Formo
12 years ago

ok, let me simplify this entire issue with one simple question...

if zimmermann had listened to law enforcement he was speaking to on his phone who told him they were on their way & that he didn't need to continue following the kid, would the kid be dead?

pretty damn simple, right?

i don't wanna hear squat about this kids past or even the zimmermann dude's past, who's black, who's white, who's hispanic, & i sure as hell don't care what jesse jackson or al sharpton think either.

any person walking down the street doing nothing to you or your personal property does not deserve to be shot - PERIOD!!
it amazes me that some of you actually think this is all good, cool, & fine. WTF?!? i don't give two shits what the damn florida law says either - if nothing else, this guy was absolutely stalking & harassing this kid. convict his ass on that bare minimum.

Originally Posted by: 4PackGirl 



A 911 operator isn't a law enforcement officer. And here's the transcript of the call:

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html 

He was following him BEFORE the operator tells him that there's no need for it. And at that point, Zimmerman acknowledges it and sounds as if he lost the kid at that point.

Again, the kid wasn't shot because he was walking down the street. You are reading into this too much. He was shot because he was on top of Zimmerman (evidence proves this). What's at question here is what caused the altercation.

BTW, he was a Neighborhood Watch person. Which means he 'patrols' his streets looking for suspicious behavior and then calls them in. He felt the kid (not from the neighborhood, which had some break-ins recently, looking at the houses) was a bit suspicious.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Zero2Cool
12 years ago
I'm cool with everything, until he gets out of his vehicle. Right there, he loses all right to claim self defense.

Edit, after reading the transcript, even more convinced the adult is in the wrong and had no business at all getting out of his vehicle. The dispatcher said they didn't need him to follow him. Yet, somehow after getting off the phone the adult and kid are together in a scuffle and the kid dies?

The adult did the right thing in reporting a suspicious person. I don't think anyone will question that. The problem I have is the adult was told it was not needed for him to follow the kid. Yet, the adult ends up getting punched in the face and kills the kid.
UserPostedImage
Formo
12 years ago

I think this comment is skipping the chain of events. If they are both walking along and the kid pops the adult in the nose, yes, I agree with the right to self defense on the part of the adult.

The kid is walking. The adult is following him in his vehicle. At this point, I ask myself, why does one follow someone and why? When are those intentions ever for the good?

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



Zimmerman is a Neighborhood Watch volunteer. It's what they do. What he did there was NOT illegal. And I'm willing to bet that most Neighborhood Watch volunteers do the same thing.

If I'm that kid (and I've been in a similar situation, once on foot, once in my car) I am in fear of my own personal safety.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



No doubt. But you kinda put yourself in that situation when you are out and about at night.

We do know that if the adult never leaves his vehicle, there is no altercation, would you agree? The adult had essentially two weapons, his car and gun. The kid has what to defend himself? Skittles? Ice Tea? True, the adult has NO CLUE what the kid has ... which makes me ask the next question ... why get out of your vehicle at all when you've already contacted the authorities?

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



It sounded to me like he was already out of his car following the kid when told by the 911 operator that there was no need for him to follow him. I agree, he should have at least stayed in his SUV and followed him that way.

I'm simply not buying the adult claiming self defense when HE initiated the contact by following the kid and also getting out of his vehicle.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



He wasn't just following a kid, though. He was following a suspicious person. Again, we agree on the getting out of the car bit, though.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Formo
12 years ago

I'm cool with everything, until he gets out of his vehicle. Right there, he loses all right to claim self defense.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



I disagree. He doesn't lose is right to claim self-defense. What if he just asked the kid "Hey, what are you doing out here?" and gets popped in the nose and attacked (remember the evidence)? I'm not saying that happened, I'm saying the line you draw isn't sufficient.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
4PackGirl
12 years ago
a 911 operator said it - she's in direct contact with law enforcement - stop arguing semantics.

i don't give a rat's ass if he's the king of the damn block - he had NO right to shoot another person. he was an overzealous wannabe who took the law into his own hands, acted a fool, & killed someone. how is that ok? if a law enforcement officer had done this, how would you feel then? would an officer have been justified in killing this kid or would you be all up in arms because we live in a 'police state'?

i live in an avid hunting community, my neighborhood is comprised of old men & their wives with alot of guns.
we watch each others houses, look out for each other, & make sure nobody suspicious is around. WITHOUT GUNS!!!
it's one thing to look out for each other, it's quite another to actively stalk/harass someone while you are carrying a weapon & then taking it upon yourself, even with law enforcement coming, to shoot another human being.

an innocent young man is dead...for no reason other than pure & complete stupidity.

Zero2Cool
12 years ago

I disagree. He doesn't lose his right to claim self-defense. What if he just asked the kid "Hey, what are you doing out here?" and gets popped in the nose and attacked (remember the evidence)? I'm not saying that happened, I'm saying the line you draw isn't sufficient.

Originally Posted by: Formo 



He does lose his right to claim self defense the second he stepped out of his vehicle AFTER following the kid around. He is a Neighborhood Watch volunteer, not a trained officer. He became the aggressor the second he stepped out of the vehicle, thus, removing any claim of self defense.

Perception.
Adult sees the kid kid as a suspicious person.
Kid sees adult as a threat to his safety.

As I said, I know the adult was doing his "responsibility" by reporting a suspicious person, I'm cool with that. I'm even fine with him tailing the kid until police arrived. But you can't follow some kid around, suspicious person or not, with a car, then get out of the car, get punched and shoot them and claim self defense.


Try to keep this fact in mind ... if he does not get out of his car, he does NOT get popped in the nose! Remember the evidence?

Your obtuse attitude to human nature of self preservation is not sufficient. So there! 😛
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
12 years ago

a 911 operator said it - she's in direct contact with law enforcement - stop arguing semantics.

i don't give a rat's ass if he's the king of the damn block - he had NO right to shoot another person. he was an overzealous wannabe who took the law into his own hands, acted a fool, & killed someone. how is that ok? if a law enforcement officer had done this, how would you feel then? would an officer have been justified in killing this kid or would you be all up in arms because we live in a 'police state'?

i live in an avid hunting community, my neighborhood is comprised of old men & their wives with alot of guns.
we watch each others houses, look out for each other, & make sure nobody suspicious is around. WITHOUT GUNS!!!
it's one thing to look out for each other, it's quite another to actively stalk/harass someone while you are carrying a weapon & then taking it upon yourself, even with law enforcement coming, to shoot another human being.

an innocent young man is dead...for no reason other than pure & complete stupidity.

Originally Posted by: 4PackGirl 



I bet if the adult wasn't carrying the gun, he doesn't get out of his vehicle at all.
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
12 years ago
Travon Martin was six three and about 140lbs.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video/bestoftv/2012/03/27/ac-kth-trayvon-martin-witness.cnn 

The adult says he was returning to his vehicle after he lost him when the kid approached him and exchanged words and the kid punched him in the nose and hit him over and over.
UserPostedImage
Formo
12 years ago

a 911 operator said it - she's in direct contact with law enforcement - stop arguing semantics.

Originally Posted by: 4PackGirl 



This is not semantics. This is actually pertinent information.

i don't give a rat's ass if he's the king of the damn block - he had NO right to shoot another person. he was an overzealous wannabe who took the law into his own hands, acted a fool, & killed someone. how is that ok? if a law enforcement officer had done this, how would you feel then? would an officer have been justified in killing this kid or would you be all up in arms because we live in a 'police state'?

Originally Posted by: 4PackGirl 



I'm not defending Zimmerman so much as I am saying this is not the case of an innocent kid gets murdered because he's black. Which was and is exactly the main stream media has been trumpeting.

i live in an avid hunting community, my neighborhood is comprised of old men & their wives with alot of guns.
we watch each others houses, look out for each other, & make sure nobody suspicious is around. WITHOUT GUNS!!!
it's one thing to look out for each other, it's quite another to actively stalk/harass someone while you are carrying a weapon & then taking it upon yourself, even with law enforcement coming, to shoot another human being.

Originally Posted by: 4PackGirl 



So, he shot the kid, in your eyes, because he was suspicious? Did you miss the part where the kid was mounted on Zimmerman bouncing his head off the ground?

an innocent young man is dead...for no reason other than pure & complete stupidity.

Originally Posted by: 4PackGirl 



Agreed.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Formo
12 years ago

He does lose his right to claim self defense the second he stepped out of his vehicle AFTER following the kid around. He is a Neighborhood Watch volunteer, not a trained officer. He became the aggressor the second he stepped out of the vehicle, thus, removing any claim of self defense.

Perception.
Adult sees the kid kid as a suspicious person.
Kid sees adult as a threat to his safety.

