Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Florida Teen murdered by


Copasetic
 Share

Recommended Posts

Saying he "Carried a gun all the time"... Aren't you "bringing up his past"?

Yes, Your Honor. I am. :lol:

Trayvon was on drugs at the time

Oh, yeah? What did the tox. results show? Is the report available online?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Earlier this month, a 21-year-old African American approached the home of his step-father’s ex-girlfriend in Jefferson County, Alabama, and ended up dead. The woman who lived in the home said she shot him out of fear for her safety, and as a result, no charges will be filed against her under Alabama’s Stand Your Ground law — the same law that gained notoriety after the tragic killing of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin.

The woman, whose name was not released, said she was out walking her dog when she saw a man run by her home and went inside to get a gun. When she came back out, a man she believed to be the same person was walking down her driveway. She told him to stop, and that she had a gun. But he kept approaching. She shot and he died.

Unfortunately, little else is known about the case, and likely never will be now that the inquiry has ended with the state’s Stand Your Ground law. The woman said she could not identify the man and feared he was planning to attack her. She said she had particular fear because her boyfriend had been recently robbed, according to Jefferson County District Attorney Brandon Falls. The man, Demetrius Antuan Thompson, had no criminal record. He had no known motive for an attack or break-in.

Under Alabama’s Stand Your Ground law, the woman had no duty to retreat, and it didn’t matter that she voluntarily came outside with a gun. Even if she only feared second-degree assault (intent and execution of serious physical injury), she was authorized to use deadly force. ”This is a tragic situation, but legally she was justified,” Falls told AL.com.

Edited by aztek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Earlier this month, a 21-year-old African American approached the home of his step-father’s ex-girlfriend in Jefferson County, Alabama, and ended up dead. The woman who lived in the home said she shot him out of fear for her safety, and as a result, no charges will be filed against her under Alabama’s Stand Your Ground law — the same law that gained notoriety after the tragic killing of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin.

The woman, whose name was not released, said she was out walking her dog when she saw a man run by her home and went inside to get a gun. When she came back out, a man she believed to be the same person was walking down her driveway. She told him to stop, and that she had a gun. But he kept approaching. She shot and he died.

Unfortunately, little else is known about the case, and likely never will be now that the inquiry has ended with the state’s Stand Your Ground law. The woman said she could not identify the man and feared he was planning to attack her. She said she had particular fear because her boyfriend had been recently robbed, according to Jefferson County District Attorney Brandon Falls. The man, Demetrius Antuan Thompson, had no criminal record. He had no known motive for an attack or break-in.

Under Alabama’s Stand Your Ground law, the woman had no duty to retreat, and it didn’t matter that she voluntarily came outside with a gun. Even if she only feared second-degree assault (intent and execution of serious physical injury), she was authorized to use deadly force. ”This is a tragic situation, but legally she was justified,” Falls told AL.com.

So a guy comes walking towards a woman who says to stop and announces she is armed, he keeps walking towards her... She isn't justified in being afraid for her life and firing her weapon?

Who ignores an announcement to stop followed by a warning that there is a weapon involved?

The only thing I can think of is someone who obvious had malicious intent...

Then again that article is not relevant to this case because that is in Alabama where this is a Florida case. The laws are different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's Florida Common Law, and I have quoted it in this thread various times... "If you're Neighborhood Watch and you pursue"... Do you see the problem?

Neighborhood Watch is not law enforcement, you do not have the right to stalk, follow, or harass anyone because you are a member of a "Neighborhood Watch". What you do have the right to do is observe suspicious activity, report it to law enforcement and take partial credit for the apprehension of a criminal.

Following, pursuing, chasing, stalking, harassing... Those are all reasons for your target individual to turn and stand his ground, and be doing so within legal means. So if you chase someone down, and they turn and put the knuckles to you, it is your fault. You had no legal right to chase them down, they felt there was a need to meet your threat to their safety with physical force in order to terminate that threat to their safety. You cannot then pull a gun and shoot them because you threatened their safety and they defended themselves. This is the law.

Claiming Martin was intoxicated while seeming like a good move for the Zimmerman defense can actually be a severely bad move for them.

Courtesy: http://www.clickorla...8c/-/index.html

The problem with that is, the Zimmerman police phone call transcript does reveal he did in fact believe Martin was intoxicated as well as he did mention that the suspicious person had his hand in his waistband and was walking towards him. What does this mean? This means that Zimmerman did believe the suspect to be dangerous, and according to the police transcript when the suspicious person decided to not confront him, he decided to chase down someone he believed to be dangerous, purposely putting himself in harms way while having no legal grounds to do so...

The only question that remains is did he turn and start moving towards police and then Martin attacked(Innocent of Murder, he was defending himself), or was he still actively pursuing someone he believed to be dangerous when Martin turned and defended himself(Guilty of Murder, he was not defending himself)...

This is why allowing the "Tox Reports" from Autopsy might actually hurt his case, because they can be used to further prove that he did have reason to believe the person he was interacting with was dangerous, but still decided to put himself in harms way.

I carry my firearm on me 24/7, doesn't mean I intend to kill anyone with it.. Just means that if my life is ever threatened and I can't count on the cops to get here on time I will survive. I also won't go chasing anyone I think is dangerous cause I got a gun. That doesn't make sense in my mind, I just wanna live so if they walk away I'm happy with the results.

It's Florida Common Law, and I have quoted it in this thread various times... "If you're Neighborhood Watch and you pursue"... Do you see the problem?

I see the problem as it pertains to this case. You'll have to cite the law that's relevant to the claim you made that you give up your right to self defense "if you're a neighborhood watch and you pursue". That sounds absurd.

Following, pursuing, chasing, stalking, harassing...

"Following" and "pursuing" is no excuse to lose your right to self defense; that is absurd. Cite this law you're referring to; I'd like to read it please. If he was "stalking" or "harassing" you're going to have to prove that accusation in a court of law. Self defense is inherent and none of the details you're diving into above rise to the level of denying it. Self defense hasn't been determined one way or the other for either party but you trying to take it off the table as if you know better due to some unnamed Florida law won't fly.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Your Honor. I am. :lol:

Oh, yeah? What did the tox. results show? Is the report available online?

A better wording would have been that he was stongly suspected to have marijuana in his system. The information released said it would not comment on the amount of THC in his system at the time. I suppose that could imply zero, or it could imply that it was more than zero.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone's going to have to explain to me WTH "having marijuana in one's system" has to do with the relevant facts of this case. Other than stirring up the political dander of people who don't like marijuana, of course.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus wept man I'm the foreigner and I know how to read English, how about you?

I just quoted the relevant laws to you and linked to them. And apparently you STILL have no answers. You keep going around and around, but never prove a single thing. I suggest you go back to page 88 or 89 of this thread and read how every single one of your arguements has been reduced to hot air.

There is NOTHING in the legal code about following someone with no aggression being illegal, much less a good enough threat to try to kill someone. You're whole arguement is based on misrepresentation and fast talk.

Again ffs i swear you guys can't read...

It is absolutely relevant who initiated the confrontation.

If Zimmerman initiated the confrontation he has no right to self-defense, which is why he must prove that he didn't follow Martin.(Basically if he followed Martin, he can't say he was in fear of nothing.. which means it's murder)

As long as Martin came running towards him, Zimmerman had every right to stand his ground.

We all know Zimmerman followed Martin... but it's not about what we know it's what we can prove that counts.

You're own post... You can't prove Zimmerman ran at Martin. You can't prove Zimmerman initiated anything. The only thing that can be proven is that he followed Martin, or went looking for him. That alone does not show aggression enough to "fear for your life", or demonstrate possible "serious bodily injury".

Ah... OK, I see how it is written now. But you still have not shown.... "evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life"

That actually cannot be shown to be True. You are Assuming he used his pistol, but there is no evidence the pistol was a factor till Z was on the ground being beaten to death.

I'm going to agree it is debatable, but the Evidence does not support that Z was aggressively/violently following M, only that he wanted to talk to him and had called the cops.

The best Witness here is the GF who said that M was not going to run away and implied that he was going to confront the guy following him. He turned and said, "'What are you following me for?'". Clearly Z was not charging after M, but following him. M decided to end the following and see what Z wanted.

