07-14-2014 07:46 AM
4,617 ... 109110111112113 ...
tools
  1. pappy53's Avatar
    I actually don't think that makes much difference in this case.

    I don't either, unless it impaired his judgement to attack Zimmerman.
    07-15-2013 12:43 PM
  2. jdpj2008's Avatar
    Sharpton, Jackson and their race-baiting cronies demanded justice, demanded a murder trial and they got one.

    Now that they lost, they want a do-over? Is that how this works?

    Like i stated previously: Where o where is the outrage from them AND some of you about blacks killing other black "kids" EVERY SINGLE DAY???

    Nobody, none of you, have been able, or even attempted to answer why blacks killing blacks in the name of "keeping it real" is nothing to be outraged about.. and yet you portray yourselves to care so very much about kids. But all of the sudden; because Zimmerman is a lighter shade of skin, you are hereby "outraged".

    Gimme a break, will ya?

    I've asked twice. Now I'm asking a third time.

    It's there, people protest all the time it's never covered nationally and I'm sure you are probably not looking for it. Google protest for black on black crime or protest for inner city violence. Plenty of examples are outraged and there are organizations set up around this very topic. So to say that is just inaccurate.

    sent from my soon to be replaced HTC Rezound
    07-15-2013 12:48 PM
  3. llamabreath's Avatar
    (giving you a break, since child or kid seems to get to you.)
    ... he racially profiled and pursued a child after being told not to. That's provoking it. And then, he proceeded to use deadly force on that child.

    Sent from my HTC6435LVW using AC Forums mobile app
    Gets to who?

    Btw, did the dispatcher know how old he was and implore him to stay away from 'that child'?

    07-15-2013 12:57 PM
  4. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    When someone jumps on you and starts beating on you, you don't wonder how mature mentally a person is. You worry about getting him off of you. There are plenty of 17 year olds that can physically dominate some 28 year olds.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    cheeta186 likes this.
    07-15-2013 12:58 PM
  5. Jennifer Stough's Avatar
    Gets to who?

    Btw, did the dispatcher know how old he was and implore him to stay away from 'that child'?

    To many people, who don't like him being referred to as a child. I'm trying to be politically correct and refer to him as a minor.

    And no, I never said that the dispatcher ever referred to him as a child. But the dispatcher did advise him to quit pursuit.

    Sent from my HTC6435LVW using AC Forums mobile app
    07-15-2013 01:03 PM
  6. Jennifer Stough's Avatar
    When someone jumps on you and starts beating on you, you don't wonder how mature mentally a person is. You worry about getting him off of you. There are plenty of 17 year olds that can physically dominate some 28 year olds.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    You are correct, there are. But just because you are in a fight does not mean deadly force is required. Again, I will state, supporting evidence in the form of his injuries show that his life was NOT in immediate danger. Whether he believed it to be, is a different story. But we all know how the argument of beliefs will go.

    Sent from my HTC6435LVW using AC Forums mobile app
    07-15-2013 01:04 PM
  7. llamabreath's Avatar
    And no, I never said that the dispatcher ever referred to him as a child.
    ... and pursued a child after being told not to.
    You certainly made it sound exactly like that.


    07-15-2013 01:08 PM
  8. llamabreath's Avatar
    It's there, people protest all the time it's never covered nationally and I'm sure you are probably not looking for it. Google protest for black on black crime or protest for inner city violence. Plenty of examples are outraged and there are organizations set up around this very topic. So to say that is just inaccurate.

    sent from my soon to be replaced HTC Rezound
    Hmmm, "never covered nationally", has to be researched... "Google..."

    You've proven my point. Thank you. :thumbup:

    07-15-2013 01:13 PM
  9. Jennifer Stough's Avatar
    You certainly made it sound exactly like that.


    That's because you are splitting hairs in my argument instead of taking it as a whole.

    The point I was making that seems to be lost wasn't in whether or not Zimmerman perceived Martin to be a child or whether the dispatcher knew he was a minor. It was in the fact that he pursued after specifically being told not to. The child portion in my statement was merely a fact. Martin was a minor.

    Sent from my HTC6435LVW using AC Forums mobile app
    07-15-2013 01:14 PM
  10. Jennifer Stough's Avatar
    Let me be clear, I don't believe that this was premeditated or discriminatory because of color or age. I don't believe that Zimmerman killed Martin because of his race or because of his color. Your trying to split hairs in my argument that pertain to that are irrelevant because of that exact reason. I don't believe those factors play a role in the crime, they just help to further outrage me. But I want to also be clear that I would still be outraged if Martin was a 28 year old white man, because of the way in which the murder happened.
    07-15-2013 01:20 PM
  11. jdbii's Avatar
    I think it is completely reasonable to call a teenager 3 weeks into his 17th year a child. I will repeat again a minor is a child legally under the law, so it is semantically correct to call a minor a child. The law is not perfect and an arbitrary line has to be drawn somewhere on a statute. If you want it changed write your congressman and create a new age classification or lower the legal age of minor. For those who say it is a sympathy ploy the same could be said for those who suggest otherwise.

    17 years old can be a junior in high school, and sometimes a person to turn 17 at the end of their sophomore year of high school. Are any of you high school teachers, or coaches, or counselors? There are some pretty immature 17 year olds out there who I wouldn't hesitate calling a child. We call NFL rookies kids all the time, and college football players are almost exclusively referred to as kids even though many are well into their twenties. When I was in the Navy, up until I was 20 and a couple years of being in the fleet, it wasn't that uncommon for older officers and chiefs to refer to me as son despite being a full grown man.

    Edit: I edited the age. I guess 17 year olds are seniors usually, but they can be lower classman too.
    07-15-2013 01:25 PM
  12. llamabreath's Avatar
    Let me be clear, I don't believe that this was premeditated or discriminatory because of color or age. I don't believe that Zimmerman killed Martin because of his race or because of his color. Your trying to split hairs in my argument that pertain to that are irrelevant because of that exact reason. I don't believe those factors play a role in the crime, they just help to further outrage me. But I want to also be clear that I would still be outraged if Martin was a 28 year old white man, because of the way in which the murder happened.
    ok.


    07-15-2013 01:27 PM
  13. llamabreath's Avatar
    I think it is completely reasonable to call a teenager 3 weeks into his 17th year a child. I will repeat again a minor is a child legally under the law, so it is semantically correct to call a minor a child. The law is not perfect and an arbitrary line has to be drawn somewhere on a statute. If you want it changed write your congressman and create a new age classification or lower the legal age of minor. For those who say it is a sympathy ploy the same could be said for those who suggest otherwise.

    17 years old can be a junior in high school, and sometimes a person to turn 17 at the end of their sophomore year of high school. Are any of you high school teachers, or coaches, or counselors? There are some pretty immature 17 year olds out there who I wouldn't hesitate calling a child. We call NFL rookies kids all the time, and college football players are almost exclusively referred to as kids even though many are well into their twenties. When I was in the Navy, up until I was 20 and a couple years of being in the fleet, it wasn't that uncommon for older officers and chiefs to refer to me as son despite being a full grown man.

    Edit: I edited the age. I guess 17 year olds are seniors usually, but they can be lower classman too.
    You are missing the point.
    Zimmerman was only able to go by appearance on a dark, rainy night.

    Requesting a date of birth would have been slightly inconvenient.

    07-15-2013 01:32 PM
  14. jdbii's Avatar
    You are missing the point.
    Zimmerman was only able to go by appearance on a dark, rainy night.
    Fair point, especially within the context of potential criminal liability.
    07-15-2013 01:35 PM
  15. jdbii's Avatar
    Fair point, especially within the context of potential criminal liability.
    I'm just saying in general and depending on the person I don't see anything wrong with calling a 17 year old a child.
    (Edit. BTW, I didn't mean to quote my own quote. I thought I was quoting llamabreath).
    07-15-2013 01:37 PM
  16. mhenne4's Avatar
    Jennifer you are missing the point of the law. If you read paragraph 3 here:

    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/.../0776.013.html

    You will see that it makes no mention of injuries. It clearly states that if you believe your life to be in danger of being ended or facing great bodily harm (FOR EXAMPLE: being bashed against the concrete over and over again) you have the right to defend yourself with LETHAL force because you have no way of knowing if the next time your head is bashed down it might kill you.
    Live2ride883 and Bratigan like this.
    07-15-2013 01:42 PM
  17. cherrywithns's Avatar
    What we have is a young man who used drugs and was a trouble maker. He was sent to his father and was unknown in the neighborhood. We have a watch in this community due to thefts. The young man was hiding in the shadows and instead of going into his home he chose to circle around and attack Zimmerman. After breaking his nose and pounding his head against the concrete saw the gun and informed Zimmerman that he was going to die and that's when Trayvon was shot. This should not have gone to trial and would not have without outside pressure. Numerous mock grand juries chose not to bring to trial which is why they went without one. We should ask ourselves why Trayvon chose to attack a stranger? Why not go home or inform Zimmerman that his father lived there. People also forget Zimmerman is about 5 foot 8 and Trayvon over 6 foot.

