View Single Post
Old July 15th, 2013 (8:14 PM). Edited July 15th, 2013 by Entermaid.
Entermaid's Avatar
Entermaid Entermaid is offline
    Join Date: Jan 2013
    Location: The States
    Gender: Other
    Nature: Adamant
    Posts: 2,148
    Originally Posted by BlahISuck View Post
    "Also, one might say if Trayvon wasn't involved in suspicious behavior he may not have aggressed at Zimmerman." just exactly what are you trying to mean with this phrase? If he wasn't a thug than maybe he could've avoided getting a cap blown up his ass? What, was he asking for it?
    Please don't insert racist inferences, there is clearly an illogical line of reasoning and comprehension of the post. That statement was in response to the point that without Zimmerman's actions, there would have been no conflict, but it is also true that without trayvon's conduct, there would not have been a conflict. The conflict was only possible with both actions, rather than one's actions. Further, Trayvon was walking in private property, under the eaves of the homes, that is trespassing. Simply, Trayvon had a responsiblity to not engage in illegal behavior just as much as Zimmerman was responsible for confronting Trayvon on his own terms. Regardless of race, a person walking in people's property in the night is suspicious, race, age, gender, ect, are all irreverent to that point.

    I don't know why you have to bring up his history as if it makes a difference here. When a creepy man is behind you and following you around, I don't think your response is "oh this muthaf must die". Maybe Trayvon is a thug, and maybe he wanted to beat Zimmerman's head in, but I doubt that there would be any intent to kill. At the end of the day neither of them wanted to kill, but if one of them is equipped with a firearm and the other is equipped with his fists, I think it's quite obvious which one is going to die
    What history am I bringing up? I am only going back to the history of that night and the illegal behavior that Trayvon was engaging in as far as property trespassing. The history of why Zimmerman approached is a pertinent article of information.

    Additionally, there is no evidence that Trayvon was a thug, which I am assuming means gang affiliated, and I never inference that. Simply, he only needed to potentially cause great bodily harm, which is very possible in a hand-to-hand scuffle. Without the use of a firearm, Zimmerman could have suffered brain injuries with repeated blows to the head. Which may or may not have been the case, but the prosecution failed to demonstrate enough of a case against this point with the medical witnesses.

    All this case was trying was whether or not Zimmerman can justify shooting his gun as self-defense. Which means all the defense has to do is make it look like Zimmerman's life was in immediate danger of ending. Perhaps there was reasonable doubt. Doesn't stop him from being an ******* though, and one's record of *******ry doesn't really count in this world. Common sense dictates that you don't approach someone the way Zimmerman did. You can be a total idiot, and get yourself into a position in which you "have" to shoot someone, but you're still a total idiot. Maybe the vice in what Zimmerman did cannot be judged by law, but it was still viceful. Zimmerman did something wrong, only that it doesn't count for anything

    .I don't even want to talk about your last paragraph. If that isn't troll material, I don't know what is. You don't have to come across as having attitude.
    Again, self-defense has to prove that the defendant believed he may have suffered great bodily harm or death if he did not use of self-defense. Also, Zimmerman was not using good judgment, I think mostly everyone would agree to that point. But, getting himself in a risky situation doesn't mean that he relegate the legal right to self-defense if attacked.

    I am only using my analytically skills in order to make a less volatile and emotive commentary on the trial, which is not conducive with "trolling". A trial of which many people on both sides have expressed a propensity to use inflammatory language, against both of the individuals involved (and their supporters), and making inferences based on personal beliefs rather than evidentiary support. In doing so, both sides that engage in such volatile discussion are doing so at the expense of reason, by which is required to have a civil and productive discussion. I urge others to do the same rather than making this a personal affair for mudslinging.

    EDIT: On an unrelated note, those who condone the acquittal should not be label as racists. I am not saying anyone on here did, but generally, it is disconcerting to see it happening. Myself, I was completely up-in-arms about the Trayvon Martin murder when I was first notified of the killing, at which point I believed race was a factor. However, I have payed close attention to the aftermath, at which point I tried to be the most objective, and not interject my personal feelings into my perception of the proceedings based off media hysteria. So with that, I advise everyone to no make any premature judgement in respect to racial sentiments.
    #Team Popplio & Brionne
    Reply With Quote