gut;1477592 wrote:The point being that the extent of his "pursuit" is unknown and there are certainly degrees of "pursuit" that range from responsible to irresponsible, and from completely benign to "harassment". How TM responded doesn't tell us much, because TM may have been unreasonable and/or irrational in his response.

And Zimmerman has a history to go off of here, with numerous other incidents not resulting in any sort of altercation. A reasonable person would conclude a young male felt challenged and chose to respond like a thug. And that doesn't mean Zimmerman actually "challenged" him, nor that he should have had a reasonable expectation of provoking that perception.

He does have a history of several incidences that did not result in an altercation. However, as has been pointed out, GZ didn't follow anyone in those cases. So that's not a good comparison. I think the point that was being made is, why is this the only call where Zimmerman felt the need to follow the person he was calling about?

The other point that I find interesting is that GZ said in the 911 call that TM had his hand in his waist band...basically insinuating that this kid might have a gun or some kind of weapon on him. I know during the trial, I got beat up pretty bad on here when I speculated that maybe GZ showed TM he had a gun and TM was fighting for his life out of fear that this guy following him might try to kill him.

So if you believe it is unreasonable for TM to fight GZ knowing that GZ was armed (which I agreed was crazy, but that at 17 we think we are invincible), then it should follow that you believe it is unreasonable for GZ to follow someone that he believes may be armed. Right?

sherm03;1477607 wrote:I think the point that was being made is, why is this the only call where Zimmerman felt the need to follow the person he was calling about?

Maybe because this was the only one that was going in between houses?

There's no evidence that Zimmerman believe TM had a gun. His hand in his waist pants could have been part of the strange behavior noted. We don't know. But a more reasonable interpretation would be Zimmerman didn't believe that, because if he thought TM could have a weapon he would have said so as it would help his defense.

You guys are making all kinds of unreasonable assumptions that simply aren't supported by what we know to be fact. Fair enough, MAYBE Zimmerman thought TM had a weapon, but then your making quite a leap to assume Zimmerman showed his gun (which is crime in FL, by the way, to brandish a gun).

Isn't it reasonable that people cut thru in the rain?

BoatShoes;1477602 wrote:No not really. You still have to make some pretty unfair logical leaps to assume a man walking leisurely through yards is a prospective burglar.

LMAO. Why? You just said that's precisely what a burgular would do. It's NOT a leap to think it's unusual for someone to be walking through yards in between houses. This is NOT common in all neighborhoods - for residents, much less strangers - and might not have been common in Zimmerman's. You're the only one taking gigantic leap of logic here.

BoatShoes;1477602 wrote:He had no good reason to get out of the car and go after him/look for him. There was nothing that Trayvon Martin was doing based on Zimmerman's own description to the dispatcher that should lead a reasonable person to suspect imminent criminal activity (other than perhaps de minimus trespassing) unless the person inferring crime is informing their inferences based on logical fallacies or biases.

Again, you don't know why Zimmerman got out of the car. You are assuming. And how do you know a criminal act wasn't imminent? He's going between houses - which, according to you, is something a burgular would do. Another way of stating what you said is to say criminal activity is never surprised/unsuspected, which is absurd. And if the person was on drugs, as Zimmerman seemed to think possible, then it's hardly unreasonable to suspect imminent criminal activity

gut;1477608 wrote:Maybe because this was the only one that was going in between houses?

There's no evidence that Zimmerman believe TM had a gun. His hand in his waist pants could have been part of the strange behavior noted. We don't know. But a more reasonable interpretation would be Zimmerman didn't believe that, because if he thought TM could have a weapon he would have said so as it would help his defense.

You guys are making all kinds of unreasonable assumptions that simply aren't supported by what we know to be fact. Fair enough, MAYBE Zimmerman thought TM had a weapon, but then your making quite a leap to assume Zimmerman showed his gun (which is crime in FL, by the way, to brandish a gun).

That's just my opinion on how things COULD have gone down when the two met up. I'm not saying that IS how it happened. But if GZ thought TM had a weapon, it would make sense that he'd be anxious to get his hands on his own firearm.

My whole point is that while I may be making assumptions that are not supported by facts in evidence, a lot of people are making assumptions based on GZ's words and claiming that to be fact.

As I've said before, I think the truth of what happened lies somewhere in between both views of how things went down.

Trueblue23;1477597 wrote:LOL @ Obama's speach (and the sudden 'yea me too!' that it inspired).

Do you know WHY women grab their purses when a random black guy walks by? Or WHY someone might suspect a black person of theft? Because statistically speaking, black males commit more crimes in America than any other race/sex. It's not discrimination, it's caution based on fact. Black people that don't like it shouldn't be mad at the white woman clutching her purse, they should be mad at their peers for the #s.

I actually find this type of honesty refreshing instead of pretending he followed him simply because he didn't know him as some keep foolishly repeating

Gblock;1477609 wrote:Isn't it reasonable that people cut thru in the rain?

And get their clothes and shoes muddy? I'd say no. And he's already wet - the shortcut isn't making him less soaked.

Gblock;1477612 wrote:I actually find this type of honesty refreshing instead of pretending he followed him simply because he didn't know him as some keep foolishly repeating

I would argue what some often mistake for prejudice/racial profiling is actually socio-economic profiling. Women clutch their purses around young white males that look the part, too.

Gblock;1477612 wrote:I actually find this type of honesty refreshing instead of pretending he followed him simply because he didn't know him as some keep foolishly repeating

Thanks man.

I honestly have nothing against anyone at all. I think people that are "racist" are scum that hold our society back from turning into something great.

Trueblue23;1477615 wrote:Thanks man.

I honestly have nothing against anyone at all. I think people that are "racist" are scum that hold our society back from turning into something great.

That's the problem though--I'm not fucking racist; I just am able to read the facts and think Zimmerman should not have been convicted of murder.

But if you tell someone now a days you're okay with the sentencing, you're a racist.

SportsAndLady;1477630 wrote:That's the problem though--I'm not fucking racist; I just am able to read the facts and think Zimmerman should not have been convicted of murder.

But if you tell someone now a days you're okay with the sentencing, you're a racist.

I know what you mean. I was 100% okay with the verdict because I believe Zimmerman was defending himself and did not commit murder.

Charles Barkley said he thinks they came to the right verdict, based on evidence (which is correct). Literally thousands of black people on Twitter calling him an Uncle Tom lol

BoatShoes;1477569 wrote:WTF are you talking about? I never said he was guilty of murder??? Again. Try to follow along if you're going to comment. In my first comments I suggested that the DA, at best, should've tried for a manslaughter charge based on the evidence and even that was a stretch. The 2nd degree murder charge could not be supported by the affidavit.

You believe the jury wasn't reasonably believing GZ acted in self defense, that implies you think he's guilty. Try to follow along.

BoatShoes;1477603 wrote:There it is!!! We're justified in suspecting black males as criminals because of the color of their skin! :thumbup:

It's not racial profiling. If TM were in a suit i doubt he would've been suspicious, if it were an old chinese woman i doubt he would've been suspicious, but he was walking around in a black hoodie with the hood up going into between houses in an area that had break ins and he fit the profile of the culprit, deal with it.

SportsAndLady;1477630 wrote:That's the problem though--I'm not fucking racist; I just am able to read the facts and think Zimmerman should not have been convicted of murder.

But if you tell someone now a days you're okay with the sentencing, you're a racist.

If you voted for Romney you're a racist too. Anything you do that doesn't support black people is racist, get used to it.

BoatShoes;1477581 wrote:The crime of burglary basically amounts to breaking and entering a place where a person lives with the intent to commit a felony. I'm not sure if Florida still has that old common law crime but that's basically what a guy who breaks and enters at night is. If he justified his suspicions of Martin based upon the previous break-ins/attempted break-ins he's basically suspecting him of being a potential burglar. ...

That's a leap and is simply not factual. You don't now this.

If burglary's have happen in the neighborhood it 's reason enough to suspicious of anyone you don't know walking through. The specificity of what your suspicions are of any individual isn't necessarily the exact same crime that has occurred int he past but anything at all! Assuming Mr. Zimmerman was suspicious of Mr. Martin for a specific concern is nothing more than an assumption.

Simply maintaining visibility to the person is certainly a more cautions approach than what Mr. Martin did!

BoatShoes;1477602 wrote:No not really. You still have to make some pretty unfair logical leaps to assume a man walking leisurely through yards is a prospective burglar. I...

I agree it's a leap to suspect of such specificity as burglary. We dont know that's what Mr. Zimmerman did. There's know proof of that anywhere in testimony.

It's not unreasonable to watch anyone who you don't know walk through the neighborhood considering the past activities.

BoatShoes;1477605 wrote:...Still doesn't mean that Martin was prudent or cautious when he goes out looking for a guy he suspects may be a potential criminal when the Police are minutes away.

It would makes sense for anyone to go looking for someone in the neighborhood when considering the recent activities that took place.

Gblock;1477609 wrote:Isn't it reasonable that people cut thru in the rain?

Sure. It also makes sense to watch someone cutting through the rain that you have never seen before when considering the recent events in the neighborhood.

Gblock;1477612 wrote:... instead of pretending he followed him simply because he didn't know him as some keep foolishly repeating

Why do you say pretending? How can you be so certain the individuals including me are intentionally pretending...or giving a false appearance?

Raw Dawgin' it;1477815 wrote:It's not racial profiling. If TM were in a suit i doubt he would've been suspicious, if it were an old chinese woman i doubt he would've been suspicious...

These people would definitely have been suspicious. Lol

Gblock;1477612 wrote:I actually find this type of honesty refreshing instead of pretending he followed him simply because he didn't know him as some keep foolishly repeating

Refreshing to continue to stir the race card pot? Hmmm

That fuckboy Zimmerman started a fight he could not finish and had to use his gun. Trayvon would locked up without question, if the end results were different.

#1DBag;1477871 wrote:That fuckboy Zimmerman started a fight he could not finish and had to use his gun. Trayvon would locked up without question, if the end results were different.

I would say Zimmerman def finished the fight.

Yeah, shot an unarmed 17 year old that was whoopin' his ass.

#1DBag;1477882 wrote:Yeah, shot an unarmed 17 year old that was whoopin' his ass.

Did he or did he not finish the fight?

Now kindly STFU.