Trayvon and the media
Options
Replies
-
I really wish people would stop referring to Trayvon as a kid! He wasn't a child, he was 17, months away from being able to vote. Not to mention in size, much larger than the man who shot him. If indeed evidence proves that yravon was beating the crap out of Zimmerman when he was shot will you all chagne you minds about him being murdered in "cold blood'?
He's a kid. Being close to 18 doesn't change things. I can't really tell the court "Your honor she was CLOSE to 18!"
Also Zimmerman had about 100lbs on Trayvon. Travyon's nickname was Slimm because he was so scrawny.Now as stated before, evidence will prove where the gun was when it was fired and show who was struggling with who. Some reports are saying that Trayvon was on top of and beating Zimmerman. Evidence and balistics will prove that in time.
I think it is sick that Zimmerman has been hung with no trial. He is in hiding for hi slife, cannot see his family and has groups such as the black panthers with a price tag on his head.
What happened to guilty until proven innocent?
Other way around but yes in the eyes of the court Mr. Zimmerman is absolutely innocent until proven guilty. The court of public opinion is another matter, and that's all this little debate is.
But when a 17 year old commits an act, they are mature enough to be tried as adult. Hell, even 15 and 16 years olds are mature enough to be tried as adults.
what did this 17 year old dO? if the stand your ground law was in tact which it was, trayvon had the right to fight, if that was even the case, to defend himself if he felt he was in danger but then zimmerman feels that he can shoot and kill him when he was told he was not needed to follow him? zimmerman went against the dispatcher and followed that boy, yes a boy who was 17 and not a man or an adult, regardless of his race or anything else an innocent boy who was not harming zimmerman but who was in fact covering his head with his hoodie from the rain was trying to get HOME when approached, and eventually KILLED.. you support that? you need help!0 -
This is like OJ all over again, the american public, compeletly fueled my media hysteria is jumping to conclusions based on skin color. No one knows what happened for sure. Witnesses say that Trayvon had Zimm on the ground and was beating the piss out of him. I think a clearer picture will emerge since it is probable that the FBI is doing a deconstruction of the audio that was recorded of the scuffle. MY thougts on it are this.
If indeed, Zimmerman approached Martin, asked him what he was doing, or even if he used a racial slur, he is guilty of nothing more than bad character and judgement. These are not punishable offenses under the law. If Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon initially, then he is responsible for murder because starting a fight, and escalating to deadly force in my book is murder.
If on the other hand all Ziimmerman did was ask the kid what he was doing, Trayvon had no right to punch him, kick him, or slam his head into the ground. In that case, I think you should be allowed to blow his head off.
Everything else is media fluff. Who cares if the kid had skittle and ice tea. And it's hilarious that when I heard the description about how some white guy killed a black kid on the radio, when I get home, I see the shooter to be a half white/ half Peruvian dude who looks like a mexican. The sensationalism of this is killing me. And now we have mobs of people on both sides defending both the shooter and the shootee based not on the facts, but on the emotional drama the media has forced on us.
wow, blow his head off huh?
zimmerman looks white to me, just as white as he is mexican..
hilarious to you huh?0 -
This is like OJ all over again, the american public, compeletly fueled my media hysteria is jumping to conclusions based on skin color. No one knows what happened for sure. Witnesses say that Trayvon had Zimm on the ground and was beating the piss out of him. I think a clearer picture will emerge since it is probable that the FBI is doing a deconstruction of the audio that was recorded of the scuffle. MY thougts on it are this.
If indeed, Zimmerman approached Martin, asked him what he was doing, or even if he used a racial slur, he is guilty of nothing more than bad character and judgement. These are not punishable offenses under the law. If Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon initially, then he is responsible for murder because starting a fight, and escalating to deadly force in my book is murder.
If on the other hand all Ziimmerman did was ask the kid what he was doing, Trayvon had no right to punch him, kick him, or slam his head into the ground. In that case, I think you should be allowed to blow his head off.
Everything else is media fluff. Who cares if the kid had skittle and ice tea. And it's hilarious that when I heard the description about how some white guy killed a black kid on the radio, when I get home, I see the shooter to be a half white/ half Peruvian dude who looks like a mexican. The sensationalism of this is killing me. And now we have mobs of people on both sides defending both the shooter and the shootee based not on the facts, but on the emotional drama the media has forced on us.
wow, blow his head off huh?
zimmerman looks white to me, just as white as he is mexican..
hilarious to you huh?
Yup, no one has a right to attack another human being. I stand by what I said, if Zimmerman started it, he's a murderer. If Martin started it, Zimmerman defended himself. Legally, there might be reprecussions like a reckless endangerment charge or such that Zimmerman could face IMO, but if Martin attacked him, it was not murder. But I am also curious as to why it seems to some that owning a firearm gives a person MORE rights than the average citizen. Didn't Martin have the right to "Stand his Ground"?
And no, Zimmerman really doesn't look white to me. He looks more like a dirty, bloated Ricky Ricardo. But if you think I am making this about race...I am not. Doesn't matter what color these people skin is, but you can see a slant by both sides of the media based on skin color, and I dare say you can see bias in these debates based on skin color as well. I think a lot of people think that they are not racist because they don't use racial slurs and that is not the case.0 -
No, shooting someone does not automatically make you a cold blooded murderer. I know a few thousand veterans that would agree with that statement so be very cautious of your broad sweeping generalizations. Neither does the age of the victim.He was acting in his volunteer capacity has neighborhood watch captain/leader. I know that official neighborhood watch programs disapprove of the things George did but that is not the case. Its was not a registered group. Regardless Just because he was operating outside of protocol and he followed him. DOES NOT make him a cold blooded murderer.
Nope the fact he shot an unarmed 17 year old kid makes him a cold blooded murdererIf indeed evidence proves that yravon was beating the crap out of Zimmerman when he was shot will you all chagne you minds about him being murdered in "cold blood'?
There is footage of Zimmerman walking into the police station that night. There are no visas bruises. No signs of blood. (on a light shirt) His shirt appears clean. So he wasn't defending himself.I think it is sick that Zimmerman has been hung with no trial. He is in hiding for hi slife, cannot see his family and has groups such as the black panthers with a price tag on his head.
Blame the police for that. By them not doing their job they failed Zimmerman and they failed Trayvon.Thu 03/29/12 08:06 AM
Um I see this is the wrong group for me so I will politely exit...because this ain't debate..its hate
Yup. I'm in tears reading the racists in this topic.
Im glad you are willing to accept grainy security video from 4-6 hours after the injuries occurred as solid proof.
Please quote the racists comments, with your brief explanation of why you feel that it is discriminatory towards someone of another race, so that I can report them to a mod.
Dont make accusations you cant corroborate
I know a few thousand veterans myself...I'm one of them. I don't recall ever shooting unarmed teenagers in Iraq. If we did, we would be subject to a military court martial.0 -
Yup, no one has a right to attack another human being. I stand by what I said, if Zimmerman started it, he's a murderer. If Martin started it, Zimmerman defended himself. Legally, there might be reprecussions like a reckless endangerment charge or such that Zimmerman could face IMO, but if Martin attacked him, it was not murder. But I am also curious as to why it seems to some that owning a firearm gives a person MORE rights than the average citizen. Didn't Martin have the right to "Stand his Ground"?
And no, Zimmerman really doesn't look white to me. He looks more like a dirty, bloated Ricky Ricardo. But if you think I am making this about race...I am not. Doesn't matter what color these people skin is, but you can see a slant by both sides of the media based on skin color, and I dare say you can see bias in these debates based on skin color as well. I think a lot of people think that they are not racist because they don't use racial slurs and that is not the case.
You make a good argument, but I still contend that even if Martin made first physical contact, Zimmerman is still the aggressor and culpable. Zimmerman purposefully pursued Martin in a hostile manner. I say hostile because he pursued him with a gun and with the attitude that he would not get away. Whether or not you believe his statements of they always get away and F***ing "whatever" ( I think it sounded like thugs) were racially motivated or not, it can be argued that it demonstrates hostility and intent. It is not a far reach that that was also conveyed by his demeanor. Just from the facts that are known, I feel it is enough to arrest, charge, and continue the legal process. And I cannot imagine any other fact being revealed that could change my mind. Martin wouldn't have died that night in that manner if Zimmerman did not pursue him with a gun.
As far as him being white, the police thought he was white, that is what they put on the police report. And who knows what Zimmerman considers himself. But you can have and act with racial prejudice even as a "non white".
People get charged with vehicular manslaughter for pure accidents. I think it is crazy that a law exists that could make it possible that someone could be killed due to poor judgement and decision making and not have to be held accountable.
Why is he not arrested? I know the state attorney has it now, but why no arrest? Even if charges were later dropped, why no arrest?0 -
Yup, no one has a right to attack another human being. I stand by what I said, if Zimmerman started it, he's a murderer. If Martin started it, Zimmerman defended himself. Legally, there might be reprecussions like a reckless endangerment charge or such that Zimmerman could face IMO, but if Martin attacked him, it was not murder. But I am also curious as to why it seems to some that owning a firearm gives a person MORE rights than the average citizen. Didn't Martin have the right to "Stand his Ground"?
And no, Zimmerman really doesn't look white to me. He looks more like a dirty, bloated Ricky Ricardo. But if you think I am making this about race...I am not. Doesn't matter what color these people skin is, but you can see a slant by both sides of the media based on skin color, and I dare say you can see bias in these debates based on skin color as well. I think a lot of people think that they are not racist because they don't use racial slurs and that is not the case.
You make a good argument, but I still contend that even if Martin made first physical contact, Zimmerman is still the aggressor and culpable. Zimmerman purposefully pursued Martin in a hostile manner. I say hostile because he pursued him with a gun and with the attitude that he would not get away. Whether or not you believe his statements of they always get away and F***ing "whatever" ( I think it sounded like thugs) were racially motivated or not, it can be argued that it demonstrates hostility and intent. It is not a far reach that that was also conveyed by his demeanor. Just from the facts that are known, I feel it is enough to arrest, charge, and continue the legal process. And I cannot imagine any other fact being revealed that could change my mind. Martin wouldn't have died that night in that manner if Zimmerman did not pursue him with a gun.
As far as him being white, the police thought he was white, that is what they put on the police report. And who knows what Zimmerman considers himself. But you can have and act with racial prejudice even as a "non white".
People get charged with vehicular manslaughter for pure accidents. I think it is crazy that a law exists that could make it possible that someone could be killed due to poor judgement and decision making and not have to be held accountable.
Why is he not arrested? I know the state attorney has it now, but why no arrest? Even if charges were later dropped, why no arrest?
I think we are mostly in agreement. But to be clear, I am not saying that in this case, no matter what fruit this investigation bears, that Zimmerman is not some how to be held accountable. I am just making the case that it is not murder. The problem with this whole thing is the uncertainty of it all and the lack of intial, thorough invetigation by the police. I think I said this before, but to reiterate, no matter what Zimmerman said unless it was a verbal threat, it wouldn't be legal to attack him. It all comes down to who the physical aggressor was. If it is the case that Martin threw the first punch, it's tragic, but we need to teach our children ( and he still was a child legally) that violence in any other way other than defense can end tragically.0 -
I think we are mostly in agreement. But to be clear, I am not saying that in this case, no matter what fruit this investigation bears, that Zimmerman is not some how to be held accountable. I am just making the case that it is not murder. The problem with this whole thing is the uncertainty of it all and the lack of intial, thorough invetigation by the police. I think I said this before, but to reiterate, no matter what Zimmerman said unless it was a verbal threat, it wouldn't be legal to attack him. It all comes down to who the physical aggressor was. If it is the case that Martin threw the first punch, it's tragic, but we need to teach our children ( and he still was a child legally) that violence in any other way other than defense can end tragically.
I got you, I understand what you are saying. And I do think we mostly agree. The only point of contention is that I believe Zimmerman would be the aggressor, regardless. Oh and I believe he could legally be charged with second degree murder, but I don't know if they would be able to get a conviction without a super tight case. There are so any little scenarios that could have gone down In tht last minute. Like did Zimmerman purposefully or accidentally flash his gun before the altercation began, stuff we will probably never know. But still, in my opinion, it doesn't matter, I still see him as the aggressor. I suspect he will indeed get arrested and charged with something.and I foresee both sides arguing stand your ground. What an incredibly badly written/ implemented law. Any law tha gives permission to kill should not be so dependent on subjective feelings and interpretations.0 -
I think we are mostly in agreement. But to be clear, I am not saying that in this case, no matter what fruit this investigation bears, that Zimmerman is not some how to be held accountable. I am just making the case that it is not murder. The problem with this whole thing is the uncertainty of it all and the lack of intial, thorough invetigation by the police. I think I said this before, but to reiterate, no matter what Zimmerman said unless it was a verbal threat, it wouldn't be legal to attack him. It all comes down to who the physical aggressor was. If it is the case that Martin threw the first punch, it's tragic, but we need to teach our children ( and he still was a child legally) that violence in any other way other than defense can end tragically.
I got you, I understand what you are saying. And I do think we mostly agree. The only point of contention is that I believe Zimmerman would be the aggressor, regardless. Oh and I believe he could legally be charged with second degree murder, but I don't know if they would be able to get a conviction without a super tight case. There are so any little scenarios that could have gone down In tht last minute. Like did Zimmerman purposefully or accidentally flash his gun before the altercation began, stuff we will probably never know. But still, in my opinion, it doesn't matter, I still see him as the aggressor. I suspect he will indeed get arrested and charged with something.and I foresee both sides arguing stand your ground. What an incredibly badly written/ implemented law. Any law tha gives permission to kill should not be so dependent on subjective feelings and interpretations.
I also agree there should be some kind of punishment, but I am not sure the lack of judgement he showed rises to a murder case (if he was attacked). But common sense dictates that if you are not a police officer and you run down a person during the night dressed in a track suit while carrying a pistol....things just might go badly. The burden of proof in a self defense case is always on the defender, especially when
A: not on your own property
B: other person is not armed0 -
I also agree there should be some kind of punishment, but I am not sure the lack of judgement he showed rises to a murder case (if he was attacked). But common sense dictates that if you are not a police officer and you run down a person during the night dressed in a track suit while carrying a pistol....things just might go badly. The burden of proof in a self defense case is always on the defender, especially when
A: not on your own property
B: other person is not armed
Agreed, but still think he is the attacker even if Martin laid hands on him first, and unless there is a witness that saw that, all we would have is Zimmerman's word which is not evidence. Are you allowed to strike first if someone else is coming at you aggressively and you feel they will strike you? If someone swings after you and miss, then you hit them? Who attacked whom? Of ourselves not saying any of this happened, just arguing that zimmerman is the attacker in my eyes because he pursued the kid in a hostile manner (explained ht I meant by that earlier)
And second degree murder is definitely a possible charge, but again, the prosecutor is likely to choose the charge they feel they can convict with, and if it goes to trial, maybe instruct the jury to insider both. But I jump ahead, he as not even been officially arrested.
This s from Oklahoma, but it is a similar law. I like the way they explain it.
No person may be convicted of murder in the second degree unless the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. These elements are:
First, the death of a human;
Second, caused by conduct which was imminently dangerous to another/other person(s);
Third, the conduct was that of the defendant(s);
Fourth, the conduct evinced a depraved mind in extreme disregard of human life;
Fifth, the conduct is not done with the intention of taking the life of any particular individual.
You are further instructed that a person evinces a "depraved mind" when he engages in imminently dangerous conduct with contemptuous and reckless disregard of, and in total indifference to, the life and safety of another.
You are further instructed that "imminently dangerous conduct" means conduct that creates what a reasonable person would realize as an immediate and extremely high degree of risk of death to another person.0 -
I also agree there should be some kind of punishment, but I am not sure the lack of judgement he showed rises to a murder case (if he was attacked). But common sense dictates that if you are not a police officer and you run down a person during the night dressed in a track suit while carrying a pistol....things just might go badly. The burden of proof in a self defense case is always on the defender, especially when
A: not on your own property
B: other person is not armed
Agreed, but still think he is the attacker even if Martin laid hands on him first, and unless there is a witness that saw that, all we would have is Zimmerman's word which is not evidence. Are you allowed to strike first if someone else is coming at you aggressively and you feel they will strike you? If someone swings after you and miss, then you hit them? Who attacked whom? Of ourselves not saying any of this happened, just arguing that zimmerman is the attacker in my eyes because he pursued the kid in a hostile manner (explained ht I meant by that earlier)
And second degree murder is definitely a possible charge, but again, the prosecutor is likely to choose the charge they feel they can convict with, and if it goes to trial, maybe instruct the jury to insider both. But I jump ahead, he as not even been officially arrested.
This s from Oklahoma, but it is a similar law. I like the way they explain it.
No person may be convicted of murder in the second degree unless the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. These elements are:
First, the death of a human;
Second, caused by conduct which was imminently dangerous to another/other person(s);
Third, the conduct was that of the defendant(s);
Fourth, the conduct evinced a depraved mind in extreme disregard of human life;
Fifth, the conduct is not done with the intention of taking the life of any particular individual.
You are further instructed that a person evinces a "depraved mind" when he engages in imminently dangerous conduct with contemptuous and reckless disregard of, and in total indifference to, the life and safety of another.
You are further instructed that "imminently dangerous conduct" means conduct that creates what a reasonable person would realize as an immediate and extremely high degree of risk of death to another person.
Yeah, that is problem with citizen's arrests. There is a fine line betwenn Neighborhood watch and being a vigilante. If Martin had actually been commiting a crime, a violent one at the time of the confrontation, like assaulting another person or rape, Zimmerman's the big hero. But that isn't the case. That is the risk when you involve yourself in these affairs instead of just observing and collecting evidence for the police. Even if the kid was up to no good, but it was something minor like jacking car radios or buying some weed, a little commone sense dictates that it is not enough to warrant shooting them.
But the area of aggressor is a grey one at the moment. I still don't think you have the right to pummel someone under any circumstances if they are not attacking you....but I can see how if I were 17 and lacked the decision making skills I have now, and a middle aged guy in a track suit with a pistol started chasing me down on a public street that I would likely be scared. And being scared leads to one of two things, Fight or Flight. Like it was said earlier, Stand your Ground should not be a law that only applies to people carrying guns.0 -
Yeah, that is problem with citizen's arrests. There is a fine line betwenn Neighborhood watch and being a vigilante. If Martin had actually been commiting a crime, a violent one at the time of the confrontation, like assaulting another person or rape, Zimmerman's the big hero. But that isn't the case. That is the risk when you involve yourself in these affairs instead of just observing and collecting evidence for the police. Even if the kid was up to no good, but it was something minor like jacking car radios or buying some weed, a little commone sense dictates that it is not enough to warrant shooting them.
But the area of aggressor is a grey one at the moment. I still don't think you have the right to pummel someone under any circumstances if they are not attacking you....but I can see how if I were 17 and lacked the decision making skills I have now, and a middle aged guy in a track suit with a pistol started chasing me down on a public street that I would likely be scared. And being scared leads to one of two things, Fight or Flight. Like it was said earlier, Stand your Ground should not be a law that only applies to people carrying guns.
I think we have almost complete agreement. I'm sure if Martin had shot Zimmerman I would be saying that just because someone verbally harassed you or even pushed you doesn't mean you had the right to shoot them.
I see you have a gun in your profile. Do you actually walk around with your gun in a holster on your person? I'm terrified of them, they can make things so easily final in an instant. I work in a prison, and speak with guys with all kind of charges. For the one with murder charges, especially the young ones who got caught up in the heat of the moment, who will have to develop their critical thinking and pronlem solving skills in prison is just sad. Not to mention the ones ho lost their lives and any chance of fulfilling their potential. Imagine, if Zimmerman was not carrying his gun, no one would be dead and possibly facing murder charges. Maybe bruised and bloodied, but not dead. Families might've been mad, but not not the hurt of a death or the fear of listing a son to prison. Just so sad. The police were on their way, he should have just waited, if he indeed was a burglar like he suspected and he got away, so what no one would have been dead. He didn't even say he suspected him of having committed a crime, just looked suspicious. And from his own experience, he should have known that most suspicions he had was unfounded. 46 911 calls? ( although not all had to do with suspicious persons).
Ok, I'm rambling... Thanks for the great convo.0 -
I really wish people would stop referring to Trayvon as a kid! He wasn't a child, he was 17, months away from being able to vote. Not to mention in size, much larger than the man who shot him. If indeed evidence proves that yravon was beating the crap out of Zimmerman when he was shot will you all chagne you minds about him being murdered in "cold blood'?
Now as stated before, evidence will prove where the gun was when it was fired and show who was struggling with who. Some reports are saying that Trayvon was on top of and beating Zimmerman. Evidence and balistics will prove that in time.
I think it is sick that Zimmerman has been hung with no trial. He is in hiding for hi slife, cannot see his family and has groups such as the black panthers with a price tag on his head.
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Would I change my mind? Absolutely not. If someone were chasing a KID (still in high school? he's a kid), and that kid who, in fact, was not "bigger" than Zimmerman got the upper hand? No, he doesn't deserve to be shot.
And yes, what did happen to innocent until proven guilty? Oh...that's right...you get shot by the wannabe-watchdog for buying some Skittles and Arizona iced tea. Clearly these are the people who should be administering justice to those of us who like to wear hooded sweatshirts.0 -
I really wish people would stop referring to Trayvon as a kid! He wasn't a child, he was 17, months away from being able to vote. Not to mention in size, much larger than the man who shot him. If indeed evidence proves that yravon was beating the crap out of Zimmerman when he was shot will you all chagne you minds about him being murdered in "cold blood'?
Now as stated before, evidence will prove where the gun was when it was fired and show who was struggling with who. Some reports are saying that Trayvon was on top of and beating Zimmerman. Evidence and balistics will prove that in time.
I think it is sick that Zimmerman has been hung with no trial. He is in hiding for hi slife, cannot see his family and has groups such as the black panthers with a price tag on his head.
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Would I change my mind? Absolutely not. If someone were chasing a KID (still in high school? he's a kid), and that kid who, in fact, was not "bigger" than Zimmerman got the upper hand? No, he doesn't deserve to be shot.
And yes, what did happen to innocent until proven guilty? Oh...that's right...you get shot by the wannabe-watchdog for buying some Skittles and Arizona iced tea. Clearly these are the people who should be administering justice to those of us who like to wear hooded sweatshirts.
I still consider him a kid. I think that our laws are sort of messed up as a society as too when children are considered to be adults, but as far as the law was concerned, he was still a child. He was still ineligible due to his age to vote, enlist in the military, and still more thn three years away from what most of our society has deemed him suitably mature enough to drink alcohol.0 -
Yeah, that is problem with citizen's arrests. There is a fine line betwenn Neighborhood watch and being a vigilante. If Martin had actually been commiting a crime, a violent one at the time of the confrontation, like assaulting another person or rape, Zimmerman's the big hero. But that isn't the case. That is the risk when you involve yourself in these affairs instead of just observing and collecting evidence for the police. Even if the kid was up to no good, but it was something minor like jacking car radios or buying some weed, a little commone sense dictates that it is not enough to warrant shooting them.
But the area of aggressor is a grey one at the moment. I still don't think you have the right to pummel someone under any circumstances if they are not attacking you....but I can see how if I were 17 and lacked the decision making skills I have now, and a middle aged guy in a track suit with a pistol started chasing me down on a public street that I would likely be scared. And being scared leads to one of two things, Fight or Flight. Like it was said earlier, Stand your Ground should not be a law that only applies to people carrying guns.
I think we have almost complete agreement. I'm sure if Martin had shot Zimmerman I would be saying that just because someone verbally harassed you or even pushed you doesn't mean you had the right to shoot them.
I see you have a gun in your profile. Do you actually walk around with your gun in a holster on your person? I'm terrified of them, they can make things so easily final in an instant. I work in a prison, and speak with guys with all kind of charges. For the one with murder charges, especially the young ones who got caught up in the heat of the moment, who will have to develop their critical thinking and pronlem solving skills in prison is just sad. Not to mention the ones ho lost their lives and any chance of fulfilling their potential. Imagine, if Zimmerman was not carrying his gun, no one would be dead and possibly facing murder charges. Maybe bruised and bloodied, but not dead. Families might've been mad, but not not the hurt of a death or the fear of listing a son to prison. Just so sad. The police were on their way, he should have just waited, if he indeed was a burglar like he suspected and he got away, so what no one would have been dead. He didn't even say he suspected him of having committed a crime, just looked suspicious. And from his own experience, he should have known that most suspicions he had was unfounded. 46 911 calls? ( although not all had to do with suspicious persons).
Ok, I'm rambling... Thanks for the great convo.
I own a pistol (newly) and have had shotguns my whole life. You would have to get to know me better to realize I have an odd sense of humore and my profile pic is meant to be taken humorously. I do not carry my pistol with me yet since I do not have the proper permit. Even when I do, I am not sure I ever will. I'll be 34 this next week and as a civilian I have never needed one yet, so why bother. Self defense is one thing, like defending my home, wife and children. But in most incidents, logically speaking, if some one pulls a knife on me and wants my wallet or wants my car.....it's nothing that can't be replaced. I think being aware of your surroundings is more preventative of crime than a gun.0 -
I own a pistol (newly) and have had shotguns my whole life. You would have to get to know me better to realize I have an odd sense of humore and my profile pic is meant to be taken humorously. I do not carry my pistol with me yet since I do not have the proper permit. Even when I do, I am not sure I ever will. I'll be 34 this next week and as a civilian I have never needed one yet, so why bother. Self defense is one thing, like defending my home, wife and children. But in most incidents, logically speaking, if some one pulls a knife on me and wants my wallet or wants my car.....it's nothing that can't be replaced. I think being aware of your surroundings is more preventative of crime than a gun.
Thanks for answering my question. I just wanted to know if it was something gun owners do, as I am not one. I have some friends that are getting one, but was just curious. The pic does look humorous, gun still a bit intimidating, but you seemed to be playing a character to me. I went to a gun range once and practice shooting, or started to anyway. I found the experience jst a smidgen shy of traumatic, lol. But seriously, gotta respect the power of a gun.
Thanks again. Happy early birthday!0 -
And yes, what did happen to innocent until proven guilty? Oh...that's right...you get shot by the wannabe-watchdog for buying some Skittles and Arizona iced tea. Clearly these are the people who should be administering justice to those of us who like to wear hooded sweatshirts.
Really?! Zimmerman didn't shoot Trayvon because he bought Skittles and Arizona iced tea.0 -
No, I haven't changed my opinion. I believe there is clear evidence that Zimmerman started to pursue Trayvon. When does self defense change over? When you attack me, I start kicking your *kitten*, and then you're worried for your life and shoot me, that still leaves you as the aggressor. Furthermore, when does wearing a hoodie make you "dressed like a gangster?" And, what "reputation for being up to no good" other than a school allegation of [possibly] having had pot? Are we going to start executing teenagers who smoke pot? How can you possibly say this kid was "living like a thug", fbmandy? Honestly, paint this kid white and I don't think you'd be saying the same thing.
The MAJOR MAJOR PROBLEM REMAINS THAT ZIMMERMAN WAS NOT EVEN TAKEN IN FOR QUESTIONING. People can get off on self-defense - WITH INVESTIGATION. You can't just shoot someone dead and be allowed to walk home by the police. Think about it: if you killed an intruder in your home, you'd still almost definitely be taken in for questioning! I'm extremely concerned that ALL potential evidence is now totally compromised by GZ being allowed to drift, etc. etc.
