George Zimmerman Arrested On Domestic Violence And Weapons Charge

[AthenaAwakened]

No because Z wasn't justified in confronting M in the first place. Z created the conflict situation and therefore can't claim self defense afterwards.

We discussed that ad nauseam years ago, during the original "Dying for Skittles" thread. You do not lose right to self defense by merely confronting somebody. The question is who attacked whom, not who spoke to whom first, and evidence suggests it was M attacking Z.

Does any of this happen if Zimmerman stays his ass in his truck?

Ans.: No.

And that is why Zimmerman is cause of this misfortune and why he is guilty of what happened after.

You start shit, be prepared to get shit.

And if you too big a chicken shit to hold your ground with skin, KEEP YOUR DAMN ASS IN THE DAMN TRUCK

 

[Nexus]

So GZ made a initial mistake that should preclude him from later defending himself when the situation escalates?

No he can defend himself but the state shouldn't allow him self defense immunity afterwards.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

To be fair, GZ was being threatened on a regulatory basis after the TM homicide case. That might make one acquire weapons for fear of retribution. His life really went to shit during and after the incident - some of it his own doing.

My take is that GZ's life was already shit, from some time well before his TM episode.

 

[EPresence2]

To be fair, GZ was being threatened on a regulatory basis after the TM homicide case. That might make one acquire weapons for fear of retribution. His life really went to shit during and after the incident - some of it his own doing.

My take is that GZ's life was already shit, from some time well before his TM episode.

There are levels of "shit" as opposed to a state of "shit" - most everyone has some shit in their life. Are you claiming it didn't get any worse with the TM case?

- - - Updated - - -

So GZ made a initial mistake that should preclude him from later defending himself when the situation escalates?

No he can defend himself but the state shouldn't allow him self defense immunity.

I would agree with that. He should NOT get immunity from prosecution for claiming self defense.

 

[Mumbles]

Well...yeah, he's a violent guy. What.

What part of "I chased down and shot a teenager for walking down my street." Did people not understand?

 

[EPresence2]

Well...yeah, he's a violent guy. What.

What part of "I chased down and shot a teenager for walking down my street." Did people not understand?

Just like Wilson stopped and executed an unarmed black teenager for jaywalking? This is substantive oversimplification.

 

[EPresence2]

You do not lose right to self defense by merely confronting somebody. The question is who attacked whom, not who spoke to whom first, and evidence suggests it was M attacking Z.

This is where we fundamentally disagree. You shouldn't be able to confront someone that's not doing anything illegal. If you do then you forfeit any self defense claims later.

So you should just accept whatever force escalation is thrown at you? This is another absurd conclusion. That said, I would say GZ deserved some punishment for starting the verbal confrontation and resulting homicide.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

My take is that GZ's life was already shit, from some time well before his TM episode.

There are levels of "shit" as opposed to a state of "shit" - most everyone has some shit in their life. Are you claiming it didn't get any worse with the TM case?

Compared with all the people I know his life is shit, which is what led to TM. The guy is a Loser with a capitol L.

 

[Mumbles]

Well...yeah, he's a violent guy. What.

What part of "I chased down and shot a teenager for walking down my street." Did people not understand?

Just like Wilson stopped and executed an unarmed black teenager for jaywalking? This is substantive oversimplification.

No, it's not.

Assuming that by "Wilson" you mean the guy that shot Michael Brown, um, Darren Wilson was a police officer. Yes, he was aggressive. That's a part of his job. We pay police to be aggressive when necessary. And it's pretty clear that Wilson had a clear call linking Michael Brown to a robbery. That's worth looking into. Also, um, they get official cars and uniforms so that people can identify them. I still say that that shooting may have been legit.

(Now, the police force flipping out while people were mourning, is another matter. And it could have been hashed out in trial, if the prosecutor hadn't gone so far as to unethically thrown the trial.)

In contrast, Zimmerman had no reason at all to suspect Martin of doing anything wrong - and as far as we know, Martin simply just walked to the corner store to get some snacks and then walked back home, only to have some random dude chase him down. Zimmerman was clearly a violent idiot, right from the first time we heard about him.

So what exactly is it? Why would anyone still Stan for this guy? I mean, I get only one reason, though I'll keep it to myself...

 

[EPresence2]

Just like Wilson stopped and executed an unarmed black teenager for jaywalking? This is substantive oversimplification.

No, it's not.

Assuming that by "Wilson" you mean the guy that shot Michael Brown, um, Darren Wilson was a police officer. Yes, he was aggressive. That's a part of his job. We pay police to be aggressive when necessary. And it's pretty clear that Wilson had a clear call linking Michael Brown to a robbery. That's worth looking into. Also, um, they get official cars and uniforms so that people can identify them. I still say that that shooting may have been legit.

(Now, the police force flipping out while people were mourning, is another matter. And it could have been hashed out in trial, if the prosecutor hadn't gone so far as to unethically thrown the trial.)

In contrast, Zimmerman had no reason at all to suspect Martin of doing anything wrong - and as far as we know, Martin simply just walked to the corner store to get some snacks and then walked back home, only to have some random dude chase him down. Zimmerman was clearly a violent idiot, right from the first time we heard about him.

So what exactly is it? Why would anyone still Stan for this guy? I mean, I get only one reason, though I'll keep it to myself...

It would be more accurate if you had said "I chased down and shot a teenager for beating my ass in retaliation for following him." Unless you think the ass beating is irrelevant like Nexus apparently does. And I'm not at all sure the pre-TM history of GZ is all that damning. He has certainly gone downhill since then.

 

[EPresence2]

There are levels of "shit" as opposed to a state of "shit" - most everyone has some shit in their life. Are you claiming it didn't get any worse with the TM case?

Compared with all the people I know his life is shit, which is what led to TM. The guy is a Loser with a capitol L.

Maybe I missed all the news accounts that showed GZ's life was a pile of hopeless shit before the TM incident. And I don't watch FOX news. But I'm open to a case being made that he was a loser before the incident. We'd also need to compare and contrast with TM's life and its promise.

 

[Mumbles]

It would be more accurate if you had said "I chased down and shot a teenager for beating my ass in retaliation for following him." Unless you think the ass beating is irrelevant like Nexus apparently does. And I'm not at all sure the pre-TM history of GZ is all that damning. He has certainly gone downhill since then.

Well, yes, Zimmerman was clearly the aggressor, as he has been in all of these other incidents that he caused.

And yes, the ass-beating is of no importance. The evidence is pretty clear- Zimmerman tried to (illegally) detain Martin, probably grabbed him, Martin beat Zimmerman up, and Zimmerman's response was to shoot and kill Martin (who he cluelessly referred to as "the suspect"). The man clearly needs time in jail, or mental help - probably the latter.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Everyone needs to understand also that the whole episode is taking place in the South. Letting people like Zimmerman walk away from this shit has been standard practice for centuries. Anyone who thinks this legacy is not still alive and well is deluding themselves. It happens everywhere, but mostly in the south.

Good Article

 

[EPresence2]

It would be more accurate if you had said "I chased down and shot a teenager for beating my ass in retaliation for following him." Unless you think the ass beating is irrelevant like Nexus apparently does. And I'm not at all sure the pre-TM history of GZ is all that damning. He has certainly gone downhill since then.

Well, yes, Zimmerman was clearly the aggressor, as he has been in all of these other incidents that he caused.

And yes, the ass-beating is of no importance. The evidence is pretty clear- Zimmerman tried to (illegally) detain Martin, probably grabbed him, Martin beat Zimmerman up, and Zimmerman's response was to shoot and kill Martin (who he cluelessly referred to as "the suspect"). The man clearly needs time in jail, or mental help - probably the latter.

There is no such evidence that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin - only eye witness accounts of an ass beating. And what other incidents are you referring to? Of course, I'm open to being ignorant of some evidence and prior cases of Zimmerman trying to detain suspects.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

So, the answer is more guns. If I'm reading everyone correctly.

Exactly.
Please give to a struggling civil rights organization and get a free digital camo duffel bag.

 

[Toni]

Given how many arrests this jerk has had for being a violent prick - both before and after he murdered Trayvon - it just disgusts me how many people still defend him.

Just because Z is a violent prick doesn't mean that Trayvon wasn't one as well. And being a violent prick does not mean one forfeits one's right to self defense or the need for the state to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

And thankfully, being a violent prick does not mean that you would ever misrepresent events to justify your actions.

 

[Mumbles]

There is no such evidence that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin

There clearly is. The location of Martin's body, the testimony of Rachel Jeantelle. This one is really easy.

Why are people still Stanning for this violent dude George Zimmerman?

 

[EPresence2]

There is no such evidence that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin

There clearly is. The location of Martin's body, the testimony of Rachel Jeantelle. This one is really easy.

Why are people still Stanning for this violent dude George Zimmerman?

How is the location of the body evidence of an attempted detainment? And I just read Rachel's testimony (again) - she said TM was saying "Get off me!" This isn't clear and easy evidence that TM was being detained. He could have been referring to the following/tailing by GZ. That is also a "her word versus his word" sort of thing. Rachel also admitted lying under oath in another facet of her testimony. Of course, that doesn't mean she lied about everything - but neither does a GZ lie mean he lied about everything.

Note: strike outs only mean statements don't contribute to your point.

 

[Mumbles]

There clearly is. The location of Martin's body, the testimony of Rachel Jeantelle. This one is really easy.

Why are people still Stanning for this violent dude George Zimmerman?

How is the location of the body evidence of an attempted detainment? And I just read Rachel's testimony (again) - she said TM was saying "Get off me!" This isn't clear and easy evidence that TM was being detained. He could have been referring to the following/tailing by GZ. That is also a "her word versus his word" sort of thing. Rachel also admitted lying under oath in another facet of her testimony. Of course, that doesn't mean she lied about everything - but neither does a GZ lie mean he lied about everything.

Note: strike outs only mean statements don't contribute to your point.

Yeah, the stuff you struck out...matter.

Stop Stanning.

 

[EPresence2]

How is the location of the body evidence of an attempted detainment? And I just read Rachel's testimony (again) - she said TM was saying "Get off me!" This isn't clear and easy evidence that TM was being detained. He could have been referring to the following/tailing by GZ. That is also a "her word versus his word" sort of thing. Rachel also admitted lying under oath in another facet of her testimony. Of course, that doesn't mean she lied about everything - but neither does a GZ lie mean he lied about everything.

Note: strike outs only mean statements don't contribute to your point.

Yeah, the stuff you struck out...matter.

Stop Stanning.

They characterize the point you are trying to make or make a sweeping pronouncement without making a case. They only matter to you without evidence you share with me (and others who don't already agree with you). It's that simple. Feel free to strike out statements from me that are of a similar nature (e.g., this is clear, this is absurd). If this is "stanning" then I'm guilty as charged. Maybe I care more about the integrity of the debate than fanning the flames.

There is no such evidence that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin

There clearly is. The location of Martin's body, the testimony of Rachel Jeantelle. This one is really easy.

Why are people still Stanning for this violent dude George Zimmerman?