The truth about George Zimmerman

so, if i tell you to gtfo out right now, and you dont, i can legally assult you??

your logic is flawed my friend.
 
He's the nosy neighbor, you just walk away if you aren't trying to break into houses. C'mon man there is no law anywhere that says either of you can't be there and neighborhood watch type nosy people are everywhere.

It isn't defending yourself when YOU approach someone, ask if they have a problem and when they say no you tell them "Well now you've got a problem" and break their nose.

Does that alone necessarily mean you should be shot? No.

But when you get on top of someone and start going to town and tell them they're going to die tonight, that changes everything. ALL OF THE THINGS.

Also the fact that you have a gun on you means that you have a responsibility to keep that out of the hands of criminals period- compound that with the concerns for your own life at this point and you have literally no choice but to shoot him. If he kills you not only are you dead but now he's got a gun too and will probably kill other people with it.

 
No yours is that makes no sense I'm not threaten by you for one we are on computers. If we were on the street and I started to follow you because to me I thought you were up to no good, and you turned around and tell me to back off and I don't sure then you could defend yourself.
 
No.

Zimmerman may have been following and watching Trayvon but that's completely legal. It was Martin who actually approached (also legal) and ATTACKED (not legal) Zimmerman. There's a massive distinction between the two.

Even in the incident of the assault itself- the punch to the face is only misdemeanor assault and not really that big of a deal. It's the tackle, mount, continued attack and assertion that he was going to kill Zimmerman that solidifies the belief of mortal danger and thus the justification of deadly force in the eyes of the law.

 
This goes back to my point that Zimmerman was at fault here because he is the reason why all this happened, he provoked the whole ordeal by not listening to what he was told from dispatch. He made a choice to follow an innocent minor and by doing so made the minor feel the need to defend himself in a physical manner.
 
Again you're ignoring what actually happened and substituting it with assumptions and it's clouding your judgement... Or you're trollling.

The police do not and will not give you an order- it's in their training. They will not tell you a positive or negative in ANY instance as it opens them up for liability. They told him a generalized, nonspecific and non legally binding response and did NOT tell him to stop following Trayvon Martin. It told him nothing strictly by design.

By your assertions, anybody who annoys you on the streets could be subject to a fatal beating? I do not follow your logic. George Zimmerman has every right to be on that street as Trayvon Martin regardless of his intentions. Conversely Martin- and by measure of common sense everyone else on the planet- has NO right to physically assault anyone for any reason regardless of how annoying they are being.

That's not defense, that's assault. When you engage and attack someone, you're the perpetrator, and the person being attacked is the victim. This is how it works, man. I'm not making it up I swear.
 
The fact that people are still bickering about the subject is dumb as fuck. Like really, weather Zimmerman is actually guilty or not, he was found to be innocent, and he is the only person that knows what really happened.

I can guarantee you that us all arguing on NSG will affect ANYTHING. He was found to be not guilty, so lets just leave it t that. there will always be people that don't agree with anything in this world, so why should we be butt-hurt because some people are un-educated on either side of the subject.

So let just stop bitching and smoke a joint. like fuck.
 
I'm not saying if someone is annoying you I'm stating what Zimmerman did he followed Martin first by car then on foot the whole time on a phone talking about Martin. Stop looking through Zimmerman eyes and look through martins he was being followed hearing some guy call him an asshole. Lets say you were walking home all of a sudden a guy starts to follow you on his car on the phone and keeps stating you down, then you lose tr person only to turn around 5 minutes later and see he is walking behind you. You are telling me you wouldn't be scared of that?
 
Yeah dude, anyone would. That's not the point though.

None of those things you listed are illegal. Are they annoying/creepy? Yeah, sure. But they are not illegal. And they don't give Martin the right to physically attack Zimmerman.

Like I said earlier, if Martin just would have played it cool and explained himself the whole situation wouldn't have even happened.

 
Which justifies my point, that women who get raped are at fault. Because dressing like a slut is why it happens. They provoke the rape by dressing in a oversize turtleneck. They make a choice to show skin, and by doing so make the rapist feel the need to attack the woman in a physical manner.
 
I know it was a great one you went for it. You really think I would use bad grammar on here with all the grammar nazis? Nope just another well played trololololololol.
 
zimmerman4-272x350.jpg

 
I think the problem that a lot of people have is when you look at the situation on whole, you are like 'wtf was Zimmermans problem, he had age, weight, and was armed and yet somehow ended up killing an unarmed minor out of fear for his life?' then when you have to logically break it down, the prosecution simply couldn't prove murder. But he definitely should've been found guilty of negligence or something, the dude is obviously not a responsible firearm owner and made some pretty bad decisions that night.
 
So you are one of those white liberal people that is a black activist and thinks that the word "black" is rascist and that the jury was rascist towards blacks and that even though zimmerman was half Latino he still has enough white in him to be rascist because all white people are... Right? That's the vibe I'm getting from you.
 
I'd just like to put this out here as well to all the people crying that the jury was 5 white people and 1 puerto rican.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."

-Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution

In determining fit jurors who are impartial, there is a process called "voire dire". In this process, BOTH attorneys, meaning Zimmermans defense, AND the State of Florida's attorneys question the jurors to determine if they hold an biases, if anyone feels the juror is biased, they may challenge the appointment of the juror and the court will determine wether or not the challenge is legitimate. In a pool of 50+ jurors, any challenged juror is usually cut loose immediately.

Sparknotes for the moronic, idiotic, and indolent youth of today:

THE PROSECUTION QUESTIONED THE JURORS FOR BIASES AND AGREED UPON THE JURY THAT WAS CHOSEN.
 
Ok, just a point here

Obama-White Mother, Black Father=Black man

Zimmerman-White Father, Hispanic Mother=White man

Sorry, but there is something wrong with classifying Zimmerman like this.
 
This exactly, the media just needs to portray this as whites being racist towards blacks, anything else is not appealing. Just like the fact that Zimmerman's voter registration was released by the Washington Free Beacon and Zimmerman is a registered democrat except virtually no major news outlet reported this. I'm not saying thats wrong, but YOU KNOW if he was a registered republican this would be front page in every news outlet with countless journalistic implication that Zimmerman is a crazy gun loving conservative.

My 2 cents on the case:

Do I think that Zimmerman should have followed Trayvon? No.

Do I know that Zimmerman was within the law to follow Trayvon? Yes.

Do I think that Zimmerman agitated Trayvon by following him? Yes.

Do I think that Zimmerman shot Trayvon? Yes.

Do I KNOW that Zimmerman shot Trayvon in self defense? No.

Do I KNOW that Zimmerman shot Trayvon not in self defense but to put a stop to a potential robber/thug? No.

Based on those circumstances, there is NO WAY that Zimmerman should have been convicted, there is just simply not enough evidence.

Even legal analysis's who had publicly supported Justice for Trayvon agreed in the end there was not enough evidence to convict and that the not guilty verdict was in fact based on the evidence the correct verdict.

 
Good link.

Here's one I hadn't seen:

Were you aware of the fact that the police dispatcher did NOT tell Zimmerman to stay in his car[/b]?

(From the audio recording, it's clear Zimmerman had already started on foot in the direction Martin had run. After about 10 seconds when he tells this to the dispatcher, the dispatcher simply says, "we don't need you to do that" and Zimmerman says "OK". After a few more seconds, the pace of his breathing slows to normal and it seems clear that he is walking (no longer running or jogging).

He and the dispatcher then start to discuss where he should meet with the police and Zimmerman tells the dispatcher he doesn't know where Martin went. Zimmerman later told the police he had stopped trying to find Martin by that point, but there is no way to tell what he did after hanging up.)

ALSO

During the interrogation of Zimmerman at the police station that night, Detective Chris Serino, who led the homicide investigation, told Zimmerman that someone had caught the entire incident on video[/b]. The detective was bluffing, but Zimmerman didn't know that. The detective said Zimmerman's reaction was "Thank God, I was hoping somebody would videotape it."[/b] Did you ever hear about this?
 
All these things are downplayed and skewed by the media to show bias in Trayvon's favor.Frankly, the fact that the 911 dispatcher is brought up AT ALL is evidence of this. 911 dispatchers are not police dispatchers, as you and the media say, but trained civilians WHO HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO GIVE ORDERS, and, in fact, if they did, the entire department would be liable for litigation against them since an untrained novice was giving out authoritative commands.

911 dispatchers are never allowed to give orders, which is why they phrase things in such ambiguous ways as "we don't need you to do that" rather than "stay put in your vehicle" as an officer would have done.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top