If I was wandering thru a neighborhood that was recently burgled

[Little-Acorn]

The whole Zimmerman/Martin episode happened, because Zimmerman was suspicious of Trayvon and followed him, and Trayvon didn't like it, challenged Zimmerman, and later attacked him.

Zimmerman's neighborhood had been burgled several times in the recent past, Zimmerman obviously didn't like it (probably a lot of people didn't like it), and so Zimmerman went on Neighborhood Watch.

I'm a white guy. Suppose there was a neighborhood that had been burgled several times, and when the perps had been caught or seen, they had turned out to be white guys. A couple months later on a rainy night, I go strolling through the neighborhood, looking at the houses. I don't live there, I'm a stranger to most people there. And I notice a guy is watching me. And as I walk along, I notice he starts strolling along after me.

How would I feel? I don't like being followed, and I don't much like people staring at me as though they were suspicious I were up to no good. All I'm doing is walking along a public sidewalk. OTOH, all the guy behind me is doing, is walking along the same public sidewalk.

Bu do you know what? Even though I don't like it, maybe I would say, "Well, I know they've been robbed a few times, I guess I can't blame them for being suspicious of a stranger, like me." And I'd probably just complete my stroll, get to wherever I was going, and knock on the door and greet the people I was going to visit (or drive away or whatever the conclusion was).

Would I turn on the guy following me, and challenge him, telling him to get off my a**? Probably not. It's not my neighborhood, and maybe it is his. And would I later jump out, slug him, knock him down, and start beating him? Of course not. Even if I didn't like being eyed or followed, I'd likely say, "Well, I guess I understand why they're doing it, they've been robbed in the past, and maybe they're nervous. I can understand that."

And what if most of the neighbors there were black, and were eyeing me and one of them following me? Is there a chance some of them might automatically not like a guy like me who isn't black? Yes, could be. But they would still have a legitimate reason to be suspicious of me.

When Trayvon didn't like being eyed and followed, that was understandable. But so was Zimmerman's actions in eying and following him - that was completely understandable too, given that the neighborhood had been burgled recently, several times. Zimmerman, in fact, did nothing wrong.

IT WAS TRAYVON WHO WAS WRONG, when Trayvon slugged Zimmerman, knocked him down, and started beating on him.

People keep saying that Zimmerman should have stayed home that night, or should have stayed in his car after calling the police.

But Zimmerman did nothing wrong. Trayvon was the one who did wrong. Then it went downhill from there.

And when Zimmerman was on his back with Trayvon on top of him raining blows down on him and saying, "You're going to die tonight, motherfucker", Zimmerman exercised justifiable self-defense in pulling his gun and firing.

Sorry guys. It was a tragic incident, and sure, it would have been better if both sides had exercised a little more restraint.

But Trayvon was the one who did wrong. Not Zimmerman.

And it was because of Trayvon's huge over-reaction, that everything went to hell. Not anything that Zimmerman did - Zimmerman's acts were not extreme, until after he was on his back and getting beaten repeatedly.

[revelarts]

When the cops told Zimmerman NOT to follow. it should have ended right there.

it's a tragic cases of 2 people making a series of bad assumptions and really bad decisions and 1 died.
that should be the end of it but it's become another flimsy excuse to fan the flames of racial animosities.
race baiters from all sides are piling on and the media keeps throwing chum in the water.

[Little-Acorn]

When the cops told Zimmerman NOT to follow. it should have ended right there.


But when Zimmerman got out of the car and followed Trayvon again, he was NOT grossly over-reacting.

When Travon slugged Zimmerman, knocked him down, and started beating on him, Trayvon WAS grossly over-reacting... and that's what sent everything off the rails.

The fight (and the resulting shooting) was much more Trayvon's fault than Zimmerman's.

[revelarts]

But when Zimmerman got out of the car and followed Trayvon again, he was NOT grossly over-reacting.

When Travon slugged Zimmerman, knocked him down, and started beating on him, Trayvon WAS grossly over-reacting... and that's what sent everything off the rails.

The fight (and the resulting shooting) was much more Trayvon's fault than Zimmerman's.

can we start the issue where we like i guess.
if Zimmerman had not gotten out of the Car there would be no story.

People die in bar fights. A man spills a drink on another guy. if a cop puts a hand on a shoulder and says "walk away, let it go" then leaves.
But the guy doesn't let it go and follows the guy around the bar all night. Then either of the 2 parties dies behind a subsequent fight.
OK fine, You can talk all you want about who threw the 1st punch Acorn. It never should have happened.

[Jeff]

When the cops told Zimmerman NOT to follow. it should have ended right there.

it's a tragic cases of 2 people making a series of bad assumptions and really bad decisions and 1 died.
that should be the end of it but it's become another flimsy excuse to fan the flames of racial animosities.
race baiters from all sides are piling on and the media keeps throwing chum in the water.

The cops didnt tell him a 911 dispatcher did that is a police officer about as much as I rev

[aboutime]

rev. To you, and every other Trevon fan.

The case is over. The Jury gave it's verdict.

The Law is the Law.

[Marcus Aurelius]

When the cops told Zimmerman NOT to follow. it should have ended right there.

it's a tragic cases of 2 people making a series of bad assumptions and really bad decisions and 1 died.
that should be the end of it but it's become another flimsy excuse to fan the flames of racial animosities.
race baiters from all sides are piling on and the media keeps throwing chum in the water.

Technically, the 911 dispatcher was not a police officer in this case. However, I agree that when the dispatcher said 'we don't need you to do that', it should have ended right there.

[aboutime]

Technically, the 911 dispatcher was not a police officer in this case. However, I agree that when the dispatcher said 'we don't need you to do that', it should have ended right there.


Agree Marcus, and rev. But...Would'a, Should'a, and Could'a didn't take place.

This entire case has become....it seems to me. The very same thing Obama was reminded about by Rahm Emanuel about Not letting a good crisis go to waste.
And, we can all see where it is going. Being STEERED by Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Obama, and the NAACP demanding Holder create his own versions of LAW.

Sad reality in this time in our History. Those who are the MOB, demanding MOB RULE...or ELSE!

[Trigg]

When the cops told Zimmerman NOT to follow. it should have ended right there.

it's a tragic cases of 2 people making a series of bad assumptions and really bad decisions and 1 died.
that should be the end of it but it's become another flimsy excuse to fan the flames of racial animosities.
race baiters from all sides are piling on and the media keeps throwing chum in the water.


How do you know he didn't stop???

I read through the 911 tapes released. When they told him he didn't need to follow Martin, he said ok. What happened next is anyone guess. If you believe Martin's girlfriend Zim confronted him. If you believe Zimm, Martin jumped him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNCvr9V2pig

[jimnyc]

When the cops told Zimmerman NOT to follow. it should have ended right there.

The cops never spoke to Zimmerman prior to the incident, it was no more than a regular citizen manning the 911 station. There was NO duty at all to listen to that person and he was 100000% within his rights to follow until the police arrived to figure out the situation. Not a single illegal thing transpired until Trayvon attacked and got on top of Zimmerman.

[jimnyc]

can we start the issue where we like i guess.
if Zimmerman had not gotten out of the Car there would be no story.

People die in bar fights. A man spills a drink on another guy. if a cop puts a hand on a shoulder and says "walk away, let it go" then leaves.
But the guy doesn't let it go and follows the guy around the bar all night. Then either of the 2 parties dies behind a subsequent fight.
OK fine, You can talk all you want about who threw the 1st punch Acorn. It never should have happened.

Again, ALL that matters is the law, and Zimmerman broke no law at all. The first law being broke was Trayvon assaulting him, and the forensics back this up. Likely all that would have happened in this instance is that the police would have showed up and checked out Trayvon and listened to what Zimmerman witnessed. At least that was until Trayvon fractured his nose. All the what ifs make no difference at all to the law, and this is exactly why he was found not guilty.

[jimnyc]

Technically, the 911 dispatcher was not a police officer in this case. However, I agree that when the dispatcher said 'we don't need you to do that', it should have ended right there.

I disagree, they have no authority. If people are robbing homes in the area, I sure as hell would want to make sure a suspicious person doesn't get away either. People shouldn't have to walk away from thugs and suspicious people. The overwhelming majority of murderers, burglars and other criminals get away with crimes, so it makes perfect sense for a neighborhood watch person to follow a suspicious person and ensure they don't commit a crime, and that they can be located when police arrived.

[revelarts]

Again, ALL that matters is the law, ...

Acorn began the thread not really talking about the law, but right or wrong, and my comments are not about the LAW.

It's about what was done wrong. And BTW 911 dispatchers may not be the police but they are agents working for the city gov't.
They are not just a grandma on a porch with a cell phone. When Z got that bit of advise he should have taken it. Martin had committed no crimes at that point either. No one had done anything wrong.
No one had.
I haven't talked about the law once. I'm talking about common sense and taking good advise from the group he called for help, and not escalating a NON-situation.

I've stayed out of the crap throwing on this issue pretty much.
The case and comments/commentary around it are distressing and a huge distraction from real issues.
I'm done here
carry on.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=652564#post652564)
Technically, the 911 dispatcher was not a police officer in this case. However, I agree that when the dispatcher said 'we don't need you to do that', it should have ended right there.


I disagree, they have no authority. If people are robbing homes in the area, I sure as hell would want to make sure a suspicious person doesn't get away either. People shouldn't have to walk away from thugs and suspicious people. The overwhelming majority of murderers, burglars and other criminals get away with crimes, so it makes perfect sense for a neighborhood watch person to follow a suspicious person and ensure they don't commit a crime, and that they can be located when police arrived.

I'm not saying Zimmerman had no right to follow from a safe distance, or should not have. I'm saying he should have maintained a safe distance.

The 911 dispatcher knew it was safer for him to not get too close, thus their 'we don't need you to do that' comment. It simply would have been safer for everyone, had he maintained distance. He could have ensured his own safety, and the safety of the people and property in the area, even at a distance.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Technically, the 911 dispatcher was not a police officer in this case. However, I agree that when the dispatcher said 'we don't need you to do that', it should have ended right there. Sorry, have to disagree with that. A 9/11 dispatcher has no authority over me and following and watching the guy is no crime. F-the dispatcher he/she is not a member of my neighborhood! It was advice not a command and even had to dispatcher tried to make it a command I'd told him to kiss my ass. I have every right to walk anywhere on a public street I want as long as Im not breaking any laws and Z-man was not breaking any law. The dead punk broke the law when he attacked Z-man just that simple. Could of, would of and should of are irrelevant. A man was viciously attacked and ended up saving his life in self defense by shooting his attacker --ALL PERFECTLY LEGAL, AS SELF DEFENSE IS A LEGAL ACTION. latest IS THAT TRAYVON MAY HAVE ATTACKED Z-MAN BECAUSE HE THOUGHT Z-MAN WAS A GAY RAPIST STALKER. TRAYVON'S GIRLFRIEND SPEAKS ABOUT THAT ETC. So it appears Z-man was profiled to be gay and bashed for that reason. WHAT A TWIST, EH?-Tyr

[jimnyc]

I'm not saying Zimmerman had no right to follow from a safe distance, or should not have. I'm saying he should have maintained a safe distance.

The 911 dispatcher knew it was safer for him to not get too close, thus their 'we don't need you to do that' comment. It simply would have been safer for everyone, had he maintained distance. He could have ensured his own safety, and the safety of the people and property in the area, even at a distance.

Do we have anything at all to show that he wasn't at a safe distance, and that Trayvon didn't backtrack as Zimmerman stated?

[jimnyc]

As far as 911 is concerned, agents of the city or not, they don't have the authority to tell someone they cannot follow a suspicious person. Their words come out to no more than a suggestion and Zimmerman did absolutely nothing wrong by ignoring the suggestion.

[jimnyc]

I'm done here
carry on.

Nobody forced you to post to begin with and my reply to you about the law was hardly flaming or personal. If you can't handle it, then don't post on the subject next time. :dunno:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Acorn began the thread not really talking about the law, but right or wrong, and my comments are not about the LAW.

It's about what was done wrong. And BTW 911 dispatchers may not be the police but they are agents working for the city gov't.
They are not just a grandma on a porch with a cell phone. When Z got that bit of advise he should have taken it. Martin had committed no crimes at that point either. No one had done anything wrong.
No one had.
I haven't talked about the law once. I'm talking about common sense and taking good advise from the group he called for help, and not escalating a NON-situation.

I've stayed out of the crap throwing on this issue pretty much.
The case and comments/commentary around it are distressing and a huge distraction from real issues.
I'm done here
carry on.
Rev not taking unsolicited advice isn't a crime and often is even the correct thing to do. If Z-man's story is true his being attacked while on the way back to his car clearly points to the real culprit and crime being all on the dead punk wannabe gangbanger.. Self defense must always exist or else we are not a free people. Anytime a man is forbidden to defend his own life he is not free and thus has no real rights. -Tyr

[aboutime]

What many, if not all of the people complaining about the Florida 'Stand Your Ground' law, combined with the Martin case is.

If they manage to get what they want from Holder, and Obama, using the DOJ to overrule State laws.

No American will be safe at all. Using the expression 'SELF DEFENSE' will become as useless as an Uneducated young woman telling America the difference between CRACKER and CRACKA.

[red state]

I don't know if it is a liberal "tickle" or some simply can't reason properly. Perhaps some simply can't read or use common sense in piecing this together but after reading much and listening to the trial....I can almost see what happened and for the life of me, I can't understand why folks have feelings (AT ALL) for this little punk. I would (if I could or was forced) do the same exact thing that the LEGAL BLACK/WHITE/HISPANIC did....except I probably would have shot again for good measure. You never know when/if some of these punks are on some sort of PCP or will come for revenge after they've recouped from the gunshot that didn't do the job.

Look, I'm tired of hearing "What" if but (IF) we are going to play that game, I HIGHLY suspect that the young punk would have thrown a brick through the window or hopped in and dragged the LEGAL BLK/WHT/HISPANIC out of the vehicle anyway.

Bottom line is that Z was legal and was taking the dispatcher's advice. He could have drawn his gun in advance but, as a B.O. supporter/voter, he seemed to prefer the diplomatic "let's talk" route. The young punk wasn't interested in "TALK"....he was a bad @$$ who thought he had found a weaker, older fat guy (creepy @$$ cracka) so he attacked.

[revelarts]

Nobody forced you to post to begin with and my reply to you about the law was hardly flaming or personal. If you can't handle it, then don't post on the subject next time. :dunno:

just to be clear.
Jim you didn't say anything wrong. i wasn't put off by your comments AT ALL.
I just wanted to get out of the thread. I have not been a part of any of these multiple ZvsM threads. ALL of the threads are ".. distressing and a huge distraction from real issues..." IMO.
your post just happened to be the last 1 wanted i replied too. nothing about it was a problem at all.
As i said in my last comment
"Acorn began the thread not really talking about the law, but right or wrong..."
i wanted to make a very brief comment on THAT and I did.
now i'm done on this over wrought ISSUE, not your comment.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=652564#post652564)
Technically, the 911 dispatcher was not a police officer in this case. However, I agree that when the dispatcher said 'we don't need you to do that', it should have ended right there.



Sorry, have to disagree with that. A 9/11 dispatcher has no authority over me and following and watching the guy is no crime. F-the dispatcher he/she is not a member of my neighborhood! It was advice not a command and even had to dispatcher tried to make it a command I'd told him to kiss my ass. I have every right to walk anywhere on a public street I want as long as Im not breaking any laws and Z-man was not breaking any law. The dead punk broke the law when he attacked Z-man just that simple. Could of, would of and should of are irrelevant. A man was viciously attacked and ended up saving his life in self defense by shooting his attacker --ALL PERFECTLY LEGAL, AS SELF DEFENSE IS A LEGAL ACTION. latest IS THAT TRAYVON MAY HAVE ATTACKED Z-MAN BECAUSE HE THOUGHT Z-MAN WAS A GAY RAPIST STALKER. TRAYVON'S GIRLFRIEND SPEAKS ABOUT THAT ETC. So it appears Z-man was profiled to be gay and bashed for that reason. WHAT A TWIST, EH?-Tyr

Not sure what you're disagreeing with. I didn't claim she did have any authority. In fact, not being a police office, she has zero authority over Zimmerman, you, me, the lamp post, etc.

However, as I stated previously, when she said 'we don't need you to do that', common sense should have told Zimmerman that he should have taken the 911 dispatchers advice, and that would have likely been the end of it. He should have exercised caution and not gotten too close. If that had been the end of it, he would not likely have gone though all this, and there would be one less dead person.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=652591#post652591)

I'm not saying Zimmerman had no right to follow from a safe distance, or should not have. I'm saying he should have maintained a safe distance.

The 911 dispatcher knew it was safer for him to not get too close, thus their 'we don't need you to do that' comment. It simply would have been safer for everyone, had he maintained distance. He could have ensured his own safety, and the safety of the people and property in the area, even at a distance.


Do we have anything at all to show that he wasn't at a safe distance, and that Trayvon didn't backtrack as Zimmerman stated?
we really don't have anything that says what a safe distance is, actually. 10 feet, 10 yards, 1/2 a mile? Who knows? My only point is that while I personally would want to safeguard my community as much as Zimmerman obviously wanted to safeguard his, my primary goal would be to safeguard my life. Always err on the side of caution.

[PaddyMcDougall]

can we start the issue where we like i guess.
if Zimmerman had not gotten out of the Car there would be no story.

People die in bar fights. A man spills a drink on another guy. if a cop puts a hand on a shoulder and says "walk away, let it go" then leaves.
But the guy doesn't let it go and follows the guy around the bar all night. Then either of the 2 parties dies behind a subsequent fight.
OK fine, You can talk all you want about who threw the 1st punch Acorn. It never should have happened.

And if Zimmerman hadn't been carrying a gun (which was against Neighborhood Watch policy) he wouldn't have been able to kill Martin.

There might still have been some kind of fistfight (if Z was brave enough to get close without a gun) but most likely no one would have died.

Z bears a lot of responsibility for M's death, regardless of whether he is legally liable.

[Marcus Aurelius]

And if Zimmerman hadn't been carrying a gun (which was against Neighborhood Watch policy) he wouldn't have been able to kill Martin.

There might still have been some kind of fistfight (if Z was brave enough to get close without a gun) but most likely no one would have died.

Z bears a lot of responsibility for M's death, regardless of whether he is legally liable.

I wasn't aware Neighborhood Watch policy trumped the 2nd amendment.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Not sure what you're disagreeing with. I didn't claim she did have any authority. In fact, not being a police office, she has zero authority over Zimmerman, you, me, the lamp post, etc.

However, as I stated previously, when she said 'we don't need you to do that', common sense should have told Zimmerman that he should have taken the 911 dispatchers advice, and that would have likely been the end of it. He should have exercised caution and not gotten too close. If that had been the end of it, he would not likely have gone though all this, and there would be one less dead person. Ok got ya now. I previously misunderstood your reply. Sure ,he should have been more cautious and he should have been far more vigilant too. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, I'm sure you agree with me on that too. Yet he had no way of knowing the punk would circle back to attack him. Bad thing all the way around. Two lives destroyed and gave the race baiting , lying ass hats an excuse to flame up their supporters and further divide the nation . AND THATS PROMOTED BY OBAMA AND CREW FOR POLITICAL GAIN. You can bet in the coming months some more white devils will be attacked and killed as revenge for a dumbass black punk trying to beat up a "white Hispanic>" and getting his ass blasted as it should have been. -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

And if Zimmerman hadn't been carrying a gun (which was against Neighborhood Watch policy) he wouldn't have been able to kill Martin.

There might still have been some kind of fistfight (if Z was brave enough to get close without a gun) but most likely no one would have died.

Z bears a lot of responsibility for M's death, regardless of whether he is legally liable. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Total Dumbass..... :bsflag:--Tyr

[PaddyMcDougall]

I wasn't aware Neighborhood Watch policy trumped the 2nd amendment.


Last I heard, no one forced Zimmerman to join up with the Neighborhood Watch. I assume he knew the policy when he signed up.

My company doesn't allow guns on its premises. I knew that when I took the job.

So this has nothing to do with the second amendment. Z joined an organization and, while working for it, broke its policies.

And you all are defending him?

He made some big mistakes.

[aboutime]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Total Dumbass..... :bsflag:--Tyr



Tyr. Here we go again. Another Sock Puppet just pops up. No introduction, no nothin'. Just pretending this member has been around
for ages. And, somebody actually is foolish enough to believe. NOBODY NOTICED?

More than BS. But smells like....http://icansayit.com/images/socks.jpg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Last I heard, no one forced Zimmerman to join up with the Neighborhood Watch. I assume he knew the policy when he signed up.

My company doesn't allow guns on its premises. I knew that when I took the job.

So this has nothing to do with the second amendment. Z joined an organization and, while working for it, broke its policies.

And you all are defending him?

He made some big mistakes. NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT PART OF THIS STATEMENT YOU FAIL TO UNDERSTAND.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=652621#post652621) I wasn't aware Neighborhood Watch policy trumped the 2nd amendment.


I am sure however that its always better to be judged in a court of law than to be carried by six and planted deep six. One at least has a chance if judged however if dead all options are gone. I wouldn't call Z-man having a gun a mistake since it saved his life. Not sure what brainwave you operate on but most people understand and embrace the thing called survival. Z-man's biggest mistake was in not being tough enough to do the task he assigned himself. And that is not criminal....-Tyr

[PaddyMcDougall]

Tyr. Here we go again. Another Sock Puppet just pops up. No introduction, no nothin'. Just pretending this member has been around
for ages. And, somebody actually is foolish enough to believe. NOBODY NOTICED?

More than BS. But smells like....

You all are pretty funny. Don't you want new members on the board? that's cool, man. Chill out.

If you all don't think Z should take personal responsibility for his actions, that's your deal.

Me, I think he shouldn't have been carrying a gun and he shouldn't have stepped out of his truck.

But hey - if being new is suspicious, maybe I know where Z got his paranoia from...

'nuff said.

ps - of course you noticed I was new. Why would I pretend otherwise? That's why "junior member" is under my name. Duh. I assumed you all could read.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr. Here we go again. Another Sock Puppet just pops up. No introduction, no nothin'. Just pretending this member has been around
for ages. And, somebody actually is foolish enough to believe. NOBODY NOTICED?

More than BS. But smells like....http://icansayit.com/images/socks.jpg Doesn't matter to me who this character is. The bullshit reply given deserved to be called what it is as the steam was still pouring off of it after it was posted.:laugh:

[PaddyMcDougall]

Doesn't matter to me who this character is. The bullshit reply given deserved to be called what it is as the steam was still pouring off of it after it was posted.

My guess is you are intimately familiar with shit.... do you shovel it daily in your job?

ok, this thread has been too much fun, really. you all just keep jerking each other off, ok? I'll go find a more productive thread.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You all are pretty funny. Don't you want new members on the board? that's cool, man. Chill out.

If you all don't think Z should take personal responsibility for his actions, that's your deal.

Me, I think he shouldn't have been carrying a gun and he shouldn't have stepped out of his truck.

But hey - if being new is suspicious, maybe I know where Z got his paranoia from...

'nuff said.

ps - of course you noticed I was new. Why would I pretend otherwise? That's why "junior member" is under my name. Duh. I assumed you all could read. Just now saw this reply by you. Welcome to DP. Now why do you think he would have been better off unarmed and very likely a murder victim? Is it because you prefer the black punk to have lived because "they" deserve every damn break that mankind could ever devise?--Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

My guess is you are intimately familiar with shit.... do you shovel it daily in your job?

ok, this thread has been too much fun, really. you all just keep jerking each other off, ok? I'll go find a more productive thread.
Shoveling shit would be a damn sight better than eating it, right? I ask because I assume by your reply that you are intimately familiar with the eating part. Sho' is fun alright.. Don't try to piss down my back and tell me its raining ,Hoss. I've crapped out bigger turds than you on a drunken weekend back in my glory days.-;) -Tyr And why the excuse to run (feel the need to not answer hard questions on your lame ass comments)? Want to run off just do so. Nobody trying to capture you.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=652621#post652621)
I wasn't aware Neighborhood Watch policy trumped the 2nd amendment.


Last I heard, no one forced Zimmerman to join up with the Neighborhood Watch. I assume he knew the policy when he signed up. last I heard, Neighborhood Watch did not OWN the neighborhood. Therefore, they don't get to tell me who can and cannot have a gun in the neighborhood.

My company doesn't allow guns on its premises. I knew that when I took the job. Your company owns the property, and can have that kind of policy. You're comparing apples and kiwis.

So this has nothing to do with the second amendment. Z joined an organization and, while working for it, broke its policies.It has everythign to do with the 2nd.

And you all are defending him? Yeah, every single poster on this board is defending him. Don't generalize, you'll last longer here.

He made some big mistakes. I agree. He should not, IMHO, have gotten out of his car. He did, and here we are. Different strokes for different folks.
My comments in RED above.

[Marcus Aurelius]

My guess is you are intimately familiar with shit.... do you shovel it daily in your job?

ok, this thread has been too much fun, really. you all just keep jerking each other off, ok? I'll go find a more productive thread.

If this is going to be the attitude you use in each thread... good luck.

[red state]

Tyr, I don't know if this guy ate or eats $#!T or not but he's certainly full of 'it' and spews it with an overwhelming amount of lucidity (as far as liberals go). I'd hope he found something other than another thread to 'occupy'. We have enough stupidity with the liberals that are already here and have plenty of folks to engage with intellectually or disagree with civilly without any of that sort adding an aggressive and outstanding amount of ignorance to the debate. We could direct him to those who would be delighted to have him....we are not delighted at all and with his passing, the intelligence level will once again climb.

Welcome to "DEBATE" policy. Now....Bye...

PS: Could it be that someone has gone to a library or the neighbor's computer...Hhhhmmmmmmmm.....I wonder. HA!!!

[red state]

Marcus, I thought you were in the cage. Welcome back! Now be nice....HA!!!!

[Robert A Whit]

The whole Zimmerman/Martin episode happened, because Zimmerman was suspicious of Trayvon and followed him, and Trayvon didn't like it, challenged Zimmerman, and later attacked him.

Zimmerman's neighborhood had been burgled several times in the recent past, Zimmerman obviously didn't like it (probably a lot of people didn't like it), and so Zimmerman went on Neighborhood Watch.

I'm a white guy. Suppose there was a neighborhood that had been burgled several times, and when the perps had been caught or seen, they had turned out to be white guys. A couple months later on a rainy night, I go strolling through the neighborhood, looking at the houses. I don't live there, I'm a stranger to most people there. And I notice a guy is watching me. And as I walk along, I notice he starts strolling along after me.

How would I feel? I don't like being followed, and I don't much like people staring at me as though they were suspicious I were up to no good. All I'm doing is walking along a public sidewalk. OTOH, all the guy behind me is doing, is walking along the same public sidewalk.

Bu do you know what? Even though I don't like it, maybe I would say, "Well, I know they've been robbed a few times, I guess I can't blame them for being suspicious of a stranger, like me." And I'd probably just complete my stroll, get to wherever I was going, and knock on the door and greet the people I was going to visit (or drive away or whatever the conclusion was).

Would I turn on the guy following me, and challenge him, telling him to get off my a**? Probably not. It's not my neighborhood, and maybe it is his. And would I later jump out, slug him, knock him down, and start beating him? Of course not. Even if I didn't like being eyed or followed, I'd likely say, "Well, I guess I understand why they're doing it, they've been robbed in the past, and maybe they're nervous. I can understand that."

And what if most of the neighbors there were black, and were eyeing me and one of them following me? Is there a chance some of them might automatically not like a guy like me who isn't black? Yes, could be. But they would still have a legitimate reason to be suspicious of me.

When Trayvon didn't like being eyed and followed, that was understandable. But so was Zimmerman's actions in eying and following him - that was completely understandable too, given that the neighborhood had been burgled recently, several times. Zimmerman, in fact, did nothing wrong.

IT WAS TRAYVON WHO WAS WRONG, when Trayvon slugged Zimmerman, knocked him down, and started beating on him.

People keep saying that Zimmerman should have stayed home that night, or should have stayed in his car after calling the police.

But Zimmerman did nothing wrong. Trayvon was the one who did wrong. Then it went downhill from there.

And when Zimmerman was on his back with Trayvon on top of him raining blows down on him and saying, "You're going to die tonight, motherfucker", Zimmerman exercised justifiable self-defense in pulling his gun and firing.

Sorry guys. It was a tragic incident, and sure, it would have been better if both sides had exercised a little more restraint.

But Trayvon was the one who did wrong. Not Zimmerman.

And it was because of Trayvon's huge over-reaction, that everything went to hell. Not anything that Zimmerman did - Zimmerman's acts were not extreme, until after he was on his back and getting beaten repeatedly.

Would Trayvon be alive today had he not beat up Zimmerman?

Definitely he would. Case closed. The attacker got shot.

Per Florida law. And George was supposed to do what he was doing.

I believe Trayvon did not live with his parents. Not sure if that is true.

I plan to check that out.

[Robert A Whit]

can we start the issue where we like i guess.
if Zimmerman had not gotten out of the Car there would be no story.

People die in bar fights. A man spills a drink on another guy. if a cop puts a hand on a shoulder and says "walk away, let it go" then leaves.
But the guy doesn't let it go and follows the guy around the bar all night. Then either of the 2 parties dies behind a subsequent fight.
OK fine, You can talk all you want about who threw the 1st punch Acorn. It never should have happened.

Had a cop followed Trayvon and got jumped by Trayvon who was 6 feet tall, Zimmerman a short guy, and shot Trayvon, I bet you would not say what you say. Zimmerman was within his job duties as a watch to keep an eye on strangers.
acorn spoke well of the crime in the area and that is also very much a key.

God help all of us when we lose the right to self defense.

[Voted4Reagan]

Last I heard, no one forced Zimmerman to join up with the Neighborhood Watch. I assume he knew the policy when he signed up.

My company doesn't allow guns on its premises. I knew that when I took the job.

So this has nothing to do with the second amendment. Z joined an organization and, while working for it, broke its policies.

And you all are defending him?

He made some big mistakes.

Had Trayvon Martin not attacked the man carrying the gun.... none of this would have happened.

[jimnyc]

Last I heard, no one forced Zimmerman to join up with the Neighborhood Watch. I assume he knew the policy when he signed up.

My company doesn't allow guns on its premises. I knew that when I took the job.

So this has nothing to do with the second amendment. Z joined an organization and, while working for it, broke its policies.

And you all are defending him?

He made some big mistakes.

Whether you feel he made mistakes or went against some sort of policy, it doesn't matter, he did what was within his RIGHTS which trump all of that and broke ZERO laws. Sure, the watch is free to "fire" him if they choose to, but this isn't about employment or what we feel we may have done differently. We can Monday morning QB from now til eternity, and when that time comes, we'll still realize that HE broke NO law and was 100% within his rights. And you're damn right I defend him and his right to watch a suspicious person, and then defend himself when that suspicious person fractures his nose and slams his head against the pavement. Considering the outcome, I'd say Trayvon made MUCH bigger mistakes, specifically backtracking and assaulting a man with a gun. I guess he won't repeat that mistake.

[jimnyc]

Me, I think he shouldn't have been carrying a gun and he shouldn't have stepped out of his truck.

And you are certainly entitled to that opinion, but again, he had the RIGHT to do either if he chose to, and he did. The ONLY law broken that evening is when Trayvon attacked and assaulted him. If Trayvon never went out that night, none of this happens. If Trayvon doesn't profile him as a "creepy ass cracka", none of this happens. If Trayvon doesn't backtrack, none of this happens. If Trayvon doesn't fracture his nose, none of this happens. If Trayvon doesn't slam his head against the pavement, none of this happens.

At worst, they BOTH might have made decisions that others consider unwise. But the deal breaker is ASSAULT and placing someone in a position to believe they were in danger of grievous bodily harm. And guess what? That was Trayvon placing Zimmerman in that position, and Trayvon paid with his life. Tough shit on the little thug wannabe.

[Gaffer]

Zimmerman was not on watch duty that night. He was running errands, and that was why he was carrying his weapon. Being a responsible citizen as well as a member of the neighborhood watch he always kept a look out for unusual people or behavior, even when not on duty. It's a little thing called integrity, which his liberal detractors have no comprehension of.

[red state]

Boy, when that guy above does speak out, it is ANYTHING but "GABB". Great posts to both Jim and Gaffer but we could mention FACT all year long and not persuade the ignorant, intellectually limited liberals/dimocrats on bit towards a leaning to TRUTH, LOGIC and COMMON sense.

Gaffer, you need to write more...I appreciate the thanks that you provide to others but we'd MUCH rather thank you for such excellent posts (regardless of how short and sweet you keep limit them).

Jim....you talk too much so you could simply thank folks more often instead of try and steal the show all the time with your superior intellect and reasoning processes. HA! Just kidding....I've enjoyed your posts extremely BUT you were dead wrong on the house to house thing in Boston.

This is STILL the best forum site out their and I'd like to personally thank Jim for providing it for us....I just saw a thread that was going very well and was very civil YET the liberal losers/dimocrats who run that site closed the thread (without warning and after the losers got the last word). They know only one thing and that is to silence their opposition and they'll do it by any means necessary. I've even seen bans for simply using the word "dimocrat" while THEY use "Repuke-acans" all the time.

After the latest comments by many of those on the left, I have concluded that they are mentally disturbed.....why else would one welcome MORE white kids being murdered so that "whitey" will know what the Negroid race feels. There boycotting FL and not seeing Z's actions as self preservation is EXTREME insanity!!! They are anti-American and the racists who feed the fires of HATE and violence. So, according to actual reporters of the lame stream media, Z is a "TACO EATING" murderer and the pilots of that tragic SF plane wreck had "funny Chinese sounding" names. They are despicable!!! THEY avoid (even run from the light like a bunch of roaches) and I'm sick of hearing about SKITTLES....why won't/don't they report the traces of drugs in one of the young punk's "candy bag" at school along with stolen merchandise?!!! Why didn't they report the wide-spread use of SKITTLES with drugs and Robutussin as the "in crowd" drug to many thugs?!!! Answer: the same reason they continue to display the photo of a sweet looking little kid to this day. Those on Kool-aid or SKITTLES will never know the truth and we should avoid arguing with idiots.

THEY are (ARE) our enemy because they would literally have your children and mine KILLED out of "fairness and equality". They'd offer their necks to the muSLUMs while aggressively attacking Christianity. THEY support the chaos in Libya, Egypt and Syria while turning their backs on TRUE revolt of those in IRAN (who could have helped alleviate the treat that Iran poses to us all).

Gaffer, the image below is for you....ENJOY! You've earned the GAFF AWARD for the day. Your posts are spot on and are the spearhead that the fishy libs/dims fear.

http://www.floundergigging.com/images/Articles/040302-ArticleGaff.jpg

[red state]

Gaff...if I've never thanked you for you "time in hell" while serving our military......I'd like to thank you and all the others (such as About Time) for KEEPING us free. Z is alive today (partly) because of you guys and our ENEMIES (libs/dims) are doing all that they can to to destroy what you guys fought and sacrificed for. I remember just a few years ago when WE THE PEOPLE had to donate to our troops to get them floor board armor due to the road bombs in IRAQ and AFGAN. This is after all the waste to the IRS, newly created Bush agencies and B.O.'s 100,000.000.000 MILLION DOLLAR trip to EURAFRICA!!!! What a waste!

[red state]

Jim, with as GREAT as this site is in having MANY bells and Whistles....could we possibly have a GABB and GAFF award to go to the WORSE and BEST posters of the day or week? I believe it could simply be installed as a VOTE button (much like you have with the "LIKE" button).

Just saying.....

[aboutime]

You all are pretty funny. Don't you want new members on the board? that's cool, man. Chill out.

If you all don't think Z should take personal responsibility for his actions, that's your deal.

Me, I think he shouldn't have been carrying a gun and he shouldn't have stepped out of his truck.

But hey - if being new is suspicious, maybe I know where Z got his paranoia from...

'nuff said.

ps - of course you noticed I was new. Why would I pretend otherwise? That's why "junior member" is under my name. Duh. I assumed you all could read.

How many different ways do you think you can just come here, pretend to be a new member, using another IP address to fool the system, and Jim...and think, or dare to think. NOBODY NOTICES?
Pick any FORMER member who has been banned from this site, and Most all of us know. YOU ARE ONE OF THEM.
But then You use the definition of INSANITY, trying something one way and failing. And then, trying it again, the same way and still failing.
What a miserable, useless life you must have. Being king of SHIT that you are. And nobody will ever DETHRONE you.

[red state]

Sure would be nice to replace the single LIKE button with two buttons (a GABB and a GAFF) button.

About Time, I'da clicked GAFF for you on that post. :clap: .....except for it being OFF TOPIC! Sorry.:poke:

[Gaffer]

I post when I have something to add to a conversation, and quite often I agree with posters but can't really add anything without being redundant. Therefore I pass on posting. I'm not interested in the Peewee Herman fights that go on here so often. Every time Jim or staff remove them from a thread I make sure to thank him/them.

I don't write long posts because I don't feel it's necessary to write 20 paragraphs to say what can be said in 1.

[Trigg]

And if Zimmerman hadn't been carrying a gun (which was against Neighborhood Watch policy) he wouldn't have been able to kill Martin.

There might still have been some kind of fistfight (if Z was brave enough to get close without a gun) but most likely no one would have died.

Z bears a lot of responsibility for M's death, regardless of whether he is legally liable.


The neighborhood formed the watch because there had been burglarizes, thefts and a shooting in the months prior to Martin being shot.

Seems to be Zim was being proactive in deciding to carry protection.

In the 911 tapes Zim doesn't want to give his address because he doesn't know where Martin is. The timeline from the tapes is very tight.

[red state]

I post when I have something to add to a conversation, and quite often I agree with posters but can't really add anything without being redundant. Therefore I pass on posting. I'm not interested in the Peewee Herman fights that go on here so often. Every time Jim or staff remove them from a thread I make sure to thank him/them.

I don't write long posts because I don't feel it's necessary to write 20 paragraphs to say what can be said in 1.



Sound, solid wisdom....I shall try to apply that to my writing but I know I'm gonna find that extremely difficult. In that regard, I suppose I could find myself getting the GABB award instead of the GAFF award. ON the other hand, one short reply sometimes comes off as a lib. You know how lazy they are and most times their ONE LINERS contribute NOTHING. Still, I'll strive to do better.

~Thanks

[Gaffer]

Sound, solid wisdom....I shall try to apply that to my writing but I know I'm gonna find that extremely difficult. In that regard, I suppose I could find myself getting the GABB award instead of the GAFF award. ON the other hand, one short reply sometimes comes off as a lib. You know how lazy they are and most times their ONE LINERS contribute NOTHING. Still, I'll strive to do better.

~Thanks

I think you do well. Sometimes many paragraphs are needed. I try to avoid going off on a tangent, but sometimes it just can't be helped. Your one of my favorite contributors here.