[El_Diablo]

QUOTE (leik oh em jeez! @ Thursday, Jul 19 2012, 15:56)

His own twitter showed his general thug-like attitude.

dude he's a f*cking teenager.
teenagers have thug-like attitudes. or gothic. or hipster.

it doesn't mean anything.

QUOTE

The only witnesses that were actually confirmed as being there at the time and being able to see it backed up Zimmerman's story.

there have been multiple witnesses but only a couple have been found to be credible.

the only thing they agree on is that Martin was on top of Zimmerman at some point.
but by the time the gunshot was heard, Zimmerman was on top of Martin.

this is not conclusive evidence of anything.
and that's my point.

QUOTE

That's not half.

I didn't mean literally half.
George is obviously the larger of the two.

QUOTE

No, but every shred of evidence we have points toward it being 100% true.

no it doesn't.

the only physical evidence that exists are some amateur photos, videos, and forensic findings which concern Zimmerman's handgun.
none of it is conclusive in any direction, and it's nowhere near "100%."

the fact that you would make such a claim shows how ignorant you are of the actual circumstances of this case.
but that's not surprising...

QUOTE

Are you serious? Did you even listen to the call?

yes.

did you?
he was told by dispatch to leave the incident alone. he didn't listen to them.

QUOTE

A dispatcher with no legal authority told him they didn't NEED him to follow Martin.

exactly.

and if he had listened to the dispatcher (like any normal, reasonable person would have done) then none of this would have ever happened.
Zimmerman is an idiot. you're an idiot.

QUOTE

that's not a REAL authority figure.

this is a bullsh*t argument.

that dispatcher still has far more authority than Zimmerman ever had.
the dispatcher works with and for the police. they are trained to advise citizens on what to do when a citizen calls them with a situation. they advised Zimmerman and he ignored their advice.

Zimmerman is an idiot.
you're an idiot for defending his idiocy.

[leik oh em jeez!]

QUOTE

dude he's a f*cking teenager. teenagers have thug-like attitudes. or gothic. or hipster. it doesn't mean anything.

Really? So it's okay for teenagers to go around beating the sh*t out of people because "that's what teenagers do"
Martin was a dumb teenager. We all were at some point. He made a mistake by being a dumb teenager and attacking someone he din't know was armed. Stupidity is not innocence. He knew better.

QUOTE

the only thing they agree on is that Martin was on top of Zimmerman at some point.

Right.

QUOTE

but by the time the gunshot was heard, Zimmerman was on top of Martin.

Wrong.

QUOTE

the fact that you would make such a claim shows how ignorant you are of the actual circumstances of this case. but that's not surprising...

Did I say prove? Because I don't remember saying prove. I remember saying "points toward" meaning ALL of the evidence would generally support Zimmerman's story as being true, yet not a single shred of evidence to say otherwise has been found.

QUOTE

yes. did you? he was told by dispatch to leave the incident alone. he didn't listen to them.

He continued to follow for about 30 seconds, and then stopped and gave police his information. He didn't ignore anyone.

QUOTE

exactly. and if he had listened to the dispatcher (like any normal, reasonable person would have done) then none of this would have ever happened. Zimmerman is an idiot. you're an idiot.

He did listen to the dispatcher. The dispatcher never told him stop, only told him he didn't need to follow the suspect. Now looking at the meaning of that sentence, it would tend to indicate that the dispatcher is not requiring Zimmerman to follow the suspect, but isn't telling him to stop either. So it's not even really a recommendation for him to stop, just telling him that he is not required to follow. That's what that means. But guess what. He stopped anyways.

QUOTE

this is a bullsh*t argument. that dispatcher still has far more authority than Zimmerman ever had.

Contrary to what you were saying before, the dispatcher is NOT a police officer, and has no more authority than an average citizen.

QUOTE

they advised Zimmerman and he ignored their advice.

If you'd look at how it was worded instead of just following the hype, you'd realize that he was never advised to stop. He was made aware that he COULD stop, not that he SHOULD. There's a big difference there. And Contrary to what you're saying now, he DID stop.

[Pat]

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Thursday, Jul 19 2012, 23:29)

you're an idiot

I really don't care enough about this case anymore to take either side, but I really wonder if you're ever going to be capable of making a counter-argument that isn't composed of a single ad hominem attack. Is it really so hard to just focus on the point at hand instead of constantly insulting your opponent?

You can both go back to your mostly pointless debate now.

[El_Diablo]

QUOTE (leik oh em jeez! @ Thursday, Jul 19 2012, 21:56)

So it's okay for teenagers to go around beating the sh*t out of people

Martin was not "going around beating the sh*t" out of anyone.
he didn't have some lengthy history of this behavior.

QUOTE

Martin was a dumb teenager.

yes exactly!
Martin is a teenager!

Zimmerman is a GROWN MAN! hello??
if anyone was acting dumb here, it was Super Cop George Zimmerman.

Zimmerman should have known better.

QUOTE

Wrong.

actually not wrong.
if you want me to stop calling you an idiot then you should probably do your homework.

1.) http://digitaljournal.com/article/321772

This witness, who identified himself as John, stated that "the guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on (Zimmerman), was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911". He went on to say that when he got upstairs and looked down, "the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy (Martin), was now the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."

this guy says that Zimmerman was on top by the time the gun had been fired.

2.) http://www.wftv.com/news/news/witness-sanf...-slaying/nLSqk/

Cutcher and her roommate heard the pair in their backyard and a "very young voice" whining, with no sounds of a fight. They heard a gunshot; the crying stopped immediately, and they saw Zimmerman on his knees straddling Martin on the ground.

this girl says that Zimmerman was on top by the time they heard the gunshot.

3.) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/3...erman-uninjured

The whole time she witnessed the incident the scuffling happened on the grass. She said that the larger man, who walked away after the gunshot, was on top, and that it was too dark to see blood on his face.

this girl says that Zimmerman was on top.
her only contradiction with the police is whether or not he was injured, but she admitted that it was too dark to tell.

4.) http://content.usatoday.com/communities/on.../1#.UAj1fLXNkxG
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/us/trayv...phone.html?_r=1

Martin told her that a man was watching him from his vehicle while talking on the phone before the man started following Martin. Martin told his friend at one point that he had lost the man but the man suddenly appeared again. The friend said that she told Martin to run to the townhouse where he was staying with his father and the father's girlfriend. She then heard Martin say, "What are you following me for?" followed by a man's voice (Zimmerman) responding, "What are you doing around here?" She said that she heard the sound of pushing before the phone went dead.

according to the audio of Martin's last phone call, he was aware that he was being followed and was uncomfortable.
he tried to avoid the man who was following him but the man initiated confrontation.

QUOTE

ALL of the evidence would generally support Zimmerman's story as being true, yet not a single shred of evidence to say otherwise has been found.

once again it's clear that you don't understand the evidence.

there's no real physical evidence to speak of aside from the gun and clothing.
there's some amateur photos and videos and cell phone recordings. that's about it.

and none of it paints a clear picture of anything.
you're connecting dots where none exist.

QUOTE

He didn't ignore anyone.

yeah... except for the police dispatcher who told him to stand down.

QUOTE

The dispatcher never told him stop, only told him he didn't need to follow the suspect.

WHICH MEANS DON'T FOLLOW THE SUSPECT.

are you really this dense or do you just enjoy arguing?

QUOTE

Contrary to what you were saying before, the dispatcher is NOT a police officer, and has no more authority than an average citizen.

when the average citizen dials 911 they are requesting the authority of the person(s) on the other line, otherwise they never would have called 911 in the first place.

just because the dispatcher is not an active duty police officer doesn't mean they are giving you bad advice.
when they tell you that there's no need for you to make a situation out of nothing, most people would listen to them. Zimmerman didn't listen and now he's going to pay the consequences.

QUOTE

he was never advised to stop.

yes he was.

there's no way to interpret "we don't need you to follow this person" other than STOP FOLLOWING THAT PERSON.
Zimmerman is an idiot.

you're an idiot for keeping up this charade of white knighting for his ignorant, stupid ass.

[leik oh em jeez!]

QUOTE

Martin was not "going around beating the sh*t" out of anyone.

Really? So it must have been someone else that was on top of Zimmerman beating the sh*t out of him. I guess poor Trayvon was just killed in the crossfire. Wrong place at the wrong time, right? This poor little child couldn't have a violent bone in his body.

QUOTE

1.) http://digitaljournal.com/article/321772 This witness, who identified himself as John, stated that "the guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on (Zimmerman), was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911". He went on to say that when he got upstairs and looked down, "the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy (Martin), was now the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."

