Another Zimmerman thread.

[calamity]

So he was a gay man following a black guy he was attracted to? Are you for real?

Pervs into black boys are not necessarily gay. You need to read up on that stuff.

If that were the case, then why did he call the police?

.

Because he was turned down. Duh.

 

[calamity]

Z stated his reasons to the police dispatcher who told him that an officer was on the way. Why, exactly, would a rapist call the police to interfere with his allegedly planned sexual adventures with his intended victim?

Extra excitement

 

[Grim17]

A lot of mistakes were made that night -- by both - and the end result was tragic...

I wouldn't say that a lot of mistakes were made that night, but rather a lot of choices were made that unfortunately led to the tragic ending. The actions they both engaged in prior to the confrontation are "mistakes" only in hindsight, not at the time either of them engaged in them.

Based on all the the evidence that's known, there was only one real mistake made that night and that was the choice by Martin to confront Zimmerman, rather than continue on to his fathers house, which he had both the time and opportunity to do.

At the end of the day, we have a dead kid, who may or may not have had mischief on his mind

Personally, I don't believe that he did. I think his actions were just as his girlfriend (the girl he was on the phone with) stated, that he was in that yard, under a tree because it was raining... But that doesn't matter. Whether he did or did not have mischief on his mind, is totally irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the choice he made that night to confront Zimmerman, rather than continuing on to his fathers house.

and a wannabe cop that overstepped his authority.

I don't believe he overstepped any authority. He was very determined (again based on the evidence) to prevent any more homes from being broken into, but again whether that was or was not the case it's totally irrelevant. Nothing he did prior to the confrontation was illegal and nothing what so ever presented at trial indicated that his motives were nefarious.

We've learned that GZ is ****ing idiot.

Certainly his behavior after the trial might justify such an opinion, but nothing known about his behavior prior to, or leading up to that incident would.

What or who Martin was is still an uncertainty.

Uncertain, yes... But there were plenty of facts uncovered through his social media pages and prior incidents at his school, indicating that the path he was on, was not a positive one... Again, whether he was a "thug" or an "angel" prior to the confrontation that night is irrelevant, which is why when discussing this case you won't see me applying labels to either of them.

The only things that matters when it comes to discussing the death of Trayvon Martin, are the specific events that took place that night from the time Zimmerman saw him, until the time he was shot and killed. Based on all the evidence known through witness testimony, crime scene and forensic evidence, and what was determined through multiple investigations by local, state and federal authorities, the shooting of Trayvon Martin was a legal act of self defense... A determination that after watching every single day of that trial, I completely agree with.

.

 

[Grim17]

Pervs into black boys are not necessarily gay. You need to read up on that stuff.


Because he was turned down. Duh.

Sorry, but the testimony by girl on the phone with him at the time the event was unfolding, doesn't substantiate your bogus assertion.

I'm sure that means absolutely nothing to you, otherwise you wouldn't have made up that lie in the first place.

.

 

[HowardBThiname]

I wouldn't say that a lot of mistakes were made that night, but rather a lot of choices were made that unfortunately led to the tragic ending. The actions they both engaged in prior to the confrontation are "mistakes" only in hindsight, not at the time either of them engaged in them.

Granted, but that's what we're doing here -- evaluating it with the benefit of hindsight.

Based on all the the evidence that's known, there was only one real mistake made that night and that was the choice by Martin to confront Zimmerman, rather than continue on to his fathers house, which he had both the time and opportunity to do.

Without the element of GZ following Martin, the "attack" never would have/could have been made. And, the dispatcher clearly said that GZ didn't need to follow him. That means GZ made a decision that wasn't based on either the advice of the dispatcher, nor the policies of the neighbor watch program. It's similar to what employees are instructed to do in retail stores -- if they observe a theft -- they are to report the theft, but NOT follow the thief. There's a good reason for those policies, they keep the employees safe. So, we have GZ going off-policy, and that was the first mistake.

Personally, I don't believe that he did. I think his actions were just as his girlfriend (the girl he was on the phone with) stated, that he was in that yard, under a tree because it was raining... But that doesn't matter. Whether he did or did not have mischief on his mind, is totally irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the choice he made that night to confront Zimmerman, rather than continuing on to his fathers house.

And, that was the second mistake.

I don't believe he overstepped any authority. He was very determined (again based on the evidence) to prevent any more homes from being broken into, but again whether that was or was not the case it's totally irrelevant. Nothing he did prior to the confrontation was illegal and nothing what so ever presented at trial indicated that his motives were nefarious.

