Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (3 Viewers)

[Joe McGee]

The typical Martin supporter at a Rally. speaks out..

This is some amazing schtick. Looks like he had a video covering why white women are better than black women but youtube has removed it... Talk about stirring up a hornet's nest.

https://www.youtube.com/user/5723michael

 

[Joe McGee]

He has a second youtube channel -

https://www.youtube.com/user/5723davidmichael?feature=watch

 

[Mario Kart]

He has a second youtube channel -

https://www.youtube.com/user/5723davidmichael?feature=watch

I need to work the word MINSTREL into my everyday vocabulary.

 

[jon_mx]

Tim, a racist doesn't help a neighbor contact the NAACP to get more attention and help.


You long ago decided racial profiling=racism, and that what GZ did was racial profiling, therefore he must be racist. That's about as sensible as equating a speeding ticket to a class I felony.

The conservatives are right...you have been thinking with your heart since day one on this one. (FWIW...I'm neutral on guns and voted for BO)

another far-right conservative....

 

[GroveDiesel]

Blacks benefit from Florida's SYG law at disproportionate rate:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/16/blacks-benefit-from-florida-stand-your-ground-law-at-disproportionate-rate/

With such a large amount of black on black violence, it makes sense that blacks would come into contact with this law moreso than others.

True, but they actually use it successfully at a higher rate than whites as well.

It just seems to run counter to the line of thought being advanced by some that SYG laws are just out there so that whites can shoot black people. The actual statistics indicate that the law is allowing innocent blacks to actually protect themselves.

 

[squistion]

Bill Maher ‏@billmaher

Can we just stop the bull#### and rename the law from "Stand your Ground" to "Get out of Jail Free"?

 

[The Commish]

I didn't realize what I was watching while I was watching, but it appears to be one of the biggest hauls ever with several being caught over and over and over and over and over again

The problem is that Time is actually sincere. He's not TRYING to fish.

Perhaps not...does not bode well for those continuing to jump in his boat though.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Also, can someone explain this "white tennis shoes, wet grass" nonsense to me? Is the argument that he wouldn't walk on wet grass with white tennis shoes unless he was up to no good? Because that one of the dumbest things I've ever heard from anyone who either knows or was once a teenager. Plus the same terrible logic, if accepted as valid, would also apply in reverse- if he was planning on snooping around looking into houses on wet grass and for some reason really cared about protecting his shoes, he wouldn't have worn them in the first place.

Can you explain to me how you think seeing a kid you dont recognize at night wandering between houses in a gated community is not suspicious?

Actually dont bother, I know you are lying. You might not be to the level of call the cops or confront them suspicious, but you would absolutely be suspicious. Anybody else that says they dont find it suspicious is lying as well.

 

[Doubtingthomas]

Bill Maher ‏@billmaher

Can we just stop the bull#### and rename the law from "Stand your Ground" to "Get out of Jail Free"?

Oh the wit and wisdom of bill maher!!

 

[TobiasFunke]

Also, can someone explain this "white tennis shoes, wet grass" nonsense to me? Is the argument that he wouldn't walk on wet grass with white tennis shoes unless he was up to no good? Because that one of the dumbest things I've ever heard from anyone who either knows or was once a teenager. Plus the same terrible logic, if accepted as valid, would also apply in reverse- if he was planning on snooping around looking into houses on wet grass and for some reason really cared about protecting his shoes, he wouldn't have worn them in the first place.

Can you explain to me how you think seeing a kid you dont recognize at night wandering between houses in a gated community is not suspicious?

Actually dont bother, I know you are lying. You might not be to the level of call the cops or confront them suspicious, but you would absolutely be suspicious. Anybody else that says they dont find it suspicious is lying as well.

Depends on a number of factors. Normally, I would not be suspicious of a person in my neighborhood just because I don't recognize them. As hard as this apparently is for you to believe, there are people in this world who are not paranoid lunatics who assume the worst about every human being they do not know. You call it "naive," I call it "not being a massive gaping #######."

Of course if someone is wearing white tennis shoes on wet grass, that's a totally different story. My rule is that when you see white on wet, shoot first and ask questions later.

 

[kentric]

The typical Martin supporter at a Rally. speaks out..

Holy Cow. If this ever came out of a white man's mouth he'd be crucified (rightfully so I think). He does make a valid point about the lack of focus on black-on-black crime.

 

[kentric]

What happened to Tim? This was the best Whack-A-Tim thread ever.

He said he wouldn't be coming back to the thread unless new details on the event occured. Two-thirds of a day have gone by and he still hasn't posted. I think something may have happened to him. Another 8 hours goes by and I'm calling NEN.

 

[kentric]

this guy is awesome

...and I'm out.

The Pastor talking about why you'd fear a black man in a hoodie if you were on an elevator with him, ".. has it been proven over and over again that these hoodie boys rob, rape, murder and maim. Are you afraid of him." "You know its true, you know its true. So why do you blame George Zimmerman?"

"So all he had was some Skittles and and iced tea. You know when you smoke pot you get the munchies."

At 3:50 I can't help but think about "Coming to America" where the guy sings on stage and says, "give it up for Sexual Chocolate" and stamps his foot.

"He only defended himself against a pot smoking, munchy, paranoid, 17 year old negro boy who had been sent from his momma's house in Miami to Sanford because she couldn't do anything more with him."

God bless Youtube where you can find as many loonies as you please.,

 

[The Commish]

Also, can someone explain this "white tennis shoes, wet grass" nonsense to me? Is the argument that he wouldn't walk on wet grass with white tennis shoes unless he was up to no good? Because that one of the dumbest things I've ever heard from anyone who either knows or was once a teenager. Plus the same terrible logic, if accepted as valid, would also apply in reverse- if he was planning on snooping around looking into houses on wet grass and for some reason really cared about protecting his shoes, he wouldn't have worn them in the first place.

Can you explain to me how you think seeing a kid you dont recognize at night wandering between houses in a gated community is not suspicious?

Actually dont bother, I know you are lying. You might not be to the level of call the cops or confront them suspicious, but you would absolutely be suspicious. Anybody else that says they dont find it suspicious is lying as well.

Depends on a number of factors. Normally, I would not be suspicious of a person in my neighborhood just because I don't recognize them. As hard as this apparently is for you to believe, there are people in this world who are not paranoid lunatics who assume the worst about every human being they do not know. You call it "naive," I call it "not being a massive gaping #######."

Of course if someone is wearing white tennis shoes on wet grass, that's a totally different story. My rule is that when you see white on wet, shoot first and ask questions later.

I've heard this "didn't recognize him" argument pop up a lot lately in an effort to defend Zimmerman. What's puzzling to me is that the people bringing it up are also the people who gave Zimmerman a pass on not knowing the street names. Three streets vs hundreds of people...really?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

God bless Youtube where you can find as many loonies as you please.,

And you can always find one to say the things you'd like to say yourself, but know better.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Also, can someone explain this "white tennis shoes, wet grass" nonsense to me? Is the argument that he wouldn't walk on wet grass with white tennis shoes unless he was up to no good? Because that one of the dumbest things I've ever heard from anyone who either knows or was once a teenager. Plus the same terrible logic, if accepted as valid, would also apply in reverse- if he was planning on snooping around looking into houses on wet grass and for some reason really cared about protecting his shoes, he wouldn't have worn them in the first place.

Can you explain to me how you think seeing a kid you dont recognize at night wandering between houses in a gated community is not suspicious?

Actually dont bother, I know you are lying. You might not be to the level of call the cops or confront them suspicious, but you would absolutely be suspicious. Anybody else that says they dont find it suspicious is lying as well.

Depends on a number of factors. Normally, I would not be suspicious of a person in my neighborhood just because I don't recognize them. As hard as this apparently is for you to believe, there are people in this world who are not paranoid lunatics who assume the worst about every human being they do not know. You call it "naive," I call it "not being a massive gaping #######."

Of course if someone is wearing white tennis shoes on wet grass, that's a totally different story. My rule is that when you see white on wet, shoot first and ask questions later.

I wonder how many other residents have had quests over that zimmy found suspicious ...i would think it would be his job to know who is visiting people in HIS CRIME WATCH JURISDICTION

 

[Joe McGee]

this guy is awesome

...and I'm out.

The Pastor talking about why you'd fear a black man in a hoodie if you were on an elevator with him, ".. has it been proven over and over again that these hoodie boys rob, rape, murder and maim. Are you afraid of him." "You know its true, you know its true. So why do you blame George Zimmerman?"

"So all he had was some Skittles and and iced tea. You know when you smoke pot you get the munchies."

At 3:50 I can't help but think about "Coming to America" where the guy sings on stage and says, "give it up for Sexual Chocolate" and stamps his foot.

"He only defended himself against a pot smoking, munchy, paranoid, 17 year old negro boy who had been sent from his momma's house in Miami to Sanford because she couldn't do anything more with him."

God bless Youtube where you can find as many loonies as you please.,

As opposed to the FFA where there are no loons.

 

[kentric]

this guy is awesome

...and I'm out.

The Pastor talking about why you'd fear a black man in a hoodie if you were on an elevator with him, ".. has it been proven over and over again that these hoodie boys rob, rape, murder and maim. Are you afraid of him." "You know its true, you know its true. So why do you blame George Zimmerman?"

"So all he had was some Skittles and and iced tea. You know when you smoke pot you get the munchies."

At 3:50 I can't help but think about "Coming to America" where the guy sings on stage and says, "give it up for Sexual Chocolate" and stamps his foot.

"He only defended himself against a pot smoking, munchy, paranoid, 17 year old negro boy who had been sent from his momma's house in Miami to Sanford because she couldn't do anything more with him."

God bless Youtube where you can find as many loonies as you please.,

As opposed to the FFA where there are no loons.

But its easier to laugh at individuals on youtube than someone you're arguing against - at least for me.

 

[tdoss]

Also, can someone explain this "white tennis shoes, wet grass" nonsense to me? Is the argument that he wouldn't walk on wet grass with white tennis shoes unless he was up to no good? Because that one of the dumbest things I've ever heard from anyone who either knows or was once a teenager. Plus the same terrible logic, if accepted as valid, would also apply in reverse- if he was planning on snooping around looking into houses on wet grass and for some reason really cared about protecting his shoes, he wouldn't have worn them in the first place.

Can you explain to me how you think seeing a kid you dont recognize at night wandering between houses in a gated community is not suspicious?Actually dont bother, I know you are lying. You might not be to the level of call the cops or confront them suspicious, but you would absolutely be suspicious. Anybody else that says they dont find it suspicious is lying as well.

Depends on a number of factors. Normally, I would not be suspicious of a person in my neighborhood just because I don't recognize them. As hard as this apparently is for you to believe, there are people in this world who are not paranoid lunatics who assume the worst about every human being they do not know. You call it "naive," I call it "not being a massive gaping #######."

Of course if someone is wearing white tennis shoes on wet grass, that's a totally different story. My rule is that when you see white on wet, shoot first and ask questions later.

I've heard this "didn't recognize him" argument pop up a lot lately in an effort to defend Zimmerman. What's puzzling to me is that the people bringing it up are also the people who gave Zimmerman a pass on not knowing the street names. Three streets vs hundreds of people...really?

House numbers vs faces?

 

[kentric]

Also, can someone explain this "white tennis shoes, wet grass" nonsense to me? Is the argument that he wouldn't walk on wet grass with white tennis shoes unless he was up to no good? Because that one of the dumbest things I've ever heard from anyone who either knows or was once a teenager. Plus the same terrible logic, if accepted as valid, would also apply in reverse- if he was planning on snooping around looking into houses on wet grass and for some reason really cared about protecting his shoes, he wouldn't have worn them in the first place.

Can you explain to me how you think seeing a kid you dont recognize at night wandering between houses in a gated community is not suspicious?Actually dont bother, I know you are lying. You might not be to the level of call the cops or confront them suspicious, but you would absolutely be suspicious. Anybody else that says they dont find it suspicious is lying as well.

Depends on a number of factors. Normally, I would not be suspicious of a person in my neighborhood just because I don't recognize them. As hard as this apparently is for you to believe, there are people in this world who are not paranoid lunatics who assume the worst about every human being they do not know. You call it "naive," I call it "not being a massive gaping #######."

Of course if someone is wearing white tennis shoes on wet grass, that's a totally different story. My rule is that when you see white on wet, shoot first and ask questions later.

I've heard this "didn't recognize him" argument pop up a lot lately in an effort to defend Zimmerman. What's puzzling to me is that the people bringing it up are also the people who gave Zimmerman a pass on not knowing the street names. Three streets vs hundreds of people...really?

House numbers vs faces?

You're not alone on the head scratching.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Also, can someone explain this "white tennis shoes, wet grass" nonsense to me? Is the argument that he wouldn't walk on wet grass with white tennis shoes unless he was up to no good? Because that one of the dumbest things I've ever heard from anyone who either knows or was once a teenager. Plus the same terrible logic, if accepted as valid, would also apply in reverse- if he was planning on snooping around looking into houses on wet grass and for some reason really cared about protecting his shoes, he wouldn't have worn them in the first place.

Can you explain to me how you think seeing a kid you dont recognize at night wandering between houses in a gated community is not suspicious?

Actually dont bother, I know you are lying. You might not be to the level of call the cops or confront them suspicious, but you would absolutely be suspicious. Anybody else that says they dont find it suspicious is lying as well.

Depends on a number of factors. Normally, I would not be suspicious of a person in my neighborhood just because I don't recognize them. As hard as this apparently is for you to believe, there are people in this world who are not paranoid lunatics who assume the worst about every human being they do not know. You call it "naive," I call it "not being a massive gaping #######."

Of course if someone is wearing white tennis shoes on wet grass, that's a totally different story. My rule is that when you see white on wet, shoot first and ask questions later.

I've heard this "didn't recognize him" argument pop up a lot lately in an effort to defend Zimmerman. What's puzzling to me is that the people bringing it up are also the people who gave Zimmerman a pass on not knowing the street names. Three streets vs hundreds of people...really?

I know you think this was a gotcha moment, but the "didnt recognize him" is quite relevant.

If I saw my next door neighbor's kid that I have known for a while and have seen chase their dog all through the neighborhood and has never caused me any trouble walking through the yards I wouldnt be suspicious. If I saw a dude I didnt recognize, I would be.

You and tobias can try and spin that all you want, but you are both full of crap.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Also, can someone explain this "white tennis shoes, wet grass" nonsense to me? Is the argument that he wouldn't walk on wet grass with white tennis shoes unless he was up to no good? Because that one of the dumbest things I've ever heard from anyone who either knows or was once a teenager. Plus the same terrible logic, if accepted as valid, would also apply in reverse- if he was planning on snooping around looking into houses on wet grass and for some reason really cared about protecting his shoes, he wouldn't have worn them in the first place.

Can you explain to me how you think seeing a kid you dont recognize at night wandering between houses in a gated community is not suspicious?

Actually dont bother, I know you are lying. You might not be to the level of call the cops or confront them suspicious, but you would absolutely be suspicious. Anybody else that says they dont find it suspicious is lying as well.

Depends on a number of factors. Normally, I would not be suspicious of a person in my neighborhood just because I don't recognize them. As hard as this apparently is for you to believe, there are people in this world who are not paranoid lunatics who assume the worst about every human being they do not know. You call it "naive," I call it "not being a massive gaping #######."

Of course if someone is wearing white tennis shoes on wet grass, that's a totally different story. My rule is that when you see white on wet, shoot first and ask questions later.

I've heard this "didn't recognize him" argument pop up a lot lately in an effort to defend Zimmerman. What's puzzling to me is that the people bringing it up are also the people who gave Zimmerman a pass on not knowing the street names. Three streets vs hundreds of people...really?

I know you think this was a gotcha moment, but the "didnt recognize him" is quite relevant.

If I saw my next door neighbor's kid that I have known for a while and have seen chase their dog all through the neighborhood and has never caused me any trouble walking through the yards I wouldnt be suspicious. If I saw a dude I didnt recognize, I would be.

You and tobias can try and spin that all you want, but you are both full of crap.

You should maybe consider being less judgmental and negative, both towards posters on the internet and more importantly towards strangers you meet IRL. Just a thought. People are pretty awesome. Give 'em a shot.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Also, can someone explain this "white tennis shoes, wet grass" nonsense to me? Is the argument that he wouldn't walk on wet grass with white tennis shoes unless he was up to no good? Because that one of the dumbest things I've ever heard from anyone who either knows or was once a teenager. Plus the same terrible logic, if accepted as valid, would also apply in reverse- if he was planning on snooping around looking into houses on wet grass and for some reason really cared about protecting his shoes, he wouldn't have worn them in the first place.

Can you explain to me how you think seeing a kid you dont recognize at night wandering between houses in a gated community is not suspicious?

Actually dont bother, I know you are lying. You might not be to the level of call the cops or confront them suspicious, but you would absolutely be suspicious. Anybody else that says they dont find it suspicious is lying as well.

Depends on a number of factors. Normally, I would not be suspicious of a person in my neighborhood just because I don't recognize them. As hard as this apparently is for you to believe, there are people in this world who are not paranoid lunatics who assume the worst about every human being they do not know. You call it "naive," I call it "not being a massive gaping #######."

Of course if someone is wearing white tennis shoes on wet grass, that's a totally different story. My rule is that when you see white on wet, shoot first and ask questions later.

I see you avoided answering. Quit dancing. It is ok to admit you would be suspicious. We arent talking about walking down the street. We arent talking about walking on the sidewalk. We are talking about somebody wandering through yards. Martin could have been lost. He could have dropped something and been looking for it. He could have had a perfectly valid reason for doing what he was doing.

Without knowing that reason, it is suspicious. Period.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Also, can someone explain this "white tennis shoes, wet grass" nonsense to me? Is the argument that he wouldn't walk on wet grass with white tennis shoes unless he was up to no good? Because that one of the dumbest things I've ever heard from anyone who either knows or was once a teenager. Plus the same terrible logic, if accepted as valid, would also apply in reverse- if he was planning on snooping around looking into houses on wet grass and for some reason really cared about protecting his shoes, he wouldn't have worn them in the first place.

Can you explain to me how you think seeing a kid you dont recognize at night wandering between houses in a gated community is not suspicious?

Actually dont bother, I know you are lying. You might not be to the level of call the cops or confront them suspicious, but you would absolutely be suspicious. Anybody else that says they dont find it suspicious is lying as well.

Depends on a number of factors. Normally, I would not be suspicious of a person in my neighborhood just because I don't recognize them. As hard as this apparently is for you to believe, there are people in this world who are not paranoid lunatics who assume the worst about every human being they do not know. You call it "naive," I call it "not being a massive gaping #######."

Of course if someone is wearing white tennis shoes on wet grass, that's a totally different story. My rule is that when you see white on wet, shoot first and ask questions later.

I see you avoided answering. Quit dancing. It is ok to admit you would be suspicious. We arent talking about walking down the street. We arent talking about walking on the sidewalk. We are talking about somebody wandering through yards. Martin could have been lost. He could have dropped something and been looking for it. He could have had a perfectly valid reason for doing what he was doing.

Without knowing that reason, it is suspicious. Period.

Read through this dialogue you quoted from the beginning and then come back to me about who avoided answering. It started with a simple question from me, which you completely ignored so you could ask your own question. Maybe you should heed your own advice.

As to finding a kid wandering through a neighborhood suspicious- I just don't. Sorry. I don't know enough about this Martin kid to know if he was doing other things that I might have found suspicious, but as to the generic question you asked ... No, I don't find a kid I don't know walking around my neighborhood remotely suspicious, even if he's not on the sidewalk. Maybe it's because I've never lived in a place where I knew most of my neighbors. Maybe it's because I've never been burglarized. Maybe it's some other difference between you and me. But that's the truth. If you don't want to accept the truth, stop asking for it.

 

[The Commish]

Also, can someone explain this "white tennis shoes, wet grass" nonsense to me? Is the argument that he wouldn't walk on wet grass with white tennis shoes unless he was up to no good? Because that one of the dumbest things I've ever heard from anyone who either knows or was once a teenager. Plus the same terrible logic, if accepted as valid, would also apply in reverse- if he was planning on snooping around looking into houses on wet grass and for some reason really cared about protecting his shoes, he wouldn't have worn them in the first place.

Can you explain to me how you think seeing a kid you dont recognize at night wandering between houses in a gated community is not suspicious?Actually dont bother, I know you are lying. You might not be to the level of call the cops or confront them suspicious, but you would absolutely be suspicious. Anybody else that says they dont find it suspicious is lying as well.

Depends on a number of factors. Normally, I would not be suspicious of a person in my neighborhood just because I don't recognize them. As hard as this apparently is for you to believe, there are people in this world who are not paranoid lunatics who assume the worst about every human being they do not know. You call it "naive," I call it "not being a massive gaping #######."

Of course if someone is wearing white tennis shoes on wet grass, that's a totally different story. My rule is that when you see white on wet, shoot first and ask questions later.

I've heard this "didn't recognize him" argument pop up a lot lately in an effort to defend Zimmerman. What's puzzling to me is that the people bringing it up are also the people who gave Zimmerman a pass on not knowing the street names. Three streets vs hundreds of people...really?

House numbers vs faces?

You're not alone on the head scratching.

Sorry...my point was/is "because I don't recognize him" isn't a very strong pillar of "suspicion". If one can accept, within reason, that not knowing your street names is acceptable in day to day life surely we can accept the reality that it's virtually impossible to know all the faces of the people in your neighborhood, right?

 

[tdoss]

Also, can someone explain this "white tennis shoes, wet grass" nonsense to me? Is the argument that he wouldn't walk on wet grass with white tennis shoes unless he was up to no good? Because that one of the dumbest things I've ever heard from anyone who either knows or was once a teenager. Plus the same terrible logic, if accepted as valid, would also apply in reverse- if he was planning on snooping around looking into houses on wet grass and for some reason really cared about protecting his shoes, he wouldn't have worn them in the first place.

Can you explain to me how you think seeing a kid you dont recognize at night wandering between houses in a gated community is not suspicious?Actually dont bother, I know you are lying. You might not be to the level of call the cops or confront them suspicious, but you would absolutely be suspicious. Anybody else that says they dont find it suspicious is lying as well.

Depends on a number of factors. Normally, I would not be suspicious of a person in my neighborhood just because I don't recognize them. As hard as this apparently is for you to believe, there are people in this world who are not paranoid lunatics who assume the worst about every human being they do not know. You call it "naive," I call it "not being a massive gaping #######."

Of course if someone is wearing white tennis shoes on wet grass, that's a totally different story. My rule is that when you see white on wet, shoot first and ask questions later.

I see you avoided answering. Quit dancing. It is ok to admit you would be suspicious. We arent talking about walking down the street. We arent talking about walking on the sidewalk. We are talking about somebody wandering through yards. Martin could have been lost. He could have dropped something and been looking for it. He could have had a perfectly valid reason for doing what he was doing. Without knowing that reason, it is suspicious. Period.

Read through this dialogue you quoted from the beginning and then come back to me about who avoided answering. It started with a simple question from me, which you completely ignored so you could ask your own question. Maybe you should heed your own advice.

As to finding a kid wandering through a neighborhood suspicious- I just don't. Sorry. I don't know enough about this Martin kid to know if he was doing other things that I might have found suspicious, but as to the generic question you asked ... No, I don't find a kid I don't know walking around my neighborhood remotely suspicious, even if he's not on the sidewalk. Maybe it's because I've never lived in a place where I knew most of my neighbors. Maybe it's because I've never been burglarized. Maybe it's some other difference between you and me. But that's the truth. If you don't want to accept the truth, stop asking for it.

I think that's at the heart of it...you don't live in hell-hole Florida. You don't live in a neighborhood where it's necessary for you to be more mindful of your surroundings. You're not part of a neighborhood watch, where it's your goal to be more observant and take notice of strangers in yards. Add in rain and it being dark and I think you'd make a call and keep a watchful eye. Have these types of scenarios rinse repeat for years and for dozens of calls without some of these crooks getting caught and you might...just maybe, get out of your car in order to keep the thug in site until the cops arrive.

Problem is...Trayvon tricked him. Y'all can think what you want...and so will I. Dude took off running around that corner to make it seem like he booked. Zim jumped out to keep him in site but as soon as Tray went around that corner...he lost visual. Tray laid low for a bit to see if creepy @zz cracka followed. He waited until he saw him get off the phone and then took his opportunity to bash a chubby, supposedly white, supposedly unarmed doughboy.

 

[The Commish]

Also, can someone explain this "white tennis shoes, wet grass" nonsense to me? Is the argument that he wouldn't walk on wet grass with white tennis shoes unless he was up to no good? Because that one of the dumbest things I've ever heard from anyone who either knows or was once a teenager. Plus the same terrible logic, if accepted as valid, would also apply in reverse- if he was planning on snooping around looking into houses on wet grass and for some reason really cared about protecting his shoes, he wouldn't have worn them in the first place.

Can you explain to me how you think seeing a kid you dont recognize at night wandering between houses in a gated community is not suspicious?

Actually dont bother, I know you are lying. You might not be to the level of call the cops or confront them suspicious, but you would absolutely be suspicious. Anybody else that says they dont find it suspicious is lying as well.

Depends on a number of factors. Normally, I would not be suspicious of a person in my neighborhood just because I don't recognize them. As hard as this apparently is for you to believe, there are people in this world who are not paranoid lunatics who assume the worst about every human being they do not know. You call it "naive," I call it "not being a massive gaping #######."

Of course if someone is wearing white tennis shoes on wet grass, that's a totally different story. My rule is that when you see white on wet, shoot first and ask questions later.

I've heard this "didn't recognize him" argument pop up a lot lately in an effort to defend Zimmerman. What's puzzling to me is that the people bringing it up are also the people who gave Zimmerman a pass on not knowing the street names. Three streets vs hundreds of people...really?

I know you think this was a gotcha moment, but the "didnt recognize him" is quite relevant.

If I saw my next door neighbor's kid that I have known for a while and have seen chase their dog all through the neighborhood and has never caused me any trouble walking through the yards I wouldnt be suspicious. If I saw a dude I didnt recognize, I would be.

You and tobias can try and spin that all you want, but you are both full of crap.

That's fine....I can say with confidence I don't know the faces of the 2000+ people in my neighborhood. I see people all the time and have no clue if they live in the neighborhood or not. I'm not suspicious of them. There has to be something more than not recognizing them for me to summon my spidey senses. There's really nothing to spin here....seems to be a difference in general attitude towards people...nothing more.

 

[tdoss]

If you ask me...Zim's instincts on people were pretty good. Tray was a troubled teen, mixed up in drugs, vandalism, constantly fighting, kicked out of school, kicked out of his mom's home and ultimately a thief.

Just like the notion of, if the whitino wouldn't have gotten out of his car, this wouldn't have happened...the same could be said of Tray...if he'd have gone home and just mixed up his purple drank instead of assaulting someone...he'd be alive today.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I think that's at the heart of it...you don't live in hell-hole Florida. You don't live in a neighborhood where it's necessary for you to be more mindful of your surroundings. You're not part of a neighborhood watch, where it's your goal to be more observant and take notice of strangers in yards. Add in rain and it being dark and I think you'd make a call and keep a watchful eye. Have these types of scenarios rinse repeat for years and for dozens of calls without some of these crooks getting caught and you might...just maybe, get out of your car in order to keep the thug in site until the cops arrive.

Problem is...Trayvon tricked him. Y'all can think what you want...and so will I. Dude took off running around that corner to make it seem like he booked. Zim jumped out to keep him in site but as soon as Tray went around that corner...he lost visual. Tray laid low for a bit to see if creepy @zz cracka followed. He waited until he saw him get off the phone and then took his opportunity to bash a chubby, supposedly white, supposedly unarmed doughboy.

I don't know anything about hell-hole Florida, and I don't know enough about this case to argue about whether your account is reasonable or accurate- I was merely arguing with that other guy about how I'd react to his hypothetical fact pattern. But I don't live in the kind of neighborhood you think I live in. I see several people every day who would probably make George Zimmerman lose his mind and gun down everyone in sight with an automatic weapon.

 

[greenroom]

Also, can someone explain this "white tennis shoes, wet grass" nonsense to me? Is the argument that he wouldn't walk on wet grass with white tennis shoes unless he was up to no good? Because that one of the dumbest things I've ever heard from anyone who either knows or was once a teenager. Plus the same terrible logic, if accepted as valid, would also apply in reverse- if he was planning on snooping around looking into houses on wet grass and for some reason really cared about protecting his shoes, he wouldn't have worn them in the first place.

Can you explain to me how you think seeing a kid you dont recognize at night wandering between houses in a gated community is not suspicious?

Actually dont bother, I know you are lying. You might not be to the level of call the cops or confront them suspicious, but you would absolutely be suspicious. Anybody else that says they dont find it suspicious is lying as well.

Depends on a number of factors. Normally, I would not be suspicious of a person in my neighborhood just because I don't recognize them. As hard as this apparently is for you to believe, there are people in this world who are not paranoid lunatics who assume the worst about every human being they do not know. You call it "naive," I call it "not being a massive gaping #######."

Of course if someone is wearing white tennis shoes on wet grass, that's a totally different story. My rule is that when you see white on wet, shoot first and ask questions later.

I see you avoided answering. Quit dancing. It is ok to admit you would be suspicious. We arent talking about walking down the street. We arent talking about walking on the sidewalk. We are talking about somebody wandering through yards. Martin could have been lost. He could have dropped something and been looking for it. He could have had a perfectly valid reason for doing what he was doing.

Without knowing that reason, it is suspicious. Period.

Here is a thought. If you did find that kid wandering throught he neighborhood suspicious.. Why not just ask him what he is doing? Just roll down the window and yell out?

 

[jonessed]

Also, can someone explain this "white tennis shoes, wet grass" nonsense to me? Is the argument that he wouldn't walk on wet grass with white tennis shoes unless he was up to no good? Because that one of the dumbest things I've ever heard from anyone who either knows or was once a teenager. Plus the same terrible logic, if accepted as valid, would also apply in reverse- if he was planning on snooping around looking into houses on wet grass and for some reason really cared about protecting his shoes, he wouldn't have worn them in the first place.

Can you explain to me how you think seeing a kid you dont recognize at night wandering between houses in a gated community is not suspicious?Actually dont bother, I know you are lying. You might not be to the level of call the cops or confront them suspicious, but you would absolutely be suspicious. Anybody else that says they dont find it suspicious is lying as well.

Depends on a number of factors. Normally, I would not be suspicious of a person in my neighborhood just because I don't recognize them. As hard as this apparently is for you to believe, there are people in this world who are not paranoid lunatics who assume the worst about every human being they do not know. You call it "naive," I call it "not being a massive gaping #######."

Of course if someone is wearing white tennis shoes on wet grass, that's a totally different story. My rule is that when you see white on wet, shoot first and ask questions later.

I've heard this "didn't recognize him" argument pop up a lot lately in an effort to defend Zimmerman. What's puzzling to me is that the people bringing it up are also the people who gave Zimmerman a pass on not knowing the street names. Three streets vs hundreds of people...really?

I know you think this was a gotcha moment, but the "didnt recognize him" is quite relevant.If I saw my next door neighbor's kid that I have known for a while and have seen chase their dog all through the neighborhood and has never caused me any trouble walking through the yards I wouldnt be suspicious. If I saw a dude I didnt recognize, I would be.

You and tobias can try and spin that all you want, but you are both full of crap.

That's fine....I can say with confidence I don't know the faces of the 2000+ people in my neighborhood. I see people all the time and have no clue if they live in the neighborhood or not. I'm not suspicious of them. There has to be something more than not recognizing them for me to summon my spidey senses. There's really nothing to spin here....seems to be a difference in general attitude towards people...nothing more.

Not necessarily. I think it depends more on the neighborhood the individual lives in.

 

[tdoss]

I think that's at the heart of it...you don't live in hell-hole Florida. You don't live in a neighborhood where it's necessary for you to be more mindful of your surroundings. You're not part of a neighborhood watch, where it's your goal to be more observant and take notice of strangers in yards. Add in rain and it being dark and I think you'd make a call and keep a watchful eye. Have these types of scenarios rinse repeat for years and for dozens of calls without some of these crooks getting caught and you might...just maybe, get out of your car in order to keep the thug in site until the cops arrive.

Problem is...Trayvon tricked him. Y'all can think what you want...and so will I. Dude took off running around that corner to make it seem like he booked. Zim jumped out to keep him in site but as soon as Tray went around that corner...he lost visual. Tray laid low for a bit to see if creepy @zz cracka followed. He waited until he saw him get off the phone and then took his opportunity to bash a chubby, supposedly white, supposedly unarmed doughboy.

I don't know anything about hell-hole Florida, and I don't know enough about this case to argue about whether your account is reasonable or accurate- I was merely arguing with that other guy about how I'd react to his hypothetical fact pattern. But I don't live in the kind of neighborhood you think I live in. I see several people every day who would probably make George Zimmerman lose his mind and gun down everyone in sight with an automatic weapon.

HA...damn, didn't want to laugh but it caught me just right.

Ok, so you don't live in a gated community like Zim...so noted.

 

[kentric]

Also, can someone explain this "white tennis shoes, wet grass" nonsense to me? Is the argument that he wouldn't walk on wet grass with white tennis shoes unless he was up to no good? Because that one of the dumbest things I've ever heard from anyone who either knows or was once a teenager. Plus the same terrible logic, if accepted as valid, would also apply in reverse- if he was planning on snooping around looking into houses on wet grass and for some reason really cared about protecting his shoes, he wouldn't have worn them in the first place.

Can you explain to me how you think seeing a kid you dont recognize at night wandering between houses in a gated community is not suspicious?

Actually dont bother, I know you are lying. You might not be to the level of call the cops or confront them suspicious, but you would absolutely be suspicious. Anybody else that says they dont find it suspicious is lying as well.

Depends on a number of factors. Normally, I would not be suspicious of a person in my neighborhood just because I don't recognize them. As hard as this apparently is for you to believe, there are people in this world who are not paranoid lunatics who assume the worst about every human being they do not know. You call it "naive," I call it "not being a massive gaping #######."

Of course if someone is wearing white tennis shoes on wet grass, that's a totally different story. My rule is that when you see white on wet, shoot first and ask questions later.

I've heard this "didn't recognize him" argument pop up a lot lately in an effort to defend Zimmerman. What's puzzling to me is that the people bringing it up are also the people who gave Zimmerman a pass on not knowing the street names. Three streets vs hundreds of people...really?

I know you think this was a gotcha moment, but the "didnt recognize him" is quite relevant.

If I saw my next door neighbor's kid that I have known for a while and have seen chase their dog all through the neighborhood and has never caused me any trouble walking through the yards I wouldnt be suspicious. If I saw a dude I didnt recognize, I would be.

You and tobias can try and spin that all you want, but you are both full of crap.

That's fine....I can say with confidence I don't know the faces of the 2000+ people in my neighborhood. I see people all the time and have no clue if they live in the neighborhood or not. I'm not suspicious of them. There has to be something more than not recognizing them for me to summon my spidey senses. There's really nothing to spin here....seems to be a difference in general attitude towards people...nothing more.

Not sure if you live in an area like GZ. I don't. I live in a suburdan area and don't know people three doors down and therefore, like you, I am probably not as suspicious as someone like GZ obviously is. At the same time, if I lived in a gated community which has had a number of burglaries and at least on one occasion the perp was a black kid wearing a hoodie. I know that if l saw someone fitting this description meandering around the area iin the way TM supposedly was, I can assure you that my radar would be up.

edit: spelling error (again).

 

[The Commish]

Also, can someone explain this "white tennis shoes, wet grass" nonsense to me? Is the argument that he wouldn't walk on wet grass with white tennis shoes unless he was up to no good? Because that one of the dumbest things I've ever heard from anyone who either knows or was once a teenager. Plus the same terrible logic, if accepted as valid, would also apply in reverse- if he was planning on snooping around looking into houses on wet grass and for some reason really cared about protecting his shoes, he wouldn't have worn them in the first place.

Can you explain to me how you think seeing a kid you dont recognize at night wandering between houses in a gated community is not suspicious?Actually dont bother, I know you are lying. You might not be to the level of call the cops or confront them suspicious, but you would absolutely be suspicious. Anybody else that says they dont find it suspicious is lying as well.

Depends on a number of factors. Normally, I would not be suspicious of a person in my neighborhood just because I don't recognize them. As hard as this apparently is for you to believe, there are people in this world who are not paranoid lunatics who assume the worst about every human being they do not know. You call it "naive," I call it "not being a massive gaping #######."

Of course if someone is wearing white tennis shoes on wet grass, that's a totally different story. My rule is that when you see white on wet, shoot first and ask questions later.

I've heard this "didn't recognize him" argument pop up a lot lately in an effort to defend Zimmerman. What's puzzling to me is that the people bringing it up are also the people who gave Zimmerman a pass on not knowing the street names. Three streets vs hundreds of people...really?

I know you think this was a gotcha moment, but the "didnt recognize him" is quite relevant.If I saw my next door neighbor's kid that I have known for a while and have seen chase their dog all through the neighborhood and has never caused me any trouble walking through the yards I wouldnt be suspicious. If I saw a dude I didnt recognize, I would be.

You and tobias can try and spin that all you want, but you are both full of crap.

That's fine....I can say with confidence I don't know the faces of the 2000+ people in my neighborhood. I see people all the time and have no clue if they live in the neighborhood or not. I'm not suspicious of them. There has to be something more than not recognizing them for me to summon my spidey senses. There's really nothing to spin here....seems to be a difference in general attitude towards people...nothing more.

Not necessarily. I think it depends more on the neighborhood the individual lives in.

It could. Lots of factors go into it. I think several went into Zimmerman's actions as well. Most of them being prior experiences in his neighborhood. Remember, this particular conversation started with folks defending him because he didn't recognize the kid. Of all the defenses, that's probably one of the weakest for the reasons I've given.

 

[tdoss]

Also, can someone explain this "white tennis shoes, wet grass" nonsense to me? Is the argument that he wouldn't walk on wet grass with white tennis shoes unless he was up to no good? Because that one of the dumbest things I've ever heard from anyone who either knows or was once a teenager. Plus the same terrible logic, if accepted as valid, would also apply in reverse- if he was planning on snooping around looking into houses on wet grass and for some reason really cared about protecting his shoes, he wouldn't have worn them in the first place.

Can you explain to me how you think seeing a kid you dont recognize at night wandering between houses in a gated community is not suspicious?Actually dont bother, I know you are lying. You might not be to the level of call the cops or confront them suspicious, but you would absolutely be suspicious. Anybody else that says they dont find it suspicious is lying as well.

Depends on a number of factors. Normally, I would not be suspicious of a person in my neighborhood just because I don't recognize them. As hard as this apparently is for you to believe, there are people in this world who are not paranoid lunatics who assume the worst about every human being they do not know. You call it "naive," I call it "not being a massive gaping #######."

Of course if someone is wearing white tennis shoes on wet grass, that's a totally different story. My rule is that when you see white on wet, shoot first and ask questions later.

I see you avoided answering. Quit dancing. It is ok to admit you would be suspicious. We arent talking about walking down the street. We arent talking about walking on the sidewalk. We are talking about somebody wandering through yards. Martin could have been lost. He could have dropped something and been looking for it. He could have had a perfectly valid reason for doing what he was doing. Without knowing that reason, it is suspicious. Period.

Here is a thought. If you did find that kid wandering throught he neighborhood suspicious.. Why not just ask him what he is doing? Just roll down the window and yell out?

You can tell the type of dude this is by his language on the call. He avoided confrontation as much as he could...dude is mad-dogging him, circled his car and just not looking like anyone he wants to have a discussion with.

He just wanted to keep him in sight...he didn't want this guy just disappearing to come back another night and rob his neighbors.

Even the confrontation..."You got a problem?!" "No problem with you."

My response is probably a big harsher..."I got 99...but a biitch ain't one!"

Honestly, if you've had any time in a bad neighborhood...you'll learn real quick that its how you respond to a confrontation that will dictate how it goes. Zim responded meek and fearful...Tray saw the weakness after checking Zim's punk card with that first antagonistic comment and Zim failed.

 

[The Commish]

Also, can someone explain this "white tennis shoes, wet grass" nonsense to me? Is the argument that he wouldn't walk on wet grass with white tennis shoes unless he was up to no good? Because that one of the dumbest things I've ever heard from anyone who either knows or was once a teenager. Plus the same terrible logic, if accepted as valid, would also apply in reverse- if he was planning on snooping around looking into houses on wet grass and for some reason really cared about protecting his shoes, he wouldn't have worn them in the first place.

Can you explain to me how you think seeing a kid you dont recognize at night wandering between houses in a gated community is not suspicious?

Actually dont bother, I know you are lying. You might not be to the level of call the cops or confront them suspicious, but you would absolutely be suspicious. Anybody else that says they dont find it suspicious is lying as well.

Depends on a number of factors. Normally, I would not be suspicious of a person in my neighborhood just because I don't recognize them. As hard as this apparently is for you to believe, there are people in this world who are not paranoid lunatics who assume the worst about every human being they do not know. You call it "naive," I call it "not being a massive gaping #######."

Of course if someone is wearing white tennis shoes on wet grass, that's a totally different story. My rule is that when you see white on wet, shoot first and ask questions later.

I've heard this "didn't recognize him" argument pop up a lot lately in an effort to defend Zimmerman. What's puzzling to me is that the people bringing it up are also the people who gave Zimmerman a pass on not knowing the street names. Three streets vs hundreds of people...really?

I know you think this was a gotcha moment, but the "didnt recognize him" is quite relevant.

If I saw my next door neighbor's kid that I have known for a while and have seen chase their dog all through the neighborhood and has never caused me any trouble walking through the yards I wouldnt be suspicious. If I saw a dude I didnt recognize, I would be.

You and tobias can try and spin that all you want, but you are both full of crap.

That's fine....I can say with confidence I don't know the faces of the 2000+ people in my neighborhood. I see people all the time and have no clue if they live in the neighborhood or not. I'm not suspicious of them. There has to be something more than not recognizing them for me to summon my spidey senses. There's really nothing to spin here....seems to be a difference in general attitude towards people...nothing more.

Not sure if you live in an area like GZ. I don't. I live in a suburdan area and don't know people three doors down and therefore, like you, I am probably not as suspicious as someone like GZ obviously is. At the same time, if I lived in a gated community which has had a number of burglaries and at least on one occasion the perp was a black kid wearing a hoodie. I know that if l saw someone fitting this description meandering around the area iin the way TM supposedly was, I can assure you that my radar would be up.

edit: spelling error (again).

To be clear, Zimmerman said he walked between the houses, out to the sidewalk and was looking at the houses. That's not enough for me personally. I don't care if the kid was black and wearing a button down shirt or white wearing a g-string. If he's looking IN houses and snooping around, my senses start. Honestly, if I would have seen this kid, my first instinct would be to go up and ask him if he needed help I guess I'm just naive.

 

[The Commish]

Also, can someone explain this "white tennis shoes, wet grass" nonsense to me? Is the argument that he wouldn't walk on wet grass with white tennis shoes unless he was up to no good? Because that one of the dumbest things I've ever heard from anyone who either knows or was once a teenager. Plus the same terrible logic, if accepted as valid, would also apply in reverse- if he was planning on snooping around looking into houses on wet grass and for some reason really cared about protecting his shoes, he wouldn't have worn them in the first place.

Can you explain to me how you think seeing a kid you dont recognize at night wandering between houses in a gated community is not suspicious?Actually dont bother, I know you are lying. You might not be to the level of call the cops or confront them suspicious, but you would absolutely be suspicious. Anybody else that says they dont find it suspicious is lying as well.

Depends on a number of factors. Normally, I would not be suspicious of a person in my neighborhood just because I don't recognize them. As hard as this apparently is for you to believe, there are people in this world who are not paranoid lunatics who assume the worst about every human being they do not know. You call it "naive," I call it "not being a massive gaping #######."

Of course if someone is wearing white tennis shoes on wet grass, that's a totally different story. My rule is that when you see white on wet, shoot first and ask questions later.

I see you avoided answering. Quit dancing. It is ok to admit you would be suspicious. We arent talking about walking down the street. We arent talking about walking on the sidewalk. We are talking about somebody wandering through yards. Martin could have been lost. He could have dropped something and been looking for it. He could have had a perfectly valid reason for doing what he was doing. Without knowing that reason, it is suspicious. Period.

Here is a thought. If you did find that kid wandering throught he neighborhood suspicious.. Why not just ask him what he is doing? Just roll down the window and yell out?

You can tell the type of dude this is by his language on the call. He avoided confrontation as much as he could...dude is mad-dogging him, circled his car and just not looking like anyone he wants to have a discussion with.

He just wanted to keep him in sight...he didn't want this guy just disappearing to come back another night and rob his neighbors.

Even the confrontation..."You got a problem?!" "No problem with you."

My response is probably a big harsher..."I got 99...but a biitch ain't one!"

Honestly, if you've had any time in a bad neighborhood...you'll learn real quick that its how you respond to a confrontation that will dictate how it goes. Zim responded meek and fearful...Tray saw the weakness after checking Zim's punk card with that first antagonistic comment and Zim failed.

What the hell has happened to you man??

 

[kentric]

Also, can someone explain this "white tennis shoes, wet grass" nonsense to me? Is the argument that he wouldn't walk on wet grass with white tennis shoes unless he was up to no good? Because that one of the dumbest things I've ever heard from anyone who either knows or was once a teenager. Plus the same terrible logic, if accepted as valid, would also apply in reverse- if he was planning on snooping around looking into houses on wet grass and for some reason really cared about protecting his shoes, he wouldn't have worn them in the first place.

Can you explain to me how you think seeing a kid you dont recognize at night wandering between houses in a gated community is not suspicious?

Actually dont bother, I know you are lying. You might not be to the level of call the cops or confront them suspicious, but you would absolutely be suspicious. Anybody else that says they dont find it suspicious is lying as well.

Depends on a number of factors. Normally, I would not be suspicious of a person in my neighborhood just because I don't recognize them. As hard as this apparently is for you to believe, there are people in this world who are not paranoid lunatics who assume the worst about every human being they do not know. You call it "naive," I call it "not being a massive gaping #######."

Of course if someone is wearing white tennis shoes on wet grass, that's a totally different story. My rule is that when you see white on wet, shoot first and ask questions later.

I've heard this "didn't recognize him" argument pop up a lot lately in an effort to defend Zimmerman. What's puzzling to me is that the people bringing it up are also the people who gave Zimmerman a pass on not knowing the street names. Three streets vs hundreds of people...really?

I know you think this was a gotcha moment, but the "didnt recognize him" is quite relevant.

If I saw my next door neighbor's kid that I have known for a while and have seen chase their dog all through the neighborhood and has never caused me any trouble walking through the yards I wouldnt be suspicious. If I saw a dude I didnt recognize, I would be.

You and tobias can try and spin that all you want, but you are both full of crap.

That's fine....I can say with confidence I don't know the faces of the 2000+ people in my neighborhood. I see people all the time and have no clue if they live in the neighborhood or not. I'm not suspicious of them. There has to be something more than not recognizing them for me to summon my spidey senses. There's really nothing to spin here....seems to be a difference in general attitude towards people...nothing more.

Not sure if you live in an area like GZ. I don't. I live in a suburdan area and don't know people three doors down and therefore, like you, I am probably not as suspicious as someone like GZ obviously is. At the same time, if I lived in a gated community which has had a number of burglaries and at least on one occasion the perp was a black kid wearing a hoodie. I know that if l saw someone fitting this description meandering around the area iin the way TM supposedly was, I can assure you that my radar would be up.

edit: spelling error (again).

To be clear, Zimmerman said he walked between the houses, out to the sidewalk and was looking at the houses. That's not enough for me personally. I don't care if the kid was black and wearing a button down shirt or white wearing a g-string. If he's looking IN houses and snooping around, my senses start. Honestly, if I would have seen this kid, my first instinct would be to go up and ask him if he needed help I guess I'm just naive.

And that would have just gotten you a handful of Skittles thrown at your eye. Have you learned nothing in this thread???

 

[tdoss]

Also, can someone explain this "white tennis shoes, wet grass" nonsense to me? Is the argument that he wouldn't walk on wet grass with white tennis shoes unless he was up to no good? Because that one of the dumbest things I've ever heard from anyone who either knows or was once a teenager. Plus the same terrible logic, if accepted as valid, would also apply in reverse- if he was planning on snooping around looking into houses on wet grass and for some reason really cared about protecting his shoes, he wouldn't have worn them in the first place.

Can you explain to me how you think seeing a kid you dont recognize at night wandering between houses in a gated community is not suspicious?Actually dont bother, I know you are lying. You might not be to the level of call the cops or confront them suspicious, but you would absolutely be suspicious. Anybody else that says they dont find it suspicious is lying as well.

Depends on a number of factors. Normally, I would not be suspicious of a person in my neighborhood just because I don't recognize them. As hard as this apparently is for you to believe, there are people in this world who are not paranoid lunatics who assume the worst about every human being they do not know. You call it "naive," I call it "not being a massive gaping #######."

Of course if someone is wearing white tennis shoes on wet grass, that's a totally different story. My rule is that when you see white on wet, shoot first and ask questions later.

I've heard this "didn't recognize him" argument pop up a lot lately in an effort to defend Zimmerman. What's puzzling to me is that the people bringing it up are also the people who gave Zimmerman a pass on not knowing the street names. Three streets vs hundreds of people...really?

I know you think this was a gotcha moment, but the "didnt recognize him" is quite relevant.If I saw my next door neighbor's kid that I have known for a while and have seen chase their dog all through the neighborhood and has never caused me any trouble walking through the yards I wouldnt be suspicious. If I saw a dude I didnt recognize, I would be.

You and tobias can try and spin that all you want, but you are both full of crap.

That's fine....I can say with confidence I don't know the faces of the 2000+ people in my neighborhood. I see people all the time and have no clue if they live in the neighborhood or not. I'm not suspicious of them. There has to be something more than not recognizing them for me to summon my spidey senses. There's really nothing to spin here....seems to be a difference in general attitude towards people...nothing more.

Not necessarily. I think it depends more on the neighborhood the individual lives in.

It could. Lots of factors go into it. I think several went into Zimmerman's actions as well. Most of them being prior experiences in his neighborhood. Remember, this particular conversation started with folks defending him because he didn't recognize the kid. Of all the defenses, that's probably one of the weakest for the reasons I've given.

I don't put a lot of stock in Zim not recognizing him. Zim definitely didn't recognize him but I think it carried little weight. It was more of the neighborhood, recent events, particular yard, this guys actions, continued actions like circling his car and just staring at Zim, rainy night, and it being Zim's job to be watchful...add all those up and we've Zim making a call and staying on it while he followed.

Honestly...Zim hung up when he thought he had lost the guy. You can totally tell that Zim would've kept them on the line had he any thought that this dude was still within striking distance.

 

[tdoss]

Also, can someone explain this "white tennis shoes, wet grass" nonsense to me? Is the argument that he wouldn't walk on wet grass with white tennis shoes unless he was up to no good? Because that one of the dumbest things I've ever heard from anyone who either knows or was once a teenager. Plus the same terrible logic, if accepted as valid, would also apply in reverse- if he was planning on snooping around looking into houses on wet grass and for some reason really cared about protecting his shoes, he wouldn't have worn them in the first place.

Can you explain to me how you think seeing a kid you dont recognize at night wandering between houses in a gated community is not suspicious?Actually dont bother, I know you are lying. You might not be to the level of call the cops or confront them suspicious, but you would absolutely be suspicious. Anybody else that says they dont find it suspicious is lying as well.

Depends on a number of factors. Normally, I would not be suspicious of a person in my neighborhood just because I don't recognize them. As hard as this apparently is for you to believe, there are people in this world who are not paranoid lunatics who assume the worst about every human being they do not know. You call it "naive," I call it "not being a massive gaping #######."

Of course if someone is wearing white tennis shoes on wet grass, that's a totally different story. My rule is that when you see white on wet, shoot first and ask questions later.

I see you avoided answering. Quit dancing. It is ok to admit you would be suspicious. We arent talking about walking down the street. We arent talking about walking on the sidewalk. We are talking about somebody wandering through yards. Martin could have been lost. He could have dropped something and been looking for it. He could have had a perfectly valid reason for doing what he was doing. Without knowing that reason, it is suspicious. Period.

Here is a thought. If you did find that kid wandering throught he neighborhood suspicious.. Why not just ask him what he is doing? Just roll down the window and yell out?

You can tell the type of dude this is by his language on the call. He avoided confrontation as much as he could...dude is mad-dogging him, circled his car and just not looking like anyone he wants to have a discussion with.He just wanted to keep him in sight...he didn't want this guy just disappearing to come back another night and rob his neighbors.

Even the confrontation..."You got a problem?!" "No problem with you."

My response is probably a big harsher..."I got 99...but a biitch ain't one!"

Honestly, if you've had any time in a bad neighborhood...you'll learn real quick that its how you respond to a confrontation that will dictate how it goes. Zim responded meek and fearful...Tray saw the weakness after checking Zim's punk card with that first antagonistic comment and Zim failed.

What the hell has happened to you man??

Think I've gone off the deep end...

 

[The Commish]

Also, can someone explain this "white tennis shoes, wet grass" nonsense to me? Is the argument that he wouldn't walk on wet grass with white tennis shoes unless he was up to no good? Because that one of the dumbest things I've ever heard from anyone who either knows or was once a teenager. Plus the same terrible logic, if accepted as valid, would also apply in reverse- if he was planning on snooping around looking into houses on wet grass and for some reason really cared about protecting his shoes, he wouldn't have worn them in the first place.

Can you explain to me how you think seeing a kid you dont recognize at night wandering between houses in a gated community is not suspicious?

Actually dont bother, I know you are lying. You might not be to the level of call the cops or confront them suspicious, but you would absolutely be suspicious. Anybody else that says they dont find it suspicious is lying as well.

Depends on a number of factors. Normally, I would not be suspicious of a person in my neighborhood just because I don't recognize them. As hard as this apparently is for you to believe, there are people in this world who are not paranoid lunatics who assume the worst about every human being they do not know. You call it "naive," I call it "not being a massive gaping #######."

Of course if someone is wearing white tennis shoes on wet grass, that's a totally different story. My rule is that when you see white on wet, shoot first and ask questions later.

I've heard this "didn't recognize him" argument pop up a lot lately in an effort to defend Zimmerman. What's puzzling to me is that the people bringing it up are also the people who gave Zimmerman a pass on not knowing the street names. Three streets vs hundreds of people...really?

I know you think this was a gotcha moment, but the "didnt recognize him" is quite relevant.

If I saw my next door neighbor's kid that I have known for a while and have seen chase their dog all through the neighborhood and has never caused me any trouble walking through the yards I wouldnt be suspicious. If I saw a dude I didnt recognize, I would be.

You and tobias can try and spin that all you want, but you are both full of crap.

That's fine....I can say with confidence I don't know the faces of the 2000+ people in my neighborhood. I see people all the time and have no clue if they live in the neighborhood or not. I'm not suspicious of them. There has to be something more than not recognizing them for me to summon my spidey senses. There's really nothing to spin here....seems to be a difference in general attitude towards people...nothing more.

Not sure if you live in an area like GZ. I don't. I live in a suburdan area and don't know people three doors down and therefore, like you, I am probably not as suspicious as someone like GZ obviously is. At the same time, if I lived in a gated community which has had a number of burglaries and at least on one occasion the perp was a black kid wearing a hoodie. I know that if l saw someone fitting this description meandering around the area iin the way TM supposedly was, I can assure you that my radar would be up.

edit: spelling error (again).

To be clear, Zimmerman said he walked between the houses, out to the sidewalk and was looking at the houses. That's not enough for me personally. I don't care if the kid was black and wearing a button down shirt or white wearing a g-string. If he's looking IN houses and snooping around, my senses start. Honestly, if I would have seen this kid, my first instinct would be to go up and ask him if he needed help I guess I'm just naive.

And that would have just gotten you a handful of Skittles thrown at your eye. Have you learned nothing in this thread???

I told you I was naive.

 

[Mario Kart]

You can tell the type of dude this is by his language on the call. He avoided confrontation as much as he could...dude is mad-dogging him, circled his car and just not looking like anyone he wants to have a discussion with.

He just wanted to keep him in sight...he didn't want this guy just disappearing to come back another night and rob his neighbors.

Even the confrontation..."You got a problem?!" "No problem with you."

My response is probably a big harsher..."I got 99...but a biitch ain't one!"

Honestly, if you've had any time in a bad neighborhood...you'll learn real quick that its how you respond to a confrontation that will dictate how it goes. Zim responded meek and fearful...Tray saw the weakness after checking Zim's punk card with that first antagonistic comment and Zim failed.

What the hell has happened to you man??

I know what tdoss attempted to explain sounds funny or ludicrous because, in some peoples minds, what he said is far fetched. I get it. However, what tdoss explained is much more correct than far fetched when it comes to interacting with, not black kids, but teenagers in general especially if the teenager is in a not so good neighborhood.

And, to reaffirm tdoss' last statement about "learning real quick." Yeah, you better learn real quick on some things or else the piranhas are going to swarm. Yeah, it may sound dumb, crazy, unbelievable, but it is much more true than not.

 

[Slapdash]

If you ask me...Zim's instincts on people were pretty good. Tray was a troubled teen, mixed up in drugs, vandalism, constantly fighting, kicked out of school, kicked out of his mom's home and ultimately a thief.

Just like the notion of, if the whitino wouldn't have gotten out of his car, this wouldn't have happened...the same could be said of Tray...if he'd have gone home and just mixed up his purple drank instead of assaulting someone...he'd be alive today.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Also, can someone explain this "white tennis shoes, wet grass" nonsense to me? Is the argument that he wouldn't walk on wet grass with white tennis shoes unless he was up to no good? Because that one of the dumbest things I've ever heard from anyone who either knows or was once a teenager. Plus the same terrible logic, if accepted as valid, would also apply in reverse- if he was planning on snooping around looking into houses on wet grass and for some reason really cared about protecting his shoes, he wouldn't have worn them in the first place.

Can you explain to me how you think seeing a kid you dont recognize at night wandering between houses in a gated community is not suspicious?

Actually dont bother, I know you are lying. You might not be to the level of call the cops or confront them suspicious, but you would absolutely be suspicious. Anybody else that says they dont find it suspicious is lying as well.

Depends on a number of factors. Normally, I would not be suspicious of a person in my neighborhood just because I don't recognize them. As hard as this apparently is for you to believe, there are people in this world who are not paranoid lunatics who assume the worst about every human being they do not know. You call it "naive," I call it "not being a massive gaping #######."

Of course if someone is wearing white tennis shoes on wet grass, that's a totally different story. My rule is that when you see white on wet, shoot first and ask questions later.

I've heard this "didn't recognize him" argument pop up a lot lately in an effort to defend Zimmerman. What's puzzling to me is that the people bringing it up are also the people who gave Zimmerman a pass on not knowing the street names. Three streets vs hundreds of people...really?

I know you think this was a gotcha moment, but the "didnt recognize him" is quite relevant.

If I saw my next door neighbor's kid that I have known for a while and have seen chase their dog all through the neighborhood and has never caused me any trouble walking through the yards I wouldnt be suspicious. If I saw a dude I didnt recognize, I would be.

You and tobias can try and spin that all you want, but you are both full of crap.

That's fine....I can say with confidence I don't know the faces of the 2000+ people in my neighborhood. I see people all the time and have no clue if they live in the neighborhood or not. I'm not suspicious of them. There has to be something more than not recognizing them for me to summon my spidey senses. There's really nothing to spin here....seems to be a difference in general attitude towards people...nothing more.

Again you avoid answering. You are twisting and turning like crazy here. It is ridiculous. We arent talking about just seeing people you dont know. I saw 200 people today I don't know from Adam. I wasn't suspicious of all but one of them. Why not? Because they werent doing anything suspicious.

Commish's wife: Honey there is some dude wandering around outside between all the houses just staring at them. It is late and it is raining. Doesnt that seem odd to you?

Commish: Nope. Invite him in. Probably a neighbor that we dont know yet and I am sure they are cold and would like some warm tea.

ETA: The guy I thought was suspicious was pushing a pink bike and waving a cane above his head. I know Tobias and Commish think that is normal, but that seemed like crazy behavior to me.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Also, can someone explain this "white tennis shoes, wet grass" nonsense to me? Is the argument that he wouldn't walk on wet grass with white tennis shoes unless he was up to no good? Because that one of the dumbest things I've ever heard from anyone who either knows or was once a teenager. Plus the same terrible logic, if accepted as valid, would also apply in reverse- if he was planning on snooping around looking into houses on wet grass and for some reason really cared about protecting his shoes, he wouldn't have worn them in the first place.

Can you explain to me how you think seeing a kid you dont recognize at night wandering between houses in a gated community is not suspicious?Actually dont bother, I know you are lying. You might not be to the level of call the cops or confront them suspicious, but you would absolutely be suspicious. Anybody else that says they dont find it suspicious is lying as well.

Depends on a number of factors. Normally, I would not be suspicious of a person in my neighborhood just because I don't recognize them. As hard as this apparently is for you to believe, there are people in this world who are not paranoid lunatics who assume the worst about every human being they do not know. You call it "naive," I call it "not being a massive gaping #######."

Of course if someone is wearing white tennis shoes on wet grass, that's a totally different story. My rule is that when you see white on wet, shoot first and ask questions later.

I see you avoided answering. Quit dancing. It is ok to admit you would be suspicious. We arent talking about walking down the street. We arent talking about walking on the sidewalk. We are talking about somebody wandering through yards. Martin could have been lost. He could have dropped something and been looking for it. He could have had a perfectly valid reason for doing what he was doing. Without knowing that reason, it is suspicious. Period.

Here is a thought. If you did find that kid wandering throught he neighborhood suspicious.. Why not just ask him what he is doing? Just roll down the window and yell out?

You can tell the type of dude this is by his language on the call. He avoided confrontation as much as he could...dude is mad-dogging him, circled his car and just not looking like anyone he wants to have a discussion with.

He just wanted to keep him in sight...he didn't want this guy just disappearing to come back another night and rob his neighbors.

Even the confrontation..."You got a problem?!" "No problem with you."

My response is probably a big harsher..."I got 99...but a biitch ain't one!"

Honestly, if you've had any time in a bad neighborhood...you'll learn real quick that its how you respond to a confrontation that will dictate how it goes. Zim responded meek and fearful...Tray saw the weakness after checking Zim's punk card with that first antagonistic comment and Zim failed.

What the hell has happened to you man??

something that bothers me is all this talk about trey walking in the pouring rain being suspicious.....isnt it just as strange for zimmy to get out of his car and walk a few hundred yards in the pouring rain just to get an address ? Why not just drive around in your car and look for one ?

 

[The Commish]

Also, can someone explain this "white tennis shoes, wet grass" nonsense to me? Is the argument that he wouldn't walk on wet grass with white tennis shoes unless he was up to no good? Because that one of the dumbest things I've ever heard from anyone who either knows or was once a teenager. Plus the same terrible logic, if accepted as valid, would also apply in reverse- if he was planning on snooping around looking into houses on wet grass and for some reason really cared about protecting his shoes, he wouldn't have worn them in the first place.

Can you explain to me how you think seeing a kid you dont recognize at night wandering between houses in a gated community is not suspicious?

Actually dont bother, I know you are lying. You might not be to the level of call the cops or confront them suspicious, but you would absolutely be suspicious. Anybody else that says they dont find it suspicious is lying as well.

Depends on a number of factors. Normally, I would not be suspicious of a person in my neighborhood just because I don't recognize them. As hard as this apparently is for you to believe, there are people in this world who are not paranoid lunatics who assume the worst about every human being they do not know. You call it "naive," I call it "not being a massive gaping #######."

Of course if someone is wearing white tennis shoes on wet grass, that's a totally different story. My rule is that when you see white on wet, shoot first and ask questions later.

I've heard this "didn't recognize him" argument pop up a lot lately in an effort to defend Zimmerman. What's puzzling to me is that the people bringing it up are also the people who gave Zimmerman a pass on not knowing the street names. Three streets vs hundreds of people...really?

I know you think this was a gotcha moment, but the "didnt recognize him" is quite relevant.

If I saw my next door neighbor's kid that I have known for a while and have seen chase their dog all through the neighborhood and has never caused me any trouble walking through the yards I wouldnt be suspicious. If I saw a dude I didnt recognize, I would be.

You and tobias can try and spin that all you want, but you are both full of crap.

That's fine....I can say with confidence I don't know the faces of the 2000+ people in my neighborhood. I see people all the time and have no clue if they live in the neighborhood or not. I'm not suspicious of them. There has to be something more than not recognizing them for me to summon my spidey senses. There's really nothing to spin here....seems to be a difference in general attitude towards people...nothing more.

Again you avoid answering. You are twisting and turning like crazy here. It is ridiculous. We arent talking about just seeing people you dont know. I saw 200 people today I don't know from Adam. I wasn't suspicious of all but one of them. Why not? Because they werent doing anything suspicious.

Commish's wife: Honey there is some dude wandering around outside between all the houses just staring at them. It is late and it is raining. Doesnt that seem odd to you?

Commish: Nope. Invite him in. Probably a neighbor that we dont know yet and I am sure they are cold and would like some warm tea.

ETA: The guy I thought was suspicious was pushing a pink bike and waving a cane above his head. I know Tobias and Commish think that is normal, but that seemed like crazy behavior to me.

I'm not twisting anything. I'm flat out saying I'm not a suspicious person. I am flat out telling you walking around in the rain isn't suspicious to me. It takes more than that for me to arouse suspicion. I typically afford people the benefit of the doubt. I'm with Tobias on this one....if you don't like the answer, stop asking the question. We're different. Why do you have such a problem with that?

 

[The Commish]

If you have a problem with me not being suspicious enough wait until I tell you that I rarely lock the doors on my car at night.....sorry, I should have asked you if you were sitting down before telling you that. Are you ok??

 

[johnnycakes]

Good footage here of the LA police taking some protesters to the woodshed. Don't they have a water cannon anymore?

 

[avoiding injuries]

Also, can someone explain this "white tennis shoes, wet grass" nonsense to me? Is the argument that he wouldn't walk on wet grass with white tennis shoes unless he was up to no good? Because that one of the dumbest things I've ever heard from anyone who either knows or was once a teenager. Plus the same terrible logic, if accepted as valid, would also apply in reverse- if he was planning on snooping around looking into houses on wet grass and for some reason really cared about protecting his shoes, he wouldn't have worn them in the first place.

Can you explain to me how you think seeing a kid you dont recognize at night wandering between houses in a gated community is not suspicious?Actually dont bother, I know you are lying. You might not be to the level of call the cops or confront them suspicious, but you would absolutely be suspicious. Anybody else that says they dont find it suspicious is lying as well.

Depends on a number of factors. Normally, I would not be suspicious of a person in my neighborhood just because I don't recognize them. As hard as this apparently is for you to believe, there are people in this world who are not paranoid lunatics who assume the worst about every human being they do not know. You call it "naive," I call it "not being a massive gaping #######."

Of course if someone is wearing white tennis shoes on wet grass, that's a totally different story. My rule is that when you see white on wet, shoot first and ask questions later.

I've heard this "didn't recognize him" argument pop up a lot lately in an effort to defend Zimmerman. What's puzzling to me is that the people bringing it up are also the people who gave Zimmerman a pass on not knowing the street names. Three streets vs hundreds of people...really?

I know you think this was a gotcha moment, but the "didnt recognize him" is quite relevant.If I saw my next door neighbor's kid that I have known for a while and have seen chase their dog all through the neighborhood and has never caused me any trouble walking through the yards I wouldnt be suspicious. If I saw a dude I didnt recognize, I would be.

You and tobias can try and spin that all you want, but you are both full of crap.

That's fine....I can say with confidence I don't know the faces of the 2000+ people in my neighborhood. I see people all the time and have no clue if they live in the neighborhood or not. I'm not suspicious of them. There has to be something more than not recognizing them for me to summon my spidey senses. There's really nothing to spin here....seems to be a difference in general attitude towards people...nothing more.

Again you avoid answering. You are twisting and turning like crazy here. It is ridiculous. We arent talking about just seeing people you dont know. I saw 200 people today I don't know from Adam. I wasn't suspicious of all but one of them. Why not? Because they werent doing anything suspicious.Commish's wife: Honey there is some dude wandering around outside between all the houses just staring at them. It is late and it is raining. Doesnt that seem odd to you?

Commish: Nope. Invite him in. Probably a neighbor that we dont know yet and I am sure they are cold and would like some warm tea.

ETA: The guy I thought was suspicious was pushing a pink bike and waving a cane above his head. I know Tobias and Commish think that is normal, but that seemed like crazy behavior to me.

We are going to need to know the race of the cane swinging, pink bike pusher before we determine if it was acceptable to consider him "suspicious".

 

[Abrantes]

Closing in on 25,000 posts of futility.