Here is a quote of a Post I made. You've failed to show even the outside possibility of Murder in the Second Degree. And, you cannot show that Zimmerman was using his pistol at the time. And the Girlfriend has been shown to be a liar and thus probably will not be a witness at the trial. Yet the Murder charge hinges directly on her statements.

There is your second degree murder.

He stalked an unknown person, while being armed, which ultimately lead to aggravated battery and the loss of life.

^

Why are you still arguing against this?

If he did not pursue in an attempt to detain, frisk, or arrest Martin... Why did he pursue Martin? There is no legitimate reason.

Another quote of one of your Posts. You've failed to show the pistol was a factor. What evidence is there of it being out before Zimmerman was being smacked against the ground.

You, yourself posted....

Who ignores an announcement to stop followed by a warning that there is a weapon involved?

The only thing I can think of is someone who obvious had malicious intent...

Myself and others have shown that Zimmerman did not have to obey the 911 dispatcher, and we've also shown that Zimmerman had a history of following people he suspected so the police could question them. None of those people got shot.

1. You've failed to show clear evidence of Murder in the 2nd Degree.

2. You've failed to show any aggression by Zimmerman in the confrontation.

3. You've no evidence that Zimmerman had his gun in hand during any time except the shooting.

Florida law requires, "imminent use of unlawful force", and Stalking is not unlawful force. Please link to the law that specifically says stalking is unlawful force. PLEASE!

Florida law requires, "reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony". And you've failed there too. That harassment or stalking can lead to a forcible felony or unlawful force is true, but not allowed as evidence, because you are then projecting future crimes into the situation. Such reasoning would be laughed at in court.

Nope... You've failed in every single arguement. Repeating your failed arguements over and over is not going to change the Facts.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone's going to have to explain to me WTH "having marijuana in one's system" has to do with the relevant facts of this case. Other than stirring up the political dander of people who don't like marijuana, of course.

Probably nothing. But it could have lead to lines of questioning that might have provided facts that Would be relevant. But, since the Judge is going to exclude Trayvon's troubled past, it is a moot point.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.leg.state...s/0784.048.html

“Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.

Ah, but Zimmerman had a legitimate purpose. He was following someone who he called 911 to report as suspicous activity. He was under zero requirement to obey the 911 dispatcher. As long as he did not initiate a confrontation he was good. Since Zimmerman had done such in the past, it is a reasonable assumption that he knew the laws involved with following someone, and obeying a 911 dispatcher.

“Credible threat” means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety

What is the actual evidence that there was any threats? What is the evidence of a pattern? The only two people who can prove this are Zimmerman and Martin, and one of them is dead. There is no evidence and unless the Jury is politically/socially motivated to provide a guilty verdict, they MUST find Zimmerman NOT-guilty due to lack of evidence.

(2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(3) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Since it is impossible to show that there was a "credible threat", Stalking in this case cannot be proven to be a Felony. And the wording of the Stand Your Ground applies to a forcible felony. You are not allowed to Stand Your Ground against a Misdemenor.

I hope your "reading comprehension" is up to understanding these technical statements that are what the Law is about.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably nothing. But it could have lead to lines of questioning that might have provided facts that Would be relevant. But, since the Judge is going to exclude Trayvon's troubled past, it is a moot point.

And yet we're discussing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zimmerman prosecutor withheld evidence

http://www.miamihera...r-withheld.html

ORLANDO, Fla. -- A court employee who retrieved photos and deleted text messages from Trayvon Martin's cellphone has been placed on administrative leave after an attorney testified that prosecutors didn't properly turn over the evidence to the defense, an attorney said Wednesday.

Former prosecutor Wesley White said he was ethically obligated to reveal that Fourth Judicial Circuit Information Technology Director Ben Kruidbos retrieved the data that weren't turned over.

Not surprised that the prosecution is lying and cheating, not one bit.

