Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 106

Thread: George Zimmerman

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    18,018


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Static_Martyr View Post
    They asked him, "are you following him?" And he said, "Yes." And they said, "Okay, we don't need you to do that." In what language that is NOT a request for him to stop following him, I don't know.
    Telling someone you don't need them to do something, and telling them NOT to do something are very different things.

    As for when and where the altercation happened; I'm just really not convinced by the hypocrisy of the defense here. Zim was justified in following Tray, Zim was justified in using the gun because he feared for his life, but Tray wasn't justified in following him back (assuming that's what happened)? What the defense basically boils down to is, "Yes, Zimmerman provoked Trayvon by creeping him out, stalking him, and generally doing things that would make a normal person fearful at night in the rain, but since Tray went back towards him instead of running away, he's the one responsible." It's odd to me how this is only ever presented from Zimmerman's perspective, and Trayvon's is completely ignored.
    Neither of them were justified in following the other, no matter who was the pursuer. But if Trayvon really did follow Zimmerman back, attack him, and start slamming his head against the ground, I might say that Zimmerman was actually justified in defending himself with his gun.

    What is the reasonable thing to do if you feel you are being followed or stalked? What is the reasonable course of action? You don't want to lead the potential stalker back to your house where your family and younger siblings are, especially if you suspect them of being armed. Trayvon doesn't know what Zimmerman is planning at this point. So let's say he DOES circle around and follow Zimmerman for awhile (which I don't believe for one second, but let's say he did). Let's say that a conflict ensues. This could be framed as a defensive conflict, in which Trayvon felt he had to drive away the stalker so as not to lead him to his home address. As someone who has been stalked, I can attest to the fact that it's very unnerving to think of a potentially armed stranger following you to your home and possibly harming friends or family.
    If Zimmerman was the pursuer, he should've asked Martin what he was doing, explained why he was suspicious. If Martin was the pursuer, he should've asked Zimmerman why he was following him. Neither of them had reasonable cause to start a fight with the other. If Zimmerman was the one who started the fight, he was completely 100% in the wrong and completely guilty. However, we can't prove who started the fight. There were no witnesses apparently. So because it's possible that Martin started the fight, got the upper hand very quickly and was slamming Zimmerman's head against the ground, causing Zimmerman to defend himself with his gun, he has to be found not guilty due to innocent until proven guilty.

    It really sickens me how it's simply taken for granted that Zim was the default "defender" in every possible case. He's pretty much given the BOD wherever it could be perceived that he was defending himself, while Trayvon is not given the same BOD; I haven't heard even one person defending Zimmerman acknowledge the possibility that the opposite could also be true. Is it possible that Zim was the defense, and Trayvon assaulted him? I suppose, and on those grounds we'd have to find him not guilty because of the reasonable doubt thing. But in terms of ethically discussing what happened and what was done wrong, I simply don't buy the defense; it relies on too many charitable assumptions about Zimmerman and his character, while simultaneously relying on too many unflattering assumptions about Trayvon.
    Actually, that's exactly what I'm saying - either of them could've been the pursuer/instigator. I've also talked with friends of mine lately who see it the same way. Most of Zimmerman's strong supporters are incredibly one-sided, but they're not worth discussing anything with.
    Quote Originally Posted by jsmak84 View Post
    I do not drink alcohol and coffee

    I do not smoke and do not do drugs

    I just do bumpin in my trunk

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Transmetropolitan
    Posts
    6,452


    Default

    but Zimmerman was without a doubt a pursuer and instigator. I can't be certain I wouldn't attack someone who was following me around in the night, seems like a pretty reasonable response to me, actually.

    I looked through the information as well, and my opinion stands, Zimmerman should have stayed the fuck in his car and no one would have been shot.
    I wrote a four word letter.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fuckin' Bible belt....
    Posts
    1,361


    Default

    Telling someone you don't need them to do something, and telling them NOT to do something are very different things.
    Only in the sense that saying "I really would be happy if you didn't do that" and "Please don't do that" are "very different things;" we can mince words and pretend we don't get the meaning, but if you listen to the tape, and the urgent tone of the person on the phone, it's patently obvious that this was a request for him to not do that.

    However, we can't prove who started the fight. There were no witnesses apparently. So because it's possible that Martin started the fight, got the upper hand very quickly and was slamming Zimmerman's head against the ground, causing Zimmerman to defend himself with his gun, he has to be found not guilty due to innocent until proven guilty.
    That's pretty much what I said earlier.

    I can't be certain I wouldn't attack someone who was following me around in the night, seems like a pretty reasonable response to me, actually.
    QFT
    "I'm sorry
    For all the things that I never did
    For all the places I never was
    For all the people I never stopped
    But there was nothing I could do...
    "

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    18,018


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Static_Martyr View Post
    Only in the sense that saying "I really would be happy if you didn't do that" and "Please don't do that" are "very different things;" we can mince words and pretend we don't get the meaning, but if you listen to the tape, and the urgent tone of the person on the phone, it's patently obvious that this was a request for him to not do that.
    I get sick of seeing people say that the police told Zimmerman to go home or go back to his van. That's an exaggeration. Yes, they told him they didn't want him to follow, but people like to take big liberties when paraphrasing for dramatic effect.

    That's pretty much what I said earlier.
    And that's what I've been saying ever since I posted that link on FB, since which you've argued "with me" (more like at me, as you haven't actually been arguing against my opinion at all) extensively, when I've been trying to tell you that we're saying exactly the same thing. It just took you a lot longer to say it.

    QFT
    Wait, really, guys? This is as stupid as the stand your ground law. If you think someone is following you, it's okay to beat the shit out of them?? One of my friends often sees a chick with a nice butt and "follows that butt" until she goes in a store or a restaurant or something, just because it's entertaining and he ends up in new parts of the city. Does he deserve to be beaten to shit?? This is a terribly messed up attitude. Plus there have been plenty of times walking alone at night I thought I was being followed, but 95% of the time I wasn't at all in the end. Should I turn around and mace everyone I think is following me?? And the times I was actually followed, I figured out a way to get rid of them without using violence. I'm sorry, but there is no way that it's okay to attack someone because they seem to be following you. Holy shit.
    Quote Originally Posted by jsmak84 View Post
    I do not drink alcohol and coffee

    I do not smoke and do not do drugs

    I just do bumpin in my trunk

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1,106


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Llamas View Post
    ...I'm sorry, but there is no way that it's okay to attack someone because they seem to be following you. Holy shit.
    Time and place dictates the outcome. You follow the wrong person at the wrong time, it may be your ass. If I think I am being followed and say I just left a bank or a store...bad shit may happen. In this day and age people are paranoid and for good reason. There are more fucking idiots wanting to rob you than ever before. So I would say yes, there are very good reasons to send someone a busted face...specifically, self preservation.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fuckin' Bible belt....
    Posts
    1,361


    Default

    I get sick of seeing people say that the police told Zimmerman to go home or go back to his van. That's an exaggeration. Yes, they told him they didn't want him to follow, but people like to take big liberties when paraphrasing for dramatic effect.
    I don't really care. It was patently obvious what the dispatcher wanted him to do. There is really just no excuse for claiming that they didn't tell him not to pursue, or that he somehow didn't understand that this was what was expected of him.

    And that's what I've been saying ever since I posted that link on FB, since which you've argued "with me" (more like at me, as you haven't actually been arguing against my opinion at all) extensively, when I've been trying to tell you that we're saying exactly the same thing. It just took you a lot longer to say it.
    Well, actually, I wasn't arguing against the verdict on FB. I was arguing against that incredibly twisted survey, which basically served as a propaganda engine to juxtapose unflattering facts (in some cases not even facts, just unproven allegations and hypotheses) about Trayvon with flattering portrayals of Zimmerman. I attacked the survey for defeating its own purported purpose ("to combat mainstream media bias") by offering a bias of its own that is just as bad, if not worse, because it uses the same tactics it accuses the mainstream media of using. The claim was that "Zimmerman wasn't racist," which is really beside the point, because this became a racial issue when the cops refused to prosecute, not when Zimmerman killed Trayvon.

    So I wasn't really arguing against your opinion at all, that is correct (unless your opinion was that the survey was somehow not horribly skewed in favor of Zim, or that it was somehow a complete portrayal of events).

    Wait, really, guys? This is as stupid as the stand your ground law. If you think someone is following you, it's okay to beat the shit out of them?? One of my friends often sees a chick with a nice butt and "follows that butt" until she goes in a store or a restaurant or something, just because it's entertaining and he ends up in new parts of the city. Does he deserve to be beaten to shit??
    It really depends. I don't advocate resorting to violence immediately, but if a guy follows me for a long time and I start to feel paranoid, and I fear leading him to my family (or friends or wherever I'm staying), I'm at the very LEAST going to confront him and ask some questions. And I'm probably not going to be super polite about it.

    Anyway, I would consider following random women to be creepy, myself, but then that's just me. That said, following someone in a big city surrounded by people is different from following a kid who is alone on a street, at night, in the rain.
    "I'm sorry
    For all the things that I never did
    For all the places I never was
    For all the people I never stopped
    But there was nothing I could do...
    "

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Transmetropolitan
    Posts
    6,452


    Default

    Man, your friend should probably not do that, llamas.

