Ask Me Help Desk - Trayvon II

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothy

If Treyvon had a shred of common sense or respect...he would have simply answered a legitimate question about what he was doing there....

We know Zimmerman asked him that? -- and then turned around and walked back to his vehicle?

We know Zimmerman' accosted Martin'. ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

we know Zimmerman' accosted Martin'. ?

accost = approach and address (someone) boldly or aggressively. (Dictionary.com)

Did Zimmerman ask Martin what he was doing there (it's a multi-ethnic community)? And Martin had no more clue who Zimmerman was than Zimmerman did about who Martin was.

Technically a correct definition ,however the use of the word is designed to deceive . According to testimony it was Martin who approached Zimmerman when he had the option to avoid direct confrontation. Then it was Martin who first 'accosted ' by asking Zimmerman boldly or aggressively why he was following him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

Couple things.. I saw some of the interview, and I don't see HOW they could edit it.. Nonetheless, if they did, it'll become clear shortly. Certainly, she'll be interviewed again.

But, I don't understand your investment in George Zimmerman. I have NO investment in Trayvon. I have an investment in LAW, and how it's applied. I have an OPINION on what happened, but because we have only ONE side, an OPINION is all ANYBODY could have... That would be unless you believed every word out of Zimmerman's mouth. Even then, it wouldn't be FACT. It would be your BELIEF.

Although, my OPINION is that Zimmerman got away with murder. It's also my opinion that the jury reached the correct verdict..

excon

The unedited video makes it clear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

technically a correct definition ,however the use of the word is designed to deceive . According to testimony it was Martin who approached Zimmerman when he had the option to avoid direct confrontation. Then it was Martin who first 'accosted ' by asking Zimmerman boldly or aggressively why he was following him.

Technically, no, it's not about deception.

And if you were black and some heavyset white guy was following you on a dark rainy night, what would you do?

(P.S. We have only one person's word about this.)

He isn't white, that's the deception.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

He isn't white, that's the deception.

On a dark, rainy night (his face would have looked like the moon) or in a courtroom, you could have fooled me. Latinos are listed as Caucasian in ethnic surveys. Oh, and in Chicago, Latinos and blacks hate each other.

Quote:

And if you were black and some heavyset white guy was following you on a dark rainy night, what would you do?

can't speak for what a black would do... I would run like hell and do everything I can to avoid a confrontation. But things about Martin that the judge ruled inadmissible tells me that he liked to fight.. he liked to see his opponent bleed .
Breaking – Jury will not get to see Trayvon fighting texts

Hello again, tom:

Quote:

he liked to see his opponent bleed .

Yeah, he should have been killed. I would have killed him just because of his hoodie.. Gold teeth - KILL HIM!

Excon

I of course said nothing of the kind.

Hello again, tom:

Quote:

I of course said nothing of the kind.

I didn't say you did.

Excon

We all understand, the ones with common sense anyway, the conservative notion of self defense that allow and empowers fearful so called citizens the ability to act outside the law and accepted good behavior and common sense to old west small town justice against anything that they fear, or don't like. I can understand the need to justify such action by completely ignoring the actions of the gun toting vigilante who was the only witness left standing while vilifying his victim because its real simple, if Zimmerman went to jail, then the scab of stupidity, and knee jerk fear would have been ripped off for all to see the true agenda that the gun manufacturers and their law writing political groups on the ones they scare into buying guns and act with false courage the guns brings.

Then conservatives and bought politicians will have to acknowledge they have been riled up and played to sell more gun, and use them. How else can you explain how a bloody nose and some bumps and bruise is a justification to kill a kid? How else can you explain how a kid in a hoodie is a threat that had to be eliminated? How else can you explain the fact that knowing the cops were coming the dumba$$ with the gun was in fear of his life anyway?

How else do you explain the law itself, that gives anyone the right to kill because they were afraid. I guess its not enough to defend home, now we can kill anything we don't like and just say we were in fear, and use the self defense BS to not be responsible. The thug was responsible so we have to make sure he was a thug after you kill him because there was no evidence of being a thug other than his clothes before he was killed.

But there was evidence that the killer was a very flawed self appointed arbiter of what's right and what's wrong, and broke every accepted rule of responsible behavior that led him to kill and get away with it. But it's not surprising at all because that's who the law was written specifically for. Those that act out of fear and stupidity, and encouraged to kill first and plead self defense later. Helps a lot if daddy is a retired judge, and you can get a good lawyer.

But fact remains Zimmerman ain't the hero the right wing paints him to be. But he is the hero he needs to be to the scared fringes who cling to their guns and fears, and simple stupidity. I also understand they will never admit that not even to themselves because its always somebody else's fault when they screw up.

Bottom line, to do the right thing, you have to know what it is in the first place. Something the Zimmermans of the world will never understand, so more will die until they do.

So in other words you would sacrifice justice and the rule of law to advance your political agendas like gun control.

Hello again, tal:

Quote:

But it's not surprising at all because that's who the law was written specifically for. Those that act out of fear and stupidity, and encouraged to kill first and plead self defense later.

Truer words were never said..

Before ALEC and the NRA, our self defense laws worked just fine.. Nobody was killed who shouldn't have been killed, and nobody was put in danger because of the law. I HATE laws, but that one worked pretty good. Frankly, I see NOTHING wrong with it...

MACHO right wingers would ask, "why should you have to run away?" I would answer, "because he MIGHT have a bigger gun than you".

Excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

so in other words you would sacrifice justice and the rule of law to advance your political agendas like gun control.

Don't call what Zimmerman did justice, nor equate it with the rule of law. Its neither. "Stand your ground" is nothing but a smoke screen to allow scared people to buy guns, use them, and not be responsible for their actions in any way.

He wasn't defending his home against any threat, he wasn't even competently doing a public service. He was trained like anyone getting a conceal and carry permit to shoot first, and claim self defense, get your gun back, and do it again.

Gun control?? We can't even tighten up accountability to know who has a gun, so again fear derides good common sense, and promotes the notion that somebody is coming for your guns so keep them free flowing and available to the good guys, and bad, and the utterly stupid, and irresponsible, and insane.

That only makes sense to the far fringes of humans.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

so in other words you would sacrifice justice and the rule of law to advance your political agendas like gun control.

Dems will sacrifice most anything or anyone to advance their agenda, except their perverts - they sacrifice the victims instead.

Hello again, steve:

Quote:

Dems will sacrifice most anything or anyone to advance their agenda, except their perverts - they sacrifice the victims instead.

You're sounding more and more like smoothy every day. That ain't a POSITIVE step.

Excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Don't call what Zimmerman did justice, nor equate it with the rule of law. Its neither. "Stand your ground" is nothing but a smoke screen to allow scared people to buy guns, use them, and not be responsible for their actions in any way.

He wasn't defending his home against any threat, he wasn't even competently doing a public service. He was trained like anyone getting a conceal and carry permit to shoot first, and claim self defense, get your gun back, and do it again.

Gun control???? We can't even tighten up accountability to know who has a gun, so again fear derides good common sense, and promotes the notion that somebody is coming for your guns so keep them free flowing and available to the good guys, and bad, and the utterly stupid, and irresponsible, and insane.

That only makes sense to the far fringes of humans.

More proof of what I said. He acted completely within the law. And this trial had nothing to do with SYG . But your side is still harping on that as it has been since day one even though it was never brought up as a legitimate defense. What would you do ; nullfy self defense laws too ? Or maybe you hoped the jury would nullify the law , like they nullified the law when they acquitted Lemrick Nelson Jr. for the murder of Yankel Rosenbaum .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

more proof of what I said. He acted completely within the law. And this trial had nothing to do with SYG . But your side is still harping on that as it has been since day one even though it was never brought up as a legitimate defense. What would you do ; nullfy self defense laws too ? Or maybe you hoped the jury would nullify the law , like they nullified the law when they acquitted Lemrick Nelson Jr. for the murder of Yankel Rosenbaum .

I don't remember if anyone has mentioned this, but what if it had been Martin getting his head pounded into the pavement and Zimmerman who got shot with his own gun after he had pulled it out? That would have been self defense.

We can speculate until the cows come home.