RedRocket1647545505 Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 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"? Your single mission is to keep your ass safe and out of the frying pan, not to do the cops job for them. I agree, knowing his exact location would be best, but only as long as you can do that without putting yourself in the middle of it all Legally he can follow....thus instigating nothing. We know Z was following him, thus provoking him. If he wasn't provoking him in some way, I seriously doubt any of this would have happened. M didn't randomly attack him for no reason. 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. There's a lot of 'maybes' in there. He's well within his right to have a conversation with him; no denying that. But I'm having a hard time believing he was simply trying to have a polite conversation with him, given what we know. And again, let the police do their job. It's not your responsibility to save the community money or resources, or to save everyone's homes from break-ins, or anything else. Trying to do this ends up with a situation exactly like we've got right now. 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.... Again, you're reaching... Attempting to directly save someone's life is commendable. Playing pretend police officer, is not. Those are two totally different scenarios. If you get into a confrontation at a bar for example and walk away. You are to have been considered disengaged. No. You are not. Again, I'll use the example of calling someone a cocksucker (let's say, at this bar you speak of). You can't do that, and then turn your back and say, "Oh, I'm no longer involved..." It doesn't work like that. You have directly contributed to the escalation of the situation and are partially responsible. If the person you had a confrontation with wants to come back and assualt you for something you did earlier, that is something new. Again, if you were part of the escalation, then you are also responsible. 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? I honestly can't put some arbitrary number on when a situation is over. I would say that if you are still in the presence of that person, then you are still, technically, in the same situation. But I assure you that by turning your back on this person, does not mean it's over. And these imaginary scenarios contribute nothing. You're throwing a lot of 'What-ifs' out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 (edited) I'll use the example of calling someone a cocksucker (let's say, at this bar you speak of). You can't do that, and then turn your back and say, "Oh, I'm no longer involved..." It doesn't work like that. You have directly contributed to the escalation of the situation and are partially responsible. Again, if you were part of the escalation, then you are also responsible. A verbal exchange is completely different than a physical one. You and I can have the most robust conversation in a bar we can muster, but the moment I walk away and tell you to fuck off, it's over and no crime is committed. I'm no longer involved. It absolutely works like that. I didn't contribute anything to your next move if said move involves physical contact. You too are no longer engaged and should stand down. Anything other than that and you are the aggressor. Should you go that route and put me in a position of using deadly force, the verbal exchange won't do anything but fill up message board space on CR. The real meat of your then being dead will have begun when you took the exchange physical. You're the one at fault for your being dead. I walked away after telling you to fuck off. Again, you're taking things to the next level is what will win me my case. But I assure you that by turning your back on this person, does not mean it's over. Yes it does. If the argument is strictly verbal and I turn around offering no legal reason for you to lay hands on me, it's over. No threat to you is present. I agree with you that I doubt M & Z were engaged in a polite yet robust conversation. My guess is that it wasn't polite. However, whoever took it to the physical level is responsible. That level of responsibility doesn't automatically implicate them on the death. Again, even a bitch slap is just that. Once M put Z on the ground and continued to lay into him, game changed. This story should be about one of them simply being charged with assault. M should have been a bigger man and simply walked away or called the police himself. Why didn't he? Do you think perhaps he had more than just Skittles and Iced Tea in his possession? Why is it that if Z was out to engage in a physcial assult that he would have been the one on the phone with the police? That doesn't make sense. If he is the Billy Bad Ass some are making him out to be, he wouldn't have called the cops while still in his car. My guess is Z wasn't liking the way the conversation was going and M was going to walk away but when it became apparent Z was going to get the cops involved or investigate things further (correct or not in his doing so), M got mad and whacked him in the nose and proceeded to beat his ass. Edited March 27, 2012 by TTQ B4U Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshymkiw83 Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Your single mission is to keep your ass safe and out of the frying pan, not to do the cops job for them. I agree, knowing his exact location would be best, but only as long as you can do that without putting yourself in the middle of it all Maybe he though he was out of it, when he turned around and started walking to his truck? I would assume, if I "Lost Sight" of someone and turned around and started walking towards my truck, that it was over, and I was out of the middle. We know Z was following him, thus provoking him. If he wasn't provoking him in some way, I seriously doubt any of this would have happened. M didn't randomly attack him for no reason. Not according to Zimmerman's story. Remember Zimmerman lost track of him, and turned around to go to his truck. Had Martin meant for the situation to be over, he would have simply left the scene. Instead he approaches Zimmerman (per Zimmerman's story) and a fight ensues. There's a lot of 'maybes' in there. He's well within his right to have a conversation with him; no denying that. But I'm having a hard time believing he was simply trying to have a polite conversation with him, given what we know. That is your belief though. According to the evidence at hand, that is seemingly what happened. You are entitled to your belief, and I won't sit here and bash that belief. Mine differs though, and I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle of what Zimmerman says and Martin's side says. And again, let the police do their job. It's not your responsibility to save the community money or resources, or to save everyone's homes from break-ins, or anything else. Trying to do this ends up with a situation exactly like we've got right now. That is fine and dandy, but just as years ago that guy in Texas shot someone trying to break into his neighbors house. Some people do care for others outside of themselves/immediate family and will defend others the same way they would defend themselves and their family. Again, you're reaching... Who says I am the one reaching? For all we know Martin's side of the story could be just as big reach. Attempting to directly save someone's life is commendable. Playing pretend police officer, is not. Those are two totally different scenarios. Fair, lets put it this way. You see some woman getting raped, do you go stop it or just "call it in and hope the polce make it on time". Me, I go and stop it. Is there a chance the rapist is armed, sure. I am also armed though. No. You are not. Again, I'll use the example of calling someone a cocksucker (let's say, at this bar you speak of). You can't do that, and then turn your back and say, "Oh, I'm no longer involved..." It doesn't work like that. You have directly contributed to the escalation of the situation and are partially responsible. Maybe in a simple assault case sure. It is different if you are attacked from behind with your head being repeatedly driven into the concrete. As Tim said, Martin obviously laid this out. He could have walked away, and been done with it. He chose to escalate it though. I honestly can't put some arbitrary number on when a situation is over. I would say that if you are still in the presence of that person, then you are still, technically, in the same situation. But I assure you that by turning your back on this person, does not mean it's over. And these imaginary scenarios contribute nothing. You're throwing a lot of 'What-ifs' out there. Zimmerman didn't know Martin was anywhere close to him. He lost complete sight of him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshymkiw83 Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 A verbal exchange is completely different than a physical one. You and I can have the most robust conversation in a bar we can muster, but the moment I walk away and tell you to fuck off, it's over and no crime is committed. I'm no longer involved. It absolutely works like that. I didn't contribute anything to your next move if said move involves physical contact. You too are no longer engaged and should stand down. Anything other than that and you are the aggressor. Should you go that route and put me in a position of using deadly force, the verbal exchange won't do anything but fill up message board space on CR. The real meat of your then being dead will have begun when you took the exchange physical. You're the one at fault for your being dead. I walked away after telling you to fuck off. Again, you're taking things to the next level is what will win me my case. Again, very well put. My buddies cousin had this happen to him at a bar. Some drunk guy came up to him ran his mouth, called him all kinds of nasty things. They part ways for 15 minutes. My buddies cousin is pissed off at all of this still, and he just freaks out, goes and lays the guy out. My buddies cousin charged with assault, other guy nothing. Once either party turns their back to walk away, that 'incident' is over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 [Martin] could have walked away, and been done with it. He chose to escalate it though. <snip> Zimmerman didn't know Martin was anywhere close to him. He lost complete sight of him. If you repeat it often enough, does it become true or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshymkiw83 Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 If you repeat it often enough, does it become true or something? I am repeating the facts reported by several media outlets, and police reports that are corroborated by witnesses. As I said before, the truth is lost somewhere in that 1 minute span, between Zimmerman walking away, and Martin ending up on top of him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 I am repeating the facts reported by several media outlets, and police reports that are corroborated by witnesses. As I said before, the truth is lost somewhere in that 1 minute span, between Zimmerman walking away, and Martin ending up on top of him. You are repeating what Zimmerman told police, and assuming it's a proven fact. Witnesses did not see Martin "escalate it", and witnesses did not see Zimmerman get attacked walking back to his truck. Nobody even saw him walking away. He claims that's what happened, police released that claim, and the media has reported it. It's simply a story at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsey Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 So its okay to try to kill some one who followed you, but not okay to stop that person from.killing you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshymkiw83 Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 You're correct. Zimmerman said he was walking away, and there is nothing to refute that. Witnesses saw Martin slamming Zimmerman's head into the ground, and crying for help. Somewhere between Zimmerman hanging up with 911 when they told him to stop following, and Martin being on top of Zimmerman beating him is the truth. Is that worded better for you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshymkiw83 Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 So its okay to try to kill some one who followed you, but not okay to stop that person from.killing you? By following them you instigated them into killing you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshymkiw83 Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 I would like to know when they will open an Investigation against The New Black Panthers, for offering a bounty for George Zimmerman. I am sure never though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 You're correct. Zimmerman said he was walking away, and there is nothing to refute that. Witnesses saw Martin slamming Zimmerman's head into the ground, and crying for help. Somewhere between Zimmerman hanging up with 911 when they told him to stop following, and Martin being on top of Zimmerman beating him is the truth. Is that worded better for you? Yes. Except I still don't think witnesses saw Martin slamming Zimmerman's head into the ground. The rest of what you said is accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 You are repeating what Zimmerman told police, and assuming it's a proven fact. Witnesses did not see Martin "escalate it", and witnesses did not see Zimmerman get attacked walking back to his truck. Nobody even saw him walking away. He claims that's what happened, police released that claim, and the media has reported it. It's simply a story at this point. Just about everything in this argument is speculation. That's my point overall, there's reasonable doubt here that the M's attorney is going to have to try and remove from existence by finding facts. Who knows what really happened. Hell for all we know, Z tried to block M from leaving until he was happy or called the cops. Who knows. Let's just say that was the case, even if it was, M began to beat his ass and put Z in a position of fearing for his life. If he had to resort to physical defense, then do so but only to the point of being able to run away. You don't stick around and escalate an attempt to defend yourself by then turning to the aggressor. The story sure does read as if M pinned him down and was punching him. At least that's how it makes it sound being he was shot up close in the chest. I simply don't see Z saying "oh yeah, well since you're not going to stick around then I'm going to blast you" and then shooting him. Again, Z is the one who called the cops and even his history shows his M.O. is to speed dial them whenever he can. Aggressive acts like this don't appear to be part of his history. Besides, stories are clear that police say their evidence indicates it was Zimmerman screaming for help. On top of that news reports indicate that there's at least one witness, who has since talked to local television news reporters, told police he saw Zimmerman on the ground with Trayvon on top, pounding him — and was unequivocal that it was Zimmerman who was crying for help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshymkiw83 Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Yes. Except I still don't think witnesses saw Martin slamming Zimmerman's head into the ground. The rest of what you said is accurate. Well, I guess you should read the reports then: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_miami-schools-punch-unarmed-black-teenager One witness, who has since talked to local television news reporters, told police he saw Zimmerman on the ground with Trayvon on top, pounding him — and was unequivocal that it was Zimmerman who was crying for help. That would seem to back what I said Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJ Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Aggressive acts like this don't appear to be part of his history. .... In one case, he chased a reckless driver while calling 911 — the driver later told police he was terrified that Zimmerman was going to attack him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshymkiw83 Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 .... I think what Tim was trying to say, is Zimmerman has never phsyically assualted someone or pushed the envelope into a physical altercation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not Brian Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 lol @ the media portraying the little thug as a stand-up athlete scholar against a raging ex-con. Dude followed a suspicious person walking through his neighborhood, caught up to ask him what he's doing, and trayvon (what a fagget name) started throwing fists instead of just talking and got himself shot. Fuckem. Some garbage was taken off this planet and I hope Z-man gets zero punishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Well, I guess you should read the reports then: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_miami-schools-punch-unarmed-black-teenager That would seem to back what I said Well, you can say he was pounded, but "slamming his head into the ground" is still uncorroborated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshymkiw83 Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Well, you can say he was pounded, but "slamming his head into the ground" is still uncorroborated. Maybe I missed how he was cut on the back of his head then? You realize you are grasping at straws and nitpicking words now? He was pounded, not slamming his head into the ground......big difference I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8 Beast Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 lol @ the media portraying the little thug as a stand-up athlete scholar against a raging ex-con. Dude followed a suspicious person walking through his neighborhood, caught up to ask him what he's doing, and trayvon (what a fagget name) started throwing fists instead of just talking and got himself shot. Fuckem. Some garbage was taken off this planet and I hope Z-man gets zero punishment. You should go to the police since you were there to see what happened. It would put an end to all the speculation and assumptions all these people are making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not Brian Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 lol @ the people thinking Treyvon should be dead just because he's black and posed funny for some facebook photos. Dude gets a power rush and follows this kid who's minding his own business passing through, starts some shit, and when it blows up in his face he wigs and shoots the kid. Fucker should burn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8 Beast Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Not Brian is having sex with my brain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wagner Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Not Brian is having sex with my brain Are your other organs open for business? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Maybe I missed how he was cut on the back of his head then? You realize you are grasping at straws and nitpicking words now? He was pounded, not slamming his head into the ground......big difference I guess. I think they scuffled and he fell backwards on the sidewalk. For all I know, Martin then had Zimmerman by the wrist and was making him slap himself while saying, "Why are you hitting yourself? Why are you hitting yourself?" I'm not grasping at straws, because for me to accept a self-defense argument you need to convince me that Zimmerman thought he was going to die. And I just don't see it. If Martin was picking him up 18 inches of the ground and repeatedly slamming his head into concrete in an effort to crack his skull, that's the best shot you have of convincing me and you know it. If he was taking a few punches to the face from an unarmed teenager, then he's a fucking pussy and you know it. Like I said upthread, I don't think Z retreated and was attacked from behind. I think he tried to restrain M, and M fought back. I think Z called for help, because he didn't want his "perp" to get away. I think M freaked out that this strange guy was trying to restrain him and punched him in the face. I think Z fell backwards and cut his head open on the sidewalk. I think M climbed on top and was giving him a few tough-guy blows. I think Z realized he was losing a fight against someone he'd already decided was a dangerous criminal, panicked, and decided to give the "scum" what he deserved. I think the cops made the same assumptions that Z did -- another crook taken off the streets by a noble citizen. I think everyone involved, both Z and the cops, were shocked when they learned the unfortunate truth -- that M lived in the neighborhood and was just walking home with some Skittles. But at that point, everyone was invested in this self-defense story. Obviously the above is all speculation, but it's not contrary to any facts in evidence. Which is why I have an interest in not letting you get away with inserting "facts" when they're not really facts. Because if it does come out that someone saw Z heading towards his truck and get attacked from behind, then obviously my version of events is no longer supported by facts. But for now, it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Also, I want to say that I feel like this discussion has remained surprisingly civil, given the subject matter and, uh, CR's history for not being civil. So, Thanks! 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.