For police, the goal is vigilance, not vigilantes

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MaryT777 said:
What law did TM break before he saw Z had a gun and either
reached for it
or touched it according to Z.

Nothing.
Z needed to wait for the police; as much as he wanted to be he was not, is not, and never will be now a police officer.

Mary.
Click to expand...
I have tried to find evidence of Z claiming that T either reached for or touched the gun. We know that he did not touch the gun as there was no dna. The law that T broke was one common sense-going towards trouble instead of going to his father’s girl friends house and two battery. Obviously it was not mutual because T had no injury to indicate that he was in a fight. The only injury indicating a fight was on Z.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Only taking the perspective of GZ does not sound like justice to me.
Click to expand...
TM’s perspective. He is walking slowly back to where he was staying. He is not walking on the sidewalk could be he was just a peeping tom. The rain didn’t seem to bother him as I said he was walking slowly and not on the sidewalk. He notices as he says a “cracker” following him. He approaches GZ. He must have seen the G was on the phone. Then he runs away and tell his girlfriend that he is behind the place he is staying. She eggs him on with comments on rape. This obviously enraged him. Since he was a trained fighter, he figured he could take the out of shape man. While returning to confront Zimmerman he puts the can of pop and candy in his pocket as well as his phone in preparation to take this “cracker” down. What words are exchanged we do not know for certain. We do know that Z has a broken nose and ends up on his back just as TM was capable of doing. Witnesses say that he was raining down blows just as he had done before. He was getting the guy who had the temerity to call in a complaint about him. His perspective is he was going to beat the “cracker” and do damage. Now according to Z he intended to kill him, nothing disputes that intent.

TM profiled Z that he was just a “cracker” that needed to be taught a lesson.
 
adrift said:
TM’s perspective. He is walking slowly back to where he was staying. He is not walking on the sidewalk could be he was just a peeping tom. The rain didn’t seem to bother him as I said he was walking slowly and not on the sidewalk. He notices as he says a “cracker” following him. He approaches GZ. He must have seen the G was on the phone. Then he runs away and tell his girlfriend that he is behind the place he is staying. She eggs him on with comments on rape. This obviously enraged him. Since he was a trained fighter, he figured he could take the out of shape man. While returning to confront Zimmerman he puts the can of pop and candy in his pocket as well as his phone in preparation to take this “cracker” down. What words are exchanged we do not know for certain. We do know that Z has a broken nose and ends up on his back just as TM was capable of doing. Witnesses say that he was raining down blows just as he had done before. He was getting the guy who had the temerity to call in a complaint about him. His perspective is he was going to beat the “cracker” and do damage. Now according to Z he intended to kill him, nothing disputes that intent.

TM profiled Z that he was just a “cracker” that needed to be taught a lesson.
Click to expand...
Pure fiction.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Pure fiction.
Click to expand...
:whackadoo::rotfl:

Actually I based it on what has been presented. You don’t like it because it is indeed his perspective through his own actions and words. It contains more fact than any of the scenarios you have presented.
 
MaryT777 said:
Yes it most certainly was fiction.
Click to expand...
You calling it fiction? :rolleyes:When most of what you presented for Z was fiction.🤷

Speaking of fiction you never answered this
I have tried to find evidence of Z claiming that T either reached for or touched the gun. We know that he did not touch the gun as there was no dna. The law that T broke was one common sense-going towards trouble instead of going to his father’s girl friends house and two battery. Obviously it was not mutual because T had no injury to indicate that he was in a fight. The only injury indicating a fight was on Z.
Click to expand...
I gave you a scenario based on the facts. I noticed all you can muster is this is fiction without any real disputing what was stated. Like he didn’t call Z a “cracker” or his girlfriend didn’t mention rape or Z’s nose wasn’t broken but you can’t. All you can do is say it is fiction:rolleyes: Of course since most of what you state has been-] fiction /-]speculation that was not based on fact, I understand your inability to refute fact.
 
adrift said:
You calling it fiction? When most of what you presented for Z was fiction.

Speaking of fiction you never answered this

I gave you a scenario based on the facts. I noticed all you can muster is this is fiction without any real disputing what was stated. Like he didn’t call his a “cracker” or his girlfriend didn’t mention rape or Z’s nose wasn’t broken but you can’t all you can do is say it is fiction:rolleyes: Of course since most of what you state has been-] fiction /-]speculation that was not based on fact, I understand your inability to refute fact.
Click to expand...
I never disputed GZ was called a “cracker”

I disputed his girlfriend never stated anything about “homosexual” rape.
I never disputed Z’s nose was broken.

There is a side of the story we’re missing and that is TM’s side because he is dead.
What happened between TM and GZ In those minutes before his death are speculation on both sides.
Mary.
 
MaryT777 said:
I never disputed GZ was called a “cracker”

I disputed his girlfriend never stated anything about “homosexual” rape.
I never disputed Z’s nose was broken.

There is a side of the story we’re missing and that is TM’s side because he is dead.
What happened between TM and GZ In those minutes before his death are speculation on both sides.
Mary.
Click to expand...
Where did I mention “homosexual” rape? You are disputing a statement I did not make. I presented TM’s side in his words what others reported and by his actions.
Jeantel said she warned Martin the man might be a rapist, which he laughed off.
Click to expand...
 
adrift said:
Where did I mention “homosexual” rape? I presented TM’s side in his words what others reported and by his actions.
Click to expand...
That was certainly one perspective on what may have happened. It’s speculation both ways for he’s dead now. That’s my main point. He never had a day in court to tell us what happened.
 
MaryT777 said:
That was certainly one perspective on what may have happened. It’s speculation both ways for he’s dead now. That’s my main point. He never had a day in court to tell us what happened.
Click to expand...
It is a great sorrow that he is no longer alive.
 
maryjk said:
Innocent kids do not attack others.
Click to expand...
They might if their life is threatened. GZ attacked a police officer and was let off on
a plea deal for an “alcohol awareness” program. He had a run in with domestic violence
that led to a restraining order.

Why focus just on the victim?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top