Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mungwater

Georgie Zimmerman to sell weapon used in trayvon Martin shooting

Recommended Posts

 

Absolutely.

 

If he had a permit to carry that weapon then he was firmly within his right to carry it, regardless of his status as a member of community watch. That he was carrying a weapon does not equate to irresponsibility, whether he used the weapon might.

 

But in this case Martin decided to confront a person in the dark and enact his own personal responsibility, maybe if he had known that his victim had a weapon he would have thought twice about attacking, maybe.

 

I'm not arguing that Zimmerman had a legal right to carry a gun or even to follow Martin. I'm saying he acted with gross irresponsibility and that's the primary reason Martinis dead. In other words he may be legally in the clear mostly due to the lack of witnesses but he is morally responsible.

 

Again we have no idea what Martin did but you're assumption that he was the one who started physical conflict is all in your head and it doesn't take a psychologist to know what that's about. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We can only go from the available evidence, such as Dee Dee stating this, taken in context her testimony of her call with Trayon supports this and aligns with Zimmermans statements, making it reasonable that it likely did happen.

If you're talking about "Witness 8" or whatever they called her, she didn't say anything of the kind

 

ETA:

 

She said that Martin told her that a man was watching him from his vehicle while talking on the phone before the man started following Martin. Martin told his friend at one point that he had lost the man but the man suddenly appeared again.[134][135][138] The friend, originally known only as "Witness 8" (now known as Rachel Jeantel), said that she told Martin to run to the townhouse where he was staying with his father and his father's fiancée.[135] She then heard Martin say, "What are you following me for?" followed by a man's voice responding, "What are you doing around here?" She testified that she then heard what sounded like Martin's phone earpiece dropping into wet grass, and she heard the sound of Martin's voice saying "Get off! Get off!" The phone then went dead,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If some freak is following my kid and then confronts my kid they will be instructed to find whatever is handy and smash his fockin skull in. And then said freak can deal with me when I get a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm not arguing that Zimmerman had a legal right to carry a gun or even to follow Martin. I'm saying he acted with gross responsibility and that's the primary reason Martinis dead. In other words he may be legally in the clear mostly due to the lack of witnesses but he is morally responsible.

 

Again we have no idea what Martin did but you're assumption that he was the one who started physical conflict is all in your head and it doesn't take a psychologist to know what that's about. :thumbsup:

 

Got it.

 

I think his actions in terms of responsibility is likely something we have to agree to disagree on.

 

Base don the available evidence there is support that Martin initiated the verbal confrontation. We really cannot have that same level of confidence about who started the physical confrontation. However, based on the available information we can assert that Martin chose to not go home, to confront Zimmerman and then reasonably assert that he likely would have continued down that path to then also initiate that eventual physical confrontation. We have evidence in the form of injuries to suggest that he was likely getting the upper hand in the physical confrontation, leading to Zimm using the gun.

 

Good news/bad news.....we have a good example for our kids here on what not to do if you think you are being followed in the dark of night, unfortunately a kid lost his life to show us what you dont want to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're talking about "Witness 8" or whatever they called her, she didn't say anything of the kind

 

ETA:

 

 

 

 

7:15 – 7:16pm, DeeDee’s version of events: Trayvon tells DeeDee that he thinks he has lost the dude that was following him. DeeDee then hears voices, as if Trayvon and his pursuer have run into each other again. She says something like the following exchanged occurred between the two individuals:

  • Trayvon: “Why are you following me?”
  • Zimmerman: “What are you doing here?”

At that point, it sounds to DeeDee as if one party shoves the other. DeeDee thinks she hears Trayvon’s headset fall off, and the phone call cuts out at approximately 7:16pm, four minutes after it starts. It is my suspicion that the T-Mobile records are about 30 seconds slower than the time kept by the police dispatch’s clock– which would mean that the phone call started at 7:11:30, and ended at 7:15:30, a timeline that would mean that DeeDee’s description of events pretty much precisely matches up with the times as recorded by various 911 and police calls, down to the second. If her phone call with Trayvon instead ended at 7:16 on the police department’s clock, then the first 911 call from a neighbor came in 11 seconds or less after the fight initially started — that doesn’t seems plausible.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If some freak is following my kid and then confronts my kid they will be instructed to find whatever is handy and smash his fockin skull in. And then said freak can deal with me when I get a chance.

 

If you are suggesting that your kid do anything other than run for safety then you have missed the opportunity here and may possibly set your kid up for a similar outcome....learn from it, at least try to, is how i think we proceed from here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7:15 – 7:16pm, DeeDee’s version of events: Trayvon tells DeeDee that he thinks he has lost the dude that was following him. DeeDee then hears voices, as if Trayvon and his pursuer have run into each other again. She says something like the following exchanged occurred between the two individuals:

Trayvon: “Why are you following me?”