Finally, the news story about the attack - which certainly MAY represent fact - actually only represents the story that GZ has shared. Trayvon doesn't have a side now, because he's dead. A smear campaign on the reputation of a child is a great frickin way to distract from the fact that his killer was allowed to go home with NO further questioning, that his body was drug tested and no urgent attempts were made by anyone to identify him and contact his family.
This remains disgusting and a severe miscarriage of AT THE VERY LEAST basic procedure. We should all be worried. Unless we're white.
exactly. the thing that is almost laughable is the fact that people are saying 'well he wasn't this well behaved angel they're painting him out to be'. okay. does that mean he deserved to be killed. trayvon was 6 feet tall, 160 lbs. that is not a towering figure. that is a slim a** young man. when i was 17 i was suspended from school, and also a straight a student. with a predisposition to wear my track hoodie and partake in skittles. and who's to say that if i were walking in my father's gated community where i don't live, got pursued by someone who is obviously more built than i am and i ran, that i wouldn't have tried to beat this guy's a** as well? we will never have all of the facts, however, we DO know who is dead. it could easily be said that trayvon was acting in self defense as well. but to completely negate that there is a misappropriation of justice would just be naive. in order for a confrontation to have occurred, zimmerman would have had to get out of his vehicle and accost the boy. even so, why did he bring his gun? did he foresee that the situation would have to turn to him using it? if that's the case, why not wait for authorities to handle it?0 -
Possibilities:
1.) Trayvon was innocent.
2.) George Zimmerman is innocent and was defending himself.
3.) Trayvon was not innocent and attacked Zimmerman.
4.) George Zimmerman was not innocent and was not defending himself.
5.) I'm a dragon rawr...
Fact:
We don't know all of the information regarding this case (since the media has done such a poor job with distributing it), so debating this topic based upon what you've seen on television or have heard from your friend(s) is ultimately pointless given the fact that we can't be don't have all of the stringent details.0 -
Just a few points.
People keep saying Zimmerman is hispanic. Zimmerman is a Cuban. Many Cubans do not even consider themselves Hispanic, they consider themselves white. I think Zimmermans father using the term hispanic is probably oportunistic so people will find favor with his son not being a racist (although I don't see why a hispanic couldn't be a racist) And while being Cuban is still a minority, and I am just being honest here, being Cuban in Florida is a far cry from being a Mexican in Iowa. Cubans are actually pretty powerful in Florida (which explains why this guy has connections that has got him off in the past for other offenses) and Cubans (again in Florida) are the only “hispanic” group that can step foot on American soil (or beach) and be considered an American right then and there.
I was willing to give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt as far as race playing a role until I heard him whisper “f**king C**ns”.
This boys girlfriend (and as a mother of a 16 and 17 year old I can say without hesitation, BOY) knew that he was being followed by this man. I would expect my children to fight if they felt someone was stalking them and then attacked him. A smart adult would have went about the situation in a completely different way, and even if he was going to speak to the boy he could have backed off and said that he was the captain of the neighborhood watch, at least then Trayvon would have known why this guy was following him. For all Trayvon knew Zimmerman could have been some psycho pervert.
Furthermore I think any law that makes it okay to kill someone in the middle of a fist fight is beyond stupid. I already have the right to defend myself if someone is trying to kill me. Going out and picking a fight and then shooting because the person fought back (if he did in fact do that) is insane.
I saw the video of Zimmerman at the police station, if he was beat up why didn’t he have any marks on him? Why didn’t he have blood on him from shooting Trayvon in the chest? How far away was that kid when he shot him? If you shoot someone or an animal at close range you would be a bloody mess and Zimmerman was most certainly not a bloody mess and Zimmerman had not changed his clothes when he had went to the police station.
This in the very least needs to go to trial to get all the facts out there because I do not think the cops did their job on this one.0 -
Why didn’t he have blood on him from shooting Trayvon in the chest? How far away was that kid when he shot him? If you shoot someone or an animal at close range you would be a bloody mess and Zimmerman was most certainly not a bloody mess and Zimmerman had not changed his clothes when he had went to the police station.
Incorrect. When you get shot the blood usually leaves the body in the outward direction - not from the initial point of insertion.0
