Trayvon Martin - Gun, Drugs, Fighting

[LurkerNoMore]

Autopsy report said he had marijuana in his system.  He may or may not have smoked it that day.  Judging by the pictures we have seen, I'd say he smoked on a regular basis, including that day. 

So you admit you don't know if he did break any drug laws that day?  Or even that week?

In other words, you are simply profiling him based on appearances and what you "think" his actions were?  Funny that is EXACTLY what Zimm did.   

[blacken700]

So you admit you don't know if he did break any drug laws that day?  Or even that week?

In other words, you are simply profiling him based on appearances and what you "think" his actions were?  Funny that is EXACTLY what Zimm did.   

LOL

[tonymctones]

LMFAO 240 was Zimmerman following trayvon at the End of the 911 call?

bump for an answer tard boy

[Dos Equis]

So you admit you don't know if he did break any drug laws that day?  Or even that week?

In other words, you are simply profiling him based on appearances and what you "think" his actions were?  Funny that is EXACTLY what Zimm did.   

I don't need to admit what I just said.  I said it.  It's my opinion.  

Am I profiling him?  Sort of.  But it has nothing to do with his race.  I think he was a drug using thug based on the fact he smoked marijuana, was suspended from school for having a burglary tool and women's jewelry, suspended from school for fighting, took pictures with guns and drugs, and took pictures smoking dope.  None of that has anything to do with his race.  

If Zimmerman looked at him and thought he was up to no good and was on "drugs or something," he was right.  But that's not a crime.  

[240 is Back]

All Zimmerman did was try and protect his neighborhood.

So he was working in a neighborhood watch capacity that day?

Their rules forbid carrying a firearm while performing duties. 

[Dos Equis]

So he was working in a neighborhood watch capacity that day?

Their rules forbid carrying a firearm while performing duties. 

What specific rules are you talking about for his community?  Link? 

[blacken700]

I don't need to admit what I just said.  I said it.  It's my opinion.  

Am I profiling him?  Sort of.  But it has nothing to do with his race.  I think he was a drug using thug based on the fact he smoked marijuana, was suspended from school for having a burglary tool and women's jewelry, suspended from school for fighting, took pictures with guns and drugs, and took pictures smoking dope.  None of that has anything to do with his race.  

If Zimmerman looked at him and thought he was up to no good and was on "drugs or something," he was right.  But that's not a crime.  

so you go with what they did in the past,it figures you would side with the women beater

[Dos Equis]

so you go with what they did in the past,it figures you would side with the women beater

Past and present. 

Who is the "women beater"?

[Jack T. Cross]

He knew he was directing himself toward potential conflict, so he should have been prepared to properly control Martin with the gun.  That would have required that he maintain distance out of Martin's reach, and hold him at full gunpoint until the police arrived.  

Do you think he would do that?

bump

[240 is Back]

What specific rules are you talking about for his community?  Link? 

I'm surprised you didn't hear about this - we discussed it at length early on getbig.

The rules of the neighborhood watch charter - Zimmerman was the president - declare ZERO firearms may be carried.  He signed and agreed.  He was just returning from Target when he saw Trayvon, and he was carrying a gun. 

He didn't leave the gun in vehicle, then follow, as would be the policy.  He packed that 9mm in case he had to shoot a motherfcker.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-24/news/os-trayvon-martin-neighborhood-watch-20120321_1_zimmerman-community-ties-neighborhood-watch

and if you need it, George Zimmerman violated the rules of neighborhood watch by concealing a weapon

http://www.examiner.com/article/george-zimmerman-violated-the-rules-of-neighborhood-watch-by-concealing-a-weapon

[tonymctones]

LMFAO 240 was Zimmerman following trayvon at the End of the 911 call?

bump from an answer from any of the tard boy crew

[tonymctones]

I'm surprised you didn't hear about this - we discussed it at length early on getbig.

The rules of the neighborhood watch charter - Zimmerman was the president - declare ZERO firearms may be carried.  He signed and agreed.  He was just returning from Target when he saw Trayvon, and he was carrying a gun. 

He didn't leave the gun in vehicle, then follow, as would be the policy.  He packed that 9mm in case he had to shoot a motherfcker.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-24/news/os-trayvon-martin-neighborhood-watch-20120321_1_zimmerman-community-ties-neighborhood-watch

and if you need it, George Zimmerman violated the rules of neighborhood watch by concealing a weapon

http://www.examiner.com/article/george-zimmerman-violated-the-rules-of-neighborhood-watch-by-concealing-a-weapon

those arent the rules of zimmermans neighborhood watch simply an orginzation...nice spin though

[240 is Back]

those arent the rules of zimmermans neighborhood watch simply an orginzation...nice spin though

you sure about that?

