George Zimmerman Trial

[EddytoNow]

chase [ chayss ]
pursue somebody: to follow somebody quickly in order to catch him or her

chase1 [cheys] Show IPA verb, chased, chas·ing, noun
verb (used with object)
1.
to pursue in order to seize, overtake, etc.: The police officer chased the thief.
2.
to pursue with intent to capture or kill, as game; hunt: to chase deer.

I looked up 'chase' in several places and didn't see running as a reference in any of them.

Here's another definition that I found.

verb - If you chase someone, or chase after them, you run after them or follow them quickly in order to catch or reach them.

 

[Irish Insanity]

Here's another definition that I found.

verb - If you chase someone, or chase after them, you run after them or follow them quickly in order to catch or reach them.

Exactly, your run OR FOLLOW THEM QUICKLY. OR, so you aren't necessarily running. So the earlier post referencing GZ chasing him is accurate. It doesn't automatically refer to him running. Which was argued as what chasing meant. Thanks for helping me prove my point.

 

[GUknights75]

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/NF0d12WtIRs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Good video, it is pretty spot on. It is roughly 35 mins long but most of it is him responding to questions on the web, which had me cracking up. Watch the first 10 mins then decide if you want to finish.

My favorite part at 18:10 Question "If GZ never got out of his car TM would still be alive today!" Answer "Sure and if TM hadn't been caught with drug's, he wouldn't have been suspended from school, his mother wouldn't have sent him to Florida (He meant Sanford) he would still be alive today, AND if an asteroid obliterated Florida in 10,000 B.C., America wouldn't have a penis "

He reminds me of Christoph Waltz from Django Unchained and Inglorious Bastards.

 

[kmoose]

Exactly, your run OR FOLLOW THEM QUICKLY. OR, so you aren't necessarily running. So the earlier post referencing GZ chasing him is accurate. It doesn't automatically refer to him running. Which was argued as what chasing meant. Thanks for helping me prove my point.

Was Zimmerman attempting to "catch or reach" Martin, or was he merely trying to keep him within eyesight?

If the latter, then he was not "chasing".

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Do you (particularly those who have offered a twist and asked no questions since post #2728) realize that all you are doing is offering a bit of you, but nothing related to the case?

Here is how it works. We all have filters that keep us safe. We see everything through these filters. These filters do not just control our vision and our opinion. They control our actual every day operations. They offer a really informed view of all of our behavior. So when someone looks for a seminal moment when one can craft some logic to throw blame from one person to another, or when people want to get into a pissing match over a word, well that says a lot.

However I am really proud of Brian(31) showing reservations in accepting the words of a dubious preacher, (why would a man of love be so down on and tear up anyone in the least Christian example of behavior I have seen in this whole affair?) I am also pretty pleased with DCIrish's statement:

I feel like both of them could have handled the situation better and because they didn't it led to a kid losing his life. I just don't agree with the ones who think that GZ was not responsible for any of this. If I'm carrying a gun I'm doing everything possible to avoid a confrontation.

This does not diminish his perspective but takes responsibility for it, and allows all others to keep and maintain theirs.

I am also pretty impressed with KMooses statement:

Zimmerman didn't HAVE to get out of the car, you are right. But what about Zimmerman's rights? He doesn't have the right to walk around his neighborhood at night, . . . ?

 

[Irish Insanity]

My view on this has been spoken a few times in this thread. I don't feel the need, as others do, to be dismissive towards other posters and their opinions. I chose to post the definition and my opinion because it had seemed to be a word taken from one post and its meaning was being wrongfully stated and assumed based upon one persons opinion as opposed to anothers. I chose to hold my opinion and allow others to hold theirs, without the belittling of others or their opinions that so many seem to do in this thread. This thread would be easier to navigate if the topic of the thread or things involving it were more important than attacking the people who hold opinions opposing theirs.

 

[Booslum31]

Isn't it great how we can disagree (sometimes vehemently) about all thing political/social/economic/etc but when football starts we all love ND and support them and disagree (sometimes vehemently) about who should play/what we should do/what we should have done/etc?

I've always been very impressed with this aspect of this board. Love it!

 

[Booslum31]

I wish the country would get this involved when the government let 4 Americans die in Libya.

I agree. But because the media had nothing to gain in advancing their agenda (their sole purpose now) the story got pushed aside and America was not "told" to be energized about it.

