First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
George Zimmerman to the rescue?
81324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M
Online
Posted 7/23/13

creepysalad wrote:

Also, not to mention that deadly force wasn't necessary at all. Zimmerman is huge compared to that kid. The kid was 100% unarmed. No actual weapon, no makeshift weapon, anything. He was 158lbs. Zimmerman, while although 4 inches shorter, was 204lbs. There's absolutely no reason for him to have used deadly force. He could've just sat on the kid, or something. Some way to hold him down while the police got there, he was totally capable of. Nope. The gun was obviously the best bet for a 158-pound, 17 year old kid, walking home with a tea and Skittles.


You're obviously confused about some things. Zimmerman was not huge compared to Treyvon, unless you are talking fat, but that is not a qualification for fighting prowess. Treyvon was not a kid, counter to what the news pictures from 5 years ago would have you believe, he was a 17 year old young man. 17 year olds can be tried as adults in some criminal cases. Regarding the weight comparison, it is meaningless. I am currently around 200 pounds myself. I can guarantee you that if I were to fight myself from 10 years ago, when I weighed 150 lbs, my current self would get his ass kicked. I was trimmer then and much stronger. Also, Treyvon was carrying a deadly weapon. It is just a weapon that people who hate guns conveniently forget about, his fists. It can be surprisingly easy to kill someone with your bare hands. If Treyvon was on top of him beating his head into the concrete, as Zimmerman claimed, then there was every reason to use deadly force. Either that or the news story that you would not have been hearing, only because the stations wouldn't have covered it since it doesn't fit the narrative, would be Treyvon killing Zimmerman with his "bare" hands.
16093 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 7/23/13

ishe5555 wrote:


creepysalad wrote:

Also, not to mention that deadly force wasn't necessary at all. Zimmerman is huge compared to that kid. The kid was 100% unarmed. No actual weapon, no makeshift weapon, anything. He was 158lbs. Zimmerman, while although 4 inches shorter, was 204lbs. There's absolutely no reason for him to have used deadly force. He could've just sat on the kid, or something. Some way to hold him down while the police got there, he was totally capable of. Nope. The gun was obviously the best bet for a 158-pound, 17 year old kid, walking home with a tea and Skittles.


You're obviously confused about some things. Zimmerman was not huge compared to Treyvon, unless you are talking fat, but that is not a qualification for fighting prowess. Treyvon was not a kid, counter to what the news pictures from 5 years ago would have you believe, he was a 17 year old young man. 17 year olds can be tried as adults in some criminal cases. Regarding the weight comparison, it is meaningless. I am currently around 200 pounds myself. I can guarantee you that if I were to fight myself from 10 years ago, when I weighed 150 lbs, my current self would get his ass kicked. I was trimmer then and much stronger. Also, Treyvon was carrying a deadly weapon. It is just a weapon that people who hate guns conveniently forget about, his fists. It can be surprisingly easy to kill someone with your bare hands. If Treyvon was on top of him beating his head into the concrete, as Zimmerman claimed, then there was every reason to use deadly force. Either that or the news story that you would not have been hearing, only because the stations wouldn't have covered it since it doesn't fit the narrative, would be Treyvon killing Zimmerman with his "bare" hands.



i wholeheartedly agree, the human body is the most deadly weapon if you know how to use it
468 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
103
Offline
Posted 7/23/13

Acoleth wrote:

See, you stumbled on to the truth here...if Trayvon was afraid he should have called the cops. He had plenty of time to do so, or to simply go home, and if he had done so rather than attacking Zimmerman, he would be alive today. As far as their stature is concerned, I don't know about you, but I've seen pudgy short guys get their ass kicked by slender tall guys on several occasions. Also, 15-17 year old "kids" commit murder quite frequently in this country... are you seriously not aware of that? And as the FBI data shows, it is very possible to be killed by an unarmed assailant, because it happens hundreds of times each year.



I'm sorry that happened to you, and you should consider that perhaps that experience makes it difficult for you to be objective about the Zimmerman case.

