Quote Originally Posted by Beanflicker View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Greenbeanz View Post
If following an unarmed teenager and then shooting him dead with a gun is in your eyes somehow a mark of being street savvy or following some kind of unwritten rule of "the streets" then I can not say I am at all surprised. If that is your reasoning for apportioning blame, then it puts you firmly in the same gutter with an excuse that cries, total and utter cowardice.
That's an absolute bullshit way of simplifying it. Followed? Well yeah, he's the neighbourhood watch. Unarmed? Why does that matter? If you don't have a gun and the other guy does, does that give you the legal right to smash his head in just because he's annoying you? I guess Zimmerman should have just let the kid continue to smash his head in and risk permanent brain damage or death, because hey, he was just an "unarmed kid", right? Jesus Christ, what kind of world do some of you live in?

And of course people say "well that's just Zimmerman's account. I think Zimmerman started the fight." Yeah? The neighbourhood watch guy, the guy who was calling the police and KNEW they were on their way decided to start a brawl with the taller black guy? A guy who he thought might be a dangerous criminal. REALLY? People actually buy into that logic?

George Zimmerman is a PUSSY. He didn't confront the guy, he never would have had the balls to. He called the police and had the intentions of leaving it up to the professionals. Treyvon was annoyed by it and assaulted him.

Unfortunately, you don't get to assault people because they annoy you. And unfortunately for Treyvon, you don't have to let a guy smash your brains in because he's unarmed and you have a gun.

Firstly. I was replying TO VD whose post appeared above mine in which he said



"Zimmerman had the gun. Trayvon did not. Laws of the streets clearly state you don't bring knives to a gun fight and you most certainly don't bring fists to a gun fight. Trayvon did not follow the rules. Zimmerman did. Zimmerman won the fight. Therefore Zimmerman is in the right and what he says is true"

"He doesn't have to. Rules are rules. He followed them The boy didn't. That's why he's still living and the boy is pushing up daisies. "



If you think my response was a bullshit oversimplification then maybe a little context would have helped.

Back to your points

"Followed? Well yeah, he's the neighbourhood watch. Unarmed? Why does that matter?"

Being a neighbourhood watch VOLUNTEER gives you absolutely no right to follow whatsoever. The person who answered the dispatch call despite your claim that he had no authority, actually would have undergone specific training and had a wealth of valuable experience compared to Zimmerman and his advice not to pursue should have been heeded. The fact that Martin was unarmed meant that the person pursuing him was not threatened and was himself seeking a confrontation, so yes it does matter.

"If you don't have a gun and the other guy does, does that give you the legal right to smash his head in just because he's annoying you?"

People who have their heads smashed in generally suffer at least a mild concussion. Zimmerman was found not to have by his own doctor. Zimmerman refused further medical help for his wounds which did not require stitches and are inconsistent with the type of repeated blows he claims he received. Zimmerman was by his own admission following somebody who had every right to be where they were, which was not on Zimmermans property. You are claiming that Martin smashed Zimmermans head in because that is what the suspect in a trial is telling you. We do not have the luxury of hearing the other side of the story.

"I guess Zimmerman should have just let the kid continue to smash his head in and risk permanent brain damage or death, because hey, he was just an "unarmed kid", right? Jesus Christ, what kind of world do some of you live in?"

Turn this on it's head and put yourself in the place of Martin. You are confronted by some guy who has been following you in a car and who then pursues you on foot after you attempt to run away. Should you just stand there and let him reach for his weapon ?

"....I think Zimmerman started the fight." Yeah? The neighbourhood watch guy, the guy who was calling the police and KNEW they were on their way decided to start a brawl with the taller black guy? A guy who he thought might be a dangerous criminal. REALLY? People actually buy into that logic? "

Zimmerman was a member of an MA gym. Zimmerman being shorter than an unarmed teenager he was following proves nothing. Martin if anything looks skinny or does him being black mean he looks like a dangerous criminal?

"He called the police and had the intentions of leaving it up to the professionals. Treyvon was annoyed by it and assaulted him."

You may like to believe that but Zimmerman obviously had no intention of leaving it to the professionals because the vastly more experienced dispatch caller who advised him not to pursue was ignored. You have no evidence that Martin was annoyed rather than scared himself, and you are making a huge jump to assume that the younger unarmed pursued guy was the one who initiated an assault.

"Unfortunately, you don't get to assault people because they annoy you. And unfortunately for Treyvon, you don't have to let a guy smash your brains in because he's unarmed and you have a gun."

Unfortunately you don't get to confront unarmed people when you do not work in law enforcement. Just because you make some rash judgement that they belong to a group who you think, "always gets away". A broken nose does not constitute having your brains smashed in.