Edited by Socio
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a guy comes walking towards a woman who says to stop and announces she is armed, he keeps walking towards her... She isn't justified in being afraid for her life and firing her weapon?

no she went into the house, and came back with a gun, if she was afraid she should have stayed in the house. she came out with one thing in mind, kill the guy.

but that is not why i posted it, we don't hear about that case, no protests, no al shaprons, screaming racism, why?? my guess the shooter was also black. ,

Edited by aztek
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. You've no evidence that Zimmerman had his gun in hand during any time except the shooting.

that is too bad, if he had, that little gansta wanna be would not be so brave, and still be alive.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.leg.state...s/0784.048.html

Ah, but Zimmerman had a legitimate purpose. He was following someone who he called 911 to report as suspicous activity. He was under zero requirement to obey the 911 dispatcher. As long as he did not initiate a confrontation he was good. Since Zimmerman had done such in the past, it is a reasonable assumption that he knew the laws involved with following someone, and obeying a 911 dispatcher.<- Wrong, you DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT to FOLLOW anyone who does not want you following them. Even if you are on the phone with God and he says follow them, you do not have legal reason to follow. That is HARASSMENT.

What is the actual evidence that there was any threats? What is the evidence of a pattern? The only two people who can prove this are Zimmerman and Martin, and one of them is dead. There is no evidence and unless the Jury is politically/socially motivated to provide a guilty verdict, they MUST find Zimmerman NOT-guilty due to lack of evidence<-- Zimmerman did HARASS Martin, it can be confirmed via the transcripts where he admits to "following" without legal reason which is harassing Martin.

Since it is impossible to show that there was a "credible threat", Stalking in this case cannot be proven to be a Felony. And the wording of the Stand Your Ground applies to a forcible felony. You are not allowed to Stand Your Ground against a Misdemenor.<-- Stalking and Harassment routinely escalate to violent crimes. Stand Your Ground is based on the BELIEF that you can be in danger. When someone Stalks or Harasses you, it is not incorrect to fear of these crimes escalating, you can logically be in fear of Great bodily harm or even death thus justifying Standing Your Ground.

I hope your "reading comprehension" is up to understanding these technical statements that are what the Law is about.

For christ sake man you are so far wrong that you are truly making me emo!

Edited by xFelix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<- Wrong, you DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT to FOLLOW anyone who does not want you following them. Even if you are on the phone with God and he says follow them, you do not have legal reason to follow. That is HARASSMENT.

You are correct. But unless there is a threat, it is simple stalking. And that is only a non-violent misdemenor and not subject to SYG. See my post 1429 above. It is only Harrassment if there is no purpose to it, and Zimmerman had a purpose... following some that was of interest to police. He did not want the suspect to get away, and so followed him. He had a purpose to his following.

Also non-violent harrassment is not reason enough to provoke SYG and extreme violence.

<-- Zimmerman did HARASS Martin, it can be confirmed via the transcripts where he admits to "following" without legal reason which is harassing Martin.

Non-violent harrassment alone is not enough to meet the rwquirements of SYG. There has to be an expectation of violence... unlawful force... death or great bodily harm... credible threat. None of which can be shown. All you have is Zimmerman following and saying "What are you doing here?".

<-- Stalking and Harassment routinely escalate to violent crimes. Stand Your Ground is based on the BELIEF that you can be in danger. When someone Stalks or Harasses you, it is not incorrect to fear of these crimes escalating, you can logically be in fear of Great bodily harm or even death thus justifying Standing Your Ground.

You can't assume a crime that did not happen. The BELIEF must be formed on actual actions/evidence. And those actions and evidence do not exist other then with Zimmerman. So, unless Zimmerman convicts himself, there is very little case here.

What you are doing is called STRETCHING. You're putting motive onto Zimmerman because you want to convict him, so you make stuff up that is not really there.

For christ sake man you are so far wrong that you are truly making me emo!

Well good luck as an Emo from now on...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zimmerman's story shouldn't be believed based on his statements alone because he destroyed his credibility during that re-enactment video.

Regardless, the confrontation scenario he described doesn't make sense to me.

I think it's illogical that Martin would have ran and then apparently stayed hidden, and that it would be when Zimmerman was walking away that Martin would then decide to come out from hiding and confront Zimmerman.

It doesn't make sense to me that Zimmerman would respond to Martin that he didn't have a problem, (we know THAT ain't true!) and that without any further dialogue...with no explanation, Zimmerman would then proceed to search for his cell phone.

