R.I.P Trayvon

wow. he said that he didnt regret getting out of the car. Huh? like you dont regret shooting him. And now he said it was god's plan. Dont bring god into this dog
 
blakep267 said:
wow. he said that he didnt regret getting out of the car. Huh? like you dont regret shooting him. And now he said it was god's plan. Dont bring god into this dog
Click to expand...

He probably thinks what he did was "heroic" :lol:

"I was just doing my job. I didn't want any of my fellow officers to get hurt."
 
CelticsFan9783 said:
AirCommanderMarsFiend said:
This is kind of crazy. You have people going out of their way to try and defend stalking someone in the night by saying: "well technically it isn't illegal".

If your mom was being stalked, and reacted, but then got shot would you be so quick to claim the legalities of the case? "Well, technically, my mom shouldn't have been suspicious of a stranger following her and initiating the confrontation by spraying him with mace".
Click to expand...

If the law didn't matter, there wouldn't be a trial :lol:

Shooting TM was wrong morally yes. He was wrong to follow him yes. However, it's the law that matters. If GZ acted within the boundaries of the law, nothing else matters.

It's not defending him. It's addressing the culpability as it relates to Florida's statutes.
Click to expand...

Yeah this Florida statute is so ridiculous

Yoooo I am crying that still final sentence of "ahh you got me!"

The fact that he says he would do nothing different in hindsight is sickening. You now know TM wasn't doing anything wrong, yet he still has no remorse? If I shot someone breaking into my home I'd even be able to say I regret it happened and wish I didn't have to shoot someone in hindsight.
 
AirCommanderMarsFiend said:
This is kind of crazy. You have people going out of their way to try and defend stalking someone in the night by saying: "well technically it isn't illegal".

If your mom was being stalked, and reacted, but then got shot would you be so quick to claim the legalities of the case? "Well, technically, my mom shouldn't have been suspicious of a stranger following her and initiating the confrontation by spraying him with mace".

This is ridiculous- the kid obviously felt threatened by the older adult following him...he expressed that to his friend on the phone.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I haven't been following the trial but how come Zimmerman has the right to defend himself but not Trayvon?
 
fraij da 5 11 said:
When does George get to take the stand?
Click to expand...
he probably won't is what im hearing...

because the State showed all these interviews, which is basically GZ's account of what happened -- his defense

the guy on the Channel 9 broadcast was explaining it all and said he thinks the State messed up by presenting things in this order ... he said they should have waited until GZ was called to the stand, then brought out the tapes to play against his statements in court...
 
CelticsFan9783 said:
Exactly. That's how the law works in FL and other places. And I agree it's pretty twisted.

That's why you always hear people say "I didn't throw the first punch." Throwing the first punch is nearly always considered the most aggravating factor and used in self-defense counter-arguments.

But if you think about it, being followed isn't necessarily grounds for attacking, because it sets a horrible precedent and slippery slope.

Example: I'm walking through the city at night. Someone's following me, at every turn, I become alarmed and punch him in the mouth. What if he was gonna ask me for directions, hand me a club flyer, ask for change, etc.?

See how that could be perceived as a slippery slope? That would create an incredibly schizophrenic community if every time you become paranoid, you could strike. That's why law is so interesting. So much open for interpretation.

And it's also important to know what exactly happened in this case. What if he was cornered and GZ said something threatening? What other alternative does a scared 17 year old have? Maybe he feared for his life? That's another possibility. No one knows though.
Click to expand...
Yea the law is so crazy although in the example....oddly enough they make the exception for women. The incident you described happened with my cousin and his baby mamma.

She was on some drama ish.....because she thought he was cheating so tore up his spot etc....he went to follower her to ask her like wdf, she in turn instead of answering went all baby mamma drama and start slapping him punching on him etc...He was trying to get her off and smushed her in the face and she fell.

He however was charged with assault/battery etc... along with a few other things like obstruction of justice I believe. So I know personally that the way this law is so called suppose to be isn't concrete in stone.
 
now its interesting. GZ reached into his pocket.Now if somebody is following me, and then reaches into their pocket man :smh:

Id be scared and Id probably lash out
 
011781 said:
wow... he said it was God's plan

that should sit well with the jury.
Click to expand...
sounds about right....religion and death>atheism as history has shown time and time again. Religion Actions without culpability and accountability...well that's until you reach this so called unproven afterlife.
 
