Trayvon Martin Debate - Chambersburg, PA

I feel its been so one sided. More information on what exactly happened is needed. There is always two sides to a story, I just can't see this man, who was all for keeping his neighborhood safe, shooting someone for no reason. Lets hear his side.

I think the press jumped to conclusions without knowing the whole story. They are trying to turn this into a race issue. Blowing it out of distortion.

Turns out a witness has come forward and the story is changing from what we were led to believe.

I think there is going to be egg on the face of those that jumped to conclusions before they knew all the facts.

I have to agree with the previous posters. Any time Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson get involved, they are only trying to fan the flames of hatred. I'm surprised there hasn't been outright rioting yet.

The shooter's side can be heard here:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/videogallery/6...

An unarmed black teen was walking home from the store with a bag of Skittles and an Arizona iced tea when Zimmerman decided he looked suspicious.

He called 911, who dispatched the police. Zimmerman said, "These assholes, they always get away" and began pursuing Trayvon.

The 911 dispatcher explicitly told Zimmerman NOT to follow Trayvon, but he did anyway.

THAT was the moment where an armed man made the decision that got an unarmed teen killed.

If Trayvon fought back, if Trayvon even got the better of Zimmerman at some point during a scuffle - none of it would have happened if Zimmerman had not made the choice to disobey a direct request from the police and pursue a kid who was doing absolutely nothing wrong.

If we live in a nation where a teenager can't go to the store to get a snack without fear that he'll be shot and killed, then this nation is not truly free.

When an innocent kid might get shot for doing absolutely nothing wrong and the shooter is not even arrested, then there is something seriously wrong with our justice system.

People are justifiably outraged over this incident. If you are not - if you are actually angry because people are outraged - then you need to take a serious look at yourself and your attitudes.

Does anyone know more about the ammendment Stand Your Ground? Isn't that why he is a free man right now?

my castle wrote:

Does anyone know more about the ammendment Stand Your Ground? Isn't that why he is a free man right now?

PA's stand your ground amendment was called House Bill 40 and you can read it here:

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/PN/...

Florida's law is here:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm...

Neither law makes it legal for someone to chase down and shoot an unarmed person.

Dan the Man wrote:

<quoted text>
PA's stand your ground amendment was called House Bill 40 and you can read it here:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/PN/...
Florida's law is here:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm...
Neither law makes it legal for someone to chase down and shoot an unarmed person.

Unfortunately Dan - the info leaking out is Trayvon did in fact strike first.

Still more to know - but that seems to be latest - like it or not.

Zimm still did a lot wrong here...

Fonzie wrote:

<quoted text>
Unfortunately Dan - the info leaking out is Trayvon did in fact strike first.
Still more to know - but that seems to be latest - like it or not.
Zimm still did a lot wrong here...

Just like I said...more info is coming out that is changing and the press and those looking to make racial trouble are starting to look like a frenzied mob.

I'm not saying what Zimmerman did was right..

It's also strange that the press is using a photo of Martin when he was 12 years old...he was 17. Big difference in looks between a 12 and 17 year old. Again, it's like the press is trying to paint a picture of a child being gunned down. The press needs to report what they know, not their "opinion".

Fonzie wrote:

<quoted text>
Unfortunately Dan - the info leaking out is Trayvon did in fact strike first.
Still more to know - but that seems to be latest - like it or not.
Zimm still did a lot wrong here...

That doesn't change the facts we know - Zimmerman pursued Trayvon against the explicit directions of the 911 dispatcher. That initiated the interaction.

Trayvon striking the man who was pursuing him is an act of self-defense against an aggressor.

If Trayvon had been armed and shot Zimmerman, do you think Trayvon would have been arrested?

Dan the Man wrote:

<quoted text>
That doesn't change the facts we know - Zimmerman pursued Trayvon against the explicit directions of the 911 dispatcher. That initiated the interaction.
Trayvon striking the man who was pursuing him is an act of self-defense against an aggressor.
If Trayvon had been armed and shot Zimmerman, do you think Trayvon would have been arrested?

Details and specifics are going to be important.

Example - it wasn't a 911 operator - it was another non-emergency line.

And - it's questionable whether he =legally= had an obligation to obey whoever the dispatcher (or whoever he was on the phone with)

Your final question is irrelevant.

Fonzie wrote:

<quoted text>
Details and specifics are going to be important.
Example - it wasn't a 911 operator - it was another non-emergency line.
And - it's questionable whether he =legally= had an obligation to obey whoever the dispatcher (or whoever he was on the phone with)
Your final question is irrelevant.

How does it make a difference who instructed Zimmerman not to follow?

Zimmerman followed the kid in his truck, making Trayvon nervous. He then got out of the truck and pursued Trayvon on foot. It doesn't matter a bit who told him not to do that, his actions were those of an attacker, not someone "standing their ground."

And I'm not surprised you'd prefer to avoid my final question. Because we both know the answer, and that answer tells us a world of things about this situation.

Dan the Man wrote:

<quoted text>
How does it make a difference who instructed Zimmerman not to follow?
Zimmerman followed the kid in his truck, making Trayvon nervous. He then got out of the truck and pursued Trayvon on foot. It doesn't matter a bit who told him not to do that, his actions were those of an attacker, not someone "standing their ground."
And I'm not surprised you'd prefer to avoid my final question. Because we both know the answer, and that answer tells us a world of things about this situation.

Sounds like you were there. Is that how you know exactly what happened? Are you a witness that is speaking out on the innnernet but won't go to the proper authorities?

Western Pa wrote:

<quoted text>Sounds like you were there. Is that how you know exactly what happened? Are you a witness that is speaking out on the innnernet but won't go to the proper authorities?

I read the news. You should try it sometime.

Dan the Man wrote:

<quoted text>
I read the news. You should try it sometime.

I just asked you a question. No need to be disdainful.

You talk like you know what happened beyond the news, no one knows what happened except those that were there and those that witnessed it. According to your response you were not there.

Was the victim in a gang?

Western Pa wrote:

<quoted text>I just asked you a question. No need to be disdainful.
You talk like you know what happened beyond the news, no one knows what happened except those that were there and those that witnessed it. According to your response you were not there.

Everything I know about the case I read on the internet. It's all public information.

Of course you didn't seriously believe I was there - you were obviously being a smartass. You were disdainful of me and I responded in kind. We're all grown-ups here - there's no need to feign offense when you receive what you gave.

Dan the Man wrote:

<quoted text>
How does it make a difference who instructed Zimmerman not to follow?
Zimmerman followed the kid in his truck, making Trayvon nervous. He then got out of the truck and pursued Trayvon on foot. It doesn't matter a bit who told him not to do that, his actions were those of an attacker, not someone "standing their ground."
And I'm not surprised you'd prefer to avoid my final question. Because we both know the answer, and that answer tells us a world of things about this situation.

It makes a difference whether the person had the authority to tell Zimmerman to stand down. Was it a LEO or not? That's important. Obviously - the police DONT want these watch groups to behave this way - but legal nuts and bolts of it are another matter.

And it's unlikely "stand your ground" will come into play here - that's even conceded by Zimmerman's lawyer.

Your final question asked for speculation - which has nothing to do with the facts in this matter. Dan, as usual - you look for augments that don't exist.

Im not going to be defending Zimmerman - but you are way behind the curve here Dan. Get reading!

Dan the Man wrote:

<quoted text>
Everything I know about the case I read on the internet. It's all public information.
Of course you didn't seriously believe I was there - you were obviously being a smartass. You were disdainful of me and I responded in kind. We're all grown-ups here - there's no need to feign offense when you receive what you gave.

As usual, Dan takes the bait and goes off topic.

Guy...all you needed there was the first sentence - why do you dignify petty comments like "were you there?" with a response???

You are your own worst enemy in any debate Dan.

Western Pa wrote:

<quoted text>I just asked you a question. No need to be disdainful.
You talk like you know what happened beyond the news, no one knows what happened except those that were there and those that witnessed it. According to your response you were not there.

Exactly - whats that old saying about having "one hand on the elephant?"

Dan should read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an...

Fonzie wrote:

<quoted text>
It makes a difference whether the person had the authority to tell Zimmerman to stand down. Was it a LEO or not? That's important. Obviously - the police DONT want these watch groups to behave this way - but legal nuts and bolts of it are another matter.
And it's unlikely "stand your ground" will come into play here - that's even conceded by Zimmerman's lawyer.
Your final question asked for speculation - which has nothing to do with the facts in this matter. Dan, as usual - you look for augments that don't exist.
Im not going to be defending Zimmerman - but you are way behind the curve here Dan. Get reading!

You sure are posting a lot of defenses for a guy you claim you're not defending.

The fact of the matter is - and you know it - that if Zimmerman were black and Martin were white Zimmerman would have been arrested. That's not off topic - that's the heart of the national outrage.