|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
I have to say, i'm impressed by the calmness of the defense. I could not do that, at all.
Also, at a couple of moments the lawyer looked like he would take out a gun and just shoot her, i watched too much breaking bad it seems.
|
Is the judge insecure or something?
|
On June 28 2013 01:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 01:17 bugser wrote:On June 28 2013 01:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I think Zimmerman is probably a free man under the law as it is written there in Florida. However I think it raises greater questions about firearm possession in general. Why are citizen vigilantes out on patrol carrying handguns in areas with kids and families? Carrying a weapon undoubtedly provides the person with the *illusion* of safety (regardless of what gun rights activists enjoy fabricating, multiple lines of evidence suggest that carrying a gun at best does nothing for safety while at worst actually causes greater danger to the carrier and those in the surrounding area).
In this case I sort of suspect that Zimmerman ended the fight decisively and unnecessarily. I don't think he was in danger of having his life snuffed out. 2 minor cuts on the head. Banged up nose. Was he sprawled out on the floor having his head beaten into submission, requiring someone else to step in? No, he was able to free himself from the struggle enough to squeeze out a round into the kid's chest. Had he not been carrying a gun he may very well have extricated himself from the mess without killing a person.
I'd not be surprised if Zimmerman goes free here. I'd also be happy if vigilantes started reevaluating their irrational need for carrying firearms in neighborhoods. The need for firearms seems quite rational. If a thug jumps you it makes it possible to defend yourself. It's a good thing Zimmerman had a pistol. It saved his life. It seems quite irrational when viewed through the lens of firearm injury & death research, and through the lens of studies that indicate carrying a weapon results in either injury to the carrier or bystanders more than it does to attackers. It's too bad Zimmerman had a pistol, Zaqwe. It ended Martin's life.
That's why you don't view the appropriate usage of a firearm through the lens of some fucking research. You view it in the surrounding facts and circumstances of the event.
|
I don't think the defense is doing a good job discrediting her with there style of questioning but her demeanor and the amount of evidence being introduced that she is not creditable Along with some answers that seem to Defy human logic
|
On June 28 2013 01:34 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 01:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 28 2013 01:17 bugser wrote:On June 28 2013 01:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I think Zimmerman is probably a free man under the law as it is written there in Florida. However I think it raises greater questions about firearm possession in general. Why are citizen vigilantes out on patrol carrying handguns in areas with kids and families? Carrying a weapon undoubtedly provides the person with the *illusion* of safety (regardless of what gun rights activists enjoy fabricating, multiple lines of evidence suggest that carrying a gun at best does nothing for safety while at worst actually causes greater danger to the carrier and those in the surrounding area).
In this case I sort of suspect that Zimmerman ended the fight decisively and unnecessarily. I don't think he was in danger of having his life snuffed out. 2 minor cuts on the head. Banged up nose. Was he sprawled out on the floor having his head beaten into submission, requiring someone else to step in? No, he was able to free himself from the struggle enough to squeeze out a round into the kid's chest. Had he not been carrying a gun he may very well have extricated himself from the mess without killing a person.
I'd not be surprised if Zimmerman goes free here. I'd also be happy if vigilantes started reevaluating their irrational need for carrying firearms in neighborhoods. The need for firearms seems quite rational. If a thug jumps you it makes it possible to defend yourself. It's a good thing Zimmerman had a pistol. It saved his life. It seems quite irrational when viewed through the lens of firearm injury & death research, and through the lens of studies that indicate carrying a weapon results in either injury to the carrier or bystanders more than it does to attackers. It's too bad Zimmerman had a pistol, Zaqwe. It ended Martin's life. That's why you don't view the appropriate usage of a firearm through the lens of some fucking research. You view it in the surrounding facts and circumstances of the event.
Are we really going to bring the "fuck science" attitude of the gun thread here?
|
Why is the judge going to so much trouble to avoid letting the jury hear recordings of this witness' previous statements?
If the witness is lying about her previous statement it only seems fair to let the jury hear what she really said.
|
On June 28 2013 01:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 01:34 Kaitlin wrote:On June 28 2013 01:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 28 2013 01:17 bugser wrote:On June 28 2013 01:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I think Zimmerman is probably a free man under the law as it is written there in Florida. However I think it raises greater questions about firearm possession in general. Why are citizen vigilantes out on patrol carrying handguns in areas with kids and families? Carrying a weapon undoubtedly provides the person with the *illusion* of safety (regardless of what gun rights activists enjoy fabricating, multiple lines of evidence suggest that carrying a gun at best does nothing for safety while at worst actually causes greater danger to the carrier and those in the surrounding area).
In this case I sort of suspect that Zimmerman ended the fight decisively and unnecessarily. I don't think he was in danger of having his life snuffed out. 2 minor cuts on the head. Banged up nose. Was he sprawled out on the floor having his head beaten into submission, requiring someone else to step in? No, he was able to free himself from the struggle enough to squeeze out a round into the kid's chest. Had he not been carrying a gun he may very well have extricated himself from the mess without killing a person.
I'd not be surprised if Zimmerman goes free here. I'd also be happy if vigilantes started reevaluating their irrational need for carrying firearms in neighborhoods. The need for firearms seems quite rational. If a thug jumps you it makes it possible to defend yourself. It's a good thing Zimmerman had a pistol. It saved his life. It seems quite irrational when viewed through the lens of firearm injury & death research, and through the lens of studies that indicate carrying a weapon results in either injury to the carrier or bystanders more than it does to attackers. It's too bad Zimmerman had a pistol, Zaqwe. It ended Martin's life. That's why you don't view the appropriate usage of a firearm through the lens of some fucking research. You view it in the surrounding facts and circumstances of the event. Are we really going to bring the "fuck science" attitude of the gun thread here?
You brought the gun thread here. This is a thread about one George Zimmerman and one Trayvon Martin and the circumstances surrounding the use of the gun to kill Trayvon Martin. Research is pretty fucking irrelevant.
|
On June 28 2013 01:37 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 01:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 28 2013 01:34 Kaitlin wrote:On June 28 2013 01:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 28 2013 01:17 bugser wrote:On June 28 2013 01:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I think Zimmerman is probably a free man under the law as it is written there in Florida. However I think it raises greater questions about firearm possession in general. Why are citizen vigilantes out on patrol carrying handguns in areas with kids and families? Carrying a weapon undoubtedly provides the person with the *illusion* of safety (regardless of what gun rights activists enjoy fabricating, multiple lines of evidence suggest that carrying a gun at best does nothing for safety while at worst actually causes greater danger to the carrier and those in the surrounding area).
In this case I sort of suspect that Zimmerman ended the fight decisively and unnecessarily. I don't think he was in danger of having his life snuffed out. 2 minor cuts on the head. Banged up nose. Was he sprawled out on the floor having his head beaten into submission, requiring someone else to step in? No, he was able to free himself from the struggle enough to squeeze out a round into the kid's chest. Had he not been carrying a gun he may very well have extricated himself from the mess without killing a person.
I'd not be surprised if Zimmerman goes free here. I'd also be happy if vigilantes started reevaluating their irrational need for carrying firearms in neighborhoods. The need for firearms seems quite rational. If a thug jumps you it makes it possible to defend yourself. It's a good thing Zimmerman had a pistol. It saved his life. It seems quite irrational when viewed through the lens of firearm injury & death research, and through the lens of studies that indicate carrying a weapon results in either injury to the carrier or bystanders more than it does to attackers. It's too bad Zimmerman had a pistol, Zaqwe. It ended Martin's life. That's why you don't view the appropriate usage of a firearm through the lens of some fucking research. You view it in the surrounding facts and circumstances of the event. Are we really going to bring the "fuck science" attitude of the gun thread here? You brought the gun thread here. This is a thread about one George Zimmerman and one Trayvon Martin and the circumstances surrounding the use of the gun to kill Trayvon Martin. Research is pretty fucking irrelevant.
So up to this point there's only one fact then. That gun killed a 17 year old boy. That's it. That's all the facts we have. Could we focus now on other things, for example why judge/defense/prosecution have different transcripts?
|
Same group always shitting up threads...
|
On June 28 2013 01:37 bugser wrote:
Why is the judge going to so much trouble to avoid letting the jury hear recordings of this witness' previous statements?
If the witness is lying about her previous statement it only seems fair to let the jury hear what she really said.
Rules of evidence. The "best evidence" of what happened during that conversation is the witness' testimony to that fact. When her testimony contradicts what's on the tape, they are then used, but they are careful not to play more of the tape than is necessary to show the inconsistent statement.
|
On June 28 2013 01:39 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 01:37 Kaitlin wrote:On June 28 2013 01:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 28 2013 01:34 Kaitlin wrote:On June 28 2013 01:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 28 2013 01:17 bugser wrote:On June 28 2013 01:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I think Zimmerman is probably a free man under the law as it is written there in Florida. However I think it raises greater questions about firearm possession in general. Why are citizen vigilantes out on patrol carrying handguns in areas with kids and families? Carrying a weapon undoubtedly provides the person with the *illusion* of safety (regardless of what gun rights activists enjoy fabricating, multiple lines of evidence suggest that carrying a gun at best does nothing for safety while at worst actually causes greater danger to the carrier and those in the surrounding area).
In this case I sort of suspect that Zimmerman ended the fight decisively and unnecessarily. I don't think he was in danger of having his life snuffed out. 2 minor cuts on the head. Banged up nose. Was he sprawled out on the floor having his head beaten into submission, requiring someone else to step in? No, he was able to free himself from the struggle enough to squeeze out a round into the kid's chest. Had he not been carrying a gun he may very well have extricated himself from the mess without killing a person.
I'd not be surprised if Zimmerman goes free here. I'd also be happy if vigilantes started reevaluating their irrational need for carrying firearms in neighborhoods. The need for firearms seems quite rational. If a thug jumps you it makes it possible to defend yourself. It's a good thing Zimmerman had a pistol. It saved his life. It seems quite irrational when viewed through the lens of firearm injury & death research, and through the lens of studies that indicate carrying a weapon results in either injury to the carrier or bystanders more than it does to attackers. It's too bad Zimmerman had a pistol, Zaqwe. It ended Martin's life. That's why you don't view the appropriate usage of a firearm through the lens of some fucking research. You view it in the surrounding facts and circumstances of the event. Are we really going to bring the "fuck science" attitude of the gun thread here? You brought the gun thread here. This is a thread about one George Zimmerman and one Trayvon Martin and the circumstances surrounding the use of the gun to kill Trayvon Martin. Research is pretty fucking irrelevant. So up to this point there's only one fact then. That gun killed a 17 year old boy. That's it. That's all the facts we have. Could we focus now on other things, for example why judge/defense/prosecution have different transcripts?
Transcripts aren't evidence. They are created to document the recording, but the recording itself is the evidence. Defense can create their own transcript of a recording, which may differ from the prosecution, or for that matter, the transcript made by any other party.
|
On June 28 2013 01:41 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 01:39 m4inbrain wrote:On June 28 2013 01:37 Kaitlin wrote:On June 28 2013 01:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 28 2013 01:34 Kaitlin wrote:On June 28 2013 01:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 28 2013 01:17 bugser wrote:On June 28 2013 01:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I think Zimmerman is probably a free man under the law as it is written there in Florida. However I think it raises greater questions about firearm possession in general. Why are citizen vigilantes out on patrol carrying handguns in areas with kids and families? Carrying a weapon undoubtedly provides the person with the *illusion* of safety (regardless of what gun rights activists enjoy fabricating, multiple lines of evidence suggest that carrying a gun at best does nothing for safety while at worst actually causes greater danger to the carrier and those in the surrounding area).
In this case I sort of suspect that Zimmerman ended the fight decisively and unnecessarily. I don't think he was in danger of having his life snuffed out. 2 minor cuts on the head. Banged up nose. Was he sprawled out on the floor having his head beaten into submission, requiring someone else to step in? No, he was able to free himself from the struggle enough to squeeze out a round into the kid's chest. Had he not been carrying a gun he may very well have extricated himself from the mess without killing a person.
I'd not be surprised if Zimmerman goes free here. I'd also be happy if vigilantes started reevaluating their irrational need for carrying firearms in neighborhoods. The need for firearms seems quite rational. If a thug jumps you it makes it possible to defend yourself. It's a good thing Zimmerman had a pistol. It saved his life. It seems quite irrational when viewed through the lens of firearm injury & death research, and through the lens of studies that indicate carrying a weapon results in either injury to the carrier or bystanders more than it does to attackers. It's too bad Zimmerman had a pistol, Zaqwe. It ended Martin's life. That's why you don't view the appropriate usage of a firearm through the lens of some fucking research. You view it in the surrounding facts and circumstances of the event. Are we really going to bring the "fuck science" attitude of the gun thread here? You brought the gun thread here. This is a thread about one George Zimmerman and one Trayvon Martin and the circumstances surrounding the use of the gun to kill Trayvon Martin. Research is pretty fucking irrelevant. So up to this point there's only one fact then. That gun killed a 17 year old boy. That's it. That's all the facts we have. Could we focus now on other things, for example why judge/defense/prosecution have different transcripts? Transcripts aren't evidence. They are created to document the recording, but the recording itself is the evidence. Defense can create their own transcript of a recording, which may differ from the prosecution, or for that matter, the transcript made by any other party.
Well no, they are not evidence, but they may point towards it, don't they? Wouldn't it be "smart" to hand out one transcript to defense/judge/prosecution, which is used then by all parties? Maybe it's just me, but it really seems ineffective this way.
edit: changed a sentence to make more sense
|
On June 28 2013 01:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 01:17 bugser wrote:On June 28 2013 01:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I think Zimmerman is probably a free man under the law as it is written there in Florida. However I think it raises greater questions about firearm possession in general. Why are citizen vigilantes out on patrol carrying handguns in areas with kids and families? Carrying a weapon undoubtedly provides the person with the *illusion* of safety (regardless of what gun rights activists enjoy fabricating, multiple lines of evidence suggest that carrying a gun at best does nothing for safety while at worst actually causes greater danger to the carrier and those in the surrounding area).
In this case I sort of suspect that Zimmerman ended the fight decisively and unnecessarily. I don't think he was in danger of having his life snuffed out. 2 minor cuts on the head. Banged up nose. Was he sprawled out on the floor having his head beaten into submission, requiring someone else to step in? No, he was able to free himself from the struggle enough to squeeze out a round into the kid's chest. Had he not been carrying a gun he may very well have extricated himself from the mess without killing a person.
I'd not be surprised if Zimmerman goes free here. I'd also be happy if vigilantes started reevaluating their irrational need for carrying firearms in neighborhoods. The need for firearms seems quite rational. If a thug jumps you it makes it possible to defend yourself. It's a good thing Zimmerman had a pistol. It saved his life. It seems quite irrational when viewed through the lens of firearm injury & death research, and through the lens of studies that indicate carrying a weapon results in either injury to the carrier or bystanders more than it does to attackers. It's too bad Zimmerman had a pistol, Zaqwe. It ended Martin's life.
There's no logical basis for opposing gun ownership.
Gun control advocates have to resort to incredibly misleading comparisons to try and give their attempt to deny self defense rights an air of legitimacy.
http://imgur.com/p9ciCIm
|
On June 28 2013 01:37 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 01:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 28 2013 01:34 Kaitlin wrote:On June 28 2013 01:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 28 2013 01:17 bugser wrote:On June 28 2013 01:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I think Zimmerman is probably a free man under the law as it is written there in Florida. However I think it raises greater questions about firearm possession in general. Why are citizen vigilantes out on patrol carrying handguns in areas with kids and families? Carrying a weapon undoubtedly provides the person with the *illusion* of safety (regardless of what gun rights activists enjoy fabricating, multiple lines of evidence suggest that carrying a gun at best does nothing for safety while at worst actually causes greater danger to the carrier and those in the surrounding area).
In this case I sort of suspect that Zimmerman ended the fight decisively and unnecessarily. I don't think he was in danger of having his life snuffed out. 2 minor cuts on the head. Banged up nose. Was he sprawled out on the floor having his head beaten into submission, requiring someone else to step in? No, he was able to free himself from the struggle enough to squeeze out a round into the kid's chest. Had he not been carrying a gun he may very well have extricated himself from the mess without killing a person.
I'd not be surprised if Zimmerman goes free here. I'd also be happy if vigilantes started reevaluating their irrational need for carrying firearms in neighborhoods. The need for firearms seems quite rational. If a thug jumps you it makes it possible to defend yourself. It's a good thing Zimmerman had a pistol. It saved his life. It seems quite irrational when viewed through the lens of firearm injury & death research, and through the lens of studies that indicate carrying a weapon results in either injury to the carrier or bystanders more than it does to attackers. It's too bad Zimmerman had a pistol, Zaqwe. It ended Martin's life. That's why you don't view the appropriate usage of a firearm through the lens of some fucking research. You view it in the surrounding facts and circumstances of the event. Are we really going to bring the "fuck science" attitude of the gun thread here? You brought the gun thread here. This is a thread about one George Zimmerman and one Trayvon Martin and the circumstances surrounding the use of the gun to kill Trayvon Martin. Research is pretty fucking irrelevant.
I didn't bring anything here. FallDownMarigold is suggesting that bringing guns to an altercation is dangerous, even for the carriers of the gun, and said that it is sad that Martin was shot because of the preconceived notion that guns equals safety.
|
On June 27 2013 22:34 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 22:30 xDaunt wrote:
"Creepy ass cracker" apparently isn't a racial term. Well, i don't know about creepy ass cracker since over here we don't have "cracker" (or a german equivalent) as a slur, but i actually think in this case, it's not meant racial. Black people are not racists for calling their friends "nigger", which happens as far as i know. I would not read too much into it, especially not from a 17 year old boy who might not even know what racism really is. Offensive or not, i can't tell, since i don't really know what cracker means other than a salty cookie. Don't forget: yesterday she said while remembering the phonecall that he called him "nigger" as well. Of course, that doesn't get repeated now, but she still said it. edit: although i don't really know about that first hand, it's just compared to other slurs/cursewords over here and how they're used.
cracker is a pejorative term originating in the U.S. it comes from the sound of slave owners cracking their whips on slaves. odd way to create a pejorative term, but there you have it. it is mostly used in the south of the U.S. i have never heard it used in California, but Trayvon is from Florida.
|
On June 28 2013 01:44 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 22:34 m4inbrain wrote:On June 27 2013 22:30 xDaunt wrote:
"Creepy ass cracker" apparently isn't a racial term. Well, i don't know about creepy ass cracker since over here we don't have "cracker" (or a german equivalent) as a slur, but i actually think in this case, it's not meant racial. Black people are not racists for calling their friends "nigger", which happens as far as i know. I would not read too much into it, especially not from a 17 year old boy who might not even know what racism really is. Offensive or not, i can't tell, since i don't really know what cracker means other than a salty cookie. Don't forget: yesterday she said while remembering the phonecall that he called him "nigger" as well. Of course, that doesn't get repeated now, but she still said it. edit: although i don't really know about that first hand, it's just compared to other slurs/cursewords over here and how they're used. cracker is a pejorative term originating in the U.S. it comes from the sound of slave owners cracking their whips on slaves. odd way to create a pejorative term, but there you have it. it is mostly used in the south of the U.S. i have never heard it used in California, but Trayvon is from Florida.
Hmkay, thanks.
edit: weird curseword though, i have to say. ^^
|
On June 28 2013 01:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 01:37 Kaitlin wrote:On June 28 2013 01:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 28 2013 01:34 Kaitlin wrote:On June 28 2013 01:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 28 2013 01:17 bugser wrote:On June 28 2013 01:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I think Zimmerman is probably a free man under the law as it is written there in Florida. However I think it raises greater questions about firearm possession in general. Why are citizen vigilantes out on patrol carrying handguns in areas with kids and families? Carrying a weapon undoubtedly provides the person with the *illusion* of safety (regardless of what gun rights activists enjoy fabricating, multiple lines of evidence suggest that carrying a gun at best does nothing for safety while at worst actually causes greater danger to the carrier and those in the surrounding area).
In this case I sort of suspect that Zimmerman ended the fight decisively and unnecessarily. I don't think he was in danger of having his life snuffed out. 2 minor cuts on the head. Banged up nose. Was he sprawled out on the floor having his head beaten into submission, requiring someone else to step in? No, he was able to free himself from the struggle enough to squeeze out a round into the kid's chest. Had he not been carrying a gun he may very well have extricated himself from the mess without killing a person.
I'd not be surprised if Zimmerman goes free here. I'd also be happy if vigilantes started reevaluating their irrational need for carrying firearms in neighborhoods. The need for firearms seems quite rational. If a thug jumps you it makes it possible to defend yourself. It's a good thing Zimmerman had a pistol. It saved his life. It seems quite irrational when viewed through the lens of firearm injury & death research, and through the lens of studies that indicate carrying a weapon results in either injury to the carrier or bystanders more than it does to attackers. It's too bad Zimmerman had a pistol, Zaqwe. It ended Martin's life. That's why you don't view the appropriate usage of a firearm through the lens of some fucking research. You view it in the surrounding facts and circumstances of the event. Are we really going to bring the "fuck science" attitude of the gun thread here? You brought the gun thread here. This is a thread about one George Zimmerman and one Trayvon Martin and the circumstances surrounding the use of the gun to kill Trayvon Martin. Research is pretty fucking irrelevant. I didn't bring anything here. FallDownMarigold is suggesting that bringing guns to an altercation is dangerous, even for the carriers of the gun, and said that it is sad that Martin was shot because of the preconceived notion that guns equals safety.
A gun saved George Zimmerman's life.
In this case a gun certainly does "equal" safety.
User was banned for this post.
|
On June 28 2013 01:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 01:37 Kaitlin wrote:On June 28 2013 01:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 28 2013 01:34 Kaitlin wrote:On June 28 2013 01:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 28 2013 01:17 bugser wrote:On June 28 2013 01:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I think Zimmerman is probably a free man under the law as it is written there in Florida. However I think it raises greater questions about firearm possession in general. Why are citizen vigilantes out on patrol carrying handguns in areas with kids and families? Carrying a weapon undoubtedly provides the person with the *illusion* of safety (regardless of what gun rights activists enjoy fabricating, multiple lines of evidence suggest that carrying a gun at best does nothing for safety while at worst actually causes greater danger to the carrier and those in the surrounding area).
In this case I sort of suspect that Zimmerman ended the fight decisively and unnecessarily. I don't think he was in danger of having his life snuffed out. 2 minor cuts on the head. Banged up nose. Was he sprawled out on the floor having his head beaten into submission, requiring someone else to step in? No, he was able to free himself from the struggle enough to squeeze out a round into the kid's chest. Had he not been carrying a gun he may very well have extricated himself from the mess without killing a person.
I'd not be surprised if Zimmerman goes free here. I'd also be happy if vigilantes started reevaluating their irrational need for carrying firearms in neighborhoods. The need for firearms seems quite rational. If a thug jumps you it makes it possible to defend yourself. It's a good thing Zimmerman had a pistol. It saved his life. It seems quite irrational when viewed through the lens of firearm injury & death research, and through the lens of studies that indicate carrying a weapon results in either injury to the carrier or bystanders more than it does to attackers. It's too bad Zimmerman had a pistol, Zaqwe. It ended Martin's life. That's why you don't view the appropriate usage of a firearm through the lens of some fucking research. You view it in the surrounding facts and circumstances of the event. Are we really going to bring the "fuck science" attitude of the gun thread here? You brought the gun thread here. This is a thread about one George Zimmerman and one Trayvon Martin and the circumstances surrounding the use of the gun to kill Trayvon Martin. Research is pretty fucking irrelevant. I didn't bring anything here. FallDownMarigold is suggesting that bringing guns to an altercation is dangerous, even for the carriers of the gun, and said that it is sad that Martin was shot because of the preconceived notion that guns equals safety.
I'm sorry. I wasn't careful about distinguishing who brought the thread. It wasn't me, so without being careful, I assumed I was responding to the same person when there were two. My apologies, I attributed that to you by mistake.
|
On June 28 2013 01:48 bugser wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 01:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 28 2013 01:37 Kaitlin wrote:On June 28 2013 01:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 28 2013 01:34 Kaitlin wrote:On June 28 2013 01:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 28 2013 01:17 bugser wrote:On June 28 2013 01:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I think Zimmerman is probably a free man under the law as it is written there in Florida. However I think it raises greater questions about firearm possession in general. Why are citizen vigilantes out on patrol carrying handguns in areas with kids and families? Carrying a weapon undoubtedly provides the person with the *illusion* of safety (regardless of what gun rights activists enjoy fabricating, multiple lines of evidence suggest that carrying a gun at best does nothing for safety while at worst actually causes greater danger to the carrier and those in the surrounding area).
In this case I sort of suspect that Zimmerman ended the fight decisively and unnecessarily. I don't think he was in danger of having his life snuffed out. 2 minor cuts on the head. Banged up nose. Was he sprawled out on the floor having his head beaten into submission, requiring someone else to step in? No, he was able to free himself from the struggle enough to squeeze out a round into the kid's chest. Had he not been carrying a gun he may very well have extricated himself from the mess without killing a person.
I'd not be surprised if Zimmerman goes free here. I'd also be happy if vigilantes started reevaluating their irrational need for carrying firearms in neighborhoods. The need for firearms seems quite rational. If a thug jumps you it makes it possible to defend yourself. It's a good thing Zimmerman had a pistol. It saved his life. It seems quite irrational when viewed through the lens of firearm injury & death research, and through the lens of studies that indicate carrying a weapon results in either injury to the carrier or bystanders more than it does to attackers. It's too bad Zimmerman had a pistol, Zaqwe. It ended Martin's life. That's why you don't view the appropriate usage of a firearm through the lens of some fucking research. You view it in the surrounding facts and circumstances of the event. Are we really going to bring the "fuck science" attitude of the gun thread here? You brought the gun thread here. This is a thread about one George Zimmerman and one Trayvon Martin and the circumstances surrounding the use of the gun to kill Trayvon Martin. Research is pretty fucking irrelevant. I didn't bring anything here. FallDownMarigold is suggesting that bringing guns to an altercation is dangerous, even for the carriers of the gun, and said that it is sad that Martin was shot because of the preconceived notion that guns equals safety. A gun saved George Zimmerman's life. In this case a gun certainly does "equal" safety.
You do realize that whether it saved his life or not is one of the very core issues of the trial? All we know is that Martin was killed with a gun and whether or not that shot saved Zimmerman is very much up for debate.
|
On June 28 2013 01:48 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 01:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 28 2013 01:37 Kaitlin wrote:On June 28 2013 01:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 28 2013 01:34 Kaitlin wrote:On June 28 2013 01:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 28 2013 01:17 bugser wrote:On June 28 2013 01:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I think Zimmerman is probably a free man under the law as it is written there in Florida. However I think it raises greater questions about firearm possession in general. Why are citizen vigilantes out on patrol carrying handguns in areas with kids and families? Carrying a weapon undoubtedly provides the person with the *illusion* of safety (regardless of what gun rights activists enjoy fabricating, multiple lines of evidence suggest that carrying a gun at best does nothing for safety while at worst actually causes greater danger to the carrier and those in the surrounding area).
In this case I sort of suspect that Zimmerman ended the fight decisively and unnecessarily. I don't think he was in danger of having his life snuffed out. 2 minor cuts on the head. Banged up nose. Was he sprawled out on the floor having his head beaten into submission, requiring someone else to step in? No, he was able to free himself from the struggle enough to squeeze out a round into the kid's chest. Had he not been carrying a gun he may very well have extricated himself from the mess without killing a person.
I'd not be surprised if Zimmerman goes free here. I'd also be happy if vigilantes started reevaluating their irrational need for carrying firearms in neighborhoods. The need for firearms seems quite rational. If a thug jumps you it makes it possible to defend yourself. It's a good thing Zimmerman had a pistol. It saved his life. It seems quite irrational when viewed through the lens of firearm injury & death research, and through the lens of studies that indicate carrying a weapon results in either injury to the carrier or bystanders more than it does to attackers. It's too bad Zimmerman had a pistol, Zaqwe. It ended Martin's life. That's why you don't view the appropriate usage of a firearm through the lens of some fucking research. You view it in the surrounding facts and circumstances of the event. Are we really going to bring the "fuck science" attitude of the gun thread here? You brought the gun thread here. This is a thread about one George Zimmerman and one Trayvon Martin and the circumstances surrounding the use of the gun to kill Trayvon Martin. Research is pretty fucking irrelevant. I didn't bring anything here. FallDownMarigold is suggesting that bringing guns to an altercation is dangerous, even for the carriers of the gun, and said that it is sad that Martin was shot because of the preconceived notion that guns equals safety. I'm sorry. I wasn't careful about distinguishing who brought the thread. It wasn't me, so without being careful, I assumed I was responding to the same person when there were two. My apologies, I attributed that to you by mistake.
its okay, me and Marigold were in the gun thread for a long time. Easy to confuse us 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
