Exclusive! First hand Witness: Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman Zimmerman Innocent Smoking Gun

reply to post by spacedog1973


When you follow someone, are you not watching them?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by spacedog1973

 

Well than how on earth are they charging 17 year olds as adults in a court of law?

I've just told you why. The default sentencing for non adults is different, its not automatically done.

He is not a child, he is not a child by law. He is a minor sure, but not a child. He knows right from wrong he is the size of an adult and can make adult decisions.

Thats semantics and means nothing. It IS LAW. A minor is another word colloquially used for child, stupid semantics. Everyone matures at different rates, some never mature as is seen by the 'adults' of this forum. But the law has to define an age at it has decided 18 years in the main.

Zimmerman made dumb decisions, but so did Martin. I can show a million cases of 17 year olds killing people much older than them.

What dumb decisions did Martin make? He is a child, children and non adults make an art of mistakes. Thats the whole point of 'growing up', its universally accepted that it is a period for learning, self development and growth in general. Zimmerman on the other hand had completed this stage, his errors have less excuse. This is the basis of why laws are different for different ages.

When Martin was beating up Zimmerman he justified Zimmerman in protecting his own life.

The law doesn't work like that. People are beaten up everyday. Its called fighting usually both people walk away. Defense has to be proportional to the threat or perceived threat, so your explanation doesn't meet even the standards of the law.

Sorry I guess I don't feel that an older person should just lay down their life because the person that is potentially going to take it is younger.

Getting beaten up is hardly laying down your life.

Maybe you are self righteous enough that in the moments you are going to reach for your gun you think "No, he's 17 i'll surrender my life and hope the consequences of his actions are learning experiences for him later in life." Sorry your argument is pointless.

Your pretence of being impartial and objective is pointless actually.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by spacedog1973

 

When you follow someone, are you not watching them?

No, obviously. Otherwise the two words would be used interchangeably.

You know, it helps when people don't cling to silly words and just change them instead of defending them pointlessly.

reply to post by spacedog1973


What? How do you follow someone, while not watching them? How do you watch someone, without keeping up with them? Makes no sense.....

reply to post by spacedog1973


A fight is when two people are duking it out. When only one person is doing the fighting, it is called assault and battery. Had george been in a fight, I think he would have done some damage to tray's face, don't you think?

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by spacedog1973

 

What? How do you follow someone, while not watching them? How do you watch someone, without keeping up with them? Makes no sense.....

No, you have shifted the conversation to meet you changed point. You stated that it was Neighbourhood watch JOB to follow. I said it was to WATCH.

Now you are saying that effectively, its the same thing. i.e is watch the same as follow since you can follow AND watch.

Its NOT the same thing. I can't make it clearer than that for you.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by spacedog1973

 

A fight is when two people are duking it out. When only one person is doing the fighting, it is called assault and battery. Had george been in a fight, I think he would have done some damage to tray's face, don't you think?

No. The loser of a fight is often obviously visually beaten. It depends on the skill of the winner and the lack of skill of the loser.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by spacedog1973

 

What? How do you follow someone, while not watching them?

Have daddy take you hunting and teach you how to follow things you cannot even see yet, let alone be watching.

How do you watch someone, without keeping up with them? Makes no sense.....

I watch people all the time that I am not following.

Are you special?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by conspiracy nut

 

Here are you ignoring the fact that he was in a gated community where people knew him. They would look out and say "Oh there is the neighborhood watch guy, watching the neighborhood!"

They would look out and say that would they?
Or would they say "There is that asshat George and I knew his gun was gonna get him in trouble. This is why we should have complained about him MORE."
or even
"There goes Judge Zimms son. He is retarded but armed so let's cross the street here and go behind the houses. Don't worry, he wont follow us."

I bet the tapes you have are stunning.

reply to post by spacedog1973


I think this is pointless. We obviously come from two totally different mindsets and cultures....
Neighborhood watch here, if someone is around looking out of place, we confront them head on and ask what they are doing in the area. If they can't give a good reason we tell them to hit the road, and then watch, AKA follow them to make sure they do leave.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with following someone suspicious. Had he gone home, it would have been the end of it. But he didn't head home.

reply to post by spacedog1973

I see. So you are claiming that on one hand, tray is a kid. On the other hand, he has the strength and speed to beat a grown man in a fight, while taking no damage as well?

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by spacedog1973

 

I think this is pointless. We obviously come from two totally different mindsets and cultures....
Neighborhood watch here, if someone is around looking out of place, we confront them head on and ask what they are doing in the area. If they can't give a good reason we tell them to hit the road, and then watch, AKA follow them to make sure they do leave.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with following someone suspicious. Had he gone home, it would have been the end of it. But he didn't head home.

You may well do that in your own Neighbourhod watch, but the Police define NW as' Eyes and Ears' not stalkers. So my mindset matches that of the police.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by spacedog1973

 

I see. So you are claiming that on one hand, tray is a kid. On the other hand, he has the strength and speed to beat a grown man in a fight, while taking no damage as well?

You can be a 4ft tall 12 year old or a 6ft tall twelve year old. You can be thin or fat, strong or weak. non adults come in all shapes and sizes, I'm sure you have noticed. What you need to grasp is that YOU ARE STILL A CHILD UNDER THE LAW.

reply to post by spacedog1973


He is not a child. He is smart enough to know that he should have continued home rather than the most probably situation where he hid and then jumped Zimmerman when he got near. I really don't think Zimmerman would start a physical fight where the other person would be within reach of his gun while having a gun. The most likely scenario is that Martin jumped him. There is no reason Zimmerman would come within reach of Martin. No reason at all.

Sorry, but common sense and the evidence suggests Martin jumped Zimmerman.

Fights usually start as follows;

Insults
Pushing and shoving
Someone throws the first punch
Both fall to the floor


Its not unusual for one person to walk away with heavy injuries and the other with hardly a scratch. Fights generally last a few moments.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by spacedog1973

 

He is not a child.

You disagree with the Law and at the same time argue by using the law? You can't pick and choose which parts of the law you like. Im not going to argue with you any more on this if you can't accept the law. Thats just infantile ironically.

reply to post by spacedog1973


He wasn't stalking him. He was "eyes and ears" how do you maintain visual contact without following them a bit? It is not likely that Zimmerman chased the kid down. He was jumped walking back to his SUV after losing the teen. When he lost the teen, the football playing 17 year old should have no problem making the 70 yard dash to his front door. He should have never been in sight let alone reach of Zimmerman again.

This is what you guys cannot answer.

reply to post by spacedog1973


The same as you. You claim he is a child in the eyes of the law yet disregard that seventeen year olds are often considered adults in the eyes of the law. They are treated that way because they are capable of knowing the difference between right and wrong. They should have enough of a mental capacity to know that if someone is after you you should get home rather than wait around/hide to confront/jump them, which is the most likely scenario.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by spacedog1973

 

He wasn't stalking him.

TM was found dead some distance from Zimmerman's car, so he was stalking him. He was following TM at a distance.

He was "eyes and ears" how do you maintain visual contact without following them a bit?

Normal eyesight allows you to do this.

It is not likely that Zimmerman chased the kid down. He was jumped walking back to his SUV after losing the teen.

No-one said that he chased him down. There is no reason for someone who was reported to have been running, to then turn around once he had lost his pursurer, and then attack. This makes no logical sense.

When he lost the teen, the football playing 17 year old

Now you sound seedy and tacky.

should have no problem making the 70 yard dash to his front door.

Again, makes no sense. If he was so fast, then he would have lost Zimmerman and been home before all of this.

This is what you guys cannot answer.

We answer, but you don't use your 'eyes and EARS', I guess you are too fixated on stalking to understand.

reply to post by spacedog1973


Following someone is not stalking, unless it is done repeatedly, and with ill intentions.