Yes. AFTER the shot, Zimmerman did not lay in the grass with Trayvon's lifeless body on top of him waiting for police to arrive. He sat down in the grass near by. That does not in any way put Zimmerman on top of Martin when the shot was fired.

QUOTE

2.) http://www.wftv.com/news/news/witness-sanf...-slaying/nLSqk/ Cutcher and her roommate heard the pair in their backyard and a "very young voice" whining, with no sounds of a fight. They heard a gunshot; the crying stopped immediately, and they saw Zimmerman on his knees straddling Martin on the ground.

"reporter Daralene Jones spoke with a woman who heard a Sanford vigilante shoot a 17-year-old boy as he was walking home from a convenience store with a bag of candy."
Oh God, here comes the uninformed bias.

"The cries stopped as soon as the gun went off so I know it was the little boy."
That's her reasoning. That's why she thinks Zimmerman was on top.

"I know this was not self defense. There was no punching, no hitting going on at the time, no wrestling."
And she knows this because she was sitting in her living room, unable to see it at the time, and it directly contradicts evidence. All of her "evidence" is bad assumptions.

But, she does provide some key evidence from when she finally did get off her ass to see what was going on. Zimmerman was just sitting there.

QUOTE

3.) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/3...erman-uninjured The whole time she witnessed the incident the scuffling happened on the grass. She said that the larger man, who walked away after the gunshot, was on top, and that it was too dark to see blood on his face.

"I saw two men on the ground, one on top of the other. I felt they were scuffling and I heard gunshots which to me were more like pops,"
At this point he didn't know which was which.

"After the larger man got off there was a boy, obviously now dead, on the ground facing down."
Is this what you're taking as meaning Zimmerman was on top? Let's see.

"It was dark. I can't say I watched him get up..."
So no, All he confirms is that Zimmerman was the one that stood up after the shooting. Which we already knew. Obviously Martin isn't going to be the one standing up.

QUOTE

4.) http://content.usatoday.com/communities/on.../1#.UAj1fLXNkxG http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/us/trayv...phone.html?_r=1 Martin told her that a man was watching him from his vehicle while talking on the phone before the man started following Martin. Martin told his friend at one point that he had lost the man but the man suddenly appeared again. The friend said that she told Martin to run to the townhouse where he was staying with his father and the father's girlfriend. She then heard Martin say, "What are you following me for?" followed by a man's voice (Zimmerman) responding, "What are you doing around here?" She said that she heard the sound of pushing before the phone went dead.

QUOTE

"Then he tells me the guy is getting close," she said. "Next I hear, 'Why are you following me for?'" She said she then heard a man's voice ask, "What are you doing around here?" She calls out, "Trayvon, what's going on?" but he doesn't answer. "I hear something like, 'bawmp.' ... You could hear that somebody bumped Trayvon. Cuz I could hear the grass."

She confirms that Martin started the verbal confrontation, and she heard the phone fall into the grass after Zimmerman replied with a question.

QUOTE

according to the audio of Martin's last phone call, he was aware that he was being followed and was uncomfortable.

Thank you Captain Obvious. Are you just now looking at this evidence?

QUOTE

he tried to avoid the man who was following him but the man initiated confrontation.

She actually proves the opposite. Trayvon spoke first. He initiated the verbal confrontation. He got the ball rolling.

QUOTE

once again it's clear that you don't understand the evidence.

Really? Because the conclusions you come to apparently based on the evidence aren't at all supported by the evidence. So perhaps you've got that backwards.

QUOTE

yeah... except for the police dispatcher who told him to stand down.

No one told him to stand down, but he did anyway. I don't know how you get that he "ignored police" out of that, but whatever.

QUOTE

WHICH MEANS DON'T FOLLOW THE SUSPECT. are you really this dense or do you just enjoy arguing?

No. "you don't need to do that." just means "you don't need to do that."

You're looking for a direct order where there is none.

QUOTE

when the average citizen dials 911 they are requesting the authority of the person(s) on the other line, otherwise they never would have called 911 in the first place.

The authority is not the dispatcher's, the dispatcher communicates with police, but does not have any of the legal authority associated with law enforcement.

QUOTE

there's no way to interpret "we don't need you to follow this person" other than STOP FOLLOWING THAT PERSON.

