Triggering: Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman

[girlfromsocal]

when you are in your prime you are not in your teens. You are usually in your twenties

his bmi was Edited

I am in that same range and can tell you among other women I have very little strength against. He had a lot less weight than zimmerman.... He had less strength

[Koharuchan]

You're still not getting it. You've said before that you've never fought and you find it animalistic. So it would be safe to assume you don't know how to fight, and you correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd say you probably aren't too strong either. However, if you worked out and built your strength, you wouldn't be the weaker one. You wouldn't have an advantage in experience, but you would in strength. It's about strength and experience. Knowing how to fight. Knowing how to use your own strengths and, if possible, use your opponent's strength against him. Trayvon could fight. Trayvon did attack Zimmerman, we all know this. But just because Zimmerman is bigger, he's stronger? Still no. It's the one with experience and and skill, not size.

Also, yes, I do see Zimmerman as a victim as well as Trayvon. Trayvon was a victim, he was fatally shot. However, Zimmerman now has thousands of people rallying against him, people who want him dead, was in hiding until his arrest because of this, and now he's been slapped with 2nd degree murder when this was nothing more than self defense and manslaughter. So yes, I'd say he is a victim here too.

[girlfromsocal]

not really look on the last page I have experience you have overlooked that

yea but you aren't the DA or judge and so to them it wasn't wrongfully. I side with those who know most about the case...

Yea I do work out why I can beat anyone's butt at sprinting....

And still when the stronger one grips couldn't get away. You don't know trayvon anymore than I do. If he were so skilled Zimmerman would have scars to prove it. Don't even pretend. You have no proof in what you're saying is true in this case.

Scientific law and the actual legal professionals agree with me not you js

[Koharuchan]

Originally Posted by girlfromsocal

not really look on the last page I have experience you have overlooked that

yea but you aren't the DA or judge and so to them it wasn't wrongfully. I side with those who know most about the case...

Yea I do work out why I can beat anyone's butt at sprinting....

And still when the stronger one grips couldn't get away. You don't know trayvon anymore than I do. Don't even pretend. You have no proof in what you're saying is true in this case.

Scientific law and the actual legal professionals agree with me not you js

The experience you wrote about was your experience in losing a fight. And you mentioned nothing about even putting up a fight to begin with, from what I can tell from your post, you bumped an old lady. I wouldn't fight an old lady, either.

I'm glad I'm not the DA, because he's an idiot for slapping this guy with 2nd degree murder.

When you work out, do you jog or run laps? Build up leg strength.

EXACTLY. I don't know him, and neither do you. Yet you continue to go on and on saying he was weaker and so he couldn't have beaten up Zimmerman. You do not know this, you can't say that Trayvon was weaker, but the evidence shows that Zimmerman was beaten.

Scientific law doesn't govern whether or not the bigger person in a freaking street fight is going to be stronger. Also, the legal "professionals" are full of bull, because they're letting the stupid racial issue take over this case and real justice is being completely obscured.

[girlfromsocal]

umm I have actually nothing against fighting an old lady in defense she's a woman like anyone else. Especially in defense. It's just I couldn't do that well because of my size.

I am just a natural sprinter. I have beaten pretty much anyone I know. I'm an apple/inverted triangle my strength is in my legs naturally.

The evidence I already showed yet you can't seem to understand our viewpoints are different. From a scientific approach he was weaker. Zimmerman had no real injuries. Trayvon is dead... I kind of think that explains he wasn't beaten at least badly... Again scientific facts prove it

That's what you want to believe. I don't. I think they know more what they're talking than average joe like yourself or myself or anyone


This is a waste of time you're not proving anything besides that you disagree with me

Let's agree to disagree because I am not going to agree and you aren't going to agree that's life not everyone agrees you know?

[Koharuchan]

Originally Posted by girlfromsocal

umm I have actually nothing against fighting an old lady in defense she's a woman like anyone else. Especially in defense. It's just I couldn't.

I am just a natural sprinter. I have beaten pretty much anyone I know. I'm an apple my strength is in my legs naturally.

The evidence I already showed yet you can't seem to understand our viewpoints are different. From a scientific approach he was weaker. Zimmerman had no real injuries. Trayvon is dead... I kind of think that explains he wasn't beaten at least badly... Again scientific facts prove it

That's what you want to believe. I don't. I think they know more what they're talking than average joe like yourself.


This is a waste of time you're not proving anything besides that you disagree with me

And you're proving you don't know everything that happened in this case. Yes, Zimmerman did have multiple injuries to his face and the back of his head. Those injuries came from Trayvon. And Trayvon is dead BECAUSE he attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman acted in self defense. There is no scientific fact behind that. A kid beat someone up and he got shot. End of story. Trayvon was not an innocent little kid like the media made him out to be.

What evidence? You gave me a scientific law that has no connection to whether or not someone larger is stronger in a fight. You haven't given me real evidence because there is no real evidence. Never underestimate an opponent based on size. That's something you just can't seem to understand here.

[girlfromsocal]

Originally Posted by Koharuchan

And you're proving you don't know everything that happened in this case. Yes, Zimmerman did have multiple injuries to his face and the back of his head. Those injuries came from Trayvon. And Trayvon is dead BECAUSE he attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman acted in self defense. There is no scientific fact behind that. A kid beat someone up and he got shot. End of story. Trayvon was not an innocent little kid like the media made him out to be.

What evidence? You gave me a scientific law that has no connection to whether or not someone larger is stronger in a fight. You haven't given me real evidence because there is no real evidence. Never underestimate an opponent based on size. That's something you just can't seem to understand here.

Serious injury... I didn't say he didn't get injured. There's a difference...


Or maybe Trayvon was acting in defense not attack
I mean you want so badly to make Trayvon the enemy.
You want to see trayvon in a certain light go on but I just don't see it that way.
yes it does motion cause and effect have to do with it...

Every action has a reaction.
And action is equal in force to that reaction.

Zimmerman had more force imo.
Therefore he had more ability to hurt trayvon.

Could you get used to the fact that not everyone agrees with you? This is a debate forum. It's likely I'll never be swayed by you.

[Koharuchan]

Originally Posted by girlfromsocal

Serious injury... I didn't say he didn't get injured. There's a difference...


Or maybe Trayvon was acting in defense not attack
I mean you want so badly to make Trayvon the enemy.
You want to see trayvon in a certain light go on but I just don't see it that way.
yes it does motion cause and effect have to do with it...

Every action has a reaction.
And action is equal in force to that reaction.

Zimmerman had more force imo.
Therefore he had more ability to hurt trayvon.

Could you get used to the fact that not everyone agrees with you? This is a debate forum. It's likely I'll never be swayed by you.

I'm not trying to make him an enemy. I'm saying that these are the facts of the case, whether you like them or not, they are facts. Trayvon attacked Zimmerman. Fact. The media kept showing pictures of him at a younger age and making him out to be an innocent little kid when in reality he had just been suspended from school and was getting into trouble. Fact.

Again, you cannot prove that Zimmerman had more force. You cannot prove that he was stronger. You cannot prove that he had more ability to hurt Trayvon. That is also a fact.

I really don't give a damn that you disagree with me. You can disagree with me all you want. Everyone has their opinion, but this is a debate, and I am debating. I'm telling you how I feel about the case and responding to your side of the debate. That's how a debate works. I'm trying to get you to understand the facts of this case but you're not listening to or understanding a thing I'm saying.

[TigerTank77]

You know, weighing down what we know about each individual, I don't think there's any doubt Trayvon had a strength and skill advantage over Zimmerman. He 6' tall varsity football player. How many 6' tall Varsity players do you know could get there ass handed to them by a 5'7" guy who's slightly overweight and looks like a bank manager?

Occam's razor. The idea that Trayvon had the advantage makes the least assumptions.

Which is the problem. The people swinging heavily for guilty are in an emotional state fueled by assumptions. The not-guilty state, (racists aside, no one listens to them anyway) is doing so from a less emotional state with the facts tat are presented to them.

It's like the people who honestly believe 9/11 was an inside job by the U.S. government, or we never landed on the moon. I mean come on.

[girlfromsocal]

Originally Posted by Koharuchan

I'm not trying to make him an enemy. I'm saying that these are the facts of the case, whether you like them or not, they are facts. Trayvon attacked Zimmerman. Fact. The media kept showing pictures of him at a younger age and making him out to be an innocent little kid when in reality he had just been suspended from school and was getting into trouble. Fact.

Again, you cannot prove that Zimmerman had more force. You cannot prove that he was stronger. You cannot prove that he had more ability to hurt Trayvon. That is also a fact.

I really don't give a damn that you disagree with me. You can disagree with me all you want. Everyone has their opinion, but this is a debate, and I am debating. I'm telling you how I feel about the case and responding to your side of the debate. That's how a debate works. I'm trying to get you to understand the facts of this case but you're not listening to or understanding a thing I'm saying.

It's not a fact he attacked him sorry it could be defense you have no idea

I already did prove it you have just talked in hopes to prove yours. Just your words no backing. So yes my point still stands along with experience while you only are talking about experience and not law. I have two point you've got one.

I actually am listening and I'm saying I don't see that Trayvon was stronger. Sorry I just don't.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by girlfromsocal

I actually am listening and I'm saying I don't see that Trayvon was stronger. Sorry I just don't.

Because you don't want to. You want Zimmerman to be evil, and you want Trayvon to be a martyr.

How exactly does one come to the conclusion that they want to throw a man's life away so it seems like they've actually done something? Because that's what this entire thing smells like to me.

[girlfromsocal]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

You know, weighing down what we know about each individual, I don't think there's any doubt Trayvon had a strength and skill advantage over Zimmerman. He 6' tall varsity football player. How many 6' tall Varsity players do you know could get there ass handed to them by a 5'7" guy who's slightly overweight and looks like a bank manager?

Occam's razor. The idea that Trayvon had the advantage makes the least assumptions.

Which is the problem. The people swinging heavily for guilty are in an emotional state fueled by assumptions. The not-guilty state, (racists aside, no one listens to them anyway) is doing so from a less emotional state with the facts tat are presented to them.

