[48Laws]

Originally Posted by FwdFtl

As a black man, I understand the frustration this can bring, however this example would be anti-progressive because I can walk (while black) in an all black neighborhood (white, hispanic, asian, etc...) and still be shot and killed.

Matter of fact, it was quite common for shootings that lead to death in my surrounding neighborhoods growing up.

I am not cool with anyone being shot and killed and wish violence never had to happen...in a perfect world.

Which is completely irrelevant simply because a "law-abiding" citizen is granted certain rights and privileges to carry unlike the career criminals who put us all at risk in these neighborhoods. Career criminals will remain as such. An over-zealous man with a hero complex creates a lot of ambiguity with these "Stand Your Ground" laws.

[smyles]

Originally Posted by 48Laws

He killed an unarmed child while playing neighborhood superhero. Protecting what, the illegal sale of skittles and ice tea????

Considering how much this has been debated already...

[48Laws]

Originally Posted by direwolfM3

This is pretty funny.

How can you start a sentence by saying to let the courts decide and then end it by saying there is not enough evidence to convict him.

Acts of violence from one granted certain rights to carry against another law-abiding citizen is in and of itself an undermining of the justice system. That's why a civilized society has 911 and various emergency services. Wow!

[48Laws]

Originally Posted by smyles

Considering how much this has been debated already...

Where, on a damn car forum?

[Sara]

Originally Posted by ragingclue

Oh good God.

Go hug a tree. Preferably one with poison ivy. Let the justice system do its job, OK? Have you even made yourself aware of the witness testimony and evidence which has been gathered so far?

In many states, yes he would be a murderer. However, unless there's a bombshell on the horizon that we don't know about (GZ reversing his statement and admitting something other than what we already know, new evidence to refute both his statement and corroboration of witnesses, etc...), then the state of Florida is going to rightly let him walk.

Deal with it. If you don't like it, lobby to get the law changed, but if the law says he is not a murderer, then he's not a murderer. You are nobody to say otherwise.

Let the case work itself out. Too much manipulation by the media and ignorant masses to this point.

If he's a murderer, he will be convicted and go to jail. If he's not a murderer, the courts will determine such and you'll just have to drink a tall glass of shut the fuck up already.

[MDyDinanM]

Originally Posted by 48Laws

He killed an unarmed child while playing neighborhood superhero. Protecting what, the illegal sale of skittles and ice tea????

There you go again, missing the point.

1) Skittles and ice tea is irrelevant to the point myself and others are trying to make to you. For the THIRD TIME, all we are saying is let the judge and jury decide the outcome. Since when do you have the right to be judge, jury, and executioner? You don't. This is America, and everyone has a right to a fair trial by competent authority and by their peers in a court of law. Not by what the peanut gallery is saying, such as yourself.

2) Travon was hardly a "child" He was 17, making him a teenager and/or young adult. Did the media manipulate your perception of that too by displaying his boyhood photos? Or you just distorting the truth again to serve your own bias? Even though it is irrelevant to the case, people are quick to forget he wasn't exactly a perfect angel, and neither was Zimmerman.

Originally Posted by 48Laws

An over-zealous man with a hero complex creates a lot of ambiguity with these "Stand Your Ground" laws.

Do you know Zimmerman personally? If not, then how do you know he was an overzealous man with a hero complex? Maybe he was, or maybe he wasn't. But you never met the guy. So are you just cherry picking "facts" from the media that once again, suit your biases? And so far, the media has been caught manipulating audio and video footage - so do you trust everything you see on tv too? Everything you say is your opinion, and your opinion alone and is hearsay and speculative. It is people like you that breed sensationalism and throw common sense out the window.

Lastly, have you read through the Stand Your Ground Laws? They aren't as ambiguous as you make them out to be.

I personally am going to wait and see how this plays out in court before passing judgement. And I think to assume anything else and cause hysteria is irresponsible.

[ragingclue]

Originally Posted by 48Laws

Acts of violence from one granted certain rights to carry against another law-abiding citizen is in and of itself an undermining of the justice system. That's why a civilized society has 911 and various emergency services. Wow!

First of all, you quoted the wrong post.

Secondly, you make no sense. If GZ acted in self-defense, then letting him walk is in no way an undermining of the justice system. If GZ did not act in self-defense, and there's enough admissible evidence to convict him in the eyes of the law, yet he still walks, then yes that's a failure of the system. However, that shouldn't happen, and hopefully it does not. Hopefully justice is served by the servants of justice (the justice system which you think is beneath your own opinions, NOT YOU). If the courts find he acted in self-defense then the stand your ground law applies. If the courts find he did not act in self-defense, then the stand your ground law doesn't apply and he should be found guilty of manslaughter or 2nd degree murder. It really is pretty much that simple. If you can't understand that, it can only be because:

a) you're 5 years old, or
b) you consciously choose not to believe it.

Thirdly, judging by your other posts, all you know about the case is what you've been fed, and probably haven't checked up on the situation in at least a couple weeks.

Educate yourself already. An educated and aware voter base is the cornerstone of a successful democracy. You absolutely and utterly fail in that regard, in this case.

Do your due diligence and stop being an ignoramus. You seem to think your ignorant opinion trumps the law. It doesn't.

It scares me that people like you vote. It really does.

[MDyDinanM]

/\

+1

Ignorance breeds ignorance.

[SpeedOften]

Originally Posted by TMNT

Fixed it for you since you left off THREE of the most important parts

You're being biased b/c you're choosing not to include other important parts where he was told to follow the suspect to guide police, and when the 911 operator told him to stop he said ok and stopped, you also failed to mention the guy who witnessed Zimmerman getting his ass whooped by the 17 yr old until the shot was fired.

[smyles]

It looks like the first wave of sensational journalism is over, and now more balanced and thorough articles appear: George Zimmerman: Prelude to a shooting

[Templar]

Originally Posted by 48Laws

He killed an unarmed child while playing neighborhood superhero. Protecting what, the illegal sale of skittles and ice tea????

Last time I checked, most men (even at 17) are perfectly capable of killing someone with their bare hands. Whether it is squeezing the life out of them or beating them senseless. The fact that he was unarmed without a gun/knife is not relevant, since he was SUPPOSEDLY being beaten by the deceased... IF (only if) that is true, then one could see why Zimmerman may have thought his life was in danger.

But I'm not saying what actually happened, since of course I wasn't there...

[MDyDinanM]

/\

Lol

Well after reading posts in this thread by 48Laws, he likes to think he was there with his strong statements of "facts".

[y.funyuns]

Haha. I noticed it too. I thought the same thing when I saw it. "niiiiicccccceeee"

[Templar]

Originally Posted by mdyaman

/\

Lol

Well after reading posts in this thread by 48Laws, he likes to think he was there with his strong statements of "facts".

I'm just pointing it out. Without being there, none of us know what happened (like you have said numerous times). Zimmerman is saying he was being beat up on. If that turns out to be true, he has a self-defense case. If it's not true, then he's a murderer AND a liar.

But none of us know the answer, that's what the system will try to discover.

[ragingclue]

Originally Posted by smyles

It looks like the first wave of sensational journalism is over, and now more balanced and thorough articles appear: George Zimmerman: Prelude to a shooting

Wow in the Trib no less? I'm surprised they let that get to print!

[48Laws]

Originally Posted by mdyaman

There you go again, missing the point.

There is no point being missed, only two different perspectives, Sherlock.

1) Skittles and ice tea is irrelevant to the point myself and others are trying to make to you. For the THIRD TIME, all we are saying is let the judge and jury decide the outcome. Since when do you have the right to be judge, jury, and executioner? You don't. This is America, and everyone has a right to a fair trial by competent authority and by their peers in a court of law. Not by what the peanut gallery is saying, such as yourself.

Who said otherwise? Did I call for Zimmerman's public lynching? I too have faith in the law. My public criticism is just that, public criticism, just like every other swinging-d*** in this thread. Furthermore, You highlight my major concern as well...who gave Zimmerman the right to be judge, jury and executioner? And no matter how many pages are generated in this thread, we have no affect on this case whatsoever, so please quiet down. You act as if we are sequestrated members of the jury.

2) Travon was hardly a "child" He was 17, making him a teenager and/or young adult. Did the media manipulate your perception of that too by displaying his boyhood photos? Or you just distorting the truth again to serve your own bias? Even though it is irrelevant to the case, people are quick to forget he wasn't exactly a perfect angel, and neither was Zimmerman.

You're interpretation of Travon's maturity level by using quotation marks says two things about you; 1. You're splitting hairs to force your weak point 2. You know there's a universal understanding of who is considered a child, even those who are still teenagers, yet you're ignoring it. Moreover, you leave out quite a bit of information yet nothing has stopped you from attacking Travon's character. So, are you now playing judge, jury and executioner, too? Hmm. I know one thing, Travon never shot and killed a person based on internal paranoia and fear, and never was caught on record suffering from some territorial complex as Zimmerman has.

Do you know Zimmerman personally? If not, then how do you know he was an overzealous man with a hero complex? Maybe he was, or maybe he wasn't. But you never met the guy. So are you just cherry picking "facts" from the media that once again, suit your biases? And so far, the media has been caught manipulating audio and video footage - so do you trust everything you see on tv too? Everything you say is your opinion, and your opinion alone and is hearsay and speculative. It is people like you that breed sensationalism and throw common sense out the window.

You cannot be taken seriously if you're going to ask such stupid questions. Did I know him? LOL. Did you raise Travon to know he wasn't a perfect angel? Oh, and what is the criteria to be considered a perfect angel or not one, if you will? Were you a perfect angel?

Stop generalizing. ONE. I say, ONE news source manipulated audio. Again, that comment by you is a clear case of sensationalism BY YOU.

It's people like you who are so dense, they'll fight tooth and nail claiming to be objective, yet write a damn book littered with subjectivity. Like now.

I didn't know him personally but, I do know Zimmerman was a serial 911 caller with behavior exhibited by a lunatic who suffers from paranoia.

Lastly, have you read through the Stand Your Ground Laws? They aren't as ambiguous as you make them out to be.

WOW! The ambiguity comes into play when the deceased cannot speak on his/her behalf. Christ!

I personally am going to wait and see how this plays out in court before passing judgement. And I think to assume anything else and cause hysteria is irresponsible.

Really? So what would you label the abov you wrote, not passing judgement?

[48Laws]

Originally Posted by Templar

Last time I checked, most men (even at 17) are perfectly capable of killing someone with their bare hands. Whether it is squeezing the life out of them or beating them senseless. The fact that he was unarmed without a gun/knife is not relevant, since he was SUPPOSEDLY being beaten by the deceased... IF (only if) that is true, then one could see why Zimmerman may have thought his life was in danger.

But I'm not saying what actually happened, since of course I wasn't there...

"The fact that he was unarmed without a gun/knife is not relevant" That's quite an incredible comment. Laughable really.

But, the the fact that Zimmerman was armed and killed Travon is relevant. Which is a greater point. Again, Zimmerman was indicted without a grand jury, not Travon. A fact many of you ignore. Instead, you're using half-truths to fuel your arguments. You're making little sense actually.

[MDyDinanM]

Originally Posted by 48Laws

There is no point being missed, only two different perspectives, Sherlock.

fair enough

Originally Posted by 48Laws

Who said otherwise? Did I call for Zimmerman's public lynching? I too have faith in the law. My public criticism is just that, public criticism, just like every other swinging-d*** in this thread. Furthermore, You highlight my major concern as well...who gave Zimmerman the right to be judge, jury and executioner? And no matter how many pages are generated in this thread, we have no affect on this case whatsoever, so please quiet down. You act as if we are sequestrated members of the jury.

You're right, this is nothing more than a public debate on a public forum that will have no bearing at the case at hand. However, what you say as public criticism, I or the rest of us on here see is that you've already made up your mind about the case not having a) been there b) known all the facts c) making an assumption. For instance:

Originally Posted by 48Laws

Only thing I noticed is he may very well get away with murder

That doesn't look like public criticism to me; it shows you've already made up your mind and judged him. How can you label him a murderer...yet? Like I said, you weren't there and didn't see events unfold. If the courts convict him of murder, then and only then would I think he should be labeled as such (in my opinion). Which leads me to my second point by you asking who made him judge, jury, executioner. No one did. However, if he was in accordance with Stand Your Ground Law along with its criteria, who are you or I, or the rest of us to say otherwise? That will be determined. Perhaps your real issue is the law, and not Zimmerman. Then you go on to say that you do have faith in the court system. If so, then then once again, let them decide if he is a murderer or not.

Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. You should know that already if you truly support the legal system.

Originally Posted by 48Laws

You're interpretation of Travon's maturity level by using quotation marks says two things about you; 1. You're splitting hairs to force your weak point 2. You know there's a universal understanding of who is considered a child, even those who are still teenagers, yet you're ignoring it. Moreover, you leave out quite a bit of information yet nothing has stopped you from attacking Travon's character. So, are you now playing judge, jury and executioner, too? Hmm. I know one thing, Travon never shot and killed a person based on internal paranoia and fear, and never was caught on record suffering from some territorial complex as Zimmerman has.

I don't even know what you're trying to say there...you called Travon a child here:

Originally Posted by 48Laws

He killed an unarmed child while playing neighborhood superhero. Protecting what, the illegal sale of skittles and ice tea????

All I said was he wasn't a child. He was 17, making him a teenager, a young adult at best. There is a difference and you seem to agree with me there. I don't see how that is splitting any hairs or ignoring the difference.

Also, you claim that i'm attacking Travon's character. Really? There you go again, assuming things. No, I haven't attacked his character and that is you putting words in my mouth and assuming things. So far I've been pretty neutral for both sides. I simply pointed out that a) prior history on both Zimmerman and Travon are irrelevant and b) neither of them are perfect citizens.

Here, read it again if you must:

Originally Posted by mdyaman

Even though it is irrelevant to the case, people are quick to forget he wasn't exactly a perfect angel, and neither was Zimmerman.

So reading comprehension fail for you there buddy. I never judged either of them throughout this whole thread. If anything, you are the one making judgements or criticisms here, in this case, against Zimmerman.

Also, what are you talking about Zimmerman being caught on record for a territorial complex? Or is that another one of your assumptions?

Originally Posted by 48Laws

You cannot be taken seriously if you're going to ask such stupid questions. Did I know him? LOL. Did you raise Travon to know he wasn't a perfect angel? Oh, and what is the criteria to be considered a perfect angel or not one, if you will? Were you a perfect angel?

Stupid questions? I find it very relevant. It is a point I'm trying to make in that if you didn't know either of them, how can you justify your criticisms and your judgements. Oh wait, let me guess...

Originally Posted by 48Laws

Stop generalizing. ONE. I say, ONE news source manipulated audio. Again, that comment by you is a clear case of sensationalism BY YOU.

It's people like you who are so dense, they'll fight tooth and nail claiming to be objective, yet write a damn book littered with subjectivity. Like now.

I didn't know him personally but, I do know Zimmerman was a serial 911 caller with behavior exhibited by a lunatic who suffers from paranoia

.

Stop generalizing? Why should I? I don't know all the facts, but appears that you think you do when you weren't even there. I'm being general simply because I fully admit that I don't know all the ins and outs and cannot say without a doubt things are one way or the other. Apparently you do, which myself and others question your so called judgements, or what you call criticisms.

You even contradict yourself by saying that "you didn't know him personally" but then you go on to say as that he is a "lunatic who suffers from paranoia"

What are you now, his doctor?

Please enlighten us how you came to the conclusion that he suffers from paranoia? is a lunatic, and every other statement you've made such as "over zealous" or having a "hero complex"? Are these "facts" or your criticisms? Fair question...

Originally Posted by 48Laws

WOW! The ambiguity comes into play when the deceased cannot speak on his/her behalf. Christ!

What are you even talking about here? I asked If you have looked into the Stand your Ground Laws? Have you? Another Fair question...

Originally Posted by 48Laws

Really? So what would you label the abov you wrote, not passing judgement?

Yes actually, which you fail to see, and you continue to assume, and put words in my mouth. I've remained neutral throughout, by insisting to let the courts decide. That and simply pointing out your criticism sounds like judgements to me (and to others on this thread) and I question your arrival to those judgements/criticisms when you weren't even there and didn't know either Zimmerman or Travon personally.

Originally Posted by 48Laws

"The fact that he was unarmed without a gun/knife is not relevant" That's quite an incredible comment. Laughable really.

But, the the fact that Zimmerman was armed and killed Travon is relevant. Which is a greater point. Again, Zimmerman was indicted without a grand jury, not Travon. A fact many of you ignore. Instead, you're using half-truths to fuel your arguments. You're making little sense actually.

1) How is it relevant then? Do you deny that someone can't be harmed by another unarmed person? For example, if a guy twice my size beat the crap out of me, you mean to say that he can't kill me with his bare hands by strangling me to death or by beating me to death? How is that laughable?

2) Since Zimmerman was armed, isn't it legal to own and carry a gun in Florida? So if, and only if, it is legal to carry a firearm in Florida, what difference does it make if it is not breaking Florida law?

3) What half truths? The only one speaking with such "authority" on the matter is you with your "criticisms" acting as if you know it all.

[ragingclue]

Must be a troll.

No real human being is seriously that simultaneously insolent and oblivious.

[Joekerr]

You know, this thread wasn't that interested when it started, but has become quite interesting now!

48Laws and Mdyaman are keeping it going! Reminds me of the old saying though: "never argue with a fool, they will drag you down to their level, and then beat you with experience" One of them seems to have presented pretty reasoned arguments and defense, while the other seems to contradict themselves while foaming at the mouth, clearly the reasoned one may wish to refrain from going further as there's simply no value in it...

However, please continue if you feel like it - very good entertainment!




As a side note, while Zimmerman was "hiding" or whatever before he turned himself in, I'd be willing to bet the crime went down drastically in that neighbourhood as no one else wanted to do anything in case he was out there...proof the death penalty (however it is meted out) is a deterrant! I wish they would bring that into the legal system in Canada, so many people should not be living and using my taxes.

[MDyDinanM]

haha...yeah I agree, this thread started off boring, but got interesting. Though I am getting tired of repeating myself.

I just can't see what justifies 48Laws criticisms

lol

maybe I missed something? Or as 48Laws would say, i'm too "dense"

[48Laws]

Originally Posted by mdyaman

You're right, this is nothing more than a public debate on a public forum that will have no bearing at the case at hand. However, what you say as public criticism, I or the rest of us on here see is that you've already made up your mind about the case not having a) been there b) known all the facts c) making an assumption. For instance:

I have a strong opinion about this event. Some people, you included, wish to trivialize a rather simple case of a private citizen assuming he has the jurisdiction of the law, taking the law into his own hands without serious provocation and killing a child while hiding behind some ambiguous law, even when better options were available to him as a neighborhood watch-dog. Unless you can provide footage of Travon attacking him, Zimmerman's testimony will undoubtedly be in his own favor. Even the best of experts can only provide there own interpretation of the events documented by Zimmerman, while eyewitnesses accounts have historically been unreliable in court, Travon has no chance if you want to have a back-and-forth about hearsay. Zimmerman will save his own ass. Period!

That doesn't look like public criticism to me; it shows you've already made up your mind and judged him. How can you label him a murderer...yet? Like I said, you weren't there and didn't see events unfold. If the courts convict him of murder, then and only then would I think he should be labeled as such (in my opinion). Which leads me to my second point by you asking who made him judge, jury, executioner. No one did. However, if he was in accordance with Stand Your Ground Law along with its criteria, who are you or I, or the rest of us to say otherwise? That will be determined. Perhaps your real issue is the law, and not Zimmerman. Then you go on to say that you do have faith in the court system. If so, then then once again, let them decide if he is a murderer or not.

For the second time, my words thus far have zero influence on the court's decision, so why are you even holding me accountable for what happens in court? LMFAO. You're making no sense. Zimmerman was indicted. He murdered a child, albeit a 17 y/o, for whom he assumed was trespassing. That's the crux of the story. Stop patronizing me as if this case is much deeper than it really is.

I don't even know what you're trying to say there...you called Travon a child here:

All I said was he wasn't a child. He was 17, making him a teenager, a young adult at best. There is a difference and you seem to agree with me there. I don't see how that is splitting any hairs or ignoring the difference.

Teenager is the last stage of childhood before adulthood. So, would a 13 y/o not be a child??? Besides, these terms are used very loosely in society. If Travon wanted to pilot a 747 with you and your family on it, I bet then you'd say, "he's only a kid...etc" lol

Travon was a child at the time of his death. You chose to say he wasn't a child. A child who exhibits behavior of an adult, good or bad, or whom may be approaching some imaginary milestone of "adulthood", generally speaking, does not eliminate the fact that he is biologically still a child. As we have seen very advanced, mature teenagers and very immature teenagers. You're using a silly black/white approach that doesn't apply

Also, you claim that i'm attacking Travon character. Really? There you go again, assuming things. No, I haven't attacked his character and that is you putting words in my mouth and assuming things. So far I've been pretty neutral for both sides. I simply pointed out that a) prior history on both Zimmerman and Travon are irrelevant and b) neither of them are perfect citizens.

Sure you did. And there is more proof to examine Zimmerman's character than Travon's being that Travon is essentially the victim as we speak. Uh, who of the two got indicted in the court of law? So, the burden of proof is on who again? You mentioned some nonsense about Travon not being an angel as if you have an actual litmus test available to measure one's behavior on a larger, fairer scale other than your bias opinion.

So reading comprehension fail for you there buddy. I never judged either of them throughout this whole thread. If anything, you are the one making judgements here, in this case, against Zimmerman.

Look, I admit I'm not in favor of Zimmerman, however, you came in this thread acting like your are the reasonable-type, unbiased of the case, while the entire spirit of your dialog says otherwise.

Also, what are you talking about Zimmerman being caught on record for a territorial complex? Or is that another one of your assumptions?

Was Zimmerman not a member of a community watch-group? Was he not patrolling his gated community as a watch captain?

Stupid questions? I find it very relevant. It is a point I'm trying to make in that if you didn't know either of them, how can you justify your criticisms and your judgements. Oh wait, let me guess...

Anyone who asks a question knowing the answer themselves is devaluing the dialog. It's stupid.
.

Stop generalizing? Why should I? I don't know all the facts, but appears that you think you do when you weren't even there. I'm being general simply because I fully admit that I don't know all the ins and outs and cannot say without a doubt things are one way or the other. Apparently you do, which myself and others question your so called judgements, or what you call criticisms.

But you're generalizing a FACT that you do have access to, which shows a bit of laziness on your part. We all can speaking generally knowing it's out opinion but, to blatantly ignore sources of real information and to continue to generalize is pathetic.

You even contradict yourself by saying that "you didn't know him personally" but then you go on to say as that he is a "lunatic who suffers from paranoia"

Anyone who wants to patrol their gated community with a handgun and make repeated 911 calls tying up emergency services, is a lunatic. Sorry.

What are you now, his doctor?

Are you his apologist? Oh, wait, you're not taking sides, Riiiiiiight.

Please enlighten us how you came to the conclusion that he suffers from paranoia? is a lunatic, and every other statement you've made such as "over zealous" or having a "hero complex"? Are these "facts" or your criticisms? Fair question...

How about a 47-page document showing Zimmerman's history of 911 calls and his obsession with people, namely black men, walking around "his" complex.

Good enough?

What are you even talking about here? I asked If you have looked into the Stand your Ground Laws? Have you? Another Fair question...

Have I looked at it or do I understand it? lol What can you tell me about the law that I already don't know?

Yes actually, which you fail to see, and you continue to assume, and put words in my mouth. I've remained neutral throughout, by insisting to let the courts decide. That and simply pointing out your criticism sounds like judgements to me (and to others on this thread) and I question your arrival to those judgements/criticisms when you weren't even there and didn't know either Zimmerman or Travon personally.

No way are you neutral. Because, so far I have been the biggest critic of Zimmerman, and you have been relentless to cast doubt about my perspective. You've chosen a side but, you're just very confused.