GZ to get his gun back

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Interesting.

So you feel that TM turned and "engaged the threat"

Couldn't it be said that by getting out of his car and tracking TM down, that GZ was also "engaging the threat"?

I'm still curious as to how one person "engaged the threat" ... but the other didn't.

[Harsh_77 718]

That's the story, but who knows how true.

You can't get jumped and punched if you don't follow strangers.

RG u dont have any valid argument... keep on watching MSNBC.

[slim 1,533]

Interesting.

So you feel that TM turned and "engaged the threat"

Couldn't it be said that by getting out of his car and tracking TM down, that GZ was also "engaging the threat"?

If TM would've kept walking instead of violently attacking GZ, it's likely we would've never heard of either of these clowns. Now, I'm not saying he was obligated to do so. If he felt GZ was threatening him and about to jump him or whatever, he had a right to defend himself. The evidence does not indicate that happened.

GZ did not threaten TM by getting out of his vehicle, following him, talking to him, etc. If TM was threatened by that, he had the obligation to defend himself with an appropriate level of force - talking.

At the very root of this case is when force escalated to a point where someone could defend themselves with deadly force. There's evidence TM placed GZ's life in jeopardy by slamming his head on the ground. The only evidence of force applied by GZ before the shooting was following and "asking questions" - neither of which give someone the right to defend themself with any force at all.

[Harsh_77 718]

Interesting.

So you feel that TM turned and "engaged the threat"

Couldn't it be said that by getting out of his car and tracking TM down, that GZ was also "engaging the threat"?

penny you keep on posting all these message with benefit or doubt for TM and yet you do not like to be called anti GZ.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

If TM would've kept walking instead of violently attacking GZ, it's likely we would've never heard of either of these clowns. Now, I'm not saying he was obligated to do so. If he felt GZ was threatening him and about to jump him or whatever, he had a right to defend himself. The evidence does not indicate that happened.

GZ did not threaten TM by getting out of his vehicle, following him, talking to him, etc. If TM was threatened by that, he had the obligation to defend himself with an appropriate level of force - talking.

At the very root of this case is when force escalated to a point where someone could defend themselves with deadly force. There's evidence TM placed GZ's life in jeopardy by slamming his head on the ground. The only evidence of force applied by GZ before the shooting was following and "asking questions" - neither of which give someone the right to defend themself with any force at all.

You should give a rape prevention class.The next time a woman is being followed, try to diffuse the situation by talking.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Su and Marvin

[Penny Lane 8,159]

penny you keep on posting all these message with benefit or doubt for TM and yet you do not like to be called anti GZ.

I'm not. I agreed with there not being sufficient evidence.

I just think they BOTH made mistakes that night. I don't think it's fair to say TM engaged GZ without admitting that GZ also engaged TM.

How is that anti-anybody?

It seems, from the juror interview I just read with Anderson Cooper, that the jury agreed. TM should not have done what he did, but neither should GZ.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Penny Lane

[Ban Hammer 13,585]

Hey I want my $20 back. Why did I have to pay Charles $20?

for the get out of jail card.

[slim 1,533]

You should give a rape prevention class.The next time a woman is being followed, try to diffuse the situation by talking.

Why would she do that?

The point is, a woman can't shoot a guy for following her. She also can't jump on top of him and slam his head to the ground either. Use of force is such that once a threat is eliminated, continuation must stop.

People keep saying GZ started it by getting out and asking questions. Lets say thats true. Lets also say a guy gettingout of his car to follow and rape a woman. If both "victims" felt threatened, why would they decrease the distance between themselves and their would-be attackers?

Lets say they felt the need to "fight back." A reasonable counter to that threat may include a shove, maybe a punch. But jumping on top of and slamming the "attacker's" head into the ground has now escalated from using force to stop the attempted or perceived victimization into something else.

[Dan and Judy 614]

I wonder how many people have ever been jumped in a moving car.

Plenty of people have been jumped in moving cars.

You screw up your own argument when you try to go from a specific case to generalizations like

"You can't get jumped and punched if you don't follow strangers"

Im guessing you are trying to say Zimmerman wouldnt' have got jumped if he stayed in his car.

that would probably be true, But we don't know just how mad Trayvon was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UClXVjG_uhc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOXcHEMiHr4

I was sitting in my car one day parked parallel with a car parked in front and a car parked behind.

4 black guys came up in different positions. One guy comes up to my asking me if I bent a mirror a few cars back.

then he starts to open my door which I didn't realize I had a reason to lock. Then the rock flys through the passenger side window

just missing me after breaking the glass. Even the guy opening my door was a little startled by that. Luckily my keys were in the

ignition. I started her up and threw it in reverse moving the car that was behind me back a few feet then I put it in drive and got out of

there without the beating that they intended. the one guy was trying to hold on to my door another idiot was trying to hold my car antenna.

[GandD 5,966]

What you mean you guys??

There is nothing wrong if he had ambition to become cop that does not make anyone guilty of anything.

TM was involved in stealing… which judge and prosecution did not wanted to be admitted and was left out.

If some is walking in the rain and looking into the house that would be suspicious to any logical person, specially if they had recent breakins in the area.

I mean you. Is it ok for you to kick some punks a$$ for following you? Answer as you would have before this trial.

Plenty of people have been jumped in moving cars.

You screw up your own argument when you try to go from a specific case to generalizations like

"You can't get jumped and punched if you don't follow strangers"

Im guessing you are trying to say Zimmerman wouldnt' have got jumped if he stayed in his car.

that would probably be true, But we don't know just how mad Trayvon was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UClXVjG_uhc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOXcHEMiHr4

I was sitting in my car one day parked parallel with a car parked in front and a car parked behind.

4 black guys came up in different positions. One guy comes up to my asking me if I bent a mirror a few cars back.

then he starts to open my door which I didn't realize I had a reason to lock. Then the rock flys through the passenger side window

just missing me after breaking the glass. Even the guy opening my door was a little startled by that. Luckily my keys were in the

ignition. I started her up and threw it in reverse moving the car that was behind me back a few feet then I put it in drive and got out of

there without the beating that they intended. the one guy was trying to hold on to my door another idiot was trying to hold my car antenna.

I said moving car. As in if GZ had driven off.

[Ban Hammer 13,585]

That gun took a life ~ it should never be given back IMO

ever heard of the 5th amendment?

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

due process did not find him guilty. therefore, his property shall be returned to him.

[Harsh_77 718]

I mean you. Is it ok for you to kick some punks a$$ for following you? Answer as you would have before this trial.

No even before the trial that is not accpetable, that can be assault.

Just coz someone is following me does not give me right to punch that person.

[GandD 5,966]

No even before the trial that is not accpetable, that can be assault.

Just coz someone is following me does not give me right to punch that person.

I agree with that statement. I just have a hard time believing that people who are all about guns for protection do.

[Harsh_77 718]

I agree with that statement. I just have a hard time believing that people who are all about guns for protection do.

What makes you think that?

I think you have this notion in your head that all gun carrying ppl are these macho kinda who are just looking for trouble.

Let me tell you, you are completely wrong about it, most ppl who carry are some of the nicest ppl, who support follow the law.

Just think of this what your nation is if that was correct it would be massacre at the gun shows, that does not happen.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Just think of this what your nation is if that was correct it would be massacre at the gun shows, that does not happen.