Family of Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch seeks arrest

[Jack House]

Stalking people at night is what you usually do? Why do something different?

Because people don't die...

On a side note, I'm out tapatalk is choking out on me.

Ummm, so being out on the town at 2am means you're stalking people?

 

[vermonter]

I will make THIS as plain as can be.
There is NO reported evidence that Zimmerman approached Martin. Why do you keep insisting that to be the case?

You are absolutely right, so we don't really know who is at fault - do we? Just seems like everyone is ready to declare Martin the bad one. Is it b/c Z is hispanic, not black therefore less likely to be the bad guy? Is it b/c he is a gun owner with a CCW and therefore automatically a good guy that can do no wrong? Or is it b/c he declared himself a neighbourhood watchman and that makes any actions justified? To me Zimmerman looks like the "Hood Rat" many posters have described. He wears and earring and is in PRISON GARB! I am from Vermont the so called "whitest state in the nation", and to many in my state (NOT me) M & Z are both minorities and would be considered "gang bangers eliminating each other". Like I said who is wearing the prison garb? I am not trying to say Z is guilty, but he used some very poor judgement. You are right he was told by dispatch "you do not need to do that" and he said OK - referring to following M. He should have kept to his agreement. Just some observations....

 

[vermonter]

Ummm, so being out on the town at 2am means you're stalking people?

Next time you are in Miami visit Overtown. It's the place were the city has put up signs at off ramps saying "keep your windows up and doors locked for your safety"

 

[wrightme]

Stalking people at night is what you usually do? Why do something different?

Because people don't die...

On a side note, I'm out tapatalk is choking out on me.

????


Who said anything about stalking someone at night?


If the stated location is a place a person would normally be, why would they choose a different place to be simply by choosing to be armed?

 

[wrightme]

Next time you are in Miami visit Overtown. It's the place were the city has put up signs at off ramps saying "keep your windows up and doors locked for your safety"

So, that sounds like a place that IF you had to be at 2AM, armed is the best thing to be.

 

[wrightme]

You are absolutely right, so we don't really know who is at fault - do we? Just seems like everyone is ready to declare Martin the bad one. Is it b/c Z is hispanic, not black therefore less likely to be the bad guy? Is it b/c he is a gun owner with a CCW and therefore automatically a good guy that can do no wrong? Or is it b/c he declared himself a neighbourhood watchman and that makes any actions justified? To me Zimmerman looks like the "Hood Rat" many posters have described. He wears and earring and is in PRISON GARB! I am from Vermont the so called "whitest state in the nation", and to many in my state (NOT me) M & Z are both minorities and would be considered "gang bangers eliminating each other". Like I said who is wearing the prison garb? I am not trying to say Z is guilty, but he used some very poor judgement. You are right he was told by dispatch "you do not need to do that" and he said OK - referring to following M. He should have kept to his agreement. Just some observations....

????

No, it is none of that. What it is, is that so far, the reported evidence indicates that Martin approached Zimmerman, attacked him, would not stop, and Zimmerman shot him. Just about ALL of the bits that do not describe those facts are media hype and hysteria.

 

[vermonter]

So, that sounds like a place that IF you had to be at 2AM, armed is the best thing to be.

I went through Overtown during the day by mistake in the 1990's. There is no godly reason anyone would have to be there unless they were selling drugs or themselves. I would prefer walking unarmed through Harlem than driving armed through Overtown! You are right of course, but angry mobs like we see on TV dictate that no matter how much of a right you have to be somewhere, some places are best not visited - especially armed - b/c you KNOW you will have to use it! That's why I live in Vermont!

 

[Grapeshot]

--snip--
Just about ALL of the bits that do not describe those facts are media hype and hysteria.

ALL of the bits that do not describe [strike]those[/strike] the facts are media hype and hysteria.

I am gravely disappointed in those posters that contribute to the sensationalism (media hype) and indulge in speculation regarding what happened and the motivation/intent for same. We have often claimed the high ground by choosing to deal in facts, rather than emotions; yet here some are fanning the flames of emotional reaction to the detriment of seeking the truth. This reflects poorly on those posters and OCDO as a whole.

Race, style of dress, time of day - none of these should be factors in determining whether someone (either party) has a legitimate right to defend oneself. That right must be judged solely on the action(s) and reaction(s) of the persons involved. Some of the allegations/suppositions expressed here push the limits of forum standards and rules - I expect better from this group.

