trayvan martin

doc111 · Jul 12, 2012

UncleBuck said:
in that case, he was totally right to stalk an innocent kid in the dark.

lol!

Is that what I said?

UncleBuck · Jul 12, 2012

doc111 said:
lol!

Is that what I said?

i just think it is retarded to try to excuse his actions before the scuffle and murder that night.

if you're going to give the OK to zimm's actions that night, you're going to have to defend me hopping in my car and slowly tailing people that are just walking around as well as me getting out my car and chasing them if they go where my car can't. but that's not all, i also get to go hunting after them once they've bolted. and remember, this is all within my rights, don't think you can call the cops on me for this type of stalking.

pure LOL.

afrawfraw · Jul 12, 2012

doc111 said:
It's my understanding that he wasn't on patrol, and had a permit to carry that weapon. He wasn't violating any terms of his neighborhood watch charter that I am aware of. I don't believe it says that members legally able to do so can't carry a weapon when not on duty.

If he wasn't on patrol, he really had no cause for his actions. Or do you believe I am within my rights to follow you armed, tail you on foot when you change coarse, and question you about your affairs, and shoot you when you lose your cool because I followed you and won't leave you alone, not because I'm on patrol, but because I can!? Oh my...

doc111 · Jul 12, 2012

UncleBuck said:
i just think it is retarded to try to excuse his actions before the scuffle and murder that night.

if you're going to give the OK to zimm's actions that night, you're going to have to defend me hopping in my car and slowly tailing people that are just walking around as well as me getting out my car and chasing them if they go where my car can't. but that's not all, i also get to go hunting after them once they've bolted. and remember, this is all within my rights, don't think you can call the cops on me for this type of stalking.

pure LOL.

If someone is acting suspiciously in YOUR neighborhood, which has had a string of burglaries, HELL YES you have the right to observe/follow! Let's not forget that this type of thing is always risky, so you do so at your own peril. Just because YOU aren't the type of individual who is concerned with the safety and security of YOUR OWN neighborhood, doesn't mean that there aren't others out there who are concerned and take an active role in trying to keep it safe. We are all different Buck.

afrawfraw said:
If he wasn't on patrol, he really had no cause for his actions. Or do you believe I am within my rights to follow you armed, tail you on foot when you change coarse, and question you about your affairs, and shoot you when you lose your cool because I followed you and won't leave you alone, not because I'm on patrol, but because I can!? Oh my...

Again, if I am acting suspiciously, I might argue that it is YOUR DUTY to follow me! Whether or not you are armed is a personal choice and subject to your local laws. Look, do I think Zimmerman fucked up? Yes I do! Does that mean I think that he is 100% to blame for this. No I do not! I cannot be certain of Zimm's actions or motives, just as I cannot be certain of Martin's. We shall see what the trial and evidence tells us.

Mindmelted · Jul 12, 2012

Now thats too sensible doc !!!!!

UncleBuck · Jul 12, 2012

doc111 said:
If someone is acting suspiciously in YOUR neighborhood, which has had a string of burglaries, HELL YES you have the right to observe/follow! Let's not forget that this type of thing is always risky, so you do so at your own peril. Just because YOU aren't the type of individual who is concerned with the safety and security of YOUR OWN neighborhood, doesn't mean that there aren't others out there who are concerned and take an active role in trying to keep it safe. We are all different Buck.

you've mistaken me for a guy without a shrink ray and/or someone who hasn't had their greenhouse robbed.

being concerned with the safety of your neighborhood does not include stalking people. neighbors complained that zimm followed them to their homes! reporting suspicious activity is one thing, stalking and chasing a kid is something completely different. self defense does not entail chasing and following someone.

NoDrama · Jul 12, 2012

afrawfraw said:
So if I approach you with a LaCoste shirt and a cane, I wouldn't raise your suspicion? Very odd, but good to know.

