Trayvon texts and photos reveal a different Trayvon than you knew
G
graceandtruth
Guest
kaba said:
To defend himself from a 30+ year old carrying a gun.
G
graceandtruth
Guest
kaba said:
No and Trayvon didn't have a weapon. However, after the way this has turned out it appears that he needed one.
C
Castor Muscular
Guest
graceandtruth said:
A picture on Trayvon's phone:
G
graceandtruth
Guest
Castor Muscular said:graceandtruth said:
A picture on Trayvon's phone:
A picture from G&T's computer
Looks like things turned out just fine......
G
graceandtruth
Guest
qwerty said:
I agree. One less African-American male is always a good thing especially if it is before their 18th birthday.
graceandtruth said:
So it is just about race with you.... gotcha!
G
graceandtruth
Guest
qwerty said:
No sir. Please explain to me how an unarmed 17 year old boy being shot and killed by a 30+ year old man how initiated contact with him because he looked "suspicious" is ending just fine.
You seem to be offended that I value the life of this young boy......gotcha!
G
graceandtruth
Guest
rsc2a said:
I am presuming that Trayvon was innocent but I am sure someone is guilty of shooting and killing him.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
[quote author=graceandtruth]I am presuming that Trayvon was innocent but I am sure someone is guilty of shooting and killing him.[/quote]
You also seem intent on the idea that this was murder and not self-defense. Ergo, you are not giving the accused the same rights as the alleged victim.
You also seem intent on the idea that this was murder and not self-defense. Ergo, you are not giving the accused the same rights as the alleged victim.
G
graceandtruth
Guest
rsc2a said:
You also seem intent on the idea that this was murder and not self-defense. Ergo, you are not giving the accused the same rights as the alleged victim.
[/quote]
I guess I have a different understanding of self-defense. If someone breaks into my home that would be self-defense. Someone attempts to rob me that would be self-defense. I follow someone around and then approach them in the dark because I think they are "suspicious" on the public street.......not self-defense. To see that as self-defense I would have to change everything. Someone break into home and owner come home and surprise you and you shoot the owner in self-defense. Someone robbing someone and they resist so they shoot the robbery victim in self-defense because the robber was knocked to the ground by the victim. A bit absurd.
graceandtruth said:
So not it is not about race like you previously mentioned, but now it is about the difference in their ages? Let us know when you firm up what it really is about and we will talk.
The one clear fact is this, Zimmerman ended Trayvon's life. He may be acquitted due too self-defense, he may go to prison on second degree murder. I am philosphically opposed to lethal force of any kind, many people are not. But all that aside basing zimmermans actions being acceptable or not on Trayvon's lifestyle is what bothers me the most.
C
Castor Muscular
Guest
qwerty said:
I wish I had a magic wand so I could reverse the races, such that Zimmerman was black and Trayvon was "white Hispanic" (whatever that's supposed to mean). Not that it should make a difference. IMO, there's no such thing as race. We're all of the same bloodline, with some genetic variation in how we process melanin.
Zimmerman is guilty of using obsessive force in self defense. Nothing more. For that he should serve time.
It is the prosecutors job in this case to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman did more than be an idiot in the way he followed Martin and the way he protected himself. Unless their is scientific evidence I haven't heard about, that isn't going to happen.
The reason this gets so many of us hot under the collar is because it was trotted out as an example that whites are still haters and blacks are innocent victims. Even though the actual evidence of the case doesn't seem to support that and even if it did, it's an isolated case that isn't representative of the entire country.
It is the prosecutors job in this case to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman did more than be an idiot in the way he followed Martin and the way he protected himself. Unless their is scientific evidence I haven't heard about, that isn't going to happen.
The reason this gets so many of us hot under the collar is because it was trotted out as an example that whites are still haters and blacks are innocent victims. Even though the actual evidence of the case doesn't seem to support that and even if it did, it's an isolated case that isn't representative of the entire country.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
graceandtruth said:
I guess I have a different understanding of self-defense. If someone breaks into my home that would be self-defense. Someone attempts to rob me that would be self-defense. I follow someone around and then approach them in the dark because I think they are "suspicious" on the public street.......not self-defense. To see that as self-defense I would have to change everything. Someone break into home and owner come home and surprise you and you shoot the owner in self-defense. Someone robbing someone and they resist so they shoot the robbery victim in self-defense because the robber was knocked to the ground by the victim. A bit absurd.[/quote]
Actually someone can follow you around all day long. They can even approach you. They can call you names and scream at you. It doesn't change the fact. TM still wouldn't have had the right to attack GZ. And, if this is what happened, when GZ allegedly responded with a show of counter-force, that would have been self-defense.
Now, I don't know that TM attacked GZ. I don't know if GZ was the instigator. As such, I refrain from making a judgment about either individual and the motives. I'll presume both were innocent and let the people who have all the evidence figure it out.