 

[Stanley]

Furthermore there is NO OUTRAGE AT ALL about the murders of how many other black kids at the hands of other black kids in the same time since?

<CENSORED> PER MOD REQUEST

You are right PFW. Apparently, here is no outrage of the murders of <CENSORED> and <CENSORED> kids. Also, as you say, the media is only focusing on the death of this <CENSORED> kid while other deaths are being ignored.

I found the following story, at <CENSORED> about <CENSORED> that corroborates your claim, that I was unaware of previously.

Though, I will no longer address any post relating to <CENSORED> as they are henceforth to be considered OT and non self-defense related.

 

[Grapeshot]

Most recent news release consolidates what is known and/or alleged about this.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com..._1_miami-schools-punch-unarmed-black-teenager

The greatest harm IMO originates from Al Sharpton's beating the drum to promote his agenda before the truth/facts are even revealed and the offering of a reward for the "capture" of someone not charged with a crime - both smack of outright vigilantism.

Where are the voices of restraint? Neither rushing to judgement/jumping to conclusions, nor substituting supposition for fact has a any semblance of reason - it is unreasonable, out of control mob mentality that we witness here. More is the shame.

 

[Grapeshot]

To throw a bone to PFW, figuratively, since he did bring up selective reporting.

It's not JUST black kids.

I found this quite by accident while practicing my Google-Fu...

I haven't heard anything about this and this is REALLY disturbing and clearly racially motivated. Though I wonder why no one is up in arms about this other than the kids mother. Or are they and just not getting any news coverage???

13 year old white kid set on fire by two 16 black kids

According to the police report, the boy said he made it the front porch of his home on Quincy Avenue when one suspect physically barred him from entering. The second suspect grabbed a red gallon gasoline can and said, "This is what you get."

The second teen then used a light to ignite the gasoline, which "produced a large fireball burning the face and hair" of the victim, according to a Kansas City Police Department report.

Other media outlets have reported that one of the suspects said, "You get what you deserve, white boy."

Only using this as an example, not a singularly directed response;

When such non-related issues/reports are introduced into the mix, they highlight or make central the issue of race - it is this that contributes to dividing us and is itself a violation of both the spirit and intent of OCDO.

Such unnecessary contributions/postings will be handled without further warning or discussion. Appreciate the cooperation of all.


Edited to add: In retrospect, the above reference has nothing to do with OC or self-defence and is therefore OT.

 

[Steeler-gal]

Walking through backyards is not illegal? Perhaps not or perhaps it was trespassing. It does not matter. Illegal or not illegal, it is suspicious.

Well, if walking through backyards is trespassing, then so was George Zimmerman. They weren't in his yard when the fight broke out. Zimmerman was also stalking the young man. Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck. it was not his duty or responsibility to follow Trayvon.

Until we know who started the fight we'll never know the true story. Just because Trayvon was on top doesn't mean he started it. It just means he was better at defending himself.

 

[wrightme]

Well, if walking through backyards is trespassing, then so was George Zimmerman. They weren't in his yard when the fight broke out. Zimmerman was also stalking the young man. Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck. it was not his duty or responsibility to follow Trayvon.

Until we know who started the fight we'll never know the true story. Just because Trayvon was on top doesn't mean he started it. It just means he was better at defending himself.

"Stalking" is a nice emotional sounding word, but it isn't accurate. The more correct term is 'following,' as indicated by Zimmerman's own words. Also, the reports indicate that Trayvon DID begin the contact and altercation, and also continued it after Zimmerman was on the ground.

 

[Stanley]

"Stalking" is a nice emotional sounding word, but it isn't accurate. The more correct term is 'following,' as indicated by Zimmerman's own words. Also, the reports indicate that Trayvon DID begin the contact and altercation, and also continued it after Zimmerman was on the ground.

The American Heritage® Dictionary
stalk (stôk)
v. stalked, stalk·ing, stalks
v.intr.
1. To walk with a stiff, haughty, or angry gait: stalked off in a huff.
2. To move threateningly or menacingly.
3. To track prey or quarry.
v.tr.
1. To pursue by tracking stealthily.
2. To follow or observe (a person) persistently, especially out of obsession or derangement.
3. To go through (an area) in pursuit of prey or quarry.

Note, the word "especially" while highlighting a particular instance does not restrict other instances...




Sounds right to me...

Zimmerman stalked Martin...

And also note that by pure happenstance, stalking ALSO implies threatening and menacing behavior (moving threateningly and menacingly) making Zimmerman the instigator. At least by definition...

 

[wrightme]

The American Heritage® Dictionary
stalk (stôk)
v. stalked, stalk·ing, stalks
v.intr.
1. To walk with a stiff, haughty, or angry gait: stalked off in a huff.
2. To move threateningly or menacingly.
3. To track prey or quarry.
v.tr.
1. To pursue by tracking stealthily.
2. To follow or observe (a person) persistently, especially out of obsession or derangement.
3. To go through (an area) in pursuit of prey or quarry.

Note, the word "especially" while highlighting a particular instance does not restrict other instances...




Sounds right to me...

Zimmerman stalked Martin...

And also note that by pure happenstance, stalking ALSO implies threatening and menacing behavior (moving threateningly and menacingly) making Zimmerman the instigator. At least by definition...

That does not make it stalking. It seems that the most defining bit that makes it not 'follow,' is the mindset of the person desiring a term to use, as opposed to defining what actually happened.

No where has any evidence been shown that Zimmerman was in any shape or form 'threatening and menacing' in behavior.

For supposedly not wanting to prove Zimmerman guilty, you are sure expending a lot of effort to to exactly that. Why are you so invested in wanting Zimmerman declared guilty?

 

[Stanley]

That does not make it stalking. It seems that the most defining bit that makes it not 'follow,' is the mindset of the person desiring a term to use, as opposed to defining what actually happened.

No where has any evidence been shown that Zimmerman was in any shape or form 'threatening and menacing' in behavior.

For supposedly not wanting to prove Zimmerman guilty, you are sure expending a lot of effort to to exactly that. Why are you so invested in wanting Zimmerman declared guilty?

I merely posted the definition and clearly state that finding the "threatening and menacing" part was happenstance. I didn't originally use that word myself. Merely found supporting evidence for steelergal. Evidence which, by the way strikes down your claim and supports her claim. My claim is not even in it.

Though, I do like your attempt to redefine the word. The definition does not call for intent and therefore it follows that your redefinition is baseless.

He WAS following him persistently by his own admission. Shrug...

Is that attempting to prove him guilty? Why are you so invested in what I am invested in? Am I not free to invest myself in what I choose to invest myself in?

 

[HankT]

No where has any evidence been shown that Zimmerman was in any shape or form 'threatening and menacing' in behavior.

Zimmerman had a history of violent behavior. Something about resisting arrest/battery on a police officer. Also, some kind of domestic violence beef.

And those incidents were apparently without a firearm. Imagine the instincts of a violent guy with a deadly weapon at hand.

 

[wrightme]

Sounds right to me...

Zimmerman stalked Martin...

And also note that by pure happenstance, stalking ALSO implies threatening and menacing behavior (moving threateningly and menacingly) making Zimmerman the instigator. At least by definition...

Actually, it looks like you, once again, did exactly what you claim to have not done.

You specify that "Zimmerman stalked Martin." ergo, the behavior implied, 'making Zimmerman the instigator.'


Given that there is no evidence that Zimmerman was having ANY of that behavior, stalking is nothing more than an emotional word, used by those who see it as fitting their desired version of events, whether it is accurate or not.

If you did not believe that to be the case, a simple "but I doubt that is accurate" would make your meaning more clear.

 

[wrightme]

Zimmerman had a history of violent behavior. Something about resisting arrest/battery on a police officer. Also, some kind of domestic violence beef.

And those incidents were apparently without a firearm. Imagine the instincts of a violent guy with a deadly weapon at hand.

No, those two items do not indicate a history of violent behavior.

The 'resist' charge was not a violent act, and unless you have information that the restraining order of his former wife did involve more than simple domestic differences, it isn't valid to use as you do.

 

[wrightme]

Evidence which, by the way strikes down your claim and supports her claim.

No, it isn't 'evidence that strikes down my claim and supports her claim.'


No evidence of any "stalking" has been presented, other than in the minds of those who use that word as fitting their desired version of events, whether it is accurate or not


Zimmerman used the word 'follow.' So far, I have seen that twisted to 'pursue,' and now to 'stalk.' The best choice to describe the acts is the term that was actually used, unless actual evidence comes to light that changes the event stream to something other than what has actually been presented by Zimmerman and law enforcement.



"When facts do not fit the desired version of events, move to the emotional argument." This describes how it is happening in the media, driven by those who feel Zimmerman was in the wrong, and whether it is true or false seems completely irrelevant to them.