified in practically every state. It is a threat to life to have a head be beat into the concrete. Head Injuries can quickly turn to serious injuries aka "grave bodily harm" or death.

You are trying to bait the situation though in what if scenarios. Martin started the altercation when he approached Zimmerman from behind.

What if it was an "abusive" husband beating his wife's head on the ceramic floor after they got into an altercation? Would you think it was justified for her to shoot or stab her husband?

Point, we can play what if games all night.

VFFTSGT
07-17-2013, 04:29 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/16/upenn-professor-goes-on-blog-rant-over-zimmerman-verdict-claims-god-is-white/

Just shows "educated" people are not intellectually smart. Odds are, she had help getting where she is by not having to meet the same standards as everyone else, just like Henry Gates.

Zimmerman is not even white and people like this women keep blaming the 'white man' for Martin's death.

Bunch
07-17-2013, 04:37 AM
Yes, someone being shot because they are banging a head into the concrete is justified; that would be justified in practically every state. It is a threat to life to have a head be beat into the concrete. Head Injuries can quickly turn to serious injuries aka "grave bodily harm" or death.

You are trying to bait the situation though in what if scenarios. Martin started the altercation when he approached Zimmerman from behind.

What if it was an "abusive" husband beating his wife's head on the ceramic floor after they got into an altercation? Would you think it was justified for her to shoot or stab her husband?

Point, we can play what if games all night.

Not trying to bait just gaging the consistency of your argument.

VFFTSGT
07-17-2013, 04:51 AM
Not trying to bait just gaging the consistency of your argument.

Pretty consistent when it comes to self-defense. Been in multiple self-defense classes. Read the laws of many states. I understand the responsibility as a gun owner and concealed carrier.

And for the same reasons, I am not going to engage someone with smart @$$ comments, hostile questions, etc. Because you never know what the other person is doing or has on him.

The only thing I personally would have done different in the Zimmerman case is, I would not have called 911 until I knew there was something wrong going on. If I saw someone I didn't recognize from the neighborhood, wearing clothes that seemed to be for concealing identity, wondering around at night, seem to fit similar descriptions of other robbery perpetrators...I would follow them too, to see what they were up to and where they were headed. And if the individual approached me from behind, engaged in physical battery, and beat my head in the ground...I would have shot them too.

Measure Man
07-17-2013, 04:57 AM
Accused. Where is the news report showing convictions?

Came right after the news report on trayvon's convictions.


And was 5-6 years ago. Hardly shows state of mind today (or last year). For all intents and purposes his alcohol class he attend helped him considering there were apparently no more issues for the last 5 years or so.

Martin's robbery and violence was recent and current...according to his own text messages.

Ahh...thought the standard was a news report with convictions?


Well, in the first place, I wouldn't ask them in such confrontational manner and just start a hitting them.

Kind of like the guy that followed me home that I mentioned earlier. He didn't like my driving and had a clear case of road rage. He left his car running in the middle of the road door open and started coming after me. He kept threatening to break my neck among other things. I wasn't hostile to him or anything, gave him repeated warnings to back away and leave. He kept saying or else what. He literally came within one step away from finding out or else what.

...yeah, as Bunch said...according to your theory, if you punched him if he came a step closer, then he could have legally shot you. Or are you saying you would have just straight up shot him?

Quixotic
07-17-2013, 05:01 AM
Trevon who?

VFFTSGT
07-17-2013, 05:29 AM
Came right after the news report on trayvon's convictions.



Ahh...thought the standard was a news report with convictions?



...yeah, as Bunch said...according to your theory, if you punched him if he came a step closer, then he could have legally shot you. Or are you saying you would have just straight up shot him?

He wasn't close enough to punch and wasn't going to get close enough to punch and I am not going to get into a physical alteration with someone. Well, I am not going to provoke one nor throw the first hit. Had there not been a gun in my hand and he was charging me, then that charge would be the first physical act of aggression. But even then, I will step to the side and push him to ground. Attempting to avoid physical altercation.

At the time, my gun was visible cause I was carrying inside from the vehicle - wasn't in waist band. But I don't think he realized what was in my hand yet, but it was down at my side and in the holster. Had he gotten with in about 20 feet, I was going to draw. Had he kept coming, yes he would have been shot but I imagine the site of a firearm pointing at him would have changed his mind. Drawing the gun in itself is a sign of force, so had he backed off at that point if it got to it, that would have been it. But in a physical altercation, you don't have that option or delay of the mere draw...displaying the gun as a sign of force. In that situation, which Zimmerman was in, you have to draw and use.

The point here is there are 6,932,107 possibilities in a heat of the moment situation. In America, there is a presumption of innocence. Hindsight is always 20/20 to everyone; everyone always has a 'better way.' There is NO evidence contradicting Zimmerman's account of events.

grimreaper
07-17-2013, 05:35 AM
Guy A is following Guy B. Guy B feels that Guy A is following him, gets angry at this, and instead of going the short distance to his house after hanging up his phone, decides to go and repeatedly assault Guy A. Guy A has a gun, which he's allowed to carry, and while is being beaten, shoot Guy B in an act of self defense. Who's at fault?

There, fixed it for ya and provided an more accurate description of what happened.

technomage1
07-17-2013, 09:24 AM
He wasn't close enough to punch and wasn't going to get close enough to punch and I am not going to get into a physical alteration with someone. Well, I am not going to provoke one nor throw the first hit. Had there not been a gun in my hand and he was charging me, then that charge would be the first physical act of aggression. But even then, I will step to the side and push him to ground. Attempting to avoid physical altercation.

At the time, my gun was visible cause I was carrying inside from the vehicle - wasn't in waist band. But I don't think he realized what was in my hand yet, but it was down at my side and in the holster. Had he gotten with in about 20 feet, I was going to draw. Had he kept coming, yes he would have been shot but I imagine the site of a firearm pointing at him would have changed his mind. Drawing the gun in itself is a sign of force, so had he backed off at that point if it got to it, that would have been it. But in a physical altercation, you don't have that option or delay of the mere draw...displaying the gun as a sign of force. In that situation, which Zimmerman was in, you have to draw and use.

The point here is there are 6,932,107 possibilities in a heat of the moment situation. In America, there is a presumption of innocence. Hindsight is always 20/20 to everyone; everyone always has a 'better way.' There is NO evidence contradicting Zimmerman's account of events.

Like this....

Www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ6qAXu6lTw

VCO
07-17-2013, 11:52 AM
But according to Florida law if you had gotten into an altercation with the individual and were banging his head against the concrete and he shoots you dead he is in the right. Is that fair?

Not true. The idiot would have to be in a lawful location (i. e. not your property) to use the stand your ground defense.

VCO
07-17-2013, 11:59 AM
You telling me if you notice someone obviously following you around at night...approach the person and say "what's your problem?"...and he says "nothing, I got no problem"...you're gonna leave it at that?


You can escalate the situation by attacking the person following you and beating his head into the concrete or you can go inside your house and call the cops. The first option isn't always the best choice. Being a violent racist may catch up to you at some point.

Rusty Jones
07-17-2013, 12:10 PM
Just shows "educated" people are not intellectually smart. Odds are, she had help getting where she is by not having to meet the same standards as everyone else, just like Henry Gates.

Do you know this for a fact?

Bunch
07-17-2013, 02:04 PM
Another self defense case soon to start in Florida...


(CNN) -- Right on the heels of the George Zimmerman trial, another controversial and tragic self-defense case is making its way to court. This time, the scene is Jacksonville, Florida, and the story involves Jordan Davis, an African-American teen the same age as Trayvon Martin.

Davis, 17, was shot to death by Michael Dunn in November 2012.
Dunn told police that he asked Davis and three other teens, who were parked next to him at a gas station, to turn down their music. Dunn says he heard threats from the teens and saw a gun in their car. He says he feared for his own safety, and that's why he grabbed his gun and fired into the vehicle.

Police say that they found no guns inside the teens' vehicle and that Dunn fired his gun eight or nine times.
Dunn has been charged with first-degree murder in Davis' death and also faces three counts of attempted first-degree murder for shooting at the three others in the vehicle who survived. He has pleaded not guilty and is being held without bail in a Duval County, Florida, jail. His trial is scheduled to begin on September 23.

Dunn's attorney, Robin Lemonidis, has told CNN that her client was reacting to what he says was a gun being drawn. "When all the evidence has been flushed out, I believe that it will be extremely clear that Mr. Dunn acted as any responsible firearm owner would have under the same circumstances," Lemonidis said.

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/state/jordan-davis-update-michael-dunn-charged-with-first-degree-murder-trial-scheduled-for-september-23

technomage1
07-17-2013, 02:37 PM
Another self defense case soon to start in Florida...



http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/state/jordan-davis-update-michael-dunn-charged-with-first-degree-murder-trial-scheduled-for-september-23

So, instead of leaving the area or calling the cops, he shoots 8-9 times into a car full of people? Uh, no. Not stand your ground. Pretty cut and dried he should be going to jail.

What if they all had guns? I know they didn't, but for the sake of argument let's say they did. You draw, you fire, you maybe hit one or two before they get you. You have little chance to kill all four. In any circumstance, your best bet is to skedaddle out of there, not to open fire.

Measure Man
07-17-2013, 02:37 PM
The point here is there are 6,932,107 possibilities in a heat of the moment situation. In America, there is a presumption of innocence. Hindsight is always 20/20 to everyone; everyone always has a 'better way.' There is NO evidence contradicting Zimmerman's account of events.

As I've said...all the evidence I think was needed came straight from GZ's mouth.

The confrontation began several minutes before the physical altercation, and GZ started it.

Measure Man
07-17-2013, 02:40 PM
You can escalate the situation by attacking the person following you and beating his head into the concrete or you can go inside your house and call the cops. The first option isn't always the best choice. Being a violent racist may catch up to you at some point.

In order to "escalate" it, it must have been started, right?

I'm not sure how many more times I could say Trayvon was also at fault here...

Greg
07-17-2013, 02:45 PM
So, instead of leaving the area or calling the cops, he shoots 8-9 times into a car full of people? Uh, no. Not stand your ground. Pretty cut and dried he should be going to jail.

What if they all had guns? I know they didn't, but for the sake of argument let's say they did. You draw, you fire, you maybe hit one or two before they get you. You have little chance to kill all four. In any circumstance, your best bet is to skedaddle out of there, not to open fire.

The marksmanship of minority youth is suspect, at best. It's always an innocent bystander that gets tagged. Keep track of black-on-black violence, you should take note that most of the fatalities are at close range.

Measure Man
07-17-2013, 02:45 PM
He wasn't close enough to punch and wasn't going to get close enough to punch and I am not going to get into a physical alteration with someone. Well, I am not going to provoke one nor throw the first hit. Had there not been a gun in my hand and he was charging me, then that charge would be the first physical act of aggression. But even then, I will step to the side and push him to ground. Attempting to avoid physical altercation.

At the time, my gun was visible cause I was carrying inside from the vehicle - wasn't in waist band. But I don't think he realized what was in my hand yet, but it was down at my side and in the holster. Had he gotten with in about 20 feet, I was going to draw. Had he kept coming, yes he would have been shot but I imagine the site of a firearm pointing at him would have changed his mind. Drawing the gun in itself is a sign of force, so had he backed off at that point if it got to it, that would have been it. But in a physical altercation, you don't have that option or delay of the mere draw...displaying the gun as a sign of force. In that situation, which Zimmerman was in, you have to draw and use.

You give one of the best arguments for gun control I've ever heard.


But, what I'm getting out of this...is that you were in a public parking lot, which the other guy had every right to be there. He never physically touched you, hadn't really broken any laws...yet, you felt that he was starting shit with you that you felt somewhat threatened and justified in using a show of force.

The point here is there are 6,932,107 possibilities in a heat of the moment situation. In America, there is a presumption of innocence. Hindsight is always 20/20 to everyone; everyone always has a 'better way.' There is NO evidence contradicting Zimmerman's account of events.

With hindsight being 20/20 and all...knowing what this whole thing has done to both families...if I were in GZ's position, being "pummeled by TM"...I think I'd rather take my chances on fighting it out rather than draw the firearm and shoot.

VFFTSGT
07-17-2013, 03:10 PM
But, what I'm getting out of this...is that you were in a public parking lot, which the other guy had every right to be there. He never physically touched you, hadn't really broken any laws...yet, you felt that he was starting shit with you that you felt somewhat threatened and justified in using a show of force.


It was a private parking lot not public.

He did not have a right to be there.

He was making verbal and physical threats.

It is illegal to make threats against someone's life.

I was close to showing force; I hadn't yet. Had he came closer I would have. Letting a physical altercation ensue when there is a gun in my hand already from transporting from the vehicle to inside the home is stupidity and a threat to my life. It's the same reason police officers will not let you within so many feet of them. Go threaten a police officer, continue to advance toward him, don't head his warnings, and see what happens.

Whatever though, I'm done...everyone else always knows better, this is especially true for government/military employees.

raustin0017
07-17-2013, 03:13 PM
I'm currently qualified to conceal carry in all but a few states in the U.S. I did this to protect myself and my family. Would not hesitate to pull weapon and shoot to kill if someone around me is in imamate danger of bodily harm or death. Example: If me and the wife were coming out of a movie and crossing the parking lot toward our vehicle to go home and seen someone on top of another person slamming their head into the concrete...what would I do? I would not walk away. I would draw my weapon and demand the attacker stop the attack. If for some reason they continued...I would fire my weapon to save the guy on the bottom. I would not shoot to wound...it would be two rounds in the chest. It would not matter at that time who started the conflict. It would be my decision to get involved or walk away. The laws are very clear on how to conduct yourself in situations for legally authorized concealed weapons permits holders.

For those who carry cancelled weapons...they do not fist fight. If your fighting...and you lose control of your weapon...what happens then? GZ is very lucky TM did not get control of his weapon. If that would have happened...we would have never even heard of this tragedy.

Measure Man
07-17-2013, 03:17 PM
Whatever though, I'm done...everyone else always knows better, this is especially true for government/military employees.

Takes one to know one.

sandsjames
07-17-2013, 03:23 PM
In order to "escalate" it, it must have been started, right?

I'm not sure how many more times I could say Trayvon was also at fault here...

Here's the thing. Whether GZ should have pursued or not is not the issue. There was nothing illegal in him pursuing. Evidence shows that the first person to become physically aggressive was TM. Up to that point, things could have been done differently for sure, but that does not matter. That's like saying if I didn't leave my house in the morning I couldn't possibly be involved in an auto accident. The events of the day all led up to the confrontation, but the evidence shows that TM started the altercation.

Greg
07-17-2013, 03:28 PM
It was a private parking lot not public.

He did not have a right to be there.

He was making verbal and physical threats.

It is illegal to make threats against someone's life.

I was close to showing force; I hadn't yet. Had he came closer I would have. Letting a physical altercation ensue when there is a gun in my hand already from transporting from the vehicle to inside the home is stupidity and a threat to my life. It's the same reason police officers will not let you within so many of them. Go threaten a police officer, continue to advance toward him, don't head his warnings, and see what happens.

Whatever though, I'm done...everyone else always knows better, this is especially true for government/military employees.

Especially those that have never been in a critical situation. They're the first to shit their pants.

Measure Man
07-17-2013, 03:36 PM
Here's the thing. Whether GZ should have pursued or not is not the issue.

Yes, it is the issue.


There was nothing illegal in him pursuing.

Something does not have to be illegal to be irresponsible and negligent.

But, stalking is illegal.


Evidence shows that the first person to become physically aggressive was TM.

Right.


Up to that point, things could have been done differently for sure, but that does not matter.

Of course it matters...GZ should be held accountable for his actions, just as TM should, were he still alive.


That's like saying if I didn't leave my house in the morning I couldn't possibly be involved in an auto accident.

It's not like that at all...leaving your house is a reasonable action. If you were to do something irresponsible while driving, that on it's face is not illegal, but end up hitting and killing someone...then you are guilty of manslaughter. In fact, that is the very definition:


Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of another human being without intent. The absence of the intent element is the essential difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. Also in most states, involuntary manslaughter does not result from a heat of passion but from an improper use of reasonable care or skill while in the commission of a lawful act or while in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony.


The events of the day all led up to the confrontation, but the evidence shows that TM started the altercation.

The confrontation started when GZ assumed TM was an asshole and pursued him at night.

sandsjames
07-17-2013, 03:53 PM
Something does not have to be illegal to be irresponsible and negligent.

But, stalking is illegal. Usually when I stalk I'm not on the phone with 911 telling them that I'm doing it.






Of course it matters...GZ should be held accountable for his actions, just as TM should, were he still alive. You don't think he's being held accountable? His life is ruined.




It's not like that at all...leaving your house is a reasonable action. If you were to do something irresponsible while driving, that on it's face is not illegal, but end up hitting and killing someone...then you are guilty of manslaughter. In fact, that is the very definition: And following a shady looking character around your neighborhood to ensure he isn't bothering anything is also a reasonable action.






The confrontation started when GZ assumed TM was an asshole and pursued him at night.No, the confrontation started when TM wouldn't just simply answer GZ when asked what he was doing. In my day, I had respect for authority (which included any and all adults in my neighborhood). If they confronted me, I respected them and answered them. Call me a pussy or whatever you want but if TM had done this he'd still be alive. If every adult in every neighborhood who ever confronted a child about what the hell they were doing was attacked, we wouldn't have any elderly people left in neighborhoods.

Measure Man
07-17-2013, 04:00 PM
Usually when I stalk I'm not on the phone with 911 telling them that I'm doing it.

Good to know.


You don't think he's being held accountable? His life is ruined.

No, I don't think he was held accountable by being acquitted in a trial. He killed someone.


And following a shady looking character around your neighborhood to ensure he isn't bothering anything is also a reasonable action.

I disagree


No, the confrontation started when TM wouldn't just simply answer GZ when asked what he was doing.

That's not even GZ's testimony. GZ said TM approached him, and asked GZ "what's your problem, homie?"....and GZ said, "Nothing, I got no problem."


In my day, I had respect for authority (which included any and all adults in my neighborhood). If they confronted me, I respected them and answered them.

Didn't your parents ever warn you about strangers following you? Remember, TM didn't know who GZ was...just knew this guy was folloiwng him, and when he asked him why, GZ had nothing to say. That's kind of suspicious, too, don't you think?


Call me a pussy or whatever you want but if TM had done this he'd still be alive. If every adult in every neighborhood who ever confronted a child about what the hell they were doing was attacked, we wouldn't have any elderly people left in neighborhoods.

Yes...two guys both acting like asses.

Bunch
07-17-2013, 04:06 PM
No, the confrontation started when TM wouldn't just simply answer GZ when asked what he was doing. In my day, I had respect for authority (which included any and all adults in my neighborhood). If they confronted me, I respected them and answered them. Call me a pussy or whatever you want but if TM had done this he'd still be alive. If every adult in every neighborhood who ever confronted a child about what the hell they were doing was attacked, we wouldn't have any elderly people left in neighborhoods.

You talking like Zimmerman is 60. TM had no idea who he was and why he was following him.

VFFTSGT
07-17-2013, 04:14 PM
While I am probably beating my head into the wall here...


Yes, it is the issue.

No it is not the issue. Because if it is, your argument falls flat on its face since Martin pursued Zimmerman as well.


Something does not have to be illegal to be irresponsible and negligent.

Pursuing someone because they appear suspicious is not irresponsible and negligent.

What basis do police follow suspicious individuals? The clothes they are wearing, past reports for the area, whether or not they appear to be concealing their identity, how they are acting, their demeanor, etc. All of the same type of information Zimmerman used to base his conclusion on Martin be suspicious.


But, stalking is illegal.

Zimmerman was not stalking; you need to review the law and definition of stalking.


A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalkinghttp://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.048.html


The confrontation started when GZ assumed TM was an asshole and pursued him at night.

You need to review the definition of confrontation. Zimmerman never confronted Martin; Martin confronted Zimmerman. Zimmerman only attempted to follow Martin and went back to his truck. Martin confronted Zimmerman from behind.

There are only 2 types of people that believe Zimmerman is guilty of anything:

1) Those that fell victim to the race baiters.

2) Those who want to use this for their agenda for more gun control.

Both are biased and agenda driven. There is nothing objective in supporting Martin or believe Zimmerman was guilty. There is NO evidence contradicting Zimmerman's account of what happened. Everything else is what if, would have, should have, could have, etc. fallacies.

sandsjames
07-17-2013, 04:15 PM
That's not even GZ's testimony. GZ said TM approached him, and asked GZ "what's your problem, homie?"....and GZ said, "Nothing, I got no problem."



Didn't your parents ever warn you about strangers following you? Remember, TM didn't know who GZ was...just knew this guy was folloiwng him, and when he asked him why, GZ had nothing to say. That's kind of suspicious, too, don't you think? It's not like TM was a 10 year old kid. He was 17. I'm not saying GZ couldn't have done things differently, just that the actions he took did not make him negligent. The jury agrees with that.

Now if we really want to look at the cause of the entire issue, let's look at the racism that had been instilled in TM. The only racial comment made in the entire thing was "...crazy cracka...". Apparently, TM had been raised to fear white guys. Hell, even his witness didn't think there was anything wrong with the phrase. That fear and ignorance is what led to the confrontation, if you ask me. He assumed GZ was out to get him so he became defensive.




Yes...two guys both acting like asses.Being an ass does not prove negligence.

sandsjames
07-17-2013, 04:16 PM
You talking like Zimmerman is 60. TM had no idea who he was and why he was following him.And GZ had no idea who TM was. As a neighborhood watch person, it's kind of his job to help keep the neighborhood safe.

tiredretiredE7
07-17-2013, 04:22 PM
For those who carry cancelled weapons...they do not fist fight. If your fighting...and you lose control of your weapon...what happens then? GZ is very lucky TM did not get control of his weapon. If that would have happened...we would have never even heard of this tragedy.

This is what all concealed weapon carriers should have learned from the GZ/TM incident. AVOID all confrontations unless the confrontation is what is causing you to pull your weapon in the first place. GZ could have easily avoided the whole incident. More people need to get their concealed weapons permits and I encourage everyone to attend some of the advanced weapon classes once they have their concealed weapon permit. They should also fire once a month to maintain proficiency with their weapon. All Police departments have been forced to make cuts resulting in increased response times so we have to now protect ourselves.

Measure Man
07-17-2013, 04:23 PM
It's not like TM was a 10 year old kid. He was 17. I'm not saying GZ couldn't have done things differently, just that the actions he took did not make him negligent. The jury agrees with that.

I disagree.

I think the prosecutor overcharged it with Murder 2...if they had charged manslaughter only, then they could have done a better job of focusing the jury on the totality of the "encounter"...which started with GZ. I think that would have been the right thing to do.


Now if we really want to look at the cause of the entire issue, let's look at the racism that had been instilled in TM. The only racial comment made in the entire thing was "...crazy cracka...". Apparently, TM had been raised to fear white guys. Hell, even his witness didn't think there was anything wrong with the phrase.

I've never once argued that TM acted right and innocently, not sure why you keep bringing it up. The issue is GZ's actions. Do you think every bar fight has one innocent person and one guilty person? Or can you comprehend that two people can both be at fault for something?


That fear and ignorance is what led to the confrontation, if you ask me.

TM did not seek out GZ...GZ sought out TM. That's an important point.


He assumed GZ was out to get him so he became defensive.

...and GZ assumed TM was an asshole and a f-in punk...but you don't seem to think that's relevant.


Being an ass does not prove negligence.

It's part of it, though.

sandsjames
07-17-2013, 04:30 PM
I disagree.

I think the prosecutor overcharged it with Murder 2...if they had charged manslaughter only, then they could have done a better job of focusing the jury on the totality of the "encounter"...which started with GZ. I think that would have been the right thing to do. Very possible




I've never once argued that TM acted right and innocently, not sure why you keep bringing it up. The issue is GZ's actions. Do you think every bar fight has one innocent person and one guilty person? Or can you comprehend that two people can both be at fault for something? Just because both can be doesn't mean both are.




TM did not seek out GZ...GZ sought out TM. That's an important point. Not true. Testimony shows that TM was first to approach GZ




...and GZ assumed TM was an asshole and a f-in punk...but you don't seem to think that's relevant. Sure it's relevant, if GZ initiated the confrontation.




It's part of it, though.Apparently not to this jury.

Bunch
07-17-2013, 04:31 PM
While I am probably beating my head into the wall here...



No it is not the issue. Because if it is, your argument falls flat on its face since Martin pursued Zimmerman as well.



Pursuing someone because they appear suspicious is not irresponsible and negligent.

What basis do police follow suspicious individuals? The clothes they are wearing, past reports for the area, whether or not they appear to be concealing their identity, how they are acting, their demeanor, etc. All of the same type of information Zimmerman used to base his conclusion on Martin be suspicious.



Zimmerman was not stalking; you need to review the law and definition of stalking.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.048.html



You need to review the definition of confrontation. Zimmerman never confronted Martin; Martin confronted Zimmerman. Zimmerman only attempted to follow Martin and went back to his truck. Martin confronted Zimmerman from behind.

There are only 2 types of people that believe Zimmerman is guilty of anything:

1) Those that fell victim to the race baiters.

2) Those who want to use this for their agenda for more gun control.

Both are biased and agenda driven. There is nothing objective in supporting Martin or believe Zimmerman was guilty. There is NO evidence contradicting Zimmerman's account of what happened. Everything else is what if, would have, should have, could have, etc. fallacies.

3. People who value life.

But since you are throwing blanket statements I will offer one also. It has become clear to me the hypocrisy of conservatives and their "pro life" stance. It falls flat in the sense that conservatives value life only when is attach to the mommy after that is "fuck your life".

sandsjames
07-17-2013, 04:33 PM
3. People who value life.

But since you are throwing blanket statements I will offer one also. It has become clear to me the hypocrisy of conservatives and their "pro life" stance. It falls flat in the sense that conservatives value life only when is attach to the mommy after that is "fuck your life".This isn't a conversation about abortion or conservative v. liberal. Please stay on topic.

VFFTSGT
07-17-2013, 04:35 PM
3. People who value life.

But since you are throwing blanket statements I will offer one also. It has become clear to me the hypocrisy of conservatives and their "pro life" stance. It falls flat in the sense that conservatives value life only when is attach to the mommy after that is "fuck your life".

I am not a "conservative."

Martin attacked; Zimmerman responded.

If you did not fall victim to the race baiters and "value life" so much, what have you done to help prevent the thousands of murders in Chicago?

Measure Man
07-17-2013, 04:39 PM
Very possible



Just because both can be doesn't mean both are.

No, but it does mean that for as many times as I've said Trayvon bears some fault...you should probably stop arguing that he wasn't innocent.


Not true. Testimony shows that TM was first to approach GZ

Seek: To go in search of; look for


Sure it's relevant, if GZ initiated the confrontation.

Thank you.


Apparently not to this jury.

Obviously.

According to at least one jury...GZ just kind of overstepped a little, and learned a valuable lesson and would be a really good neighborhood watchmen now that he's learned his lesson (the lesson of f-ing killing somone!!??)

Bunch
07-17-2013, 04:39 PM
And GZ had no idea who TM was. As a neighborhood watch person, it's kind of his job to help keep the neighborhood safe.

I have never disagreed with that. My main point has always been that he handle the situation terribly. He put himself in a position in which he needed the life of another person. When he started following TM is when the ball started rolling IMO.

Rusty Jones
07-17-2013, 04:43 PM
I am not a "conservative."

