Reverse George Zimmerman outcome. - Page 4
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 39 of 39

Thread: Reverse George Zimmerman outcome.

  1. "never bring skittles to a gun fight."

    this needs to be a t-shirt.

    :coffee:

  2.   
  3. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sepra Peratus/Arkansas
    Posts
    1,638
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    ~snip~
    Blues
    Bravo Blues! Copy this and paste for the next troll. It'll save a lot of time. But very well said!
    ~Responsible people who understand that their personal protection is up to them, provide themselves with protection. Those that don't have only themselves to blame.~Proud NRA ~SAF~GoA Member~

  4. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by julez456 View Post
    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.
    Wow, every time you type on this thread, you demonstrate how ignorant you are about this case. First, TM didn't just use his fists, he used the CONCRETE to bash GZ head into it. This legally is defined as a lethal weapon and gives GZ justification to use lethal force to save himself.

    The other area of contention I have is for your blathering with your bleeding heart about being a mommy and how TM is just a poor little kid. That kid was a street thug. That kid in the phone conversation with his girlfriend admitted he was going to teach GZ a lesson. The jury was comprised of all women who were all mothers. They didn't let their maternal instinct get the better of them. They listened to the facts of the case and returned a verdict based on those facts and what the law said. Yes, it is tragic someone died... would you have preferred it to be GZ with his head bashed in?? TM was the aggressor; TM got dead because of it.

    You mention that GZ was "looking for trouble". Really? Then why did he immediately call the police when he saw someone suspicious in his neighborhood? Why did he tell the police that he would be in a certain location in order to meet up with them? GZ wasn't looking for trouble, he was looking to better his neighborhood. TM with testimony from his girlfriend, admittedly was looking for trouble, and he found it. GZ didn't just get his ass kicked, he would have died by having his head repeatedly bashed into the cement.

    Let me just make sure that I understand your position though. If you eyeballed me in your neighborhood, and I came around and tackled you and bashed your head into the cement, you would just smile, and say, "oh, my bad, I shouldn't have eyeballed him. I deserved to get my head bashed into the concrete." Or would you actually defend yourself from getting killed? Your ignorance about life and the law is appalling.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
    ~ Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

  5. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by julez456 View Post
    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.
    I congratulate you on being ready to defend yourself and your family. I'm not quite as impressed with your response to some very well thought out and researched posts on the topic. Instead of responding point by point with documentation or facts you pull the "emotional response card". The same one gun control advocates pulled when they dragged around the suffering parents of Sandy Hook victims to plea for passage of laws that would not have saved a single kid.

    I certainly, as a parent and grandparent would not want any kid to die. That is a no brainer and has very little to do with the Zimmerman situation. I think many on this forum think Zimmerman screwed up by not returning to his car and staying there. I do seriously disagree with the way you compared George Zimmernan's killing of Travon to someone killing someone else because of feeling something. Zimmerman was getting his head bashed against the sidewalk. He was not just "feeling threatened" . Another thing about your post that disturbs me is the implication that Zimmerman has racist feelings toward Blacks. Have you read anything about his family and extended family? Do you know anything about the homeless man that was beaten up by a cops kid and Zimmerman pushed to have charges brought about? Do you know anything about the black family that moved into GZ's neighborhood and commented that the only person to welcome them into the neighborhood was GZ?

    Oh, and even though it does not have squat to do with the case (except as used by those proclaiming his purchase of skittles and watermelon ice tea as proof of his innocence) google Drank, Lean and skittles. Might at least get folks to stop using Travon's purchase as proof of innocence. Don't misunderstand that point. I certainly don't consider it proof of ANYTHING. Neither guilt nor innocence. I'm just tired of hearing his purchase of skittles as some sort of "here is this little kid who just wanted some candy" argument tossed around.
    Typos are for the entertainment of the reader. Don't let it go to your head!

  6. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,762
    Quote Originally Posted by wolf_fire View Post
    That kid in the phone conversation with his girlfriend admitted he was going to teach GZ a lesson....

    ....TM with testimony from his girlfriend, admittedly was looking for trouble, and he found it.
    I watched probably 90% of the trial and don't recall Jeantel's testimony about such an admission. Do you have a link to a transcript or video of that testimony?

    Quote Originally Posted by wolf_fire View Post
    GZ didn't just get his ass kicked, he would have died by having his head repeatedly bashed into the cement.
    It should be obvious that I agree with the gist of your post, but this overstates what is established as fact. What the trial proved is that GZ had a reasonable belief that not firing his weapon could have resulted in death or great bodily injury. No one knows, including Zimmerman, that he would have died had he not fired.

    Please understand that I'm not just nit-picking over an insignificant bit of semantics. In every jurisdiction in the country a justified use of deadly force in the defense of self or others is determined by the "reasonable belief" standard, and LE or juries are never charged with determining that certain death would result from a lack of applied deadly force. As the person to whom you were replying proves, not everybody who is armed understands that standard (nor do they appear to understand much else about the case), so I'm not trying to nit-pick your choice of words as much as I'm trying to make sure people who don't understand the standard under which they will be judged, learn it and become better-prepared to use the force they've armed themselves with in a legal manner.

    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...

  7. #36
    ezkl2230 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by julez456 View Post
    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.
    No, we can't all argue about this until we're blue in the face. And your status as a parent, which many of us happen to be, gives you no special dispensation to ignore the facts of the case. Your response boils down to, "don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up," and that just doesn't fly.

    Fact - Martin had no respect for authority.
    Fact - Martin was kicked out of school on drug related charges, which is why he was in that neighborhood staying with his father's girlfriend.
    Fact - Martin chose to associate with other like minded people, which reinforced his behaviors and attitudes.
    Fact - Martin chose pride over common sense.
    Fact - Martin saw Zimmerman as an easy mark for a beatdown to restore his injured pride.
    Fact - Martin bought into the thug ideology that everyone owed him respect, but he owed none in return.
    Fact - We didn't hear about Martin's background - which would certainly have given you a different perspective on this young man - because this was a show trial that was supposed to be a slam dunk for the prosecution. It was all about the spin. Even when his own girlfriend pinned the confrontation and the first punch on Martin, the media immediately tried to spin it as society's fault that they misunderstood her.

    As a parent I try to teach my kids better than this, and as a parent I have to acknowledge when I've screwed up. As a parent I don't look at a situation like this one and try to excuse the young thug as a way of giving myself a pass on my own shortcomings. I don't look at the situation like this and say that could be my child. As a parent I take instruction from a situation like this. As a parent I look at a situation like this and say, what do I have to do to ensure that this is never my child? And by the way, my parents did not tolerate such behaviors and attitudes from me. I was taught to take pride in who I am and in my family, to never do anything that would bring dishonor and reproach to my family name. When I left the house to do something, it was generally with the admonition, "Remember WHO you are, and WHOSE you are." I was taught that, if I was falsely accused of something, my parents would move heaven and earth to clear me, but if I messed up, I would have to accept the consequences of my actions; they would leave my butt in jail. You just don't hear such things from parents any more today.

    In the end, Martin's parents screwed up - and they want everyone else to take the blame for their failure and change the rules by which we operate as a society to make allowance for others who behave this way. That is something I refuse to do. You want to board that ship, go right ahead. But don't try to blame the rest of us when it IS your child making these kinds of headlines.

  8. #37
    Tis simple, really: You inititate a physical encounter and proceed to pound my head into the concrete and you WILL be shot...and I don't care if you're black, white or purple with green polka dots...No racist here, I'm an equal opportunity shooter...
    Prov. 27:3 - "Stone is heavy and sand a burden, but provocation by a fool is heavier than both"

  9. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    I watched probably 90% of the trial and don't recall Jeantel's testimony about such an admission. Do you have a link to a transcript or video of that testimony?



    It should be obvious that I agree with the gist of your post, but this overstates what is established as fact. What the trial proved is that GZ had a reasonable belief that not firing his weapon could have resulted in death or great bodily injury. No one knows, including Zimmerman, that he would have died had he not fired.

    Please understand that I'm not just nit-picking over an insignificant bit of semantics. In every jurisdiction in the country a justified use of deadly force in the defense of self or others is determined by the "reasonable belief" standard, and LE or juries are never charged with determining that certain death would result from a lack of applied deadly force. As the person to whom you were replying proves, not everybody who is armed understands that standard (nor do they appear to understand much else about the case), so I'm not trying to nit-pick your choice of words as much as I'm trying to make sure people who don't understand the standard under which they will be judged, learn it and become better-prepared to use the force they've armed themselves with in a legal manner.

    Blues
    Blues, you are one of the few people on this forum that I do not take offense from. When you post, you post with facts, and you challenge facts from others. I re-read some of the stories and information from the trial and I was in error. It was a commentary I read that took the words of TM's "creepy ass cracker" comment and used that as a basis for opining that he must have been the attacker and that he was going to get GZ. You are correct, Jeantel didn't say that TM would go after GZ.

    While some may or may not call the choice of words used: "would have resulted" or "could have resulted", as picking nits, that is not the point. When I stood back and thought about your reasoning, I believe you are right in picking this particular nit. When we stand in front of a jury after we have committed a justifiable homicide to defend ourselves or a loved one, we need to be able to articulate the reason why we feared for our life and why the use lethal force was justified. The opposing attorney will throw every other possible decision at us and question our judgment in using lethal force. There is no way for sure to determine whether GZ definitely would have died as a result of having his head bashed into the sidewalk, but it is reasonable to assume that this could happen and that GZ felt he needed to do something to protect himself from that becoming a reality. It is this "reasonable belief" that needs to be looked at in returning a verdict, such as the jury in GZ's case did.

    Thank you for nudging me back to the truth and to the law.
    Last edited by wolf_fire; 08-02-2013 at 09:25 AM. Reason: stated "crazy ass cracker", should have been "creepy ass cracker"
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
    ~ Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

  10. #39
    ezkl2230 Guest
    A little different perspective on Rachel Jeantel's phone call remarks - and how they might have actually driven Martin to launch a pre-emptive attack.

    The term she used on the stand was actually "creep ***** cracka," not "crazy ***** cracka." The difference? While "crazy" refers to a potentially violent white individual, "Creepy" refers to a perverted white individual. From her interview with Piers Morgan, with commentary by Rush Limbaugh:

    RUSH: Let me go back to Piers Morgan CNN two nights ago. I keep learning things that Rachel Jeantel said. I didn't hear the interview. I just read about it. The audio sound bites that we heard yesterday are all I've heard. I didn't watch it. Apparently she said something else that's kind of entertaining. This is from Breitbart News. "Prosecution witness Rachel Jeantel, speaking to Piers Morgan on CNN last night, explained that George Zimmerman had misunderstood the beating he was receiving from Trayvon Martin, and so had the jury in his trial.

    "Zimmerman was not facing a potentially life-threatening 'bashing,' but simply a 'whoop ass.'" Here's her quote, Rachel Jeantel's quote from Monday night on CNN: "They don't understand, they understand, 'Oh, he would just bash, or was kill.' When somebody bash somebody, like, blood people, trust me, in the area I live, that's not bashing. That's just called 'whoop ass.' You just got your ass whooped. That's what it is."

    The point that she was making was that it was Zimmerman's fault for not understanding the cultural context in which he was being attacked. Now, those are not Rachel Jeantel's words. She did not say that Zimmerman "didn't understand the cultural context." What she said was that Zimmerman didn't understand that Trayvon Martin didn't want to kill him. He was just doing a little whoop ass, and Zimmerman overreacted.

    Now, according to this story here at Breitbart, Piers "Morgan tried to save Jeantel's statement by asking her whether [Trayvon] Martin would have 'whooped ass' in self-defense." See... She did so much that's being ignored. Can you believe, by the way, the dramatic revelation on this program that this was not about race at all, that it was actually about homophobia. Nobody has picked that up, folks. Nobody. Nobody wants to go there.

    She made it clear, race was not one part of this, it wasn't a minuscule aspect of it. Rachel Jeantel admitted to Piers Morgan that she was telling Trayvon that this guy could be a rapist. Well, he's male. That means he's gay. So we got homophobia here, not racism, and she said, "Run, Trayvon, run." And then she said, Trayvon's little brother is at the house. You don't want the guy following you.

    Well, why? What's gonna happen if a rapist goes into your house with your little boy in there? Well, we all know. So she said, "Trayvon, run, run," and Trayvon didn't run. Trayvon started beating up on Zimmerman. But it wasn't because Zimmerman thought he was being racist or any of that. It was dark, it was raining, and Zimmerman (despite the efforts of the media portray him as a lily white guy) is Hispanic. He's of dark-complexion. Plus, it was nighttime.

    It wasn't obvious that Zimmerman was some Ku Klux Klan guy running around the neighborhood. She told Trayvon that it was likely this guy was a rapist, so we've got homophobia. Nobody is talking about it. So Trayvon was doing whoop ass on the guy 'cause Trayvon said, "Look, man, don't think I'm not one of you," and that's what she said. She said Trayvon is not "that way," and if you not "that way," this is uncomfortable. So Trayvon did a little whoop ass.

    Can I say that?

    Trayvon did a little whoop ass on Zimmerman because he thought he was gay. Now, the point here is that in another part of the interview it was Rachel Jeantel who admitted that it was Trayvon beating up on Zimmerman. Remember during the trial all of this, "My God, who was on top, and who was on bottom, and, on the 911 call, who was saying, 'Help me! Help me'?" Well, Rachel -- God bless Rachel -- after telling us that it was a homophobic challenge that Trayvon was facing, now tells Piers Morgan that Trayvon wasn't trying to kill anybody.

    He just doing whoop ass. So when she said that, when she said that to Piers Morgan said, "Oh, my! Jeez! Oh, my. I'm destroying the whole thing." So he then said, "Well, now, wait a minute, Rachel. Could Trayvon have been doing whoop ass in self-defense?" But the damage was already done. She had already made Trayvon the aggressor. He was beating up on Zimmerman, doing whoop ass, and it was Zimmerman's fault for not understanding that Trayvon wasn't trying to kill him.

    It was just a good old, neighborhood whoop ass....

    But why was Trayvon doing whoop ass? Because he thought Zimmerman was gay. He thought Zimmerman was a gay predator. Nobody's picked that up. When Rachel Jeantel then said, "It's just whoop ass. He wasn't trying to kill him. That's all that was going on," she admits that it was Trayvon doing the whoop-assing and beating up. So Piers Morgan had to jump in there and try to save the day real fast by asking, "Whoa, whoa! Wait a minute! Trayvon could be doing whoop ass in defense, right, right, right?"

    But the damage had been done, and then the Breitbart story says that the camera caught a member of the Piers Morgan audience reacting in shock. He said her jaw dropped at Jeantel's admission that it was Trayvon doing the whoop ass, because a lot of people still think this jury verdict was a travesty, and they still think that it was Zimmerman that was beating up on poor Trayvon. Jeantel blew everything about this trial sky-high.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

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