Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal
Unarmed Teenager Shot in Gated Community Part II: Possible Confrontation by Victim?
Unarmed Teenager Shot in Gated Community Part II: Possible Confrontation by Victim?
Other thread reached capacity. Here is a link to the old thread. Debates about what race Zimmerman is, what constitutes self defense, and if the white man is oppressed in modern America are included. http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1130425
This offers a map of the area with Zimmerman's house, Martin's temporary home, the site of the shooting and the 7-11 store where Martin was coming home from, as well as a brief explanation of the various stories concerning the shooting and their sources. Credit to Led Zappa for posting this in post #570.
Trayvon Martin, a 17 year old high school student is walking back to his families house at around 6 at night in a gated community. Martin is black, and 6'3 140 pounds (the police report lists him as 6'0 160).
--Trayvon is not from the community: he is visiting his relatives after being suspended from school for having a baggie of marijuana (empty when found).
On his way home, Trayvon is noticed by 28 year old George Zimmerman. Originally, it was thought that Zimmerman saw Martin from his home; however, we are now (at the time of this revision) convinced that he spotted Martin from his car on the way home from the grocery store. Zimmerman decides, for reasons best known to himself, that Trayvon is a suspicious character and calls 911. During the call, Zimmerman is noted as saying "They always get away" and either "****ing Coons" or ****ing punks" (this is up to debate, though the consensus leans towards the first
--Zimmerman also has a record of calling 911 for frivolous reasons, numbering 46 times in the last 12 (15?) months. Including once when he called in a 7 year old black child as "suspicious".
The 911 operator dispatches a police car, and when Zimmerman indicates that he intends to follow the suspect, the operator tells him not to (the actual wording was there "is no need to").
Zimmerman gets into his SUV, and attempts to find Trayvon. Trayvon notices that he is being followed by an SUV and attempts to lose it.
Zimmerman looses Trayvon, and gets out of his car to try and find him.
*At this point, things become fuzzy until the police arrive, with multiple conflicting reports and several eyewitnesses*
--Zimmerman claims that, unable to find Trayvon, he decided to return to his SUV, at which point the youth confronted him with something along the lines of "Why are you following me?".
--Zimmerman then claims that Trayvon assaulted him. A scuffle ensues, with several eyewitnesses saying that they saw Trayvon beating Zimmerman. During the scuffle, Zimmerman pulled out his gun and shot Trayvon.
--Trayvon's girlfriends, who was on the phone with him at the time, claims that Trayvon, who was attempting to get away, is cornered by Zimmerman. Trayvon asks "Why are you following me?" She hears the words "What are you doing here" from Zimmerman, and a scuffle ensues.
--She can not tell us who started the scuffle, only that the headset Trayvon was using falls to the ground (indicating that Trayvon was pushed). Gunshots are then heard.
--Several eyewitnesses claim that they saw Zimmerman standing over Trayvon with his hand on his back. Another one claims that they saw Trayvon being beaten by Zimmerman.
The police arrive, take statements and take Zimmerman down to the station for questioning. He is later released under the Florida Law "Stand Your Ground". According to this law, if one has "reasonable" suspicions that their life is threatened, they are allowed to use deadly force in self defense. Zimmerman claims that he felt threatened by Martin. As of this posting, he has not elaborated on what that meant.
Hopefully, this offers a brief synopsis of what we have pieced together so far. Personally, I feel that there is no reason for Zimmerman not to be rotting in a jail cell right now. The Law should punish the crime, not the motive and he murdered someone.
ALSO, GEORGE ZIMMERMAN IS A REGISTERED DEMOCRAT. PLEASE POST ACCORDINGLY
Last edited by Highway to Cap Hell: 04-03-2012 at 03:10 PM.
Reason: Grammatical Errors
Zimmerman had lost sight of Trayvon and was returning to his car when he was attacked by Trayvon who knocked him out and tried to take his gun. In those circumstances, shooting was justified.
the most notable part of this is not that martin was the aggressor, but that zimmerman was unconscious and STILL managed to shoot martin. that is amazing!
--Zimmerman claims that, unable to find Trayvon, he decides to return to his SUV, at which point the youth confronts with something along the lines of "Why are you following me?".
Is this saying that Zimmerman claims he returned to his SUV, or that he was on his way to his SUV?
the most notable part of this is not that martin was the aggressor, but that zimmerman was unconscious and STILL managed to shoot martin. that is amazing!
Is this saying that Zimmerman claims he returned to his SUV, or that he was on his way to his SUV?