[tonymctones]

you sure about that?

I havent seen anything to say it was, even if it was he still didnt break any laws LMFAO

[Dos Equis]

I'm surprised you didn't hear about this - we discussed it at length early on getbig.

The rules of the neighborhood watch charter - Zimmerman was the president - declare ZERO firearms may be carried.  He signed and agreed.  He was just returning from Target when he saw Trayvon, and he was carrying a gun. 

He didn't leave the gun in vehicle, then follow, as would be the policy.  He packed that 9mm in case he had to shoot a motherfcker.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-24/news/os-trayvon-martin-neighborhood-watch-20120321_1_zimmerman-community-ties-neighborhood-watch

and if you need it, George Zimmerman violated the rules of neighborhood watch by concealing a weapon

http://www.examiner.com/article/george-zimmerman-violated-the-rules-of-neighborhood-watch-by-concealing-a-weapon

I didn't pay attention to this case for months.  And I don't read most of what you post on the board, so you shouldn't be surprised at all. 

The first link does not support your claim.  It doesn't have any rules for the group in his neighborhood.  And it says Zimmerman was chosen as "coordinator," not president. 

The second link mentions a "National Neighborhood Watch Institute."  Was his neighborhood watch a member? 

[George Whorewell]

Question for Ace Ventura Pet Detective 240 or Bust--

If Zimmerman was unarmed and had merely gotten the better of Tray Tray, which resulted in his death through strangulation or smashing his head on the concrete. Should he have been charged in this case?


Also, follow up-- Is pursuing (asking someone questions and following them) a criminal act, or does it only become a criminal act if you're armed?

Still waiting on a clear answer for this question from 240 or anyone else.

One of getbig's faux legal scholars made the comment that Zimmermans actions led to the death of a person and that's "murder 2" in Florida.

Notwithstanding the fact that neighborhood watch patrols are legal and Zimmerman was legally carrying a firearm, does Trayvon Martin beating Zimmerman to a pulp constitute an intervening criminal act which breaks the chain of causation and justifies Zimmerman's decision to respond with deadly force?

Hint-- Look at the Florida law which governs self defense via the use of deadly force.  

Under Florida law, the stand your ground defense can only be utilized if you're not the aggressor. It's my understanding that Zimmerman is not even asserting the "stand your ground" theory as a defense. But even if he were, what is the legal definition for "aggressor" in a physical altercation which leads to someones death? Is it an objective or subjective standard?

[240 is Back]

I havent seen anything to say it was, even if it was he still didnt break any laws LMFAO

You stated it as a matter of fact.

those arent the rules of zimmermans neighborhood watch simply an orginzation...nice spin though

Are you now saying you're not sure?

[240 is Back]

On the thurs after the indictment, trayvon's team said they will NOT be using stand-your-ground to CNN anderson cooper.

Then, that sunday on the morning talk shows, they said they would be using it.

Then they abandoned the position.  His team only clung to that position for the day it took the actual author of the bill to come out and say "the law doesn't apply here". 

it doesn't look like Zimm defense team will try to use it... but you never know with this trial, seems like it's going to be the wild west in that courtroom.  Zimmerman is going to have a hard time proving he wasn't the aggressor.  He may have momentarily lost sight of trayvon at the end of the call, but this is after he had chased him 2 blocks while calling him profanities and carrying a gun.

Sorry, but a person carrying a gun and chasing me 2 blocks and calling me profane names - that's the definition of an "aggressor".   Just because an aggressor blinks for a minute or I hide in bushes to avoid him doesn't make him not the aggressor anymore.  There is no evidence he stopped his aggressive approach.  He didn't tell 911 operator "okay, I'm giving up, heading back to truck now, no longer angry and certainly don't want that confrontation anymore..."   He just lost him momentarily while chasing him.  happens a lot when chasing people. 

[Dos Equis]

Still waiting on a clear answer for this question from 240 or anyone else.

One of getbig's faux legal scholars made the comment that Zimmermans actions led to the death of a person and that's "murder 2" in Florida.

Notwithstanding the fact that neighborhood watch patrols are legal and Zimmerman was legally carrying a firearm, does Trayvon Martin beating Zimmerman to a pulp constitute an intervening criminal act which breaks the chain of causation and justifies Zimmerman's decision to respond with deadly force?

Hint-- Look at the Florida law which governs self defense via the use of deadly force.  

Under Florida law, the stand your ground defense can only be utilized if you're not the aggressor. It's my understanding that Zimmerman is not even asserting the "stand your ground" theory as a defense. But even if he were, what is the legal definition for "aggressor" in a physical altercation which leads to someones death? Is it an objective or subjective standard?

I think this is it?

I think this is the Florida self-defense law? 

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
 
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
 
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html

Assuming this is what they will rely on, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not have a reasonable belief that he had to use deadly force to prevent "great bodily harm to himself." 

[tonymctones]

You stated it as a matter of fact.

Are you now saying you're not sure?

Im saying there is no proof to show that his neighborhood watch used those guidelines AND EVEN IF THEY DID HE STILL DIDNT BREAK ANY LAWS......

[Jack T. Cross]

Still waiting on a clear answer for this question from 240 or anyone else.

One of getbig's faux legal scholars made the comment that Zimmermans actions led to the death of a person and that's "murder 2" in Florida.

Notwithstanding the fact that neighborhood watch patrols are legal and Zimmerman was legally carrying a firearm, does Trayvon Martin beating Zimmerman to a pulp constitute an intervening criminal act which breaks the chain of causation and justifies Zimmerman's decision to respond with deadly force?

Hint-- Look at the Florida law which governs self defense via the use of deadly force.  

Under Florida law, the stand your ground defense can only be utilized if you're not the aggressor. It's my understanding that Zimmerman is not even asserting the "stand your ground" theory as a defense. But even if he were, what is the legal definition for "aggressor" in a physical altercation which leads to someones death? Is it an objective or subjective standard?

Read the post again, dumbass.  If you want to argue, please be extremely specific, and please don't expect me to hold your assumptions about the case.

[LurkerNoMore]

I don't need to admit what I just said.  I said it.  It's my opinion.  

Am I profiling him?  Sort of.  But it has nothing to do with his race.  I think he was a drug using thug based on the fact he smoked marijuana, was suspended from school for having a burglary tool and women's jewelry, suspended from school for fighting, took pictures with guns and drugs, and took pictures smoking dope.  None of that has anything to do with his race.  

If Zimmerman looked at him and thought he was up to no good and was on "drugs or something," he was right.  But that's not a crime.  

Your opinion is not the same as facts.  So it doesn't mean shit.  Funny you don't have a problem presenting a flawed biased view of Trayvon but when 240 states that Zimmerman was a dishonest, incest abusing, wife beating, police officer assaulting, wannabe cop who went looking for a confrontation due to his insecurity complexion and impotent self loathing, you want to make an issue of profiling then.

 

I sort just explained what the point was. When I first heard about this all I saw were pictures of a little kid and heard about how he was gunned down, armed only with a pack of skittles.  He looked like an innocent ten-year old kid in the picture.

Then we learn he was caught with burglery tools, suspended from school for fighting, smoking weed, and he was almost six feet tall. Does any of that mean he deserved to be shot?  No.  Does it give us a different perspective of this kid?  Absolutely.  I think it also makes it more likely that he was in fact beating the crap out of Zimmerman.  

Yeah and then we found out about Zimmerman.  Police officer reject.  Has anger management issues.  Looking for confrontation.  Ignored verbal instructions given to him by a law officer over the phone.. etc.. etc...  "more likely he was playing the gungho vigilante who got his ass kicked because of that and the only reaction he had was to shoot an unarmed kid

 

Gives us a different perspective of him doesn't it?

Autopsy report said he had marijuana in his system.  He may or may not have smoked it that day.  Judging by the pictures we have seen, I'd say he smoked on a regular basis, including that day.  

 

More biased bullshit.  Good thing FL doesn't have to worry about you being a juror.    What's your reasoning going to be when the jury finds Zimm guilty?

[George Whorewell]

Read the post again, dumbass.  If you want to argue, please be extremely specific, and please don't expect me to hold your assumptions about the case.

Settle down jackass. I don't care enough about your opinion to be "extremely specific".

Hope this helps.

[Jack T. Cross]

Settle down jackass. I don't care enough about your opinion to be "extremely specific".

Hope this helps.

So don't say shit you can't back up, Whoresmell.

Please remember that Zimmerman was responsible for that gun.  No one else.

[240 is Back]

Im saying there is no proof to show that his neighborhood watch used those guidelines AND EVEN IF THEY DID HE STILL DIDNT BREAK ANY LAWS......

Are you as sure about "NO PROOF his neighborhood watch used those guidelines" as you are about his not chasing Trayvon?

Or are you a little less sure?