Zimmerman: “What are you doing here?”

At that point, it sounds to DeeDee as if one party shoves the other. DeeDee thinks she hears Trayvon’s headset fall off, and the phone call cuts out at approximately 7:16pm, four minutes after it starts. It is my suspicion that the T-Mobile records are about 30 seconds slower than the time kept by the police dispatch’s clock– which would mean that the phone call started at 7:11:30, and ended at 7:15:30, a timeline that would mean that DeeDee’s description of events pretty much precisely matches up with the times as recorded by various 911 and police calls, down to the second. If her phone call with Trayvon instead ended at 7:16 on the police department’s clock, then the first 911 call from a neighbor came in 11 seconds or less after the fight initially started — that doesn’t seems plausible.

 

this is the same thing I posted ... how does it suggest anything like what you were saying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Got it.

 

I think his actions in terms of responsibility is likely something we have to agree to disagree on.

 

Base don the available evidence there is support that Martin initiated the verbal confrontation. We really cannot have that same level of confidence about who started the physical confrontation. However, based on the available information we can assert that Martin chose to not go home, to confront Zimmerman and then reasonably assert that he likely would have continued down that path to then also initiate that eventual physical confrontation. We have evidence in the form of injuries to suggest that he was likely getting the upper hand in the physical confrontation, leading to Zimm using the gun.

 

Good news/bad news.....we have a good example for our kids here on what not to do if you think you are being followed in the dark of night, unfortunately a kid lost his life to show us what you dont want to do that.

What not to do? I disagree, as a gambler, I have calculated the chances of some freak following my kid being a pedophile are greater than it being the friendly neighborhood watch. Smash that fockers skull if he gets too close and run like hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you are suggesting that your kid do anything other than run for safety then you have missed the opportunity here and may possibly set your kid up for a similar outcome....learn from it, at least try to, is how i think we proceed from here.

Sometimes freaks are fast. Smash skull if he gets too close. Then run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is the same thing I posted ... how does it suggest anything like what you were saying?

 

It supports the notion that there is enough evidence to suggest that Martin was the individual who initiated contact, the verbal confrontation. Thats all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Got it.

 

I think his actions in terms of responsibility is likely something we have to agree to disagree on.

 

Base don the available evidence there is support that Martin initiated the verbal confrontation. We really cannot have that same level of confidence about who started the physical confrontation. However, based on the available information we can assert that Martin chose to not go home, to confront Zimmerman and then reasonably assert that he likely would have continued down that path to then also initiate that eventual physical confrontation. We have evidence in the form of injuries to suggest that he was likely getting the upper hand in the physical confrontation, leading to Zimm using the gun.

 

Good news/bad news.....we have a good example for our kids here on what not to do if you think you are being followed in the dark of night, unfortunately a kid lost his life to show us what you dont want to do that.

 

We cannot "reasonably assert" that Martin initiated physical confrontation. I think it's far more likely that GZ did because 1) he was pursuing Martin and 2) he's been accused of assault and had multiple run-ins with the law since.

 

What's interesting to me is your claim that Martin initiated conflict. You've stated this over and over as if it's fact when nobody knows what happened because Martin is dead. What's also interesting to me is that you keep asserting GZ's right to carry a weapon and follow Martin around, then suggest that Martin is responsible for getting himself shot because he turned around and confronted his stalker.

 

Basically nobody is surprised this is your position and we all know why, really. :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What not to do? I disagree, as a gambler, I have calculated the chances of some freak following my kid being a pedophile are greater than it being the friendly neighborhood watch. Smash that fockers skull if he gets too close and run like hel

 

No. If you are first inclined to allow your kid to walk out into the late night unaccompanied you need to let them know that if they sense danger, such as from being followed, they need to get to safety and call you...they have no way of knowing if that person is simply following them (as in this case) or if they are intent to do harm and have a weapon.

 

What is the point of pretending you are a badass if you end up dead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if TM had lived and he said he thought GZ was a pedophile how people might look at this. I mean, as long as we're playing the "I know what someone was thinking" game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No. If you are first inclined to allow your kid to walk out into the late night unaccompanied you need to let them know that if they sense danger, such as from being followed, they need to get to safety and call you...they have no way of knowing if that person is simply following them (as in this case) or if they are intent to do harm and have a weapon.

 

What is the point of pretending you are a badass if you end up dead?

 

 

Good luck dude. I gave up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No. If you are first inclined to allow your kid to walk out into the late night unaccompanied you need to let them know that if they sense danger, such as from being followed, they need to get to safety and call you...they have no way of knowing if that person is simply following them (as in this case) or if they are intent to do harm and have a weapon.