Quote of the decade for MTF.

Measure Man
07-17-2013, 04:43 PM
And GZ had no idea who TM was. As a neighborhood watch person, it's kind of his job to help keep the neighborhood safe.

The neighborhood was a lot safer that night before he got involved.

sandsjames
07-17-2013, 04:43 PM
I have never disagreed with that. My main point has always been that he handle the situation terribly. He put himself in a position in which he needed the life of another person. When he started following TM is when the ball started rolling IMO.

If TM hadn't become physical then he wouldn't have been shot and he'd still be alive. Unfortunately, kids aren't taught to be respectful of adults anymore.

Measure Man
07-17-2013, 04:45 PM
If TM hadn't become physical then he wouldn't have been shot and he'd still be alive. Unfortunately, kids aren't taught to be respectful of adults anymore.

Can't remember if you have kids...but, I hope you don't teach them to be respectful of a stranger following them at night.

Measure Man
07-17-2013, 04:47 PM
When they are old enough to be walking around at night by themselves they should know the difference.

The difference between what?

They ask the guy what his problem is and he says, "Oh, nothing"

What...they should know by looking at him what his intentions are?

sandsjames
07-17-2013, 04:47 PM
Can't remember if you have kids...but, I hope you don't teach them to be respectful of a stranger following them at night.

When they are old enough to be walking around at night by themselves they should know the difference.

edit: and they would know enough not to approach/confront the person "following" them.

Measure Man
07-17-2013, 04:48 PM
When they are old enough to be walking around at night by themselves they should know the difference.

edit: and they would know enough not to approach/confront the person "following" them.

If you see a stranger following your kid at night...you catch up to the guy and say "what's your problem, homie?"..and he says "nothing, I got no problem"

What would you think?

Rusty Jones
07-17-2013, 04:50 PM
edit: and they would know enough not to approach/confront the person "following" them.

Oh, BULLSHIT. You're telling me that you're just going to keep walking while someone is following you? Or that you're going to let some complete stranger speak to you as if he's your authority figure, when he's not?

Get the fuck outta here!

sandsjames
07-17-2013, 04:51 PM
The difference between what?

They ask the guy what his problem is and he says, "Oh, nothing"

What...they should know by looking at him what his intentions are?

Nope, but that's also the time to walk away. No need to escalate the situation.

Measure Man
07-17-2013, 04:52 PM
Nope, but that's also the time to walk away. No need to escalate the situation.

Correct.

Both GZ and TM were suspicious of each other, and both acted improperly. Bar fight.

So...what we have here is two people acting wrongly that should be held accountable for their actions, except TM is dead.

Bunch
07-17-2013, 04:52 PM
I am not a "conservative."

Martin attacked; Zimmerman responded.

If you did not fall victim to the race baiters and "value life" so much, what have you done to help prevent the thousands of murders in Chicago?

I wasn't saying you were I just felt like making a blanket statement of my own.

Is funny you mention Chicago because I live here!!!

We do a lot of things here either Air Force related, church, sports and other organizations to engage the community and present them with alternatives. When I got here I was living downtown in a predominantly black neighborhood ( a horror to many of you here) and never EVER felt threaten. I would walk with my family, walk my dogs and not once felt in danger. What we hope here is to get to this kids BEFORE the gangs get to them. I have engage many gangmembers at the place I get my haircut and talk to them and have come to understand many things that people that are not from here could never relate to.

Is a work in progress but there are many people here making a difference day in and day out.

sandsjames
07-17-2013, 04:53 PM
If you see a stranger following your kid at night...you catch up to the guy and say "what's your problem, homie?"..and he says "nothing, I got no problem"

What would you think?

Don't know. Never been in that situation. But the situation you describe isn't what happened. I think you are confusing an 8 year old helpless child with a 17 year old who was very capable of taking care of himself.

Measure Man
07-17-2013, 04:55 PM
Don't know. Never been in that situation. But the situation you describe isn't what happened. I think you are confusing an 8 year old helpless child with a 17 year old who was very capable of taking care of himself.

Not against a gun.

sandsjames
07-17-2013, 04:56 PM
Correct.

Both GZ and TM were suspicious of each other, and both acted improperly. Bar fight.

So...what we have here is two people acting wrongly that should be held accountable for their actions, except TM is dead.

You make it sound as if the bar fight was necessary. It wasn't. There can be an argument/confrontation without it becoming physical, as this one should have.

Bunch
07-17-2013, 04:57 PM
It seems to me that not only here but in other outlets there is disagreement between the gun owners community about the way GZ handled this situation.

VFFTSGT
07-17-2013, 04:57 PM
Can't remember if you have kids...but, I hope you don't teach them to be respectful of a stranger following them at night.

I will teach my child to call 911 if they are scared of someone who seems to be following them and to 'duck and cover.'

I would not teach them to call a friend, spew racial slurs, and then baselessly attack.


When I got here I was living downtown in a predominantly black neighborhood ( a horror to many of you here)

This is racist to assume white people would be horrified to live near black people.



Is a work in progress but there are many people here making a difference day in and day out.

Apparently your "efforts" aren't sufficient because thousands of lives continue to be lost and seemingly nothing is being done about it.

sandsjames
07-17-2013, 04:58 PM
I think you have that backwards.

My whole point is that entire thing was unnecessary...there should never have been a confrontation to begin with.

And on this we agree.

sandsjames
07-17-2013, 04:58 PM
I think you have that backwards.

My whole point is that entire thing was unnecessary...there should never have been a confrontation to begin with.

And on this we agree.

Rusty Jones
07-17-2013, 04:59 PM
I will teach my child to call 911 if they are scared of someone who seems to be following them and to 'duck and cover.'

This is what you teach young children who are too small to fight an adult.

Measure Man
07-17-2013, 04:59 PM
You make it sound as if the bar fight was necessary. It wasn't. There can be an argument/confrontation without it becoming physical, as this one should have.

I think you have that backwards.

My whole point is that entire thing was unnecessary...there should never have been a confrontation to begin with.

Your point seems to be that it was necessary for GZ to follow TM at night and without explanation, even after challenged. I don't care who you are...someone following you around at night is going to creep you out. That's not to say that TM acted properly in that situation....but, that GZ was acting improperly at that point.

sandsjames
07-17-2013, 05:00 PM
This is what you teach young children who are too small to fight an adult.

No, this is what you teach everyone, regardless of age. Every situation does not need to end in a fight. That's a ridiculous idea. The problem is that some people feel the only way to save face is by a physical confrontation.

VFFTSGT
07-17-2013, 05:02 PM
If only media projected unfed story...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20D8-7kjN9k

Too much logic and reason in this video. Not enough emotion. People won't watch it.

Bunch
07-17-2013, 05:02 PM
I will teach my child to call 911 if they are scared of someone who seems to be following them and to 'duck and cover.'

I would not teach them to call a friend, spew racial slurs, and then baselessly attack.



This is racist to assume white people would be horrified to live near black people.



Apparently your "efforts" aren't sufficient because thousands of lives continue to be lost and seemingly nothing is being done about it.

It is racist to assume that there are racist people in MTF? Thats not racist, thats a matter of fact since I have had my encounter with more than one here MTF.

As far as my effort not being sufficient, thats really the dumbest statement I have read here. Just saving one kid from becoming a gang member is a victory for us here. You truly show that you could never relate to the realities of an america that you will never ever come to know.

Keep being spoon fed by Fox News, thats what you are good at.

VFFTSGT
07-17-2013, 05:02 PM
I think you have that backwards.

My whole point is that entire thing was unnecessary...there should never have been a confrontation to begin with.

And there wouldn't have been, had a racist punk kid not confronted Zimmerman in the manner he did.

Rusty Jones
07-17-2013, 05:07 PM
No, this is what you teach everyone, regardless of age. Every situation does not need to end in a fight. That's a ridiculous idea. The problem is that some people feel the only way to save face is by a physical confrontation.

Wrong, bud. If some strange man is following you, and asking you questions as if he's some authority figure; your choices are going to be to either allow him to follow you, or to stop it from happening.

Or are you going to act like a bitch and submit to his authority?


It is racist to assume that there are racist people in MTF. Thats not racist, thats a matter of fact since I have had my encounter with more than one here MTF.

Only white people are allowed to call people racist. If a black person does it, he's the "real" racist.

sandsjames
07-17-2013, 05:09 PM
Wrong, bud. If some strange man is following you, and asking you questions as if he's some authority figure; your choices are going to be to either allow him to follow you, or to stop it from happening.

Or are you going to act like a bitch and submit to his authority? I'd rather act like a bitch and be alive. Your train of thought is, unfortunately, why so many in the black community (and growing in the white community) will continue to kill each other at a staggering rate. Because they are afraid of being perceived as a "bitch". It's such ignorant thinking.

VFFTSGT
07-17-2013, 05:11 PM
Black Racism Killed Trayvon
Exclusive: Jesse Lee Peterson wants Americans to take stand against intimidation

http://www.bondaction.org/content/article/37076/Black%20Racism%20Killed%20Trayvon

TSgt"M"
07-17-2013, 05:12 PM
Anytime you go into battle, be it street corner or another country, you risk losing you life or taking another's. When your not on a play ground and over the age to be on one, fighting is serious shit. Call me a coward but I will avoid a fight at all cost. If forced to....there aint no rules.

Rusty Jones
07-17-2013, 05:13 PM
I'd rather act like a bitch and be alive. Your train of thought is, unfortunately, why so many in the black community (and growing in the white community) will continue to kill each other at a staggering rate. Because they are afraid of being perceived as a "bitch". It's such ignorant thinking.

Oh, right. But because, you know, since white people don't kill people on the streets; standing up to one who is confronting me is supposed to be a safe bet.

Bunch
07-17-2013, 05:14 PM
I've so far heard jury was racist.
Prosecution threw case.
Stand your ground is a horrible racist law.


None of which would be said if gz guilty.

Agreed.

sandsjames
07-17-2013, 05:15 PM
Oh, right. But because, you know, since white people don't kill people on the streets; standing up to one who is confronting me is supposed to be a safe bet.

If you'll get over your assumptions and read you'll see that I also said "and growing in the white community"...but you didn't want to see that, so that's ok.

Rusty Jones
07-17-2013, 05:17 PM
Anytime you go into battle, be it street corner or another country, you risk losing you life or taking another's. When your not on a play ground and over the age to be on one, fighting is serious shit. Call me a coward but I will avoid a fight at all cost. If forced to....there aint no rules.

I have a hard time believing that there are so many people in one place, claiming that they wouldn't stand up for themselves. It seems to me that these claims are disingenuous, and convenient when arguing for GZ.

grimreaper
07-17-2013, 05:20 PM
Another self defense case soon to start in Florida...



http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/state/jordan-davis-update-michael-dunn-charged-with-first-degree-murder-trial-scheduled-for-september-23

That guy has no case.

sandsjames
07-17-2013, 05:20 PM
I have a hard time believing that there are so many people in one place, claiming that they wouldn't stand up for themselves. It seems to me that these claims are disingenuous, and convenient when arguing for GZ.

Standing up for myself in TM's situation would have consisted of "I'm just on my way home" or "I'm headed to a friends place" not "What's your problem, homie"

Bunch
07-17-2013, 05:25 PM
I have a hard time believing that there are so many people in one place, claiming that they wouldn't stand up for themselves. It seems to me that these claims are disingenuous, and convenient when arguing for GZ.

It's ridiculous. Many of the people that post here about how GZ had every right of following TM are the same people that bitch in other threads about being free, having rights , stand up for my rights, no surveillance, dont profile me (IRS) and other such statements.

Rusty Jones
07-17-2013, 05:25 PM
Standing up for myself in TM's situation would have consisted of "I'm just on my way home" or "I'm headed to a friends place" not "What's your problem, homie"

No, it's not. That's submitting. "What's your problem, homie" is a lot less than what I would've said. And I know that your response is that I'd have been dead sooner than TM. Fair enough. But if that true, then that's a reflection on GZ, not me.

sandsjames
07-17-2013, 05:27 PM
No, it's not. That's submitting. "What's your problem, homie" is a lot less than what I would've said. And I know that your response is that I'd have been dead sooner than TM. Fair enough. But if that true, then that's a reflection on GZ, not me.

Can you not see the ONLY logical outcome of this type of encounter? It doesn't end well. But I guess some people would rather be dead than be "disrespected". So ignorant.

Juggs
07-17-2013, 05:29 PM
No, it's not. That's submitting. "What's your problem, homie" is a lot less than what I would've said. And I know that your response is that I'd have been dead sooner than TM. Fair enough. But if that true, then that's a reflection on GZ, not me.

What you would've said would be a reflextion of you.

Bunch
07-17-2013, 05:30 PM
Standing up for myself in TM's situation would have consisted of "I'm just on my way home" or "I'm headed to a friends place" not "What's your problem, homie"

TM: Whats the problem homie?!!
GZ: Nothing. Im part of the neighborhood watch and working with the police to keep the area safe. May I ask you, do you live here?
TM: Yeah Im on my way home
GZ: Do you live here?
TM: Yeah like two blocks away.
GZ: Ok be safe out there. There has been a lot of criminal acivity of late.
TM: Ok, thanks you scared me for a minute, I though you were going to jump me or something. Later!!

sandsjames
07-17-2013, 05:32 PM
TM: Whats the problem homie?!!
GZ: Nothing. Im part of the neighborhood watch and working with the police to keep the area safe. Can I ask you do you live here?
TM: Yeah Im on my way home
GZ: Do you live here?
TM: Yeah like two blocks away.
GZ: Ok be safe out there. There has been a lot of criminal acivity of late.
TM: Ok, thanks you scared ne for a minute, I though you were going to jump me ir something. Later!!

This would have worked, too. Unfortunately GZ didn't respond that way. However, TM was the one who attacked and that led to being shot and killed.

Rusty Jones
07-17-2013, 05:33 PM
Can you not see the ONLY logical outcome of this type of encounter? It doesn't end well. But I guess some people would rather be dead than be "disrespected". So ignorant.

See, this is the problem: whether or not I end up dead, you're putting it on ME. Not the hypothetical guy who pulls out a gun, points it at me, and pulls the trigger.

Now... what's wrong with this picture?


What you would've said would be a reflextion of you.

Damned right. My response would have been "None of your goddamned business. Fuck off."

And then it would be up to him to either fuck off, or make his next move.

Bunch
07-17-2013, 05:37 PM
This would have worked, too. Unfortunately GZ didn't respond that way. However, TM was the one who attacked and that led to being shot and killed.

Thats why I personally found him responsible. If you are working any type of security related job you know there first thing you do when confronting someone is to ID yourself as such. I have worked as unarmed security guard before joining the AF, first thing the teach you is to not place yourself in position of danger to you or others, second ID yourself. I did SF augmentee and was pretty much the same deal, maybe some cops can chime in here.

This is where I find him responsible. A armed person deciding to take on a security duty for which he didnt have any training and on top of that not following police advice.

Pullinteeth
07-17-2013, 05:42 PM
No, I don't think he was held accountable by being acquitted in a trial. He killed someone.


Lots of people kill people and never even go to trial....


I've never once argued that TM acted right and innocently, not sure why you keep bringing it up. The issue is GZ's actions. Do you think every bar fight has one innocent person and one guilty person? Or can you comprehend that two people can both be at fault for something?

If you are talking about mutual combat, yes, both can be at fault but this wasn't mutual combat. You can SAY pretty whatever you want to someone and if they make the confrontation physical, that isn't mutual combat that is a physical assault...


Both GZ and TM were suspicious of each other, and both acted improperly. Bar fight.

That is an improper correlation. As far as I know, there is no evidence that GZ attempted to attack TM at any point. In order for it to be mutual combat, he would have had to at LEAST try to attack TM prior to or at the same time TM initated physical contact.


It seems to me that not only here but in other outlets there is disagreement between the gun owners community about the way GZ handled this situation.

Between the gun owners community and who?

VFFTSGT
07-17-2013, 05:42 PM
Another self defense case soon to start in Florida...

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/state/jordan-davis-update-michael-dunn-charged-with-first-degree-murder-trial-scheduled-for-september-23


That guy has no case.

Stand your ground, just means you meet force with force with no duty to attempt retreat.

Zimmerman couldn't retreat if he wanted to while having his head bashed in; therefore, he had no duty to attempt retreat and is justified under 'normal' self-defense laws.

This guy probably could have retreated at some point but apparently believed there was a gun being drawn on him. Had this been the case or he thought it was case, he would have had no duty to attempt retreat because there is an imminent threat to life.

Personally, I wouldn't have provoked them by asking them to turn down thier music, but there was nothing illegal in doing so. People (white or black) running around with loud music are already showing a blatant disregard to others...this just shows they have poor attitude and the outcome will not be good by asking them to turn down their music.

I say all this to rebut the claims out there on both cases; stand your ground doesn't appear applicable in either case.

Police have misidentified objects for a gun before; a quick bing search for 'police shoot person they thought had gun' returns several results. I cannot find what happened to the police though...just that they are placed on leave and the standard investigation will happen.

Just reading the article though, it sounds like he has no case; but the article doesn't have all the facts/evidence. Shooting multiple times at multiple people? If there was only one person "drawing a gun" then you only shoot at that person. First degree murder might be over-charging though; it appears Jacksonville is trying to prevent the craziness that happened in Sanford.

It will be interesting to see the evidence play out and if there is evidence for first-degree.

Martin would be the perfect example of a person who should had the 'duty to retreat' because he had no immediate threat to life.

Bunch
07-17-2013, 05:42 PM
Guy in Fox News just said the Obama administration is waving Jihad against GZ. Talking about race, ethnic baiting.

Rusty Jones
07-17-2013, 05:43 PM
Guy in Fox News just said the Obama administration is waving Jihad against GZ. Talking about race, ethnic baiting.

No no, white people are incapable of that. And if you say they are, then you're "playing the race card" and are therefore racist!

sandsjames
07-17-2013, 05:44 PM
See, this is the problem: whether or not I end up dead, you're putting it on ME. Not the hypothetical guy who pulls out a gun, points it at me, and pulls the trigger.

Now... what's wrong with this picture? The point is that people carry the guns BECAUSE of people who act the way you are describing.




Damned right. My response would have been "None of your goddamned business. Fuck off."

And then it would be up to him to either fuck off, or make his next move.Yeah, that's smart. Good luck with that. And we'll talk about what a tragedy it is when you get shot...

sandsjames
07-17-2013, 05:45 PM
Thats why I personally found him responsible. If you are working any type of security related job you know there first thing you do when confronting someone is to ID yourself as such. I have worked as unarmed security guard before joining the AF, first thing the teach you is to not place yourself in position of danger to you or others, second ID yourself. I did SF augmentee and was pretty much the same deal, maybe some cops can chime in here.

This is where I find him responsible. A armed person deciding to take on a security duty for which he didnt have any training and on top of that not following police advice.

He didn't receive "police advice". He received advice from a 911 operator. Not the same thing. And he was allowed, legally, to carry the gun. What prompted the use of the gun was having his head bounced off the concrete.

Bunch
07-17-2013, 05:46 PM
Between the gun owners community and who?

My bad, should have said within.

Pullinteeth
07-17-2013, 05:47 PM
Guy in Fox News just said the Obama administration is waving Jihad against GZ. Talking about race, ethnic baiting.

How does one wave jihad?

grimreaper
07-17-2013, 05:47 PM
3. People who value life.

But since you are throwing blanket statements I will offer one also. It has become clear to me the hypocrisy of conservatives and their "pro life" stance. It falls flat in the sense that conservatives value life only when is attach to the mommy after that is "fuck your life".

Another strawman. You are responsible for your own actions.

Pullinteeth
07-17-2013, 05:48 PM
No no, white people are incapable of that. And if you say they are, then you're "playing the race card" and are therefore racist!

So now Obama is white? Or just his administration? They are incapable of waving jihad? I'm not surprised, I don't even know how one would wave jihad....

Rusty Jones
07-17-2013, 05:49 PM
The point is that people carry the guns BECAUSE of people who act the way you are describing.

Yeah, that's smart. Good luck with that. And we'll talk about what a tragedy it is when you get shot...

Let me ask you something: a stranger stops you and asks you where you're going. Although you said you'd pussy out and answer the question; let me ask you this: why does he deserve an answer? Because he has a gun? From the looks of it, that's exactly what you're saying.

grimreaper
07-17-2013, 05:50 PM
Not against a gun.

Something he should have considered before attacking GZ.

Bunch
07-17-2013, 05:52 PM
Stand your ground, just means you meet force with force with no duty to attempt at retreat.

Zimmerman couldn't retreat if he wanted to while having his head bashed in; therefore, he had no duty to attempt retreat and is justified under 'normal' self-defense laws.

This guy probably could have retreated at some point but apparently believed there was a gun being drawn on him. Had this been the case or he thought it was case, he would have had no duty to attempt retreat.

I say all this to rebut the claims out there on both cases; stand your ground doesn't appear applicable in either case.

Police have misidentified objects for a gun before; a quick bing search for 'police shoot person they thought had gun' returns several results. I cannot find what happened to the police though...just that they are placed on leave and the standard investigation will happen.

Just reading the article though, it sounds like he has no case; but the article doesn't have all the facts/evidence. Shooting multiple times at multiple people? If there was only one person "drawing a gun" then you only shoot at that person. First degree murder might be over-charging though; it appears Jacksonville is trying to prevent the craziness that happened in Sanford.

It will be interesting to see the evidence play out and if there is evidence for first-degree.

Martin would be the perfect example of a person who should had the 'duty to retreat' because he had no immediate threat to life.

When I read the article I also came out thinking that first degree was a bit much, specially in Florida. The main difference is that there are witnesses, the 3 others that survived and others so that probably gave prosecutors a clear idea of what took place.

Bunch
07-17-2013, 05:53 PM
How does one wave jihad?

Dont know, ask him.

Bunch
07-17-2013, 05:53 PM
Another strawman. You are responsible for your own actions.

No strawman, just giving another reason of the many that can be mentioned in regards to why people could feel sorry for what happened to TM.

Measure Man
07-17-2013, 05:53 PM
Lots of people kill people and never even go to trial....

Uhm...okay. If they acted wrongly in killing that person, you could also say these lots of people were not held accountable.


If you are talking about mutual combat, yes, both can be at fault but this wasn't mutual combat. You can SAY pretty whatever you want to someone and if they make the confrontation physical, that isn't mutual combat that is a physical assault...

No, you can't. It might not be illegal on its face, but if your words lead to a physical confrontation, even though you had a right to say them, you can still be held at fault.


That is an improper correlation. As far as I know, there is no evidence that GZ attempted to attack TM at any point. In order for it to be mutual combat, he would have had to at LEAST try to attack TM prior to or at the same time TM initated physical contact.

every bar fight starts with a first punch.


Look...it really comes down to this...I don't care about the race of either, I don't care about who was crying for help and who threw the first punch.

My sole point, is that an armed man should not be out following someone around at night in the manner GZ did...and that is the fault of GZ and only GZ, and I think he was not held accountable for that action. True if that is all that had happend, he had not broken any laws...but seeing as to how a death resulted from that action, he should be held accountable for his role in it. Personally, I think the sentencing guidelines in FL may have been too stringent for this sort of thing, but that's what the whole "tough on crime" bandstanding leads too...taking reasonable decisions away from judges...my opinion, 8-12 years would have been a fair and just punishment in this case.

BTW, I don't think GZ's life is ruined, TM's is. GZ has plenty of supporters out there and he'll be just fine...hell, he could probably get elected to congress.

sandsjames
07-17-2013, 05:56 PM
Let me ask you something: a stranger stops you and asks you where you're going. Although you said you'd pussy out and answer the question; let me ask you this: why does he deserve an answer? Because he has a gun? From the looks of it, that's exactly what you're saying.

He doesn't deserve an answer. However, if an answer helps avoid further confrontation, then I'm going to give it a shot. And I definitely wouldn't escalate by getting aggressive (verbally or physically). I realize you may not be able to understand the logic behind this, but it's the truth. And it works. I've avoided several confrontations over the past 20 years by simply going along with things. Call it submissive, call me a pussy, whatever. But I've never been in a fight and I've lost no self respect by doing so.

Measure Man
07-17-2013, 05:56 PM
Something he should have considered before attacking GZ.

Yes, and something GZ should have considered also.

Pullinteeth
07-17-2013, 05:58 PM
Dont know, ask him.

I wasn't aware that the Obama administration had a gender....

VFFTSGT
07-17-2013, 05:58 PM
When I read the article I also came out thinking that first degree was a bit much, specially in Florida. The main difference is that there are witnesses, the 3 others that survived and others so that probably gave prosecutors a clear idea of what took place.

Just found another article. Yeah, this guy was in the wrong and doesn't have a case:


According to Dunn's girlfriend, Rhonda Rouer, Dunn had three rum and cokes at a wedding reception

Drink alcohol; no gun. It's not even like driving just after one beer. It's one beer and the gun is gone; put away, period.



The couple drove back to their hotel, and claim they did not realize anyone had died until the story appeared on the news the next day.

And you don't just shoot and drive off. If you fire your gun, you better be calling the police, period.

This particular case does have irresponsibility all over it.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/54339/black-17-and-shot-dead-in-florida-why-isn-t-jordan-davis-getting-the-attention-travyon-martin-is

VFFTSGT
07-17-2013, 05:58 PM
Okay, just found another article...yeah, this other guy has no case and was in the wrong:


According to Dunn's girlfriend, Rhonda Rouer, Dunn had three rum and cokes at a wedding reception

http://www.policymic.com/articles/54339/black-17-and-shot-dead-in-florida-why-isn-t-jordan-davis-getting-the-attention-travyon-martin-is

sandsjames
07-17-2013, 05:58 PM
Look...it really comes down to this...I don't care about the race of either, I don't care about who was crying for help and who threw the first punch.

My sole point, is that an armed man should not be out following someone around at night in the manner GZ did...and that is the fault of GZ and only GZ, and I think he was not held accountable for that action. True if that is all that had happend, he had not broken any laws...but seeing as to how a death resulted from that action, he should be held accountable for his role in it. Personally, I think the sentencing guidelines in FL may have been too stringent for this sort of thing, but that's what the whole "tough on crime" bandstanding leads too...taking reasonable decisions away from judges...my opinion, 8-12 years would have been a fair and just punishment in this case.



Is there anything illegal GZ did before TM jumped him? Anything at all? If so, then it's a different story. However, though his actions may have been stupid, they were not illegal. What if there wasn't a gun? What if TM jumped him, he defended himself, punched TM in the face, TM fell, hit his head and died? Is he still negligent in your mind?

Bunch
07-17-2013, 05:59 PM
BTW, I don't think GZ's life is ruined, TM's is. GZ has plenty of supporters out there and he'll be just fine...hell, he could probably get elected to congress.

He will probably get a gig as a Fox News talking head.

Rusty Jones
07-17-2013, 06:01 PM
He doesn't deserve an answer. However, if an answer helps avoid further confrontation, then I'm going to give it a shot. And I definitely wouldn't escalate by getting aggressive (verbally or physically). I realize you may not be able to understand the logic behind this, but it's the truth. And it works. I've avoided several confrontations over the past 20 years by simply going along with things. Call it submissive, call me a pussy, whatever. But I've never been in a fight and I've lost no self respect by doing so.
...and the reason you retired, having never become an SNCO, is apparent. You're a coward who always chooses the path of least resistance.

Bunch
07-17-2013, 06:01 PM
I wasn't aware that the Obama administration had a gender....

I think you are a bit lost.

Measure Man
07-17-2013, 06:02 PM
Is there anything illegal GZ did before TM jumped him? Anything at all? If so, then it's a different story. However, though his actions may have been stupid, they were not illegal.

As i've posted the definition of manslaughter several times, I won't do it again.

Stupid=negligent


What if there wasn't a gun? What if TM jumped him, he defended himself, punched TM in the face, TM fell, hit his head and died? Is he still negligent in your mind?

Quite possibly, yes, and this type of case is very common actually. Although I think the standard is changed somewhat when a person is armed vs. unarmed.

sandsjames
07-17-2013, 06:03 PM
...and the reason you retired, having never become an SNCO, is apparent. You're a coward who always chooses the path of least resistance.

Right, making choices to avoid a fight is cowardly. Gotcha.

sandsjames
07-17-2013, 06:05 PM
As i've posted the definition of manslaughter several times, I won't do it again.

Stupid=negligent



Quite possibly, yes, and this type of case is very common actually. Although I think the standard is changed somewhat when a person is armed vs. unarmed.

Right. So the soccer ref who stupidly called a penalty on a player who he knew was volatile who got punched in the head and died from it was negligent. He should have known better than to cause the confrontation. And armed vs. unarmed, when legally carrying the firearm, is no different. It could have been a knife, a cane, a taser, a fist, a steel toe boot, whatever. Makes no difference. The facts are this. TM attacked GZ. GZ defended himself, legally. Anything else is irrelevant.

grimreaper
07-17-2013, 06:06 PM
Stand your ground, just means you meet force with force with no duty to attempt retreat.

Zimmerman couldn't retreat if he wanted to while having his head bashed in; therefore, he had no duty to attempt retreat and is justified under 'normal' self-defense laws.

This guy probably could have retreated at some point but apparently believed there was a gun being drawn on him. Had this been the case or he thought it was case, he would have had no duty to attempt retreat because there is an imminent threat to life.

Personally, I wouldn't have provoked them by asking them to turn down thier music, but there was nothing illegal in doing so. People (white or black) running around with loud music are already showing a blatant disregard to others...this just shows they have poor attitude and the outcome will not be good by asking them to turn down their music.

I say all this to rebut the claims out there on both cases; stand your ground doesn't appear applicable in either case.

Police have misidentified objects for a gun before; a quick bing search for 'police shoot person they thought had gun' returns several results. I cannot find what happened to the police though...just that they are placed on leave and the standard investigation will happen.

Just reading the article though, it sounds like he has no case; but the article doesn't have all the facts/evidence. Shooting multiple times at multiple people? If there was only one person "drawing a gun" then you only shoot at that person. First degree murder might be over-charging though; it appears Jacksonville is trying to prevent the craziness that happened in Sanford.

It will be interesting to see the evidence play out and if there is evidence for first-degree.

Martin would be the perfect example of a person who should had the 'duty to retreat' because he had no immediate threat to life.

The funniest part is that "Stand Your Ground" was not even part of Zimmerman's defense, but out racist AG who's only worried about "his people" and the other race baiters, keep bring it up for some reason. They are either completely clueless or up to something.

Bunch
07-17-2013, 06:07 PM
Right. So the soccer ref who stupidly called a penalty on a player who he knew was volatile who got punched in the head and died from it was negligent. He should have known better than to cause the confrontation. And armed vs. unarmed, when legally carrying the firearm, is no different. It could have been a knife, a cane, a taser, a fist, a steel toe boot, whatever. Makes no difference. The facts are this. TM attacked GZ. GZ defended himself, legally. Anything else is irrelevant.

I dont disagree with the TM attack GZ an GZ shot him. Is how he handle the situation that ended up with him having to shoot TM.

Rusty Jones
07-17-2013, 06:08 PM
Right, making choices to avoid a fight is cowardly. Gotcha.

Sandsjames, there's more to it than that. This isn't just you when it comes to physical fights. This is how you cope with life in general.

grimreaper
07-17-2013, 06:10 PM
No strawman, just giving another reason of the many that can be mentioned in regards to why people could feel sorry for what happened to TM.

Who said they don't feel sorry that it happened?

Measure Man
07-17-2013, 06:11 PM
Right. So the soccer ref who stupidly called a penalty on a player who he knew was volatile who got punched in the head and died from it was negligent. He should have known better than to cause the confrontation.

Hmmmm...seems to me you are the one saying to go along with anything in order to avoid confrontation.

Calling a penalty as a soccer ref is not the same as following someone around at night...no.


And armed vs. unarmed, when legally carrying the firearm, is no different.

Again...wonderful argument for gun control. For common sense, not so much.


It could have been a knife, a cane, a taser, a fist, a steel toe boot, whatever. Makes no difference. The facts are this. TM attacked GZ. GZ defended himself, legally. Anything else is irrelevant.

I disagree.

Measure Man
07-17-2013, 06:12 PM
The funniest part is that "Stand Your Ground" was not even part of Zimmerman's defense, but out racist AG who's only worried about "his people" and ther other race baiters, keep bring it up for some reason. They are either completely clueless or up to something.

Agree with you there...this case doesn't really have anything to do with "Stand your Ground" as GZ never invoked that defense.

sandsjames
07-17-2013, 06:12 PM
Hmmmm...seems to me you are the one saying to go along with anything in order to avoid confrontation. Sense the sarcasm with the comparison.






I disagree.

Unfortunately for TM supporters and GZ haters, our legal system does not.

sandsjames
07-17-2013, 06:12 PM
Sandsjames, there's more to it than that. This isn't just you when it comes to physical fights. This is how you cope with life in general.

Pretty much. And you know what? I live a very happy, quiet, peaceful life. I feel very secure in my home. I'm not worried that someone is going to jump me when I'm walking down the road because of something I may have said to them in the past. I prefer to remain "invisible". It's a great way to live. I avoid situations that put my family or me in unnecessary danger. If I was in a situation where there was no choice then I would defend myself. I have yet to be in one of those situations. And the fact that I haven't been in one is NOT coincidental.

Capt Alfredo
07-17-2013, 06:13 PM
Some people really need to look up the definition of "confirmation bias."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

grimreaper
07-17-2013, 06:14 PM
Yes, and something GZ should have considered also.

Disagree, you put your hands on me, you roll the dice that I might be armed and protect myself. GZ wasn't the one that made it physical and commited a crime.

AJBIGJ
07-17-2013, 06:15 PM
Case dismissed?

VFFTSGT
07-17-2013, 06:16 PM
I dont disagree with the TM attack GZ an GZ shot him. Is how he handle the situation that ended up with him having to shoot TM.

And there is nothing wrong with how Zimmerman handled it.

Zimmerman was on the way to the grocery store.

Saw an individual he did not recognize in a gated community, appearing to conceal his identity, and appearing suspicous by walking around the back side of houses.

He was attempting to see what this individual was up to.

Martin wasn't going to have a "crazy cracka" question him though and that was when the problem started.

Measure Man
07-17-2013, 06:18 PM
Unfortunately for TM supporters and GZ haters, our legal system does not.

...and there you have it.

What's the next case on Nancy Grace mysteries?

grimreaper
07-17-2013, 06:18 PM
I have read and understand your point.

I still disagree with you.

That's fine. No problem with that.

Bunch
07-17-2013, 06:19 PM
And there is nothing wrong with how Zimmerman handled it.

Zimmerman was on the way to the grocery store.

Saw an individual he did not recognize in a gated community, appearing to conceal his identity, and appearing suspicous by walking around the back side of houses.

He was attempting to see what this individual was up to.

Martin wasn't going to have a "crazy cracka" question him though and that was when the problem started.

And this is where we disagree.

Measure Man
07-17-2013, 06:20 PM
Disagree, you put your hands on me, you roll the dice that I might be armed and protect myself. GZ wasn't the one that made it physical and commited a crime.

I have read and understand your point.

I still disagree with you.

Rusty Jones
07-17-2013, 06:21 PM
Pretty much. And you know what? I live a very happy, quiet, peaceful life. I feel very secure in my home. I'm not worried that someone is going to jump me when I'm walking down the road because of something I may have said to them in the past. I prefer to remain "invisible". It's a great way to live. I avoid situations that put my family or me in unnecessary danger. If I was in a situation where there was no choice then I would defend myself. I have yet to be in one of those situations. And the fact that I haven't been in one is NOT coincidental.

Then you probably have absolutely zero clue how mediocre your life has been.

sandsjames
07-17-2013, 06:24 PM
Then you probably have absolutely zero clue how mediocre your life has been.

Not mediocre at all. Been all around the world and the U.S. Done a lot of things many people never get to do. It's a shame that, in your eyes, one has to have been in confrontations in order to have a fun life.

I do thank you, though, because your point of view has really taught me why our country is in the state it's in.

VFFTSGT
07-17-2013, 06:25 PM
And this is were we disagree.

And I don't understand why. The only reason to disagree is if you believe the race baiters. The average person would 'investigate' a suspicious person to some extent if it was in their neighborhood. I have watched a couple people before I thought suspicous.

There is nothing wrong with trying to ensure your community is safe.

Rusty Jones
07-17-2013, 06:26 PM
And there is nothing wrong with how Zimmerman handled it.

Zimmerman was on the way to the grocery store.

Saw an individual he did not recognize in a gated community, appearing to conceal his identity, and appearing suspicous by walking around the back side of houses.