The fact that you followed my logic in the situation means that Martin did not act like "anyone" in the same situation. I'm guessing that you did not initiate the actual violence in your situation. So in your case YOU were George Zimmerman, and the assailants were Martin. Martin, according to the young lady he was on the phone with, 'profiled' George Zimmerman as a 'creepy ass cracka' and then she suggested that Zimmerman might be a rapist. After that, Martin attacked the man.

I'm pretty much done on this topic, but seriously...teenage males need to learn to control themselves. No matter what you or I think of George Zimmerman's actions, all the evidence seems to indicate that Trayvon Martin would be alive right now if he had simply gone home, or called the cops, or explained himself to Zimmerman. He's dead because his first response to an uncomfortable situation was violence.


Oh, because 17 year old kids kill people sometimes, that means it's okay to shoot them. Gotchu'. Don't want them to get their grubby high-school hands on you. This must mean that every 30 year old is okay to throw into jail. 30 year olds rape sometimes, so yeah. That's totally fine.

If someone is stalking you and is CLOSE to you, the cops isn't the best option. One of the best options would be to STOP THE STALKER FROM STALKING YOU. The cops would not be there immediately, and if you HONESTLY think that calling the cops would make more sense when being followed, closely, then you might have problems. Zimmerman was not outside of this kid's house. He was in a situation where if Zimmerman did happen to be a criminal, or planning to murder him or something, there was no barrier in between them. Every one's reaction to someone stalking them will be different, just like with everything. But if you seriously think that retaliating against someone who is following you around makes it your fault that someone is stalking you, you're kinda crazy.


468 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
103
Offline
Posted 7/23/13

ishe5555 wrote:


creepysalad wrote:

Also, not to mention that deadly force wasn't necessary at all. Zimmerman is huge compared to that kid. The kid was 100% unarmed. No actual weapon, no makeshift weapon, anything. He was 158lbs. Zimmerman, while although 4 inches shorter, was 204lbs. There's absolutely no reason for him to have used deadly force. He could've just sat on the kid, or something. Some way to hold him down while the police got there, he was totally capable of. Nope. The gun was obviously the best bet for a 158-pound, 17 year old kid, walking home with a tea and Skittles.


You're obviously confused about some things. Zimmerman was not huge compared to Treyvon, unless you are talking fat, but that is not a qualification for fighting prowess. Treyvon was not a kid, counter to what the news pictures from 5 years ago would have you believe, he was a 17 year old young man. 17 year olds can be tried as adults in some criminal cases. Regarding the weight comparison, it is meaningless. I am currently around 200 pounds myself. I can guarantee you that if I were to fight myself from 10 years ago, when I weighed 150 lbs, my current self would get his ass kicked. I was trimmer then and much stronger. Also, Treyvon was carrying a deadly weapon. It is just a weapon that people who hate guns conveniently forget about, his fists. It can be surprisingly easy to kill someone with your bare hands. If Treyvon was on top of him beating his head into the concrete, as Zimmerman claimed, then there was every reason to use deadly force. Either that or the news story that you would not have been hearing, only because the stations wouldn't have covered it since it doesn't fit the narrative, would be Treyvon killing Zimmerman with his "bare" hands.


These were just words. If Trayvon was beating his head into the concrete, how was he able to pull out a gun and shoot him in the chest anyway? Besides that, "Huge" was a word used due to his weight compared to Trayvon. "Kid"; he was in high-school. The picture of his dead body isn't 5 years ago, dude. Also, your fists are your fists. You are fully aware what I mean by the word weapon, and don't attempt to say that his fists were the equivalent of knives, or guns. Or even a baseball bat.
39464 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M
Offline
Posted 7/23/13 , edited 7/23/13

KaosProphet wrote:

According to most everyone else I've talked to about it, it means I was a pussy.


Okay, I object to this far more than anything else you have said. They're nothing wrong with fighting to defend yourself or to defend another person, but people who start fights, especially unprovoked assaults like the one you experienced, do so because they are too intellectually weak or emotionally insecure to find another way to deal with their problems.

You ARE NOT a pussy for acting like a civilized person, and for having enough empathy to avoid harming other people.

I didn't want to bring this up, but I have been the victim of violence, too. I was pistol whipped and dropped so fast I didn't get a shot in. Subsequently a friend of mine died as a result of the same incident. I spent many years feeling like I was a pussy because I didn't strike first, or I wasn't tough enough to take the hit.

Don't do that to yourself. Vicious, petty, quick-to-violence people are the weak ones. Not decent people who show restraint like you did.
17307 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / My Couch
Offline
Posted 7/23/13
After reading all those past posts, what I have to say boils down to three things:

1) You can't exactly rely on what Zimmerman says considering what others have stated before, that basically the dead tell no tales and that the "history books" are written by the victors.

2) This situation does seem very convenient

and

3) People need to move on, what's done is done and nothing can change that.
22141 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / San Diego, CA
Offline
Posted 7/23/13 , edited 7/23/13
I'm not trying to start a debate, but the reason he wasn't convicted of manslaughter is because according to his story, he had started chasing Trayvon, but eventually lost track of him. He started making his way back to his car, and that's when he was confronted by Trayvon and, that's where the fight started. Essentially (if his story is true) the confrontation in which the fight actually started in was caused by Trayvon, and since there's nobody to speak against that, there's literally no reason for him to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Again, I'm not trying to start a debate, but I think the jury came to the right verdict. This story here is clearly a way to get those against him to think he's not all that bad, but I don't think it's gonna work whatsoever.
43458 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Livingston, Louis...
Online
Posted 7/23/13
This is why I side with George Zimmerman. I hate the media, and this is what people don't want to see. So many are quick to dismiss George as a racist. Learn from this video, you Georgie boy haters.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=608832945815209

I guarantee if George was as heartless as everyone's playing him out to be, he would have let those people he rescued die without even attempting to help them. Quit ostracizing the man, and for fuck's sake people, the media is not the greatest source to acquire truth. In fact, it's one of the worst. Look at George's side for once and at least attempt some research, and not throw all your faith into a man that was probably not as innocent as everyone thought he was.

I'll probably get labeled a racist and all. I have had my experiences with blacks before, and to put things bluntly, I don't have good enough reason to trust Travyon's side because of my experiences with other black folks. Don't get me wrong, there are nice black people out there, but I'm hard pressed to pull a list of good black people I know or have known. I'm not enforcing the stereotype, but I will admit my personal experiences may influence my bias.

This is Zachman, and I speak my mind, whether ya fuckers like it or not.
4369 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / Rainbow Factory
Offline
Posted 7/23/13
way to drop the ball news folks. now the whole internet knows he wears a bullet proof vest.
6176 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
41
Offline
Posted 7/23/13

Akira123 wrote:

I'm not trying to start a debate, but the reason he wasn't convicted of manslaughter is because according to his story, he had started chasing Trayvon, but eventually lost track of him. He started making his way back to his car, and that's when he was confronted by Trayvon and, that's where the fight started. Essentially (if his story is true) the confrontation in which the fight actually started in was caused by Trayvon, and since there's nobody to speak against that, there's literally no reason for him to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Again, I'm not trying to start a debate, but I think the jury came to the right verdict. This story here is clearly a way to get those against him to think he's not all that bad, but I don't think it's gonna work whatsoever.


Actually, the reason he wasn't convicted of manslaughter is because he wasn't charged with manslaughter.
He was charged with second degree murder.
Tarya 
52889 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / F / Virginia, US
Offline
Posted 7/23/13 , edited 7/23/13

KaosProphet wrote:


Akira123 wrote:

I'm not trying to start a debate, but the reason he wasn't convicted of manslaughter is because according to his story, he had started chasing Trayvon, but eventually lost track of him. He started making his way back to his car, and that's when he was confronted by Trayvon and, that's where the fight started. Essentially (if his story is true) the confrontation in which the fight actually started in was caused by Trayvon, and since there's nobody to speak against that, there's literally no reason for him to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Again, I'm not trying to start a debate, but I think the jury came to the right verdict. This story here is clearly a way to get those against him to think he's not all that bad, but I don't think it's gonna work whatsoever.


Actually, the reason he wasn't convicted of manslaughter is because he wasn't charged with manslaughter.
He was charged with second degree murder.


The jury was actually allowed to consider a lesser charge of manslaughter. They had questions about the sentence manslaughter would incur on Zimmerman, but these weren't answered and they didn't have enough evidence for him to be convicted with a long sentence so they chose not guilty instead. I read somewhere that the court/judge isn't allowed to disclose the amount of time each charge would sentence because this could color the juror's decision.
If Zimmerman had been charged with manslaughter, it would actually have had a longer sentence term than second degree murder, because they could have sentenced him with manslaughter of a minor, which would have incurred up to a 30 year sentence.

KaosProphet, you used the word "stalking" quite a bit in your posts, but there is a big difference in the definition of stalking and following -- Stalking can be defined as the willful and repeated following, watching and/or harassing of another person. Or another definition: To follow or observe persistently, especially out of obsession or derangement.
Definition of follow: to go or come after; move behind in the same direction or to walk, drive, etc behind someone, when you are going in the same direction as them.
Definition of monitor: to watch, keep track of, or check usually for a special purpose

So, monitoring someone suspicious in your neighborhood wouldn't be considered stalking. Calling the police because you think someone is suspicious because you don't know them, some of your neighbors have been broken into recently, and this person isn't exactly moving along at a quick pace eventhough it is rainy...still not stalking. Getting out of your car and following the suspicious person because you were asked by the police dispatcher which way they went? Nope, still not stalking.
In any rate, I made this argument in the other thread that was dedicated to Zimmerman's being found not guilty.

The largest bit of evidence for me that made me believe Trayvon was just looking for a fight was because of where the final altercation occurred. He was only 70 yards from his back door when he was shot. 70 yards...
Zimmerman had already lost site of Trayvon and was headed back to his vehicle. The cops were already on their way. If Trayvon had really been concerned for his safety and been intimidated by Zimmerman following him, he had the ability to simply go inside his father's fiancé's home and lock the door and call the cops himself and we wouldn't have been debating all of this now. Why Trayvon turned around and attacked Zimmerman instead is beyond me. But the evidence doesn't lie -- Trayvon was the person beating on Zimmerman and Trayvon had no injuries besides the gunshot.

As far as Zimmerman being in the right place at the right time to help the family out of their wrecked car...I am glad he stopped and helped. Believe it or not, a lot of people wouldn't have stopped to help (been in accidents a few times enough to know that personally). Would we have heard about it at all if it was just some random nobody stopping to help? Nope. It is only because of who Zimmerman is that we heard about it at all. Every time he surfaces and does something for the next few years, we are probably all going to hear about it. That is just the way the media is unfortunately.
6176 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
41
Offline
Posted 7/24/13

Tarya wrote:


KaosProphet wrote:


Akira123 wrote:

I'm not trying to start a debate, but the reason he wasn't convicted of manslaughter is because according to his story, he had started chasing Trayvon, but eventually lost track of him. He started making his way back to his car, and that's when he was confronted by Trayvon and, that's where the fight started. Essentially (if his story is true) the confrontation in which the fight actually started in was caused by Trayvon, and since there's nobody to speak against that, there's literally no reason for him to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Again, I'm not trying to start a debate, but I think the jury came to the right verdict. This story here is clearly a way to get those against him to think he's not all that bad, but I don't think it's gonna work whatsoever.


Actually, the reason he wasn't convicted of manslaughter is because he wasn't charged with manslaughter.
He was charged with second degree murder.


