trayvan martin

Harrekin said:

This whole thing just proves Obama is a racist, did noone else notice his use of the "all black people look the same" stereotype with his little "If I had a son, hed look like Trevyon" ditty?

Click to expand...

I wish there was a love button for this.

Harrekin said:

This whole thing just proves Obama is a racist, did noone else notice his use of the "all black people look the same" stereotype with his little "If I had a son, hed look like Trevyon" ditty?

Click to expand...

Aren't you glad this sort of shit doesn't go on in your country? Just curious, has this made headline news over there?

Canna Sylvan said:

Aren't you glad this sort of shit doesn't go on in your country? Just curious, has this made headline news over there?

Click to expand...

Not headline news, but it was buried in the "International News" part of the newspapers/tv news for a day or two.

Over here the criminals shoot the criminals, that's it.

cliffey501 said:

Zimmerman didnt have to flee.The threat didnt start until zimmerman was on his back getting owned and you think size has anything to do with it? Tell that to roy jones jr.

Click to expand...

Actually, we don't know when the actual threat started, that's the point. Zimmerman may have assaulted Trayvan, got in trouble and resorted to the firearm out of fear. If he did, legally he's screwed. I'm not saying your wrong either, I'm just saying we don't know at this point.

cliffey501 said:

Zimmerman didnt have to flee.The threat didnt start until zimmerman was on his back getting owned and you think size has anything to do with it? Tell that to roy jones jr.

Click to expand...

first of all, you have no evidence that "zimmerman was on his back getting owned".

do you understand how physics work? a gunshot from someone on his back into the chest of the person above you at close range leaves blood on the shirt of the person below.

and yes, he did have to flea. he initially provoked the incident, and therefore has to exhaust all possible options for escape.

derp dee der.

MuyLocoNC said:

Actually, we don't know when the actual threat started, that's the point. Zimmerman may have assaulted Trayvan, got in trouble and resorted to the firearm out of fear. If he did, legally he's screwed. I'm not saying your wrong either, I'm just saying we don't know at this point.

Click to expand...

This is very true.Good point.

UncleBuck said:

first of all, you have no evidence that "zimmerman was on his back getting owned".

do you understand how physics work? a gunshot from someone on his back into the chest of the person above you at close range leaves blood on the shirt of the person below.

and yes, he did have to flea. he initially provoked the incident, and therefore has to exhaust all possible options for escape.

derp dee der.

Click to expand...

i should also mention that the person whose house this happened in front of heard the gunshot, immediately went to the window, and witnessed zimmerman on top of martin, straddling him.

boy, that's some quick turnaround time for someone who was just "on his back getting owned" and without a single blood stain on his shirt.

lulz.

for your edification, the police tried to alter her statements. you know, to make sure their story was "right".

I'm thinking World War 3 would be kinder than this thread. It would also be over much quicker too.

UncleBuck said:

first of all, you have no evidence that "zimmerman was on his back getting owned".

do you understand how physics work? a gunshot from someone on his back into the chest of the person above you at close range leaves blood on the shirt of the person below.

and yes, he did have to flea. he initially provoked the incident, and therefore has to exhaust all possible options for escape.

derp dee der.

Click to expand...

Theres no way of knowing how their bodies were position in relation to each other.John didnt see the actual shot or what started the confrontation only zimmerman on the bottom and martin on top punching.

Canna Sylvan said:

I'm thinking World War 3 would be kinder than this thread. It would also be over much quicker too.

Click to expand...

yeah, probably.

it was pretty mellow in here until NLXSK and desertdude showed up and injected race into the whole thing.

UncleBuck said:

and yes, he did have to flea. he initially provoked the incident, and therefore has to exhaust all possible options for escape.

derp dee der.

Click to expand...

I corrected Cliff for his error, gotta do the same here. Initiating conversation and approaching someone for that purpose is not provocation, it's just not. He was well within his rights to approach him and speak to him and he didn't surrender his right to self defense by doing so. That's exactly why he's still walking the streets at this moment. If your interpretation of the situation is accurate, the police would have no choice but to arrest him, even if they didn't want to. Whatever happened after that verbal exchange will be the determination of what "legally" determines the case. You may disagree and I may as well, but at this point the "legal" conclusion is all that matters.

Canna Sylvan said:

Nothing to worry about, it's just Unclebuck being schizophrenic again and talking to himself.

Click to expand...

i don't like to add substantial content via an edit.