As I said, I know the adult was doing his "responsibility" by reporting a suspicious person, I'm cool with that. I'm even fine with him tailing the kid until police arrived. But you can't follow some kid around, suspicious person or not, with a car, then get out of the car, get punched and shoot them and claim self defense.


Try to keep this fact in mind ... if he does not get out of his car, he does NOT get popped in the nose! Remember the evidence?

Your obtuse attitude to human nature of self preservation is not sufficient. So there! :P

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



I'll remember this the next time someone steps out of their vehicle when arriving, unwanted, at my place of living. I'll be sure to point to your logic for my excuse of popping them in the nose.

You are painting with too broad of a brush.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    dfosterf (3h) : Maybe
    Mucky Tundra (3h) : Yes
    Zero2Cool (4h) : No.
    Mucky Tundra (6h) : End of a Degu-era
    dhazer (7h) : Steelers sign Patterson because of new kickoff rule interesting
    Zero2Cool (10h) : Former #Packers TE Josiah Deguara is signing a 1-year deal with the Jaguars, per source.
    Zero2Cool (11h) : They do not do it for "content sake".
    dfosterf (21h) : For the record, I enjoy Beast and Mucky drafts
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Haha
    Mucky Tundra (27-Mar) : No time for talking! Back to work beast!
    beast (27-Mar) : You saw only 4,201 of my mocks? 🥺 I think that means you missed more than half of them 😢
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : Does anyone know what Lambeau field improvements got put on hold? My guess would be for the 2025 draft
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : It's like listen, you made 4,201 mocks, no shit.
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Cuz during the draft "I had them mocked there!" as if it's amazing.
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : They're fun to do once in awhile. It's people who think they are "content" that annoy me.
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : Against tbd
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : Answer to your question is yes, it's a Thursday, will be the Chiefs aga
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : Luckily for all concerned, I don't post them. I did one, but that was like 25 mocks ago
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : NFL 2024 gonna start Sept 5th isn't it???
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Ugh... kids these days!
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : I'm gonna go do some more mock draft hell instead 🤪
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Did we do one of those prediction threads yet for 2024 season?
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : In my city, they are playing the nimby game, in order to keep some railroad tracks vs. 2 professional sports teams and a concert venue.
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : And/Or a city council, of which I haven't seen a good one in a very long time
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : That sounds like a Mayor, not a city.
    buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers halt scheduled 80mil upgrade of stadium until lease agreement talks are restarted
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : City of Green Bay puts Packers' Lambeau Field lease talks on hold
    buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers 1 of 3 teams to vote no on new kickoff rule.
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Packers sign another Kicker
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Lengthy explanation at PFF if you click the link
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Kickoff rules officially changed.ngthy explan
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : lol
    Cheesey (26-Mar) : 2009? No thanks! One open heart surgery is enough!
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Good for you!
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Yes. That's the one.
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Is that "Lady Dugan" per chance?
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Crystal?
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Please refresh my memory
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Alan posts. Crystal back in my life. It's 2009 all over again! Lol
    Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : BAH GAWD! THAT'S CHEESEYS MUSIC!
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Gutekunst said early stages of Jordan Love contract being discussed.
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Shouldn't be penalized cuz official screwed up
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Yeah, challenge until you are incorrect twice.
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Fining them is the goal, per the people who made the rule anyway.
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still waiting on the kickoff rule changes. Did hear yesterday that the touchback proposal will now be the 30 yard line, not the 35
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Probably speed of game issues with your proposal
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Hopefully the refs don't get in the habit of throwing flags on this
    beast (25-Mar) : I think when it comes to Challenges should get two strikes, so unlimited challenges as long as they keep winning them, but 2 wrong then done
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still subject to the fines etc
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Yes, I should have been more specific. Also, they are now saying it would be a 15 yard penalty. That makes more sense .
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2023 Packers Schedule
    Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
    Bears
    Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
    Falcons
    Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
    SAINTS
    Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
    LIONS
    Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
    Raiders
    Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
    Broncos
    Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
    RAMS
    Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
    Steelers
    Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
    CHARGERS
    Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
    CHIEFS
    Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
    Giants
    Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
    BUCCANEERS
    Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
    Panthers
    Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
    Vikings
    Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
    BEARS
    Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
    Cowboys
    Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
    49ers
    Recent Topics
    3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

    21h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    21h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    27-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

    27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    24-Mar / Around The NFL / dhazer

    24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    22-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.