Elpablo21 said:
problem is he shouldnt follow anyone (regardless of race) and call the cops (and not the non emergency line) if he believed a person was up to something serious
Click to expand...
Zimmerman had every right to follow and verbally interact with Martin that night. There are absolutely ZERO laws against those actions, and neither following, nor verbally interacting with Martin pushes the situation up the force scale.

Could it have made Martin nervous? Sure, but had both men acted maturely, the fight would not have happened.

From the point of view of the law, SOMEONE threw a punch. We don't know who it was, but its the only thing that really matters here. Had Zimmerman punched Martin first, Zimmerman would be guilty of at least manslaughter, if not outright murder.

BUT, if Martin threw the first punch, then Zimmerman is guilty of nothing but self defense, and under Florida law is immune from all criminal and civil prosecution.

Once again, we don't know who threw the first punch, and as such, we don't know who is at fault.

What everyone flat out arguing for Martin does not understand is that the only thing that matters is what happened from a legal perspective.

We all have heard from the media what might have happened had Zimmerman been in the wrong... yes, he might have killed martin in cold blood, but there are alternate narratives based on the evidence, one of which in fact is what Zimmerman has claimed all along.

Lets look at the last one though that nobody seems to be talking about.

Lets say that Martin does understand the laws, and realizes that if he attacks Zimmerman, he will be in the wrong. He still wants to make sure that Zimmerman is not some creeper, so he doubles back and confronts Zimmerman head on. Once again, Martin knows the laws and realizes that he can't just attack Zimmerman unprovoked, so he identifies himself, uses as much strong language as he likes, but eventually Zimmerman figures out that Martin lives where he does, and Martin figures out that Zimmerman is just trying to protect everyone in the neighborhood. Both men walk away unharmed, and the gun never comes into play.

The law is VERY cut and dry... very binary. It leaves absolutely no room for morals or ethics.

Once again, I know that nobody likes hearing this, but the Law is the only thing that matters here. It basically boils down to this: "if you are the aggressor, and your actions could cause grave bodily harm or death, then you are taking your life into your own hands, because the person you are attacking has every right to do whatever is necessary to defend themselves. That includes taking your life."

Neither you, or I know who threw the first punch that night. But... given that head injuries are disorienting, and given that pounding a head on concrete is fully capable of killing someone, then Zimmerman would very likely have been "scared for his life" as is required by law to justify lethal force. If he initiated the use of force... not the encounter, but use of force, then he would be guilty of at least manslaughter, if not murder.

If Martin initiated use of force, then sadly the law says that Zimmerman is justified in taking Martin's life.

Also, for race discussion people may want to refer to this page and duly note the parents have withdrawn by their lawyer that this case is not about racial profiling:http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...cution-star-witness-grilled-article-1.1384074
 
timbo109 said:
shoelyesses said:
I still don't like the fact that gz cant be questioned...
Click to expand...


MikeJeffJo said:
GZ dads a judge

That's why he's not taking the stand

But nobody thinks that's a factor
Click to expand...
wait what? Its his 5th amendment right not to testify. Are sons of judges the only ones afforded that right?
Click to expand...
i think he just means since his dads a judge he put him on game of what to do and not to do to help ur case which in this case is not take the stand
 
Jerseyjz said:
initiating a confrontation would be walking up to them and saying something. (which trayvon did)
Click to expand...
Got proof? There is no evidence saying he did and even if he did , the boy was protecting himself

Would if somebody was following u and then u see them walking looking for you hunting you and u see them, your going to be nice and say hey can I give you a hug?
 
^^so we are supposed to assume that 17 yr olds are certified paralegals with regard to the laws?? And aggressor is not cut and dry binary. That is totally subjective, I can yell at someone right up at their face and some may not consider that non threatening. Then I could raise my voice and some would consider that threatening in their eyes, others consider throwing a punch or even pushing being an aggressor.

I can argue that if GZ would have initiated contact by identifying himself as neighborhood watch captain and told Trayvon this off the bat then TM would've likely said oh ok I'm going back to my dads I just came from the store. Then nothing at all would have happened and both people wouldn't have their lives wither ended or have their name tarnished.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

therealest1
R.I.P. Paul Reubens AKA Pee-wee Herman
Replies
13
Views
608
$tacy
$tacy

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom