spitfirebill wrote: According to Bill Maher on his show, there were 8 burglaries in the same neighborhood in the past year. That's why GZ started the community watch.
And it was suspected martin was responsible or invovled in at least one of them.
spitfirebill wrote: According to Bill Maher on his show, there were 8 burglaries in the same neighborhood in the past year. That's why GZ started the community watch.
And it was suspected martin was responsible or invovled in at least one of them.
Datsun1500 wrote:poopshovel wrote: It was absolutely his job to ask "What the berkeley are you doing here?" when someone who had no business in the park was there.Would he ask that of people that lived there? Zimmerman did not call the cops, then confront someone that did not belong there, he did it to someone that lived there.
Dude. I was answering your question. By your logic, it makes a difference whether or not Martin LIVED there. He did not.
If I saw a kid who lived in my neighborhood walking in the rain at night, I'd offer him a ride.
If I was the head of the neighborhood watch, there had been a bunch of recent home invasions, and I saw a kid who obviously DIDN'T live in my neighborhood walking between two houses in the rain, I would probably have reacted exactly as Zimmerman did.
yamaha wrote: In reply to JoeyM: I agree, everyone is taking the bait for this one too easily. I agree with GPS, as the jury has spoken, everything otherwise is hearsay.
You're right. I took the troll bait hook, line, & sinker. OUT BEFORE THE LOCK!
spitfirebill wrote: According to Bill Maher on his show, there were 8 burglaries in the same neighborhood in the past year. That's why GZ started the community watch.
and he had a small penis, wished he was fat enough to be a cop, and had self esteem issues so he went out and bought a gun to make him feel manly.
One aspect of this whole situation that hasn't been in the conversation is the fact that law enforcement was doing such a E36 M3ty job that the citizens themselves felt a need to be proactive with protecting their property. Whether neighborhood watches cross the line to vigilanteism, they are a result of a law enforcement culture that is more interested in giving you a report that you can turn into your insurance company, than they are with stopping crime.
patgizz wrote: and he had a small penis, wished he was fat enough to be a cop, and had self esteem issues so he went out and bought a gun to make him feel manly.
I hear concrete mixers firing up for this one......
In reply to DILYSI Dave:
That is part of the problem, but police cannot be everywhere. And personally, I'd rather them not be everywhere.
anybody thought this: At first Z was not charged. After public uproar the DA charged him with murder knowing that there was no way he could be convicted. Just a thought.
Now the jury has spoken so let us leave it at that.
iceracer wrote: anybody thought this: At first Z was not charged. After public uproar the DA charged him with murder knowing that there was no way he could be convicted. Just a thought. Now the jury has spoken so let us leave it at that.
And the first chief of police who did not charge him was E36 M3canned.
One thing I can tell you for sure is I am sick and tired of these trials being conducted on TV by pundents. For God's sake, just report what went on in the trial in five minutes and let it be. Now we get to hear about the DOJ trying to push for a civil rights violation. Sure!. Right after they straighten out the fast and furious gun thing and complete the Bengazi and the IRS investigations.
In reply to spitfirebill:
Hey, you weren't supposed to remember those things. Clearly they need to make a bigger stink about this Zimmerman deal.
Grizz wrote: In reply to spitfirebill: Hey, you weren't supposed to remember those things. Clearly they need to make a bigger stink about this Zimmerman deal.
Yeah, go get drunk and watch some sportball, or argue about some trivial overblown nonsense, nothing to see over there!
Strike_Zero wrote: ... - Dudes asking me why I was in their restaurant and hitting their waitress/barista ...
To be fair, thats not very nice of you!!
Brokeback wrote:Strike_Zero wrote: ... - Dudes asking me why I was in their restaurant and hitting their waitress/barista ...To be fair, thats not very nice of you!!
Um.....he clearly meant "hitting on"
JoeyM wrote:Brokeback wrote:Um.....he clearly meant "hitting on"Strike_Zero wrote: ... - Dudes asking me why I was in their restaurant and hitting their waitress/barista ...To be fair, thats not very nice of you!!
yamaha wrote: I agree with GPS, as the jury has spoken, everything otherwise is hearsay.
yeah and the jury said OJ was innocent too
wbjones wrote:yamaha wrote: I agree with GPS, as the jury has spoken, everything otherwise is hearsay.yeah and the jury said OJ was innocent too
The Zimmerman jury had more to work with, including some stellar eye-witness accounts. OJ's old news.
Brokeback wrote:Strike_Zero wrote: ... - Dudes asking me why I was in their restaurant and hitting their waitress/barista ...To be fair, thats not very nice of you!!
Whoops!! Fixed . . . I don't want anyone to visit the thread later and think I hit waitresses or baristas
And its all been hearsay ever since, regardless of personal feelings......
Hhe was not "found innocent" he was acquitted of the charges. there is a difference. the charges could be applied with the evidence given. that is how the legal system works.
Lawyers are Lawyers.. it is all about winning within the word of the law. Not truthers... if they were after the truth, trials would be way quickers, and way easier... because one side would always give up.
I just wanted to reiterate this part...
oldsaw wrote: With it's initial investigation, the Sanford police department reached the same conclusion. Those who claimed to be seeking justice demanded more investigation, an arrest and a trial. They succeeded with all three goals. And, yet, they fail to realize that there was never enough evidence to prove what they want to believe. And part of what they want to believe is that only a single person was responsible for a tragic event. The state's premise that the defendant approached the decedent with "malice" and "intent" was wrong-headed from the start. If justice were to be served, the charges should have been limited to manslaughter.
Specifically what I bolded.
Too many times I've heard strong condemnation of GZ to the absolute exclusion of TM having any culpability.
People who attempt to persuade me of GZ's culpability are quick to deny any similar scrutiny of TM.
And most people can't answer one question for me:
If TM is talking on the phone and knows he's being followed by someone, and if we grant that he feels threatened, then why didn't he chose a different course of action? A witnesses testimony suggests he was going to confront who he thought was following him.
so why didn't TM do something to de-escalate? why do people try to convince me he had no power in the situation at all to do anything but meet force? Why did he not continue on to a place where he felt safe? Why did he not call the cops for help himself? Was he not taught to do that in his upbringing?
For all the things GZ clearly did wrong, are we to absolve TM for doing wrong because he is the only one deceased?
The annual homicide rate in the U.S. is 4.7 per 100,000.
So, given a population of 350 million folks and the 16 months that have passed since the shooting in February of 2012, there have been approximately 23,000 other homicides.
What is so Berkleying special about this one?
Two hotheads crossed paths and one of them had a gun...somebody help me understand what’s at all surprising or even newsworthy about the result.
In reply to RX Reven':
The media outlets had worn out their welcome on elections and bashing either party........
RX Reven' wrote: The annual homicide rate in the U.S. is 4.7 per 100,000. So, given a population of 350 million folks and the 16 months that have passed since the shooting in February of 2012, there have been approximately 23,000 other homicides. What is so Berkleying special about this one? Two hotheads crossed paths and one of them had a gun...somebody help me understand what’s at all surprising or even newsworthy about the result.
THANK YOU. That's all I came here to say.
In reply to madmallard:
I know I don't understand either . . . I would've ran like hell.
But some people choose to aggress their aggressor, but it usually ends up bad anyway.
I believe (and has been mentioned by few in this thread) this is one of flaws of the "stand your ground".
tuna55 wrote:RX Reven' wrote: The annual homicide rate in the U.S. is 4.7 per 100,000. So, given a population of 350 million folks and the 16 months that have passed since the shooting in February of 2012, there have been approximately 23,000 other homicides. What is so Berkleying special about this one? Two hotheads crossed paths and one of them had a gun...somebody help me understand what’s at all surprising or even newsworthy about the result.THANK YOU. That's all I came here to say.
And thank you again.
You'll need to log in to post.
