Hear 100% Truth About The Zimmerman Case

reply to post by NaturalDizaster

I have no penchant for violence whatsoever. Also having went a decade or more without being in a physical confrontation of any sort, I can say that a person following me and seeming to stalk me would be grounds for a verbal confrontation. That verbal confrontation would be anything but nice, I simply refuse to believe that if someone were targeting you for some kind of unknown visual reconnaissance, or your daughter, that, according to you, this deserves no action whatsoever.

I didn't say no action, I said physical.
I need to remind you that we weren't discussing a verbal confrontation, as can be seen from George Zimmerman's head injuries.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by NaturalDizaster

 

I have no penchant for violence whatsoever. Also having went a decade or more without being in a physical confrontation of any sort, I can say that a person following me and seeming to stalk me would be grounds for a verbal confrontation. That verbal confrontation would be anything but nice, I simply refuse to believe that if someone were targeting you for some kind of unknown visual reconnaissance, or your daughter, that, according to you, this deserves no action whatsoever.

I didn't say no action, I said physical.
I need to remind you that we weren't discussing a verbal confrontation, as can be seen from George Zimmerman's head injuries.

Really, a few scrapes on the back of your head, and a bloody lip are now grounds to blow the brains out the back of childrens skulls? Thats your argument? If, and if the law is on your side on this, may we see a swift end to this sick society.

reply to post by butcherguy

Is the person that they are speaking to a doctor? Since one should be a licensed surgeon to legally perform surgery. See, it isn't against the law to follow someone in public. So this isn't the best of analogies.

The dispatcher is versed in better Standard Operating Procedure than you or a random stranger, he is following a procedure, he is best bet you have at the moment.

Im sure in a situation where you are involved that might seem dangerous, dispatcher, a 3rd person, would give you a different alternative for your safety.

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by butcherguy

 

Is the person that they are speaking to a doctor? Since one should be a licensed surgeon to legally perform surgery. See, it isn't against the law to follow someone in public. So this isn't the best of analogies.

The dispatcher is versed in better Standard Operating Procedure than you or a random stranger, he is following a procedure, he is best bet you have at the moment.

Im sure in a situation where you are involved that might seem dangerous, dispatcher, a 3rd person, would give you a different alternative for your safety.

You have proof that he followed Trayvon after being given this advice?
Zimmerman says he didn't. Even if he did, it wasn't breaking a law.

reply to post by NaturalDizaster

Really, a few scrapes on the back of your head, and a bloody lip are now grounds to blow the brains out the back of childrens skulls? Thats your argument? If, and if the law is on your side on this, may we see a swift end to this sick society.

Another inaccuracy.
He wasn't shot in the head. The wound was to his chest.

But don't listen to me with my facts, I am just a 'drama queen'. Read the news instead.
Businessweek

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by NaturalDizaster

 

Really, a few scrapes on the back of your head, and a bloody lip are now grounds to blow the brains out the back of childrens skulls? Thats your argument? If, and if the law is on your side on this, may we see a swift end to this sick society.

Another inaccuracy.
He wasn't shot in the head. The wound was to his chest.
Businessweek

edit on 25-6-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

That was an example. Do you think there is that much of a difference between shooting to kill? I mean a chest shot and a head shot are, for all intents and purposes, mostly fatal, and intended to be. If Mr. Zimmerman can blow the heart out of a kids chest because of a few scrapes to the back of his head and a bloodied lip, (I've had worse injuries in a few sports and activities I partake in) then what's to say the next young, thug punk doesn't derserve to be blown away for slapping a stalker silly.

I'm also glad you played semantics with Trayvons' fatal injuries. Most assuredly you could not even begin to attack what I said about Zimmermans minor scrapes.

reply to post by NaturalDizaster

blown away for slapping a stalker silly.

More inaccuracies.
George Zimmerman was not a stalker.
The legal definition of stalking:

Criminal activity consisting of the repeated following and harassing of another person.

Source

That night was the first time they had met. So no, George Zimmerman wasn't stalking.

reply to post by NaturalDizaster


While I dont necessarily disagree with you, a thread with "100% truth" in th title, which then opens with "lets postulate" leaves a bit to be desired...

reply to post by butcherguy


Another battle of semantics, which you are so fond of throwing up...I stand corrected. How about "for slapping any goofball who thinks its a good idea to follow strangers around in the street". Anyone who gets in a fight with a creepy stranger, deserves to be fatally shot in the chest. There, not only clarification on my prior post, but there's your whole argument in a nutshell.

I've yet to hear you or anyone else address what I said about non-lethal weapons, you know the hundreds, if not thousands of them for sale? Sour ce

Now here's my argument. It takes one sick, whacked out disgusting animal to pull out a loaded firearm and shoot a child fatally with it, because you were getting beat in a fistfight. Someone who wanted to kill was following Trayvon around that night, (why would he have only a loaded firearm on him, why don't people like Zimmerman also carry Pepper Spray or Tazers) Why couldn't Mr Zimmerman, after receiving frivolous wounds, disable his attacker through non-lethal means. He (nor any coward who depends on a gun for their sole means of defense) didn't want to. He wanted to shoot any possible criminal he came in contact with, that led to physical confrontation, dead. He wanted to shoot someone dead because he had a loaded firearm on him and didn't carry non-lethal weapons and had zero combative training. He used his loaded firearm to kill an un-armed child during a fist fight.

