• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Sad case of mistaken intentions

Do you actually picture us "sneering"? Yes, I was being a little facetious, but using Judge Dredd does describe Zimmerman's actions pretty well.

I AM THE LAW! - Judge George Zimmerman:lol:

Explain that to Sharon, who claims the exact opposite - that GZ was a coward for not aggressively getting in TM's face.

The clip is about some guy thinking he's super tough taking on someone with a gun.
 
Explain that to Sharon, who claims the exact opposite - that GZ was a coward for not aggressively getting in TM's face.

The clip is about some guy thinking he's super tough taking on someone with a gun.

It will likely come out that Trayvon didn't beat George up... More likely that George was grabbing at Trayvon's hoodie.

George was out of control..
 
ci
Trayvon behaved like an ADULT.. asking the question, Why are you following me?

And, according to Dee, he asked TM what he was doing?

Your complaint is that YOU think someone on Neighborhood Watch is a cop and that he was required to state his full name, cite his (non-existent) authority as neighborhood watch, and demand TM tell him where he is going.

To the exact opposite, in their sneering Hawk and others are claiming that only should GZ NOT have done anything you said he should have, but that GZ shouldn't have done anything at all.

Those of us leaning towards or favoring GZ at least have the same stances. You anti-GZ people contradict the hell out of each in your messages when you go into your character assasinations mode.
 
It will likely come out that Trayvon didn't beat George up... More likely that George was grabbing at Trayvon's hoodie.

George was out of control..

Obviously for the assault injuries to GZ it was TM "out of control."
 
Explain that to Sharon, who claims the exact opposite - that GZ was a coward for not aggressively getting in TM's face.

The clip is about some guy thinking he's super tough taking on someone with a gun.

Why be "AGGRESSIVE"? Is that YOUR way?

George could have said, Hey Buddy, can I help you find an address?

You see the utter stupidity of George Zimmerman.. He was all worked up and in a lather by the time he called NEN.
 
Why be "AGGRESSIVE"? Is that YOUR way?

George could have said, Hey Buddy, can I help you find an address?

You see the utter stupidity of George Zimmerman.. He was all worked up and in a lather by the time he called NEN.

Or he could have just said "F U!" or he could have said "hey, need some money?" or he could have said "what the hell are you doing out in the rain, are you on drugs?" or just about any other damn thing he cared to say.
 
Your citing Joe Horn just confirms that you really don't care about integrity of your messages.

No one was assaulting Joe Horn. The range of his shots was not point blank at someone beating the hell out of him. GZ did not shoot TM at a distance while TM was fleeing.

But, actually, I have no problem with what Joe Horn did. Regardless, it has no relationship to the Martin - Zimmerman matter.
 
Or he could have just said "F U!" or he could have said "hey, need some money?" or he could have said "what the hell are you doing out in the rain, are you on drugs?" or just about any other damn thing he cared to say.

You may not be very bright either.
 
You may not be very bright either.

Maybe your right. Then again TM followed your advise of getting into it face to face - GZ tried to stay back at the sidewalk - and the guy who did it your way is dead and the guy who didn't isn't. That might suggest that your ideas about how people should act in such a situation is - literally - "dead wrong."
 
Maybe your right. Then again TM followed your advise of getting into it face to face - GZ tried to stay back at the sidewalk - and the guy who did it your way is dead and the guy who didn't isn't. That might suggest that your ideas about how people should act in such a situation is - literally - "dead wrong."

You're or You are, not your.
 
You're or You are, not your.

Do you know that I never attended a day of academic school in my life? Really. That's why many if not most my messages show "editted" at the bottom. There appears a window now to edit without it showing, so that appears less often since the new forum software.

I most often have to fix "to" to "too" and "not" to "no" as one word errors. I do try to have correct grammar and spelling. It's not always easy for me.
 
Do you know that I never attended a day of academic school in my life? Really. That's why many if not most my messages show "editted" at the bottom. There appears a window now to edit without it showing, so that appears less often since the new forum software.

I most often have to fix "to" to "too" and "not" to "no" as one word errors. I do try to have correct grammar and spelling. It's not always easy for me.

Just some harmless ribbing:lol:

That is the most common mistake, I think. My cousin does it all the time.
 
Just some harmless ribbing:lol:

That is the most common mistake, I think. My cousin does it all the time.

Suuuure, YOU never make a mistake... but your cousin does all the time. :2razz:
 
Daytime burglaries on week days when families were at work or school..

I just don't understand why you keep forgetting obvious facts. There was at least one crime that occured at night while hte home owner was home and asleep in her bed. So, since this has been pointed out to you numerous times, we now have absolute proof that you are continuously nad purposely lying everytime you state this.
 
What do you mean "nothing the police could do"? Martin was not involved in any criminal activity to begin with.

That is the glaring point that so many try to ignore. Many have tried to make it fit their agenda by bringing out every school infraction the kid every had plus the fact that his parents were divorced.

But all that doesn't matter. All that matters is what happen that night. The convenience store was not robbed. No homes were burglarized and no cars were broken into. No drugs were found on him.

This will all come out in the trial.
 
That is the glaring point that so many try to ignore. Many have tried to make it fit their agenda by bringing out every school infraction the kid every had plus the fact that his parents were divorced.