I think what's most logical (because it follows the series of events, the mentality Zimmerman demonstrated in the 9-1-1 call, his actions up until that point, and that he later lied about his locations) is that Zimmerman continued to search for Martin and that when he came across him, he attempted to detain him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.miamihera...r-withheld.html

Not surprised that the prosecution is lying and cheating, not one bit.

I really feel sorry for Zimmerman because it seems the media, along with certain others, have "had it in for him" from the beginning. :(

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

no she went into the house, and came back with a gun, if she was afraid she should have stayed in the house. she came out with one thing in mind, kill the guy.

but that is not why i posted it, we don't hear about that case, no protests, no al shaprons, screaming racism, why?? my guess the shooter was also black. ,

I think you hit the nail on the head as to why this case has gained so much interest nationally. If you hadn't posted it I wouldn't have even heard of the other case most likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct. But unless there is a threat, it is simple stalking. And that is only a non-violent misdemenor and not subject to SYG. See my post 1429 above. It is only Harrassment if there is no purpose to it, and Zimmerman had a purpose... following some that was of interest to police. He did not want the suspect to get away, and so followed him. He had a purpose to his following.

He had purpose, but not LEGAL purpose. He was in violation of the law when he decided to follow Martin.

Also non-violent harrassment is not reason enough to provoke SYG and extreme violence.

Yes it is. I already said that someone harassing you or stalking you is enough for you to Stand Your Ground.

Non-violent harrassment alone is not enough to meet the rwquirements of SYG. There has to be an expectation of violence... unlawful force... death or great bodily harm... credible threat. None of which can be shown. All you have is Zimmerman following and saying "What are you doing here?".

You can't assume a crime that did not happen. The BELIEF must be formed on actual actions/evidence. And those actions and evidence do not exist other then with Zimmerman. So, unless Zimmerman convicts himself, there is very little case here.

What you are doing is called STRETCHING. You're putting motive onto Zimmerman because you want to convict him, so you make stuff up that is not really there.

Well good luck as an Emo from now on...

Dear god, You are arguing with a Florida gun owner about what the Florida gun laws are... Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds?

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.

Courtesy: http://www.leg.state.../0776/0776.html

Again, stalking/harassing routinely escalate to other violent crimes. When someone stalks you, you are justified of being in fear of your life.

There was no unlawful force used at the specific point, but there was a logical and rational reason to fear imminent unlawful force(As in oh crap this guy is stalking me, who is this? Is he a neighborhood watch captain, a serial killer, or a rapist?).

When you are in fear of your life you are justified in standing your ground, and fighting for your life.

I don't give a rats a** either way(Martin or Zimmerman), neither of them are me. I am on the side of the law, and the law makes it's decisions clean and clear. If Zimmerman stalked someone who stood their ground he had no right to self-defense because he was the aggressor(Put himself in harms way). If he was really walking towards cops, and then someone attacked him viciously then yeah by all means he had the right to save his life.

But I will refer you back to the tapes.. One of the two was screaming for help, quite loudly. This is not a communication error, two innocent men did not accidentally stand their ground on each other. One of them heard the other screaming for help(He was not in danger), and continued the assault. (Media does not tell who it was accurately, Zimmerman says it was him screaming for help, and Martin's parents say it was Martin screaming for help.)

Edited by xFelix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear god, You are arguing with a Florida gun owner about what the Florida gun laws are... Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds?

Zimmerman was/is a gun owner too. Apparently being a gun owner does not make you a genius... Do you realize how ridiculous your statement here sounds? Now maybe if you were a gun lobbiest, or a lawyer....

person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.

Yes, even though you keep using larger print and bold, I do know how to read...

You simply need now to show that a "reasonable belief" that Martin was thinking he was going to have violence done against him. What witness is there to Zimmerman's threatening Martin?

Again, stalking/harassing routinely escalate to other violent crimes. When someone stalks you, you are justified of being in fear of your life. There was no unlawful force used at the specific point, but there was a logical and rational reason to fear imminent unlawful force(As in oh crap this guy is stalking me, who is this? Is he a neighborhood watch captain, a serial killer, or a rapist?).

When you are in fear of your life you are justified in standing your ground, and fighting for your life.

Sorry, but that is BS. You're talking about Agrivated Stalking, which includes an element of violence or threat. But there is no evidence of that, only Misdemenor Stalking, which does not fit into the requirements of SYG. If there is no threat, there can be no violent response.

You can't simply turn around and shoot someone you think is following you. There has to be threat involved. Anyone could be a threat to anyone at any time, yet we can't go attacking people just because they "eyeballed" us, or because they followed us down the street. Not without a clear threat to a persons safety.

I don't give a rats a** either way(Martin or Zimmerman), neither of them are me. I am on the side of the law, and the law makes it's decisions clean and clear. If Zimmerman stalked someone who stood their ground he had no right to self-defense because he was the aggressor(Put himself in harms way). If he was really walking towards cops, and then someone attacked him viciously then yeah by all means he had the right to save his life.

I do agree with that. If Zimmerman attacked Trayvon, then he's in the wrong. And Trayvon was within his rights to fight back. But, it is my belief that the only person with evidence of that is Zimmerman himself. So there is no case.

But I will refer you back to the tapes.. One of the two was screaming for help, quite loudly. This is not a communication error, two innocent men did not accidentally stand their ground on each other. One of them heard the other screaming for help(He was not in danger), and continued the assault. (Media does not tell who it was accurately, Zimmerman says it was him screaming for help, and Martin's parents say it was Martin screaming for help.)

I believe there are at least two witnesses who say that they both saw Trayvon on top beating on the guy underneath, and the whole time someone is screaming for help. That right there is evidence that is going to free Zimmerman.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Barak Obama had a son, perhaps he'd be in a Chicago gang.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, even though you keep using larger print and bold, I do know how to read...

***Then read your very own post...

You simply need now to show that a "reasonable belief" that Martin was thinking he was going to have violence done against him. What witness is there to Zimmerman's threatening Martin?

***When in the history of the law the law has their been a case of stalking that lead to a hand-shake? Bet I can pull up thousands that have lead to rape, aggravated assault, and murder...

Sorry, but that is BS. You're talking about Agrivated Stalking, which includes an element of violence or threat. But there is no evidence of that, only Misdemenor Stalking, which does not fit into the requirements of SYG. If there is no threat, there can be no violent response.

***Stalking is a threat to someone's safety because it usually leads to greater crimes ffs READ.

You can't simply turn around and shoot someone you think is following you. There has to be threat involved. Anyone could be a threat to anyone at any time, yet we can't go attacking people just because they "eyeballed" us, or because they followed us down the street. Not without a clear threat to a persons safety.

***Do you see what you are saying? Anybody can be a threat, when they start illegally following you down a street their actions indicate that you are in imminent danger of a greater/violent crime.

I believe there are at least two witnesses who say that they both saw Trayvon on top beating on the guy underneath, and the whole time someone is screaming for help. That right there is evidence that is going to free Zimmerman.

***So two witnesses saw a fight, that could have been provoked by either person, and heard screams for help that could have come from either of the two men? This is what is going to set someone charged of second degree murder free?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose we're just going to disagree. Maybe the Trial will show which of us is more correct?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really feel sorry for Zimmerman because it seems the media, along with certain others, have "had it in for him" from the beginning. :(

Zimmerman had it out for Martin "from the beginning". Zimmerman viewed Martin as a criminal, and formed several other immediate impressions of Martin, all of which showed to be entirely false.

In the 9-1-1 call, Zimmerman expressed anger (cursing) and frustration (they always get away) and he demonstrated aggression as he exited his vehicle and followed Martin on foot.... and minutes later, Martin ended up dead.

Well, you know, under those circumstances, there had better be a damned good explanation from the shooter, and the evidence better support it.

Curiously, you neglected to express sorrow for Martin, whom it's determined was an unarmed,17 year-old boy (5'11", 158 lbs. per autopsy report) with no criminal record (police records), who was shot dead on his way home from a 7-11 and whose body was stored in the office of the medical examiner for two days as 'Unidentified #3'.

Edited by regi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.