Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

In my foreign land, murder is OKFollow

#402 Apr 02 2012 at 5:52 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
"Are you following him"
"Yeah"
"Okay, we don't need you to do that."


After he got out of his car and after Martin had already run off. Are you seriously arguing that Martin was justified to run away from Zimmerman because Zimmerman chose to follow him after he ran?


Smiley: confused

Why would he need justification to run?
#403 Apr 02 2012 at 6:14 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
"Are you following him"
"Yeah"
"Okay, we don't need you to do that."


After he got out of his car and after Martin had already run off. Are you seriously arguing that Martin was justified to run away from Zimmerman because Zimmerman chose to follow him after he ran?


Smiley: confused

Why would he need justification to run?


Because, in gbaji's mind, the only legitimate reason to feel threatened by someone is if they've already begun attacking you.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#404 Apr 02 2012 at 6:31 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,937 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
"Are you following him"
"Yeah"
"Okay, we don't need you to do that."


After he got out of his car and after Martin had already run off. Are you seriously arguing that Martin was justified to run away from Zimmerman because Zimmerman chose to follow him after he ran?


Smiley: confused

Why would he need justification to run?


Because, in gbaji's mind, the only legitimate reason to feel threatened by someone is if they've already begun attacking you.


Unless you are a well armed large man, then you can feel justifiably threatened by the simplest of things.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#405 Apr 02 2012 at 7:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
After he got out of his car and after Martin had already run off. Are you seriously arguing that Martin was justified to run away from Zimmerman because Zimmerman chose to follow him after he ran?


Of course he was justified to flee someone pursuing him.


Sigh... Except that as far as we can tell from the evidence we have, he fled before Zimmerman pursued him. How many times do I have to repeat this before it sinks in. Zimmerman was sitting parked in his car watching Martin walking up the street towards him. When Martin got close to the car (presumably close enough to see someone in it watching him), he ran.

Quote:
are you seriously arguing he was not justified fleeing from someone (who is not a police officer) who had been following him in a car, and was now after him on foot. Regardless of what he was doing he is completely justified to flee.


Gah! Please provide evidence of the statement you made, which I bolded. As I have asked repeatedly. People are repeating this as though it's fact, yet as far as I can tell there is absolutely zero evidence that Zimmerman *ever* followed Martin in his car. There's no evidence that Martin *ever* saw Zimmerman's car until he walked up to it while Zimmerman was speaking to the police.

Given the sheer number of times people have used this assumption to justify Martin's actions, doesn't it make sense to verify that it's true? I don't think that's an unreasonable request on my part at all. Do you?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#406 Apr 02 2012 at 7:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
"Are you following him"
"Yeah"
"Okay, we don't need you to do that."


After he got out of his car and after Martin had already run off. Are you seriously arguing that Martin was justified to run away from Zimmerman because Zimmerman chose to follow him after he ran?


Smiley: confused

Why would he need justification to run?


Ask Idiggory. He's the one insisting that Martin ran because Zimmerman had been following him in his car.

Obviously, Martin has every right to run if he feels like it. However, it does provide justification for Zimmerman's claim that he thought Martin was acting suspiciously. Which I assume is exactly why folks like Idiggory go to such great lengths to provide some explanation for it. As I said in my previous post, as far as we know, Martin ran away simply because he saw someone in a car. Now maybe he's incredibly jumpy, but if we combine that with Zimmerman's report that Martin was wandering back and forth looking around in the complex, it supports the view that Martin ran from Zimmerman, not because he thought that Zimmerman was some crazy guy stalking him, but because he thought Zimmerman was exactly what he was: A neighborhood watch person who saw Martin doing suspicious things who was calling the cops.


Isn't that the most likely explanation given the information we actually know?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#407 Apr 02 2012 at 7:59 PM Rating: Good
**
589 posts
Just because it gives Zimmerman cause to think Martin was acting suspiciously still doesn't give Zimmerman any right to follow or even try to confront Martin which was clear that was his intent from the call to the police.
____________________________
.
#408 Apr 02 2012 at 8:04 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
gbaji wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
"Are you following him"
"Yeah"
"Okay, we don't need you to do that."


After he got out of his car and after Martin had already run off. Are you seriously arguing that Martin was justified to run away from Zimmerman because Zimmerman chose to follow him after he ran?


Smiley: confused

Why would he need justification to run?


Ask Idiggory. He's the one insisting that Martin ran because Zimmerman had been following him in his car.

Obviously, Martin has every right to run if he feels like it. However, it does provide justification for Zimmerman's claim that he thought Martin was acting suspiciously. Which I assume is exactly why folks like Idiggory go to such great lengths to provide some explanation for it. As I said in my previous post, as far as we know, Martin ran away simply because he saw someone in a car. Now maybe he's incredibly jumpy, but if we combine that with Zimmerman's report that Martin was wandering back and forth looking around in the complex, it supports the view that Martin ran from Zimmerman, not because he thought that Zimmerman was some crazy guy stalking him, but because he thought Zimmerman was exactly what he was: A neighborhood watch person who saw Martin doing suspicious things who was calling the cops.


Isn't that the most likely explanation given the information we actually know?


It's no more likely than many of the scenarios posed by those you're arguing with. You're doing the same thing that you complain about them doing, except to the other end.

Straight up hypocrisy.
#409 Apr 02 2012 at 8:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
RavennofTitan wrote:
Just because it gives Zimmerman cause to think Martin was acting suspiciously still doesn't give Zimmerman any right to follow or even try to confront Martin which was clear that was his intent from the call to the police.


I'm just trying to get some people to drop the assumption that Martin could not possibly have done anything suspicious other than "walking while black". Baby steps.

But for the record, Zimmerman absolutely has a right to follow Martin if he wants. He has a right to walk/jog/run down that path if Martin isn't there, right? So does that right evaporate if someone he thinks is suspicious and perhaps up to no good is in the area? I don't see how. By that logic, your right to walk into your living room disappears if you think there might be a thief there stealing your stuff. And that makes no sense at all.

Let's not forget that he's on private property on which he is a part owner. He absolutely has a right to follow and confront *anyone* he thinks isn't supposed to be there, or who might be up to no good. He has that right as a resident of the property regardless of being a volunteer watchman.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#410 Apr 02 2012 at 8:17 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Quote:
Unless you are a well armed large man, then you can feel justifiably threatened by the simplest of things.


True, which is why laws of the sort focus on whether or not it was within reasonable bounds to feel your life was threatened.

I'm arguing that being followed (in car and on foot) is more than sufficient grounds to feel that life or limb is in danger. And it's absurd to pardon both of them for self-defense, I feel that (in virtue of being followed, which we know occurred), Zimmerman is the instigator of the entire set of interactions between them, with the final result (Martin being shot) being directly, causally linked to Zimmerman's choice to follow him.

[EDIT]
Quote:
I'm just trying to get some people to drop the assumption that Martin could not possibly have done anything suspicious other than "walking while black". Baby steps.


Had Zimmerman reported ANYTHING to that nature, you might have a point. But at no point in any of the statements released by Zimmerman's family, his lawyer, or the 911 call, has his party ever accused Martin of anything other than being an unknown, therefore suspicious, person out at night in Zimmerman's neighborhood.

Edited, Apr 2nd 2012 10:24pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#411 Apr 02 2012 at 8:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Isn't that the most likely explanation given the information we actually know?


It's no more likely than many of the scenarios posed by those you're arguing with.


Why? It's easy to say that, but can you give a rationale for this? Based on the recording of Zimmerman's call to the police, it sure sounds like a suspicious person walking around the area who runs as soon as he realizes he's being watched. There's no evidence that Martin ever saw Zimmerman prior to walking up to his car during that call. There's no evidence that Martin had *any* reason to run other than fear of being caught doing something wrong.

Why assume anything else? How many times a day do you walk down a street and pass someone sitting in a parked car? Do you normally run away when you see them? This is not "normal" behavior. At the very least, it qualifies as "suspicious".

Quote:
You're doing the same thing that you complain about them doing, except to the other end.


Except that I'm basing my perception on *only* things we know to be true. Those other scenarios rely heavily on assumptions, for which we have zero evidence. The whole "Martin ran because Zimmerman was stalking him" relies on an assumption that Zimmerman had followed him in his car prior to the phone call. But we have no evidence of this. Absolutely zero. And if Martin didn't run for that reason, then why? As I said above, normal people don't run just because there's someone in a parked car up the road.

Quote:
Straight up hypocrisy.


Hypocrisy would be me holding my position to a different standard than someone else's. I'm not doing that though. I'm holding all scenarios to the same "what does the evidence support" standard. I'm looking at what we know, and trying to determine the most likely explanation. Others are starting with the explanation they want to believe, and then inventing information to support it. I don't think it's hypocritical at all to point out that there's no evidence supporting their claims.


I have asked repeatedly for anyone to provide a source showing that Zimmerman followed Martin in his car. So far, not one person has been able to do this. Shouldn't this suggest that we should stop assuming that he did?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#412 Apr 02 2012 at 8:36 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Quote:
I'm just trying to get some people to drop the assumption that Martin could not possibly have done anything suspicious other than "walking while black". Baby steps.


Had Zimmerman reported ANYTHING to that nature, you might have a point. But at no point in any of the statements released by Zimmerman's family, his lawyer, or the 911 call, has his party ever accused Martin of anything other than being an unknown, therefore suspicious, person out at night in Zimmerman's neighborhood.


You really haven't actually listened to the audio of Zimmerman's call to the police. Since you haven't, let me quote the very first part of the call:

Quote:
Hey we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy, uh, [near] Retreat View Circle, um, the best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.


His first description of Martin is to describe the suspicious behavior he saw. Not his skin color. Not what he was wearing. He reported the suspicious behavior he saw. How the **** can you claim that he didn't? Note, that this was before he was asked for a physical description of Martin. He did not lead with "there's a black guy walking around", or "there's a guy in a hoodie walking around". He very clearly described the suspicious behavior.


This is like the 3rd or 4th absolutely false statement you've made about the Zimmerman call to police so far. Perhaps you should actually listen to it? Just a thought!

Edited, Apr 2nd 2012 7:36pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#413 Apr 02 2012 at 8:40 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
You're pretty pathetic, you know that?

Quote:
Had Zimmerman reported ANYTHING to that nature, you might have a point. But at no point in any of the statements released by Zimmerman's family, his lawyer, or the 911 call, has his party ever accused Martin of anything other than being an unknown, therefore suspicious, person out at night in Zimmerman's neighborhood.


I'd really like you to point out at what point in this I claimed that Zimmerman called the cops because he was black. You'll notice I didn't.

And last I checked, walking around while it's raining and looking around are not crimes.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#414 Apr 02 2012 at 8:41 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
You have a very misguided interpretation of your own words on the case. I don't know what else to tell you. You're not doing what you think you're doing.
#415 Apr 02 2012 at 9:15 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,087 posts
Quote:
Soooo, you just thought you add to the division and hatred by passing your own judgement on the two individuals and leaving behind yet more gossip in hopes of bolstering that opinion?


Thats funny, considering I passed no judgment on either party. I did however state a couple beliefs & a feeling...... but apparently they were too reasonable to be responded to in a constructive manner.
____________________________
[99WAR,99BLM,99DRK,99BST,99PLD,99MNK,99SMN75RDM49THF45NIN/WHM/DNC
/SAM,,~] Galka

BASTOK:10 SKY: O SEA: O DYNAMIS: O
SIREN srvr
YARP !!!
#416 Apr 02 2012 at 11:14 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,633 posts
I can't read anything else Gbaji says. I fear for my sanity.
____________________________
Mistress Darqflame wrote:
Sorry, anything representing or remotely resembling a ***** is a nono.
gigasnail wrote:
i'm lighting the freak signal here, sara help me out ~
Redding wrote:
Same ol' Sara now with 50% less hidden *****
#417 Apr 03 2012 at 12:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,394 posts
SillyXSara wrote:
I can't read anything else Gbaji says. I fear for my sanity.
If you have such a tenuous grasp on your own sanity that Gbaji is a threat to it, I fear what will happen when you discover the rest of the internet.
#418 Apr 03 2012 at 1:04 AM Rating: Good
**
589 posts
Might just be the strawman that broke the camel's back.
____________________________
.
#419 Apr 03 2012 at 6:28 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
gbaji wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
After he got out of his car and after Martin had already run off. Are you seriously arguing that Martin was justified to run away from Zimmerman because Zimmerman chose to follow him after he ran?


Of course he was justified to flee someone pursuing him.


Sigh... Except that as far as we can tell from the evidence we have, he fled before Zimmerman pursued him. How many times do I have to repeat this before it sinks in. Zimmerman was sitting parked in his car watching Martin walking up the street towards him. When Martin got close to the car (presumably close enough to see someone in it watching him), he ran.

Quote:
are you seriously arguing he was not justified fleeing from someone (who is not a police officer) who had been following him in a car, and was now after him on foot. Regardless of what he was doing he is completely justified to flee.


Gah! Please provide evidence of the statement you made, which I bolded. As I have asked repeatedly. People are repeating this as though it's fact, yet as far as I can tell there is absolutely zero evidence that Zimmerman *ever* followed Martin in his car. There's no evidence that Martin *ever* saw Zimmerman's car until he walked up to it while Zimmerman was speaking to the police.

Given the sheer number of times people have used this assumption to justify Martin's actions, doesn't it make sense to verify that it's true? I don't think that's an unreasonable request on my part at all. Do you?

Oh I see, if someone is running it must be a certainty that they're a colored black crime-ridden threat. SHOOT on sight.

Martin's action don't need justification. He didn't break any laws. Do you not understand that killing people, while it may not currently and technically be against the law in Florida, it really is against all human laws - generally speaking.



Edited, Apr 3rd 2012 2:37pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#420 Apr 03 2012 at 6:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
[Zimmerman's nose was broken (or at least injured sufficiently to bleed)
gbaji wrote:
If something is speculation, then say it's speculation.

Love the irony. Why keep repeating the speculation that it was broken (and then try to cover your ***) for any reason other than you want to build a speculative narrative that fits what you want people to believe? Why not just say "bloody" and leave it at that?

Go ahead and cry about the big picture now and how I'm picking on you. I'm just enjoying the view.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#421 Apr 03 2012 at 10:32 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
This guy... probably shouldn't be allowed to talk. All he's doing is making Zimmerman's case worse, which is the opposite of his intention. Fortunately for Zimmerman, the guy just seems to be a moron, so what Taaffe says shouldn't reflect on him.

____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#422 Apr 03 2012 at 10:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,440 posts
Quote:
Taaffe denies telling The New York Times that the prior burglaries were done by “Trayvon-like dudes with their pants down."


Well that's got to be on the list for the top 10 worst quotes ever given to a newspaper. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#423 Apr 03 2012 at 3:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
You're pretty pathetic, you know that?


Ah... The sweet sweet smell of ad hominum. How refreshing!

Let me re-insert the statement you were responding to so that we can remember the context:

Quote:

you wrote:
me wrote:
I'm just trying to get some people to drop the assumption that Martin could not possibly have done anything suspicious other than "walking while black". Baby steps.
Had Zimmerman reported ANYTHING to that nature, you might have a point. But at no point in any of the statements released by Zimmerman's family, his lawyer, or the 911 call, has his party ever accused Martin of anything other than being an unknown, therefore suspicious, person out at night in Zimmerman's neighborhood.


I'd really like you to point out at what point in this I claimed that Zimmerman called the cops because he was black. You'll notice I didn't.


Um... Yeah. You kinda did. Can you see where?

Quote:
And last I checked, walking around while it's raining and looking around are not crimes.


No. But they are suspicious. You claimed that Zimmerman did not report anything "other than being an unknown, therefore suspicious, person out at night in Zimmerman's neighborhood".

You're just wrong on so many levels it's almost laughable. It wasn't because he was "unknown". It wasn't because he was black. It wasn't because he was wearing a hoodie. Zimmerman tells us (and the police, whom he was "reporting" to) the exact reason why he called:

It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.

That's certainly something more than him just being unknown, right? But then, that requires looking at these pesky things called "facts".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#424 Apr 03 2012 at 3:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Elinda wrote:
Oh I see, if someone is running it must be a certainty that they're a colored black crime-ridden threat. SHOOT on sight.


I'm honestly confused by this response. Are you arguing that Martin ran because he was black? I don't know what his skin color had to do with it. If he'd been a white guy doing exactly the same thing, and chose to run from Zimmerman exact as he did, do you think Zimmerman would have decided to just stay in his car instead of following him?

Can't you imagine even the possibility that Martin's skin color had absolutely nothing to do with Zimmerman's actions? It's like some people just can't get past their own assumptions about race and project them onto everyone else.

Quote:
Martin's action don't need justification. He didn't break any laws.


If he assaulted Zimmerman on that path, then he did. Assault is a crime, right?

Quote:
Do you not understand that killing people, while it may not currently and technically be against the law in Florida, it really is against all human laws - generally speaking.


Yes. And? I also understand that gravity makes things fall back to the earth. But just stating a fact doesn't say anything about this case.

What we know for a fact is that just prior to Zimmerman shooting Martin, he was on his back with Martin on top of him beating him. If that's not a sufficient justification for self defense, then what is? At what point is a person allowed to shoot another in self defense if not then?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#425 Apr 03 2012 at 4:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sounds like Martin was standing his ground like a good Floridian.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#426 Apr 03 2012 at 6:16 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,547 posts
Quote:
If he assaulted Zimmerman on that path, then he did. Assault is a crime, right?


So after assaulting Zimmerman Martin fled the scene? Then Zimmerman followed him after being assaulted? Because he feared for his life?

Or did he just shoot Martin in the back.

I love it when you keep speculation out of it.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 65 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (65)