    Sent from my EVO using AC Forums mobile app
    07-15-2013 01:43 PM
  18. jdbii's Avatar
    The young man was hiding in the shadows and instead of going into his home he chose to circle around and attack Zimmerman.
    Is this statement factually correct?
    GadgetGator likes this.
    07-15-2013 01:49 PM
  19. jdpj2008's Avatar
    Hmmm, "never covered nationally", has to be researched... "Google..."

    You've proven my point. Thank you. :thumbup:

    Looks like you said people weren't outraged about Black's killing black in your post, taken from the words in your post, I kindly told you people were but that it's usually not a national story, didn't know media involvement determined anger levels. So Glad I proved your point. And I'll say rarely then if that makes it better. Also typically when black on black crime does happen and their is a suspect and a murder weapon someone usually goes to jail. Cant really see how not protesting a desired outcome is the same as protesting am undesired outcome.

    sent from my soon to be replaced HTC Rezound
    07-15-2013 01:49 PM
  20. Jennifer Stough's Avatar
    Jennifer you are missing the point of the law. If you read paragraph 3 here:

    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/.../0776.013.html

    You will see that it makes no mention of injuries. It clearly states that if you believe your life to be in danger of being ended or facing great bodily harm (FOR EXAMPLE: being bashed against the concrete over and over again) you have the right to defend yourself with LETHAL force because you have no way of knowing if the next time your head is bashed down it might kill you.
    I didn't miss that. If you go back and read my post you will see that I said although his life was not in danger, he only had to believe it to be so.

    Sent from my HTC6435LVW using AC Forums mobile app
    07-15-2013 01:53 PM
  21. Jennifer Stough's Avatar
    Whether he believed it to be, is a different story. But we all know how the argument of beliefs will go.
    In case it was missed before. I said this because I am VERY aware that the law only requires you to BELIEVE your life is in danger, even if physical evidence points otherwise. I didn't touch on my opinion on beliefs because of the whimsicality of it all. I can't tell someone what they do or do not believe or why. I wasn't denying he believed his life to be in danger.


    Sent from my HTC6435LVW using AC Forums mobile app
    07-15-2013 01:56 PM
  22. mhenne4's Avatar
    I didn't miss that. If you go back and read my post you will see that I said although his life was not in danger, he only had to believe it to be so.

    Sent from my HTC6435LVW using AC Forums mobile app
    Correct, and thats all thats needed to use lethal force. If he fears for his life he has the right to use lethal force, no questions asked. Remember ths orginal officers on scene ruled it as self defense and it wasnt until 2 months later that they felt the need to bring charges.
    07-15-2013 01:58 PM
  23. mhenne4's Avatar
    In case it was missed before. I said this because I am VERY aware that the law only requires you to BELIEVE your life is in danger, even if physical evidence points otherwise. I didn't touch on my opinion on beliefs because of the whimsicality of it all. I can't tell someone what they do or do not believe or why. I wasn't denying he believed his life to be in danger.


    Sent from my HTC6435LVW using AC Forums mobile app
    Fair enough point.
    07-15-2013 02:03 PM
  24. Jennifer Stough's Avatar
    Correct, and thats all thats needed to use lethal force. If he fears for his life he has the right to use lethal force, no questions asked. Remember ths orginal officers on scene ruled it as self defense and it wasnt until 2 months later that they felt the need to bring charges.
    I am also aware. Legally, he is protected. That was also never in argument. I guess what I have been discussing is the morality of it. Either way, I am through with this thread. I should have known better to get involved to begin with. Enjoy the conversation, guys

    Sent from my HTC6435LVW using AC Forums mobile app
    07-15-2013 02:04 PM
  25. jdbii's Avatar
    People also forget Zimmerman is about 5 foot 8 and Trayvon over 6 foot.
    Not according to wikipedia. Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Martin was 5 ft 11 in and 158 pounds.
    Zimmerman is 5 ft 7 in and 185 pounds
    Zimmerman also outweighed Martin by 27 pounds.
    07-15-2013 02:15 PM
4,617 ... 109110111112113 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Larva Cartoon - FREE and FUNNY Application
    By liontyping in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-21-2014, 11:03 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-25-2013, 07:33 AM
  3. POI information and Gallery
    By robjulo in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 11:00 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 04:28 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD