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

reply to post by Autumnal


Wrong. I have made arrests on people that were too drunk to walk straight, let alone drive.

Originally posted by Autumnal

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
reply to post by Autumnal

 

Do you have any comment on the verbiage of Florida's stand your ground statutes posted above that clearly and specifically allows use of force even by the initial aggressor if they either reasonably believes that they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm or trying to withdraw from physical contact?

Yup, you highlighted the wrong part and failed to put it into the context a court of law puts it in.
Hint: "retreat"

B.S. !

Either you are being purposely obtuse or you need to read it again.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Pinned on the ground screaming for help while somebody bashes your head into a concrete side-walk easily fulfils both criteria. This is in the worst possible scenario where Zimmerman is proven the aggressor for which there is no legally admissible evidence at this juncture.

Supposition and conjecture do not count.

Originally posted by Autumnal

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by conspiracy nut

 

You do not have to be a cop! You have this huge hangup in your brain, that seems to think you need a badge to prevent crime..... You do not have to have a badge, or piece of paper that tells you it is OK. Do what you can for your community, and your community will improve. Criminals are generally lazy, and will move to where people are cowards, and will not challenge their "superiority".

You do have to have a badge to arrest people to PREVENT a crime.

citizens arrest laws say otherwise. try again

reply to post by Hardstepah


Coward liberals would love it if we all believed we have no individual power. Coward liberals would love it if we didn't have the means to buy guns and defend ourselves. Coward liberals are brought up to believe that only the people that are cops, or PI, or whatever badge of authority can save us. A shame our schools teach such nonesense.

Originally posted by Hardstepah
no evidence to suggest trayvon attacked zimmerman?

ABSOLUTELY ZERO!

have you been paying attention to the same story as everybody else? you don't get beat up like GZ did without somebody attacking you.

What are you, retarded? Have you ever been in or even seen a fight? There is a winner and loser. Neither of those can tell you who started it.

I would love to see you try.

I will wait right here.

Originally posted by Hardstepah
so if he was paranoid he would have ran away? invalid argument, that would just prove that zimmerman wasn't a "paranoid racist" like you angry mob types like to hide behind.

That is not what I said. You skimmed my post and in your haste to respond you left out a really important detail.

if zimmerman was paranoid would that mean he would just go shoot somebody? if so, why would that mean trayvon wouldn't do the same thing?

You are making up an argument and trying to have it with me.

F#&^ this thread i'm out. too many people trying to dodge the blatant evidence to cling on to the "poor innocent 8th grader trayvon martin savagely hunted down and shot by the blood thirsty racist george zimmerman" THEORY (or made up bs speculation to put it bluntly).

have fun supporting the riots that happen when zim walks

Show me evidence Trayvon started the fight and I will leave the thread.

Originally posted by Hardstepah

Originally posted by Autumnal

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by conspiracy nut

 

You do not have to be a cop! You have this huge hangup in your brain, that seems to think you need a badge to prevent crime..... You do not have to have a badge, or piece of paper that tells you it is OK. Do what you can for your community, and your community will improve. Criminals are generally lazy, and will move to where people are cowards, and will not challenge their "superiority".

You do have to have a badge to arrest people to PREVENT a crime.

citizens arrest laws say otherwise. try again

Prove that.
I say you are wrong and not because you are a liar but because you do not know any better and you really really want to win this argument.
I am not concerned with winning anything. I am just concerned with facts.
No you cannot citizen arrest someone to prevent a crime.
Next time you call me wrong, prove it by simply posting a citizen arrest statute proving otherwise.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Autumnal

 

Wrong. I have made arrests on people that were too drunk to walk straight, let alone drive.

edit on Sun, 20 May 2012 21:09:40 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

Sure, ok.
For what crime and in what state?

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by Autumnal

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
reply to post by Autumnal

 

Do you have any comment on the verbiage of Florida's stand your ground statutes posted above that clearly and specifically allows use of force even by the initial aggressor if they either reasonably believes that they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm or trying to withdraw from physical contact?

Yup, you highlighted the wrong part and failed to put it into the context a court of law puts it in.
Hint: "retreat"

B.S. !

Either you are being purposely obtuse or you need to read it again.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Pinned on the ground screaming for help while somebody bashes your head into a concrete side-walk easily fulfils both criteria. This is in the worst possible scenario where Zimmerman is proven the aggressor for which there is no legally admissible evidence at this juncture.

Supposition and conjecture do not count.

Nope, you are still missing it. I cannot make you less blind. If I pursue you and the result is you beating my ass after I grabbed you, I am no longer standing my ground. Even the author of the bill agrees Zimmerman was not standing HIS ground. He had no reason to retreat but he also should not have followed. That was where he left "his ground."

Read it a couple of times. Then ask the guy who wrote it I guess.

Originally posted by Technique4Ever
reply to post by Hardstepah

 

Coward liberals would love it if we all believed we have no individual power. Coward liberals would love it if we didn't have the means to buy guns and defend ourselves. Coward liberals are brought up to believe that only the people that are cops, or PI, or whatever badge of authority can save us. A shame our schools teach such nonesense.

I have guns.
Where is your neighborhood so I can come protect it?

reply to post by conspiracy nut


It's hard not to resort to name calling when you insist on lying in every post. Again in this post you repeat the same lie. If you cannot debate without lying maybe you should reconsider your position. Also I have not really called anyone names, I have said you were a liar, but you have proven that true.


Zimmerman was never advised not to follow Trayvon. If that is the only thing you can harp on about you might as well get out of the thread because we all know better. Find something else to argue because you are lying, it has been pointed out to you over and over. It's hard for me to leave a thread knowing you remain here to lie to people after I am gone and mislead everyone reading the thread. You are exactly the opposite of what we need on a site that is supposed to deny ignorance. You both embrace and weild ignorance equally.

reply to post by Autumnal


You don't understand what evidence is.