He was attempting to see what this individual was up to.

Martin wasn't going to have a "crazy cracka" question him though and that was when the problem started.

No one - even if, for the sake of argument, they're racist - with any self-respect is going answer to someone that they're not legally required to; regardless of what race they are.

I can tell you that, in my case, unless you can produce a badge of some sort - and it doesn't even have to be a police badge; you can be a firefighter or drive ambulances... as long as you have some kind of legal authority to take charge of and control a scene in the event of any kind of emergency - I'm not telling you where I am going. It's none of your goddamn business. Oh, you're neighborhood watch? Your job is to observe and report; get the fuck outta my face. I don't give a damn if you're the same race as I am or not.

sandsjames
07-17-2013, 06:27 PM
And I don't understand why. The only reason to disagree is if you believe the race baiters. The average person would 'investigate' a suspicious person to some extent if it was in their neighborhood. I have watched a couple people before I thought suspicous.

There is nothing wrong with trying to ensure your community is safe.

Especially as part of the neighborhood watch. Not only that, the police were called. He wasn't looking for a confrontation. He was looking to keep an eye on him until the police got there. Without the call to the po-po it may have been a different story.

Bunch
07-17-2013, 06:30 PM
And I don't understand why. The only reason to disagree is if you believe the race baiters. The average person would 'investigate' a suspicious person to some extent if it was in their neighborhood. I have watched a couple people before I thought suspicous.

There is nothing wrong with trying to ensure your community is safe.

Its fascinating to me that you keep making this a race issue. The world is a big place, full of people, that think very different from one another. I already stated why I find that GZ was responsible for what happened that night and it has nothing to do with race, others have stated that also, it just means that me and you when it comes to this issue won't agree. The good thing about MTF is that we will have a chance to agree on other issues.

Rusty Jones
07-17-2013, 06:30 PM
Not mediocre at all. Been all around the world and the U.S. Done a lot of things many people never get to do. It's a shame that, in your eyes, one has to have been in confrontations in order to have a fun life.

I do thank you, though, because your point of view has really taught me why our country is in the state it's in.

No, what makes your life mediocre is the fact that you've never put anything on the line. You've never risked a loss for a possible payout. You've "played it safe" your whole life.

AJBIGJ
07-17-2013, 06:33 PM
I wonder if this bunch (not specifically targeting the person with the username) gets this animated for every criminal case that goes to trial?

VFFTSGT
07-17-2013, 06:40 PM
Its fascinating to me that you keep making this a race issue. The world is a big place, full of people, that think very different from one another. I already stated why I find that GZ was respnsible for what happened that night and it has nothing to do with race, others have stated that also, it just means that me and you when it comes to this issue won't agree. The good thing about MTF is that we will have a chance to agree on other issues.

Because the only problem with this case started when the media misidentified Zimmerman as a white male and Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc started their race baiting campaign.

You notice the other case you brought up hasn't gotten attention? Why? Because their family didn't call and pay Al Sharpton to come incite racial division.

The arguments against Zimmerman started based on race and race alone. You know about this case because people screamed Zimmerman was a racist, profiled Martin based on race, and then followed solely based on the idea he was black.

You have come to conclusions based off talking points in the media.

I believe race is affecting your opinion, whether you want to acknowledge it or not or whether it is subconscious or not.

There is no evidence to suggest Zimmerman did anything wrong. You are trying to suggest it was wrong to "follow" a person. It was not wrong to attempt to keep an eye on a "suspicous" individual. It was wrong for Martin to have a bad attitude and lash out like he did.

Rusty Jones
07-17-2013, 06:41 PM
Is this becoming a sandsjames personal life thread...
How many threads must you morph into personal attacks?

The bottom line is this: sandsjames is not your average everyday person. The demands that he makes of others... just aren't realistic. Not everyone is going to answer cordially to someone who is interrogating them without the legal authority to do so. Very few would. That's simply what SANDSJAMES would do. And he's trying to paint those who wouldn't as the oddballs out. Nope, SANDSJAMES is the oddball here.

AJBIGJ
07-17-2013, 06:43 PM
We just got nothing better to do today.

Fair enough

Bunch
07-17-2013, 06:43 PM
I wonder if this bunch (not specifically targeting the person with the username) gets this animated for every criminal case that goes to trial?

We just got nothing better to do today.

AJBIGJ
07-17-2013, 06:44 PM
If anyone needs something even less productive to do Star Trek Online is free to play and addictive as all hell!

AJBIGJ
07-17-2013, 06:45 PM
We just got nothing better to do today.

Fair enough

Bunch
07-17-2013, 06:47 PM
Because the only problem with this case started when the media misidentified Zimmerman as a white male and Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc started their race baiting campaign.

You notice the other case you brought up hasn't gotten attention? Why? Because their family didn't call and pay Al Sharpton to come incite racial division.

The arguments against Zimmerman started based on race and race alone. You know about this case because people screamed Zimmerman was a racist, profiled Martin based on race, and then followed solely based on the idea he was black.

You have come to conclusions based off talking points in the media.

I believe race is affecting your opinion, whether you want to acknowledge it or not or whether it is subconscious or not.

There is no evidence to suggest Zimmerman did anything wrong. You are trying to suggest it was wrong to "follow" a person. It was not wrong to attempt to key an eye on a "suspicous" individual. It was wrong for Martin to have a bad attitude and lash out like he did.

What are you talking about!!!???

I stated earlier that it was common sense that GZ would profile an follow TM.

Rusty Jones
07-17-2013, 06:48 PM
Did he start attacking your personal life?
Maybe I missed something buddy.

Sandsjames was talking about how he would handle the situation if he was approached by GZ. So how he gets himself through life is very relevant here.

TSgt"M"
07-17-2013, 06:50 PM
Not everyone is going to answer cordially to someone who is interrogating them without the legal authority to do so. Very few would.

I would.....unless I was guilty of something. Whats to hide. Simple questions do not bother me.

Rusty Jones
07-17-2013, 06:51 PM
I would.....unless I was guilty of something. Whats to hide. Simple questions do not bother me.

It's not about whether or not you have anything to hide. It's about someone trying to exercise authority over you that they legally have no right to exercise.

VFFTSGT
07-17-2013, 06:53 PM
If anyone needs something even less productive to do Star Trek Online is free to play and addictive as all hell!

There was a study out recently that suggested things like excessive video game use and other mind numbing activities on a smartphone are actually mind numbing...actually causing harm to the brain.

At least this way, we are using our brains, exercising logic (some of us anyways, don't hate, laugh), and engaging in civil debate.

Rusty Jones
07-17-2013, 06:55 PM
Not sure him discussing a topic gives
Opening to question his personal life
Then call it mediocre and such.
Is anyone else delving into others
Personal life other than you?
Thanks.


*takes hook out of mouth, drops it on the deck*

TSgt"M"
07-17-2013, 06:56 PM
It's not about whether or not you have anything to hide. It's about someone trying to exercise authority over you that they legally have no right to exercise.

So, you have a "Authority" problem. That's why you left the navy.

Rusty Jones
07-17-2013, 06:58 PM
So, you have a "Authority" problem. That's why you left the navy.

What part of LEGAL authority do you not understand? GZ had no LEGAL authority to stop and interrogate anyone. Therefore, no one is LEGALLY bound to answer his questions.

Are we on the same page now?

TSgt"M"
07-17-2013, 07:10 PM
No need to take it there.

I know, my bad.

grimreaper
07-17-2013, 07:16 PM
GZ had no LEGAL authority to stop and interrogate anyone.

Where is this "GZ stopped and interrogated" coming from?

AJBIGJ
07-17-2013, 07:16 PM
There was a study out recently that suggested things like excessive video game use and other mind numbing activities on a smartphone are actually mind numbing...actually causing harm to the brain.

At least this way, we are using our brains, exercising logic (some of us anyways, don't hate, laugh), and engaging in civil debate.

I'd be curious to do a study on that very thing itself. I think sometimes engaging in these discussions can be as or more damaging to our own critical thinking abilities than just about anything we can fathom. Some among us get so locked into proving ourselves "right" that we forego even the most logical thinking skills because be eventually buy into our own hype!

Rusty Jones
07-17-2013, 07:20 PM
Where is this "GZ stopped and interrogated" coming from?

...is this a trick question? Did GZ not interrupt TM's walk home, to ask him where he was going?

I said before... if I was in the TM's position; unless it's police/firefighter/ambulance (legal authority), I'm not answering to some random stranger.

VFFTSGT
07-17-2013, 07:20 PM
I'd be curious to do a study on that very thing itself. I think sometimes engaging in these discussions can be as or more damaging to our own critical thinking abilities than just about anything we can fathom. Some among us get so locked into proving ourselves "right" that we forego even the most logical thinking skills because be eventually buy into our own hype!

I don't know...I have changed opinions on a lot of things after engaging in discussions on here. One example... When I first came on here several years ago, I was very opposed to gays in the military. Today, I don't care. I still cannot fathom how a dude wants to do that to dude, but whatever.

sandsjames
07-17-2013, 07:22 PM
No, what makes your life mediocre is the fact that you've never put anything on the line. You've never risked a loss for a possible payout. You've "played it safe" your whole life.

My payout is my happiness, my beautiful family, my home, etc. What more payout could I want or need?