 

[GoIrish41]

chase [ chayss ]
pursue somebody: to follow somebody quickly in order to catch him or her

chase1 [cheys] Show IPA verb, chased, chas·ing, noun
verb (used with object)
1.
to pursue in order to seize, overtake, etc.: The police officer chased the thief.
2.
to pursue with intent to capture or kill, as game; hunt: to chase deer.

I looked up 'chase' in several places and didn't see running as a reference in any of them.

We can argue about which word to use for his "following," "pursuing" or "chasing" -- all of which are synonyms mind you -- but it can hardly be argued that he, in fact, caught Martin. What happened after that is what this case was about. Zimmerman spun a tail that made him look like an innocent victim who had to defend himself. That is difficult to swallow considering that he, in fact, either followed, pursued, or chased the kid into the darkness with a loaded gun and that kid was dead a couple of minutes later. The significance of him embellishing pieces of the story should be obvious to everyone. Why would he do that if he was, in fact, a victim. The most significant of these lies is when the gun was drawn. Nobody will ever convince me that he pulled that gun out when he was being savagely beaten, smothered and having his head bashed into the sidewalk. I suspect that gun was out in the first place, but he may have pulled it at some later point during the fight, but he didn't pull it out when he said he did -- that simply defies logic. He lied because he couldn't tell the truth and have a case for self defense. I'm confident that he will be exposed during the civil trial.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I wish the country would get this involved when the government let 4 Americans die in Libya.

I got you dude. But other than a political issue I don't understand where you are coming from. Over 240 Marines and sailors were put in harms way in Lebanon. They were not given the ability to defend themselves. Then they were slaughtered.

I had a friend there write me before he died of the bull shiit way that someone had to get ammunition for the weapons they marched around with. Request from NCO, Request from OD, requisition from Quartermaster, etc. Hell, the guys in guard duty around the barracks had no live ammo. They didn't even have a Ma Deuce, a company automatic weapon (M2 Browning .50 Cal Machine gun.) With one of those, they could have cut the suicide bombers truck to pieces at a half mile.

And Ronnie Reagan got on the air and took full responsibility for the snafu. People cheered. It is all political, and no one cares . . .

 

[GoIrish41]

Was Zimmerman attempting to "catch or reach" Martin, or was he merely trying to keep him within eyesight?

If the latter, then he was not "chasing".

He did catch Martin. I mean, this case requires a lot of using common sense to fill in gaps in the facts (creating openings for reasonable doubt), but that is an undisputable fact in this case. If he didn't catch Martin, there would have been no confrontation, no shooting, no case, and we'd all be arguing about whether Bryant or Hood is going to win the Heisman first.

 

[GoIrish41]

I would tend to agree with this. Except (and I'm not saying that you are implying this) that I would NOT agree that Zimmerman simply following TM makes him responsible for TM's death.

I agree that the following didn't make him responsible. But, the shooting, on the other hand ...

 

[Bogtrotter07]

We can argue about which word to use for his "following," "pursuing" or "chasing" -- all of which are synonyms mind you -- but it can hardly be argued that he, in fact, caught Martin. What happened after that is what this case was about. Zimmerman spun a tail that made him look like an innocent victim who had to defend himself. That is difficult to swallow considering that he, in fact, either followed, pursued, or chased the kid into the darkness with a loaded gun and that kid was dead a couple of minutes later. The significance of he embellishing pieces of the story should be obvious to everyone. Why would he do that if he was, in fact, a victim. The most significant of these lies is when the gun was drawn. Nobody will ever convince me that he pulled that gun out when he was being savagely beaten, smothered and having his head bashed into the sidewalk. I suspect that gun was out in the first place, but he may have pulled it at some later point during the fight, but he didn't pull it out when he said he did -- that simply defies logic. He lied because he couldn't tell the truth and have a case for self defense. I'm confident that he will be exposed during the civil trial.

This is all true, correct and right. No one needs to wave their pompoms and shout "Trayvon, Travon, he's the one, he's a gansta its more fun!"

The above mentioned post is dead on. This is just the use of experiential logic. Was Trayvon innocent? No. Were his parents the best parents in the world? We have no idea. Any of the stuff that has come out about that is conjecture, that requires someone to be in another's head.

To the best of my knowledge Trayvon's footsteps are remarkably clear. No one sees him throwing a punch, let alone the first one. (Remember all witnesses recanted on saying they saw anyone punching anyone else.) But logic tells us he did at least throw one punch.

And those that want to demonize Trayvon and use him as the poster boy for why we should be allowed unrestricted use of lethal force, have one thing in common with him, at least as they portray him; strike first and ask questions later.

 

[kmoose]

He did catch Martin.

Speculation. There is a reasonable doubt about whether Zimmerman caught up to Martin, or whether Martin doubled back and confronted Zimmerman.

 

[kmoose]

This is all true, correct and right. No one needs to wave their pompoms and shout "Trayvon, Travon, he's the one, he's a gansta its more fun!"

The above mentioned post is dead on. This is just the use of experiential logic. Was Trayvon innocent? No. Were his parents the best parents in the world? We have no idea. Any of the stuff that has come out about that is conjecture, that requires someone to be in another's head.

To the best of my knowledge Trayvon's footsteps are remarkably clear. No one sees him throwing a punch, let alone the first one. (Remember all witnesses recanted on saying they saw anyone punching anyone else.) But logic tells us he did at least throw one punch.

And those that want to demonize Trayvon and use him as the poster boy for why we should be allowed unrestricted use of lethal force, have one thing in common with him, at least as they portray him; strike first and ask questions later.

I don't recall ANYONE advocating unrestricted use of lethal force...

 

[GoIrish41]

Speculation. There is a reasonable doubt about whether Zimmerman caught up to Martin, or whether Martin doubled back and confronted Zimmerman.

Martin was walking down the street, Zimmerman was there. Martin was standing in the grass, Zimmerman was there. Martin was walking past the clubhouse, Zimmerman was there. Martin ran between the buildings and Zimmerman ran after him. The whole "chasing" vs. "following" argument seems a bit silly, but to suggest that all of this "chasing" ended up with the guy who was running away flipping the script that was playing out ... THAT, my friend, is speculation. I am simply following the logical sequence of events to their natural conclusion. You seem to be crafting a narrative that simply defies logic. Martin clearly wanted to get away from Zimmerman and Zimmerman clearly did not want him to.

 

[kmoose]

Martin was walking down the street, Zimmerman was there. Martin was standing in the grass, Zimmerman was there. Martin was walking past the clubhouse, Zimmerman was there. Martin ran between the buildings and Zimmerman ran after him. The whole "chasing" vs. "following" argument seems a bit silly, but to suggest that all of this "chasing" ended up with the guy who was running away flipping the script that was playing out ... THAT, my friend, is speculation. I am simply following the logical sequence of events to their natural conclusion. You seem to be crafting a narrative that simply defies logic. Martin clearly wanted to get away from Zimmerman and Zimmerman clearly did not want him to.

I'm not crafting any narrative. I don't know what happened, on that sidewalk between the buildings. Neither do you, but you keep saying that Zimmerman chased TM down. All I'm doing is pointing out that you don't know that for a fact. I'm not defending Zimmerman, I'm saying that just because something appears to be logical, that doesn't mean that that is the way it definitely happened. Life doesn't always follow logic.

 

[GoIrish41]

I'm not crafting any narrative. I don't know what happened, on that sidewalk between the buildings. Neither do you, but you keep saying that Zimmerman chased TM down. All I'm doing is pointing out that you don't know that for a fact. I'm not defending Zimmerman, I'm saying that just because something appears to be logical, that doesn't mean that that is the way it definitely happened. Life doesn't always follow logic.

In the absence of indisputable proof, all we have is logic and experience to help us fill in the blanks. Because it is possible that something else happened does not automatically create the reasonable doubt that you suggested it does. Many other possibilities exist, but those possibilities may not be seen as reasonable. I don't think, for example, that it is reasonable that a certain pattern was established in the time period that led up to the confrontation and all of the sudden, that pattern changed. That pattern was one of Zimmerman chasing (you can use following if it makes you feel more comfortable) Martin. I don't think it is reasonable to assume that suddenly the kid who was running away decided to reverse roles with Zimmerman, making him the chaser and Zimmerman the chased. It is certainly physically possible, but in my estimation it is not reasonable to assume that is what happened.

 

[NDinL.A.]

This is all true, correct and right. No one needs to wave their pompoms and shout "Trayvon, Travon, he's the one, he's a gansta its more fun!"

Nobody is.

The above mentioned post is dead on. This is just the use of experiential logic. Was Trayvon innocent? No. Were his parents the best parents in the world? We have no idea.

Ummm, I do, and anyone who thinks they are 'the best in the world' or even competent parents has out the biggest Trayvon pom-poms in the world. Kid was on drugs, stole from people, was suspended from school multiple times and was truant from school multiple times, and posted about his exploits online all the time. And yet, there he was still with his excellent cell phone, and able to go out at night and buy items used to make people get high (which TM had boasted about in the past and traces of which were found in his body in the autopsy).

It's one thing to have a disobedient child...that can happen to the best of parents. But to not take things away from him and allow him the freedom to do drugs and talk on the phone and go online, despite his incredible disobedience not only at home but at school and with the law as well? Wow...and you want to tell us that we don't know about his parents??? Please...it's as clear as day.

Any of the stuff that has come out about that is conjecture, that requires someone to be in another's head.

You've been in Zimmerman's head this entire thread...'conjecture' has never stopped you.

And those that want to demonize Trayvon and use him as the poster boy for why we should be allowed unrestricted use of lethal force, have one thing in common with him, at least as they portray him; strike first and ask questions later.

Again, nobody is doing that. May I ask why you are bringing that up?

 

[kmoose]

In the absence of indisputable proof, all we have is logic and experience to help us fill in the blanks. Because it is possible that something else happened does not automatically create the reasonable doubt that you suggested it does. Many other possibilities exist, but those possibilities may not be seen as reasonable. I don't think it is reasonable that a certain pattern was established in the time period that led up to the confrontation and all of the suddent, that pattern changed. That pattern was one of Zimmerman chasing (you can use following if it makes you feel more comfortable) Martin. I don't think it is reasonable to assume that suddenly the kid who was running away decided to reverse roles with Zimmerman, making him the chaser and Zimmerman the chased. It is certainly physically possible, but in my estimation it is not reasonable to assume that is what happened.

That's the point that I am trying to get you to see:

It's not reasonable to make ANY assumptions about what happened between the buildings, other than George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin while Trayvon Martin was on top of him. Those who support TM as an innocent kid want to point to Zimmerman getting out of his car and following him, and also to the numerous calls that Zimmerman had previously made to the police, as some kind of evidence of the reasonability of their assumption that Zimmerman logically must have initiated the physical confrontation. But they don't want anyone to be able to use Trayvon's past, to support the assumption that Martin initiated it. Martin's troubles in school, his(apparent) troubles in his mom's house....... all of those things are immaterial, but Zimmerman's history of calling the cops? WELL, NOW........... that's IMPORTANT, because it allows people to paint Zimmerman as some kind of Paul Kersey.

 

[Booslum31]

That's the point that I am trying to get you to see:

It's not reasonable to make ANY assumptions about what happened between the buildings, other than George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin while Trayvon Martin was on top of him. Those who support TM as an innocent kid want to point to Zimmerman getting out of his car and following him, and also to the numerous calls that Zimmerman had previously made to the police, as some kind of evidence of the reasonability of their assumption that Zimmerman logically must have initiated the physical confrontation. But they don't want anyone to be able to use Trayvon's past, to support the assumption that Martin initiated it. Martin's troubles in school, his(apparent) troubles in his mom's house....... all of those things are immaterial, but Zimmerman's history of calling the cops? WELL, NOW........... that's IMPORTANT, because it allows people to paint Zimmerman as some kind of Paul Kersey.

Hadn't looked at it that way. good points Kmoose

 

[GoIrish41]

That's the point that I am trying to get you to see:

It's not reasonable to make ANY assumptions about what happened between the buildings, other than George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin while Trayvon Martin was on top of him. Those who support TM as an innocent kid want to point to Zimmerman getting out of his car and following him, and also to the numerous calls that Zimmerman had previously made to the police, as some kind of evidence of the reasonability of their assumption that Zimmerman logically must have initiated the physical confrontation. But they don't want anyone to be able to use Trayvon's past, to support the assumption that Martin initiated it. Martin's troubles in school, his(apparent) troubles in his mom's house....... all of those things are immaterial, but Zimmerman's history of calling the cops? WELL, NOW........... that's IMPORTANT, because it allows people to paint Zimmerman as some kind of Paul Kersey.

Martin was not on trial, so what he did a year, a month, a week or a day before that night is completely irrelevant. Zimmerman was on trial, and his record of calling the police coupled with his frustration with his observation that "that those punks always get away" was completely relevant to his state of mind at the time of the shooting and why he chose to lock onto the "suspecious" Martin who wasn't doing anything wrong at the time. Zimmerman knew NOTHING about Martin, other than he was a black kid walking through his neighborhood. Now, after the fact, folks feel the need to assasinate Martin's is character. He had smoked weed and had been in fights previously. That is a description of almost every male 17 year old in the country. I have never once suggested that he was an angel. He clearly had some skeletons in his closet (most people do and would not want the world to shine a light on them after their deaths). I have argued that his past doesn't matter. The only thing that did matter is that he wasn't doing anything wrong and still was found suspicious by a man who later killed him. And, that man who killed him fabricated a story (in my opinion) to make Martin out to be the agressor.