To me its a clear cut case of premeditated murder. He followed the victim with a deadly weapon, and as soon as the opportunity presented itself, he "got him one"

I cannot think of one reason why anyone would follow a stranger around at night, with a loaded and deady weapon, unless you were plotting a murder. From my worldview and perspective this would be the only possible reason for following someone around at night with a loaded firearm on me. I suppose that so many good neighborhood watchmen are taken out by teenage hoodlums, that if your going to confront these deadly types, you better be packin


Shooting teenage kids cause you got your poor little feelings hurt, and received superficial scrapes to the back of the head and a bloody lip. Thats what I see so far with the evidence presented.

There was more chance of Trayvon taking ZImmermans lunch money then him killing an adult with his bare hands.

Personally, I think he should go down for this. He violated the "spirit" of the Stand Your Ground defense, when he pursued the kid.

However, legally, I think he's going to get off. Some of the key evidence has already been thrown out (and rightfully so, as it was mostly a matter of opinion).... Without it, it becomes a he said/she said, and in those cases, usually the shadow of doubt wins out.

So, when he DOES get off, that's when the real issue starts...because there will be riots, some, somewhere....just like after Rodney King (which WAS justified, by the way, he was resisting arrest and seemingly immune to other pacification techniques).

reply to post by NaturalDizaster

Anyone who gets in a fight with a creepy stranger, deserves to be fatally shot in the chest.

If your point is that it was wrong for Trayvon Martin to go to fisticuffs over words, or how someone looks, then I agree with you.

It isn't semantics when you get a legal term WRONG and I point it out to you.

No semantics here.... Do you have proof of any violations of LAW by George Zimmerman on the night that he shot Trayvon Martin?
So far, you have been throwing a lot of inaccurate comments out there, and that is about it.

a bloody lip

His lip wasn't bloodied, that is blood that ran from his nose. His nose was swollen, and it has been reported that it was broken.
People die from punches to the head. If I must do a google search for you, I will... just let me know.

reply to post by butcherguy


So in your little close minded world.

Zimmerman was just walking around, the this thug wanna-be jumped Zimmerman(for no reason, he just liked to jump people) and Zimmerman, like a hero, defended him by shooting the little thug?

Why would TM even show any hostility toward Zimmerman? unless you a kinda of guy that will let a person with gun follow you around.

So in conclusion, a random black kid, probably a thug and a "snooper", because black people are, probably didn't belong in a good neighborhood, cause black people can't afford to, decided to jump Zimmerman who was minding his own business, and died?

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by butcherguy

 

So in your little close minded world.

Zimmerman was just walking around, the this thug wanna-be jumped Zimmerman(for no reason, he just liked to jump people) and Zimmerman, like a hero, defended him by shooting the little thug?

Why would TM even show any hostility toward Zimmerman? unless you a kinda of guy that will let a person with gun follow you around.

So in conclusion, a random black kid, probably a thug and a "snooper", because black people are, probably didn't belong in a good neighborhood, cause black people can't afford to, decided to jump Zimmerman who was minding his own business, and died?

You are apparently the one with the closed mind.

Saying that black people don't belong in a good neighborhood ( I understand that you are either attributing this line of thinking to myself or Zimmerman). There are black people living in that neighborhood. Did Zimmerman kill them too? Did he exhibit hostility towards them? Did he burn crosses in their yard?

reply to post by butcherguy


He obviously saw a stranger and assumed all the stereotypes about him. TM would not have done anything if Zimmerman didn't present to TM as hostile.

Zimmerman could have been another guy on the street if he didn't do what he did(whatever he did) to anger TM.

reply to post by luciddream

TM would not have done anything if Zimmerman didn't present to TM as hostile.

How can you possibly know that?
Really.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by luciddream

 

TM would not have done anything if Zimmerman didn't present to TM as hostile.

How can you possibly know that?
Really.

So that means you are saying TM just jumped Zimmerman for no reason? just out of the blue?

Out of all the people on the street, he coincidentally jumped the guy who called the police to report on him.

Originally posted by luciddream

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by luciddream

 

TM would not have done anything if Zimmerman didn't present to TM as hostile.

How can you possibly know that?
Really.

So that means you are saying TM just jumped Zimmerman for no reason? just out of the blue?

Out of all the people on the street, he coincidentally jumped the guy who called the police to report on him.

That's what Zimmerman says.
Maybe Trayvon was going to rob him. There are loads of possibilities.
People have been known to do irrational things. Are you going to deny that?

reply to post by butcherguy

Are you going to deny that?

Im 100% going to deny that!

He sees, Follows, calls Police. Get jumped by the guy he Saw, Followed and complained about and your are saying there is no connection at all.

Wow this is taking his side to the ultimate extreme.

reply to post by luciddream

My question was if you were going to deny that people do irrational things.

You know, like run away when you have done nothing wrong.

reply to post by luciddream

He sees, Follows, calls Police. Get jumped by the guy he Saw, Followed and complained about

Even if this is the situation (which it most likely is from the evidence and statements)...it still doesn't show Zimmerman breaking the law. What it DOES do (in my opinion) is negate the whole "Stand Your Ground" claim going by the "spirit" of the law. However, by the letter of the law, Zimmerman's own injuries could be easily used to argue he feared for his life, and was justified in shooting Martin. And THIS is how I think he's going to be acquitted. Do I think it's morally correct? No. But it is what is likely going to happen legally, due to the way the law is worded and vague.

I mean, there's a guy in Texas who just got acquitted for shooting a prostitute after she tried to leave with his money and no sex. By the letter of the law, he was justified (as you can use lethal force to recover property stolen under certain conditions), but his actions did violate the "spirit" of the law, and why it was in force.