Originally Posted by
Greenbeanz
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.
You're arguing points that are simply not true or are irrelevant.
1. Doesn't give him the right? There are no laws against a neighbourhood watch guy (or anyone else for that matter) monitoring someone who they think is acting suspicious. There is also no law stating that you have to do what a dispatcher tells you to. And the "armed/unarmed" thing is completely irrelevant, because neither man had no idea whether or not the other was armed. What your saying makes absolutely no sense.
2. I believe it because there is EVIDENCE to support that that's what happened. Just because Treyvon didn't land a KO blow that left him concussed doesn't mean he wasn't taking a beating. His wounds are documented with photo proof and an official medical report. There are also witnesses who are testifying to the fact that they saw Treyvon on top of Zimmerman throwing punches.
3. Let him retrieve his weapon? He was calling the police on Treyvon. If someone is following me, I don't think that gives me the right to sucker punch them.
4. Being a member of a MA gym doesn't give people carte blanch to assault you.
5. You're claiming a guy calling the police wasn't leaving it to the authorities. This is too stupid to even argue.
6. a) Zimmerman never confronted him, he was following him.
b) Yes you can confront someone if you're not a cop.
c) How the fuck was he supposed to know the guy was unarmed? What the fuck do you think people do? Just walk around with guns in their hands? they are hidden in holsters. Very few people walk around with their guns in plain view.
You are easily the stupidest person I've debated this with. You're saying shit that isn't true. You're making up laws that don't exist, laws that (even if they did exist) could never possibly be followed. You're shitting on people for believing an account that is backed up with witnesses and evidence, and then providing a strange "conspiracy theorist" account of what happened that would require huge leaps and a total lack of logic and common sense. It's really unbelievable.
Bookmarks