It's like the people who honestly believe 9/11 was an inside job by the U.S. government, or we never landed on the moon. I mean come on.

sorry I have no sorrow or emotional care for anyone you're way off.

if trayvon was of equal size to zimmerman being taller would be an advantage.

My mom's 4'9" and I'm 5'2" she could at any time overpower me. Because I am a lot lighter in weight. There was a guy his size zimmerman's who carries two heavy luggages and more. And he didn't seem stronger then there was this guy who was helping my mother put a light table in the house up the stairs. He was tall over 6 ft and slim and that guy struggled and made my mom carry most of it because he was just too damn week to pick it up and yes he was an athlete.

I think height doesn't matter weight does first then weight.

[Koharuchan]

Originally Posted by girlfromsocal

It's not a fact he attacked him sorry it could be defense you have no idea

I already did prove it you have just talked in hopes to prove yours. Just your words no backing. So yes my point still stands along with experience while you only are talking about experience and not law. I have two point you've got one.

I actually am listening and I'm saying I don't see that Trayvon was stronger. Sorry I just don't.

Yes, it is. Trayvon did assault Zimmerman. This was established some time ago. It is fact. Whether you want to believe it or not, it is fact.

No, you didn't. You think by posting a link to a scientific law that automatically proves Zimmerman was stronger? No, that's not how it works. You want to go on size so bad, fine. Zimmerman was heftier, Trayvon was taller and more muscular. If you really want to stick to size, fine. Trayvon had the upper hand here in size. But it is pointless to debate his strength because YOU DO NOT KNOW AND NEVER WILL KNOW EXACTLY HOW STRONG TRAYVON WAS. The same goes for Zimmerman. We don't know how strong they were. You can't just take Trayvon's side and jump to the conclusion that because Zimmerman was older and had more body mass, he must be stronger and poor little Trayvon was weak. No. That's just not how it works.

Finally, I don't know how many times I have to say this, that one stupid little scientific law you posted does not support any facts to this case, nor does it prove Zimmerman was stronger. You want to go on a little point system so bad, then you do not have 2 points, you have 0. I speak from experience and fights I have witnessed on multiple occasions, and common sense along with well known basic knowldege of how fights work when it comes to size. My words are also backed by the facts of this case. Therefore by your point system, I have 2 points. Honestly, I don't care. You're not going to listen to anything I try to say to you. I am tired, it is nearly 4 am here, and I have places to be tomorrow, so I will check on this thread later. Good night to you all.

[girlfromsocal]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Because you don't want to. You want Zimmerman to be evil, and you want Trayvon to be a martyr.

How exactly does one come to the conclusion that they want to throw a man's life away so it seems like they've actually done something? Because that's what this entire thing smells like to me.

His bmi is Edited

He just seems to me to be the winner in the fight it's not just me many people believe this. Then there are people like you who are stuck on other things I don't want to see the truth.

Also no you're wrong look back. When did I say I wanted him in prison?

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by girlfromsocal

His bmi is [censored]. double that boy's bmi almost. He just seems to me to be the winner in the fight it's not just me many people believe this. Then there are people like you who are stuck on other things I don't want to see the truth.

Also no you're wrong look back. When did I say I wanted him in prison?

Please explain to me ow fat have anything to do with strength. Strengthening muscles by being there is not that strong, especially when most people become fat by being sedentary. The ability of the muscles are reduced, as the expected action is not particularly stressful.

Versus a Varsity football player, a person trained for months to push his ever increasing physical strength to the breaking point in order to accomplish his goals.

You tell me, who'd you rather get into a fight with?

Also, if Trayvon was as intelligent and non-violent as everyone claims to be, why would he attack a man who he believed had a gun, when he was himself unarmed?

Probably because he didn't know Zimmerman had a concealed weapon. And instead saw someone he could physically assault & control and get away with it.

[girlfromsocal]

Originally Posted by Koharuchan

Yes, it is. Trayvon did assault Zimmerman. This was established some time ago. It is fact. Whether you want to believe it or not, it is fact.

No, you didn't. You think by posting a link to a scientific law that automatically proves Zimmerman was stronger? No, that's not how it works. You want to go on size so bad, fine. Zimmerman was heftier, Trayvon was taller and more muscular. If you really want to stick to size, fine. Trayvon had the upper hand here in size. But it is pointless to debate his strength because YOU DO NOT KNOW AND NEVER WILL KNOW EXACTLY HOW STRONG TRAYVON WAS. The same goes for Zimmerman. We don't know how strong they were. You can't just take Trayvon's side and jump to the conclusion that because Zimmerman was older and had more body mass, he must be stronger and poor little Trayvon was weak. No. That's just not how it works.

Finally, I don't know how many times I have to say this, that one stupid little scientific law you posted does not support any facts to this case, nor does it prove Zimmerman was stronger. You want to go on a little point system so bad, then you do not have 2 points, you have 0. I speak from experience and fights I have witnessed on multiple occasions, and common sense along with well known basic knowldege of how fights work when it comes to size. My words are also backed by the facts of this case. Therefore by your point system, I have 2 points. Honestly, I don't care. You're not going to listen to anything I try to say to you. I am tired, it is nearly 4 am here, and I have places to be tomorrow, so I will check on this thread later. Good night to you all.

I never said he didn't. I said you don't know if he did it in self defense or not. If you give zimmerman that benefit why not trayvon....


How do you know trayvon had more muscle.... You don't... He was taller but like I said I am taller than my mom I never would win in a fight with her.

I speak from experience. And more experience than you since you have not and probably aren't in *****. I have more experience in that size range among other girls than you.

It does motion cause and effect do. No matter how many times you say it doesn't doesn't change that it is a proven law... You can say you don't think it applies but the seriousness of Zimmerman's scars to me show the cause and effect of science played a role.

I used these case's facts first don't even try to steal them.

Still stands I think I have 2. You just got experience from very different situations.

Good night

[girlfromsocal]

sorry

anyway actually yea the athletic girl would be easier to fight than a big hefty women. My mom has experience to prove it's easier.

A big huge neighbor of ours was nutts wanted to fight my mom right in front of the landowner. She was excited to despite her being athletic. Big people aren't scared of smaller people. They don't ask them before they fight 'are you athletic or just naturally that way?' They're usually not intimidated.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by girlfromsocal

sorry

anyway actually yea the athletic girl would be easier to fight than a big hefty women. My mom has experience to prove it's easier.

Except that statistically, athletic people are the better fighters. Especially since athletic doesn't always mean small.

If someone weighs more than you, but has less muscle than you, it's safe to say you have an advantage over him.

From what we've seen, Trayvon probably had more muscle than Zimmerman, Zimmerman just has more mass.

Less mass per muscle= advantage.

[girlfromsocal]

tiger look I editted my post.
Yeah they are better fighters but not against the heavier people over ****. Or over **** for a girl.


My experience...

Also my mom's friend Joyce when she was my age fought a lot and was tiny and athletic but still had a max on how big the person was if she'd win or just get beaten. Also matters on frame as well.

Like my build or my mother's are smaller limited. But they are short people with big frames and tall people with smaller ones. Zimmerman's frame was not small in the least.

[girlfromsocal]

Last post ok....


It's good you guys have an opinion. But I don't agree. I have stated why and that's that. I keep messing up writing numbers I'm not supposed to. And I'm really bored with this topic. I refuse to see it your way you refuse to see it my way. I guess I agree to disagree.

[girlfromsocal]

yeah and are you apart of similar size regarding your sex and around the age of 17? Are you athletic and small? What do your friends look like? Yeah I can relate. With myself and others.

I don't think so.

I have more experience and can relate more than you can it's just another fact... It's a

I didn't derail I just gave you an opinion that doesn't agree with yours that's life. There are billions on the web that have varying beliefs. Sorry but I'm not going to coincide with your beliefs.

[thebigmole]

The problem is that you are basing your entire opinion of this case on physics and are disregarding all of the actual facts in the case.

Fact 1- Zimmerman was stalking Trayvon
Fact 2- He was doing this because Trayvon was walking by himself and he matched the description of the robbery suspect from the neighborhood.
Fact 3- Zimmerman called the cops
Fact 4- Zimmerman got out of his car to follow Trayvon (IMO the stupid action that caused this whole thing to happen)
Fact 5- The cops told Zimmerman he didn't need to follow Trayvon
Fact 6- Trayvon told his girlfriend on the phone that he was going to confront Zimmerman about following him
Fact 7- Trayvon asked Zimmerman why he was following him and Zimmerman asked back what Trayvon was doing there.
Fact 8- Something physical occurred that caused Trayvon's phone to disconnect.
Fact 9-Trayvon had the upper hand at one point in the fight (this is a fact because Zimmerman had multiple head injuries and to my knowledge the only injury Trayvon had was that he was shot)
Fact 10- Zimmerman shot Trayvon

There there are your facts. From those facts I have formed the following opinion. I am sure that Trayvon was kicking Zimmerman's ass when he was shot. However I am inclined to believe that Zimmerman began the physical confrontation, which means that the shooting was not in self defense. Now it's true that belief does not come from facts, it simply comes from Zimmerman making the stupid move to get out of his car. There was no reason for him to get out of the damn car. That leads me to believe he was prepping for a physical confrontation. And then when Trayvon started asking Zimmerman about why he was following him I think Zimmerman might have gone a bit gung ho and maybe pushed Trayvon. And if that happened then it's not self defense. Though I also don't believe it's 2nd degree murder either.

[Rikku]

Originally Posted by Koharuchan

You know, this case has been bothering me. I know I'll probably get bashed for this, but it's my opinion. Yes, it is a tragedy that the boy was shot and killed for no reason. Yes, it is horrible that the man who did it was not charged. But honestly...this stuff happens every day. It sucks, but that's the world we live in. Innocent people, including children, are shot and killed every day. There are plenty of cases when the murderer goes unpunished. It happens so often, and it's sad. What bothers me is that this one case is getting so much attention, when this has happened before so many times. I'm just not understanding why so many people are making such a huge deal out of this particular case. Don't get me wrong here, I know it's a tragedy what happened, and I feel so sorry for his family, but what is it about this particular case that has everyone all over the states so riled up?

