• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheL8Elvis said:
He tried that and ... failed to make it home ? Why ? I keep asking that. He ran in between the buildings and then ... stopped and waited for GZ ?
Click to expand...

Maybe they were running laps around the building, like the end of a Benny Hill episode. ;)
 
Dcdrac said:
you still cannot get away from the fact that at no point did GZ report that criminal activity was actually occuring, he had no hard and solid grounds for taking the action he did.
Click to expand...

What law says that you have to have "solid grounds" that "criminal activity was actually occuring" to follow after someone?

After his following after TM, and losing him, we have no idea what happened until they were fighting.
 
If he did not approach him hoow did the tussle occur?

Again you got not get away from the lack of reporting of any criminal behaviour by GZ on the part of TM no matter what twists and turns you take to defelect from that, it is not in the transcript. all there is , is GZ said saying someone is acting suspciously and thats it it does not say has just climbed a fence attempted to break into a car or a house.
 
It does not matter that htere is not a law saying that thats an irrelevence the pertinent fact is there was no reported criminal behaviour on the part of TM to warrant the action taken.
 
Natural Born Skeptic said:
What constitutes "paranoia" is subjective. I'd personally argue that someone being followed for several miles in the dark and getting scared is not "paranoia', it's survival instinct and it would actually be stupid not to go into high alert.
Click to expand...

It's only survival instict if you think you are in danger, you only think you are in danger if you have paranoia. Be aware that paranoia is just the belief someone is out to get you, it doesn't mean you are wrong about it, just that you feel it. If you think there is a car following you and that they're out to do you harm, that's paranoia, even if they really are.

As far as your statement that you're sure their intent wasn't to scare me, I'd argue they had to be idiots if they didn't see that as a possibility.
Click to expand...

Really, I probably would even have noticed it or would have assumed they were heading somewhere near were I was.

As far as not getting to "blame" people for our bad choices, I simply find that statement too absolute/simplistic. If I run at a woman alone on the street at night with a crazy look on my face because I think it's funny to scare her and in the process of doing so terrify her to the point that runs straight into traffic and gets paralyzed, would you argue that she doesn't get to blame her bad decision on running into traffic on me?
Click to expand...

The senario is a poor one because it creates an issue between a decision to run out into traffic, and running out into traffic as a panic reaction. In the first case she would have weighted up the risks and decided the traffic is less danger. In doing that then yes, it is her fault. If she made a decision to do it to get away when she could have made other less devistating choices, then it'd be her own fault. If it was a panic reaction, then she would not actually have made the choice at all, and it's your fault. Distingushing the two would be tricky thoiugh.
 
KatieG said:
An empty bag with traces of marijuana. No proof it was his. Amazing to me how some of y'all are so ready to disbelieve anything that explains TM's behaviour but you believe everything GZ says about that night.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why people still can't grasp the concept that not taking Trayvon's family's/family lawyer's word as gospel does not automatically equate to believing Zimmerman. It has not or ever will ever be an honest statement. Zimmerman's version of events has always been treated as a possible, not a probable or a fact.
 
Dcdrac said:
GZ has actually killed someone all TM did was go to the shop and wear a hoodie.

GZ also had no authority to stop tm neither is he a Police officer nor did he act in any official capacity.

He has made a stupid mistake and sometimes mistakes ahve to be paid for.
Click to expand...

There's currently no evidence that GZ stopped TM, or even intended to stop TM.

There's currently no evidence that GZ made any mistakes.

But keep on repeating it, maybe it will turn out to be true when we hear the evidence and we can call you Nostradamus. :)
 
Dcdrac said:
If he did not approach him hoow did the tussle occur?

Again you got not get away from the lack of reporting of any criminal behaviour by GZ on the part of TM no matter what twists and turns you take to defelect from that, it is not in the transcript. all there is , is GZ said saying someone is acting suspciously and thats it it does not say has just climbed a fence attempted to break into a car or a house.
Click to expand...

http://blog.ctnews.com/crimewatch/2011/12/21/know-how-to-report-suspicious-activities/

For years one of the cornerstones of Neighborhood Watch has been the reporting of suspicious activities and individuals to the police....

What exactly is a “suspicious activity”?

A stranger loitering in your neighborhood or a vehicle cruising the streets repeatedly; someone peering into cars or windows

ETA:
http://www.google.com/search?q=neighborhood+watch+report+suspicious+activities

Feel free to find numerous references admonishing you to call the authorities for suspicious activities like loitering.
 
Last edited:
We still get not get away form the one solid piece of evidence the 911 transcript which does not mention any criminal activity at all on the part of TM everything else is sheer speculation.

So without stopping him how did GZ get into a tussle with him as has been reported and then shoot and kill him?
 
Last edited:
And he made athe biggest mistake as based onthe 911 transcript he acting on suspcion alone without nay reported activity to back it up bar someone puttting his hands in his waistband......
 
LTC8K6 said:
So what? Zimmerman claims the criminal activity happened after the 911 call.
Click to expand...



yes after it appears that he had trailed this boy then gets out of a car armed, someone did that to me I think I would be considering taking some action to defend myself that could be construed as criminal but hey they have this stand your ground self defence law in florida I would cite that...
 
Last edited:
a_unique_person said:
People live in gated communities, and have visitors. TM was a person visiting. He looked at a house. :eek: How do we even know he did. :con2:
Click to expand...

By that measure if you saw someone breaking into a car you should do nothing, after all sometimes people do lock their keys in the car, so how do you know that this isn't one of them?
 
Dcdrac said:
yes after it appears that he had trailed this boy then gets out of a ca r aremdm, soeone did that to me I think I would be considering taking soe action to defend myself that could be construed as criminal but hey they have this stand your ground self defence law in florida I would cite that...
Click to expand...

I think your keyboard is dirty.

If an armed man is following you, call 911 and run home.

Tell your girlfriend on the phone with you exactly who is following you, what car they are driving, and where you are and ask her to call 911 while you run home.
 
Dcdrac said:
We still get not get away form the one solid piece of evidence the 911 transcript which does not mention any criminal activity at all on the part of TM everything else is sheer speculation.

So without stopping him how did GZ get into a tussle with him as has been reported and then shoot and kill him?
Click to expand...

Why do you keep harping on that ? GZ did exactly as recommended by every neighborhood watch program in calling the police. He went against every NW program recommendation by following TM.
 
a_unique_person said:
Now you are entering the murky territory of 'Stand your ground'.
Click to expand...

And one plusable senario mentioned previously is that both believed they had a right to "SYG". However, even had TM believed that GZ was about to attack him, and so attacked first, that belief doesn't then negate GZ's right to defend himself from the subsequent attack.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom