Treyvon Martin issue is starting to irritate the hell out of me
- Thread starter IShopAtPublix
- Start date
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the bull shit Lucrum? Is the boy walking home to his father's? Does the boy have icd tea and candy, but he have no gun? When the Zimmerman man call the 911 does he say the boy look suspicious because he walking around and looking around?
Where is the crime from that boy Lucrum? And what is leftist? You can read in Florida some republicans agree to Zimmerman is wrong to go out of his car and follow that boy with the gun. He IS NOT police officer.
I can just imagine what you would of done to Zimmerman if he'd been stalking you at night then kept on pursuing you on foot.
We'd be talking about if you were justified in killing Zimmerman.
I can just see it,
Zimmerman: Hey dude stop, I'm going to hold you for questioning by police.
Lucrum: Fuck off, I'm not bothering you or anyone else, leave me alone.
Zimmerman: Stop I'm armed
Lucrum: BANG
Strictly as a hypothesis....
1) There have been burglaries in the area.
2) Zimmerman spots Martin. He does not recognize him, so he starts to follow him. Perhaps he calls a dispatcher, who then informs him not to follow his suspect.
3) Martin notices that he is being followed. He calls his girlfriend. He picks up his pace.
At this point, perhaps Martin does the obvious thing, like turn down a one-way street where Zimmerman cannot follow in his car. Something like that would force Zimmerman out of his vehicle to continue on foot. This would be a conscious choice to pursue.
4) Martin turns and confronts Zimmerman.
5) Words are exchanged - it becomes a pissing match.
6) Martin is younger, though hard to say if one of them or both of them lack discipline. Whether on-the-spot, or Martin follows Zimmerman back toward his car, a physical altercation begins. At this point, it may be Martin who is the aggressor, fueled by anger.
7) Outmatched physically, Zimmerman pulls his pistol and shoots Martin, killing him.
If Martin assaulted Zimmerman, he was clearly in the wrong. However, it was Zimmerman's choice to deal with the situation himself rather than wait for the police to arrive. Zimmerman is not a law enforcement officer and apparently has no training as one. He disregarded instructions to not follow/confront Martin.
So now the courts get to decide.
1) There have been burglaries in the area.
2) Zimmerman spots Martin. He does not recognize him, so he starts to follow him. Perhaps he calls a dispatcher, who then informs him not to follow his suspect.
3) Martin notices that he is being followed. He calls his girlfriend. He picks up his pace.
At this point, perhaps Martin does the obvious thing, like turn down a one-way street where Zimmerman cannot follow in his car. Something like that would force Zimmerman out of his vehicle to continue on foot. This would be a conscious choice to pursue.
4) Martin turns and confronts Zimmerman.
5) Words are exchanged - it becomes a pissing match.
6) Martin is younger, though hard to say if one of them or both of them lack discipline. Whether on-the-spot, or Martin follows Zimmerman back toward his car, a physical altercation begins. At this point, it may be Martin who is the aggressor, fueled by anger.
7) Outmatched physically, Zimmerman pulls his pistol and shoots Martin, killing him.
If Martin assaulted Zimmerman, he was clearly in the wrong. However, it was Zimmerman's choice to deal with the situation himself rather than wait for the police to arrive. Zimmerman is not a law enforcement officer and apparently has no training as one. He disregarded instructions to not follow/confront Martin.
So now the courts get to decide.
The kool-aid that YOU drank.
Apparently, but so what? It's largely irrelevant.
Again, So?
Again, so what?
Attacking the shooter
A moronic self righteous fool that thinks liberalism has all the answers
When the story first broke even I thought the shooter had made a mistake by following the kid. He was however doing a neighborhood watch. Something I certainly have no problem with. The police can not and are not everywhere when needed. Private citizens sometimes have to make up the difference.
Yeah so? Here in the states you don't need a uniform to be able to protect yourself. Only a dumb fuck leftist would disagree. But then you're not a leftist, right?
Lucrum, this is not about the politics. YOU make this about the politics. And you can stop talking so mean and rude to me. I am not talking to you like that.
You say citizens have right to protect themself in states. Ok.
Why do you think Zimmerman is protecting himself when he just see that boy walking around the neighborhood. The boy is walking, and no crime or aggression from him. Why does Zimmerman or you think and fear they have to protect from just seeing a boy walking around on the street?
You say citizens have right to protect themself in states. Ok.
Why do you think Zimmerman is protecting himself when he just see that boy walking around the neighborhood. The boy is walking, and no crime or aggression from him. Why does Zimmerman or you think and fear they have to protect from just seeing a boy walking around on the street?
Being a little presumptuous aren't you?