 

What is the point of pretending you are a badass if you end up dead?

Dismissed the "if he gets too close"'part? The first part is run. The second part is smash. Sometimes you don't run when you don't know WTF is going on. Which I'm thinking TM was going through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course if Martin ran the line would be that he was acting suspiciously because he ran.

 

You just can't win with people who desperately want to view a situation in a certain way. :doh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We cannot "reasonably assert" that Martin initiated physical confrontation. I think it's far more likely that GZ did because 1) he was pursuing Martin and 2) he's been accused of assault and had multiple run-ins with the law since.

 

What's interesting to me is your claim that Martin initiated conflict. You've stated this over and over as if it's fact when nobody knows what happened because Martin is dead. What's also interesting to me is that you keep asserting GZ's right to carry a weapon and follow Martin around, then suggest that Martin is responsible for getting himself shot because he turned around and confronted his stalker.

 

Basically nobody is surprised this is your position and we all know why, really. :cheers:

 

We actually can reasonably assert that he initiated the physical contact, based on his behavior to engage his victim instead of avoiding him. Based on the available information we can reasonably assert that by 1) calling the police to report the situation and then 2) only following the suspicious person Zimemrman was not hoping for contact or a physical interaction. Based on what we do know about Martin's actions, with what info we do have, we can suggest that of the two Martin was more than likely the aggressor in the scenario.

 

While it is true we can never know for certain, as with most cases like this we have to use what evidence exists to build a scenario and there is enough of that to suggest that Martin was the aggressor.

 

Both individuals had the right to walk around, and in fact both could have followed each other, no crime in that.....once Martin decided to confront Zimmerman he did change the dynamic and situation, but he has every right to speak to another person. The physical evidence suggests that he attacked Zimmerman, especially given that he (base don available evidence) sought him out to confront him.

 

Few cases such as this have concrete evidence and a "smoking gun", most are based on this kind of evidence and that is the reality, a reasonable person can look at the evidence and see that the right verdict was reached.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, if a uniformed police officer, or even a plain clothes one who id'd himself had approached TM, he might have a clue as to what was going on. I'm sure the police had stopped him before. Instead some freak in a van was following him. What was the kid supposed to think? And then some have the balls to blame him for defending himself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if TM had lived and he said he thought GZ was a pedophile how people might look at this. I mean, as long as we're playing the "I know what someone was thinking" game.

 

I wonder what indeed might have come about. I can say that locally we had an AA off duty cop shoot and kill some white yahoo on the side of the road, that one did not get much play, I wonder why. If we pretend that this was not a circus because the media and exploiters decided to make it so i think we are fooling ourselves. To pretend that this case exemplifies the problems in our society is distraction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, if a uniformed police officer, or even a plain clothes one who id'd himself had approached TM, he might have a clue as to what was going on. I'm sure the police had stopped him before. Instead some freak in a van was following him. What was the kid supposed to think?

 

He was supposed to think that there was possible danger, and he had a safe route to home, could have told his dad and called the police. He could have called the police immediately, like Zimmerman did, but appears to have taken another route. It was a stupid mistake that unfortunately cost him his life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

He was supposed to think that there was possible danger, and he had a safe route to home, could have told his dad and called the police. He could have called the police immediately, like Zimmerman did, but appears to have taken another route. It was a stupid mistake that unfortunately cost him his life.

Yeah, everyone is so lucid when they are a scared shitless. How about the that has zero authority to stop and question anyone doesn't put the kid in that situation to begin with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I wonder what indeed might have come about. I can say that locally we had an AA off duty cop shoot and kill some white yahoo on the side of the road, that one did not get much play, I wonder why. If we pretend that this was not a circus because the media and exploiters decided to make it so i think we are fooling ourselves. To pretend that this case exemplifies the problems in our society is distraction.

 

And right on cue Mr. Personal Responsibility brings race into it.

 

I'm stunned. :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, everyone is so lucid when they are a scared shitless. How about the ###### that has zero authority to stop and question anyone doesn't put the kid in that situation to begin with?

 

Given that dubarse #1 did not confront dumbarse #1, reasonable to assert using the aforementioned information, we would be better served being annoyed that Martin apparently did the confronting. Again, both had the right to be out there, both were ok to follow the other, Martin changed the situation by confronting, and one can then reasonably assert that the one confronting likely initiated contact with the other who had already called the police.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course if Martin ran the line would be that he was acting suspiciously because he ran.

 

You just can't win with people who desperately want to view a situation in a certain way. :doh:

 

No truer words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It supports the notion that there is enough evidence to suggest that Martin was the individual who initiated contact, the verbal confrontation. Thats all.

Oh please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And right on cue Mr. Personal Responsibility brings race into it.

 

I'm stunned. :mellow:

 

I was not the one who brought race in, you are thinking of CNN, the florida prosecutor, and so many other people, such as yourself, who continue to pretend it matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

He was supposed to think that there was possible danger, and he had a safe route to home, could have told his dad and called the police. He could have called the police immediately, like Zimmerman did, but appears to have taken another route. It was a stupid mistake that unfortunately cost him his life.

And oh yeah MR. Self defense instructor, how do you know TM didn't see GZ's holstered weapon or in his waistband? So some freak gets out of a van babbling some nonsense, moving towards you, and he has a gun? What's the scenario you teach for that? Run?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Given that dubarse #1 did not confront dumbarse #1, reasonable to assert using the aforementioned information, we would be better served being annoyed that Martin apparently did the confronting. Again, both had the right to be out there, both were ok to follow the other, Martin changed the situation by confronting, and one can then reasonably assert that the one confronting likely initiated contact with the other who had already called the police.

Zimms gets out of his truck to chase TM - and TM is the one who is guilty of confronting? :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh please :doh:

 

You can refute the evidence if you prefer, but it stands there ready to be understood when you let go of your bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And oh yeah MR. Self defense instructor, how do you know TM didn't see GZ's holstered weapon or in his waistband? So some freak gets out of a van babbling some nonsense, moving towards you, and he has a gun? What's the scenario you teach for that? Run?

 

Martin had every opportunity to get home and avoid contact, instead the evidence suggests he initiated it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zimms gets out of his truck to chase TM - and TM is the one who is guilty of confronting? :wacko:

 

To follow yes, as well he should have, based on the available evidence we can reasonably assert that it was Martin confronting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You can refute the evidence if you prefer, but it stands there ready to be understood when you let go of your bias.

You're an insufferable pedant, so intent on being right and seeing this one way. A "verbal confrontation" suggests he initiated contact? :doh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Given that dubarse #1 did not confront dumbarse #1, reasonable to assert using the aforementioned information, we would be better served being annoyed that Martin apparently did the confronting. Again, both had the right to be out there, both were ok to follow the other, Martin changed the situation by confronting, and one can then reasonably assert that the one confronting likely initiated contact with the other who had already called the police.

It all changes when one guy has a gun. The guy with the gun was coming at TM. I contend TM saw the gun. Should he wait until he pulls it out before defending himself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard to dispute when the other guy is dead

Impossible even. That is why the police had to do an incredibly thorough investigation. And they did a great job. The handed the DA an ironclad case for manslaughter and the DA went for murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, if a uniformed police officer, or even a plain clothes one who id'd himself had approached TM, he might have a clue as to what was going on. I'm sure the police had stopped him before. Instead some freak in a van was following him. What was the kid supposed to think? And then some have the balls to blame him for defending himself?

 

So you guys blame Zimmerman for being a 'wanna be' and suggesting he should have left the job for the police to deal with; yet you grant Trayvon the right to take the law into his own hands to by using force in a situation where normally you'd suggest that they leave it for the police to deal with.

 

Got it...so we're the hypocrites, but you're not.

 

Neither one of us has proof of who attacked who and began the physical confrontation.

And I have agreed to that time and time again. I even said that if ZimZam started the physical portion, that Trayvon was justified in using force to defend himself. But on the flip side, NONE of you will even consider that if the roles were actually reversed and ZimZam was attacked, HE had the right to defend himself.

 

Again...we're the hypocrites.

 

You can't make this sh1t up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And oh yeah MR. Self defense instructor, how do you know TM didn't see GZ's holstered weapon or in his waistband? So some freak gets out of a van babbling some nonsense, moving towards you, and he has a gun? What's the scenario you teach for that? Run?

 

Yes. Haul a$$ if possible. You certainly don't get into a fist fight with the guy. Are you retarded? Seriously. Did you get dropped on your head?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Martin had every opportunity to get home and avoid contact, instead the evidence suggests he initiated it.

The evidence is provided by the accused. The accused is a freak. I discount his version, and draw the conclusion that TM was approached by a man with a gun and defended himself, because he's not faster than a speeding bullet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all changes when one guy has a gun. The guy with the gun was coming at TM. I contend TM saw the gun. Should he wait until he pulls it out before defending himself?

 

Nevermind on the retarded question. You confirmed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To follow yes, as well he should have, based on the available evidence we can reasonably assert that it was Martin confronting.

What evidence would that be - being a black teenager, walking thru the neighborhood? Hum, I wasn't aware the Klan had risen again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes. Haul a$$ if possible. You certainly don't get into a fist fight with the guy. Are you retarded? Seriously. Did you get dropped on your head?

No time to run. Happened too quick. Bullets are fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×