The jury was actually allowed to consider a lesser charge of manslaughter. They had questions about the sentence manslaughter would incur on Zimmerman, but these weren't answered and they didn't have enough evidence for him to be convicted with a long sentence so they chose not guilty instead. I read somewhere that the court/judge isn't allowed to disclose the amount of time each charge would sentence because this could color the juror's decision.


Fair enough, I was in error on that point.


Tarya wrote:

KaosProphet, you used the word "stalking" quite a bit in your posts, but there is a big difference in the definition of stalking and following -- Stalking can be defined as the willful and repeated following, watching and/or harassing of another person. Or another definition: To follow or observe persistently, especially out of obsession or derangement.


Should I thank you for confirming that I was using the word accurately?


Tarya wrote:
So, monitoring someone suspicious in your neighborhood wouldn't be considered stalking.


Wouldn't it?
Even from the perspective of the one being monitored? I'm not saying Zimmerman was wrong in monitoring the kid, I'm saying Trayvon had cause to be suspicious himself.


Tarya wrote:
Calling the police because you think someone is suspicious because you don't know them, some of your neighbors have been broken into recently, and this person isn't exactly moving along at a quick pace eventhough it is rainy...still not stalking. Getting out of your car and following the suspicious person because you were asked by the police dispatcher which way they went?


Don't whitewash the story to force your point, here. The dispatcher told him to stay in the damn car, to which he responded with “Fucking punks. These assholes. They always get away.” That's not 'because you were asked by the police dispatcher,' that's "in spite of being asked by the police officer."


Tarya wrote:
The largest bit of evidence for me that made me believe Trayvon was just looking for a fight was because of where the final altercation occurred. He was only 70 yards from his back door when he was shot. 70 yards...
Zimmerman had already lost site of Trayvon and was headed back to his vehicle.


So he says. And this is why you use lethal force whenever permitted - so you don't have another story muddying the waters. (Just ask Marissa Alexander about that.)


Tarya wrote:
The cops were already on their way. If Trayvon had really been concerned for his safety and been intimidated by Zimmerman following him, he had the ability to simply go inside his father's fiancé's home and lock the door and call the cops himself and we wouldn't have been debating all of this now.


If Zimmerman had stayed in his car like he'd been advised to, we wouldn't be debating this either.

So... why does Trayvon get crucified in your mind for standing his ground instead of retreating, while Zimmerman gets a complete pass on it?
18054 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
U.S.
Offline
Posted 7/24/13
Did anyone here go to a jury duty?
65129 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34
Offline
Posted 7/24/13
It's rather disheartening to read these comments. I was tempted to reply to a few but there is no sense in talking to a wall.

The facts are that shit happened just like shit happens every day because people aren't perfect.

The reason people are even still talking about the case is how easily people fall victim to emotional blinders. An attachment was fostered by the media and people picked sides blindly before the verdict was in. If you honestly can't say that you hadn't already chosen a guilty or not guilty before the close then I'm afraid to tell you that you are one of those blinded many that judge based on emotion and assumptions rather than the full evidence. Tell me how that is any different than a fat man with a hero complex?

The cycle of hate and violence will never stop until we all recognize that it lives inside us all. You can't destroy it, but you sure as hell can control it.
49413 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Florida
Offline
Posted 7/24/13 , edited 7/24/13
Look, only the jury knows what the evidence was, and for all anyone knows, it could be clear-cut evidence that Zimmerman was within the law. Anybody can speculate and say whatever they want; you can hate the verdict that was given; you can be like a bunch of overpaid pop artists and boycott the state of Florida...but nobody knows the ACTUAL truth except for Zimmerman (whom nobody will believe/could be lying) and Trayvon.

I just think it's funny how everyone is squabbling over incomplete information from the media. The media is eating this case up like cake and loves to squeeze as much drama as it can and sensationalize every bit of new information that is found out.

Honestly, I'm just sick of this whole case. The verdict was given and nothing is going to change that. It's time to move on with your lives people, I certainly have (after this last post of course).
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.