Skip to comments.Witness: Zimmerman 'Never ... Tried To Help' Trayvon Martin
Posted on 03/25/2012 12:30:48 PM PDT by Steelfish
click here to read article
What is this - retard day?
LOL — they’re out in force, aren’t they.
org.whodat, I am not trying to be nasty here, but you keep saying Zimmerman started the fight. Perhaps I misunderstand you...can you clarify what you mean?
“started the fight when he approached the kid and chased him.”
It cracks me up that the media ia telling it’s idiots that Zimmerman’s action was cause to beat some one.
IT’S WHAT THE MEDIA DO EVERYDAY!
I would love to see them pursue someone avoiding them, ask a question and get the beating they say they’d deserve LOL!
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.--The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force. History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.
You are unable to read, I said you can knock anyone down with a well placed tackle, and rolling around on the ground is part of it. And the police chief of sanford is no longer in charge. He lost a no confidence vote last week. And I made no assumptions, I stated the comments of the man who wrote the law and two governors. Their comments were you cannot pursue someone and then claim stand your ground. Now if you can prove zimmerman never got out of his car, you have a point.
Are you retarded, if so, get help, other wise you maybe violating the rules here.
Ask the governor, he said the law did not cover zimmerman, are you saying he is wrong.
No, it doesn't. Two different points in time.
You say he started a fight. I said PROVE IT. You can't prove it, because your reasoning is absurdly WRONG. Get that through your head. Your assertion is WRONG.
The deceased started pummeling Zimmerman from what we know. Now, if Zimmerman had threatened him or laid a hand upon him, you would be correct. But, according to eyewitnesses, you are WRONG. Get it? Has it sunk in yet? Do you comprehend your mistaken logic?
Then you are inventing a timeline that is not supported by the known facts, therefore, you are either simply misunderstanding your position in relation to the known facts, or you are stubbornly standing by an opinion that has no bearing in reality, IMO.
In either case, I have already pointed out that it is possible that Zimmerman may have started the altercation, but the known facts at this point to not support that position. Your reasoning is completely unfounded from the viewpoint of the officers on the scene who interviewed Mr. Zimmerman and the eyewitnesses.
So, you may continue to make up your illogical fantasy scenario that has no basis in reality, or you can take a moment and analyze the reasons why most people on this forum are repeatedly attempting to explain to you the error of your thinking process.
It's up to you, wallow in your delusional world of irrationality, or open your eyes to reality. Your bleatings are disgusting in the context of this incident, IMO.
I have read local Orlando reports that indicate witnesses saw him assaulting Zimmerman prior to being shot.
There are quite a few people in my neighborhood that walk around with hoodies up (and drive cars that way too). Many of them wear their pants below their gluteus maximus. In addition to looking laughably ridiculous, they are intentionally tying themselves to a specific subculture that is associated with lots of drugs and crime. I generally assess them as thugs or wannabe gangbangers.
My survival instinct tells me to be wary of them. That instinct has served me in good stead.
“You cannot start a fight and then claim stand your ground, so says, the man who authored the law and the governor that signed the law and everyone that voted for the law that has been ask. Zimmerman started a fight and then murdered the kid.”
By golly, you got something there. Never mind that it’s just as reasonable (and the physical evidence and calls seems to indicate it’s more likely) to guess that Zimmerman ceased pursuit and got attacked by Martin while he was waiting for the cops to show up.
As to the guy who wrote the the “stand your ground” law, I foolishly thought it was up to the courts to decide what laws meant...otherwise you’d get politicians saying “That’s not what I meant!” whenever something they enacted turned out to be unpopular at the moment.
IF, and it’s a big IF, Zimmerman approached Martin and assaulted him, and only pulled out the gun after Martin got the upper hand in the fight, then he should pay the legal price for the killing.
If he merely followed Martin, and Martin decided the best defense is a good offense and assaulted Zimmerman to “protect himself” then Zimmerman is fully within his rights to respond with deadly force.
I wasn’t there, so I don’t know.
Was Zimmerman unwise to follow Martin at all? I’d be he’d say so now, but that doesn’t make it unlawful.
It’s a sad situation all around, and now it’s more a political/racial football than a legal matter. Too bad many are rushing to judgement based on what they want to see rather than what we know. Too bad politicians like Obama aren’t showing equal outrage and concern over other violence that has recently occurred.
The Genie is out of the bottle now, and no matter how calmly and fairly the local authorities act, it’s not going to satisfy the emotions whipped up by conjecture, half-truths and political pandering.
Oh, and remember, what you read, see and hear in the media is put out by journalists with a longstanding agenda that historically isn’t exactly likely to support defensive use of a firearm.
Ridiculous. Support this statement.
Since when, in this country, are legal decisions made on the basis of "majority opinion?"
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant
Seems to me that lying on one's back and screaming for help, with an assailant atop and beating one about the face and head, satisfies this section of the code.
In fact, this statute actively exonerates Zimmerman even if he was the initial aggressor.
You can pretend all you want that Zimmerman wasn’t on the ground getting his face beat in and his nose broken when he shot Martin, but you know that’s what happened and so does everybody else, so why don’t you stop wasting everybody’s time with your foolish attempts to cover up for Martin?
I agree with staying away - I know I do. I’m lucky enough to live where I don’t see these people. It’s still shocking to me that there is a whole culture built on wanting to be the scum of society.
Rode the BART from San Francisco into Oakland recently and watched the kids as they participated in that culture - they had to “represent” or be run over by their peers. I actually felt some sympathy for them because they are stuck in a grimy cycle and most of them know nothing else.
The press is not interested in the truth.
They are interested if fanning the flames of a race war.
During the Rodney King riots they replayed the beating tapes in an incendiary fashion to keep it going.
They used to call it yellow dog journalism.
This is nothing but pure malice with fore thought.
911 dispatchers have no police powers, they can not order a citizen to do anything and any suggestions are not lawful orders. That part of the case is irrelevant to the guilt or innocence of Zimmerman.
Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear. On what basis do you assert that Zimmerman started the fight?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.