BBM
I agree. Does this go for Zimmerman's MySpace posts as well ?
Trayvon is the victim. Zimmerman has been arrested for killing him. So IMO that would be no.
BBM
I agree. Does this go for Zimmerman's MySpace posts as well ?
BBM
I agree. Does this go for Zimmerman's MySpace posts as well ?
First, I don't think asking someone what you are doing in the neighborhood is a *nice* question to ask, necessarily. And I would bet it wasn't asked particularly nicely in this case. Certainly different than just saying hi, how're you doing? Or, to take suzi's classic example, can you help me find my puppy?
Second, what I would tell my little kid v. my teenaged son might be quite different. But I don't have a teenaged son, so I don't know that yet. What I do know, is that he will be unlikely to listen to me no matter what I say lol
All I can say is that you can't prepare your kids for every eventuality, so all you can do is teach them to use good judgment in the particular circumstance, and provide them with examples of what they might do if such and such happens. Honestly, and to your point, I don't think the precise scenario of this case is something that any parent previously would have thought to provide specific advice about. I just think that, given what is undisputed (at this point) about the exchange between Trayvon and George, that the best thing to do may have been for Trayvon just to have identified himself, and also that the argument that he was in legit fear of a random psychopath doesn't make too much sense to me under the circumstances.
jmo
If I was a killer, then I would expect my Facebook/Myspace rants would come into play. They always do when someone has killed another. But, if I were an innocent victim, walking home from the store with nothing but skittles, an ice tea and a cell phone, I wouldn't expect my Facebook/Myspace would be used, and my own writings to help get my murderer off.So if it fits YOUR narrative, you will use it against someone and say it really matters.
If not, then it is just harmless fluff. Got it.
No one is blaming the victim. Many are tired of the lopsided picture that has been painted of these two from day one. NEITHER was an angel, they both had things in their past, TM'm much more recent. If he were a year older, he's have had a record for the vandalism and police would not have taken "I don't know" for an answer when asked where he got all the jewelry. He didn't do anything horrible, but he wasn't the innocent child that he is constantly being made out to be. His past shows that he could have been up to something - regardless of whether or not GZ was aware of what he'd done previously.
It's funny how GZ's past matters when it comes to this tragedy, but he didn't deserve to be beat up by TM because of it. None of us know, not even the prosecutor, if TM was acting suspicious, and we don't know who threw first punch, so one opinion is as good as the other in this case. JMO
I'm here to tell you (since that's exactly what happened in my son's case) that yes they WILL be arrested. Schools have zero tolerance for drugs or paraphenalia. He would go through the Juvenile Drug Court program in FL.
Oh, please forgive me. Trayvon might have had an empty marijuana bag and a pipe. :what: To continually bring this up is asinine. It has NOTHING to do with GZ killing Trayvon that evening.
Again, pretty pathetic to keep bringing this up. IMO
Implying violent crime doesn't happen?
You're fine to not exercise your right to defend yourself, but there's no need to make sweeping generalizations like that. There are plenty of instances in which a criminal would have gladly taken someone's life for mere property and the tables were turned because the victim was carrying.
If I was a killer, then I would expect my Facebook/Myspace rants would come into play. They always do when someone has killed another. But, if I were an innocent victim, walking home from the store with nothing but skittles, an ice tea and a cell phone, I wouldn't expect my Facebook/Myspace would be used, and my own writings to help get my murderer off.
GZ's MySpace may be harmless fluff, but it kind of fits into the person he is. JMO
BBM
I do not agree that it is a logical conclusion that no police report means there is no crime. There are many crimes that go unreported for various reasons. Not reporting something does not mean it never happened. imo
And I didn't see anyone accusing TM of stealing the jewelry in another state, or of actually stealing anything. But the question still remains, what was he doing with women's diamond earrings and rings in his school backpack? If it did have an innocent explanation, why not just tell the school who it belonged to?
And there is a reason it is important info. NOBODY says he deserved to be shot that night. Nobody. The question about his school suspensions goes to his level of 'suspicious' behavior that night. At school he trespassed onto closed area and spray painted graffitti and he MAY have had stolen jewelry in his possession, so is it possible that he MAY have been doing a similar pattern of suspicious behavior that night? I think it is fair for the defense to ask that question, imo.
Thank you. I still don't see anything in there that says its okay to throw out unfounded accusations about TM.
You are talking about ROBBERY. GZ was concerned about BURGLARY. By definition robbery is a violent crime (as it involves persons) and burglary is not (because it is the stealing of items). Burglars are more concerned with getting in and getting out quick. GZ was after violent-type criminals and decided ON HIS OWN and against advice that he was after a violent criminal.
Lest we forget, Who was following whom? By that alone, it makes GZ the aggressor.
Think it may come up in the trial?
This whole line of topic is irrelevant! Why are we still beating this poor dead horse into dust? The jewelry has nothing to do with this shooting. :maddening:
So for some people, using vulgarity, gang signs and flipping the bird, is meaningless and harmless. But for others, we should judge them by it?
Who said anything about specific crimes?You are talking about ROBBERY. GZ was concerned about BURGLARY. By definition robbery is a violent crime (as it involves persons) and burglary is not (because it is the stealing of items). Burglars are more concerned with getting in and getting out quick. GZ was after violent-type criminals and decided ON HIS OWN and against advice that he was after a violent criminal.
Lest we forget, Who was following whom? By that alone, it makes GZ the aggressor.
I think it may come up, but I don't think the judge should or will allow it to come in. JMOThink it may come up in the trial?
Good question, wonder if it will
Can you see voir dire of the jury
Did you ever inhale....
:what:
And what if GZ had asked him his name and TM sucker punched him?
and the gf says Trayvon is going away from George as well.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.