Trayvon Martin Case

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Your example isn't a good one. Zimmerman followed Martin in a vehicle, got out against the orders of the 911 operator, and approached Trayvon Martin. His actions precipitated the ensuing the events. Had Zimmerman been an officer of the law, properly identified himself, then that's a different story. But he made up his made that Trayvon Martin was up to something and decided to take matters into his own hands. That much is very clear from the 911 audio.

Where we disagree is this, you're assuming because George Zimmerman suffered in a physical altercation, he's justified in pulling out his weapon. That is not stand your ground, sir. Even if George Zimmerman got his ass beat, which he didn't, that doesn't give him the legal grounds to pull his firearm and shoot an innocent teen in cold blood.

Okay. I do see your point and I do need to rethink some of the assumptions I have been making because you and saden have convinced me I have got some of my facts wrong. I promise to do so and be back with my thoughts. Just walked in door, though, and must now wrestle with small children.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

No, this is not a "OK, I get that" type of situation. It's "if an adult was following your little girl that adult is a threat." Following someone can only result in two things:

a) confrontation which is a hostile or argumentative meeting or situation between opposing parties.

b) one individual takes flight out of fear for their safety.


The act of following someone you don't know is a threatening act.

The "OK, I get that" was more of the epiphany - "ohhhhh, I see" kind of "getting that".

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by saden1

This kid did nothing wrong and apparently you assholes think it's OK to shoot kids because they look suspicious or wear a hoddie and stand up to grown men stalking them.


Yo, close this thread before these morons say more stupid shit that makes no sense.

This post is like reading You Tube comments.

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

This post is like reading You Tube comments.

Well in all fairness he's kinda right..

[budw38]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

But what about him being a registered democrat and tutoring black kids for free? Not saying I disagree, but I'm sure someone will probably bring it up.

I can't say for sure about the racist angle, but he definitely profiled Martin. I think Zimmerman could be defined as at least having sociopathic qualities. What do you think?

This is the DSM-IV's definition of of sociopathy:

A) There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three or more of the following:

failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;

deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;

impulsiveness or failure to plan ahead;

irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;

reckless disregard for safety of self or others;

consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain
consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;

lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having
hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another;

B) The individual is at least age 18 years.
C) There is evidence of conduct disorder with onset before age 15 years.
D) The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of schizophrenia or a manic episode.

Awesome post Dynamite

[budw38]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

It is somewhat true black on black crime never gets reported and imo if Martin was white Zimmerman would have not followed him and started shit.. it's a sad world sometimes and racism is never going to go away .

I agree with you , and it is VERY SAD in 2012 ( or as early as 1970 ) , that soo many people are ,mean, stupid , ect . I don't think Zimmerman should have gone near the kid , he should have just called the local police , two lives are possibly over and the poor parents will suffer for ever .

[SolidSnake84]

Originally Posted by budw38

I agree with you , and it is VERY SAD in 2012 ( or as early as 1970 ) , that soo many people are ,mean, stupid , ect . I don't think Zimmerman should have gone near the kid , he should have just called the local police , two lives are possibly over and the poor parents will suffer for ever .

They'll be sad I'm sure but they are in line to make lots of money. They didn't copyright all that stuff and annouce they were going to sell DVD's and CD's, hats and shirts, etc... just for fun.

Consider that people are probably going to pay millions for the chance to interview the parents on talk shows, there could be a movie or book deal. The parents most certainly would stand to profit immensley from the whole ordeal. They must be thinking as much or else they wouldn't have the wheels already rolling on merchandise, etc...

[mlmdub130]

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

They'll be sad I'm sure but they are in line to make lots of money. They didn't copyright all that stuff and annouce they were going to sell DVD's and CD's, hats and shirts, etc... just for fun.

Consider that people are probably going to pay millions for the chance to interview the parents on talk shows, there could be a movie or book deal. The parents most certainly would stand to profit immensley from the whole ordeal. They must be thinking as much or else they wouldn't have the wheels already rolling on merchandise, etc...

this is what this whole thing is about assumptions. could they be using this to make a profit off their sons death, sure. could they be trying to make money to pay for lawyer fees, sure. the thing is none of use know what they are thinking we are all just making assumptions. at the end of the day it's human nature to do so, but until we can remove all hearsay and look at the case from a non biased point of view, all we are doing is making assumptions.

as it was said in a cinematic masterpiece, "assumption is the mother of all f ups"

and btw i doubt they will be paid millions for their interviews but they will probably be paid a decent amount. would you be as upset if zimmerman decides to write a book in the future?

[NC_Skins]

Former co-worker: Zimmerman lost security guard job after he ‘snapped’ | The Raw Story


Trayvon Martin George Zimmerman 911 call analysis: Two forensic experts say it's not George Zimmerman crying out for help - Orlando Sentinel

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Former co-worker: Zimmerman lost security guard job after he ‘snapped’ | The Raw Story


Trayvon Martin George Zimmerman 911 call analysis: Two forensic experts say it's not George Zimmerman crying out for help - Orlando Sentinel

This leads back to my sociopath argument.

[12thMan]

There are a few things that are pretty clear to me: George Zimmerman is lying, the Sanford PD is lying to cover their asses, and if the tables were turned, had Trayvon shot Zimmerman under the exact same circumstances, there's no question in my mind that: a) We would not be having this conversation and b) Trayvon would have been arrested on the spot. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, go straight to jail.

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

There are a few things that are pretty clear to me: George Zimmerman is lying, the Sanford PD is lying to cover their asses, and if the tables were turned, had Trayvon shot Zimmerman under the exact same circumstances, there's no question in my mind that: a) We would not be having this conversation and b) Trayvon would have been arrested on the spot. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, go straight to jail.

I agree. I just wonder why PD would try to cover it up in the first place. Its not like Zimmerman was a pillar of the community or something, where they didn't want him/the city to get bad press.

I just don't see what the PD was trying to achieve by completely screwing the entire situation.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Your example isn't a good one. Zimmerman followed Martin in a vehicle, got out against the orders of the 911 operator, and approached Trayvon Martin. His actions precipitated the ensuing the events. Had Zimmerman been an officer of the law, properly identified himself, then that's a different story. But he made up his made that Trayvon Martin was up to something and decided to take matters into his own hands. That much is very clear from the 911 audio.

Where we disagree is this, you're assuming because George Zimmerman suffered in a physical altercation, he's justified in pulling out his weapon. That is not stand your ground, sir. Even if George Zimmerman got his ass beat, which he didn't, that doesn't give him the legal grounds to pull his firearm and shoot an innocent teen in cold blood.

You facts are not correct. Zimmerman was out of his car following Trayvon when the 911 operator asked if he was following him and said he did not have to do that. After that its not clear what happened.

911 dispatcher:
Are you following him? [2:24]
Zimmerman:
Yeah. [2:25]
911 dispatcher:
OK.
We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]
Zimmerman:
OK. [2:28]
911 dispatcher:
Alright, sir, what is your name? [2:34]

The coversation then turned to where he would meet the cops when they arrived. To me that tells me Zimmerman was returning to his car to meet the cops but who knows.

[12thMan]

Honestly, I think at first they just took his word for it and kept it moving thinking this would all go away.

[NC_Skins]

The problem with all of this is evidence. Regardless if you think he's guilty as hell, it all boils down to evidence. Is there any to sufficiently to debunk Zimmerman's side of the story? As of what we've been shown so far, I doubt it. We would need a injury report from a medical examiner to fully comprehend what type of physical harm we was undertaking. (if any)


Sounds like the guy is just a overzealous wanna-be-cop that over stepped his boundaries. However, this is merely a observation and just a opinion.



I will say that people that are saying he's racists should step back. This is NOT a racial issue, nor was this a hate crime. Does the guy profile? Sure, but that doesn't mean it was racial profiling. You can profile a person based on clothes, hair style, etc... In fact, the FBI uses profiling to catch many criminals. We all profile, whether we say we don't or not. If you lived in a area where you saw on TV that the majority of crimes were committed by people dressed like "thugs" (hoodies/pants pulled down/doo rags). Chances are you would be wary of people dressed like "thugs". I'm merely using this as an example, and not saying this is the case.