Please try not to be insulting. I assume you are a thoughtful person, I would ask you give me the same benefit.
You had it, Until you said the guy that killed someone wasn't a physical threat.
How much I watched is important because I didn't get much of the facts that were presented through the filter of asocial commentator's bias perspective. I heard the statements straight from the horse's mouth.
Unless you have a ougie board that account is as biased as you can possibly get, given how zimmerman has every reason in the world to lie.
Not at all. I am saying prior to the gun becoming an issue, he was not physical threat.If there was never a gun involved, and apparently all but the last second or less there wasn't one, Zimmerman would have been no physical danger to Trayvon.
You cannot reasonably ask Martin to assume that someone chasing him is unarmed, especially when we KNOW it wasn't the case.
The mere act of chasing implies that when they catch you they can do something, otherwise they wouldn't be chasing you.
I might give weight to your position if the prosecution was saying and have some kind of proof (sound evidence from phone calls perhaps) that Zimmerman was running around with his weapon drawn.
And this is why i question your thought process and that of the jury.
You focus on small, inconsequential things and then decide that they're all that matters without looking at the big picture.
If someone can reasonably believe that the guy on top doing the beat down started the fight, had control of the fight, and was not stopping the fight, then you have to vote not guilty in this case.
My entire point has been that this is not the case. I can believe that the guy on top doing the beatdown threw the first punch, was winning the fight, and wasn't going to stop until Zimmerman was unconscious and I think Zimmerman is still guilty as hell because he started it by chasing martin.
Those are statement inconsistencies. Those aren't evidence.
They are not "statement inconsistencies" they are reality inconsistencies otherwise known as evidence that Zimmerman is lying. You cannot simply rename it to something else so that its not evidence.
He said he wasn't sure where Martin came from. Out of the bushes is a common enough equivalent for out of nowhere.
Look at the video. There's no out of nowhere to come from. How much closer to objective can you get than the actual layout of the place?
How? The prosecution admitted he didn't do anything illegal up until the fight.
There are lots of legal ways of starting a fight.
Someone earlier said that half the offense witnesses became defense witnesses on cross. Maybe because the offense was in error about the facts of the case, perhaps?
Because people put way too much stock in charisma as a stat.
When you say "started the fight", how do you mean that statement? Legally? Morally?
Either. Who first gave the other person a reasonable belief that their life was in danger.
Yes, and a rape victim who shoots her attacker escalates the encounter from hands and penis to a gun. I'm not saying it is exactly the same thing
In that case you have a clear attacker and a clear victim. The rapist deserves a bullet to the head because of his actions. Martin Did not. Its everything that justifies the use of deadly force that is missing from this case.
I certainly think he took and (overly zealous) interest in Martin because of that reason yes. Do I think it is possible that is why he shot him? Maybe it is possible, but I think the whooping he was receiving at the time as he screamed like a little girl had much more to do with the actually shooting itself.
It was sheer blathering idiocy to chase someone half a foot taller than you down a dark ally based on absolutely no evidence. He chose to be a moron, and he chose to be a moron with a gun, and it was HIS irrational and erratic decisions that got a young man killed. That should land you in jail.
I can guarantee you there are many times more gun murders and suicides than there are justifiable discharges.If you need to carry around a gun all day, every day, it's because you're making up for an insufficiency elsewhere.
Where are your statistics...
Every time I post something people disagree with I get asked about the source, but no one else ever provides sources. lol
No, I carry every day because it is my right as a law-abiding adult American citizen. I carry every day because I never know when my life might be put in danger.
80% of Montana households have guns.. many guns... many people carry.
Maybe it isn't for you, But that is you.
If I get this new job, carrying a gun will be a part of my career, too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your logic is bizarre and flawed.
It is my right to X therefore I X.
I have the right to go shirtless in public, yet I don't. I would need a reason to do so.
You carry every day because you like the feeling of power over other human beings, pure and simple.
It's pretty pathetic.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was sheer blathering idiocy to chase someone half a foot taller than you down a dark ally based on absolutely no evidence. He chose to be a moron, and he chose to be a moron with a gun, and it was HIS irrational and erratic decisions that got a young man killed. That should land you in jail.
You discount the fact that Martin made the choice to engage in a physical confrontation rather than to keep running to his father's house.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I completely agree that Zimmerman made stupid decisions. But just because he acted stupidly, does not mean he should have been convicted of murder 2 or manslaughter.
When you carry a gun and then act THAT stupidly and someone dies yes, you should be convicted of murder.
Every time i hear about the right to carry i hear about responsible gun owners, and then i see THIS. Gun owners should want him in jail for making them look bad.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your logic is bizarre and flawed.
It is my right to X therefore I X.
I have the right to go shirtless in public, yet I don't. I would need a reason to do so.
You carry every day because you like the feeling of power over other human beings, pure and simple.
It's pretty pathetic.
People carry for many reasons. Would you discount an old man or a woman for carrying? If not, are men the only one's who are not "manly enough" if they choose to carry a gun?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your logic is bizarre and flawed.
It is my right to X therefore I X.
I have the right to go shirtless in public, yet I don't. I would need a reason to do so.
You carry every day because you like the feeling of power over other human beings, pure and simple.
It's pretty pathetic.
And there we go...flagged.
This is typical small-minded gun-grabbing mentality. People carry for many reasons. Would you discount an old man or a woman for carrying? If not, are men the only one's who are not "manly enough" if they choose to carry a gun?Your logic is bizarre and flawed.
It is my right to X therefore I X.
I have the right to go shirtless in public, yet I don't. I would need a reason to do so.
You carry every day because you like the feeling of power over other human beings, pure and simple.
It's pretty pathetic.
What on earth are you talking about? None of my posts addressed any of the things you've just attributed to me.
I have the right to do MANY things, and yet I do not do them without reason. What REASON do you have to carry a firearm every day, other than to make yourself feel safe at the risk of others' safety?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not defending Zimmerman. I'm not defending Martin. Both acted in a manner that was less than intelligent. None of this needed to happen. But it did, and now we must live with the result.
For better or worse.
My...
I agree with that. It could have turned out better, most definitely... but Zimmerman was not guilty of the crime he was charged with.
Personally, I don't like Zimmerman. I think he was an idiot. He was also screwing up tons heading up to the trial.
But being an idiot doesn't make him guilty.
I agree with you. I never said he was guilty of what they charged him with. I should have been more clear when I stated that the trial should have never happened. The state overreached in charging him with second degree murder. They did it due to outside political pressure being put on them by the cause seekers, be it the media or other special interest groups looking to right the great wrong they perceived was taking place.
Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't act to promote a cause that we believe in. All I'm saying is that we should be very careful in how we go about it because in the end we all have to live in this world together with each other.
That's rich.. hahaha! Mr. There are more suicides that justifiable homicides...
As to your first point: [CITATION NEEDED]
In 2011 there were 260 justifiable homicides ("Defined as "(t)he killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen") where there were 4.8 homicides per 100,000 US citizens. All told, according to this article, though it's readily available information, about 8500 gun HOMICIDES took place in the same year.
So, 260 vs. 8500.
You need more evidence?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I completely agree that Zimmerman made stupid decisions. But just because he acted stupidly, does not mean he should have been convicted of murder 2 or manslaughter.When you carry a gun and then act THAT stupidly and someone dies yes, you should be convicted of murder.
Every time i hear about the right to carry i hear about responsible gun owners, and then i see THIS. Gun owners should want him in jail for making them look bad.
The prosecution failed to prove their case. Because the prosecution failed, he should be found guilty anyways? No, I'm sorry, even if Zimmerman should have been convicted, the fact that the prosecution failed means that he shouldn't be convicted.
The prosecution failed to prove their case. Because the prosecution failed, he should be found guilty anyways? No, I'm sorry, even if Zimmerman should have been convicted, the fact that the prosecution failed means that he shouldn't be convicted.I completely agree that Zimmerman made stupid decisions. But just because he acted stupidly, does not mean he should have been convicted of murder 2 or manslaughter.When you carry a gun and then act THAT stupidly and someone dies yes, you should be convicted of murder.
Every time i hear about the right to carry i hear about responsible gun owners, and then i see THIS. Gun owners should want him in jail for making them look bad.
You're right that the prosecution didn't meet the standards for shadow of a doubt as to the murder charge.
That Zimmerman wasn't convicted of manslaughter only proves that the jury was asleep or mentally handicapped. In other words, Floridians.
|
|
Not sure but the one of him at 12-14 was not accurate for anything either, aside from dishonesty to gather sympathyIsn't that the photo of Martin that was circulating early on and then shown to not be him?http://images.4chan.org/b/src/1373810573316.jpg
That on is funny to me
So if it fits your narrative it is ok, but if it doesn't it is media bias.
Interesting...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You discount the fact that Martin made the choice to engage in a physical confrontation rather than to keep running to his father's house.
I have not discounted that at all.
First off, we don't even know that that happened so don't call it a fact. We only have Zimmermans word on it, and frankly given the layout of the place he popped out of the bushes seems like a bit of a stretch.
Secondly Martin has far more right to accost Zimmerman than Zimmerman has to attack him. If a fight starts Martin has the moral high ground.
Third: Martin does not know he's being pursued by an office worker. He knows NOTHING about his attacker, at all. He doesn't know if he's armed, he doesn't know if he's fast, he doesn't know if he's strong. We don't know Martin's thought process, at all. He could have been worried that martin had a gun and the long stretch of sidewalk would have made an excellent shooting gallery. He could have been worried about the creep following him learning where he lived. Stopping and facing his attacker was probably the wrong choice but it could have been a reasonable one.
Fourth: I do not have the same expectations for rational thinking out of a scared 17 year old unarmed kid and a 30 year old playing dirty harry.
You said justified discharges, not homicides.
You're not paying attention to the conversation, so I'm going to ignore you. I was only responding to what Mead said. Nothing more.
I can guarantee you there are many times more gun murders and suicides than there are justifiable discharges.Hmmm....
If you have evidence to the contrary, I suggest you present it.
Otherwise, shut your hole.|
|
The one in these pics? No way! Trayvon was the very image of an innocent child.... if only that half-white devil hadn't felt he needed to help keep his neighborhood safe...
I know, look how black he is...
Scary. Mr. Zimmerman saved us all when he chased him down an alley and shot him in the chest.
Both of which are facts not in dispute, by the way. George Zimmerman chased him. George Zimmerman shot him.
|
|
This is typical small-minded gun-grabbing mentality. People carry for many reasons. Would you discount an old man or a woman for carrying? If not, are men the only one's who are not "manly enough" if they choose to carry a gun?Your logic is bizarre and flawed.
It is my right to X therefore I X.
I have the right to go shirtless in public, yet I don't. I would need a reason to do so.
You carry every day because you like the feeling of power over other human beings, pure and simple.
It's pretty pathetic.
What on earth are you talking about? None of my posts addressed any of the things you've just attributed to me.
I have the right to do MANY things, and yet I do not do them without reason. What REASON do you have to carry a firearm every day, other than to make yourself feel safe at the risk of others' safety?
FWIW, I did edit out the bolded part, but you must have been responding while I was editing, so we cross-posted.
Each person's reason is their own and they don't need to justify them to you just because you may be uncomfortable with the thought.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Come on guys, we're having a lovely court case brawl here, there's other threads for the firearms brawl.
