Shot for getting skittles

Is it?

George Zimmerman was also "minding his own business" (his business = the safety and security of the community in which he lived) and "had every right to be there", considering that unlike Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman actually lived there.

Mind you, I'm still of the opinion that George Zimmerman is responsible for what happened, but that opinion is disintegrating fast as information gets released.

I don't own one either.

Very good!

You may have an

And some white devil hasn't shot you down in cold blood?

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/was-trayvon-martin-a-drug-dealer

Chaos Descending disagrees: no u

Yeah, because minding his own business and having every right to be there means it was open season on him to get harassed and shot by some vigilante. So in other words, it has every bearing on the case, because as far as can be said, Martin had as much of a right to "stand his ground" as Zimmerman did.

Well considering that there was no stolen property or "burglary tools" found on his body, and that presumably any drugs in his system would have been reported, I think it's pretty safe to say he was just making a trip to the store and back and was neither on drugs nor "casing" anyone's property.

I don't care that you gave me a "neg rep".

I was addressing the content, which was minimal.

And yet entirely correct.

Not even remotely. Whether Trayvon Martin was "minding his own business" or "had every right to be there" or not has no bearing on the case, since George Zimmerman, an actual resident of the community (unlike Trayvon Martin), was DEFINITELY within his rights to find out why someone he didn't recognize was skulking about his neighborhood.

May I offer an explanation? "Police sources" aren't all they're cracked up to be. We've been forced to compartmentalize a lot of things because we have a leak in our agency. We think we've identified it, but the investigation is ongoing.

But, I digress. If the investigation has been compartmentalized to prevent leaks to the media, Police Officers who aren't directly involved with the Investigation often have some basic facts right, but get the details wrong. Think of it as a very serious game of Telephone. By the time the information gets to the Watercooler Gossip Squad, it's wrong more often than not.

Now, to shift gears.

It's purely anecdotal, but I thought I'd pass this along even though it's obviously not happening here. Based on my conversations with Police Officers I personally know, I see things falling along classic lines. The Officers who are pro-gun are saying, "Lets wait and see what the evidence is." The Officers that are anti-gun have already convicted Mr. Zimmerman.

In all fairness, if I was wandering around a strange neighborhood and some random asshole demanded to know what I was doing, I'd tell him to go fuck himself if I was in a hurry, or something more creative if not.

It wouldn't give me an excuse to throw hands at him, but still.

Whether Martin was a resident there has no bearing on Zimmerman's "right" to harass and kill him.

Now, slow the fuck down there, hoss. Asking you what you're doing-even repeatedly-is not "harassment." He had every right to ask, and Martin had every right to tell him to get fucked. Neither of them had the right to initiate violence unless they were in imminent danger.

"Harass"? -10 points for gratuitous use of weasel words.

Zimmerman has every right to find out why some kid he's never seen before is out dipsy-doodling in his gated community, and it doesn't necessarily count as "harassing" him.

Maybe hotheaded young druggie thieves should watch out who they pick a fight with if they don't want to get their punk ass shot.

I'm telling you what, the general stupidity of the people backing Trayvon Martin is doing more to make me sympathetic to George Zimmerman than any of the facts around the case.

Generally if guys like Paladin are on one side of a debate and goons like you and Jenee are on the other side, I have to start seriously questioning my facts if I somehow find myself on the same side as you two idiots.

Fine. Then all Zimmerman's past is also accountable. A leopard doesn't change it's spots.

What are you going on about? Zimmerman's account is the only account. The witness accounts are in dispute as to who saw what? "John" was looking at it from the street and someone else was looking at it directly under her window. Witness accounts are also notoriously unreliable. This is a proven fact. And when witness accounts are contradictory, the police don't get to pick and choose which one they will believe.

No, I don't believe Zimmerman tripped and fell. But, I'm also not going to assume because he has a bloody nose, Martin started the fight.

The point is, dumbass, just because one owns one, it doesn't mean he's a criminal.



A truly dangerous animal.

Eh, they'd just make a bigger mess than was there before.

No. I am not discounting police reports. You're the one getting all kinds of upset because I'm not buying into your hypotheticals. We don't know who started the fight. All we know is what is in the 911 calls and what the police found after they got there.

Is that your kid? Are you retarded?

So, when I don't concede to you points, you assume I'm being obstinate.

When normal discourse doesn't change someone's mind, resort to insults.

Back to where we were 10 pages ago.

Is that english? What is that?

Of course, neither person's background can tell us with certainty what happened that night, but do these recent insights into Trayvon Martin's life give anyone who was certain that Martin could not have instigated the fight pause to think?

As an adult who was not a squeaky clean teenager, and as the parent of a teenager who was also not squeaky clean, I can say in all honesty that just because someone is not squeaky clean, that does not make him/her criminal or violent.

Many people through the years have labeled me as aggressive and hostile and I have to laugh because those people don't know me at all. I would never - not then, not now - attack someone without provocation. Despite all signs to the contrary.

You can't discount anything with any certainty. After all the burglary does not have to take place immediately after the "casing." And the toxicology report hasn't been released yet. You may indeed be right, Martin was innocently walking home from the store. However you're being intellectually dishonest to insist that is an absolute fact, in the face of the new information we have.

83 posts to go!

Oh, the horror!

Next thing you know, they'll be wearing pink for breast cancer in October!

Well, it's clear that if the kid smoked weed, he deserved to die.