Quote:This is just my opinion here, but honestly, if the police dispatcher tells you to NOT FOLLOW the person you're calling them about...then don't fucking follow them. Let the fucking cops handle it.

Which is why I believe that it is irrelevant whether or not Trayvon struck first. Zimmerman is the aggressor by dint of his stalking the boy (who would have every reason to suspect that his stalker intended to attack or mug him).

I do not think murder was on Zim's mind, but what happened was certainly his fault, as his actions provoked everything which followed and I do not accept that he fired in self-defense as a result. The state should have gone for manslaughter, because that's what really happened.

(July 14, 2013 at 5:40 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(July 14, 2013 at 5:26 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: Great. I went to go and find the compilation from the police footage parts that showed Zimmerman's face when the cops came after the incident and the video has been taken down. All I can state is that the video, from what I could see, distinctly lacked Zimmerman showing any kind of abuse, and it was from that that I drew my conclusions. THAT SAID, I hadn't seen that image from CNN either, nor the ones that follow after it, and the ones that follow showing the cuts across the man's skull look much worse than what was initially implied to be the case.

I'm glad you accept that you didn't have all the facts right.

Well I was relying on outdated information, so yeah, my facts were inaccurate. I found the video, but looking closer, you CAN actually see the cuts and blood. They just weren't visible on the one I first found, likely due to a low-quality upload compression.

(July 14, 2013 at 5:40 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

Quote:That said, I'm still wondering what the hell instigated this situation to begin with. This wasn't a bad part of town. Hell, the kid's gmail account has several bits of correspondence with universities from college applications. You can't honestly tell me that because he was wearing a fucking hoody and was walking around late at night with a fucking can of arizona iced tea in his hand that this fat-ass really thought that warranted him starting shit that resulted in a fucking fist fight, nor that it warranted him shooting the kid to death.

There were reported break-ins in the neighborhood, which was why Zimmerman was out patrolling in the first place. He initially reported Treyvon because the guy was out in the rain, walking around, and looking at the houses. From the police transcripts of the phone call, Zimmerman doesn't describe the guy holding ice tea, but rather holding "something", so it's unlikely he even saw it was a beverage.

Yeah, that's what I've read, too. Seems he had a reason to be suspicious, although that still doesn't explain why he felt the need to actually confront the guy. It's not like it was a crime in progress; a confrontation was not necessary.

(July 14, 2013 at 5:40 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

Quote:No matter what, even with the physical damage I can see, it's STILL not enough to convince me. I've been in MUCH worse fights than that, come out looking worse, and I didn't feel the need to pull a gun on the person who I was fighting with, even if they kicked the shit out of me. And, seriously, this guy had to shoot to kill? Are you serious?

Firstly, it isn't about what you've been involved in. If Zimmerman felt his life was in danger (and his injuries certainly look like he was getting a good beating), then he has the right to defend himself against his attacker. Secondly, your words "shoot to kill" are unnecessary and just you putting more unneeded emotion into this discussion. There is no evidence he shot to kill. The evidence suggests he shot to defend himself against an attack.

This is a large part of the reason I think that there should be a mandatory training program instated for anyone wanting to buy a guy; you must demonstrate you can determine where to shoot to disable, wound, or kill even in close quarters, before you can own a gun. Seriously, if he'd shot low, at the legs, he could've easily stopped the kid without practically guaranteeing his death. A bullet to the legs will put someone down surprisingly quickly. Even if he hadn't, the realization he was being shot at would've sent the kid running. This is why you don't give guns to people who have no experience with them, who have no idea what power they are holding in their hands. Again, I must ask, if he thought he was confronting a person who was robbing peoples' homes, what the fuck did he expect was going to happen when he confronted the guy?? He CLAIMS the kid was looking into peoples' homes. He also said the kid was coming towards him, then turned and ran away after investigating him sitting in his car staring at him. And then he gives chase. He's not a fucking cop. He had no business pursuing the kid. You have to admit that much.

(July 14, 2013 at 5:40 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

Quote:Also, consider this... In this same state, only DAYS PRIOR, this happened: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-5743...ing-shots/

Yeah. So, a woman fires WARNING SHOTS at her ABUSIVE HUSBAND, and gets 20 years.

Zimmerman shoots a kid to death without firing any warning shots of his own...gets off scot-free.

I'm gonna say this again: BULLSHIT!

I agree with you; what happened to that woman was a travesty and should never have happened. If Zimmerman had got 20 years (or more) for murder, it would have been a travesty too.

You forget that just because I support the outcome in this case, does not mean I support the outcome in similar cases.

I'm not saying you support the outcome in other cases, Tib, I'm saying that the ruling in this regard is bullshit because it's similar circumstances except the defendant was a woman who was being beaten by her husband, she DIDN'T shoot him to death, and yet somehow gets 20 years when this guy gets off scot-free. I'm just comparing what a level of bullshit this is between these two cases, and what the underlying problem is; we've got a weird set of double-standards at play. Some guy goes off and oversteps his bounds in his role in a community watch program, pursues a guy, starts getting the shit kicked out of him and somehow is justified for pulling the trigger when he started the situation to begin with, and then there's the thing with the woman. That's what I'm more pissed about than anything else; if this other woman was guilty, then THIS guy should DEFINITELY be guilty.

I'm pissed about the justice system itself...or the lack of justice, anyway. This is ass-backwards as all fuck. THAT is why I am so pissed off, THAT is why these posts are so emotionally charged.

(July 14, 2013 at 5:51 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote: Try following me arround in my neighbourhood during the night. You will regret it, if you are still capable of regreting things after I am finished with you.

dam bra ur fukkin edgy m8 i wouldnt want to mess wit u.

(July 14, 2013 at 6:03 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

Quote:This is just my opinion here, but honestly, if the police dispatcher tells you to NOT FOLLOW the person you're calling them about...then don't fucking follow them. Let the fucking cops handle it.

Which is why I believe that it is irrelevant whether or not Trayvon struck first. Zimmerman is the aggressor by dint of his stalking the boy (who would have every reason to suspect that his stalker intended to attack or mug him).

I do not think murder was on Zim's mind, but what happened was certainly his fault, as his actions provoked everything which followed and I do not accept that he fired in self-defense as a result. The state should have gone for manslaughter, because that's what really happened.

EXACTLY! If he had gotten manslaughter, I would've agreed with it, I would've said it's justice. He didn't need to be called a murderer, but his actions were entirely unnecessary. I even think the act of shooting the kid was unnecessary but at least that's debatable. Is anyone really going to debate the fact that chasing after some kid who you aren't even sure is guilty of anything or even considering doing something in the middle of the fucking night after he's been aware of you leering at him in a parked car was already stupid, irresponsible, and the cause of that which followed? Of COURSE he got the shit kicked out of him; the kid probably thought Zimmerman was after HIM! Trayvon's own actions were probably self-defense.

(July 14, 2013 at 6:03 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Which is why I believe that it is irrelevant whether or not Trayvon struck first. Zimmerman is the aggressor by dint of his stalking the boy (who would have every reason to suspect that his stalker intended to attack or mug him).

I do not think murder was on Zim's mind, but what happened was certainly his fault, as his actions provoked everything which followed and I do not accept that he fired in self-defense as a result. The state should have gone for manslaughter, because that's what really happened.

Because following somebody and confronting them is what provokes murder, but not physically attacking someone.

That's not even remotely close to what Ryan said, Gil. Go wash your hair or something and let the grownups discuss this, ok?

(July 14, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: Is anyone really going to debate the fact that chasing after some kid who you aren't even sure is guilty of anything or even considering doing something in the middle of the fucking night after he's been aware of you leering at him in a parked car was already stupid, irresponsible, and the cause of that which followed?

I would.

In my opinion, this:

Quote:he got the shit kicked out of him; the kid probably thought Zimmerman was after HIM!

was the cause for the action that followed.

---

(July 14, 2013 at 6:14 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: That's not even remotely close to what Ryan said, Gil. Go wash your hair or something and let the grownups discuss this, ok?

What did he say, then, sir? My understanding is that he said Zimmerman is the aggressor of the two because he followed the boy. Is that not what he said? Where as I would say Trayvon is the aggressor, for well... attacking him.

This obsession with who struck first is irrelevant.

If I feel stalked and threatend I will certainly strike first before risking that I am struck myself.

(July 14, 2013 at 6:17 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote: This obsession with who struck first is irrelevant.

If I feel stalked and threatend I will certainly strike first before risking that I am struck myself.

If you feel threatened and strike first, should you be protected by the law on the basis that you felt threatened, in every case? Anyone can get off the hook for 'anything' because they feel threatened? That's fair, yeah.

(July 14, 2013 at 6:19 pm)Gilgamesh Wrote: If you feel threatened and strike first, should you be protected by the law on the basis that you felt threatened, in every case? Anyone can get off the hook for 'anything' if they only feel threatened?

When I am followed at night by a guy who does not stop following me when I clearly tell him to stop following me or explain himself.

Sure. Why not.