Do these items make me look suspicious?

Post by **kalm** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:27 pm

BDKJMU wrote:
kalm wrote:
Well according to the 911 tapes, he clearly was following the kid at one point and was asked to back down. He did kill the kid after that. He did claim self defense. The police chose to not charge him. So.......
How do you know he didn't back down when told, "We don't need you to do that"?

Regardless of what happened after that, he was following what ended up being an innocent kid.

BDKJMU · Post by **BDKJMU** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:30 pm

BlueHen86 wrote:
BDKJMU wrote:
Never said that he didn't.
Then why challenge a statement that he didn't make?

Why assumme he did an action after being advised not to?

Post by **kalm** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:32 pm

BDKJMU wrote:
BlueHen86 wrote:
Then why challenge a statement that he didn't make?
Why assumme he did an action after being advised not to?

He killed a kid that he was following. It's really not that hard to understand.

Post by **BlueHen86** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:33 pm

kalm wrote:
BDKJMU wrote:
How do you know he didn't back down when told, "We don't need you to do that"?
Regardless of what happened after that, he was following what ended up being an innocent kid.

The irony of this situation is that if Trayvon was armed and killed Zimmerman he would be in a good position to apply the stand your ground defense.

Post by **kalm** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:34 pm

BlueHen86 wrote:
kalm wrote:
Regardless of what happened after that, he was following what ended up being an innocent kid.
The irony of this situation is that if Trayvon was armed and killed Zimmerman he would be in a good position to apply the stand your ground defense.

Very true. Who would side with him then?

BDKJMU · Post by **BDKJMU** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:35 pm

BlueHen86 wrote:
kalm wrote:
Regardless of what happened after that, he was following what ended up being an innocent kid.
The irony of this situation is that if Trayvon was armed and killed Zimmerman he would be in a good position to apply the stand your ground defense.

Not unless Zimmerman threatened/attacked him.

Post by **BlueHen86** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:36 pm

BDKJMU wrote:
BlueHen86 wrote:
Then why challenge a statement that he didn't make?
Why assumme he did an action after being advised not to?

You're the only person making assumptions here. You're reading things into posts that aren't there. Zimmerman followed and killed Martin, nobody has disputed that.

The question is whether or not it was self defense. I don't know, which is why I said the courts should decide.

Post by **BlueHen86** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:43 pm

BDKJMU wrote:
BlueHen86 wrote:
The irony of this situation is that if Trayvon was armed and killed Zimmerman he would be in a good position to apply the stand your ground defense.
Not unless Zimmerman threatened/attacked him.

You only need a reasonable belief that you are being threatened. All Martin would have to do is claim he felt threatened that he was being followed. Since Zimmerman had admitted to 9-1-1 that he was following Martin, and Zimmerman was armed, I think Martin would be in a good position to apply the law.

I think it's a stupid law.

BDKJMU · Post by **BDKJMU** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:52 pm

BlueHen86 wrote:
BDKJMU wrote:
Oh, you were there and know what happened?
Seriously? What part of my statement do you want to dispute?

Zimmerman being armed? Check
Zimmerman being an adult? Check
Trayvon being a teenager? Check
Zimmerman stalking Trayvon? Check
Zimmerman killing Trayvon? Check
Zimmerman claiming self defense? Check

-Zimmerman "stalking". Not check. He followed up until the point being advised not to. Following versus stalking = different connotation.
-"We're **** as a country". Not check. Not if it was self defense. We're fine as country if that was the case.
-"Police take his word for it": Not check. As if that's all they sinmply di with no other investigation. The Police wouldn't have based not arresting soley on taking his word for it if there was evidence to back up Zimmerman's claim of self defense, like if there was a witness who said Zimmerman was attacked or if there was physical evidence that indicated such. You think the police came up and simply asked him what happened and he said, "It was self defense" and they were like, "ok, if you say so, have a nice day?

BDKJMU · Post by **BDKJMU** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:56 pm

BlueHen86 wrote:
BDKJMU wrote:
Not unless Zimmerman threatened/attacked him.
You only need a reasonable belief that you are being threatened. All Martin would have to do is claim he felt threatened that he was being followed. Since Zimmerman had admitted to 9-1-1 that he was following Martin, and Zimmerman was armed, I think Martin would be in a good position to apply the law.

I think it's a stupid law.

Zimmerman being armed wouldn't be a defense for Martin if the weapon was concealed.

Skjellyfetti · Post by **Skjellyfetti** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 9:16 pm

Why do people care so much about this?

Both sides.

We're a nation of retards.

Post by **BlueHen86** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 3:55 am

BDKJMU wrote:
BlueHen86 wrote:
You only need a reasonable belief that you are being threatened. All Martin would have to do is claim he felt threatened that he was being followed. Since Zimmerman had admitted to 9-1-1 that he was following Martin, and Zimmerman was armed, I think Martin would be in a good position to apply the law.

I think it's a stupid law.
Zimmerman being armed wouldn't be a defense for Martin if the weapon was concealed.

If Zimmerman was dead Martin could claim that he saw a gun. Zimmerman wouldn't be there to agrue otherwise. Kind of like Martin isn't around to give his side of the story today.

Post by **BlueHen86** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 3:58 am

BDKJMU wrote:
BlueHen86 wrote:
Seriously? What part of my statement do you want to dispute?

Zimmerman being armed? Check
Zimmerman being an adult? Check
Trayvon being a teenager? Check
Zimmerman stalking Trayvon? Check
Zimmerman killing Trayvon? Check
Zimmerman claiming self defense? Check

-Zimmerman "stalking". Not check. He followed up until the point being advised not to. Following versus stalking = different connotation.
-"We're **** as a country". Not check. Not if it was self defense. We're fine as country if that was the case.
-"Police take his word for it": Not check. As if that's all they sinmply di with no other investigation. The Police wouldn't have based not arresting soley on taking his word for it if there was evidence to back up Zimmerman's claim of self defense, like if there was a witness who said Zimmerman was attacked or if there was physical evidence that indicated such. You think the police came up and simply asked him what happened and he said, "It was self defense" and they were like, "ok, if you say so, have a nice day?

You should have sat this argument out. I repeated facts, facts that both sides of the case have agreed on up to this point and the best you have is to try and distinguish between "stalk" and "follow".

The police did take his word for it, otherwise they would have charged him or looked for more evidence. He's been charged now, that tells me the police didn't do enough back in Feb.

Back to you ...spin away.

Fell free to repeat Fox News talking points if you think it helps.

dal4018 · Post by **dal4018** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 10:58 am

BDKJMU wrote:
BlueHen86 wrote:
Then why challenge a statement that he didn't make?
Why assumme he did an action after being advised not to?

Because he thought he could get away with murder.

Post by **Cap'n Cat** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 11:01 am

bluehenbillk · Post by **bluehenbillk** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 11:06 am

Skjellyfetti wrote:Why do people care so much about this?

Both sides.

We're a nation of retards.

Agreed 100%.

Hundreds of people get murdered every day in this country. Move on people. Mainly white racists & blacks with a stick up their ass just keep this thing going.

"Can't we all just get along"?

There are only about 1,000 things more important to me - just today.

Post by **HI54UNI** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 11:25 am

Skjellyfetti wrote:Why do people care so much about this?

Both sides.

We're a nation of retards.

+6.93

Post by **Cap'n Cat** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 11:27 am

HI54UNI wrote:
Skjellyfetti wrote:Why do people care so much about this?

Both sides.

We're a nation of retards.
+6.93

Gotta agree, too.

citdog · Post by **citdog** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 11:36 am

dal4018 wrote:
BDKJMU wrote:
Why assumme he did an action after being advised not to?
Because he thought he could get away with murder.

after seriously thinking on this subject I hope the wetback gets the death sentence. one less spic and one dead thug......it's a WIN WIN!

Post by **Cap'n Cat** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 11:39 am

citdog wrote:
dal4018 wrote:Because he thought he could get away with murder.
after seriously thinking on this subject I hope the wetback gets the death sentence. one less spic and one dead thug......it's a WIN WIN!

Citdog-seriously thinking.

Non sequitur.

citdog · Post by **citdog** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 11:58 am

Cap'n Cat wrote:
citdog wrote:
after seriously thinking on this subject I hope the wetback gets the death sentence. one less spic and one dead thug......it's a WIN WIN!
Citdog-seriously thinking.

Non sequitur.

[youtube][/youtube]

Post by **Cap'n Cat** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:25 pm

You lay one finger on my pigeons and that's the last thing your grimy kike hands ever do, Mister!

Post by **DSUrocks07** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:53 pm

Skjellyfetti wrote:Why do people care so much about this?

Both sides.

We're a nation of retards.

Co-sign

dal4018 · Post by **dal4018** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 3:10 pm

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Well we all know what happened to him as well.

dal4018 · Post by **dal4018** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 3:12 pm

citdog wrote:
dal4018 wrote:Because he thought he could get away with murder.
after seriously thinking on this subject I hope the wetback gets the death sentence. one less spic and one dead thug......it's a WIN WIN!

Yeah I hope Zimmrman the thug gets the death penalty but not holding my breath.

Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Do these items make me look suspicious?

Re: Do these items make me look suspicious?

Re: Do these items make me look suspicious?

Re: Do these items make me look suspicious?

Re: Do these items make me look suspicious?

Re: Do these items make me look suspicious?

Re: Do these items make me look suspicious?

Re: Do these items make me look suspicious?

Re: Do these items make me look suspicious?

Re: Do these items make me look suspicious?

Re: Do these items make me look suspicious?

Re: Do these items make me look suspicious?

Re: Do these items make me look suspicious?

Re: Do these items make me look suspicious?

Re: Do these items make me look suspicious?

Re: Do these items make me look suspicious?

Re: Do these items make me look suspicious?

Re: Do these items make me look suspicious?

Re: Do these items make me look suspicious?

Re: Do these items make me look suspicious?

Re: Do these items make me look suspicious?

Re: Do these items make me look suspicious?

Re: Do these items make me look suspicious?

Re: Do these items make me look suspicious?

Re: Do these items make me look suspicious?

Re: Do these items make me look suspicious?