Its a big deal because a local college brought it to the authorities real attention. I feel like he should have been put in jail for 20 ears just because he took the life of a young boy.

[Koharuchan]

Originally Posted by Rikku

Its a big deal because a local college brought it to the authorities real attention. I feel like he should have been put in jail for 20 ears just because he took the life of a young boy.

Wow, I wrote that ages ago, back when everyone thought Trayvon was an innocent little kid. Now the truth's out that he wasn't, so my feelings on the case have drastically changed. Trayvon wasn't a precious innocent little angel, and Zimmerman acted in self defense. Trayvon had no injuries (aside from the gunshot wound, of course) and Zimmerman was all bloody. Self defense, and they're honestly both at fault. Zimmerman was at fault for being stupid by deciding to follow him, and Trayvon was at fault for attacking. Zimmerman acted in self defense, which is his legal right. I'm just damn tired of the racist shit that's flooding this case.

[girlfromsocal]

it seems koharuchan only wants to point to racism. I tire of things that pull the race card for every single thing


and bigmole that's why I think he was the aggressor.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by girlfromsocal

it seems koharuchan only wants to point to racism. I tire of things that pull the race card for every single thing


and bigmole that's why I think he was the aggressor.

Trayvon may have very well been the starter of the fight. I have no idea, and until more facts come forward if they ever do, nobody will know for sure. The fact that we do know is that Zimmerman killed Trayvon, in a confrontation that never would have happened if Zimmerman had stayed in his car. That makes him responsible for the death of another human being. He deserves some form of legal punishment for that.

[girlfromsocal]

that's your opinion I have stated mine.

[thebigmole]

Where in that post did I state an opinion?

[Koharuchan]

Originally Posted by girlfromsocal

it seems koharuchan only wants to point to racism. I tire of things that pull the race card for every single thing


and bigmole that's why I think he was the aggressor.

What are you talking about? I've said countless times that I hate the fact that this case is getting so much attention simply because of the race issue, and that I'm sick of hearing racial stupidity concerning this case. I'm damn tired of the race card being pulled because it shouldn't matter at all.

[Guile]

Trayvon is a thug who attacked Zimmerman, who acted in self defense under Florida law.

End of story, case closed.

[NonIndigenous]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

Trayvon may have very well been the starter of the fight. I have no idea, and until more facts come forward if they ever do, nobody will know for sure. The fact that we do know is that Zimmerman killed Trayvon, in a confrontation that never would have happened if Zimmerman had stayed in his car. That makes him responsible for the death of another human being. He deserves some form of legal punishment for that.

I barely know anything about this case... but let me bring out this:

Originally Posted by thebigmole

... a confrontation that never would have happened if Zimmerman had stayed in his car. That makes him responsible for the death of another human being. He deserves some form of legal punishment for that.

Loads of confrontations I've had, would have never happened if I just stayed in my room all day playing computer games. Should people be forced to "stay in their car", or "stay indoors" in fear of being provoked or attacked? It's up to the individual... but by no means should society ever impose such an obligation on anyone. Personally I hate the idea, never in my life have I allowed myself to be intimidated like this.

Personally... I will walk my proud ass down to the local shop or takeaway whenever I feel like. If some thugs don't like it then fuck them. I don't go looking for a fight, just to get milk or a pizza.

I don't know if this guy... "Zimmerman" got out of his car especially looking to confront Trayvon. What was Trayvon doing to provoke something like this? Perhaps what did Zimmerman do to provoke Trayvon into starting a fight? I've no clue... but the way you worded that post made me cringe.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by BDF

I barely know anything about this case... but let me bring out this:



Loads of confrontations I've had, would have never happened if I just stayed in my room all day playing computer games. Should people be forced to "stay in their car", or "stay indoors" in fear of being provoked or attacked? It's up to the individual... but by no means should society ever impose such an obligation on anyone. Personally I hate the idea, never in my life have I allowed myself to be intimidated like this.

Personally... I will walk my proud ass down to the local shop or takeaway whenever I feel like. If some thugs don't like it then fuck them. I don't go looking for a fight, just to get milk or a pizza.

I don't know if this guy... "Zimmerman" got out of his car especially looking to confront Trayvon. What was Trayvon doing to provoke something like this? Perhaps what did Zimmerman do to provoke Trayvon into starting a fight? I've no clue... but the way you worded that post made me cringe.

Let me try to ease your cringing Zimmerman saw Trayvon walking around his neighborhood at night and called the cops because Zimmerman did not know Trayvon and he matched the description of a suspect committing robberies in the area. Now Zimmerman was trying to keep Trayvon in his line of sight during this call, something which he was capable of doing from inside his car. For whatever dumbass reason Zimmerman decided to get out of his car to follow the 6 foot tall young kid who he probably should have known could kick his ass. I get why Zimmerman called the cops, that's fine. But getting out of his car led to the confrontation that cost Trayvon his life. It was a stupid move that I can't for the life of me understand, and I believe it makes him responsible for the fact that he ended up shooting the kid.

[NonIndigenous]

I imagine that when Zimmerman and Trayvon "met"... aka. Trayvon confronted Zimmerman about being stalked... Zimmerman probably made his suspicions known in some sort of aggressive manner. Trayvon then probably took offence, played the race card... "is it 'cuz I'm black?"... and retaliated some way or other. I have a feeling thought that more likely perhaps he tried to back out and Zimmerman stopped him... which led to the fight. Whatever it is...

... I am convinced that the race card was probably pulled which made everything more tense. It almost always happens when there is some confrontation between different uneducated or immature people of different ethnicities, and amongst those, most commonly black people (just my experience and what I see). And it's fucking stupid.

But that's just how I think things might have happened.

[Maverick.]

Originally Posted by Guile

Trayvon is a thug who attacked Zimmerman, who acted in self defense under Florida law.

End of story, case closed.

Agree to disagree on that one.

Originally Posted by BDF

I imagine that when Zimmerman and Trayvon "met"... aka. Trayvon confronted Zimmerman about being stalked... Zimmerman probably made his suspicions known in some sort of aggressive manner. Trayvon then probably took offence, played the race card... "is it 'cuz I'm black?"... and retaliated some way or other. I have a feeling thought that more likely perhaps he tried to back out and Zimmerman stopped him... which led to the fight. Whatever it is...

... I am convinced that the race card was probably pulled which made everything more tense. It almost always happens when there is some confrontation between different uneducated or immature people of different ethnicities, and amongst those, most commonly black people (just my experience and what I see). And it's fucking stupid.

But that's just how I think things might have happened.

Why would he pull the race card? He was walking home from a convenience store. He was guilty by association because he was black and wearing hoodlum related clothing. Whether he had good intentions or bad, it didn't matter. To Zimmerman, he was just a hoodlum black boy and Zimmerman felt inferior. It wasn't so much the race card, it was racial profiling.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by BDF

I imagine that when Zimmerman and Trayvon "met"... aka. Trayvon confronted Zimmerman about being stalked... Zimmerman probably made his suspicions known in some sort of aggressive manner. Trayvon then probably took offence, played the race card... "is it 'cuz I'm black?"... and retaliated some way or other. I have a feeling thought that more likely perhaps he tried to back out and Zimmerman stopped him... which led to the fight. Whatever it is...

... I am convinced that the race card was probably pulled which made everything more tense. It almost always happens when there is some confrontation between different uneducated or immature people of different ethnicities, and amongst those, most commonly black people (just my experience and what I see). And it's fucking stupid.

But that's just how I think things might have happened.

Originally Posted by Maverick.

Agree to disagree on that one.



Why would he pull the race card? He was walking home from a convenience store. He was guilty by association because he was black and wearing hoodlum related clothing. Whether he had good intentions or bad, it didn't matter. To Zimmerman, he was just a hoodlum black boy and Zimmerman felt inferior. It wasn't so much the race card, it was racial profiling.

You know, the problem with this whole thing is that people KEEP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED AND THEN TREAT IT AS FACT.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Tyr.

One of the instructors came flying out of the cupboard and launched himself at us, screaming "Don't shoot! Don't shoot!" but at the same time running straight for us. I was standing in the room corner, with my weapon at low ready (So in my shoulder, but pointing downwards). I got my weapon in the aim, released safety and double tapped him in the chest before he got halfway across the room. That was entirely subconscious. The after-action report on that building clearance was difficult - because I had theoretically shot and killed one of my own troops wearing our uniform. That's not something to be taken lightly.

Thing is, I couldn't even explain the rationale behind what I did. It wasn't the right thing or the wrong thing to do. I just instinctively reacted, and my body did what it did without having any input from the frontal lobe in my brain. There was no time to apply a conscious thought process. There is very sound psychological evidence behind this sort of behavior (If you want to read more, look for Deep Survival, by Laurence Gonzales) is actually a result of natural evolution.

A few problems with this. One, "subconscious" is a pop psychology term, not a scientific one - thought processes are either conscious (to admittedly varying degrees) or unconscious. There isn't really a halfway house. What you term as subconscious - that is to say, the quasi-reflex of aiming and firing - is still conscious as your brain is still involved in decision-making; the action is not confined to your reflex arc. It's more a case that you have conditioned your brain to process that information as quickly as possible on demand - without that initial, conscious response to the stimuli, the conditioned behaviour would not follow. Two, you are comparing two fundamentally different scenarios - the first, Martin-Zimmerman, being a situation with no prior knowledge, and the second, your training drill, being a situation entered into with knowledge of likely hostility and the assumption that those in the house are armed combatants. That prior knowledge informs your entire conduct and mindset thereafter, hence why you responded in the way you did. Such behaviour is incapable of being a true reflex response, instead following a particular conscious process in light of pre-existing conditions. Three, the course of action you describe is one which is the result of specific training and repetition in an effort to improve reaction time - this is somewhat different to the standard required by the Neighborhood Watch programme.

Originally Posted by Tyr.

If I had stopped at that exact moment, standing there with my rifle at low ready, and applied a conscious logical system to come to the appropriate reaction, I would have failed my teammates. The time it takes for the eyes to receive the right information (What is he doing, how fast is he moving, what is in his hands, what is his intent, what is his facial expression telling me, what is he wearing, what is going on around me?) is far too long. Had he been a hostile, in the time it would take for me to come to a conscious decision, I could have been killed. Or worse, my teammates would have died for my failure.

The mean reaction time to a visual stimulus is estimated at 180 to 200 miliseconds (or, if you prefer, 0.18 to 0.2 seconds). That is from registering the stimulus to carrying out the responding act, not just registering the stimulus. In light of this, I feel the claims that this is "far too long" or that death was a likely outcome is, with respect, stretching credulity somewhat.

Originally Posted by Tyr.

What we use instead, are emotions. Do not confuse me use of the term "emotions" with "feelings". I am not talking about happy, sad, angry etc. I am talking about an instantaneous emotional response your body has when you are faced with a specific situation.

I suspect you mean physiological rather than emotional, but fair enough...

Originally Posted by Tyr.

When you see a naked women, your body reacts by increasing blood flow to the genitals, pupils dilate, skin flushes etc. That all happens before you have the chance to actually apply a conscious decision making model to the situation. You don't see a naked women and apply a conscious decision making model, the end result of which is you decide to be aroused. Doesn't work that way. It's highly emotive. Stashed away in the primate part of your brain, you have instinctively and subconsciously red-flagged the sight of a naked women, and it has been paired with the response of "Arousal".

Again, this is not subconscious behaviour. It's totally unconscious, being as it is an instinct. Instinct has nothing to do with emotional response, either - instinct and reflex, being totally unconscious behaviour, operate within the reflex arc into which emotion does not operate. Emotional responses tend to be a consequence of such behaviour rather than a precursor.

Originally Posted by Tyr.

Because your brain does this sort of stuff subconsciously. When I was standing at low-ready in that kill-house room, my brain had already experienced close quarter combat, so it had red flagged the situation of "You are under attack" and my brain subconsciously knew that the response to that is "Fight back". I didn't need to sit there and think about it. My subconscious kicked into gear as soon as that door opened and somebody was coming at me. I was well trained in weapon drills, so my brain also subconsciously knew how to raise the weapon into the aim, release the safety and fire a double tap. That's why I faced the moment right afterwards of "Woah, what the fuck, that happened before I even had the chance to think". It's a survival mechanism that we all have.

Already covered the "no such thing as subconscious" point so won't repeat it again.

Originally Posted by Tyr.

Violence happens very, very quickly. It is not always a conscious process. When I first come into contact, the reaction of "Hit the deck" is not conscious. It just happens. That is not a conscious process. You react the way your brain subconsciously knows how to. That's why some people flounder, panic and stall when in dangerous situations. Because they have no emotional bookmark to refer to, and they end up just shitting themselves. Throw a ball at a sporty guy, and he'll probably either dodge it or catch it. Throw it at some non-sporty girl, and she'll freak the fuck out. A person will revert to their most base self during those moments.

Perhaps, but I feel claiming that shooting someone at close range is someone's "most base self" is with respect somewhat wide of the mark. Unless that person is a homicidal madman, I suppose. For most people, drawing a firearm would not be their default response, hence why I do not feel describing it as "instinctive" behaviour is correct.

Originally Posted by Tyr.

Now, I won't go on to talk too much about Martin vs Zimmerman. But think about what I have just said. The same way I highly doubt Zimmerman just decided to stop and kill a black man (The psychology of which I described in an earlier post) I also highly doubt there was much conscious thought process going on during any struggle. Personally, I doubt I would be capable of deciding during a close quarter struggle to go for a wounding shot. Especially when somebody is mere inches away. I personally just don't have the mental capacity to be doing that during a hand to hand fight. Some people might have a lot more experience and training than me, and they are capable of doing that without thinking too much. Zimmerman, though? No, I doubt it. I suspect all he knew was that he was under attack, and his instincts were screaming "USE THE GUN! USE THE GUN!". Nowhere in there was the logical thought of "Well, I better obey the law here. I should use a non-lethal combatives hold to subdue this opponent, because applying too much force would be immoral and illegal, and I might face consequences afterwards".

"USE THE GUN! USE THE GUN!" is incapable of being a true instinct behaviour, as it is learned rather than pre-existing. As such, some level of conscious decision-making did take place in the decision to use a firearm in this situation. Zimmerman did not, as far as I'm aware, enter a state of automatism and therefore was fully cogent when he took aim and fired.

Originally Posted by Tyr.

Yes, a groin strike would have been the logical thing to do. But you know as well as I do that (Unless you are well trained in combatives) if I came at you, and starting fucking your shit up, you wouldn't be able to properly execute a groin strike. If I asked you afterwards why not, you'd tell me it was just too difficult, couldn't think of how to do it, couldn't think while being attacked etc. Sure, maybe you'd pull it off. But you can't say that with certainty. (Hey, I don't know you that well, maybe you know how to handle yourself in a fight. Maybe you could manage it?). Hand to hand combatives isn't easy.

Having had to use a groin strike in a fight situation before, I feel it would not have been too difficult to execute unless his legs were immobilised. That would be different. All the same, other escape techniques not requiring specialist knowledge would have been available, such as going for the eyes - which, while not particularly pleasant, would have the desired effect and prevent a fatality. That is where I feel the "necessary" aspect of the self-defence argument encounters difficulty.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Basically. Poor tiny baby infant Trayvon got shot with a scary cop killing black deadly assault weapon of death firing baby seeking bullets while he was beating up big mean scary white supremicist (even though he's Hispanic and Jewish) Zimmerman because Zimmerman had the NERVE to ask him a question.

*facepalm*

Seriously, Ben, you're better than this.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

You know, the problem with this whole thing is that people KEEP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED AND THEN TREAT IT AS FACT.

With respect, the saying about pots and kettles springs to mind here. Your version of events - that Martin was a 6'3" varsity football in prime physical condition pummelling the living daylights out of Zimmerman - is not one I have found a shred of source evidence for, yet you keep asserting it as fact. On the one occasion I have asked you to back up your account with sources, you have declined to do so. As such, in the nicest possible way, I would ask you put your own house in order as well.

For my part, I feel the following may be worth reminding people of: the decision to charge Zimmerman means nothing more than that there is a case to answer and reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed - in this case, second-degree murder. Until such a time as a jury decides one way or the other, the presumption of innocence still applies to Zimmerman and it is for the court, and the court alone, to determine whether he did indeed commit the offence as charged. As things stand, therefore, while his character may have been attacked (which could in itself give rise to actionable cause) I feel jumping to conclusions on his guilt in either direction, without full recourse to the evidence, is highly presumptive. I would therefore advise we all give the court space to do its work, see how things turn out and then go from there.

[NonIndigenous]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

You know, the problem with this whole thing is that people KEEP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED AND THEN TREAT IT AS FACT.

lol. Sorry. It's not even an assumption what I made. Just speculating based on how I might have seen vaguely similar people behave in similar situations.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by dr2005

*facepalm*

Seriously, Ben, you're better than this.

It's called sarcasm bro.

Also, there are people who actually talk like that. Check out the Brady Campaign, and try not to cringe.

Originally Posted by dr2005

With respect, the saying about pots and kettles springs to mind here. Your version of events - that Martin was a 6'3" varsity football in prime physical condition pummelling the living daylights out of Zimmerman - is not one I have found a shred of source evidence for, yet you keep asserting it as fact. On the one occasion I have asked you to back up your account with sources, you have declined to do so. As such, in the nicest possible way, I would ask you put your own house in order as well.

http://loop21.com/life/stand-your-gr...orge-zimmerman

It's a well known fact by now man. The problem is the media keeps posting younger pictures of him in order to fill their monthly yellow journalism quota.

Originally Posted by dr2005

For my part, I feel the following may be worth reminding people of: the decision to charge Zimmerman means nothing more than that there is a case to answer and reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed - in this case, second-degree murder. Until such a time as a jury decides one way or the other, the presumption of innocence still applies to Zimmerman and it is for the court, and the court alone, to determine whether he did indeed commit the offence as charged. As things stand, therefore, while his character may have been attacked (which could in itself give rise to actionable cause) I feel jumping to conclusions on his guilt in either direction, without full recourse to the evidence, is highly presumptive. I would therefore advise we all give the court space to do its work, see how things turn out and then go from there.

Exactly.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

It's called sarcasm bro.

Also, there are people who actually talk like that. Check out the Brady Campaign, and try not to cringe.

I come from the land of sarcasm, my friend - my first response still stands. I'll take your word on the Brady Campaign and spare myself the cringing - I do enough of that at work as it is...

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

http://loop21.com/life/stand-your-gr...orge-zimmerman

It's a well known fact by now man. The problem is the media keeps posting younger pictures of him in order to fill their monthly yellow journalism quota.

Ah, argumentum ad populum. Thought that argument rang a bell somewhere. Incidentally, that article still makes no reference to him being a varsity football player or your account of the altercation that took place prior to the shooting, which is what I was alluding to more as requiring backup.

Anyway, I now intend to practise what I preach and let things take their course - however long that'll be. Never can tell with jury trials...

[BigBL87]

Originally Posted by dr2005

Ah, argumentum ad populum. Thought that argument rang a bell somewhere. Incidentally, that article still makes no reference to him being a varsity football player or your account of the altercation that took place prior to the shooting, which is what I was alluding to more as requiring backup.

Whether he was a varsity football player or not, it has driven me crazy how the media consistently shows that same picture of him (in the red shirt) from years before the incident (it was taken when he was 12, he was 17 when he died), making him appear like more of a child. Why? Because it sensationalizes it, gets people more "angry", and keeps it in the news.

Also, I've repeatedly heard Zimmerman referred to as a "White Hispanic." The only reason he is a "white" Hispanic now is because he shot someone that was African American. If he had shot someone who was Hispanic, he would be Hispanic.

Add both of those to the 911 tape editing fiasco, and it just amazes me how clear it is that the media is trying to incite things.

No matter the outcome, the situation is tragic all the way around, but the media coverage has made the situation much worse and has been incredibly biased.