If all you are wearing is a shirt, then yes, you would raise my suspicion. Hell I might even walk up to you and demand to know what you are up to, what you gonna do? Try to bash my head into the sidewalk? LOL

cannabineer · Jul 12, 2012

doc111 said:
Nobody wants to be "judged" on appearance, but that's EXACTLY what the vast majority of us do: judge others on their appearance! I don't think it was just that he was "running in a hoodie in the dark" either. "Sketchy behavior" is easily recognizable by many people. That said, people often mistake peoples appearance and actions for something it isn't. It's unfortunate, but it happens, as apparently happened here.

I understand what you're saying, cannot refute it ... but I dislike and resist it. (<edit> In case of any ambiguity: the message. I'm not scolding the messenger.) I generally don't know if how I behave would be adjudicated sketchy or not. Especially in the dark. cn

desert dude · Jul 12, 2012

UncleBuck said:
the only thing i would exclude is zimm injuring himself to back his account, too many witnesses there too soon to be remotely possible in my judgment.

the part that i really doubt is that zimm was crying for help. he said he was being suffocated, which would preclude crying for help. and the cries for help just sound too agonizing to me. he had to know everyone heard those cries for help, so he has every reason to claim them as his own.

my best guess at what happened is that martin got away, kept talking on the phone. zimm follows him, stops to conclude his call with dispatch, then goes looking for martin again. finds martin again, martin asks "why are you following me?", zimm responds with "what are you doing here?" and tries to detain martin. a small scuffle ensues with martin landing a blow or two (the single scrape on martin's knuckle pretty much rules out the 25-30 haymakers zimm claims happened). zimm, after taking a hit or two, reaches for his gun and holds martin at gunpoint. martin starts screaming for help, and perhaps even makes a play for the gun (or zimm, in a state of over zealous hyper alert mode perceives that to happen). shot is fired, then we all know the rest from there.

that's all consistent with the evidence, the only speculation is after "what are you doing here?" until the shot is fired, a 1 minute or so period.

from what i've read, self defense cases hinge heavily on the judgment and the credibility of the person defending. zimm has neither going for him. his judgment that night was WAAAAAAAY off. he never thought to identify himself given multiple chances to do so. he admits he kept looking for martin after the call to dispatch was over. he straddled the kid after putting a bullet straight through his heart thinking he was a threat still. not good judgment. his credibility is zero at this point, he has so many different and wildly varying accounts of what happened.

anyhoo, should be interesting to watch the trial. we'll need a lot of popcorn.

If it wasn't Z screaming for help, then it had to be Martin. Martin was totally uninjured except for scraped knuckles. Given this, why would Martin scream for help? The conclusion that it was not Zimmerman screaming for help is absurd.

The problem with your scenario is that it is utter speculation. Is it reasonable to convict a person for a crime based on utter speculation? Utter speculation is not admissible in court so a jury, if it ever goes to trial, will never hear it.

I agree with the need for popcorn.

UncleBuck · Jul 12, 2012

desert dude said:
...why would Martin scream for help?

being held at gunpoint would be a good explanation.

desert dude said:
The conclusion that it was not Zimmerman screaming for help is absurd.

how exactly does one scream while being suffocated? dumbass.

desert dude · Jul 12, 2012

afrawfraw said:
If he wasn't on patrol, he really had no cause for his actions. Or do you believe I am within my rights to follow you armed, tail you on foot when you change coarse, and question you about your affairs, and shoot you when you lose your cool because I followed you and won't leave you alone, not because I'm on patrol, but because I can!? Oh my...

You are within your rights to follow me and question me about my affairs. I am within my rights to ignore you and proceed on my way, or to ask you what business is it of yours. I have no right to assault you for being an asshole. I have no right to bash your skull against the sidewalk, and if I do assault you and bash your skull against the sidewalk you have every right to defend yourself.

NoDrama · Jul 12, 2012

UncleBuck said:
while being suffocated? dumbass.

Suffocation is when you die from not being able to INHALE, screaming requires exhalation which is still possible while being choked. Try it sometime, just take both hands and squeeze under your adams apple for a while.

desert dude · Jul 12, 2012

UncleBuck said:
being held at gunpoint would be a good explanation.

how exactly does one scream while being suffocated? dumbass.

