created by: Geha | Jul 1, 2013

Grand Rapids, MI

219 votes

What about the whole Trayvon situation?

Click on an option to vote

  • The fat guy is guilty and should be jailed
  • It was self-defense; Trayvon was up to no good
Comments
421 - 440 of 527 Comments Last updated Aug 25, 2013

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#437
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
SYG is an extention of the right to self defense under the "castle laws" only it includes public places like parks, malls, parking lots, etc etc...your right to safety in your own space.
I didn't write it nor do I claim it is not confusing.
Did you even watch the trial?
Oneal

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#438
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
Given that I'm the only one arguing a non-existant point....
Just stop there. That pretty much says it all. You're arguing, and it's a non-existent point.

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#439
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

lanyard wrote:
<quoted text>Actually it's you who either doesn't know what your talking about, or is just plain dishonest.
TM's Right to SYG was not infringed upon in any way. GZ did not force him to stay, threaten him, or prevent him from leaving in any way. TM assaulted GZ. Unless you can show evidence proving that Z was a reasonable danger to him (and in all these pages you've yet to do so), then the rest is just drivel. Instead, all you've been doing is accuse anyone who disputes your ridiculous claim as ignorant, when it's you who demonstrates that ignorance.
I've studied SYG law quite thoroughly, and discussed it with lawyers who would defend someone under it. I know more about it than you apparently do.
Unless of course you have some evidence that the prosecution couldn't find that Z was a danger to T.
Didn't think so.
Again from the start you fail. GZ had no right to tell TM whether he had any rights what so ever. GZ infringed upon TM's free space as allowed under SYG. TM had done nothing wrong...nothing to pre-empt being followed.
You bitch about the NSA watching you and yet think it's OK for GZ to watch and follow TM...you are either very hollow or a hyprocrite....or you just don't want to give the same rights to both people given the way the law is written.

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#440
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Oneal wrote:
<quoted text>
Just stop there. That pretty much says it all. You're arguing, and it's a non-existent point.
Only to you and a few others...I've posted links that support what I'm saying from legitimate websites.
vox veritatis

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#441
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mr Wiggley wrote:
Absolutely TM's right to SYG was denied. He had every right to go to the store and go home without being followed or reported.
That has absolutely NOTHING to do with SYG. Please quote the part of the FLORIDA law that says you can attack someone for following (not against the law unless a PPO is in place) or reporting you to the police. Last I checked, calling the cops isn't against the law, yet, and not liking the fact that someone has is not a basis for SYG or assault. Trayvon was more than able to make it to his father's house safely in the time between when Zimmerman called the cops and when the attack occurred. He chose to come back and attack Zimmerman, telling his GF (who testified to this on the witness stand),'a cracka is gonna die tonight'..
vox veritatis

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#442
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

Mr Wiggley wrote:
Only to you and a few others...I've posted links that support what I'm saying from legitimate websites.
You've posted opinions that agree with yours, nothing more.
Chip

Fort Atkinson, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#443
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
Again from the start you fail. GZ had no right to tell TM whether he had any rights what so ever. GZ infringed upon TM's free space as allowed under SYG. TM had done nothing wrong...nothing to pre-empt being followed.
You bitch about the NSA watching you and yet think it's OK for GZ to watch and follow TM...you are either very hollow or a hyprocrite....or you just don't want to give the same rights to both people given the way the law is written.
Just so you know, if I see you near my house, I don't know you and I call the cops and you violently attack me. We wont have to read your stupid post on the internet any longer.

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#444
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

vox veritatis wrote:
<quoted text>
That has absolutely NOTHING to do with SYG. Please quote the part of the FLORIDA law that says you can attack someone for following (not against the law unless a PPO is in place) or reporting you to the police. Last I checked, calling the cops isn't against the law, yet, and not liking the fact that someone has is not a basis for SYG or assault. Trayvon was more than able to make it to his father's house safely in the time between when Zimmerman called the cops and when the attack occurred. He chose to come back and attack Zimmerman, telling his GF (who testified to this on the witness stand),'a cracka is gonna die tonight'..
I've already posted this once and you obviously didn't read it (what a surprise). Notice the repeated use of "reasonably believes". Please narrow down what that does or does not mean. Please show how one can catagorically eliminate "being followed" as a circumstance where one might feel they "reasonably believe" they are in danger.
Just to help you here...no prior contact is required...only the sensation of reasonable belief that one is in danger.

Use of force in defense of person.óA person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the otherís imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1)&#8195;He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#445
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

vox veritatis wrote:
<quoted text>
You've posted opinions that agree with yours, nothing more.
And the last time you posted an opinion that disagreed with your's was.....?????

Good grief. Thanks for the laugh.

“Where I came from”

Since: Jan 09

the universe

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#446
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Shoeless Eluder wrote:
I remember a few years back there was this black guy accused of killing hi ex wife and her friend, no doubt he did it, but he was acquitted. I just don't remember people calling it unjust that he was released and allowed to live his life of course he is a complete a**hole but that's beside the point. Like most trials I did not follow this very much I am just wondering why all the media attention when these things happen everyday someone murders someone and we never hear about it but this case became a feeding frenzy wonder why?? Watch what happens next and who will be the center of attention.
So who is the center of attention knew it predicted it. BHO
Oneal

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#447
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
And the last time you posted an opinion that disagreed with your's was.....?????
Good grief. Thanks for the laugh.
Laugh yourself silly, Wiggley. He's correct. Many links have been posted that support peoples' beliefs. Yours are no different or more compelling than anyone else's. You believe GZ harrassed TM. Others believe GZ approached, walked back to his vehicle and then was attacked by TM. Who's right? Who knows?? None of us were there.

As for some kind of law-changing goes:

If you have a problem with someone patrolling his/her own neighborhood and approaching a stranger, fine. Others don't see a problem with it. The law supports the right for a person with a gun permit to approach someone in public without being attacked for it. If you don't like that, again fine. But don't get mad at people for believing the law as it is doesn't need to be changed.
vox veritatis

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#448
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mr Wiggley wrote:
I've already posted this once and you obviously didn't read it (what a surprise). Notice the repeated use of "reasonably believes".
How convenient that you repeatedly fail to stress what follows 'reasonably believes'...maybe because it doesn't support your argument. Let me fill in that missing piece for you:

reasonably believes"...that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the otherís imminent use of UNLAWFUL FORCE". Tell us, Wiggley...since Trayvon didn't know at that point Zimmerman had a gun and only saw a 'creepy white cracka' following him at a distance and talking on the phone'. What 'imminent use of unlawful force' would a reasonable person assume was about to take place from that distance?
Swing and a miss.
BTW...obviously the jury didn't buy your full-of-holes-and-guesses theory and they saw more evidence and heard more testimony than you ever will.
Fail. Again.

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#449
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

vox veritatis wrote:
<quoted text>
How convenient that you repeatedly fail to stress what follows 'reasonably believes'...maybe because it doesn't support your argument. Let me fill in that missing piece for you:
reasonably believes"...that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the otherís imminent use of UNLAWFUL FORCE". Tell us, Wiggley...since Trayvon didn't know at that point Zimmerman had a gun and only saw a 'creepy white cracka' following him at a distance and talking on the phone'. What 'imminent use of unlawful force' would a reasonable person assume was about to take place from that distance?
Swing and a miss.
BTW...obviously the jury didn't buy your full-of-holes-and-guesses theory and they saw more evidence and heard more testimony than you ever will.
Fail. Again.
Now I know what wrong here...you can't read!!!!
I posted very clearly the wording beyond "reasonably believes".
Here, I'll post it again...have you mom read it to you...straight from the Florida law...

Use of force in defense of person.óA person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the otherís imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1)&#8195;He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
Oneal

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#450
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Shoeless Eluder wrote:
<quoted text>So who is the center of attention knew it predicted it. BHO
One of Saul Alinsky's mantras is "never let a good crisis go to waste". Obama has once again injected himself in a highly emotional controversy, in this case, one of his favorites; race. It serves two purposes for him too. One, it gets him back n good with his liberal and black base right when polls were showing his approval ratings were dropping. Two, it distracts the country's focus from the numerous scandals his administration has been embroiled in, which were taking a toll.

What's interesting is to think about the hypothetical of a white, conservative president choosing sides in the same manner Obama has. Had a black man shot a young white teen, and say George Bush or Mitt Romney made a comment that the white kid looked like he could be his son, or himself when he was that age, can you imagine the outrage from black people and the left?

Imagine Sarah Palin saying that white kid who was shot by a black man could have been her son. The impact of that would be deafening.

Yet, in today's hypocritical, social justice-fixated environment, where we're told we have to change the laws when it comes to black people or face riots and accusations of being racists, it's perfectly acceptable for a black president to choose sides with a black kid shot by a "white" guy - regardless of a juried verdict based on facts and sworn testimony. Regardless of the fact the "white" guys was fond innocent in a legal trial.

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#451
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Oneal wrote:
<quoted text>
Laugh yourself silly, Wiggley. He's correct. Many links have been posted that support peoples' beliefs. Yours are no different or more compelling than anyone else's. You believe GZ harrassed TM. Others believe GZ approached, walked back to his vehicle and then was attacked by TM. Who's right? Who knows?? None of us were there.
As for some kind of law-changing goes:
If you have a problem with someone patrolling his/her own neighborhood and approaching a stranger, fine. Others don't see a problem with it. The law supports the right for a person with a gun permit to approach someone in public without being attacked for it. If you don't like that, again fine. But don't get mad at people for believing the law as it is doesn't need to be changed.
Then why did the poor little puppy have to even make such a point??
It was sooo obvious...and now you are climbing on the bandwagon also?
I wanted to give you more credit than that but maybe I was premature in my thoughts.
You really don't get the loopholes in the law apparently.
Of course someone with a gun permit can approach someone in public. I've never ever said anything different. The loophole is if the person being approached feels they are in danger they are allowed to use lethal force if they reasonably believe they are in danger.

Read the law Oneal...I've posted it several times already.

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#452
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

vox veritatis wrote:
<quoted text>
How convenient that you repeatedly fail to stress what follows 'reasonably believes'...maybe because it doesn't support your argument. Let me fill in that missing piece for you:
reasonably believes"...that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the otherís imminent use of UNLAWFUL FORCE". Tell us, Wiggley...since Trayvon didn't know at that point Zimmerman had a gun and only saw a 'creepy white cracka' following him at a distance and talking on the phone'. What 'imminent use of unlawful force' would a reasonable person assume was about to take place from that distance?
Swing and a miss.
BTW...obviously the jury didn't buy your full-of-holes-and-guesses theory and they saw more evidence and heard more testimony than you ever will.
Fail. Again.
It's apparent you think you know what Martin was thinking or believe you would know what he should have thought in that situation that night.
We both know there's no way that's possible.
All I've been proposing is what Martin MIGHT have been thinking that night. Since he's dead you only have Zimmerman's account and seem to be totally convinced Zimmerman could not lie.
Oneal

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#453
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why did the poor little puppy have to even make such a point??
It was sooo obvious...and now you are climbing on the bandwagon also?
I wanted to give you more credit than that but maybe I was premature in my thoughts.
You really don't get the loopholes in the law apparently.
Of course someone with a gun permit can approach someone in public. I've never ever said anything different. The loophole is if the person being approached feels they are in danger they are allowed to use lethal force if they reasonably believe they are in danger.
Read the law Oneal...I've posted it several times already.
I don't care what you give me credit for or not. Answer these two questions please:

If George approached little, innocent Skittle-eating Trayvon, followed him, but then turned back to get into his truck, but before he made it Trayvon attacked him as George claimed happened, would you still think STG is applicable?

And regardless of SYG. If GZ was telling the truth, who had the right at that point to defend himself?

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#454
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
Now I know what wrong here...you can't read!!!!
I posted very clearly the wording beyond "reasonably believes".
Here, I'll post it again...have you mom read it to you...straight from the Florida law...
Use of force in defense of person.óA person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the otherís imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1)&#8195;He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
The one who can't read is you. We, the defense and the prosecution keep reminding people that SYG had ZERO impact on the trial, yet you continue to act like it is part of the trial simply because the words "stand his ground" were used in the trial.

What is even more important is that he was charged with 2nd degree murder. To prove second degree murder, a prosecutor must show that the defendant acted according to a "depraved mind" without regard for human life. Florida state laws permit the prosecution of second degree murder when the killing lacked premeditation or planning, but the defendant acted with enmity toward the victim or the two had an ongoing interaction or relationship. Unlike first degree murder, second degree murder does not necessarily require proof of the defendant's intent to kill. State law specifically requires a charge of second degree murder if the victim dies during the commission of one of the felony crimes specified by statute. These felonies include burglary, home-invasion robbery, kidnapping, sexual battery, and a number of other offenses. To establish second degree murder, the prosecutor must show that the victim died as a result of an act committed by a non-participant in the felony. If the defendant or another criminal participant in the felony caused the unlawful killing, state law requires a charge of first degree murder rather than second degree murder. Florida uses this law to deter and punish unintended deaths as a result of felonious activities.

1) What evidence do you have that GZ had a "depraved mind"?
2) What eveidence do you have that GZ was committing a felony?
3) Do you have any evidence that "the defendant acted with enmity toward the victim or the two had an ongoing interaction or relationship."

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#455
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
The one who can't read is you. We, the defense and the prosecution keep reminding people that SYG had ZERO impact on the trial, yet you continue to act like it is part of the trial simply because the words "stand his ground" were used in the trial.
What is even more important is that he was charged with 2nd degree murder. To prove second degree murder, a prosecutor must show that the defendant acted according to a "depraved mind" without regard for human life. Florida state laws permit the prosecution of second degree murder when the killing lacked premeditation or planning, but the defendant acted with enmity toward the victim or the two had an ongoing interaction or relationship. Unlike first degree murder, second degree murder does not necessarily require proof of the defendant's intent to kill. State law specifically requires a charge of second degree murder if the victim dies during the commission of one of the felony crimes specified by statute. These felonies include burglary, home-invasion robbery, kidnapping, sexual battery, and a number of other offenses. To establish second degree murder, the prosecutor must show that the victim died as a result of an act committed by a non-participant in the felony. If the defendant or another criminal participant in the felony caused the unlawful killing, state law requires a charge of first degree murder rather than second degree murder. Florida uses this law to deter and punish unintended deaths as a result of felonious activities.
1) What evidence do you have that GZ had a "depraved mind"?
2) What eveidence do you have that GZ was committing a felony?
3) Do you have any evidence that "the defendant acted with enmity toward the victim or the two had an ongoing interaction or relationship."
Again, it is you who can not read.
Please show the post number that I said GZ should have been tried for murder.
Try to follow along...you seem to be way behind.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#456
Jul 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, it is you who can not read.
Please show the post number that I said GZ should have been tried for murder.
Try to follow along...you seem to be way behind.
I never said you thought GZ should have been tried for murder.

Here is what I did say. "We, the defense and the prosecution keep reminding people that SYG had ZERO impact on the trial, yet you continue to act like it is part of the trial simply because the words "stand his ground" were used in the trial."

Go back to post 449, you quote the SYG law which has NOTHING to do with this case. I can post the laws on catching and killing aligators, which also has nothing to do with the case.

GZ was charged with 2nd degree murder. If you believe that he was guilty, then answer the questions I posted. If you want to talk about the SYG laws (which benefit blacks more than whites) than start a new thread. Please, either keep on topic or start a new topic.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

20 Users are viewing the Grand Rapids Forum right now

Search the Grand Rapids Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Juneteenth - " celebrating the end of slavery 15 min Dr X 711
Is Terri Lynn Land a slumlord? (Jan '12) 1 hr Arthur 78
More Lois Lerner Email Shenanigans 20 hr Oneal 4
Local News Women (Apr '09) Wed SOS in Mesa 2,293
Review: A-1 Appliance Repair (Jan '10) Wed Cooking Herb 20
The Russian need a bullet in his head Wed Oneal 4
MI 2010 Michigan Primary Election: Did you vote? (Aug '10) Wed gottondas 5,482
•••
•••
•••
Grand Rapids Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Grand Rapids Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Grand Rapids People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Grand Rapids News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Grand Rapids
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••