MuyLocoNC said:

I corrected Cliff for his error, gotta do the same here. Initiating conversation and approaching someone for that purpose is not provocation, it's just not.

Click to expand...

jesus christ.

he wasn't approaching him to bandy about the weather, he pursued him.

MuyLocoNC said:

He was well within his rights to approach him and speak to him and he didn't surrender his right to self defense by doing so.

Click to expand...

yes, he did.

read the law.

if you are the aggressor, the one who "initially provoked" the incident, you are only covered by two exceptions.

if zimmerman sat tight and waited for the cops, trayvon would have lived to eat his skittles. but instead, he provoked the incident.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

UncleBuck said:

contradictory statements are contradictory.

dumbass.

Click to expand...

Your worse than the media taking my statements out of context like that.Let me dumb this down abit, John(the witness you believe to be non credible or non existant) heard screaming outside.He look out his window to see trayvon martin on top of zimmermen beating him.He went outside and told them to stop and he was calling 911.We he went inside he heard the shot and look out the window and seen trayvon face down in the grass.

here are Johns exact words

cliffey501 said:

Your worse than the media taking my statements out of context like that.Let me dumb this down abit, John(the witness you believe to be non credible or non existant) heard screaming outside.He look out his window to see trayvon martin on top of zimmermen beating him.He went outside and told them to stop and he was calling 911.We he went inside he heard the shot and look out the window and seen trayvon face down in the grass.

here are Johns exact words

"The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: 'help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911," the anonymous witness said.Zimmerman was wearing a red sweater that day."When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point," he said.


​

Click to expand...

lol.

a witness who has no idea what was happening right before the shooting took place. how perfectly worthless.

remember, gravity means that blood falls down. no blood on zimmerman's shirt? no shirt at all? no evidence of a bloody nose?

how perfectly lol.

cops trying to alter statements of witnesses who say zimmerman on top of martin immediately after the shooting? ignore it.

another witness (only 13) who says he thought it was trayvon who was screaming for help? ignore it.

seems legit.

UncleBuck said:

jesus christ.

he wasn't approaching him to bandy about the weather, he pursued him.

Click to expand...

I've seen nothing that proves he didn't simply ask him for some of his skittles. I understand your point, but you're wrong on this one UB. Approach (pursuit as you put it) and speech do not negate your right to self defense.

yes, he did.

read the law.

if you are the aggressor, the one who "initially provoked" the incident, you are only covered by two exceptions.

if zimmerman sat tight and waited for the cops, trayvon would have lived to eat his skittles. but instead, he provoked the incident.

Click to expand...

I understand your point and your consistent error is in the conclusion that the provocation and aggression began when he "approached and spoke" to Trayvan. You're flat wrong. Approach and speech is neither provocation nor aggression. If the tables were turned and Zimmerman wasn't armed and had been killed and we found out all he did was approach and speak to Trayvan, then it would be Trayvan going to jail.

UncleBuck said:

lol.

a witness who has no idea what was happening right before the shooting took place. how perfectly worthless.

remember, gravity means that blood falls down. no blood on zimmerman's shirt? no shirt at all? no evidence of a bloody nose?

how perfectly lol.

cops trying to alter statements of witnesses who say zimmerman on top of martin immediately after the shooting? ignore it.

another witness (only 13) who says he thought it was trayvon who was screaming for help? ignore it.

seems legit.

Click to expand...

Yeah, if the defense is going to argue he shot him while he was on top of him and there was no blood on his clothing, I doubt it will hold up in court. Seems way too unrealistic.

MuyLocoNC said:

IApproach (pursuit as you put it) and speech do not negate your right to self defense.

Click to expand...

in this case, they do.

if you are the agressor, the one who initially provokes the situation, you only have two (very narrow outs). they guy who signed the law says this.

Also notice on the 911 call, they told Zim they didn't need him to pursue him. They did not tell him he could not approach and they did not forbid him from doing so. He was within his rights to approach and speak to Trayvan. If he threatened him, touched him or assaulted him, then and ONLY then does aggression and provocation begin. That's why he's walking right now, because they cant PROVE what happened yet. Especially, since Zim is the only one that can say what happened.

MuyLocoNC said:

Also notice on the 911 call, they told Zim they didn't need him to pursue him. They did not tell him he could not approach and they did not forbid him from doing so. He was within his rights to approach and speak to Trayvan.

Click to expand...

agreed.

but they gave him good advice. by ignoring it, zimmerman was no longer "standing his ground".

the justifiable use of force statute makes it very clear.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who1) 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: