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!!
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (20h) : QB coach Sean Mannion
Zero2Cool (20h) : DL Coach DeMarcus Covington
dfosterf (22h) : from ft Belvoir, Quantico and points south. Somber reminder of this tragedy at Reagan Nat Airport
dfosterf (22h) : So eerily quiet here in Alexandria. I live in the flight path of commercial craft coming from the south and west, plus the military craft
dfosterf (23h) : So eeri
Mucky Tundra (30-Jan) : Now that's a thought, maybe they're looking at the college ranks? Maybe not head coaches but DC/assistant DCs with league experience?
beast (30-Jan) : College Coaches wouldn't want that publicly, as it would hurt recruiting and they might not get the job.
beast (30-Jan) : I thought they were supposed to publicly announce them, at least the NFL ones. Hafley was from college, so I believe different rules.
Mucky Tundra (30-Jan) : Who knows who they're interviewing? I mean, nobody knew about Hafley and then out of nowhere he was hired
beast (30-Jan) : I wonder what's taking so long with hiring a DL coach, 2 of the 3 known to interview have already been hired elsewhere.
Zero2Cool (27-Jan) : Packers coach Matt LaFleur hires Luke Getsy as senior assistant, extends Rich Bisaccia's deal
Zero2Cool (27-Jan) : Chiefs again huh? I guess another Super Bowl I'll be finding something else to do.
Mucky Tundra (27-Jan) : Chiefs Eagles...again...sigh
dfosterf (27-Jan) : Happy Birthday Dave!
Mucky Tundra (27-Jan) : happy birthday dhazer
TheKanataThrilla (26-Jan) : Exactly buck...Washington came up with the ball. It is just a shitty coincidence one week later
buckeyepackfan (26-Jan) : I forgot, they corrected the call a week later. Lol btw HAPPY BIRTHDAY dhazer!
buckeyepackfan (26-Jan) : That brings up the question, why wasn't Nixon down by contact? I think that was the point Kanata was making.
buckeyepackfan (26-Jan) : Turnovers rule, win the turnover battle, win the game.
packerfanoutwest (26-Jan) : well, he was
TheKanataThrilla (26-Jan) : Eagles down by contact on the fumble....fuck you NFL
Mucky Tundra (26-Jan) : I think this games over
beast (26-Jan) : Eagles sure get a lot of fumbles on kickoffs
Mucky Tundra (26-Jan) : This game looks too big for Washington
packerfanoutwest (26-Jan) : that being said, The Ravens are the Browns
packerfanoutwest (26-Jan) : Browns, Dolphins have longest AFC Championship droughts
packerfanoutwest (26-Jan) : As of today, Cowboys have longest NFC Championship drought,
beast (26-Jan) : Someone pointed out, with Raiders hiring Carroll, the division games between Carroll and Jim Harbaugh are back on (who can whine more games)
beast (26-Jan) : I'm confused, Pete Carroll and Brian Schottenheimer? When Todd Monken, Joe Brady, Kellen Moore, Kliff Kingsbury and Zac Robinson are availab
Zero2Cool (25-Jan) : Any reason I'm catching a shot here about my intelligence?
Martha Careful (25-Jan) : thank you Mucky for sticking up for me
Martha Careful (25-Jan) : some of those people are smarter than you zero. However Pete Carroll is not
Mucky Tundra (24-Jan) : Rude!
beast (24-Jan) : Martha? 😋
Zero2Cool (24-Jan) : Raiders hired someone from the elderly home.
dfosterf (24-Jan) : I'm going with a combination of the two.
beast (24-Jan) : Either the Cowboys have no idea what they're doing, or they're targeting their former OC, currently the Eagles OC
Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Fake news. Cowboys say no
Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Mystery candidate in the Cowboys head coaching search believed to be Packers ST Coordinator Rich Bisaccia.
beast (23-Jan) : Also why do both NYC teams have absolutely horrible OL for over a decade?
beast (23-Jan) : I wonder why the Jets always hire defensive coaches to be head coach
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Still HC positions available out there. I wonder if Hafley pops up for one
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Trent Baalke is out as the Jaguars GM.
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Jeff Hafley would have been a better choice, fortunately they don't know that. Someone will figure that out next off season
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Aaron Glenn Planning To Take Jets HC Job
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Martha- C'est mon boulot! 😁
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you
wpr (22-Jan) : Z, glad you are feeling better.
wpr (22-Jan) : My son and D-I-L work for UM. It's a way to pick on them.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you. I rarely get sick, and even more rarely sick to the point I can't work.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
Eagles
Recent Topics
10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

30-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

29-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

27-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

27-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

25-Jan / Random Babble / Martha Careful

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

19-Jan / Random Babble / Martha Careful

18-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.