    I think this situation is a little different than the one you've given and I definitely, absolutely did not say 'I would attack anyone who follows me in any situation' I said 'I can't be certain I wouldn't attack someone who was following me around in the night'. Some of the neighborhoods I've lived in and some of the situations I've been in, I can't tell you I wouldn't. It may not be the best response, but neither is following people around in the night.

    I read a large majority of the survey. I also think it was hypocritically biased and it didn't really change my mind that a paranoid Zimmerman killed Trayvon for no reason.
    I wrote a four word letter.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Come on and raise up.
    Posts
    3,878


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Llamas View Post
    One of my friends often sees a chick with a nice butt and "follows that butt" until she goes in a store or a restaurant or something, just because it's entertaining and he ends up in new parts of the city. Does he deserve to be beaten to shit??
    New parts of the city?? Well, yeah, he kinda does. I like a nice butt as much as the next guy, but Jesus, I would never even think about doing that.
    "LIVE OR DIE, MAN??"

    "DIE!!!!!"

    "WRONG! HOOOONK!"

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    607


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Llamas View Post
    I get sick of seeing people say that the police told Zimmerman to go home or go back to his van. That's an exaggeration. Yes, they told him they didn't want him to follow, but people like to take big liberties when paraphrasing for dramatic effect.

    Yep, it wasn't some legally binding thing. Zimmerman's definitely guilty of poor judgement, though the intentionally stalking/hunting a guy 'cause he's black is pretty clearly bullshit. The FBI's said as much, the hate-crime stuff from Holder is ridiculous.

    Also, yeah, a huge part of this is the pretty reasonable doubt on who escalated things to the physical. I know it wasn't admissible in court, but Martin had been in trouble for brawling on more than one occasion. Seems pretty likely from his previous run-ins and what his friend was saying about her conversation with him, that he attacked Zimmerman initially. Not that that excuses Zimmerman ignoring the cop's advice, but I don't think you can really dismiss the self-defense thing, all in all, if Trayvon threw the punches after being talked to.
    Last edited by Eskimo; 07-28-2013 at 04:00 AM.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    18,018


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WebDudette View Post
    Man, your friend should probably not do that, llamas.
    Quote Originally Posted by XYlophonetreeZ View Post
    New parts of the city?? Well, yeah, he kinda does. I like a nice butt as much as the next guy, but Jesus, I would never even think about doing that.
    I'm not saying that I think it's a good idea. He suggested it to me, but I think it's kinda weird and I'd be uncomfortable doing it. But I do live in a city with quite a lot of tourists in summer, so there are a lot of people around and it's not like he follows anyone down secluded roads or anything. My point was simply that nobody would argue that he deserves to be attacked for it, regardless of finding it weird.

    I think this situation is a little different than the one you've given and I definitely, absolutely did not say 'I would attack anyone who follows me in any situation' I said 'I can't be certain I wouldn't attack someone who was following me around in the night'. Some of the neighborhoods I've lived in and some of the situations I've been in, I can't tell you I wouldn't. It may not be the best response, but neither is following people around in the night.
    I think, though, that in a situation where person A follows person B, person B is just as much entitled to turn around and beat person A on the ground as they are to shoot them - i.e. they're not. What you're saying sounds a lot like, "I can't be certain I wouldn't shoot someone who broke into my home/tried to steal from me/was following me/etc".

    I read a large majority of the survey. I also think it was hypocritically biased and it didn't really change my mind that a paranoid Zimmerman killed Trayvon for no reason.
    Guys, I never, ever even kind of tried to say that survey wasn't very biased. I merely looked at it as a presentation of many facts for one side of the argument, several of which were new to me. And:

    Quote Originally Posted by Eskimo View Post
    Also, yeah, a huge part of this is the pretty reasonable doubt on who escalated things to the physical. I know it wasn't admissible in court, but Martin had been in trouble for brawling on more than one occasion. Seems pretty likely from his previous run-ins and what his friend was saying about her conversation with him, that he attacked Zimmerman initially. Not that that excuses Zimmerman ignoring the cop's advice, but I don't think you can really dismiss the self-defense thing, all in all, if Trayvon threw the punches after being talked to.
    This is the thing. If Zimmerman followed Martin, then was heading back to his van, and Martin came and attacked him, Zimmerman had a right to defend his life. And there's no way to prove that that didn't happen and that Zimmerman was the attacker. I may still be inclined to think he was, but my opinion is not enough to counter reasonable doubt.
    Quote Originally Posted by jsmak84 View Post
    I do not drink alcohol and coffee

    I do not smoke and do not do drugs

    I just do bumpin in my trunk

Posting Permissions

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