Bottom line is that Z shot and killed an innocent person who originally was no threat to him. His actions made this event what it was. That is why Z won't be able to claim self defense or "Stand your ground"
there's not 4 facts in this statement
0
Quote Originally Posted by darkhorse12:
Bottom line is that Z shot and killed an innocent person who originally was no threat to him. His actions made this event what it was. That is why Z won't be able to claim self defense or "Stand your ground"
Z killed someone, but we don't know if he was innocent.
IYO what could M be guilty of?
originally no threat to him - fact
Z's actions made the event what it was...half truth...two men
If Z would not have approached M IMO none of this happens.
you better believe he is standing on self defense
I'm not a lawyer but IMO Z was the agressor as soon as he took it upon himself to approach M.And I believe because of that he cannot use that as a defense.
Any lawyers want to chime in?
0
Quote Originally Posted by captjohn67:
Z killed someone, but we don't know if he was innocent.
IYO what could M be guilty of?
originally no threat to him - fact
Z's actions made the event what it was...half truth...two men
If Z would not have approached M IMO none of this happens.
you better believe he is standing on self defense
I'm not a lawyer but IMO Z was the agressor as soon as he took it upon himself to approach M.And I believe because of that he cannot use that as a defense.
3 facts outa 4 - of course he's claiming self defense. What else has he got, lol. Probably won't, but hope he gets convicted of manslaughter & does some time. He created the whole thing with his vigilante bullshit -
0
3 facts outa 4 - of course he's claiming self defense. What else has he got, lol. Probably won't, but hope he gets convicted of manslaughter & does some time. He created the whole thing with his vigilante bullshit -
3 facts outa 4 - of course he's claiming self defense. What else has he got, lol. Probably won't, but hope he gets convicted of manslaughter & does some time. He created the whole thing with his vigilante bullshit -
I kind of agree here. It is funny how all the focus seems to be on whether or not Zimmerman was justified in shooting Trayvon based on self defense in response to the fight.
However, a HUGE question to me and one that I imagine will come up in the trial (although I know nothing about the the the legal process and so I could be completely off here) is why the hell did he feel it was necessary to approach Trayvon and get close enough to get in a fight with him in the first place? Regardless of who initiated the fight it could of been avoided if Zimmerman notified Trayvon from a distance that the police have been notified.
People like to say that Trayvon put himself in that position by acting "suspiciously" but can't the same be said for ZImmerman? Why did he put himself in that position?
0
Quote Originally Posted by cashin:
3 facts outa 4 - of course he's claiming self defense. What else has he got, lol. Probably won't, but hope he gets convicted of manslaughter & does some time. He created the whole thing with his vigilante bullshit -
I kind of agree here. It is funny how all the focus seems to be on whether or not Zimmerman was justified in shooting Trayvon based on self defense in response to the fight.
However, a HUGE question to me and one that I imagine will come up in the trial (although I know nothing about the the the legal process and so I could be completely off here) is why the hell did he feel it was necessary to approach Trayvon and get close enough to get in a fight with him in the first place? Regardless of who initiated the fight it could of been avoided if Zimmerman notified Trayvon from a distance that the police have been notified.
People like to say that Trayvon put himself in that position by acting "suspiciously" but can't the same be said for ZImmerman? Why did he put himself in that position?
Any idiot knows that if Zimmerman had not approached Trayvon it wouldn't have happened. But, Zimmerman had every right to do so.
Trayvon had no right to start swinging on him merely for following him or asking him a question.
You can't punish Zimmerman if he only intended to ask Trayvons reason for being there. Any idiot would know that.
Since Trayvon did start swinging on him that makes him not innocent.
This is a convenient view of how things went down.
Zimmerman (in his polite attempt at a British accent) -- "Hello sir. It is a fine evening indeed. May I ask you what you are doing here? I would would be more than willing to provide any assistance that you may need. "
Trayvon -- "You talking to me? Fuck you. I can not believe that you had the nerve to politely ask me if I needed any assiatance. Now it is time to get your ass kicked."
Something tells me that this is not how it went down.
0
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
Any idiot knows that if Zimmerman had not approached Trayvon it wouldn't have happened. But, Zimmerman had every right to do so.
Trayvon had no right to start swinging on him merely for following him or asking him a question.
You can't punish Zimmerman if he only intended to ask Trayvons reason for being there. Any idiot would know that.
Since Trayvon did start swinging on him that makes him not innocent.
This is a convenient view of how things went down.
Zimmerman (in his polite attempt at a British accent) -- "Hello sir. It is a fine evening indeed. May I ask you what you are doing here? I would would be more than willing to provide any assistance that you may need. "
Trayvon -- "You talking to me? Fuck you. I can not believe that you had the nerve to politely ask me if I needed any assiatance. Now it is time to get your ass kicked."
Something tells me that this is not how it went down.
I kind of agree here. It is funny how all the focus seems to be on whether or not Zimmerman was justified in shooting Trayvon based on self defense in response to the fight.
However, a HUGE question to me and one that I imagine will come up in the trial (although I know nothing about the the the legal process and so I could be completely off here) is why the hell did he feel it was necessary to approach Trayvon and get close enough to get in a fight with him in the first place? Regardless of who initiated the fight it could of been avoided if Zimmerman notified Trayvon from a distance that the police have been notified.
People like to say that Trayvon put himself in that position by acting "suspiciously" but can't the same be said for ZImmerman? Why did he put himself in that position?
Tell me why it matters that Zimmerman could have avoided the whole thing?
He didn't stay in his car, so what? He approached Trayvon and Trayvon could have not started swinging and slamming his head and going MMA on him and could have avoided the whole thing.
What is worse MMA on someone or not staying in car?
0
Quote Originally Posted by mattbrot:
I kind of agree here. It is funny how all the focus seems to be on whether or not Zimmerman was justified in shooting Trayvon based on self defense in response to the fight.
However, a HUGE question to me and one that I imagine will come up in the trial (although I know nothing about the the the legal process and so I could be completely off here) is why the hell did he feel it was necessary to approach Trayvon and get close enough to get in a fight with him in the first place? Regardless of who initiated the fight it could of been avoided if Zimmerman notified Trayvon from a distance that the police have been notified.
People like to say that Trayvon put himself in that position by acting "suspiciously" but can't the same be said for ZImmerman? Why did he put himself in that position?
Tell me why it matters that Zimmerman could have avoided the whole thing?
He didn't stay in his car, so what? He approached Trayvon and Trayvon could have not started swinging and slamming his head and going MMA on him and could have avoided the whole thing.
What is worse MMA on someone or not staying in car?
This is a convenient view of how things went down.
Zimmerman (in his polite attempt at a British accent) -- "Hello sir. It is a fine evening indeed. May I ask you what you are doing here? I would would be more than willing to provide any assistance that you may need. "
Trayvon -- "You talking to me? Fuck you. I can not believe that you had the nerve to politely ask me if I needed any assiatance. Now it is time to get your ass kicked."
Something tells me that this is not how it went down.
Why the need to inject humor into this? Is it perhaps out of frustration that the facts of the case are making your version of the events seem less and less likely, which shows how ignorant your version was from the beginning?
Couldnt get past the childhood pictures of Trayvon could ya?...they clouded your vision and combined with the lack of common sense led you to the wrong side of this whole case.
I wonder what it feels like going through life with limited common sense is like? You could tell me ya?
0
Quote Originally Posted by mattbrot:
This is a convenient view of how things went down.
Zimmerman (in his polite attempt at a British accent) -- "Hello sir. It is a fine evening indeed. May I ask you what you are doing here? I would would be more than willing to provide any assistance that you may need. "
Trayvon -- "You talking to me? Fuck you. I can not believe that you had the nerve to politely ask me if I needed any assiatance. Now it is time to get your ass kicked."
Something tells me that this is not how it went down.
Why the need to inject humor into this? Is it perhaps out of frustration that the facts of the case are making your version of the events seem less and less likely, which shows how ignorant your version was from the beginning?
Couldnt get past the childhood pictures of Trayvon could ya?...they clouded your vision and combined with the lack of common sense led you to the wrong side of this whole case.
I wonder what it feels like going through life with limited common sense is like? You could tell me ya?
You an I both agree that the version of Trayvon being some happy go lucky kid skipping through the apartment complex with his skittles and tea are an unfortunate product of the media. We both agree on that
But to paint Zimmerman as some overly concerned citizen who meant no harm who "merely for following him or asking him a question" is also equally as naive. And equally presents a convenient portrayal of the incident.
The bottom line is that we do not know what happened and unfortunately never will. No matter what happens we will never know both sides of the story.
But the fact is (or at least as close to fact as guys like you and I, who really have no clue what we are talking about) that two lives are forever changed by the incident.
- a troubled teen (and although to varying degrees, who of us can say that we did not have our own issues at that age) is dead.
- another man's life, (whether it be politically, emotionally etc.) is forever changed.
And my only point in these discussions is that this simply could of been avoided if Zimmerman did not pursue the confrontation. Regardless of who started it, the whole thing could of been avoided.
We should not be so quick to take blame off of Trayvon. But we also should not be so quick to say that Zimmerman is completely innocent here.
I am not so sure why this level of common sense is so hard for people to see.
0
Bowslit,
You an I both agree that the version of Trayvon being some happy go lucky kid skipping through the apartment complex with his skittles and tea are an unfortunate product of the media. We both agree on that
But to paint Zimmerman as some overly concerned citizen who meant no harm who "merely for following him or asking him a question" is also equally as naive. And equally presents a convenient portrayal of the incident.
The bottom line is that we do not know what happened and unfortunately never will. No matter what happens we will never know both sides of the story.
But the fact is (or at least as close to fact as guys like you and I, who really have no clue what we are talking about) that two lives are forever changed by the incident.
- a troubled teen (and although to varying degrees, who of us can say that we did not have our own issues at that age) is dead.
- another man's life, (whether it be politically, emotionally etc.) is forever changed.
And my only point in these discussions is that this simply could of been avoided if Zimmerman did not pursue the confrontation. Regardless of who started it, the whole thing could of been avoided.
We should not be so quick to take blame off of Trayvon. But we also should not be so quick to say that Zimmerman is completely innocent here.
I am not so sure why this level of common sense is so hard for people to see.
Why the need to inject humor into this? Is it perhaps out of frustration that the facts of the case are making your version of the events seem less and less likely, which shows how ignorant your version was from the beginning?
Couldnt get past the childhood pictures of Trayvon could ya?...they clouded your vision and combined with the lack of common sense led you to the wrong side of this whole case.
I wonder what it feels like going through life with limited common sense is like? You could tell me ya?
By the way, I am obviously not trying to be funny here. I am simply trying to point out the irony of how you continually seemed so convinced that Trayvon is such a viscous animal here while Zimmerman is this sweet teddy bear.
0
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
Why the need to inject humor into this? Is it perhaps out of frustration that the facts of the case are making your version of the events seem less and less likely, which shows how ignorant your version was from the beginning?
Couldnt get past the childhood pictures of Trayvon could ya?...they clouded your vision and combined with the lack of common sense led you to the wrong side of this whole case.
I wonder what it feels like going through life with limited common sense is like? You could tell me ya?
By the way, I am obviously not trying to be funny here. I am simply trying to point out the irony of how you continually seemed so convinced that Trayvon is such a viscous animal here while Zimmerman is this sweet teddy bear.
"Stand your ground = A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first".
Bowslit -- do you see a scenario where this could be applied to Trayvon's actions?
0
From Wikepedia --
"Stand your ground = A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first".
Bowslit -- do you see a scenario where this could be applied to Trayvon's actions?
"Stand your ground = A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first".
Bowslit -- do you see a scenario where this could be applied to Trayvon's actions?
0
From Wikepedia --
"Stand your ground = A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first".
Bowslit -- do you see a scenario where this could be applied to Trayvon's actions?
arguing with people who insist zimmerman is innocent is like people who will insist that OJ was 100% innocent...
The will only see facts that back up their preconceived notion... and regardless what you say the remained convinced that you are wrong unless you agree with them that he is innocent...
0
arguing with people who insist zimmerman is innocent is like people who will insist that OJ was 100% innocent...
The will only see facts that back up their preconceived notion... and regardless what you say the remained convinced that you are wrong unless you agree with them that he is innocent...
arguing with people who insist zimmerman is innocent is like people who will insist that OJ was 100% innocent...
The will only see facts that back up their preconceived notion... and regardless what you say the remained convinced that you are wrong unless you agree with them that he is innocent...
its like talking to a tree stump
0
Quote Originally Posted by dl36:
arguing with people who insist zimmerman is innocent is like people who will insist that OJ was 100% innocent...
The will only see facts that back up their preconceived notion... and regardless what you say the remained convinced that you are wrong unless you agree with them that he is innocent...
"Stand your ground = A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first".
Bowslit -- do you see a scenario where this could be applied to Trayvon's actions?
I do agree and have stated that before.
My comments have been merely from a legal standpoint regarding this case.
My first reaction when I came accross this story in the first place was to blame Zimmerman for carrying a gun while on NW. Then I found out that he was allegedly on his way to the store and not on official NW patrols.
I was truthfully against Zimmerman at first, but that was before I had done any personal research on the case.
I absolutely agree with all that say that Zimmerman could have avoided this whole thing by staying in his car. But, I also think that he should have the right and leeway to ask a suspicious person in person in regards to their intentions or whereabouts in a neighborhood that has been riddled with recent crime.
To say that a person shouldn't and couldnt be able to confront a suspicious person peacefully is assinine.
In my opinion, Trayvon was too quick to start swinging and he is paying the ultimate price for in essence, bringing knuckles to a gun fight.
Since Zimmerman had called the police 40+ times in similar situations with no results close to this, I personally give him the benefit of the doubt. Oh, plus there is little evidence to suggest that Zimmerman lied about what took place. Pretty big in my view.
0
Quote Originally Posted by mattbrot:
From Wikepedia --
"Stand your ground = A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first".
Bowslit -- do you see a scenario where this could be applied to Trayvon's actions?
I do agree and have stated that before.
My comments have been merely from a legal standpoint regarding this case.
My first reaction when I came accross this story in the first place was to blame Zimmerman for carrying a gun while on NW. Then I found out that he was allegedly on his way to the store and not on official NW patrols.
I was truthfully against Zimmerman at first, but that was before I had done any personal research on the case.
I absolutely agree with all that say that Zimmerman could have avoided this whole thing by staying in his car. But, I also think that he should have the right and leeway to ask a suspicious person in person in regards to their intentions or whereabouts in a neighborhood that has been riddled with recent crime.
To say that a person shouldn't and couldnt be able to confront a suspicious person peacefully is assinine.
In my opinion, Trayvon was too quick to start swinging and he is paying the ultimate price for in essence, bringing knuckles to a gun fight.
Since Zimmerman had called the police 40+ times in similar situations with no results close to this, I personally give him the benefit of the doubt. Oh, plus there is little evidence to suggest that Zimmerman lied about what took place. Pretty big in my view.
arguing with people who insist zimmerman is innocent is like people who will insist that OJ was 100% innocent...
The will only see facts that back up their preconceived notion... and regardless what you say the remained convinced that you are wrong unless you agree with them that he is innocent...
DL its too bad that you incorrectly feel that you are bringing profoundness to our forums when you clearly just parrot idiot self.
