We do agree on quite a bit about this, yet you say you stopped reading me "bruh"?

Whatever the kid or adult it previously, I don't think holds weight to what happened that night.

A few questions.

When the dispatcher told the adult it was not necessary for him to follow the kid, was he in his vehicle or on foot? I think this matters quite heavily. If on foot going back to his vehicle and the kid jumps him, then yes, I would have to say shooting him was self defense and he'd have a right to claim as such. If he was still in his vehicle and got out after being advised not to, in my opinion, he loses the right of self defense because as I've said before, he becomes the aggressor.

I read a few times, the scuffle took place on grass and some say concrete. Yet, the yellow tape blocked off was only around grass? Does this mean anything?

Why didn't the police take pictures of the wounds right away? I know this is common practice for Green Bay, WI police officers as I've witnessed it myself. They get cataloged in the case file.



I think I enjoyed the Brett Favre debates more ...

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

Martin couldn't claim self defense because he was dead. Zimmerman did claim self defense after following/stalking and scaring a 17 year old boy. Martins GF was having a conversation with him on the phone and she said he expressed fear, I'll find the article.

As far as Trayvons past, he was suspended from school for having some weed shake in the lining of his backpack, and I hadn't heard about him punching a bus driver but he's not some recidivist (gotta love Raising Arizona!) who struck fear into the general public. I'm sure he was no angel, probably a typical blowhard pseudo gangster, but in the end he's dead and this full grown man Zimmerman, who was specifically told by the 911 operator to mind his own business, ended his life. And walked away.

Originally Posted by: dingus 

Did we even have Favre debates? lol I don't recall if we did.

Originally Posted by: Formo 

Funny. I don't remember if it was on this site or the one that should not be named. It was 2007. Some of us wanted Randy Moss by any means necessary and there were pretty much two sides to the argument Favre vs Ted Thompson.

So this was pre-2009 Favre on the Vikings.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 

LOL.. been in the IT business for over twenty years, damn never knew that website hits generated profits, thanks much for the tip. [sarcasm]

My point is, if you are going to regard yourself as a fact driven journalist or company, then do your homework and provide researched facts over an angle to draw hits. If that is what you are after, then announce yourself as a "paid" blogger feeding rumors over facts. If I wanted drama and rumor, I would read TMZ.

If I hit a site like CNN, ABC, CBS I want the authors to present validated facts or if they are going to report the "latest" gossip, disclose it as such. Don't present me a timeline or accounts based on poorly researched or single unnamed sources as fact, it will be the quickest way for me to drop them as an regular read.

And Yes I know it is common, but honestly, I think it one of the greatest downfalls of this nonstop media driven age, being first or providing a slant to generate hit verses reporting the news as is without fiction.

Originally Posted by: Pack93z