Happy Trayvon Martin Day

[USFREEDOM911]

What is imaginary? What is "documented" that contradicts anything I stated? Do you have an argument to offer?

I've offered you plenty; but you still insist on following a non-exsistant time line, that doesn't coincide with the facts.
Let me know when you want to abandon your asinine embellishments and have an honest discussion.

 

[Timshel]

I've offered you plenty; but you still insist on following a non-exsistant time line, that doesn't coincide with the facts.
Let me know when you want to abandon your asinine embellishments and have an honest discussion.

Yeah, so you can't cite any specifics. The reasons for the charge of murder are obvious. He shot and killed Trayvon. All of the proof points to the fact that Zimmerman acted in a way that created a dangerous situation leading to Trayvon's death. Trayvon did not simply attack him without any provocation. If Zimmerman truly felt threatened he should not have pursued the threat. Not even stand your ground applies to his actions and if it does than there can be no better reason to repeal it. We don't need to create an environment where armed people can instigate confrontations just so they can have an excuse to kill someone.

 

[Heyzobo4u]

Rest In Peace Trayvon Martin,justice will come sooner or later!

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Rest In Peace Trayvon Martin,justice will come sooner or later!

Justice has already reached him.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Yeah, so you can't cite any specifics. The reasons for the charge of murder are obvious. He shot and killed Trayvon. All of the proof points to the fact that Zimmerman acted in a way that created a dangerous situation leading to Trayvon's death. Trayvon did not simply attack him without any provocation. If Zimmerman truly felt threatened he should not have pursued the threat. Not even stand your ground applies to his actions and if it does than there can be no better reason to repeal it. We don't need to create an environment where armed people can instigate confrontations just so they can have an excuse to kill someone.

You can't claim that Martin felt threatened, when he had already fled; but then decided to return and CONFRONT Zimmeman.
Regardless of what Martin may have FELT, prior to him confronting Zimmerman; Martin became the aggressor, once he decided to take matters into his own hands (so to speak).

As is usual in the majority of the Courts, it boils down to what would a normal person do in the same circumstances; unless you want to tell me that it's standard for someone to confront someone who they've ran from, are on longer in sight, and are walking away.

I guess you want to totally exclude the information that's contained in the dispathers transcript.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

again, for the insanely slow witted people on the board... if you have a string of break ins that are reportedly by young black men, you seriously don't think it is reasonable to be suspicious of an unknown young black man in the neighborhood?

Let me guess, you think we should start suspecting 12 year old white girls when that happens? All in the name of PC?

The report said "Some of" the break ins were committed by black males. That means some weren't. Not that this matters. Because the answer to your question is: NO. Resoundingly, no I do not think it it is reasonable.

However, more importantly, you said this:

Originally Posted by Superfreak
The fact that you claim it was racially motivated shows that you bought the media's trumped up version of what actually happened. Let me guess, you also think Zimmerman is a white guy?

Now you are claiming that of course it happened because he was a black male, and that it was totally reasonable for his race to be the determining factor. I can only assume thaty ou are part of the media who has been "trumping up" the racial aspect of this case.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

LOL... what exactly is 'considerable distance' to you? Again, look at the map of the location... it is posted for you to see there.



I stated that Martin initiated the physical confrontation and all the evidence suggests that is indeed the case.



1) Again, Martin could easily have kept running to the townhome, he was not far from it
2) Again, Zimmerman lost Martin, which again goes to show that it was Martin who returned and confronted Zimmerman
3) Zimmerman leaving his vehicle does not establish anything of the sort. You are simply once again making shit up to fit your little narrative. A narrative that began when the media spoon fed you bullshit from day one.



LOL... what exactly is your definition of repeatedly? He began following him and then lost him... did he suddenly start following him a second and third and fourth time that only you are aware of?

Again, you are spewing forth bullshit to fit your preconceived idea of Zimmermans guilt. Again, is it because you don't like Hispanics?

I am not making anything up. Zimmerman reported no suspicious or threatening behavior from Trayvon. I know you think walking while black is sufficient but it is not.



LOL



Which of us is not focusing on the truth?

1) you ignore the recent burglaries because it lends credence to what I have stated
2) You ignore the fact that Zimmerman lost Martin, yet then pretend it could have been Zimmerman that initiated the confrontation
3) You ignore the fact that Martin beat the crap out of Zimmerman
4) You continually tried to project Martin as a little boy (probably that inner racist in you)
5) You continually try to pretend that charges several years prior against Zimmerman have ANY bearing on this case
6) you pretend that Zimmerman was 'repeatedly' following Martin... ie... more than once. You then suggest there is evidence to back up this nonsense. You should certainly provide that to us.

Please explain what Zimmerman did then that was "reckless" and why he should be charged with manslaughter.

 

[Timshel]

You can't claim that Martin felt threatened, when he had already fled; but then decided to return and CONFRONT Zimmeman.
Regardless of what Martin may have FELT, prior to him confronting Zimmerman; Martin became the aggressor, once he decided to take matters into his own hands (so to speak).

As is usual in the majority of the Courts, it boils down to what would a normal person do in the same circumstances; unless you want to tell me that it's standard for someone to confront someone who they've ran from, are on longer in sight, and are walking away.

I guess you want to totally exclude the information that's contained in the dispathers transcript.

You don't have any real proof that Martin decided to return and confront Zimmerman. And yes, it is quite possible that he felt threatened and did do just that.

Whether Martin finally decided to stand his ground does not change the fact Zimmerman's actions created a dangerous situation leading to the confrontation.

The dispatchers transcript is the best bit of evidence available and it proves that Zimmerman pursued Martin and acted in a way that any reasonable person would expect to cause a confrontation.

 

[Damocles]

FDR and his japanese american gulags.

Everybody, and I mean everybody, forgets to mention that there were German and Italians in some of those Gulags too.

 

[zappasguitar]

So basically; after all this time, you intend to stick with the imginary assertions that you've madeup, for yourself, and intend to just ignore the facts of what truly occured and are documented.

Do you lie to everyone; or just yourself and posters on this forum?

Oh, you mean the same "facts" you have YET to provide?

The same "facts" you keep claiming exist, but for some reason don't ever seem to have handy?

Those "facts"?

 

[zappasguitar]

You can't claim that Martin felt threatened, when he had already fled; but then decided to return and CONFRONT Zimmeman.
Regardless of what Martin may have FELT, prior to him confronting Zimmerman; Martin became the aggressor, once he decided to take matters into his own hands (so to speak).

You most certainly can. Martin may have felt fleeing was the best option, then realized he wann't going to outrun Zimmerman and turned to confront his attacker.

Zimmerman became the aggressor the moment he stepped out of the car to pursue Martin.

As is usual in the majority of the Courts, it boils down to what would a normal person do in the same circumstances; unless you want to tell me that it's standard for someone to confront someone who they've ran from, are on longer in sight, and are walking away.

Well since you can't even confirm that particular timeline even took place the way you claim, maybe you shouldn't presume to tell everyone what the courts do and do not think.

I guess you want to totally exclude the information that's contained in the dispathers transcript.

Well then, maybe you could highlight some of the "excluded information" to show everyone you aren't full of it for a change?

 

[The Dude]

80 percent of murder charges wind up in conviction!
This is open and shut to all but the clan and NRAZI's.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

80 percent of murder charges wind up in conviction!
This is open and shut to all but the clan and NRAZI's.

Why do you hate Hispanics?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You don't have any real proof that Martin decided to return and confront Zimmerman. And yes, it is quite possible that he felt threatened and did do just that.

Whether Martin finally decided to stand his ground does not change the fact Zimmerman's actions created a dangerous situation leading to the confrontation.

The dispatchers transcript is the best bit of evidence available and it proves that Zimmerman pursued Martin and acted in a way that any reasonable person would expect to cause a confrontation.

And in doing so, it then makes Martin the aggressor.

What "actions" did Zimmerman do, that created a dangerous situation and for whom; plus Martin behavior does not fit the criteria for "stand your ground", so this is just you sensationalizing again.

So when I've got some guy, in the street outside my house, who's being abusive to a female; I'm being creating a confrontation, by calling 911 and then when they turn the corner, going to the corner and continuing to report what I see?

 

[zappasguitar]

And in doing so, it then makes Martin the aggressor.

What "actions" did Zimmerman do, that created a dangerous situation and for whom; plus Martin behavior does not fit the criteria for "stand your ground", so this is just you sensationalizing again.

So when I've got some guy, in the street outside my house, who's being abusive to a female; I'm being creating a confrontation, by calling 911 and then when they turn the corner, going to the corner and continuing to report what I see?

When Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and began following Martin, HE BECAME THE AGGRESSOR!

Martin felt sufficiently threatened that he determined fleeing was no longer an option and it was at that time he turned and confronted his pursuer.

 

[Timshel]

And in doing so, it then makes Martin the aggressor.

What "actions" did Zimmerman do, that created a dangerous situation and for whom; plus Martin behavior does not fit the criteria for "stand your ground", so this is just you sensationalizing again.

So when I've got some guy, in the street outside my house, who's being abusive to a female; I'm being creating a confrontation, by calling 911 and then when they turn the corner, going to the corner and continuing to report what I see?

Again there is no proof that he "did so," i.e., returned and confronted Zimmerman.

No, it does not make Martin the aggressor. Trayvon had a right to stand his ground. He did not have to keep fleeing from the aggressive behavior of Zimmerman.

Zimmerman created a dangerous situation by pursuing Trayvon with a weapon.

Yes, Trayvon's actions fit the criteria of stand your ground. He was under no duty to continue fleeing, even though he may have had an opportunity to do so. Zimmerman's actions don't fit the criteria as he pursued and acted in a way that was likely to create a confrontation with Martin and he supplied the source of the threat to life.

Trayvon had not been abusing a female, anyone else or doing anything to anyone's property. That's just more fantasies. Zimmerman pursued and harassed him without reasonable cause. Any reasonable person would feel threatened by such behavior and a reasonable pursuer should be aware of that. Zimmerman clearly was aware as he had reported Martin was fleeing. But yet he continued to follow. If you continue to follow the person then that is no longer standing your ground.

 

[Topspin]

Why do you hate Hispanics?

I hate all you gun nuts

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Again there is no proof that he "did so," i.e., returned and confronted Zimmerman.

No, it does not make Martin the aggressor. Trayvon had a right to stand his ground. He did not have to keep fleeing from the aggressive behavior of Zimmerman.

Zimmerman created a dangerous situation by pursuing Trayvon with a weapon.

Yes, Trayvon's actions fit the criteria of stand your ground. He was under no duty to continue fleeing, even though he may have had an opportunity to do so. Zimmerman's actions don't fit the criteria as he pursued and acted in a way that was likely to create a confrontation with Martin and he supplied the source of the threat to life.

Trayvon had not been abusing a female, anyone else or doing anything to anyone's property. That's just more fantasies. Zimmerman pursued and harassed him without reasonable cause. Any reasonable person would feel threatened by such behavior and a reasonable pursuer should be aware of that. Zimmerman clearly was aware as he had reported Martin was fleeing. But yet he continued to follow. If you continue to follow the person then that is no longer standing your ground.

And yet you continue to ignore the FACT that it is documented that Zimmerman had stopped following Martin; because Martin had fled from his view.
Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle, as it's documented, and was no longer any kind of threat to Martin.
Martin became the aggressor, by then physically confronting Zimmerman and then physically assaulting him.

This is the set of circumstances that's accepted by anyone with cognitive ability; but yet, you continue to ignore this and choose to create a scenario that you're more comfortable with.

 

[Timshel]

And yet you continue to ignore the FACT that it is documented that Zimmerman had stopped following Martin; because Martin had fled from his view.
Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle, as it's documented, and was no longer any kind of threat to Martin.
Martin became the aggressor, by then physically confronting Zimmerman and then physically assaulting him.

This is the set of circumstances that's accepted by anyone with cognitive ability; but yet, you continue to ignore this and choose to create a scenario that you're more comfortable with.

Where are any of those points documented?

 

[Timshel]

In actuality, it is documented that Zimmerman continued to follow after Martin fled. There is no proof other than what he claimed later that he was returning to his vehicle. As Rana pointed out, it does not appear he intended to return to his vehicle at all as he asked the dispatcher to have the then in route officers to call him so he could tell them where he was.