Or, instead of thinking you're translating English to English, you could realize that it's all English and means exactly what it says. You know, like normal people do.

[SagaciousKJB]

Regardless of authority, if a person reminds you that you are in a position where you can leave the area and avoid any danger, willfully ignoring that and pursuing the danger is willfully introducing yourself to a dangerous situation. Oh and of course you'll contend, "Oh but he was walking back to his car," but that's just part of his unsubstantiated version of events.

Meanwhile I didn't know, "Hey why are you following me?" is tantamount to a verbal confrontation. I thought it was more like... Asking someone why they're following you. For all he knew at that point, the guy could have been trying to stop and ask for help, trying to give him something he had dropped, etc. You know that still does happen in regular society.

Now I can tell you one thing... You don't want that question followed by, "What are you doing around here?" Regardless of what Zimmerman's intentions were, usually good things do not follow that statement. He could have said, "Because you look suspicious, just checking you out," or any number of things to ease the guy's mind that, "Oh hey I'm just watching the neighborhood, I'm not some creepy asshole that's following you." Instead he says, "What are you doing around here?" Don't tell me that if someone came up to you acting like that, you wouldn't be concerned about what they were intending to do to you.

This is all irrelevant still though. It doesn't really matter if Martin decided, "Hey f*ck this guy I'm going to start beating him up," there was not a reasonable fear going on here. Reasonable means something that society can agree upon, not whatever version of reasonable Zimmerman or lil weasel has. I believe most people who have actually been in an encounter like Zimmerman was in would be of the opinion that he did not sustain nearly enough injury to have had a reasonable fear for his life at the time. Oh yeah yeah he received medical treatment... I see no black eye, I see no broken blood vessels in his eye ( those take a while to heal btw ), his nose doesn't look as broken as others I've seen, no swollen anything, no knots or bruises. Man this Zimmerman guy must have a terrific doctor to make it seem like this terrible, life-threatening beating NEVER HAPPENED.

You know the sad thing is, with the way Florida's stand your ground law works, it really might as well be considered justified. Unlike most states it seems that it's thrown that bit about there being reasonable fear for one's life right out the window. Still outside of the court of the law, I still don't think that "just" really means "right". There's no getting around it, Zimmerman got away with killing an outmatched, unarmed kid.

Meanwhile since you're so adamant that Martin must have been some kind of rotten egg, just assuming that he physically attacked Zimmerman, the answer is not for him to shoot him off of him with little or no other recourse. If Martin was in the wrong he would have been charged accordingly, probably even tried as an adult given his age and the severity of the crime, but Zimmerman went ahead and made judgement and execution right there for everyone else.

[Pat]

QUOTE (SagaciousKJB @ Friday, Jul 20 2012, 18:39)

You know the sad thing is, with the way Florida's stand your ground law works, it really might as well be considered justified.  Unlike most states it seems that it's thrown that bit about there being reasonable fear for one's life right out the window.

The creator of the Stand Your Ground law has already publicly stated that it was not intended to apply to this situation, so that's a rather moot point and it doesn't make any sense to use Trayvon's death as an excuse to criticize it. Not to mention that the law does not say you do not need reasonable fear for your life, it merely states that if you do reasonably fear for your life, you are not required to retreat in an effort to defend yourself.

[leik oh em jeez!]

It all comes back to when you're in a situation like that, it only takes seconds to go from a position where you're still able to defend yourself to a position where you can't. The firearm does you no good and may end up harming you if you wait until you're unable to use it to try. Once you're beaten to within an inch of your life, it's a lot harder to defend yourself, so waiting for that point is, well, pointless.
While you're being attacked at night with your head beaten against concrete, you're not thinking "Oh, these wounds probably won't be fatal even if he continues, and he probably wont see my firearm or try to take it, so I'll just sit here until I know without a doubt that I'll be dead if I don't shoot."

As far as the Stand Your Ground law not applying, that depends on things we don't know for sure yet, and to assume that Zimmerman pursued Martin al the up to the confrontation AND started the confrontation is just moronic at this point.

This post has been edited by leik oh em jeez! on Friday, Jul 20 2012, 23:58

[lil weasel]

QUOTE (leik oh em jeez! @ Friday, Jul 20 2012, 23:55)

As far as the Stand Your Ground law not applying, that depends on things we don't know for sure yet, and to assume that Zimmerman pursued Martin al the up to the confrontation AND started the confrontation is just moronic at this point.

A question to ask, now, is:
Did either Martin or Zimmerman HAVE A RIGHT to be where they were?

Otherwise it would be a closed case.

If not then Who could claim the 'Stand "YOU're" Ground' as a defense?

[El_Diablo]

QUOTE (leik oh em jeez! @ Friday, Jul 20 2012, 16:55)

to assume that Zimmerman pursued Martin al the up to the confrontation AND started the confrontation is just moronic at this point.

no it's not.
that's exactly what happened according to Zimmerman himself, the 911 call he made, and the call that Martin made to one of his friends just minutes before the incident.

the only important point of this entire story is that it never had to happen.
Zimmerman had no good reason to be following Martin, was advised not to follow Martin, and continued to follow Martin.

he's an idiot who has no one to blame for this situation but himself.

[lil weasel]

Zimmerman did not call 911 he called the non-emergency dispatch.

[leik oh em jeez!]

QUOTE

A question to ask, now, is: Did either Martin or Zimmerman HAVE A RIGHT to be where they were?

They both had the right to be there.

QUOTE

no it's not. that's exactly what happened according to Zimmerman himself, the 911 call he made

My God you're thick. According to both Zimmerman and the audio recording of his call, he followed Martin for about 30 seconds after the the dispatcher informed him that he didn't need to, then STOPPED PURSUING, gave his information, agreed to meet police when they got there, then hung up, and headed back to his vehicle to go meet police.

How many times has that been said just on the last two pages? Yet you still ignore it.

QUOTE

Zimmerman had no good reason to be following Martin, was advised not to follow Martin, and continued to follow Martin.

Martin had no more reason to verbally confront Zimmerman than Zimmerman had to verbally confront Martin. But no, Martin couldn't just go home, or even explain that he was on his way home.

Martin has no one to blame for his demise but himself.

See how that works both ways? Weird, huh?

[El_Diablo]

QUOTE (leik oh em jeez! @ Friday, Jul 20 2012, 17:40)

he followed Martin for about 30 seconds after the the dispatcher informed him that he didn't need to, then STOPPED PURSUING

well first of all, he obviously didn't stop pursuing Martin or Martin would be alive right now.
hindsight is 20/20. you can't spin it.

Zimmerman has already said that he was following Martin. this is not debatable.
so obviously he was following him for some time before he even made the 911 call. he didn't just call the police the moment that he started following Martin, he had already been following him. this act was clearly premeditated on the part of Zimmerman.

QUOTE

Martin had no more reason to verbally confront Zimmerman than Zimmerman had to verbally confront Martin.

Martin had the right to ask this stranger why he was following him.

Zimmerman didn't have the right to follow him.

[leik oh em jeez!]

QUOTE

well first of all, he obviously didn't stop pursuing Martin or Martin would be alive right now. hindsight is 20/20. you can't spin it.

That's assuming it's impossible for Martin to have ever had the intent to confront Zimmerman, which we know he did. That's assuming Zimmerman continued to follow rather than turning around and becoming the followed.

Assumptions that aren't even based on evidence that support them any more than any other possibility.

QUOTE

Zimmerman has already said that he was following Martin. this is not debatable.

Thank you once again, Captain Obvious.
The fact that Zimmerman was initially following Martin when he called dispatch is not what was being debated here. Why you're saying that as if it proves something that we didn't already know - I have no idea.

QUOTE

this act was clearly premeditated on the part of Zimmerman.

What act? The act of following? You're saying that because he was following meant that he intended to follow before he did so? Or are you implying that following someone is proof of intent to kill them? Please do explain.

QUOTE

Martin had the right to ask this stranger why he was following him.

Right.

QUOTE

Zimmerman didn't have the right to follow him.

Wrong. ANYONE has every right to ask someone they don't recognize what they're doing in their neighborhood. Being Neighborhood watch captain, it could be argued that Zimmerman had even more right to do so.
More than every is quite a bit, but far from none, in case you were wondering.

[El_Diablo]

QUOTE (leik oh em jeez! @ Friday, Jul 20 2012, 17:55)

The fact that Zimmerman was initially following Martin when he called dispatch is not what was being debated here.

yes it is.

that's the whole point.
nothing else really matters.

normal, intelligent, reasonable people don't go following teenagers who might or might not look suspicious. normal, intelligent, reasonable people would listen to the police dispatcher when they were told their presence wasn't needed. but honestly, normal, intelligent, reasonable people wouldn't be in such a stupid situation to start.
what was Zimmerman doing? why was he there?

everything hinges on the fact that this guy is a wanna-be cop douchebag who shouldn't have been following Martin to begin with.
he's a complete moron. why are you trying to defend him?

I bet you thought Case Anthony was innocent.
I bet you thought OJ didn't do it.
I bet you though Gary Condit had nothing to hide.

the only people I know who tend to side with Zimmerman are white trash rednecks.
judging by your analysis of this case, such a characterization is fairly likely.

[SagaciousKJB]

QUOTE (leik oh em jeez! @ Friday, Jul 20 2012, 16:55)

It all comes back to when you're in a situation like that, it only takes seconds to go from a position where you're still able to defend yourself to a position where you can't. The firearm does you no good and may end up harming you if you wait until you're unable to use it to try. Once you're beaten to within an inch of your life, it's a lot harder to defend yourself, so waiting for that point is, well, pointless. While you're being attacked at night with your head beaten against concrete, you're not thinking "Oh, these wounds probably won't be fatal even if he continues, and he probably wont see my firearm or try to take it, so I'll just sit here until I know without a doubt that I'll be dead if I don't shoot." As far as the Stand Your Ground law not applying, that depends on things we don't know for sure yet, and to assume that Zimmerman pursued Martin al the up to the confrontation AND started the confrontation is just moronic at this point.

That's a really funny way to look at what I'm saying...

There's not a calculation or something on, like, "Okay I've been beaten this badly, I'm now justified." That would be ridiculous as you're saying, and then especially with the notion that a person is going to be keeping track of this as a means of knowing when they can use deadly force.

However, what I am saying is that given the extent of his injuries, I do not think it was reasonable for him to fear for his life at the point of the exchange where he took Martin's. Given the condition he was in at that moment of time, I think ( and again my opinion doesn't really matter unless I'm on the jury ) he had several more lines of recourse to choose from at that point and do not believe that his fear for his life was reasonable.

Now, what does that mean? Well it could mean that Zimmerman isn't a big tough, black-teen-hating, Dudley Doo Right, insert-blood-thirsty-whatever-here... He could have very well actually feared for his life. On the other hand, that doesn't mean that it was reasonable to the rest of society. A 28 year old man, weighing over two hundred pounds, and apparently of generally-able body and mind. I do not think that his fear at that point was reasonable given his physical abilities and stature.

I guess to really show the contrast I'm talking about, let's theorize that instead of being a young man and an older man, that it was between a 40 year old and a 80 year old. Now sure you could make the argument that a 40 year old man is probably pretty haggard, and if he's over 200 pounds not much of it might be muscle, and I could really see the idea that some 17 year old kid would whoop on him, and wouldn't be surprised if he wound up being beaten so bad he had to use force.

Now on the other hand what if we're talking about an 80 year old? Hell, let's even amp it up and say he's swatting your ass with his cane pretty good. Maybe he even drew blood (Oh no!) I guess you're telling me at this point you'd fear for your life and would shoot him?

That's obviously a hugely disproportionate example, but it illustrates what I'm saying that in some cases, it's just hard to believe an individual had a reasonable fear for their life. Oh sure maybe it was genuine, but it could still have been non-sense. I guess the more laughable example would be if you shot a toddler because he was walking down the hall-way at you with a knife... Though let's not get into that ludicrous extreme.

Point being, a man of Zimmerman's stature, would be fully able to fight back if only injured to the minor extent that he was. You can think of the injuries as almost a timeline... Lacerations to your head, broken noses, those are initial factors and despite being painful, not really that debilitating. Now once you get into concussions, broken cheek bones, fractured skulls, then maybe we can talk about a person not being able to fight back. And let's not pan back into this make believe idea that, "Oh, it's impossible to fight back when someone is pinning you," because I've been there and done that.

I guess maybe there's the possibility that Zimmerman is just some meek, doughy ass, can barely lift a sack of potatoes wimp and truly was outmatched and in fear for his life... But I just don't buy it, especially if you look at his record. I hope the members of the jury don't either.

