Bagism: Web Board
[Show Followups] [Post New Message]
 [Search Web Boards] [Web Boards Menu] [Letter Box Web Board]

Re: race riots if zimmerman acquitted?

Posted by **Old Flat Top** on Jun 29, 2013 at 9:38:52 PM:
In Reply to: Re: race riots if zimmerman acquitted? posted by **Johnny D** on Jun 29, 2013 at 9:14:21 PM:

********If so, that won't speak highly of the ones doing the killings, and could have some white people tie them in to what most black people are like, which would be dumb to do. But, as time has shown, any color of people can think and do and think dumb, senseless things for just about any reason. (Without reasoning).
********
********Such are some of the human minds on any given side of the race fence still not able to weigh all the factors. Some still have a strong fence up, wanting to keep all else OUT! THAT is the problem, not the actual court case.
********
********The court case will be decided by five females, believing one lawyer and their evidence more than the other,,,or it may end in a hung jury. Some won't see it that way though, for either side,,,sadly.
********
*******
*******There are only five people on the jury? Oh, and I think you mean five women. There won't be female members of any other species, and girls would be too young to be on a jury.
******
******
******===Does anyone remember zimmerman's prior record?
******
******
*****
***** Forget about that trivial stuff...
*****
*****
***** The important thing is whether Johnny uses 'females' or 'women'...
****
****This is about as simple a case as could ever be.
****The ONLY question(nothing else matters)is who intentionally physically assaulted who first. The only living person who knows the truth is Zimmerman so whatever he says has to be considered the fact of the case.(even if he's lying) It's the LAW! Of course there are many ramifications based on it but that is the only question that needs an answer. If he says it was Martin and no one can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was not then case over.
****
***
***THEE aggressive action started as soon as Zimmerman stopped his car and got OUT, to then approach the teen. Most anybody would then think they are being stalked by a suspicious person,,,although Zimmerman said he was wanting to find out about who he called a suspicious person. ???? For walking in the rain?
***
***Zimmerman just had to call police if he found what he thought was suspicions person,,,to have ONLY the police MAYBE ask the teen questions if they felt a need to do that. NO WAY should anyone stalk another person in a car,,,THEN take that stalking to a whole other level by getting out of the car and approaching anyone, no matter how suspicious that person may seem. If it is THAT suspicious of a few moments,,,THEN ONLY a call to police should be made, to JUST inform them where the so-called suspicious is and heading, and "what" he is doing to be suspicious. OH,,he's just walking? BIG crime there, huh?
***
***THIS is all that is needed to have case closed: The knowledge of WHO did what to have the two in close hand to hand combat. The stalking and threatening APPROACH is THEE reason the teen was shot. The rest is anyone's guess, for Zimmerman sure won;t tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth! I wonder why courts ask that. THEY should know better.
***
***Was the teen committing any crime by walking around? If so, Police should have been called. If no crime,,,then not even that,,,and especially DO NOT get out a car to chase someone down in the NIGHT! Especially when you are carrying!!!! WTF!???
***
***I have walked in the rain, and even with the hood of my sweatshirt up over my head at times. A HOODY,,,so what? If I was being stalked by a car,,,THEN by that person who GOT OUT of their car and is walking or running toward me? I would think THEY are the suspicious character! And of course, I would either run, or confront and ask "What the hell, Dude"? If I end up getting shot,,,NO WAY would I have been the aggressor. THAT started with the guy stalking, then GETTING OUT OF THE CAR TO STALK MUCH CLOSER! a big "DUH" comes to mind!
***
***WHO started the "event" with very bad judgement to play cop and leave his vehicle while being armed and loaded, that led to the unarmed kid getting SHOT? And the stalker wants to claim self-defense!???? Are they kidding us all! YES,,,HIS lawyers and him want to kid all the way to getting him off form something HE did! Right from the start of playing town policeman, without a badge and proper way of questioning someone. ONLY known police can get away with that. ALL the rest of us? Call the police IF seeing any suspicious characters. And stay the hell of out my walk or anyone else's walk,,,in the rain or whenever! Got it? :)
***
***Zimmerman has NO defense for careless, cop playing actions. NONE!
***
**Good. That isn't what he's charged with. He's charged with 2nd degree murder not poor judgement in neighborhood watch skills.
**He did call the non emergency number. He was within his rights to keep an eye on a possible burglar. Do you really think Zimmerman took it upon himself to do the neighborhood watch hoping he'd get a chance to shoot someone? There's no proof of that. It was determined and is in evidence that he was not in that frame of mind. The only statement even close was "these fucking punks always getaway" All he was doing was keeping the suspect in sight till the police arrived. It was Martin that referred to hims as some creepy ass cracker, a totally racial slur...According to the ONLY eyewitness to the altercation Martin approached him while he had been staying close by and said "You got a problem?" Zimmerman says "No" then Martin bashes his nose and says now you do then jumps on top of him after he's fallen down and commences banging his head into the concrete.
**But according to you this is ok since after all he was just out for a stroll and not guilty of what he was suspected of. Do you see why all of that is irrelevant?
**The two struggle, are seen strugglling, an eyewitness sees Martin on top with his fists coming down on Zimmerman and as far as he can tell hears Zimmerman crying out for help goes to call the cops then hears the shot. So the evidence indicates that Zimmerman is telling the truth but the one thing we don't know is if Zimmerman shoved or pushed or slapped Martin first but according to the statement of the ONLY eyewitness to the event,Zimmerman, he did not. Nothing that led up to the point of the altercation has any bearing whatsoever if Martin was the one who threw the first punch. If Zimmerman did then the 2nd degree murder charge could stick and then all those things you mention would come into play. But it all depends on who physically assaulted who. The ONLY eyewitness, the ONLY living person who KNOWS the truth is Zimmerman. Unless he can be proven to be lying and I mean proven not just someone's opinion, but actual eyewitness proof and that proof doesn't exist.
**
**
**
**
*
*Repaet: Zimmernam LEFT HIS CAR!
So?
*With a loaded gun!
Within his rights.

*Of course he came across as a crazy type "anything",,fill in the blank.
*
Because he's keeping an eye on a neighborhood where break ins have been happening? Really? That's nuts?
Would you like me to give you some links to brutal murders committed by people breaking into homes? There's a shit load of them out there. Did you hear that Ramirez(The NightStalker)recently died?
I'd be damned glad someone cared enough to keep an eye on my neighborhood.



*HE is the one who acted suspicios,,leaving his car and stalking the kid!
*
I will grant you that one. In Martins eyes I'm sure it was suspicious. I will fully grant you that but it hardly excuses Martin violently attacking Zimmerman on account of it which is the only testimony given by an actual EYEWITNESS of what happened next. I realize you, because of your opinion, can easily discount that fact but the law doesn't allow you to.


*He is the one who SHOT the kid. NO one gets shot if the neighborhood watcher doesn't have a loaded gun
*
I hope you can see the fallacy of such an argument.
What if the other guy has one. A neighborhood watchman anticipates he might be confronted by an armed assailant.
It's ideas like you're expressing that boils my clams. We will not give up our right to self defense.



*,,,AND/OR, he does what he is supposed to do as YOU point out,,,to keep an EYE out for what he is doing and where he is.
*
Which,according to all testimony given so far is exactly what he was doing.

*The call should go to 911 at the point of him thinking it is suspicious enough to GET OUT of HIS CAR to further PURSUE the kid!
*
Which,again, is what happened(have you actually read any of the facts of the case?)

*That is not a watch,,,that is a stalk.
Ok, now we're at the part where if Zimmerman threw the first punch then this will be meaningful. However, as is the case according to the testimony of the ONLY EYEWITNESS to the entire crime from the beginning,Martin attacked without anymore provocation than he was being watched. Nobody has a right to privacy in public. That's why it's called public.
There had been breakins. Perps had gotten away. If this guy was a perp then this time he's not going to get away. If this is one of the guys that had been doing the breakins then he's going to be caught. That is not stalking. So long as you do not provoke or attempt to apprehend the suspect.



*I would be greatly suspicious of anyone doing that to me, and would as I said, say the things I mentioned if sticking around to see why some nutjob was following me on foot, after doing that from the car!
*
OK but would you proceed to beat the shit out of the guy?

*You are missing the obvious and first crucial step in the shooting. Martin WAS being stalked and of course would say something to some wise ass doing that. YOU would too. (not racial slurs I hope though).
*
No, he wasn't being stalked he was being surveiled. You using the term stalked implies Zimmermans intent to do bodily harm or interfere with Martin which are facts not in evidence.

*It's like sucker punching someone, (relating to getting out of the car and stalking someone), then killing him after a fight breaks out,,,,then claiming self defense! Are you kidding me?
*
Are YOU kidding me? Martin smashed and broke his nose, knocked him to the ground,held him down and told him "Tonight you die!"
I'd like to think Zimmerman might've gotten free without resorting to using his weapon but in the heat of the moment,knowing you're carrying a weapon, knowing the guy beating the living shit out of you is eventually going to see it(or very likely will)and since he said "Tonight you die" will probably use it against you. You have to make a choice. Him or me.
It's called self defense. Zimmermans injuries are documented. Martin had only a gunshot wound and some scratches on his hands.
The physical evidence totally complies with the story being told by Zimmerman. Martin had no injuries which would indicate Zimmerman had beaten him first. None.


*You are going to knock the dead teen as being his fault he is dead? What are you smoking Flat? Do NOT pass it to me, for sure! :)
*
You're dangerous. Martin attacked!!! Martin threatened deadly force and proceeded to inflict it. You're blind.


Followup Messages:

top of page

 

Home Web Chat Web Boards Discography Library Quiz Art & Poetry Links Store

Image Map -- text links below

Home | Web Chat | Web Boards | Discography | Library | Quiz | Art & Poetry | Links | Store

Produced by Sam Choukri
Frequently Asked Questions
Last updated on Jul 1, 2013