LJ Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 He chose to run, when he was potentially asked to come and talk to someone. I think the argument you are posing is getting dumber and dumber, filled with more excuses, but I don't feel the need to say it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and until everything is out in the lime light, most of this is speculation. As I said before it is lose-lose for everyone involved. That's because you seem like you are a wannabe vigilante like Zimmerman. More importantly, you are the one making excuses, and sounding dumb, like saying a 17 yr old shouldnt run from a guy who was randomly chasing him. I feel the need to say it, because it is fucking dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJ Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Maybe, yours does. Maybe his doesn't. He is a licensed conceal carry permit holder. How are you to know the person who was breaking into houses wasn't armed themselves? Then he could have been shot for simply trying to help his neighbors. You wouldn't get shot if you just, you know, WATCHED. Also, any and all police sponsored neighborbood watches have the same basic rules. From what I heard/read. He didn't own a firearm until his wife asked him to get one, if he was going to be out doing Neighborhood Watch. I also read/heard he tried to form a formal neighborhood watch, and no one else would help him. So he was doing this all on his own, to help his neighbors. And I have also read where the neighborhood watch said he had nothing to do with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Wait wait wait... isn't it your argument that M said to Z, "Why are you following me?" At which point, Z tried to return to his truck and was attacked from behind? If that's your argument, why was Z running? Seems suspicious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshymkiw83 Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Just because he has a right to be there and wasn't doing anything illegal, does not mean that he didn't instigate the situation. As I said before, this has nothing to do with Stand Your Ground. You have the right to stand your ground, not chase after it. If you call from in a car, and the kid runs...you need to tell police where he took off running towards. Not just "Oh some suspicious kid is running around my neighborhood" As well if we are to believe the girl friend in this scenario, Martin asked "Why are you following me" not "Why are you chasing me" Two very distinct yet possibly interchangeable terms. Thank you. Ever heard the saying, 'be a good witness?' Observe and report. That's the best you can hope for while still keeping your ass out of the sling. He observed and reported. He followed at what he thought was a safe distance. Then turned around and retreated like the police asked him to do. It's not your duty to 'talk to them' Observe. Report. And let the police (it's the job...) handle it from there. Maybe he didn't want to waste the police forces' time? Maybe he though he could just simply have a conversation with someone, and had Trayvon said "I am visiting family member x, who lives here" It could have all been avoided that way. I wouldn't put myself in that situation in the first place. I for damn sure wouldn't get out of the car. That is you. Not everyone is like you. Some people feel it is their civic duty to protect their neighbors. Calling someone a 'cocksucker' isn't against the law either, but if I do that, and it starts a fight, I no longer have the right to use lethal force. Actually it could be. Slander or Lible. It all comes down to the fact that Zimmerman knowingly PUT HIMSELF in that situation. You can't, can't, can't do that and then use deadly force. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that. Zimmerman also disengaged himself by walking away. Martin re-initiated contact and confronted Zimmerman. You could also reverse it and say Martin knowingly put himself into that sitaution by running, when someone asked to talk to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8 Beast Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Conversation not argument guys. We dont need to move this. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sol740 Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 If that's your argument, why was Z running? Seems suspicious. The lights of the Aurora Borealis reflected off a weather balloon and caused an optical illusion in the shape of a man running, this likely set off a predatory response in the young man, still learning the intricacies of his post-puberty body. Thus it was all tragic self-defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJ Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Actually it could be. Slander or Lible. . and with that, I am no longer going to respond to you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshymkiw83 Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 That's because you seem like you are a wannabe vigilante like Zimmerman. More importantly, you are the one making excuses, and sounding dumb, like saying a 17 yr old shouldnt run from a guy who was randomly chasing him. I feel the need to say it, because it is fucking dumb. He is 17, he isn't 6. He is a man, and basically an adult. He could defend himself, and phsyically was capable of dealing with Zimmerman. I would expect a 6-10 year old to run and say "The big bad man is chaisng me" Not some 17 year old, who is essentially an Adult. I am no Vigilante, I am Vigilant though, and would follow someone outside to give the police the most accurate information possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not Brian Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Neighborhood watches have specific rules that you cannot carry weapons while on watch nor confront anyone. Ah, gotcha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshymkiw83 Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Wait wait wait... isn't it your argument that M said to Z, "Why are you following me?" At which point, Z tried to return to his truck and was attacked from behind? If that's your argument, why was Z running? Seems suspicious. Zimmerman was never running, assuming. Martin asked him "Why are you following me", which my point was, that doesn't imply chasing. Zimmerman returns to his truck, assuming, and while his back is turned Martin, instead of walking away, goes out of his way to come after Zimmerman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshymkiw83 Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Conversation not argument guys. We dont need to move this. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshymkiw83 Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 and with that, I am no longer going to respond to you Works for me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshymkiw83 Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 The lights of the Aurora Borealis reflected off a weather balloon and caused an optical illusion in the shape of a man running, this likely set off a predatory response in the young man, still learning the intricacies of his post-puberty body. Thus it was all tragic self-defense. Clever. I like how someone changed my user title to Ice Fishing. Ice Fishing is actually very boring, I prefer the Snow Machines. No Aurora for the past few weeks though. Our state is considering a Stand Your Ground law though, which is why I am truly excited to see the outcome of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffro Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Stalking, yes. the other 2, no. You should read up on Zimmerman's past. But, according to Ms layer, and everyone else defending M, the past is irrelevant. I agree with the innocent until proven guilty mentality here. You cant just assume that Z was in the wrong when there isn't another side. So that's innocent by default, isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRocket1647545505 Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 If you call from in a car, and the kid runs...you need to tell police where he took off running towards. Not just "Oh some suspicious kid is running around my neighborhood" If he runs, it is not your responsibility to chase after him. It is much better to just let him go, than to put yourself into Zimmerman's clusterfuck of a situation. If he gets away, then so be it. He observed and reported. He followed at what he thought was a safe distance. Then turned around and retreated like the police asked him to do. And the fact remains he should not have been following, and thus instigating, from the beginning. Maybe he didn't want to waste the police forces' time? Maybe he though he could just simply have a conversation with someone, and had Trayvon said "I am visiting family member x, who lives here" It could have all been avoided that way. It's their job. It's also not Zimmerman's job to 'have a conversation' with Martin. That is you. Not everyone is like you. Some people feel it is their civic duty to protect their neighbors. You can have a civic duty to protect your neighbors all you want, but it would behoove you to do it without putting your ass on the line. Let the police put their ass on the line. That's what they signed up for. Actually it could be. Slander or Lible. You're reaching here... Zimmerman also disengaged himself by walking away. Martin re-initiated contact and confronted Zimmerman. You could also reverse it and say Martin knowingly put himself into that sitaution by running, when someone asked to talk to him. He didn't disengage shit. He started the whole god damn fiasco. Turning around and walking away doesn't wipe the slate clean. The whole thing was started because of Zimmerman being an overzealous watch dog. And I'm not defending Martin by any means (I think they're both guilty of something), but he didn't put himself in that situation. Running away from a stranger is a perfectly legal and logical thing to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 I missed this entire debate while actually fucking working. Dammit! It's a good thing though as nothing new has really surfaced. They have however finally started to stop positioning Martin as some innocent kid and using only pre-pubecent photos of him. In leu of a 42 paragraph response, I'll say this....resonable doubt. Plenty of it. That's all Z needs if they charge him. I vote Z was overzealous and got in over his head. I also vote Martin prolly laid a beating on him to the point of Z needing to pull a gun and well, bad things happen when that happens. Could have gone differently on both sides really, but in the end, dead men tell no tales, so that and reasonable doubt will likely be on his side. Look, I've approach strangers in my neighborhood, albeit with a completely helpful and innocent approach, but with the intent of trying to size up who they are, what they are up to and if I need to call the cops. Many times I have just exchanged hellos and watched from a fart distance. Other times, I've done the same only added in a call to the police so they could do their job. I wouldn't give chase nor even begin a confrontation myself even if armed. Just not a good judgement call to make. If I felt that need, then I refer back to calling said police as I go home to get my camera for the pics of it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshymkiw83 Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 If he runs, it is not your responsibility to chase after him. It is much better to just let him go, than to put yourself into Zimmerman's clusterfuck of a situation. If he gets away, then so be it. Why isn't it? If your single mission in this is to provide officers with the best information possible, wouldn't the best information be where he currently is, as opposed to "He is somewhere in the neighborhood"? And the fact remains he should not have been following, and thus instigating, from the beginning. Legally he can follow....thus instigating nothing. It's their job. It's also not Zimmerman's job to 'have a conversation' with Martin. Why can't he have said conversation with him? Maybe the police don't get called at all if he has this conversation with him? Maybe you can save money/resources by checking something our for yourself instead of relying on others to do it for you. I don't see how him trying to talk to someone who he has never seen before in a neighborhood where break ins were becomming common is such a bad thing. If anything it shows he cares about where he lives. You can have a civic duty to protect your neighbors all you want, but it would behoove you to do it without putting your ass on the line. Let the police put their ass on the line. That's what they signed up for. If your neighbor is in a scenario with a fire for example, and fire trucks are 10 minutes away, and you know they won't last that long inside...you wouldn't try to help them? That is putting my ass on the line for a civic duty.... You're reaching here... Seeing one side to a story is a reach to begin with. He didn't disengage shit. He started the whole god damn fiasco. Turning around and walking away doesn't wipe the slate clean. The whole thing was started because of Zimmerman being an overzealous watch dog. And I'm not defending Martin by any means (I think they're both guilty of something), but he didn't put himself in that situation. Running away from a stranger is a perfectly legal and logical thing to do. If you get into a confrontation at a bar for example and walk away. You are to have been considered disengaged. If the person you had a confrotation with wants to come back and assualt you for something you did earlier, that is something new. By your rationale, where does a confrontation begin/end? If I had an argument with someone years ago, and at the time the didn't get to do the bodily harm they wanted to on me, and a year later they see me and beat the shit out of me, does that mean what happened 1 year ago is relevant? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 He didn't disengage shit. He started the whole god damn fiasco. Turning around and walking away doesn't wipe the slate clean. The whole thing was started because of Zimmerman being an overzealous watch dog. it doesn't matter if Z confronted M with questions. at that point if only words are thrown, neither has a right to get physical. if I approach you, you get pissed and I never threaten you or make physical contact or try to detain you, then you should just walk away. in this case, why didn't or wasn't either one of them back on the phone with the cops? something happened to cause a fight to ensue. the one who started it is at fault for sure, but there's a difference between a street fight and an ass whooping and one where you feel the line was crossed and your life was in danger. If I provoke you to punch me and we slap the shit out of one another, that's assault. if you then pin me down, break my nose and start slamming my head to the ground, I would do just as Z did and match your move that took the fight to the next level which to me is fearing for my life and I too would shoot you dead. M should have walked away after laying him out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshymkiw83 Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 it doesn't matter if Z confronted M with questions. at that point if only words are thrown, neither has a right to get physical. if I approach you, you get pissed and I never threaten you or make physical contact or try to detain you, then you should just walk away. in this case, why didn't or wasn't either one of them back on the phone with the cops? something happened to cause a fight to ensue. the one who started it is at fault for sure, but there's a difference between a street fight and an ass whooping and one where you feel the line was crossed and your life was in danger. If I provoke you to punch me and we slap the shit out of one another, that's assault. if you then pin me down, break my nose and start slamming my head to the ground, I would do just as Z did and match your move that took the fight to the next level which to me is fearing for my life and I too would shoot you dead. M should have walked away after laying him out. Nicely put. And to the last part, I would especially retaliate with deadly force if my back was turned to you, and you did this to me. My thought being I had stopped chasing you, this is over. The cops will handle it now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8 Beast Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Innocent in trial due to lack of incriminating evidence. Guilty in civil suite Bankruptcy filed Al Sharpton gets new perm in celebration of winning civil suite Jesse Jackson admires Sharptons new perm Occupy Florida cries on camera and puts it on youtube Black people in general go back to focusing on re-electing Obama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshymkiw83 Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Innocent in trial due to lack of incriminating evidence. Guilty in civil suite Bankruptcy filed Al Sharpton gets new perm in celebration of winning civil suite Jesse Jackson admires Sharptons new perm Occupy Florida cries on camera and puts it on youtube Black people in general go back to focusing on re-electing Obama Speaking of http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/26/former-naacp-leader-accuses-sharpton-and-jackson-of-exploiting-trayvon-martin/ Former leader of the NAACP C.L. Bryant is bashing Jackson/Sharpton for focusing on this simply because it is white on black crime, while ignoring the black on black crimes that happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Former leader of the NAACP C.L. Bryant is bashing Jackson/Sharpton for focusing on this simply because it is white on black crime, while ignoring the black on black crimes that happen. So it looks like the Hispanic community has achieved a new milestone. Going from Hispanic to white. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tripleskate Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Zimmerman went looking for trouble, and he found it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshymkiw83 Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 So it looks like the Hispanic community has achieved a new milestone. Going from Hispanic to white. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshymkiw83 Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Zimmerman went looking for trouble, and he found it. Actually he was going to the grocery store, saw this kid and wanted to report it to cops. He didn't go loking for anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.