[leik oh em jeez!]

So now you're claiming that Trayvon had every right to beat the sh*t out of and possible attempt to murder Zimmerman simply because Zimmerman was following him?

No. That's not the way it should work. You shouldn't have to stay away from teenagers because they can beat the sh*t out of you at any time. That's unacceptable behavior on the part of the teenager and in no way should someone base their actions on expecting someone to act that way.

@Sag: I do see where you're coming from, but it's not something that's really measurable. I think you're applying this far too generally. Sure, on average you'd most likely be right. But not every 28 year old is going to know what they're capable of, how much abuse their body can take before they need to be in fear of their life, or how to use their size to their advantage.

I believe it's been said that Trayvon had gotten into a good number of fights in school, and fighting is one of those things where experience plays a very large role, as does the element of surprise. If you're a more experience fighter than your opponent (even if he's older) and he isn't expecting an attack, that puts you at a massive advantage.

And going back to Zimmerman's apparent lack of experience, him not knowing how much he can take before he needs to fear his life, combined with him not keeping track means he probably would have been in fear of his life from the get go. And that's ignoring the possibility that he was attacked without warning.

An 80 year old isn't really a fair comparison. The average 17 year old is in far better shape and more able to fight than the average 80 year old.

QUOTE

Lacerations to your head, broken noses, those are initial factors and despite being painful, not really that debilitating. Now once you get into concussions, broken cheek bones, fractured skulls, then maybe we can talk about a person not being able to fight back.

Exactly, so if you get to the point of concussion or fractured skull, it's going to be a lot harder to be able to grab you gun, pull it, and fire on your opponent without your opponent realizing what you're doing and attempting to disarm you. If you're going to shoot, you need to do it BEFORE you get to that point. How far before that point is open to debate, as is how far from that point Zimmerman was. Obviously he wasn't past it yet, but how long it would have taken him to get there is impossible for us to know. It may have been minutes, or it may have been a fraction of a second.

This post has been edited by leik oh em jeez! on Saturday, Jul 21 2012, 02:33

[El_Diablo]

QUOTE (leik oh em jeez! @ Friday, Jul 20 2012, 19:21)

So now you're claiming that Trayvon had every right to beat the sh*t out of and possible attempt to murder Zimmerman simply because Zimmerman was following him? No. That's not the way it should work. You shouldn't have to stay away from teenagers because they can beat the sh*t out of you at any time. That's unacceptable behavior on the part of the teenager and in no way should someone base their actions on expecting someone to act that way.

what the f*ck are you talking about?

wait a minute.
how old are you?

either you can't read or you're just terrible at forming consistent arguments.

[leik oh em jeez!]

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Friday, Jul 20 2012, 21:25)

QUOTE (leik oh em jeez! @ Friday, Jul 20 2012, 19:21) So now you're claiming that Trayvon had every right to beat the sh*t out of and possible attempt to murder Zimmerman simply because Zimmerman was following him? No. That's not the way it should work. You shouldn't have to stay away from teenagers because they can beat the sh*t out of you at any time. That's unacceptable behavior on the part of the teenager and in no way should someone base their actions on expecting someone to act that way. what the f*ck are you talking about? wait a minute. how old are you? either you can't read or you're just terrible at forming consistent arguments.

You're placing all blame on Zimmerman. Acting as though who attacked who, who confronted who, or whether or not Martin was about to curb stomp Zimmerman didn't matter, simply because Zimmerman followed him for a short period of time.

You're the one that brings up a point each post, ignores it after I prove it wrong, bring up something else unrelated, pretend that it matters, and then go back to your first point after I prove the last one wrong.

My points have been both consistent and explained. Yours are neither.

[El_Diablo]

QUOTE (leik oh em jeez! @ Friday, Jul 20 2012, 19:35)

You're placing all blame on Zimmerman.

Zimmerman is the adult.

you haven't been able to answer any of the important questions.
why was Zimmerman there?
why did he insist on following Martin?
why did he ignore the police dispatcher's instruction?

QUOTE

Martin was about to curb stomp Zimmerman

no he wasn't.

QUOTE

I prove it wrong

LOL wow

you haven't "proven" anything since we've started this discussion.
you're utterly delusional.

but that makes sense.
like I said, the only people I've ever seen trying to defend Zimmerman are white trash rednecks. it makes perfect sense.