Zimmerman said that he had given up searching for him and was returning to his car when Martin confronted him.
Quote:
A federal law enforcement official involved in the investigation said that Zimmerman told authorities he was returning to his sport-utility vehicle after calling police when Martin confronted him.
I personally believe that it is a load of bull, given the assumptions about Zimmerman's eyesight/paranoia that it implies, and the contradiction with the testimony of Martin's girlfriend and the phone records (which DOES in fact match up with the timeline of events).
BTW given the responses in the home owner's thread, I wouldn't be surprised if most of them supporting the shooting of someone breaking into someone's house is okay with the killing of Martin...it's pretty much the same thing.
BTW given the responses in the home owner's thread, I wouldn't be surprised if most of them supporting the shooting of someone breaking into someone's house is okay with the killing of Martin...it's pretty much the same thing.
How in the world are they the same thing?
I find what happened to Martin to be tragic and disgusting and I also happen to support the Castle Doctrine. These situations aren't even remotely similar. Only a troll trying to bait people or an idiot would make such a comparison. I'm guessing you're the latter.
I find what happened to Martin to be tragic and disgusting and I also happen to support the Castle Doctrine. These situations aren't even remotely similar. Only a troll trying to bait people or an idiot would make such a comparison. I'm guessing you're the latter.
My mistake; thought this was a private neighborhood and not a public neighborhood (there is a different between a private community and a public community).
But in many ways, this is an extension of the Castle Doctrine, that is, in it's purest form (since there is arguments if Zimmerman belonged to the neighborhood watch program). The neighborhood watch elected someone to make sure 'thugs' and other 'criminals' weren't prowling around the neighborhood casing out houses and cars.
Essentially, it's just removing the step from breaking and entering (though definitely in a private community, it could be considered trespassing and that is a form of breaking and entering). Why not just eliminate the problem in the first place? You see someone you don't trust in your neighborhood and never seen before, why not pop them in the leg or in the arm? They won't come around anymore. And hell, if you aren't a marksman, maybe you miss and end up shooting the guy in the stomach instead of the arm or the chest.
Why take the chance this guy isn't a criminal? And yes, they do start early. Like 16 or 17 years old. Or he doesn't have a gun on him.
As quoted in the invasion thread;
Quote:
Originally Posted by zytz
I was speaking to a retired cop about this once. He said if you're going to bother to shoot an intruder, make sure you're ready to shoot to kill.
Dead men have a hard time explaining their side of the story should you end up in court.
Who knows Martin's real motive. Maybe he used the going out to grab some Skittles and some tea as a cover story, so he could check out the neighborhood?
To Zimmerman, he saw Martin as an intruder in their neighborhood and as such, took actions.
(BTW, I hope to God Zimmerman is thrown in jail because that ******* needs to be sat in there).
the most notable part of this is not that martin was the aggressor, but that zimmerman was unconscious and STILL managed to shoot martin. that is amazing!
the most notable part of this is not that martin was the aggressor, but that zimmerman was unconscious and STILL managed to shoot martin. that is amazing!
"says Zimmerman", is an important part you left out.
Other thread reached capacity. If we don't do capacity on the Political Forum, just delete this thread.
The events, thus far as I know them:
Trayvon Martin, a 17 year old high school student is walking back to his families house at around 6 at night in a gated community. Martin is black, and 6'3 140 pounds (the police report lists him as 6'0 160).
--Trayvon is not from the community: he is visiting his relatives after being suspended from school for having a baggie of marijuana (empty when found).
On his way home, Trayvon is noticed by 28 year old George Zimmerman. Zimmerman decides, for reasons best known to himself, that Trayvon is a suspicious character and calls 911.
The 911 operator dispatches a police car, and when Zimmerman indicates that he intends to follow the suspect, the operator tells him not to (the actual wording was there "is no need to").
Zimmerman gets into his SUV, and attempts to find Trayvon. Trayvon notices that he is being followed by an SUV and attempts to lose it.
Zimmerman looses Trayvon, and gets out of his car to try and find him.
*At this point, things become fuzzy until the police arrive, with multiple conflicting reports and several eyewitnesses*
--Zimmerman claims that, unable to find Trayvon, he decided to return to his SUV, at which point the youth confronted him with something along the lines of "Why are you following me?".
--Zimmerman then claims that Trayvon assaulted him. A scuffle ensues, with several eyewitnesses saying that they saw Trayvon beating Zimmerman. During the scuffle, Zimmerman pulled out his gun and shot Trayvon.
--Trayvon's girlfriends, who was on the phone with him at the time, claims that Trayvon, who was attempting to get away, is cornered by Zimmerman. Trayvon asks "Why are you following me?" She hears the words "What are you doing here" from Zimmerman, and a scuffle ensues.
--She can not tell us who started the scuffle, only that the headset Trayvon was using falls to the ground (indicating that Trayvon was pushed). Gunshots are then heard.
--Several eyewitnesses claim that they saw Zimmerman standing over Trayvon with his hand on his back. Another one claims that they saw Trayvon being beaten by Zimmerman.
The police arrive, take statements and take Zimmerman down to the station for questioning. He is later released under the Florida Law "Stand Your Ground". According to this law, if one has "reasonable" suspicions that their life is threatened, they are allowed to use deadly force in self defense. Zimmerman claims that he felt threatened by Martin. As of this posting, he has not elaborated on what that meant.
Hopefully, this offers a brief synopsis of what we have pieced together so far. Personally, I feel that there is no reason for Zimmerman not to be rotting in a jail cell right now. The Law should punish the crime, not the motive and he murdered someone.
Where's the part where Zimmerman says, "These *******s [black kids wearing hoodies walking around not doing anything wrong] always get away. ****ing coons."
the most notable part of this is not that martin was the aggressor, but that zimmerman was unconscious and STILL managed to shoot martin. that is amazing!
Grammatical slip? "Knocked him down" would make a good bit of sense, especially given that most people who aren't well-versed in hand-to-hand combat may describe "getting pushed" that way.
Is there a reason why the potential defendant in Florida wouldn't be allowed to make public statements? I feel like there is a more compelling, emotional narrative waiting to be told by Zimmerman that we're not hearing. Whether anybody will be swayed by it remains to be seen ... certainly Trayvon Martin's side of the story has gotten much more press coverage. But let's remember ...
people get murdered every day everywhere in america, so we shouldn't care or talk about any of them.
Don't you get it, the only reason people are talking about this is because a white man killed a black man! The public and media NEVER make a big deal out it if a white person is killed by a black one.
I'll take the warning, because you're both absolute idiots. That's not what I'm saying. Justifiable homicides happen all the time. I know a guy who has one on his record. I don't know if this is one. But you didn't answer my question about why the potential defendant may not be talking publicly the way advocates for the victim are.
I'll take the warning, because you're both absolute idiots.
You don't get warnings on the Politics Board. Just don't whine like a bitch when it comes back at you twice as hard.
Quote:
That's not what I'm saying. Justifiable homicides happen all the time. I know a guy who has one on his record.
Cool story bro.
Quote:
I don't know if this is one.
Sounds like you are trying hard to find reasons that it is.
Quote:
But you didn't answer my question about why the potential defendant may not be talking publicly the way advocates for the victim are.
Obviously because his lawyer has told him not to. This, of course, didn't stop you from blatantly speculating, with no evidence, that:
"I feel like there is a more compelling, emotional narrative waiting to be told by Zimmerman that we're not hearing."
Basically you, and several others in these threads, are desperately searching for every possible reason to exonerate this guy. It's all very transparent and also quite obvious why.
Basically you, and several others in these threads, are desperately searching for every possible reason to exonerate this guy. It's all very transparent and also quite obvious why.
"desperately searching for every possible reason to exonerate this guy" ... hmm ... I hate to turn the tables and re-cite the OJ Simpson example ...
1) "A scuffle ensues, with several eyewitnesses saying that they saw Trayvon beating Zimmerman. During the scuffle, Zimmerman pulled out his gun and shot Trayvon."
2) "Another one claims that they saw Trayvon being beaten by Zimmerman."
I'm sorry, but what have you read on the internet that conclusively settles this without any additional facts?
But you didn't answer my question about why the potential defendant may not be talking publicly the way advocates for the victim are.
i don't know, maybe because he's presumed innocent and the local police sure as hell seem to be leaning in that direction, so why say anything that would incriminate you? plus what is he going to do, try to drum up sympathy for himself? i'm pretty sure that no matter what he says, people are going to be more angry at the paranoid gun-wielding 240 lb adult who ignored the police and is still alive than the 150 lb teenager whose crime was walking around, was "armed" with skittles and is dead.
i don't know, maybe because he's presumed innocent and the local police sure as hell seem to be leaning in that direction, so why say anything that would incriminate you? plus what is he going to do, try to drum up sympathy for himself? i'm pretty sure that no matter what he says, people are going to be more angry at the paranoid gun-wielding 240 lb adult who ignored the police and is still alive than the 150 lb teenager whose crime was walking around, was "armed" with skittles and is dead.
But that teenager might have once been suspended from school! And smoked the weed! What an unsavory criminal...
But that teenager might have once been suspended from school! And smoked the weed! What an unsavory criminal...
Actually the story is that he was caught with an empty baggie that had traces of weed in it. Maybe he was a neat freak and picked it up off the ground and put it in his pocket to dispose of later. Benefit of a doubt and all.
Last edited by Doppler Drift: 03-27-2012 at 08:52 AM.
Reason: changed neat freak to past tense for obvious reasons.
i'm pretty sure that no matter what he says, people are going to be more angry at the paranoid gun-wielding 240 lb adult who ignored the police and is still alive than the 150 lb teenager whose crime was walking around, was "armed" with skittles and is dead.
Problem with the first bolded part: you just said you think he's guilty before you hear his side of the story / before a trial and that many others would feel the same way. Shame.
Problem with the second bolded part: Paranoid? Like, legally diagnosed? Where?
Problem with the third bolded part: Frank Edgar walks around at 5'9 160 lbs and could beat and strangle any poster on this board to death inside of a minute were he so compelled. He's the former UFC lightweight cage fighting champion. I know that's an extreme case, but simply being larger than someone doesn't mean they couldn't threaten / injure you in a fight.
Problem with the fourth bolded part: "A scuffle ensues, with several eyewitnesses saying that they saw Trayvon beating Zimmerman. During the scuffle, Zimmerman pulled out his gun and shot Trayvon. Another one claims that they saw Trayvon being beaten by Zimmerman."
Sorry, that kind of reasoning is only available to people who kill unarmed kids.
Ain't it grand.
Here is another scenario.
After Zimmerman kills the kid he knows he is in deep doo-doo. So to add more strength to hi BS story he bangs the front and back of his head into the pavement to make it look like he was getting the worst of his scuffle with Mr. Martin. Could have happened like that right?
Problem with the first bolded part: you just said you think he's guilty before you hear his side of the story / before a trial and that many others would feel the same way. Shame.
Problem with the second bolded part: Paranoid? Like, legally diagnosed? Where?
Problem with the third bolded part: Frank Edgar walks around at 5'9 160 lbs and could beat and strangle any poster on this board to death inside of a minute were he so compelled. He's the former UFC lightweight cage fighting champion. I know that's an extreme case, but simply being larger than someone doesn't mean they couldn't threaten / injure you in a fight.
Problem with the fourth bolded part: "A scuffle ensues, with several eyewitnesses saying that they saw Trayvon beating Zimmerman. During the scuffle, Zimmerman pulled out his gun and shot Trayvon. Another one claims that they saw Trayvon being beaten by Zimmerman."
47 calls to 911 in a year and a half. That is over 1 every 2 weeks. How many have you made in that time? What is the norm in gated communities in the US?
Problem with the first bolded part: you just said you think he's guilty before you hear his side of the story / before a trial and that many others would feel the same way. Shame.
shame on you. you're arguing for him and think he's innocent of a crime, even though he disregarded the request of the police and continued to follow a person through his neighborhood. i honestly don't know if he's legally guilty. at the very least he will lose a wrongful death lawsuit, but whether what he did violated the law, i can't say. you seem to have made up your mind, though.
Quote:
Problem with the second bolded part: Paranoid? Like, legally diagnosed? Where?
like when he called the police something like 47 times in 15 months about "suspicious characters" in his neighborhood. doesn't that strike you as somewhat excessive?
Quote:
Problem with the third bolded part: Frank Edgar walks around at 5'9 160 lbs and could beat and strangle any poster on this board to death inside of a minute were he so compelled. He's the former UFC lightweight cage fighting champion. I know that's an extreme case, but simply being larger than someone doesn't mean they couldn't threaten / injure you in a fight.
here's a scenario for you. let's say on april fool's day (coming up very soon!) i decide to play a fun prank on a woman jogging through the woods by jumping out and chasing after her. unfortunately she takes it the wrong way, thinking that i'm a crazed murderer or rapist. also unfortunate is that she's a black belt in tae kwon do and, despite being 80 lbs lighter than me, starts wailing on me with terrible force. with no ability to outfight her i have no choice but to shoot her in the chest.
How in the world are they the same thing?
