Reverse George Zimmerman outcome. - Page 2
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 39

Thread: Reverse George Zimmerman outcome.

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    Quote Originally Posted by julez456 View Post
    Round of applause for all you clowns! Racial profiling at it's best. How bout another "Reverse George Zimmerman outcome?" How bout if Trayvon was old enough to legally carry a gun and had one? How bout if he would have "stood his ground" and killed Zimmerman because he felt threatened by some strange guy following him when all he was trying to do was go home with his iced tea and bag of skittles? What then? You clowns would be singing a different tune and probably would be looking for Trayvon to hang him.

    The case is over. Zimmerman got away with it. Leave it go. Let the kid R.I.P.
    Zimmerman "got away with it"? "Let the kid R.I.P."?

    No bias showing in your viewpoint is there? And while making your biased viewpoint very clear you have the temerity to throw out the race card?

    Quote Originally Posted by julez456 View Post
    We all know what he got away with so I won't get into that. We can argue that all day and get no where. People are always going to disagree with situations like this but why not answer my question? What if TM was old enough and was carrying a gun legally? Could he have stood his ground and killed GZ because he felt threatened by some strange guy following him or is a black dude not allowed to kill a white dude in self defense?
    See the part I put in bold in both of your posts I quoted............

    Are you suggesting that it is Ok for a black dude to kill a white dude because they "feel" threatened? Do you really think/believe that just "feeling" threatened is enough of a reason to go off on someone and kill them? And killing someone because of "feeling" threatened is "self defense"?

    And Zimmerman didn't "get away with" anything... what happened was a physically fit 17 year old (not a "kid"!!!) Trayvon didn't "get away" with thinking he was so damn important he could put a beat down on some guy because he didn't like the guy following him.

    And... in my not so politically correct opinion... the reason so many folks are upset about Zimmerman being found not guilty is that they really do want to be able to beat up or kill anyone who dares to just follow them... or look at them ... or get in their way... or "dis" them.... and then use the excuse that they "felt threatened" so it must be self defense so they can "get away with it".

  2.   
  3. Quote Originally Posted by The_Outlaw View Post
    We all don't know any such thing, so please stop speaking for 'all of us'.
    That is exactly my whole argument with this whole situation. We don't know ****. We don't know who initiated the confrontation. We don't know what was said during the confrontation (if anything). We don't know even know who took the first swing. How do you know GZ didn't swing first or didn't call TM the "N" word (because it's been said by GZ's own cousin that there have been racial talks in the house)? In your own words "we all don't know any such thing." Because none of us were there to witness it. As a matter of fact there were no real witnesses, were there? Knowing it was dark out and knowing there really weren't any people outside, do you seriously think if GZ did anything at all wrong that he would admit it? We know what we know because it came from the only witness still alive to be able to tell it.

    Here's what we do know for sure tho. TM was coming home with an iced tea and a bag of skittles and if GZ hadn't followed him that night he would've made it home and been alive today. I don't know many "criminals" that buy iced tea and skittles right before they go commit a crime in their own neighborhood. Do you?

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    Quote Originally Posted by julez456 View Post
    That is exactly my whole argument with this whole situation. We don't know ****. We don't know who initiated the confrontation. We don't know what was said during the confrontation (if anything). We don't know even know who took the first swing. How do you know GZ didn't swing first or didn't call TM the "N" word (because it's been said by GZ's own cousin that there have been racial talks in the house)? In your own words "we all don't know any such thing." Because none of us were there to witness it. As a matter of fact there were no real witnesses, were there? Knowing it was dark out and knowing there really weren't any people outside, do you seriously think if GZ did anything at all wrong that he would admit it? We know what we know because it came from the only witness still alive to be able to tell it.

    Here's what we do know for sure tho. TM was coming home with an iced tea and a bag of skittles and if GZ hadn't followed him that night he would've made it home and been alive today. I don't know many "criminals" that buy iced tea and skittles right before they go commit a crime in their own neighborhood. Do you?
    Wrong... what we also know is that Trayvon had 4 minutes in which he could go home when Zimmerman wasn't anywhere near him.

    George Zimmerman Trial Closing Arguments: Was Mark O'Mara's 4-Minute Pause Effective In Trayvon Martin Case?

    So why didn't Trayvon just go home?

    You see... the defense contention that if Trayvon had just gone home in the 4 minutes he had available nothing would have happened is just as compelling as your contention that if Zimmerman had not followed Trayvon nothing would have happened.

  5. #14
    ezkl2230 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by julez456 View Post
    Round of applause for all you clowns! Racial profiling at it's best. How bout another "Reverse George Zimmerman outcome?" How bout if Trayvon was old enough to legally carry a gun and had one? How bout if he would have "stood his ground" and killed Zimmerman because he felt threatened by some strange guy following him when all he was trying to do was go home with his iced tea and bag of skittles? What then? You clowns would be singing a different tune and probably would be looking for Trayvon to hang him.

    The case is over. Zimmerman got away with it. Leave it go. Let the kid R.I.P.
    Obviously you have not seen the data posted by Lt. Col. Allen West (US Army, ret.) recently:

    Based on data maintained by Tampa Bay Times, approximately one-third of Florida Stand Your Ground claims in fatal cases have been made by BLACK DEFENDANTS, as a defense with a 55% success rate. Blacks used Stand Your Ground defenses at nearly twice the rate of their percentage of Florida's population (16.6% in 2012). As well, it seems the majority of victims in Florida Stand Your Ground cases have been white.
    Did you get that? 16% of Florida's population account for over 30% of that state's SYG cases, they win over half the time, and the majority of those killed are <<<WHITE>>>.

    If Martin had felt that his life was in imminent danger he would have been justified using any means at his disposal to protect his life - including lethal force. BUT HE DIDN'T FEEL THREATENED, JUST ANGRY. His own girlfriend made that very clear; at no time did Zimmerman do anything that was life threatening before TM launched his attack. Still, he thought the best thing to do was prove that you don't dis TM and get away wit' it. Sucka gotta pay. So he went from feeling angry to giving a beatdown to the crazya** cracker that was following him. The rest is history.

    You want to make your case, better get some facts to back you up. As it is, you got nothin'.

    Edited:

    And just in case you didn't already know, Lt. Col. West is black.

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    2,072
    Quote Originally Posted by julez456 View Post
    Round of applause for all you clowns! Racial profiling at it's best. How bout another "Reverse George Zimmerman outcome?" How bout if Trayvon was old enough to legally carry a gun and had one? How bout if he would have "stood his ground" and killed Zimmerman because he felt threatened by some strange guy following him when all he was trying to do was go home with his iced tea and bag of skittles? What then? You clowns would be singing a different tune and probably would be looking for Trayvon to hang him.

    The case is over. Zimmerman got away with it. Leave it go. Let the kid R.I.P.
    You are TOTALLY in denial of the truth. Typical of your ilk.


    I used to be a government-educated stooge. By the grace of God, I repent. -Robert Burris

  7. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,761
    I almost clicked "Like" on your first post in this thread (#4), mostly because of the last line about letting Martin rest in peace. I had this feeling though, that if I read on, I would regret giving that "Like." My instincts rarely have failed me, and they didn't this time either.

    Quote Originally Posted by julez456 View Post
    That is exactly my whole argument with this whole situation. We don't know ****. We don't know who initiated the confrontation.
    You may not know, but anyone who paid attention to the trial knows, because Rachel Jeantel, the 19-year-old high school senior who can't read cursive, but can talk the ears off a 17-year-old friend named Trayvon Martin testified that Martin made first contact by saying, "Why are you following me for?" Next she said she, "...heard a hard breathing man say 'What you doing around here?"

    Leading up to that exchange, Martin had either lied to Jeantel or she lied in court by saying that Martin claimed to be right outside his "daddy's fiance's back door." He couldn't have been there though, because that was at least 100 yards from where the fight happened, and all the time-lines between Rachel Jeantel's phone records, neighbors calling 911 and neighbors ear and eye witness testimony makes it clear that Martin was near the "T" intersection of the sidewalk when he uttered that first contact and the fight ensued just seconds later.

    Don't take my word for it. Listen to Jeantel's testimony for yourself. The pertinent part starts about 20:40.

    Quote Originally Posted by julez456 View Post
    We don't know what was said during the confrontation (if anything).
    Oops. Did you watch the tape?

    Quote Originally Posted by julez456 View Post
    We don't know even know who took the first swing.
    Oops again. Here's absolute proof that you don't have a clue about what you're talking about:

    Rachel Jeantel says "Trayvon hit first."

    Quote Originally Posted by julez456 View Post
    How do you know GZ didn't swing first or didn't call TM the "N" word (because it's been said by GZ's own cousin that there have been racial talks in the house)?
    Citation please. Even without a citation, "racial talks in the house" could mean anything. Even if you cite a source and it turns out to be credible, neither following, asking what you're doing around here, or calling someone the "N" word is justification to assault someone. Zimmerman's background is pretty much an open book though, and the notion that he used the "N" word with Martin is nothing but pure conjecture with zero foundation anywhere in the public record.

    Quote Originally Posted by julez456 View Post
    As a matter of fact there were no real witnesses, were there?
    Good grief. You don't know a single fact about this case, do you? You ought to be embarrassed for opining about something of which you know so little. Listen carefully:



    Quote Originally Posted by julez456 View Post
    We know what we know because it came from the only witness still alive to be able to tell it.
    Apparently all you know is that George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin. That's it. You don't bother to seek out the available facts, which are admittedly limited, but which paint a much clearer picture of what actually happened than all the conjecture you're engaging in.

    Quote Originally Posted by julez456 View Post
    Here's what we do know for sure tho. TM was coming home with an iced tea and a bag of skittles and if GZ hadn't followed him that night he would've made it home and been alive today.
    To the disgust and condemnation of several people on this forum whom I respect a lot, I actually agree with you on this one narrow point. But like I said above, you only know the very narrow and singular fact that GZ shot TM. For whatever reason you choose to remain blind and ignorant to all the other available facts of the case. I do believe that GZ made mistakes that night. I also believe those mistakes contributed to what ultimately happened. But his mistakes were tactical in nature, not illegal. He should've never followed someone whom he had already told the cops was reaching for something in his waistband and circling his vehicle in a threatening manner (did you know about those two facts?). After exiting his vehicle and realizing that his flashlight either had dead batteries or a broken switch, he should've gotten right back in his vehicle and waited for the cops that he had already called and were on their way. After failing at making the right choice in those two tactical decisions, he should've been constantly scanning the area so that Martin could not have snuck up and surprised him, then sucker-punched him, as every bit of physical and circumstantial evidence is perfectly consistent with. So it's not just his word that we have to take for it, it's the totality of the evidence even if you take out every single word he spoke on the dispatch call, the reenactment video the next day, and the two separate and in-depth interviews with cops that the jury (and the rest of the Free World) heard and watched during trial.

    Quote Originally Posted by julez456 View Post
    I don't know many "criminals" that buy iced tea and skittles right before they go commit a crime in their own neighborhood. Do you?
    Well, now you do. That almost certainly wasn't his intention when he left the apartment he was staying in, but as someone else quite accurately pointed out, if he had just gone back to that apartment in the four minutes between the time GZ lost sight of TM and when Jeantel says she heard the first exchange of words, none of this would've happened in that case either. Because he didn't head to the ranch, and because he instead decided to try out his fighting skills on a "creepy ass cracker" that he attacked from out of the darkness, he's dead now. Zimmerman had every right in the world to follow him, though I will always contend that it was a tactical mistake, and he had every right in the world to ask him what he was doing there, though I further contend that a friendly, non-confrontational approach could've also changed the outcome, but regardless, Martin had no right whatsoever to throw the first punch, or the undetermined number of multiple blows that followed. He gave Zimmerman the legal right to shoot him. Zimmerman's mistakes combined to give Martin the illegal opportunity to give him that legal right to shoot.

    So now you know of a criminal who bought Skittles and iced tea before committing a crime. Does it change anything for you? I seriously doubt it.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  8. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    2,072
    All one had to do was watch the trial. Saint Skittles screwed up. Game over.


    I used to be a government-educated stooge. By the grace of God, I repent. -Robert Burris

  9. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by julez456 View Post
    Round of applause for all you clowns! Racial profiling at it's best. How bout another "Reverse George Zimmerman outcome?" How bout if Trayvon was old enough to legally carry a gun and had one? How bout if he would have "stood his ground" and killed Zimmerman because he felt threatened by some strange guy following him when all he was trying to do was go home with his iced tea and bag of skittles? What then? You clowns would be singing a different tune and probably would be looking for Trayvon to hang him.

    The case is over. Zimmerman got away with it. Leave it go. Let the kid R.I.P.
    Had Treyvon had a gun and shot him for following him he would not have been acting in accordance with Stand Your Ground laws. Following someone is not an act of violence and lethal force would not be deemed necessary. Now had George Zimmerman chased him down and jumped on him beating him then clowns like you might have a leg to stand on. Idiots like you choose to ignore facts and omit that which doesn't support your cause. Zimmerman was attacked and last I checked you can't jump on someone simply for questioning your motives.

  10. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by julez456 View Post
    Here's what we do know for sure tho. TM was coming home with an iced tea and a bag of skittles and if GZ hadn't followed him that night he would've made it home and been alive today. I don't know many "criminals" that buy iced tea and skittles right before they go commit a crime in their own neighborhood. Do you?
    This is so full of ignorance - as all your comments have been - but Blues already laid that out, refuting every ignorant point made, so I will only add a bit.

    The "iced tea" was not iced tea at all - it was called that because it was made by Arizona beverage company and most people are too stupid to know or care that they make other things - they are known for their Iced Tea. The meaning or purpose of that drink (Arizona Watermelon fruit punch) and snack selection (skittles) is well known in combination with Dex. And, indeed, I suspect that many who do so are either also more likely to commit crime or may do so once high (and TM was already high according to the autopsy that indicated THC in his blood). Does that condemn one to death? No. But it does mean you can stop talking about him and his beverage and candy choices as if it he is a little angel and consider the decisions that he might have made.

    It is clear that you and anyone else who refuses to consider that possibility would have preferred that Zimmerman die that night. That is sad.

    As has been said many times, both TM and GZ made errors in judgment that night. But lethal jeopardy emerged when one (TM) chose to assault the other - following and harsh language are not sufficient. It would have been better if both had chosen more wisely - for all of us. But GZ's error was not a crime. What we need to realize is that such errors, sadly, happen one step at a time and each step seems small and logical in the moment until we are far away from where our training would have use be. I have little doubt that this was what happened with GZ, and after he had been assaulted and shot TM I am sure he had a moment where he realized what had happened and wondered "How did I get here, how did this happen?". This was not what he set out to do.

    In the midst of poor judgment, TM's decision lead to his death; it is just this type of scenario (taking GZ's less than wise decision out of the equation) that each of us arms himself for - the potential that we are assaulted but someone capable of killing us, that our life is in jeopardy and we reasonably believe that we are about to die if we do not kill first. That is not "Getting away with" anything - it is something that none of us (I hope) ever want to experience.

    Your analysis is simply flippant in its simplicity and stupidity.
    Si vis pacem para bellum

  11. We can all argue about this until we're blue in the face. I really don't care. My point is I look at it as a parent. I have 2 daughters around TM's age and a 10 year old son. I also look at it as the 17 year old kid I used to be. I was kind of arrogant at that age as I'm sure a lot of you were and I too would have confronted someone who was following me but back when I was 17 the only weapons most people carried were their fists. Back then TM and GZ would have probably fought, GZ would have taken his ass whipping, got up and lived to fight another day. I don't have anything against guns (I own a couple), I don't have anything against defending yourself (justifiably) and I would defend myself or my family with deadly force if it ever came down to it but what I do have a problem with is someone "looking for trouble" and then using (deadly) self defense when his a$$ can't get out of that trouble he put himself into. That is my problem with this whole situation. A 17 year old that could've easily been any one of our children in this thread is dead because this guy decided to appoint himself rent-a-cop of the neighborhood. I will defend myself and my family if trouble comes looking for me but trust me I will not be out looking for trouble and then claim deadly self defense because I got my feelings hurt when someone kicked my ass for following them when I was told not to by a 911 operator in the first place.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast