I am going to be a bit of a devils advocate here. If Zimmerman had actually spotted someone who was going to commit a crime (not Trayvon because he was just an innocent kid), like a black gangbanger who was on his way to go rob and kill some little old lady and he would have stopped him than everybody would be singing his praises and all kinds of political candidates would be knocking on his door for his endorsement, etc. etc. etc.
Defending your community in the face of real danger is a noble thing to do and if someone does that he deserves all the praise he/she will get so let's not act like being a brave private citizen with zero legal autorithy is always a bad thing.
In this case however mr. Zimmerman did not do the right thing. Trayvon wasn't suspicious, he was just a kid who did not pose a threat to anyone. Zimmerman did not stop a crime, he might actually have committed one with no justification.
And this witness who said that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman might be right, if I was a young black kid and was being followed by an unknown man and he was acting on his stand his ground rights by defending himself from a threat (the threat being Zimmerman) and Zimmerman on his part was also acting upon that stupid stand your ground law.
And I say stupid because in fact both Trayvon and Zimmerman could have claimed this stand your ground defense. If Trayvon had killed Zimmerman after being followed and feeling threatened he could have used the stand your ground defense. And in some part he was not wrong to fear for his life from a much bigger latino man with a weapon who was following him through the area. He most likely did feel threatened.
The problem could have been avoided. Zimmerman should have done what the police said, he should not have followed this kid and than Trayvon would now be sitting safe and sound in his house and Zimmerman would be at home too. Sometimes when there is no real danger or great need to play the hero you should let the police handle it, it is their job, not yours.
Why would any other eye witness need to corroborate those two women? Are their statements the only ones that don't seem to fit into the lies woven by Zimmerman and Co(ps)?
Dunno :shrug: - What I do know is that evidence has been provided. Now you seem to have a problem with it. :shrug:
That should be obvious. If for example 20 people say the same thing and 2 people say something different then the odds are that someone is lying. And the odds are that it is the 2 people that are lying and not the 20 people.
Incomplete evidence. That is what I have a problem with. You are basing your assumptions on incomplete evidence. You were not there right? You did not see what happened from start to finish. You do not have any physical evidence. The only evidence that you actually have to support you is 2 witnesses out of others saying that they did not see anything until after the shooting. Witnesses that are saying that the police are supposedly not telling the truth about what they said. You have apparently not sought out what any of the other witnesses have said. You seem to ignore that Zimmerman did have a bloody nose and had been hit in the back of the head. You tout that Trayvon was unarmed while Zimmerman was, like that really means anything for a person to fear for their life or not. People can kill without a weapon after all with just their bare hands.
Sorry but the evidence that you have brought forth does not prove that Zimmerman is guilty.
But he didn't. That's why we are here.
But he didn't. He played Rambo now you have dozens of people on this forum defending him by making up lies. Some of them cause they don't like Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.
But 20 people haven't said corroborated his evidence. You have 2 witnesses against Zimmerman's account, you have Martin's GF on the phone, and on the other side you have a 13 year old kid, some anonymous witness and ....Zimmerman.
Incomplete because you don't like it? Kk that's not my problem :shrug:
Thank you for admitting it.sure it's inaccurate.Wrong.
Totally inaccurate and biased narrative.
But he didn't. He played Rambo now you have dozens of people on this forum defending him by making up lies. Some of them cause they don't like Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.
WTH does Sharpton or Jackson have to do with this? Were they there or something?
Obama hates white people.
Nothing wrong with offering a reward to get a murderer.
It was not and is not in the hands of the police.
And the evidence does not indicate any murder took place.
hmmm...
Do y'all look at crime stats?
Has anyone noted the amount of black on whitehate crimes that are committed?
In fact, it occurs to me that if white folks had some ****-hot lawyer,
this entire thing could be turned around ...
Poor Obozo ~ his "son" turned out to be a petty criminal.
guess that apple didn't fall far from the tree! lol
Ya'll have heard the entire story, right?
Tray was on top of Zimmerman,
beating him,
when the shot was fired;
Tray was like 6'1";
Tray's FB page, with him flipping everyone off, has been cited;
the fact that Tray was suspended from school for being in possession of BURGULARY TOOLS;
(as Paul Harvey would say: )
the REST of The Story?
And your point IS ... what?
That wasn't his FB page? Have YOU seen his FB page? Me, either..
How tall WAS he? Have YOU seen any recent pix of Tray? 'Cuz I sure in **** haven't. .
I happen to like this font/color/size,
and since the controls for using MY choice of style are provided,
I'd have to say that you are going to have to exercise your choice
and put me on Iggy if it's so horrendous.
At the end of the day, they're still no bodies. But giving them too much credence helps them more than ignoring them would. They are not helping, and don't deserve too much attention.They were nobodies, but now they're splashed across the internet by hordes of helpers.
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060334168 said:So now there's a whole new level of justice being sought in the death of Trevon Martin, or is it revenge?[/FONT]
This is revenge and shouldn't be allowed. You cannot take out "hits" on other people. We do need a proper police force, I can understand the anger because it doesn't seem like a proper investigation took place. Still, you cannot actually go vigilante on this.
Why not? .
Why can't we have vigilantism? Assuming this is a serious question, because we have a legal system to ensure a quality of justice that was built to take care of this. One may be upset at the system, and there’s lots to be upset about one way or another. But we’re past the posse days when you rounded up some good ol’ boys and went out to string up some guy because you think he did something wrong. Statistically, vigilantism is going to result in greater harm and mistakes than the justice system we created.
The courts and the cops are there for a reason. There can be changes to the system; but when the system gets something wrong (or possibly wrong), that’s not charge to dump the whole thing and resort to vigilantism. If we do that every time, we’re going to end up in a worse place collectively. This ain’t Death Wish, you ain’t Charles Bronson. Aggregated vigilantism is not a good thing, there’s no trial, there’s no precautions for the accused, no system of checks and balances to ensure that the individual is guilty before punishment. How is this not obvious?
So if the government refuses to uphold the law and provide equal protection citizens can't use their first and second amendment rights to seek justice and uphold the constitution?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?