I completely disagree with you that no assumptions should be made. Think that through ... that means that in all cases with no eyewitnesses or other concrete evidence, we always must take the shooter's story at face value -- even though the shooter has a vested interest in telling a story that paints the deceased in the worst possible light. Incidently, the bolded point is an assumption. It is what Zimmerman said, but there was no witness at the time the shot was fired. Why should we assume that is the case. Even the expert the defense hired to make this case said that the angle of the bullet and the residue from the shot were consistent with Martin being on top of Zimmerman, but on cross examination he admitted that this does not rule out other possibilities, it just showed that Zimmerman's account of when he fired the bullet was possible.

 

[NDWorld247]

Ummm, I do, and anyone who thinks they are 'the best in the world' or even competent parents has out the biggest Trayvon pom-poms in the world. Kid was on drugs, stole from people, was suspended from school multiple times and was truant from school multiple times, and posted about his exploits online all the time. And yet, there he was still with his excellent cell phone, and able to go out at night and buy items used to make people get high (which TM had boasted about in the past and traces of which were found in his body in the autopsy).

It's one thing to have a disobedient child...that can happen to the best of parents. But to not take things away from him and allow him the freedom to do drugs and talk on the phone and go online, despite his incredible disobedience not only at home but at school and with the law as well? Wow...and you want to tell us that we don't know about his parents??? Please...it's as clear as day.

Of all the insensitive and ignorant crap that's been posted in this thread, your stance on Trayvon's parents tops the list in both categories.

Were they the "best in the world"? I'm pretty confident they were not. Were they "HORRIBLE" as you've said on multiple occasions? I'm pretty confident anyone making this claim, and to date you're basically the only person I've heard say it, is acting in ignorance and has very little regard for how difficult it is to parent in today's society. Parenting is real easy when all you have to do is change soiled diapers and stick a bottle in their mouth when they're hungry, but once they're out in the real world and there are other factors at play, it's impossible to hold their hand 24/7 and shut out all negative influences.

If it were up to you, Trayvon would not have been allowed to talk on the phone, go online, watch TV, go outside, go to the store, come right home from school, etc. So, he would have been sent to his room for 16 hours a day with no communication to the outside world. At the same time you would have been able to hold down a full-time job and disciplined his a$$ until he showed no signs of disobedience. Did I get that right?

I'm not going to make a case for them being good or bad parents because I simply do not have the information to back either of those arguments up. I could assume many things, but you know what they say about assuming...you've done a good job of proving the first part of that is true.

 

[NDinL.A.]

Of all the ignorant crap that's been posted in this thread, your stance on Trayvon's parents tops the list in both categories.

Worse than your (repeated) declaration that we were the clear leader for Andrew Williams on that thread? I think not.

Were they the "best in the world"? I'm pretty confident they were not. Were they "HORRIBLE" as you've said on multiple occasions? I'm pretty confident anyone making this claim, and to date you're basically the only person I've heard say it, is acting in ignorance and has very little regard for how difficult it is to parent in today's society.

A. You need to pay attention more. LOTS of people have been saying it.

B. I know exactly how difficult it is to raise a child in today's world. Raising one myself, and I practically raised my goddaughter (with her mom) when her deadbeat dad left her when she was 3. She's now 22 and a productive member of society. I gave up a lot of my nights when I was in college making sure she was doing the right thing...she lived in the projects in Boyle Heights, a subdivision of East L.A. with temptations all around her. She HATED me a lot of times because of the discipline and tough love we had to show. But in the end it was all love because it had to be done.

So take your 'confidence' and stick it somewhere else.

Parenting is real easy when all you have to do is change soiled diapers and stick a bottle in their mouth when they're hungry,

Holy crap, talk about ignorance.

but once they're out in the real world and there are other factors at play, it's impossible to hold their hand 24/7 and shut out all negative influences.

Yup. Agreed 1000%. Wish you would have read my posts more clearly.

If it were up to you, Trayvon would not have been allowed to talk on the phone, go online, watch TV, go outside, go to the store, come right home from school, etc.

You damn right...however, I would have tried to nip it in the bud A LOT sooner. And if it didn't work, then more and more would be taken away until he got the message. You want to eff up your life and still live in our house, then these are the rules.

Seriously...kid gets suspended multiple times for drugs and theft and you'd let him be online and have his iphone and hang out and go to the store and buy items used for drugs, as if it's his right? Well, that's your stance and that's fine, but that's how you get a kid with TM's problems - problems that only get worse because of enabling parents.

So, he would have been sent to his room for 16 hours a day with no communication to the outside world. At the same time you would have been able to hold down a full-time job and disciplined his a$$ until he showed no signs of disobedience. Did I get that right?

Nope, he wouldn't be in his roo...he'd be with his family, whether that's just dad or mom and dad and siblings. Reading, playing games, talking, watching TV together (depending on the severity of the punishment)...whatever. But he won't be alone, that's for sure. LOTS of parents work full-time jobs and have kids who grow up in tough neighborhoods and still have responsible kids. I worked in the ghetto/barrio for 19 years; I've seen it with my own eyes plenty of times. It's not even about showing no signs of disobedience - you're missing the entire point of it all. It's about learning from your mistakes and trying to do your best. And when you mess up, know you're still loved, and know that there are consequences for your actions.

My child(ren) is going to mess up A LOT. I know that (unless she's like her mom, who was is basically a saint). It will be about how we handle those mistakes as her parents, and how she responds to those mistakes.

I'm not going to make a case for them being good or bad parents because I simply do not have the information to back either of those arguments up. I could assume many things, but you know what they say about assuming...you've done a good job of proving the first part of that is true.

Ooooohhh, lucky I'm not bogs; I'd be screaming personal attack and try to have you basically arrested.

Anyway though, after reading your thoughts on Andrew Williams, I guess you could say I learned from the best.

Edit: And I've stated, I realize its insensitive and just don't give a crap at all. Sue me. And coming from you, it's kinda funny that you would complain about insensitivity.

 

[kmoose]

Martin was not on trial, so what he did a year, a month, a week or a day before that night is completely irrelevant. Zimmerman was on trial, and his record of calling the police coupled with his frustration with his observation that "that those punks always get away" was completely relevant to his state of mind at the time of the shooting.

It has always been suggested that Zimmerman must be found guilty, because he initiated the fight which led to TM's death. So the issue of who initiated the physical confrontation is an important one. If you are going to look into that, and try to draw logical conclusions about it; you can't simply delve into just one guy's psyche. There were two people involved, and either one of them could have started it. This is Playground Bully 101, which we learn about (usually) in the 1st grade. You HAVE to look at both of the participants' states of mind, or neither of them. You can't have your cake, and eat it too.

why he chose to lock onto the "suspecious" Martin who wasn't doing anything wrong at the time. Zimmerman knew NOTHING about Martin, other than he was a black kid walking through his neighborhood. .

He chose to lock onto Martin as suspicious because Martin was not someone he recognized as belonging in the gated community, Martin entered the neighborhood through a row of bushes(not any "official" entrance), Martin was wearing clothing similar to the clothing reported to be worn by people who had previously committed burglaries in the area, and Martin appeared to run from GZ, and hide over by the clubhouse. Then Martin appeared to be running away, again, while Zimmerman was in his car. That's perfectly reasonable, for Zimmerman to profile him as "suspicious", and it sure as hell isn't simply a case of "a black kid walking through his neighborhood".

Now, after the fact, folks feel the need to assasinate Martin's is character. He had smoked weed and had been in fights previously. That is a description of almost every male 17 year old in the country. I have never once suggested that he was an angel. He clearly had some skeletons in his closet (most people do and would not want the world to shine a light on them after their deaths). I have argued that his past doesn't matter. The only thing that did matter is that he wasn't doing anything wrong and still was found suspicious by a man who later killed him. And, that man who killed him fabricated a story (in my opinion) to make Martin out to be the agressor.

No one is trying to "assassinate Martin's is character". People are just applying equal scrutiny to both individuals, in trying to assess for themselves whom they will hold accountable for having started the fight. Martin also had not just simply "smoked weed and been in a few fights". He was known to have behavioral issues at school. In fact, he was currently suspended from school, and kicked out of his mom's house, which is why he was in Sanford in the first place. There are two options for who started the fight: Zimmerman, and Martin. If Zimmerman's past is relevant because it indicates a propensity for certain behavior that leads one to conclude that it is likely that he started the fight, then Martin's past is relevant for the same reason. YOUbelieve that Zimmerman fabricated a story. I don't believe all of his story, but I don't believe that he completely fabricated it, either. For Christ's sake, Trayvon's own girlfriend testified that she thought that Trayvon threw the first punch!

I completely disagree with you that no assumptions should be made. Think that through ... that means that in all cases with no eyewitnesses or other concrete evidence, we always must take the shooter's story at face value -- even though the shooter has a vested interest in telling a story that paints the deceased in the worst possible light.

So what you are saying is that it is ok to make assumptions about Zimmerman, but not TM? Because you don't have any problem assuming the worst about Zimmerman: "he was suspicious of TM because he was a black kid walking through the neighborhood", "he fabricated a story to make TM seem like the aggressor", but you don't want anyone making ANY assumptions about TM.

 

[NDWorld247]

A. You need to pay attention more. LOTS of people have been saying it.

Who? I've heard you and watched a few mins of a crazy preacher. Good company you find yourself in, LA.

Holy crap, talk about ignorance.

I've raised three children through the diaper and bottle stage. People that think that is hard don't know what hard is.

Yup. Agreed 1000%. Wish you would have read my posts more clearly.

Oh, I read your post and understood you showed some empathy to parents with disobedient children (e.g. it happens to even the best of parents), but you've clearly shown no empathy towards Trayvon's parents. So, basically, you give them a pass on his disobedience (it happens to the best of them right?), but you rail on them for their discipline against it when, in fact, you have no idea what measures they took to discipline him. That's ignorant.

You damn right...however, I would have tried to nip it in the bud A LOT sooner. And if it didn't work, then more and more would be taken away until he got the message. You want to eff up your life and still live in our house, then these are the rules.

Again, you've decided that they tried nothing to derail his disobedience. That's ignorant.

Seriously...kid gets suspended multiple times for drugs and theft and you'd let him be online and have his iphone and hang out and go to the store and buy items used for drugs, as if it's his right? Well, that's your stance and that's fine, but that's how you get a kid with TM's problems - problems that only get worse because of enabling parents.

I haven't said one thing about what I would have done in their shoes because I have no freaking idea what their shoes were like. To do so would be ignorant.

Nope, he wouldn't be in his roo...he'd be with his family, whether that's just dad or mom and dad and siblings. Reading, playing games, talking, watching TV together (depending on the severity of the punishment)...whatever. But he won't be alone, that's for sure. LOTS of parents work full-time jobs and have kids who grow up in tough neighborhoods and still have responsible kids. I worked in the ghetto/barrio for 19 years; I've seen it with my own eyes plenty of times. It's not even about showing no signs of disobedience - you're missing the entire point of it all. It's about learning from your mistakes and trying to do your best. And when you mess up, know you're still loved, and know that there are consequences for your actions.

So, you support the decision of his parents to have Trayvon tag along with his father (i.e. spending time with his family) on a visit to Orlando, but you wouldn't let him have his cell phone or let him walk to the store? I'll concede taking away his cell phone in this situation would have been an appropriate punishment, but I'm not going to call them horrible parents because they didn't do that or because they let him walk to the store. Again, we literally know NOTHING about the measures they took to discipline him, yet you've concluded they were horrible parents. That's ignorant.

My child(ren) is going to mess up A LOT. I know that (unless she's like her mom, who was is basically a saint). It will be about how we handle those mistakes as her parents, and how she responds to those mistakes.

Agreed. But what if you discipline her over and over and over, and she doesn't respond? Does that make you a horrible parent? You could literally do everything right as a parent and your child could still make mistakes. I wonder how you'd respond to people calling you a horrible parent.

Ooooohhh, lucky I'm not bogs; I'd be screaming personal attack and try to have you basically arrested.

Not a personal attack, man. Your assertion that Trayvon's parents were HORRIBLE parents makes you look like an a$$. I'm sorry if the truth hurts.

Worse than your (repeated) declaration that we were the clear leader for Andrew Williams on that thread? I think not.

Anyway though, after reading your thoughts on Andrew Williams, I guess you could say I learned from the best.

If you'd like to have a serious discussion about our Williams debate you know where to find me. Instead, you choose to ignore my invitation and continue to put words in my mouth, misrepresent my argument and take shots. It's laughable you would compare your ignorant and insensitive stance on this issue to a debate about a recruit's leader.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I don't recall ANYONE advocating unrestricted use of lethal force...

That is pretty much what you have when a person follows an unarmed person into a dark walk-way, and then claims that with having a flashlight and a weapon he is afraid of being beaten to death. There are not many on this thread I can see having the incredible personal incompetence to be able to duplicate this situation. One of the few cases I can see is a person who has a real break between the way he perceives life and the way it is (reality.)

Speaking of whom.

Nobody is.



Ummm, I do, and anyone who thinks they are 'the best in the world' or even competent parents has out the biggest Trayvon pom-poms in the world. Kid was on drugs, stole from people, was suspended from school multiple times and was truant from school multiple times, and posted about his exploits online all the time. And yet, there he was still with his excellent cell phone, and able to go out at night and buy items used to make people get high (which TM had boasted about in the past and traces of which were found in his body in the autopsy).

It's one thing to have a disobedient child...that can happen to the best of parents. But to not take things away from him and allow him the freedom to do drugs and talk on the phone and go online, despite his incredible disobedience not only at home but at school and with the law as well? Wow...and you want to tell us that we don't know about his parents??? Please...it's as clear as day.



You've been in Zimmerman's head this entire thread...'conjecture' has never stopped you.



Again, nobody is doing that. May I ask why you are bringing that up?

I am so tired of your personally directed nonsensical bull shiit. It is not just directed toward me. NDWorld247, you get it. NDWorld247 has three kids, and has them past the toddler stage. Birth through five is the easy part. Because they just want to be taken care of and loved. Start with the preteens. I have my fifth of seven in the midst of that stage right now. I am lucky she is a championship softball player and top honor student. It is easy to motivate her. With others it hasn't been quite as easy. It is an ugly confusing stage for the best of kids, and without a little good fortune, it can take years to recover from. I am not going to get more personal than that. Basically your input is small headed bull shiit, because you give everyone the impression that it is personal with the poster you are attacking.

I am not going to continue this or respond to anymore of your posts, because I don't want to trash this thread, but you said I have been inside Zimmerman's head the whole time. There you show your ignorance. I have speculated based upon my experience making my best guess. I use words like seems and appears the whole time. But, here is one for you:

I see your upsets and the anger and frustration in Zimmerman's voice in the 9-1-1 call as very similar. That is because I will suggest that you and Zimmerman are the same kind of disconnected (from reality), small minded wimps.

 

[GoIrish41]

It has always been suggested that Zimmerman must be found guilty, because he initiated the fight which led to TM's death. So the issue of who initiated the physical confrontation is an important one. If you are going to look into that, and try to draw logical conclusions about it; you can't simply delve into just one guy's psyche. There were two people involved, and either one of them could have started it. This is Playground Bully 101, which we learn about (usually) in the 1st grade. You HAVE to look at both of the participants' states of mind, or neither of them. You can't have your cake, and eat it too.

My position is that the pursuit initiated the fight, which is why I think the distinction between your "follow" and my "chase" is a critical one. Trayvon Martin was not on trial. It did not matter what his psyche was because he was not being accused of anything.

So what you are saying is that it is ok to make assumptions about Zimmerman, but not TM? Because you don't have any problem assuming the worst about Zimmerman: "he was suspicious of TM because he was a black kid walking through the neighborhood", "he fabricated a story to make TM seem like the aggressor", but you don't want anyone making ANY assumptions about TM.

What assumptions am I making about Zimmerman? There were a series of robberies in the neighborhood and Zimmerman said that he felt Martin matched their description. That is not an assumption, that is what Zimmerman said. His story makes no logical sense. I'm not assuming he fabricated a story to make TM seem like the agressor" ... I think there is plenty of evidence to suggest that is exactly what happened. So, again, not an assumption. You yourself said you don't believe all of Zimmerman's story. Why would he lie? That too is a central question for me. Why? Because what really happened didn't make it as cut and dried a self defense case as it ended up being? Remember, Zimmerman took law enforcement classes and knew these lawsThat makes sense to me. I am looking at what is presented and asking a question that, IMHO, too few are asking with regard to this case ... Asking themselves, "what makes the most sense?" Zimmerman's story is not it.

 

[kmoose]

That is pretty much what you have when a person follows an unarmed person into a dark walk-way, and then claims that with having a flashlight and a weapon he is afraid of being beaten to death. There are not many on this thread I can see having the incredible personal incompetence to be able to duplicate this situation.

You keep acting like Zimmerman walked into a dark place, got scared, pulled his gun out, and shot Trayvon Martin. The evidence doesn't support this. And your (repeated) assertion that this case(and perhaps others like it) will encourage people to murder and then make up a story to hide behind the law has no evidence to support it, either.

 

[kmoose]

My position is that the pursuit initiated the fight, which is why I think the distinction between your "follow" and my "chase" is a critical one. Trayvon Martin was not on trial. It did not matter what his psyche was because he was not being accused of anything.

Ok, if we are going to go simply on what matters in a court of law............ George Zimmerman was acquitted of murder, so your position is irrelevant.