Quote the exact line, word for word where I called COPP stalkers.
Can you do that? Nope! Because it was you who said I said they were stalkers but I never did say they were stalkers did I?
Zimmerman charged with Trayvon murder
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Quote the exact line, word for word where I called COPP stalkers.
Can you do that? Nope! Because it was you who said I said they were stalkers but I never did say they were stalkers did I?
Of course I acknowledged you making that ignorant claim, it's all right there in post #114.
You can try and riddle your way out of it Riddler, but you'll just continue to look silly.
I wasn't trying to PWN you, but it is nice of you to acknowledge when you get PWND.PWNED twice in one day, You're slipping.
Thanks.
I'm sure in the pot induced haze, you think so. But your posts speak for themselves.Tried and it backfired on you. Not once but twice.
Maybe if you didn't try so hard to be the Riddler, and avoided smoking pot before posting. You wouldn't make yourself look so silly, making claims like COPP is a group of stalkers.
There's more than one definition of the word "stalk".
Merriam-Webster says:
"STALK
intransitive verb
1
: to pursue quarry or prey stealthily
2
: to walk stiffly or haughtily
transitive verb
1
: to pursue by stalking
2
: to go through (an area) in search of prey or quarry <stalk the woods for deer>
3
: to pursue obsessively and to the point of harassment
— stalk·er noun"
Urban dictionary says:
"It seems to be that the term 'stalker' no longer means what it used to mean--the pathological ANONYMOUS follower and tab-keeper of another person or persons (A detective who has not been hired and has no real reason to follow someone). The old definition also would say that a 'stalker' often has an imaginary connection with the stalkee.
HOWEVER, common usage of the term, along with the term 'creepy', has come to be used as a defense mechanism for anyone seeking justification for not being attracted socially or physically to someone else.
stalker
Someone who:
1. Literally follows a person's every move, on Facebook or otherwise.
2. Is way too obsessed with someone to the point of being a creeper."
I'd say that Zimmerman was stalking the kid.
Never heard of COPP till today. But their website says:
"The main goal of the Citizens on Patrol Program is to be on the look-out for any suspicious or criminal activity, to record this activity and, where appropriate, to report such activities to the police. COPP members act as additional “eyes and ears” for their community and the police, which assists in reducing crime."
And if all Copp does is be extra "eyes and ears" and report suspicious stuff, it's not stalking, IMO. Stalking is done with a particular prey being the subject.
Merriam-Webster says:
"STALK
intransitive verb
1
: to pursue quarry or prey stealthily
2
: to walk stiffly or haughtily
transitive verb
1
: to pursue by stalking
2
: to go through (an area) in search of prey or quarry <stalk the woods for deer>
3
: to pursue obsessively and to the point of harassment
— stalk·er noun"
Urban dictionary says:
"It seems to be that the term 'stalker' no longer means what it used to mean--the pathological ANONYMOUS follower and tab-keeper of another person or persons (A detective who has not been hired and has no real reason to follow someone). The old definition also would say that a 'stalker' often has an imaginary connection with the stalkee.
HOWEVER, common usage of the term, along with the term 'creepy', has come to be used as a defense mechanism for anyone seeking justification for not being attracted socially or physically to someone else.
stalker
Someone who:
1. Literally follows a person's every move, on Facebook or otherwise.
2. Is way too obsessed with someone to the point of being a creeper."
I'd say that Zimmerman was stalking the kid.
Never heard of COPP till today. But their website says:
"The main goal of the Citizens on Patrol Program is to be on the look-out for any suspicious or criminal activity, to record this activity and, where appropriate, to report such activities to the police. COPP members act as additional “eyes and ears” for their community and the police, which assists in reducing crime."
And if all Copp does is be extra "eyes and ears" and report suspicious stuff, it's not stalking, IMO. Stalking is done with a particular prey being the subject.
You made that claim. I never did and if you could tie me to that claim you would quote me word for word but you can't because I never said it did I?
Go lick both of you PWOUNDS before they get infected.
I haven't read this whole thread, nor do I plan to.
but this whole stand-your-ground law applying anywhere other than on your own property is just insane. It invites back the days of dueling in the streets to defend some perceived slight to one's so-called honour.
Choose your weapon.
but this whole stand-your-ground law applying anywhere other than on your own property is just insane. It invites back the days of dueling in the streets to defend some perceived slight to one's so-called honour.
Choose your weapon.
One citizens' opinion on this whole drama-fest.
Be advised, he uses some strong language that may offend the pc crowd or children:
Treyvon Martin & black slaves - YouTube
Be advised, he uses some strong language that may offend the pc crowd or children:
Treyvon Martin & black slaves - YouTube
When all this started I was taking a wait and see attitude not knowing the facts.
Those facts are now starting to pile up, and some statements are almost an
attempt to make excuses.
Zimmerman didn't know Tryvon Martin or what he was doing in the neighbourhood.
Zimmerman made up his mind before he provoked the attack. Provoked the
incident? Yes, he said to the 911 operator they always get away and set out to do
something about a stranger in the neighbourhood. He might have been in a fight.
So what? Once he followed Trayvon, he could no longer use the self defence law.
That is written in Florida Law.
Ask yourself, if you were walking down the street and some fool with a gun was
chasing you, would you run? Would you stand and fight like hell?
Other questions come to mind. Did Zimmerman identify himself? Did he brandish
a Gun? Either way it makes no difference, as the law maintains if you follow the
suspect or unknown person you can't claim self defence if anything goes wrong.
This could well end up with Zimmerman doing a lot of time for his crime and the
people in the complex paying a lot of money for what Zimmerman did.
Civil suit is written all over this, they hired an armed person to head up security
and as such they are responsible if the law or Trayvon's rights were violated.
Those facts are now starting to pile up, and some statements are almost an
attempt to make excuses.
Zimmerman didn't know Tryvon Martin or what he was doing in the neighbourhood.
Zimmerman made up his mind before he provoked the attack. Provoked the
incident? Yes, he said to the 911 operator they always get away and set out to do
something about a stranger in the neighbourhood. He might have been in a fight.
So what? Once he followed Trayvon, he could no longer use the self defence law.
That is written in Florida Law.
Ask yourself, if you were walking down the street and some fool with a gun was
chasing you, would you run? Would you stand and fight like hell?
Other questions come to mind. Did Zimmerman identify himself? Did he brandish
a Gun? Either way it makes no difference, as the law maintains if you follow the
suspect or unknown person you can't claim self defence if anything goes wrong.
This could well end up with Zimmerman doing a lot of time for his crime and the
people in the complex paying a lot of money for what Zimmerman did.
Civil suit is written all over this, they hired an armed person to head up security
and as such they are responsible if the law or Trayvon's rights were violated.
"Once he followed Trayvon, he could no longer use the self defence law.
That is written in Florida Law."
Absolutely untrue.
First of all, it is NOT ILLEGAL to approach someone on the street. Secondly, when Martin ran, Zimmerman did not pursue him, that is clear from the tapes.
"You know......I'm out here....at the remains....of the....rally in support
for.....one Trevon Martin....the uhm....youth who was shot in Florida....
....in.....good ol'Akron Mississippi...."
Dude has an opinion alright.
No, it doesn't.
It necessitates stopping whatever action they are taking that is a threat to you. If that means shooting, you shoot, and keep shooting until the threat is stopped.
Whether they die in the process is completely irrelevant.
Zimmerman was in danger of serious bodily harm, as far as we know. He fired one shot.
That is well within the parameters of reasonable self-defense.
He was told by 911 not to pursue the individual. Florida law says that once pursuit
of the suspect negates a self defence claim. If you were after me with a gun I would
not try to outrun a bullet I would beat the guys head in to protect myself.
In addition it was never determined Trayvon Martin did anything to warrant the action
in the first place.
I think Zimmerman should be tried for the most serious charge the law can support,
I know first degree is not likely because its too hard to get past a jury in this case, however
second degree is not unlikely. That would also open up the housing development to being
sued for millions as they had acknowledged this guy was head of their security.
According to CNN the explanation of the new law indicated, you cannot under that new
legislation pursue the person that is left to police, Zimmerman says they always get away
and followed him. I hope they nail him to the wall.
of the suspect negates a self defence claim. If you were after me with a gun I would
not try to outrun a bullet I would beat the guys head in to protect myself.
In addition it was never determined Trayvon Martin did anything to warrant the action
in the first place.
I think Zimmerman should be tried for the most serious charge the law can support,
I know first degree is not likely because its too hard to get past a jury in this case, however
second degree is not unlikely. That would also open up the housing development to being
sued for millions as they had acknowledged this guy was head of their security.
According to CNN the explanation of the new law indicated, you cannot under that new
legislation pursue the person that is left to police, Zimmerman says they always get away
and followed him. I hope they nail him to the wall.
I hope this leads to some consequences for the lack of journalistic
integrity demonstrated by many in the media surrounding this
fiasco that still hasn't seen its day in court, though many have
judged an convicted this Zimmerman character...and much of that
being based upon much Bovine Shyte via the media.
I'd be curious, once an actual trial has taken place, to know what
actually happened here....but right now none of us really knows.
integrity demonstrated by many in the media surrounding this
fiasco that still hasn't seen its day in court, though many have
judged an convicted this Zimmerman character...and much of that
being based upon much Bovine Shyte via the media.
I'd be curious, once an actual trial has taken place, to know what
actually happened here....but right now none of us really knows.
Wrong.
There is absolutely no evidence that he was in pursuit of Martin when the fatal confrontation took place. In fact, the evidence suggests the opposite.
When Zimmerman says "He ran" on the 9-11 tape, it is obvious he does not pursue him. He is breathing regularly, and discussing where he will meet the police, after he tells the dispatcher Martin took off..
In addition, Martin was at that point within 100 yards of the house he was staying in.......... he would have been "home" in seconds.
The only sensible explanation is that Martin returned and confronted Zimmerman........at which point Zimmerman was NOT in pursuit, and was well within his rights to stand his ground.
Zimmerman should not even have been charged.
did anyone listen to the 911 information on CNN? Zimmerman was asked are you
following the person in question and he said Yes.
Court be damned the good ole south is going to try to cover this up because there
is a list of civil suits coming.
Martin has not been tied to a crime either. If he was pursued by Zimmerman and
if he got into an altercation I wouldn't blame him if he killed Zimmerman. The
security guard had no evidence of a crime or attempted crime, he merely looked
suspicious to him.
I think this guy should not be running around with guns determining who is guilty
of anything and he will likely spend a lot of time behind bars for killing an unarmed
kid.
following the person in question and he said Yes.
Court be damned the good ole south is going to try to cover this up because there
is a list of civil suits coming.
Martin has not been tied to a crime either. If he was pursued by Zimmerman and
if he got into an altercation I wouldn't blame him if he killed Zimmerman. The
security guard had no evidence of a crime or attempted crime, he merely looked
suspicious to him.
I think this guy should not be running around with guns determining who is guilty
of anything and he will likely spend a lot of time behind bars for killing an unarmed
kid.