But all that doesn't matter. All that matters is what happen that night. The convenience store was not robbed. No homes were burglarized and no cars were broken into. No drugs were found on him.

This will all come out in the trial.

and a glaring point is also someone started the fight between the two. Some injuries to GZ, none to speak of on TM.
As you said., the trial will sort things out.
 
and a glaring point is also someone started the fight between the two. Some injuries to GZ, none to speak of on TM.
As you said., the trial will sort things out.

I would call that bullet hole in Martin's chest a substanial injury.

There have been rape murders where the rapist had scratches all over him and the victim only had a slashed throat.

But as we both say, the trial sort things out. BTW, when is that trial?
 
I would call that bullet hole in Martin's chest a substanial injury.

There have been rape murders where the rapist had scratches all over him and the victim only had a slashed throat.

But as we both say, the trial sort things out. BTW, when is that trial?

What I find facinating is the TM side seems to avoid the details of what caused GZ to shoot TM.
It is always GZ followed TM and wouldn't say hey I'm NW. It is GZ should have waited for the police.
It is TM was shot. TM did nothing wrong.

Well I am going to speculate and say TM got into GZ face and started the fight and would not let up. GZ in the struggle shot TM. Both GZ and TM had a role and both their actions led to TM death.

I don't know the trial date, thought I heard it could be a year away.
 
That is the glaring point that so many try to ignore. Many have tried to make it fit their agenda by bringing out every school infraction the kid every had plus the fact that his parents were divorced.

But all that doesn't matter. All that matters is what happen that night. The convenience store was not robbed. No homes were burglarized and no cars were broken into. No drugs were found on him.

This will all come out in the trial.

I have news for ya...none of the above matters under the law.

What legally matters *if* Z was reasonably in fear of his life, and 2.... just who initiated the physical fight
 
.

Originally Posted by hawke812

What do you mean "nothing the police could do"? Martin was not involved in any criminal activity to begin with.

You don't know that. It appears to be known that TM was not walking directly home or he would have been home. It also appears by facts that he was likely walking back and forth or around while talking on the cell phone. Beyond that, we don't know what he was doing or was going to do. I suspect he MAY have been hoping to buy pot on a random street buy since his father and stepmother were going to be out of town.

It also appears by the facts that George Zimmerman was not involved in any criminal activity to begin with either.

Neither were engaged in any illegal activity we know of when it became violent and then deadly.

I thought we've all be over all this already. Neither were doing anything illegal. We don't know what either was planning to do with any certainty.
 
What I find facinating is the TM side seems to avoid the details of what caused GZ to shoot TM.
It is always GZ followed TM and wouldn't say hey I'm NW. It is GZ should have waited for the police.
It is TM was shot. TM did nothing wrong.

Well I am going to speculate and say TM got into GZ face and started the fight and would not let up. GZ in the struggle shot TM. Both GZ and TM had a role and both their actions led to TM death.

I don't know the trial date, thought I heard it could be a year away.

Other than I see no problem with GZ trying to see where TM ran off too so his call to the police didn't just become a pointless waste of time - and I do not agree he should have declared himself "neighborhood watch" or that it mattered either way. Otherwise I think you are mostly likely right about what happened.

There is an ongoing bizarre contradiction too. There are hundreds of messages claiming a gun while on NW violates NW rules. Since GZ had a gun, then it would seem he should not have declared himself "on duty" as NW. Thus, his not doing so was correct.
 
Other than I see no problem with GZ trying to see where TM ran off too so his call to the police didn't just become a pointless waste of time - and I do not agree he should have declared himself "neighborhood watch" or that it mattered either way. Otherwise I think you are mostly likely right about what happened.

There is an ongoing bizarre contradiction too. There are hundreds of messages claiming a gun while on NW violates NW rules. Since GZ had a gun, then it would seem he should not have declared himself "on duty" as NW. Thus, his not doing so was correct.

There is no contradiction.

1. GZ should not have been armed
2. GZ should have identified himself

By NOT following the correct guidelines for NW, his actions mirror a vigilante type o mentality.
 
Other than I see no problem with GZ trying to see where TM ran off too so his call to the police didn't just become a pointless waste of time - and I do not agree he should have declared himself "neighborhood watch" or that it mattered either way. Otherwise I think you are mostly likely right about what happened.

There is an ongoing bizarre contradiction too. There are hundreds of messages claiming a gun while on NW violates NW rules. Since GZ had a gun, then it would seem he should not have declared himself "on duty" as NW. Thus, his not doing so was correct.

Somewhat brought up that the NW is not recognized by the national NW organization. I did a quick check and it seems it is true.
If so, then the NW rules really don't apply.

So the question is can a non recogonized NW program be held to the national standards?
 
Last edited:
Somewhat brought up that the NW is not recognized by the national NW organization. I did a quick check and it seems it is true.
If so, then the NW rules really don't apply.

So the question is can a non recogonized NW program be held to the national standards?

The group will be seen as a vigilante force, especially if their members are patrolling armed.

I posted that in the HOA Liability thread. If an HOA is using a non-sanctioned NWP, they will be liable for the actions of their members.
 
Back
Top Bottom