The fact that Trayvon is the one that had damage on his knuckles and Zimmerman didn't. The fact that Zimmerman was beat up despite calling 9-11 and having a gun that he could use to avoid physical altercation. The fact that Zimmerman was beat up and Trayvon was not. The fact that Trayvon was witnessed on top of Zimmerman beating him up by several people.


That is evidence that Trayvon attacked him. It doesn't prove it 100 percent, but it is evidence. So read a dictionary, understand the definition and stop calling people retarded while you wallow in ignorance. Evidence and proof are not synonymous.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


It's intentional.

SYG does still apply to Zimmerman. Even if he originally looked for Martin, he wasn't looking for him to hurt him or attack him. When Trayvon put Zimmerman in a position where he had no means of escape and had to defend himself he had the right to shoot Martin under both self defense laws and SYG.

Martin would not have been covered under SYG because there is no evidence that he did everything in his power to avoid the confrontation.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Autumnal

 

You don't understand what evidence is.

The fact that Trayvon is the one that had damage on his knuckles and Zimmerman didn't.

Describe the damage and be specific. Do not make things up, either.

The fact that Zimmerman was beat up despite calling 9-11 and having a gun that he could use to avoid physical altercation.

He went after the kid despite calling 911 so apparently he was pretty stupid anyway. You are trying to apply your thoughts to that man and tell me it is what was going on. FAIL.

The fact that Zimmerman was beat up and Trayvon was not. The fact that Trayvon was witnessed on top of Zimmerman beating him up by several people.

So you know nothing about fights at all?


Why am I still waiting for evidence Martin STARTED the fight? At best you can make the case he was winning but you show nothing that tells me he started it.

That is evidence that Trayvon attacked him. It doesn't prove it 100 percent, but it is evidence. So read a dictionary, understand the definition and stop calling people retarded while you wallow in ignorance. Evidence and proof are not synonymous.

edit on 21-5-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

No you have no clue what you are talking about. I never called anyone retarded either. No, evidence and proof are not synonymous and neither are winning and starting.

I guess in your world if you lose a fight, you did not start it.
Not in my world.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

 

It's intentional.

SYG does still apply to Zimmerman. Even if he originally looked for Martin, he wasn't looking for him to hurt him or attack him. When Trayvon put Zimmerman in a position where he had no means of escape and had to defend himself he had the right to shoot Martin under both self defense laws and SYG.

Martin would not have been covered under SYG because there is no evidence that he did everything in his power to avoid the confrontation.

edit on 21-5-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

The author of the law is a real person with a real name and real credentials. You are a screen name on a conspiracy website.

Hmmm...who should I listen to about this topic...I wonder?

reply to post by Autumnal


Well.. me because I am right.

The author of the law is a politician that made his comments that it shouldn't protect people like Zimmerman when the media pressure and bias was at it's highest. He saw how the public was reacting and bowed to it because A.) he's a politician so he follows the people's hearts and B.) he wrote the law and saw it was being targeted.

I guarantee with the real evidence in hand and without people threatening to riot out of ignorance he would have never made those comments.

Sorry. I am right.

reply to post by Autumnal


Sorry.. you implied that someone might be retarded.

The damage was to trayvon's knuckles damage that happens when you punch someone. Obviously you have never been in a fight. Zimmerman followed only so he could keep tabs on Trayvon because he didn't want him to get away. He was trying to keep track of him so he could guide police to him obviously. He even mentions how they always get away. You guys are being intentionally dense. It must be awful to be so brainwashed that you start lying to yourself.

I probably shouldn't even have replied to your post because you made no ground. Everything I said previously still stands. There is evidence that Zimmerman was attacked by Trayvon. You were wrong and still are.

Originally posted by Autumnal

Originally posted by Hardstepah
no evidence to suggest trayvon attacked zimmerman?

ABSOLUTELY ZERO!

have you been paying attention to the same story as everybody else? you don't get beat up like GZ did without somebody attacking you.

What are you, retarded? Have you ever been in or even seen a fight? There is a winner and loser. Neither of those can tell you who started it.

I would love to see you try.

I will wait right here.

well obviously it isn't worth the time. you obviously have made up your mind and are trying to derail your flawed arguments. the evidence is clear that george zimmerman was attacked, that is not to say trayvon started it, just that trayvon most likely got the upper hand seeing that all that was wrong with trayvon was a bullet and some scraped knuckles.

oh and to elaborate, yes i have been in my fair share but then i grew up after high school. and i agree, there is a winner and loser, and had GZ not shot trayvon, he may have lost more than a fight. nice deflective tactics and name calling though, i applaud. that's what you angry mob types cling to when your argument is invalid.

ETA: also, show me evidence that zimmerman started it. prove god does/doesn't exist argument. nobody knows except GZ and trayvon

reply to post by Autumnal

Show me evidence Trayvon started the fight and I will leave the thread.

You dont understand how criminal justice works. We do not have to prove Trayvon started the fight. You have to prove Zimmerman started it (contrary to his claims of self-defense), otherwise he walks free. Innocent until proven guilty. Zimmerman is on trial, not Martin.

While there is some evidence that Martin started it, there is zero evidence Zimmerman started it.

btw. this is not even about stand your ground. Ordinary common self defense law would be enough to make Zimmerman innocent, assuming that he did not start the fight (since he could not escape from under Martin when he was beating his head on the pavement).

And I would argue that even if we assume that Zimmerman started the fight, once Martin had him incapacitated on the ground under him, he had not right to continue the beating, since it would be no longer self-defense at that point, but it becomes aggression. You do not have a right to use physical violence beyond the need to contain the threat, even in self-defense.