And yet, the policies of the watch program did not promote the idea that following a suspect agaisnt the advice of a dispatcher was something they ought to do.

There is no doubt -- mistakes were made on both sides -- and had either participant to the event not made them -- there would not have been a physical (and fatal) result.

Certainly his behavior after the trial might justify such an opinion, but nothing known about his behavior prior to, or leading up to that incident would.

Uncertain, yes... But there were plenty of facts uncovered through his social media pages and prior incidents at his school, indicating that the path he was on, was not a positive one... Again, whether he was a "thug" or an "angel" prior to the confrontation that night is irrelevant, which is why when discussing this case you won't see me applying labels to either of them.

The only things that matters when it comes to discussing the death of Trayvon Martin, are the specific events that took place that night from the time Zimmerman saw him, until the time he was shot and killed. Based on all the evidence known through witness testimony, crime scene and forensic evidence, and what was determined through multiple investigations by local, state and federal authorities, the shooting of Trayvon Martin was a legal act of self defense... A determination that after watching every single day of that trial, I completely agree with.

.

Yes, we do have some evidence that Martin was in trouble in school, we also have evidence that GZ had a run-in with the law previous to that night as well. As you -- none of that matters, because we don't know what the REAL intentions of either man were that night.

The shooting was an act of self-defense, granted, but that doesn't mean that GZ's behavior prior to that was above-board.

Mistakes were made on both sides. That's glaringly clear.

 

[calamity]

Sorry, but the testimony by girl on the phone with him at the time the event was unfolding, doesn't substantiate your bogus assertion.

I'm sure that means absolutely nothing to you, otherwise you wouldn't have made up that lie in the first place.

.

My assertion is about as valid as Vox's: he was casing out houses to rob.

Keep up.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

Anyone who fails to realize by now that Martin was just a cheap thug and Zimmerman a good citizen is without hope of understanding......especially after they televised the whole trial and it became so obvious that Martin's friends were not just liars, but feeble-minded liars with no hope of being believed.

spoken like POS racist. Why do forums allow such obvious trolling? This forum has the worst

 

[jaeger19]

What makes the pro-Martin/anti-Zimmerman arguments on this thread so comical, is how unbelievably far from reality and the actual facts of the case they are. Calamity's arguments are by far the most hilarious, as he has chosen to fabricate his own set of facts to fit his narrative. How he can expect anyone to take him seriously is one of the great mysteries of this forum.

Here's the bottom line conclusion based on the facts and testimony presented at the trial (that I watched every single day of):

Up until the time of their confrontation, neither one of them had done anything legally or morally wrong. The single event that changed that, was when Trayvon Martin instead of continuing on to his fathers house (having both the time and opportunity to do so), decided to come out of the shadows, confront and physically attack George Zimmerman. That decision by Martin is directly responsible for the physical altercation that ended with him being shot and killed that night.

That's it folks... Case closed.

.

Actually not according to the law. under the law.. Martin had every right to confront and defend himself from Zimmerman who was armed and who chose to purse Martin that night. MARTIN has no legal responsibility under stand your ground to flee or retreat (which actually he initially did) in order to be legally allowed to defend himself.

 

[calamity]

Actually not according to the law. under the law.. Martin had every right to confront and defend himself from Zimmerman who was armed and who chose to purse Martin that night. MARTIN has no legal responsibility under stand your ground to flee or retreat (which actually he initially did) in order to be legally allowed to defend himself.

Yes. If Tray had a gun and shot Z dead, he would have been able to use SYG to his advantage. Tray's only mistake was not knocking Zimmermann out or killing him. An error of youth that cost him his life.

 

[Grim17]

Without the element of GZ following Martin, the "attack" never would have/could have been made. And, the dispatcher clearly said that GZ didn't need to follow him. That means GZ made a decision that wasn't based on either the advice of the dispatcher, nor the policies of the neighbor watch program. It's similar to what employees are instructed to do in retail stores -- if they observe a theft -- they are to report the theft, but NOT follow the thief. There's a good reason for those policies, they keep the employees safe. So, we have GZ going off-policy, and that was the first mistake.

Again, nothing Zimmerman did prior to the confrontation was illegal, immoral, or serves as justification for being physically attacked.

Martin, and Martin alone, made the choice to engage in a physical confrontation. He didn't have to do so. He wasn't cornered or forced in any way into engaging in that confrontation, and could have easily returned to his fathers house.

Zimmerman's actions that night did not justify in any way, Martin physically attacking him. Martin choice to do just that is directly what led to his death that night.

And yet, the policies of the watch program did not promote the idea that following a suspect agaisnt the advice of a dispatcher was something they ought to do.

That doesn't matter... Zimmerman's actions weren't legally or morally wrong, and nothing that he did justifies Martin physically attacking him.

There is no doubt -- mistakes were made on both sides -- and had either participant to the event not made them -- there would not have been a physical (and fatal) result.

As I already pointed out, and you agreed with, neither of them did anything that was legally or morally wrong prior to their confrontation. The one and only action taken that was indisputably wrong, and clearly a mistake in judgement, was Trayvon Martin's choice to confront Zimmerman, rather than return to his father's home.

Yes, we do have some evidence that Martin was in trouble in school, we also have evidence that GZ had a run-in with the law previous to that night as well. As you -- none of that matters, because we don't know what the REAL intentions of either man were that night.

The shooting was an act of self-defense, granted, but that doesn't mean that GZ's behavior prior to that was above-board.

Mistakes were made on both sides. That's glaringly clear.

There was absolutely no evidence that Zimmerman's actions that night were such, that it justified Martin confronting and attacking him. That's what this all boils down to.

You may disagree with the actions taken by Zimmerman that night, but nothing he did was illegal, immoral, and there was no evidence indicating his intentions were nefarious. In other words, nothing Zimmerman did justifies Martin initiating that physical confrontation.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

What makes the pro-Martin/anti-Zimmerman arguments on this thread so comical, is how unbelievably far from reality and the actual facts of the case they are. Calamity's arguments are by far the most hilarious, as he has chosen to fabricate his own set of facts to fit his narrative. How he can expect anyone to take him seriously is one of the great mysteries of this forum.

Here's the bottom line conclusion based on the facts and testimony presented at the trial (that I watched every single day of):

Up until the time of their confrontation, neither one of them had done anything legally or morally wrong. The single event that changed that, was when Trayvon Martin instead of continuing on to his fathers house (having both the time and opportunity to do so), decided to come out of the shadows, confront and physically attack George Zimmerman. That decision by Martin is directly responsible for the physical altercation that ended with him being shot and killed that night.

That's it folks... Case closed.

.

Yeah, because you said so, case close. Give me a ****ing break, he stalked a guy when the cops told him not to. Did nothing wrong, no, just another ***** being a tough guy when he's hiding behind the gun and thinking he' has any right to stalk somoene

 

[HowardBThiname]

Again, nothing Zimmerman did prior to the confrontation was illegal, immoral, or serves as justification for being physically attacked.

Martin, and Martin alone, made the choice to engage in a physical confrontation. He didn't have to do so. He wasn't cornered or forced in any way into engaging in that confrontation, and could have easily returned to his fathers house.

Zimmerman's actions that night did not justify in any way, Martin physically attacking him. Martin choice to do just that is directly what led to his death that night.

I didn't say so. You're all wrapped up in trying to assign fault, and I'm simply pointing out mistakes by each party that -- had they not been made -- would have changed the outcome of the evening.

That doesn't matter... Zimmerman's actions weren't legally or morally wrong, and nothing that he did justifies Martin physically attacking him.

Are you really struggling this hard to understand what I said? I never said GZ did anything illegal or immoral. I said he made a mistake. He did.

As I already pointed out, and you agreed with, neither of them did anything that was legally or morally wrong prior to their confrontation. The one and only action taken that was indisputably wrong, and clearly a mistake in judgement, was Trayvon Martin's choice to confront Zimmerman, rather than return to his father's home.

LOL I don't get you. You really seem unable to realize that GZ was going off-plan when he followed Martin after the dispatcher told him not to. And, while that was not illegal, per say, it was an incredibly stupid mistake that virtually every business owner (and neighborhood watch groups) are well aware of.

There was absolutely no evidence that Zimmerman's actions that night were such, that it justified Martin confronting and attacking him. That's what this all boils down to.

You may disagree with the actions taken by Zimmerman that night, but nothing he did was illegal, immoral, and there was no evidence indicating his intentions were nefarious. In other words, nothing Zimmerman did justifies Martin initiating that physical confrontation.

Again -- you seemed locked into "justification" and I never made that claim.

It's not my fault that you don't understand beyond that.

 

[jaeger19]

Again, nothing Zimmerman did prior to the confrontation was illegal, immoral, or serves as justification for being physically attacked.

.

Wrong.. according to the law.. Zimmerman being armed and pursuing martin down street at night... would constitute a reasonable belief that Zimmerman's intent was to commit grave bodily harm or death to Martin..and thus according to the law.

Martin had the right to defend himself.

In other words, nothing Zimmerman did justifies Martin initiating that physical confrontation.

Completely untrue.. see above.

 

[Grim17]

Actually not according to the law. under the law.. Martin had every right to confront and defend himself from Zimmerman who was armed and who chose to purse Martin that night.

You obviously didn't watch the trial.

At no time, was Martin ever put in a position where he needed to defend himself. Zimmerman didn't even know where he was. There was absolutely no reason for a physical confrontation to have ever taken place. Martin had both the time and opportunity to safely return to his fathers home, but instead of doing so, made the choice to confront and attack Zimmerman... a choice that cost him his life.

MARTIN has no legal responsibility under stand your ground to flee or retreat (which actually he initially did) in order to be legally allowed to defend himself.

Let me simply ask you one question....

Regardless of what the outcome was, do you consider Martin's choice to head back to where Zimmerman was and initiate a physical confrontation, rather than safely returning to his fathers home having both the time and opportunity to do, the correct course of action for Martin to take?

.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Again, nothing Zimmerman did prior to the confrontation was illegal, immoral, or serves as justification for being physically attacked.

Martin, and Martin alone, made the choice to engage in a physical confrontation. He didn't have to do so. He wasn't cornered or forced in any way into engaging in that confrontation, and could have easily returned to his fathers house.

Zimmerman's actions that night did not justify in any way, Martin physically attacking him. Martin choice to do just that is directly what led to his death that night.




That doesn't matter... Zimmerman's actions weren't legally or morally wrong, and nothing that he did justifies Martin physically attacking him.





As I already pointed out, and you agreed with, neither of them did anything that was legally or morally wrong prior to their confrontation. The one and only action taken that was indisputably wrong, and clearly a mistake in judgement, was Trayvon Martin's choice to confront Zimmerman, rather than return to his father's home.





There was absolutely no evidence that Zimmerman's actions that night were such, that it justified Martin confronting and attacking him. That's what this all boils down to.

You may disagree with the actions taken by Zimmerman that night, but nothing he did was illegal, immoral, and there was no evidence indicating his intentions were nefarious. In other words, nothing Zimmerman did justifies Martin initiating that physical confrontation.

Would you let some psycho follow you home where he could attack you or your family at the time of their choosing or would you confront them to defend yourself and your family?

 

[Grim17]

Yeah, because you said so, case close. Give me a ****ing break, he stalked a guy when the cops told him not to. Did nothing wrong, no, just another ***** being a tough guy when he's hiding behind the gun and thinking he' has any right to stalk somoene

Sorry to break it to you, but the investigative conclusions, along with the evidence and witness testimony presented at the trial support what I said....

The bulk of your argument is centered on insults and personal attacks, and contains nothing with any legal validity.

Thank you for demonstrating the difference between a logical, fact based argument, and a baseless, politically motivated argument based on hatred.

.

 

[Grim17]

Would you let some psycho follow you home where he could attack you or your family at the time of their choosing or would you confront them to defend yourself and your family?

Sorry, but based on the evidence such a scenario isn't a valid consideration.

.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Sorry, but based on the evidence such a scenario isn't a valid consideration.

.

Sure it is

You notice someone is following you. You cut through a few yards to get away, and yet the person is still following you. You notice the person gets out of their car, what do you do


Lead them to your house where the psycho could kill your family in their sleep, or confront them to protect yourself and family from an obvious psycho

 

[Grim17]

I didn't say so. You're all wrapped up in trying to assign fault, and I'm simply pointing out mistakes by each party that -- had they not been made -- would have changed the outcome of the evening.



Are you really struggling this hard to understand what I said? I never said GZ did anything illegal or immoral. I said he made a mistake. He did.



LOL I don't get you. You really seem unable to realize that GZ was going off-plan when he followed Martin after the dispatcher told him not to. And, while that was not illegal, per say, it was an incredibly stupid mistake that virtually every business owner (and neighborhood watch groups) are well aware of.



Again -- you seemed locked into "justification" and I never made that claim.

It's not my fault that you don't understand beyond that.

Like I said in my first response to you, the actions they both engaged in prior to the confrontation were simply choices they made and I don't see them as mistakes. Only in hindsight can anything they did be considered a mistake.

The only reason people see mistakes in their actions, is because of the outcome. If Martin had chosen to return to his fathers house that night instead of confronting Zimmerman, nobody would be calling any of the choices they made "mistakes".

A mistake is when someone commits an error in judgement that results in them taking an incorrect action. The only clear mistake and indisputably wrong action taken by either of them that night, was Trayvon Martin's decision to confront and attack George Zimmerman... A mistake that led to, and is directly responsible for his death. Nothing Zimmerman did that night is a catalyst for violent confrontation.

.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Like I said in my first response to you, the actions they both engaged in prior to the confrontation were simply choices they made and I don't see them as mistakes. Only in hindsight can anything they did be considered a mistake.

The only reason people see mistakes in their actions, is because of the outcome. If Martin had chosen to return to his fathers house that night instead of confronting Zimmerman, nobody would be calling any of the choices they made "mistakes".

A mistake is when someone commits an error in judgement that results in them taking an incorrect action. The only clear mistake and indisputably wrong action taken by either of them that night, was Trayvon Martin's decision to confront and attack George Zimmerman... A mistake that led to, and is directly responsible for his death. Nothing Zimmerman did that night is a catalyst for violent confrontation.

.

Honestly, this has played itself out. I disagree with you and neither of us is going to change our mind.

This is my last response to you.

 

[Grim17]

Sure it is

You notice someone is following you. You cut through a few yards to get away, and yet the person is still following you. You notice the person gets out of their car, what do you do


Lead them to your house where the psycho could kill your family in their sleep, or confront them to protect yourself and family from an obvious psycho

I think you need to read the trial transcripts, watch the video walk through with Zimmerman and police, review the evidence at the scene, and then you might understand why that scenario just doesn't fit.

Such a scenario might be valid to consider if Zimmerman had turned right and perused him down the sidewalk between the buildings, instead of passing by the sidewalk where Martin had ran and continuing on to the next street, well out sight of the area where Martin diapered and his father's house. Martin wasn't being followed, which totally invalidates your scenario.

If that wasn't enough, then explain why Martin came out of hiding and confronted Zimmerman as he again passed by the sidewalk between the buildings where Martin had disappeared, on his way back to his truck?

I'm sorry, but your scenario just doesn't fit with the facts.

.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Let me get this right. Zimmerman was having a fight with his wife, and he could have beaten his wife again but noticed this African American teenage male walking to his apartment. Zimmerman called 911 and was repeated by 911 to walk back to his apartment. He refused the order from 911. He confronted him with his gun and shot him dead. Zimmerman wanted to play god that night. Under your justice, I could walk right behind you during the middle of the night -- and shoot you in the back of your head. Under your justice, I can kill you. Under your logic, you are giving me that right to kill you. It is really bad logic when you are confirming your life is not worth anything.

The funniest part is where you say "let me get this right" and proceed to get every point wrong.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

I think you need to read the trial transcripts, watch the video walk through with Zimmerman and police, review the evidence at the scene, and then you might understand why that scenario just doesn't fit.

Such a scenario might be valid to consider if Zimmerman had turned right and perused him down the sidewalk between the buildings, instead of passing by the sidewalk where Martin had ran and continuing on to the next street, well out sight of the area where Martin diapered and his father's house. Martin wasn't being followed, which totally invalidates your scenario.

If that wasn't enough, then explain why Martin came out of hiding and confronted Zimmerman as he again passed by the sidewalk between the buildings where Martin had disappeared, on his way back to his truck?

I'm sorry, but your scenario just doesn't fit with the facts.

.

Right

Martin was not being followed, yet somehow Zimmerman was always where Martin was.

About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running".[50] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[51] Noises on the tape at this point have been interpreted by some media outlets as the sound of a car door chime, possibly indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[52] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[50] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah", the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[53] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[50] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.

After Zimmerman ended his call with police, a violent encounter took place between him and Martin. It ended with Zimmerman fatally shooting Martin 70 yards (65 m) from the rear door of the townhouse where Martin was staying.[54][Note 5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin


So you are 70 yards from home, and a psycho is still following you. Do you go home, then get murdered while you sleep, or confront the psycho?

 

[hanger4]

The funniest part is where you say "let me get this right" and proceed to get every point wrong.

I laughed :thumbs:

 

[hanger4]

Right

Martin was not being followed, yet somehow Zimmerman was always where Martin was.





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin


So you are 70 yards from home, and a psycho is still following you. Do you go home, then get murdered while you sleep, or confront the psycho?

Trayvon ambushed Zimmerman because he thought he was gay. You really don't know much about the case/trial do you.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...-because-he-thought-zimmerman-was-gay/313259/