Do you ever do anything besides comment on the commentors?
0
Quote Originally Posted by dl36:
arguing with people who insist zimmerman is innocent is like people who will insist that OJ was 100% innocent...
The will only see facts that back up their preconceived notion... and regardless what you say the remained convinced that you are wrong unless you agree with them that he is innocent...
DL its too bad that you incorrectly feel that you are bringing profoundness to our forums when you clearly just parrot idiot self.
Do you ever do anything besides comment on the commentors?
Were you there? How do you know that that is what went down?
40+ previous phone calls to police under similar circumstances, combined with zero evidence to undermine his account of what happened.
Where you there? How do you know Trayvon was innocent? As you previously stated earlier.
We know that Trayvon was causing Zimmerman injury. Do you have anything to suggest that Zimmerman was or did cause injury to Trayvon? Aside from Zimmerman cutting Trayvons knuckle with his chin.
Dont be an idiot.
0
Quote Originally Posted by darkhorse12:
Were you there? How do you know that that is what went down?
40+ previous phone calls to police under similar circumstances, combined with zero evidence to undermine his account of what happened.
Where you there? How do you know Trayvon was innocent? As you previously stated earlier.
We know that Trayvon was causing Zimmerman injury. Do you have anything to suggest that Zimmerman was or did cause injury to Trayvon? Aside from Zimmerman cutting Trayvons knuckle with his chin.
One thing for sure if the z-man gets off the hook, we won't have to worry about him fugging with any young teenagers again. The z-man took more shots to the face than a Colombian Prostitute!
If you were sucker punched in the face causing your nose to break and bleed, you would not be able to defend yourself very well either.
0
Quote Originally Posted by No_Contest:
One thing for sure if the z-man gets off the hook, we won't have to worry about him fugging with any young teenagers again. The z-man took more shots to the face than a Colombian Prostitute!
If you were sucker punched in the face causing your nose to break and bleed, you would not be able to defend yourself very well either.
DL its too bad that you incorrectly feel that you are bringing profoundness to our forums when you clearly just parrot idiot self.
Do you ever do anything besides comment on the commentors?
Ive been commenting on this topic not being political, but it seems the linesmen are trying to keep the obsessive flooding of the this by the alias/alias supporters away from the rest of the forums...
Like the OJ case... alot of people will argue endlessly how he is innocent regardless of facts, or alternate perspectives... Just some people are bent on trying to assimilate any possible detail that would justify or confirming the preconceived assumption...
If the glove does not fit... you must acquit
0
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
DL its too bad that you incorrectly feel that you are bringing profoundness to our forums when you clearly just parrot idiot self.
Do you ever do anything besides comment on the commentors?
Ive been commenting on this topic not being political, but it seems the linesmen are trying to keep the obsessive flooding of the this by the alias/alias supporters away from the rest of the forums...
Like the OJ case... alot of people will argue endlessly how he is innocent regardless of facts, or alternate perspectives... Just some people are bent on trying to assimilate any possible detail that would justify or confirming the preconceived assumption...
Bottom line is that Z shot and killed an innocent person who originally was no threat to him. His actions made this event what it was. That is why Z won't be able to claim self defense or "Stand your ground"
These claims are not "factual" at all.
If Martin was "no threat" to Zimmerman, how did Zimmerman get the broken nose and 2 black eyes?
The broken nose, and Martin on top of Zimmerman bashing his head into the concrete support a self defense claim.
0
Quote Originally Posted by darkhorse12:
Bottom line is that Z shot and killed an innocent person who originally was no threat to him. His actions made this event what it was. That is why Z won't be able to claim self defense or "Stand your ground"
These claims are not "factual" at all.
If Martin was "no threat" to Zimmerman, how did Zimmerman get the broken nose and 2 black eyes?
The broken nose, and Martin on top of Zimmerman bashing his head into the concrete support a self defense claim.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
