Trayvon Martin

[john doe]

It was especially interesting to discover that Zimmerman has some African ancestry...I believe his grandmother was African-Peruvian. I wonder if NBC will start calling him Black-Hispanic?

Let me answer that now-- Nope, won't happen.

[Tyler90AZ]

No, the key word is not following. The key word may be attacking or possibly even threatening. You do not get a free pass to beat on somebody just because they are following you. There is no defense needed for someone who is merely following you and reporting your movements and location to police, because there is no threat to you.

The important questions in my mind are who initiated the physical contact, and was Zimmerman fearful for his life or safety at the time he shot Martin? If Martin initiated the fight, and if Zimmerman was reasonably in fear for his life or safety at the time he shot Martin, then in my mind he was justified in taking whatever means he could in saving his own life. If Zimmerman threatened or attacked Martin, then it obviously puts a different light in the situation. But so far I have seen no evidence come out that paints Zimmerman as the aggressor who threatened or attacked Martin.

What is there that shows he was not the aggressor? The evidence that shows he was the aggressor or that Martin acted in self defense is Zimmerman followed him. An aggressor would not walk away, he would be aggressive, attack. Even more evidence is that Zimmerman shot him in the chest. A person who was not the aggressor would not shoot in a lethal spot. Even more then that is he said "they always get away with this,"* that gives a reason why he would not let them get away. That makes three just common sense proofs he was the aggressor.

Now lets look at what shows Martin was not the aggressor. The incident, supposedly, happened very close to Martins home. There is video footage of Martin leave a store after buying an ice tea and skittles. Those two things show he was heading home, not set out for trouble. Then you take into account a random guy was following him. He would not know if the guy had a gun or what. I have never ever heard of somebody being followed switch it up and start following the follower. That just doesn't seem right. Those to me, are common sense proofs Martin was not the aggressor.

[Vort]

What is there that shows he was not the aggressor? The evidence that shows he was the aggressor or that Martin acted in self defense is Zimmerman followed him. An aggressor would not walk away, he would be aggressive, attack. Even more evidence is that Zimmerman shot him in the chest. A person who was not the aggressor would not shoot in a lethal spot. Even more then that is he said "they always get away with this,"* that gives a reason why he would not let them get away. That makes three just common sense proofs he was the aggressor.

Now lets look at what shows Martin was not the aggressor. The incident, supposedly, happened very close to Martins home. There is video footage of Martin leave a store after buying an ice tea and skittles. Those two things show he was heading home, not set out for trouble. Then you take into account a random guy was following him. He would not know if the guy had a gun or what. I have never ever heard of somebody being followed switch it up and start following the follower. That just doesn't seem right. Those to me, are common sense proofs Martin was not the aggressor.

Am I misremembering, or aren't you the one that doesn't like people posting links to ACTUAL NEWS ARTICLES telling about black people beating up white people just for fun?

Yet you think it's perfectly acceptable to broadcast your own opinions on the matter?

What is wrong with this picture?

[Tyler90AZ]

Am I misremembering, or aren't you the one that doesn't like people posting links to ACTUAL NEWS ARTICLES telling about black people beating up white people just for fun?

Yet you think it's perfectly acceptable to broadcast your own opinions on the matter?

What is wrong with this picture?

Yea, your misremembering or misinterpreting. To post links to articles of blacks beating up whites is completely fruitless.

Then again even to the guy your referring to, that makes no sense. What I gave was an analysis of the incident. The links post to a completely different issue.

[Guest]

What is there that shows he was not the aggressor? The evidence that shows he was the aggressor or that Martin acted in self defense is Zimmerman followed him. An aggressor would not walk away, he would be aggressive, attack.

A person who volunteers as the Neighborhood Watch in a neighborhood that has incidences of robberies would tend to "watch" or "follow" a person he believes looks suspicious. It does not necessarily follow that a Neighborhood Watch who follows a suspect intends to do more than watch the suspect.

Even more evidence is that Zimmerman shot him in the chest. A person who was not the aggressor would not shoot in a lethal spot.

It is a stretch to presume, with what evidence we are privy to, that a shot on the chest was made with Zimmerman actually aiming for it.

Even more then that is he said "they always get away with this,"* that gives a reason why he would not let them get away. That makes three just common sense proofs he was the aggressor.

My saying, "my neighbor always gets away with leaving his dog's crap on my front yard" doesn't necessarily follow that I'm going to go beat him up.

Now lets look at what shows Martin was not the aggressor. The incident, supposedly, happened very close to Martins home. There is video footage of Martin leave a store after buying an ice tea and skittles. Those two things show he was heading home, not set out for trouble.

Your location has nothing to do with your aggression. Lots of road rages occur on the way home. Aggression is usually preceded by an event, not a location.

Then you take into account a random guy was following him. He would not know if the guy had a gun or what. I have never ever heard of somebody being followed switch it up and start following the follower. That just doesn't seem right.

And as was mentioned before, following somebody doesn't prove aggression. It just means he was following somebody. So, whoever was following who is not proof positive of who is the aggressor. But, what is a valid claim is that Zimmerman has his Neighborhood Watch position as a logical excuse for following Martin (whether his suspicion of Martin is justified or not is a different matter).

Those to me, are common sense proofs Martin was not the aggressor.

My common sense doesn't see the proof. Is it because you might have a bias that I don't have?

[mirkwood]

A person who was not the aggressor would not shoot in a lethal spot.

Where in the world did you come up with this idea?

[john doe]

What is there that shows he was not the aggressor? The evidence that shows he was the aggressor or that Martin acted in self defense is Zimmerman followed him. An aggressor would not walk away, he would be aggressive, attack.

Let me get this straight. You're saying that the act of following someone is an aggressive act? And that a person is justified in initiating a fight merely because he/she is being followed in a strange neighborhood at night where the locals probably don't know them and recent property crimes have occurred?

Even more evidence is that Zimmerman shot him in the chest. A person who was not the aggressor would not shoot in a lethal spot.

Really, where did you find this tidbit of information? Because it has always been my understanding that when you shoot at a person you shoot to kill. There is generally not the time in a close hand-to-hand battle to aim at a non-lethal area. I've always been told to shoot for the center-mass area, and that aiming for an arm or a leg generally means you will miss your target. Have you ever even shot a gun before? Do you know how difficult it is to aim a handgun with a high degree of accuracy?

Even more then that is he said "they always get away with this,"* that gives a reason why he would not let them get away.

I've never heard that part of the 911 transcript. Please link to it so I can hear it for myself.

That makes three just common sense proofs he was the aggressor.

No, none of those assertions are common sense, or proof of anything.

Now lets look at what shows Martin was not the aggressor. The incident, supposedly, happened very close to Martins home. There is video footage of Martin leave a store after buying an ice tea and skittles. Those two things show he was heading home, not set out for trouble. Then you take into account a random guy was following him. He would not know if the guy had a gun or what. I have never ever heard of somebody being followed switch it up and start following the follower. That just doesn't seem right. Those to me, are common sense proofs Martin was not the aggressor.

Sounds to me like you've already made up your mind. I thought you were the guy who embraced the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing. But your posts show the absolute opposite.

[Tyler90AZ]

Where in the world did you come up with this idea?

I guess I was thinking about what a soldier would do.... The guy had adrenaline rushing and hasn't been in many combat situations. Although usually pulling a gun on somebody is enough to stop them.

[Tyler90AZ]

Sounds to me like you've already made up your mind. I thought you were the guy who embraced the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing. But your posts show the absolute opposite.

As much as I struggle to grasp beyond a reasonable doubt, because my heart won't let me. It also seems like there has been misinterpretations of innocent until proven guilty.

[mirkwood]

I guess I was thinking about what a soldier would do.... The guy had adrenaline rushing and hasn't been in many combat situations. Although usually pulling a gun on somebody is enough to stop them.

That doesn't make any sense.

When using deadly force, you are trained to shoot at the largest target: center mass.

Are we safe in assuming you have little or no familiarity with handling/shooting firearms and no tactical experience/training?

It really does sound like you have already determined in your mind that Zimmerman is guilty.

[john doe]

As much as I struggle to grasp beyond a reasonable doubt, because my heart won't let me. It also seems like there has been misinterpretations of innocent until proven guilty.

And therein lies the problem. You have let your emotions tell your brain to ignore all the evidence (or lack thereof) and come to the conclusion that Zimmerman is guilty of something with no evidence to back up that emotion. You are the epitome of the kind of person that Sharpton and the New Black Panthers want to influence when they go off on their baseless diatribes. You seem to have a hard time separating facts from emotions.

[Tyler90AZ]

And therein lies the problem. You have let your emotions tell your brain to ignore all the evidence (or lack thereof) and come to the conclusion that Zimmerman is guilty of something with no evidence to back up that emotion. You are the epitome of the kind of person that Sharpton and the New Black Panthers want to influence when they go off on their baseless diatribes. You seem to have a hard time separating facts from emotions.

There you go letting your emotions get in the way that he is not guilty. You inhale what foxnews tells you, but look no where else. Sadly JohnDoe you are stuck in your sphere(seem to be) and won't look out. I have entertained both sides and changed my mind on a few things. It takes a smart mind to assess both sides and come to a conclusion. If you don't want to people to be influenced, by essentially propaganda, you can't be either.

[Tyler90AZ]

That doesn't make any sense.

When using deadly force, you are trained to shoot at the largest target: center mass.

Are we safe in assuming you have little or no familiarity with handling/shooting firearms and no tactical experience/training?

It really does sound like you have already determined in your mind that Zimmerman is guilty.

How do you figure I have made up my mind that he is guilty? Is it because I disagree with your interpretation of the evidence. A lot of the time when somebody disagrees with you on an issue, you will justify it some way. It is clear you have justified it with repeatedly of accusing me of having my mind made up that he is guilty. Take a minute, truly assess the incident and you will realize it isn't so simple as he didn't do anything wrong.

As far as handling firearms and tactical experience.... I have more then you could ever dream of, add to that explosives training.

The whole problem is that he used deadly force... Once the gun was pulled, I am sure the kid would have froze.

[pam]

It takes a smart mind to assess both sides and come to a conclusion.

Did you just call JD stupid?

[beefche]

It is clear you have justified it with repeatedly of accusing me of having my mind made up that he is guilty. Take a minute, truly assess the incident and you will realize it isn't so simple as he didn't do anything wrong.

Where has mirkwood accused you of such?

And do you mean to say that if we stop and THINK, then we will agree with you? So, those who disagree with you are not thinking individuals who can make a decision on their own?

[Tyler90AZ]

Did you just call JD stupid?

No, plenty of smart people don't do that. I am not calling anybody childish names...

[Tyler90AZ]

Where has mirkwood accused you of such?

And do you mean to say that if we stop and THINK, then we will agree with you? So, those who disagree with you are not thinking individuals who can make a decision on their own?

There are two sides:

Zimmerman acted in self defense

Zimmerman murdered Trayvon

To truly understand an issue, you should look at it from both sides. If you automatically dismiss one side, you are not giving the issue a true assessment. The problem is that we are both saying, essentially, that we dismissed the other side. In the end, were more then likely both wrong and have each assessed both sides.

[mirkwood]

It is clear you have justified it with repeatedly of accusing me of having my mind made up that he is guilty.

Point out where I did this.

As far as handling firearms and tactical experience.... I have more then you could ever dream of, add to that explosives training.

Then why would you make this ludicrous statement:

A person who was not the aggressor would not shoot in a lethal spot.

and follow it up by saying this is how a soldier would think. If you have the training you say, you would not make/believe such a statement...unless you have another agenda on the topic of self defense.

The whole problem is that he used deadly force... Once the gun was pulled, I am sure the kid would have froze.

Not necessarily. Plenty of criminals do not freeze because a gun has been drawn.

[beefche]

There are two sides:

Zimmerman acted in self defense

Zimmerman murdered Trayvon

To truly understand an issue, you should look at it from both sides. If you automatically dismiss one side, you are not giving the issue a true assessment. The problem is that we are both saying, essentially, that we dismissed the other side. In the end, were more then likely both wrong and have each assessed both sides.

But, you are saying to "stop and think" which essentially accuses him of not thinking about it.

And I don't think he is saying that Zimmerman didn't do anything wrong--there's no disputing he shot and killed Martin. Whether that is legally criminal or not is another matter.

[Tyler90AZ]

Point out where I did this.

Hey, sorry I get mixed up, read so many posts from people accusing me of that.

It really does sound like you have already determined in your mind that Zimmerman is guilty.

[Tyler90AZ]

But, you are saying to "stop and think" which essentially accuses him of not thinking about it.

And I don't think he is saying that Zimmerman didn't do anything wrong--there's no disputing he shot and killed Martin. Whether that is legally criminal or not is another matter.

A lot of times when I am in a passionate discussion about an issue. I will need to be told to stop and think, even know I am thinking. It means rethink what you think. Just a term I used...

The thing is when everybody around us sees something some way and our news network tells us the same thing. It is hard to have the courage to say, no that is wrong.

[beefche]

And that's why I don't really trust the media. They all like to spin things to their way of thinking and in this case (that we are aware of) even manipulate the "evidence" for their own agenda.

[Tyler90AZ]

And that's why I don't really trust the media. They all like to spin things to their way of thinking and in this case (that we are aware of) even manipulate the "evidence" for their own agenda.

No doubt about that...

[john doe]

You inhale what foxnews tells you, but look no where else.

Just because I don't tow the party line that MSNBC spews does not mean that I get my news from Fox News. Your assertion is baseless.

Sadly JohnDoe you are stuck in your sphere(seem to be) and won't look out.

What Sphere would that be? The one that allows for evidence to come out before rushing to judgement? The one that allows for the possibility that Zimmerman may or may not be guilty of a crime because we haven't yet seen all the evidence? http://www.lds.net/forums/current-events/45817-trayvon-martin-17.html#post666516

I have entertained both sides and changed my mind on a few things.

But you haven't yet changed your mind on the possibility that Zimmerman may have been completely justified in defending himself, have you? News Flash: Skittles and iced tea don't always add up to 'instant victim of violence'.

It takes a smart mind to assess both sides and come to a conclusion. If you don't want to people to be influenced, by essentially propaganda, you can't be either.

You mean by starting a thread claiming that the 911 call shows that Zimmerman is a racist?http://www.lds.net/forums/current-events/45817-trayvon-martin.html#post662167 Oh yeah, that was shot down pretty quickly, wasn't it? http://www.lds.net/forums/current-events/45817-trayvon-martin.html#post662171 And here we are 20 pages on, and you still will not accept the possibility that Martin might have initiated the escalation from 'neighborhood watch guy sees and follows unfamiliar guy at night in area where property crimes had recently occurred' to 'neighborhood watch guy shoots guy he claims attacked him and was beating his head into the sidewalk and has wounds seemingly consistent with that story'. You, sir, seem to be the one influenced by the propaganda spewed out by the media without questioning it. I love the way you try to claim that you alone are looking at all possibilities yet have already convicted Zimmerman in your own mind. http://www.lds.net/forums/current-events/45817-trayvon-martin-16.html#post666416

http://www.lds.net/forums/current-events/45817-trayvon-martin-17.html#post666503

http://www.lds.net/forums/current-events/45817-trayvon-martin-18.html#post666532

[Tyler90AZ]

Just because I don't tow the party line that MSNBC spews does not mean that I get my news from Fox News. Your assertion is baseless.

What Sphere would that be? The one that allows for evidence to come out before rushing to judgement? The one that allows for the possibility that Zimmerman may or may not be guilty of a crime because we haven't yet seen all the evidence? http://www.lds.net/forums/current-events/45817-trayvon-martin-17.html#post666516

But you haven't yet changed your mind on the possibility that Zimmerman may have been completely justified in defending himself, have you? News Flash: Skittles and iced tea don't always add up to 'instant victim of violence'.

You mean by starting a thread claiming that the 911 call shows that Zimmerman is a racist?http://www.lds.net/forums/current-events/45817-trayvon-martin.html#post662167 Oh yeah, that was shot down pretty quickly, wasn't it? http://www.lds.net/forums/current-events/45817-trayvon-martin.html#post662171 And here we are 20 pages on, and you still will not accept the possibility that Martin might have initiated the escalation from 'neighborhood watch guy sees and follows unfamiliar guy at night in area where property crimes had recently occurred' to 'neighborhood watch guy shoots guy he claims attacked him and was beating his head into the sidewalk and has wounds seemingly consistent with that story'. You, sir, seem to be the one influenced by the propaganda spewed out by the media without questioning it. I love the way you try to claim that you alone are looking at all possibilities yet have already convicted Zimmerman in your own mind. http://www.lds.net/forums/current-events/45817-trayvon-martin-16.html#post666416

http://www.lds.net/forums/current-events/45817-trayvon-martin-17.html#post666503

http://www.lds.net/forums/current-events/45817-trayvon-martin-18.html#post666532

Discussing this with you has been an exercise in futility. Somewhere during this conversation we have started misunderstanding each other. See you in another thread, adieu