Trayvon Martin Derail

[Mumbles]

There is a huge difference in wanting to make sure that the police officers had a chance to question Martin about his actions compared to being violent. Violence was only his last resort. He tried calling the cops to get them to come over and one of the problems was that he wasn't physical back and tried to stay out of the fight instead of fighting back. Martin's life only became in danger after he started hitting Zimmerman.

Martin's "actions" being walking down the street, minding his own business.

Now, let's stop. Martin literally ran away from a confrontation, with Zimmerman chasing him. There's no question there. Why would we assume Martin would suddenly pull some sort of sneak attack in Zimmerman, given this?

You want to know a good way to get yourself killed. Pull a gun on someone and point it at them when a police officer is on his way. It's a very stupid thing to do when all Zimmerman had to do was make sure Martin stayed near for a few more minutes.

This assumes that Zimmerman is a smart guy. It's clear that he is not, but rather a fairly stupid violent person. Which is why, again, he had multiple domestic violence incidents, and multiple bizarre behavior.

ETA: recall that even after murdering him, Zimmerman still referred to Martin as "the suspect." Um, suspect of what?

As a black guy growing up, I knew that any old cop could walk up and kill me, and get away with it. I didn't know this about some random white guy.

 

[LordKiran]

CA let's cut the crap. Your resistance to Zimm being a stone cold killer has nothing to do with Zimm's actual guilt (Or lack there of) but instead has everything to do with you not wanting to acknowledge that sometimes black people get the shit end of the stick.

Why is that? What's it to you if this is true or not? What is your personal stake in this to justify your stubborn obstinance to the point of absurdity?

 

[RavenSky]

There is a huge difference in wanting to make sure that the police officers had a chance to question Martin about his actions compared to being violent.

Absolutely wrong. First of all, it wasn't his job or even legal for him to detain Trayvon Martin for whatever bullshit assumptions Zimmerman created in his own mind. Second, the very nature of detaining someone against their will is violent. Third, Zimmerman already had a long history of violence, so it was no surprise this situation would end in violence - specifically, Zimmerman murdering Trayvon.

Violence was only his last resort.

Violence is Zimmerman's ONLY resort, as his long history proves.

He tried calling the cops to get them to come over

and that is ALL he should have done. If he had left it at that, Trayvon would still be alive and we would not be having this discussion (again and again)

and one of the problems was that he wasn't physical back and tried to stay out of the fight instead of fighting back. Martin's life only became in danger after he started hitting Zimmerman.

BULLSHIT. Stop repeating Zimmerman's LIES.

Unless you want to make the argument that Z wanted suicide by cop.???

You want to know a good way to get yourself killed. Pull a gun on someone and point it at them when a police officer is on his way. It's a very stupid thing to do when all Zimmerman had to do was make sure Martin stayed near for a few more minutes.

Zimmerman did NOT have to "make sure Martin stayed near for a few more minutes" - that was not his job and attempting to do so is illegal!

But thanks for admitting that was exactly Zimmerman's attempt, because Zimmerman's attempt to detain Trayvon plus Zimmerman's gun is EXACTLY why Trayvon had EVERY RIGHT to self-defense.

No, but his "neighborhood watch" training did, and the 911 responder did, and normal common sense does.

And that reason why is this situation, the person you are trying to follow turns around and assaults you.

You don't get to pretend Trayvon "attacked" Zimmerman when - by your own admission - Zimmerman was attempting to illegally detain Trayvon. Trayvon had every right to his own self-defense.

But thanks for admitting that Zimmerman is the kind of violent hothead who ignores all training, direct orders and common sense to illegally attempt to detain (and ultimately murder) an innocent young man.

The two reasons it's suggested is one to make sure you don't some other law, which he didn't ???

Someone could break other laws while helping a cop such as trespassing, speeding, and other things and a normal civilian would get charged with those crimes even if they were helping the cops do there job.

Zimmerman was not "helping" the police. To the contrary, he was SPECIFICALLY told NOT to go after Trayvon.

Fuck this lie - I am so fucking sick of Zimmerman's self-serving lies being repeated over and over.
Even if you THINK this is what happened, there is ZERO evidence to support your opinion, so stop pretending otherwise.

Actually all the evidence does point this way,

Bullshit. NONE of it does. You have only Zimmerman's ever-changing self-serving lies

 

[Crazy Eddie]

There is a huge difference in wanting to make sure that the police officers had a chance to question Martin...

But there is no LEGAL way Zimmerman could have done that. He doesn't have the authority to arrest or detain anyone. Any attempt to do so would be classified as an assault. Essentially, Zimmerman admitted his intention to assault Martin on the streets to keep him from escaping justice for whatever crime Zimmerman imagined he must have committed.

Violence was only his last resort.

He has a history of resorting to violence unnecessarily, both before and after this incident. What makes you think his behavior with Maritn -- a total stranger whom he suspected was a criminal -- would be any more restrained than his behavior towards his own wife?

No, but his "neighborhood watch" training did, and the 911 responder did, and normal common sense does.

And that reason why is this situation, the person you are trying to follow turns around and assaults you.

No. The reason why is, following a person -- especially with a weapon -- could be considered harassment or threatening behavior. Confronting that person -- especially with a weapon -- makes you criminally liable since you are not a police officer and have no authority to confront anyone on private property that isn't your own.

This isn't just for neighborhood watch. Our rules of engagement as armed security guards made two things overwhelmingly clear:
1) We do not have the power to arrest, detain or deter criminals, only to report criminal activity to the proper authorities
2) Our weapons are IMPLIED deterrence, and only to be used in a clear life or death situation such as an active shooter or terrorist threat. It has nothing to do with BEING assaulted. It has to do with the guard/watch person having no real police power and putting themselves in a position to use the powers they don't have would actually make them guilty of criminal behavior.

I can tell you that if I, as an armed guard, saw a suspicious individual loitering around near my building, my duty is to phone the police and tell them there's a suspicious individual, here's his description, here's where I am. I am not to follow him around, I am not to engage him, question him, detain him, or threaten him. Any attempt to do any of those things would result in me being immediately fired and possibly prosecuted.

Here's the thing though: my duty changes if he is trespassing in the building, in which case I am authorized to detain him or throw him out, or at the very least follow him closely to make sure he isn't stealing something or vandalizing something. If George Zimmerman was operating on similar rules of engagement, then seeing Trayvon emerge from private property where he had been hiding would have indicated -- in his racist little mind -- that Trayvon had just finished robbing that house and was about to run for it. He thought he was being a hero and tried to stop him getting away. Instead Trayvon knocked him on his ass for being the meddlesome troublemaker that he was, and Zimmerman murdered him.

Actually all the evidence does point this way

No it doesn't. There is NO evidence that suggests Martin had any intention of confronting Zimmerman, and there is Zimmerman's own words that suggest he was in a confrontational state of mind from the beginning. Zimmerman's character is also evidence: in the years before and since, he has been in violent confrontations multiple times, almost always as the aggressor. Martin has no history of unprovoked aggression against total strangers. Between the two of them, then it is far more likely that the man with the history of violence and the stated intention to commit (what he thought was justified) violence initiated the confrontation than the teenager whose initial actions were purely defensive in nature and has no clear motive to engage him in the first place.

ALL of the evidence points strongly to Zimmerman being the aggressor. Factually speaking, his pursuit of Martin in the first place was an aggressive action.

Martin decided to walk about toward his chaser for no reason.

That depends on where Zimmerman was when Martin spotted him again. If Zimmerman had moved PAST the T when Martin spotted him again, Martin would have had to move TOWARDS the T to get away from him. But that's where Zimmerman decides to stop him from getting away and where the fight breaks out.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We know without doubt Zimmerman sought Martin. We do not know Martin sought out Zimmerman. We also know which person had a gun, was told to not intervene by the 911 operator, and lied on his first retelling of the events.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Loren Pechtel]

CA let's cut the crap. Your resistance to Zimm being a stone cold killer has nothing to do with Zimm's actual guilt (Or lack there of) but instead has everything to do with you not wanting to acknowledge that sometimes black people get the shit end of the stick.

Why is that? What's it to you if this is true or not? What is your personal stake in this to justify your stubborn obstinance to the point of absurdity?

Your unwillingness to accept that Trayvon was a thug has everything to do with your leftist notion that the underdog is always in the right.

 

[Arctish]

CA let's cut the crap. Your resistance to Zimm being a stone cold killer has nothing to do with Zimm's actual guilt (Or lack there of) but instead has everything to do with you not wanting to acknowledge that sometimes black people get the shit end of the stick.

Why is that? What's it to you if this is true or not? What is your personal stake in this to justify your stubborn obstinance to the point of absurdity?

Your unwillingness to accept that Trayvon was a *thug has everything to do with your leftist notion that the underdog is always in the right.

* definition 2

 

[RavenSky]

CA let's cut the crap. Your resistance to Zimm being a stone cold killer has nothing to do with Zimm's actual guilt (Or lack there of) but instead has everything to do with you not wanting to acknowledge that sometimes black people get the shit end of the stick.

Why is that? What's it to you if this is true or not? What is your personal stake in this to justify your stubborn obstinance to the point of absurdity?

Your unwillingness to accept that Trayvon was a thug has everything to do with your leftist notion that the underdog is always in the right.

Bullshit.

It has everything to do with the fact that Trayvon Martin was not every a "thug", but you and the other usual suspects trot that word out (as always) to justify the murder of an innocent black person

 

[coloradoatheist]

Your unwillingness to accept that Trayvon was a thug has everything to do with your leftist notion that the underdog is always in the right.

Bullshit.

It has everything to do with the fact that Trayvon Martin was not every a "thug", but you and the other usual suspects trot that word out (as always) to justify the murder of an innocent black person

NO, I think he just handled a problem that he normally handled at school by fighting. Just can't do that outside of school.

 

[coloradoatheist]

CA let's cut the crap. Your resistance to Zimm being a stone cold killer has nothing to do with Zimm's actual guilt (Or lack there of) but instead has everything to do with you not wanting to acknowledge that sometimes black people get the shit end of the stick.

Why is that? What's it to you if this is true or not? What is your personal stake in this to justify your stubborn obstinance to the point of absurdity?

Your unwillingness to accept that Trayvon was a thug has everything to do with your leftist notion that the underdog is always in the right.

A stone cold killer doesn't call the police prior to doing it, that's a good way to kill yourself. If he wanted to detain Martin he had a chance to do it when he walked by his car, not later.

And to answer why. I think a person has a right to watch their neighborhood, help out police, and not have to bow down to people who think it's okay to assault someone they don't like.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Actually Zimmerman often has called the police when in the wrong, to include when he's destroyed property, lied about assaulting someone, and lied about being assaulted. In some of those instances he had a gun at the time. So this situation was regular for him.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Actually Zimmerman often has called the police when in the wrong, to include when he's destroyed property, lied about assaulting someone, and lied about being assaulted. In some of those instances he had a gun at the time. So this situation was regular for him.

And which stories are you referrring to?

 

[Arctish]

Bullshit.

It has everything to do with the fact that Trayvon Martin was not every a "thug", but you and the other usual suspects trot that word out (as always) to justify the murder of an innocent black person

NO, I think he just handled a problem that he normally handled at school by fighting. Just can't do that outside of school.

Why do you think he normally handled problems at school by fighting?

None of his teachers, classmates, or school administrators said he did that. None of the kids, instructors, or administrators at the summer camp he attended said he handled problems that way. None of the neighbors where he grew up said it either. Aside from boxing with friends on school grounds, he isn't known to have fought anyone in his entire life right up to the night he was fighting for his life against the armed stranger who assaulted him. So where did you get the idea he dealt with problems by fighting?

You keep describing Zimmerman's character - his belligerence, his tendency to resort to violence, his criminal behavior, his interest and training in MMA, his decision to assault someone - but saying it was Martin doing those things. And you keep citing a person's right to defend themselves against assault but denying it applies to Martin. It's like every poor decision and character flaw that was revealed that night must become Martin's, even if it wasn't his before, and every right of liberty and self defense can only belong to the white guy.

I don't know where you picked up this dogma, but it certainly wasn't from a source interested in a fair-minded, honest examination of fact, nor does it appear to have been from a source that believes in equal rights.

 

[RavenSky]

Bullshit.

It has everything to do with the fact that Trayvon Martin was not every a "thug", but you and the other usual suspects trot that word out (as always) to justify the murder of an innocent black person

NO, I think he just handled a problem that he normally handled at school by fighting. Just can't do that outside of school.

I think you are mixing up Trayvon and Zimmerman. Zimmerman is the one who resorts to violence in every situation. Not Trayvon.

Why are you so determined to pretend Zimmerman is blameless? Is it because Trayvon was a young black teenager?

 

[RavenSky]

A stone cold killer doesn't call the police prior to doing it, that's a good way to kill yourself. If he wanted to detain Martin he had a chance to do it when he walked by his car, not later.

And to answer why. I think a person has a right to watch their neighborhood, help out police, and not have to bow down to people who think it's okay to assault someone they don't like.

Every rational honest person here agrees that "a person has a right to watch their neighborhood, help out police." And no matter how much of a racist thug Zimmerman is, no one here has an issue with him calling the police about Trayvon (in the legal sense. Ethically, it was racist as fuck). But that is ALL Zimmerman should have done that night, because we also agree that it is NOT "okay to assault someone they don't like."

Zimmerman should have NEVER gone after Trayvon and assaulted Trayon.

Zimmerman was 100% in the wrong the second he took his gun and left his truck. Those are the facts.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Actually Zimmerman often has called the police when in the wrong, to include when he's destroyed property, lied about assaulting someone, and lied about being assaulted. In some of those instances he had a gun at the time. So this situation was regular for him.

And which stories are you referrring to?

His constant bouts of domestic violence including one where he's on camera destroying property but lied about it...and the incident in the restaurant where he lied about being assaulted that was linked in this thread...

 

[RavenSky]

For what it is worth:

Glass said she hopes viewers take away a message from the Zimmerman episode.

“Being a juror on this trial was much more difficult and complex than anyone can imagine,” she said. “A young man lost his life, and even though the jurors stand by their verdict based on the letter of the law, the charges levied and the evidence presented, they feel as if justice wasn’t served. The narrow guidelines they were given forced them into their verdict. What they learned about Zimmerman in the aftermath of the verdict has disturbed some of them deeply.”

Rivera says she followed the instructions given to the jury, but still believes that Zimmerman got away with murder, a point she made to “GMA” in 2013.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/ente...ughest-episode-to-produce-20170723-story.html

 

[Loren Pechtel]

NO, I think he just handled a problem that he normally handled at school by fighting. Just can't do that outside of school.

Why do you think he normally handled problems at school by fighting?

None of his teachers, classmates, or school administrators said he did that. None of the kids, instructors, or administrators at the summer camp he attended said he handled problems that way. None of the neighbors where he grew up said it either. Aside from boxing with friends on school grounds, he isn't known to have fought anyone in his entire life right up to the night he was fighting for his life against the armed stranger who assaulted him. So where did you get the idea he dealt with problems by fighting?

The lack of reports means nothing. The victims knew better than to say anything.

You keep describing Zimmerman's character - his belligerence, his tendency to resort to violence, his criminal behavior, his interest and training in MMA, his decision to assault someone - but saying it was Martin doing those things. And you keep citing a person's right to defend themselves against assault but denying it applies to Martin. It's like every poor decision and character flaw that was revealed that night must become Martin's, even if it wasn't his before, and every right of liberty and self defense can only belong to the white guy.

I don't know where you picked up this dogma, but it certainly wasn't from a source interested in a fair-minded, honest examination of fact, nor does it appear to have been from a source that believes in equal rights.

MMA is not the same thing as the street fighting that Martin was involved in.

- - - Updated - - -

For what it is worth:

Glass said she hopes viewers take away a message from the Zimmerman episode.

“Being a juror on this trial was much more difficult and complex than anyone can imagine,” she said. “A young man lost his life, and even though the jurors stand by their verdict based on the letter of the law, the charges levied and the evidence presented, they feel as if justice wasn’t served. The narrow guidelines they were given forced them into their verdict. What they learned about Zimmerman in the aftermath of the verdict has disturbed some of them deeply.”

Rivera says she followed the instructions given to the jury, but still believes that Zimmerman got away with murder, a point she made to “GMA” in 2013.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/ente...ughest-episode-to-produce-20170723-story.html

They wanted to convict Zimmerman because they didn't like him but it was justifiable in the eyes of the law. Besides, the media was far from honest in this case--they go for the side of controversy, whether or not there's any basis for it.

 

[RavenSky]

The lack of reports means nothing. The victims knew better than to say anything.

Loren making up shit out of thin air here

MMA is not the same thing as the street fighting that Martin was involved in.

It is EXACTLY the same thing. ALL of the evidence of Trayvon "fighting" indicated that is was organized "MMA-style" bouts. The only differences between Zimmerman's MMA-style "training" and Trayvon's is that Zimmerman could afford to get his at a gym.

Moreover, it is Zimmerman, not Trayvon, who had the long history of actual violence, including arrests for attacking people.

You are spouting bullshit, as usual.

 

[Arctish]

Why do you think he normally handled problems at school by fighting?

None of his teachers, classmates, or school administrators said he did that. None of the kids, instructors, or administrators at the summer camp he attended said he handled problems that way. None of the neighbors where he grew up said it either. Aside from boxing with friends on school grounds, he isn't known to have fought anyone in his entire life right up to the night he was fighting for his life against the armed stranger who assaulted him. So where did you get the idea he dealt with problems by fighting?

The lack of reports means nothing. The victims knew better than to say anything.

The lack of reports means nothing to True Believers of the One True Faith In George Zimmerman's Innocence.

Everyone else requires evidence before they will believe something actually exists or really happened. And that's a good thing. Society functions better when we make our decisions based on evidence, not on the imaginings of some of our more *ahem* visionary members.

You keep describing Zimmerman's character - his belligerence, his tendency to resort to violence, his criminal behavior, his interest and training in MMA, his decision to assault someone - but saying it was Martin doing those things. And you keep citing a person's right to defend themselves against assault but denying it applies to Martin. It's like every poor decision and character flaw that was revealed that night must become Martin's, even if it wasn't his before, and every right of liberty and self defense can only belong to the white guy.

I don't know where you picked up this dogma, but it certainly wasn't from a source interested in a fair-minded, honest examination of fact, nor does it appear to have been from a source that believes in equal rights.

MMA is not the same thing as the street fighting that Martin was involved in.

Where did you get the idea Martin was a street fighter? Did you find coloradoatheist's source, or did you imagine it yourself?

For what it is worth:

Glass said she hopes viewers take away a message from the Zimmerman episode.

“Being a juror on this trial was much more difficult and complex than anyone can imagine,” she said. “A young man lost his life, and even though the jurors stand by their verdict based on the letter of the law, the charges levied and the evidence presented, they feel as if justice wasn’t served. The narrow guidelines they were given forced them into their verdict. What they learned about Zimmerman in the aftermath of the verdict has disturbed some of them deeply.”

Rivera says she followed the instructions given to the jury, but still believes that Zimmerman got away with murder, a point she made to “GMA” in 2013.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/ente...ughest-episode-to-produce-20170723-story.html

They wanted to convict Zimmerman because they didn't like him but it was justifiable in the eyes of the law. Besides, the media was far from honest in this case--they go for the side of controversy, whether or not there's any basis for it.

Nice dogmatic response to an investigative report you haven't even seen. Keep it up and you'll be Bishop Pechtel in no time!