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
    Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : Packers DT Kenny Clark: New defensive coordinator Jeff Hafley will 'allow us to be way more disruptive'
    Zero2Cool (12-Apr) : Saints have agreed to terms on a contract with former Packers wide receiver Equanimeous St. Brown.
    beast (12-Apr) : No, but of it's for legislation, then half of the country will find it evil, not good, whatever it says....
    Mucky Tundra (12-Apr) : Draft is still 2 weeks away. UGH
    dhazer (11-Apr) : Does anyone know of a good AI generator to create letters of Support for legislation?
    Zero2Cool (11-Apr) : Gordon "Red" Batty retires as equipment manager
    Zero2Cool (10-Apr) : Sounds like that's pretty certain now.
    Zero2Cool (10-Apr) : Packers "at" Eagles in Brazil. Week One
    dfosterf (10-Apr) : Va' Fazer As Malas Va' !
    Zero2Cool (9-Apr) : Mark Murphy tipping us off?
    Zero2Cool (9-Apr) : “We’re either the first- or second-most popular team in Brazil.”
    Zero2Cool (9-Apr) : Christian Watson got married. Wife better be careful with those hamstrings!! 😂😂
    dfosterf (9-Apr) : Those poor bastards
    Zero2Cool (8-Apr) : Falcons have signed former Packers CB Kevin King, who has been out of football since 2021.
    dfosterf (8-Apr) : Collectively, we need to spend more time in what we have, when analyzing ostendible needs and historical proclivities
    dfosterf (8-Apr) : I say he is better than so many of these draft picks
    dfosterf (8-Apr) : Question of the week for me: Has anyone besides me done any deep dive into the potential of Alex McGough, our 3rd string qb?
    Zero2Cool (8-Apr) : Or in Tunsil's case, something gets released day of draft or day before lol
    Zero2Cool (8-Apr) : Seems every year someone does something pre-draft.
    dfosterf (8-Apr) : Falling down drunk. The draft board
    dfosterf (8-Apr) : Allright! Potential character guy/f#×k up pickup in D'Vondre Sweat!
    Zero2Cool (7-Apr) : Go Badgers!!!
    Martha Careful (6-Apr) : Go Boilermakers!!!
    Martha Careful (5-Apr) : Diggs has not stepped up in the playoffs and has a high cost
    beast (5-Apr) : Probably not going to let Diggs walk away unless he's horrible... but according to reports he also might not be as good as he used to be.
    beast (5-Apr) : The 25th pick in the draft has been an offensive player since 2017, 2 TE, 2 WR, 1 RB, 1 OC
    Mucky Tundra (5-Apr) : Odd, why give up a 2025 2nd Rounder for him if you're just gonna let him walk?
    Zero2Cool (4-Apr) : Texans to let Diggs be free agent in '25
    buckeyepackfan (4-Apr) : 49r's aign RB Patrick Taylor.
    Martha Careful (4-Apr) : Reversion to the mean would indicate we will keep it
    Zero2Cool (4-Apr) : It's also been utilized in a trade in 14 of the past 20 years
    Zero2Cool (4-Apr) : The 25th pick in the draft hasn't been made by it's original holder since 2016.
    Mucky Tundra (4-Apr) : Gotta imagine that Green Bay vs Houston will be a primetime game this upcoming season
    Zero2Cool (3-Apr) : No. Kill QB. No worries. 😁
    Mucky Tundra (3-Apr) : Diggs, Collins, Dell and Schultz is gonna be tough to cover
    Zero2Cool (3-Apr) : Stefon Diggs' trade will not be processed as a post-June 1 designation, so that is just over $31 million in dead cap this year.
    Zero2Cool (3-Apr) : Bills trading WR Stefon Diggs to the Texans in exchange for a 2025 2nd-round pick. (via @rapsheet)
    beast (3-Apr) : Using Patterson as RB and RB/WR tweener... so I think they also signed Patterson as a 3rd down RB, not just a kick returner as articles are
    beast (3-Apr) : I think PFT missed the real Steelers/Patterson connection, Steelers new OC Arthur Smith has been Patterson's head coach the last 3 years
    wpr (2-Apr) : It has Martha. I was stunned when I was in HS to learn Iowa was still playing half court BB in the 70's.
    Martha Careful (2-Apr) : Caitlin Clark, Angel Reese...women's sports has come a long way. GREAT TO SEE!!
    Martha Careful (31-Mar) : Happy Easter everyone. I hope you all have a great day.
    dfosterf (28-Mar) : Maybe
    Mucky Tundra (28-Mar) : Yes
    Zero2Cool (28-Mar) : No.
    Mucky Tundra (28-Mar) : End of a Degu-era
    dhazer (28-Mar) : Steelers sign Patterson because of new kickoff rule interesting
    Zero2Cool (28-Mar) : Former #Packers TE Josiah Deguara is signing a 1-year deal with the Jaguars, per source.
    Zero2Cool (28-Mar) : They do not do it for "content sake".
    dfosterf (28-Mar) : For the record, I enjoy Beast and Mucky drafts
    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
    1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    8h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

    12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    15h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    19h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    12-Apr / Random Babble / Nonstopdrivel

    12-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    11-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    10-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    8-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    5-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    5-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    4-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    4-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

    4-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

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