How long was Martin's hand over his mouth? When did Martin's hand clamp over his mouth? Did Martin clamp his hand over Z's mouth because Z was screaming for help? Nitwit.

doc111 · Jul 12, 2012

cannabineer said:
I understand what you're saying, cannot refute it ... but I dislike and resist it. (<edit> In case of any ambiguity: the message. I'm not scolding the messenger.) I generally don't know if how I behave would be adjudicated sketchy or not. Especially in the dark. cn

I dislike it too, but is fighting it a viable option? Is it even worth it? Perhaps for some, but it's not a battle I choose to fight, so I accept it and try to keep a clean cut, normal (if there is such a thing) appearance. I don't like being hassled by "the man" or being followed by overzealous neighborhood wathmen, so I CHOOSE to keep my appearance within established, acceptable norms. Like it or not, there are still those among us who believe that anyone with a tattoo is a biker or a convict. lol!

UncleBuck · Jul 12, 2012

desert dude said:
How long was Martin's hand over his mouth? When did Martin's hand clamp over his mouth? Did Martin clamp his hand over Z's mouth because Z was screaming for help? Nitwit.

if you listened to the interrogations, zimm answers those questions right before they play back the tape of the screams. it's how they end the interrogation. zimm's answers to your questions preclude those screams from being his. unless, of course, you can make an agonized scream while being suffocated.

uninformed douche.

desert dude · Jul 12, 2012

doc111 said:
I dislike it too, but is fighting it a viable option? Is it even worth it? Perhaps for some, but it's not a battle I choose to fight, so I accept it and try to keep a clean cut, normal (if there is such a thing) appearance. I don't like being hassled by "the man" or being followed by overzealous neighborhood wathmen, so I CHOOSE to keep my appearance within established, acceptable norms. Like it or not, there are still those among us who believe that anyone with a tattoo is a biker or a convict. lol!

If you see a guy with tattoos on his neck, or face, done in black ink, it is a pretty safe bet that the tattoo was done in prison. I agree with your overall point: if you don't want to be mistaken for a criminal/thug then don't go out of your way to look like one.

UncleBuck · Jul 12, 2012

desert dude said:
If you see a guy with tattoos on his neck, or face, done in black ink, it is a pretty safe bet that the tattoo was done in prison. I agree with your overall point: if you don't want to be mistaken for a criminal/thug then don't go out of your way to look like one.

just like it's always the girls fault for getting raped.

UncleBuck · Jul 12, 2012

Dr. Ben Dover said:
If Democrats told you Obama crapped gold bricks, you'd wipe his ass. Bootlicking cocksucker.

hi jack, how's the weather in tacoma today?

did you hear the joke about jesus? jesus got fucked in the ass by a hairy guy named raul. that's the whole joke. funny, eh?

cannabineer · Jul 12, 2012

doc111 said:
I dislike it too, but is fighting it a viable option? Is it even worth it? Perhaps for some, but it's not a battle I choose to fight, so I accept it and try to keep a clean cut, normal (if there is such a thing) appearance. I don't like being hassled by "the man" or being followed by overzealous neighborhood wathmen, so I CHOOSE to keep my appearance within established, acceptable norms. Like it or not, there are still those among us who believe that anyone with a tattoo is a biker or a convict. lol!

To me, a fight, with or without a known weapon in the mix, is strictly the final option, a marker of desperation. I could only see it invoked when all other avenues have been exhausted. Trayvon may have met this criterion, but Z definitely did not afaik.

lol ... in the 'Stan there is a surfeit of tats and Hogs ... and enough of a convict population to account for all of'em!! This region used to be the worlds Meth-ropolis. cn

cannabineer · Jul 12, 2012

Dr. Ben Dover said:
If lefties told you Obama crapped gold bricks with chocolate frosting, you'd lick his ass clean and look for more. Bootlicking cocksucker.

Look everybody ... !! Neal N. Blowme is back for some more lovin. cn

trayvan martin

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Ursus marijanus

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Ursus marijanus

Ursus marijanus