|
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. |
On June 28 2013 01:51 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 01:48 bugser wrote: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.
Just shows how much you can give on his statements, he made pretty clear what his thoughts on the case are. Not worth discussing with, and now he's trying to derail the thread.
edit: how long do they recess? Did miss it.
|
George Zimmerman Witness Can't Read Letter She 'Wrote' About Shooting
A teenage friend of Trayvon Martin was forced to admit today in the George Zimmerman murder trial that she did not write a letter that was sent to Martin's mother describing what she allegedly heard on a phone call with Martin moments before he was shot.
In a painfully embarassing moment, Rachel Jeantel was asked to read the letter out loud in court.
"Are you able to read that at all?" defense attorney Don West asked.
Jeantel, head bowed, eyes averted whispered into the court microphone, "Some but not all. I don't read cursive."
It sent a hush through the packed courtroom.
Catch up on all the details from the George Zimmerman murder trial.
Jeantel, 19, was unable to read any of the letter save for her name.
The testimony was an attempt to raise questions about veracity of Jeantel's testimony, who is a key prosecution witness in the racially charged case.
Zimmerman, 29, is on trial in the Florida courtroom for second degree murder in Martin's Feb. 26, 2012 death.
Jeantel was subdued on the stand today, in contrast to her openly hostile demeanor towards Zimmerman's lawyers on Wednesday. Her behavior was so different that defense lawyer Don West asked Jeantel whether someone had spoken to her about her behavior on the stand.
Take an interactive look at the timeline of events surrounding Trayvon Martin's death and George Zimmerman's trial.
Rachel Jeantel was the last person to speak on the phone with Martin moments before he was shot to death by Zimmerman on Feb. 26, 2012.
Friend on Phone With Trayvon Martin Testifies Watch Video
Zimmerman Neighbor Heard 'Yells for Help' Watch Video
Trayvon Martin Death Photos Shown in Court Watch Video
During nearly two hours of cross examination Wednesday in which he tried to raise questions about her version of events and accused her of telling several lies under oath, including about her whereabouts during Martin's wake.
George Zimmerman Case in Pictures
"Under oath, you created a lie and said you went to the hospital?" asked West.
"Yes," responded Jeantel. She said she lied because she didn't want to see the body.
Jeantel became increasingly agitated and scoffed when West told her that she would have to continue testifying.
She is seen as a critical witness to the prosecution because she is the only person able to say that Martin claimed that he noticed a strange man following him and that he was scared. Jeantel said Martin described the stranger as a "creepy ass cracker."
Jeantel said Martin, 17, was walking home during halftime of the NBA All-Star Game when he became unnerved because he was being followed.
Timeline of George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin Case
"He told me the man kept following him," Jeantel said.
Jeantel said she told Martin to run, but that he responded that he was almost home.
"I say, 'Trayvon,' and then he said, 'Why are you following me for?'" Jeantel testified. "And then I heard a hard-breathing man come say, 'What you doing around here?' ... And then I was calling, 'Trayvon, Trayvon.' And then I started to hear a little bit of Trayvon saying, 'Get off, get off.'"
At times during her early testimony with the prosecution, Jeantel dabbed away tears.
During cross-examination, defense attorney Don West tried to dig into the chain of events preceding Martin's death. West asked why Jeantel didn't call law enforcement after the phone died.
"I thought he was going to be OK because he was right by his daddy's house, but his daddy was not home," Jeantel said as Martin's father cried in court.
Significant Numbers in George Zimmerman case
Tracey Martin eventually reached out to Jeantel after looking at his son's phone log, Jeantel said. She added that she expected law enforcement to reach out to her, but none did, apparently, until the Florida Department of Law Enforcement contacted her much later.
Zimmerman, said he was defending himself from Martin after the unarmed teenager allegedly confronted him, knocked him down and banged his head of the sidewalk. Prosecutors allege that the former neighborhood watch captain profiled and followed the teenager before killing him.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-witness-cantt-read-letter-wrote-shooting/story?id=19504826#.Ucxt7tiDmSq
|
On June 28 2013 00:40 Klipsys wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 23:16 dotHead wrote:On June 27 2013 23:15 Klipsys wrote:
cracker isn't a racist term because no one would ever get offended by being called a snack food And fag isn't offensive because it's a bundle of sticks. Sir Sure, but the culture of the word has a much longer and evil history. Same thing with the N word. There has never been a culture of hate behind the word "cracker" We haven't renamed the snack food because of it, we don't censor it on TV, people aren't fired for saying it, and it's never been considered hate speech. Has there ever been a white person who has been called cracker and actually cared? Fag and the N word are like so much more vile and destructive as words. Cracker is about as tame as idiot or moron.
Just so all of you know, the racial term for cracker has absolutly nothing to do with the snack food cracker. It comes from the sound that a whip makes when it 'cracks', referring to a white slave owner punishing his slaves. That is why it was offensive when black people used it against whites.
Ritz got nottin to do wit dis.
|
On June 28 2013 01:52 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 01:51 nihlon wrote:On June 28 2013 01:48 bugser wrote: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. Just shows how much you can give on his statements, he made pretty clear what his thoughts on the case are. Not worth discussing with, and now he's trying to derail the thread. edit: how long do they recess? Did miss it.
Due back at 1:45pm - an hour break.
|
Hm.. I can read cursive in general, but i can't read this letter either. 
edit: ty Kaitlin.
|
On June 28 2013 01:51 nihlon wrote:
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.
Technically, the core issue of the trial is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman believed shooting Trayvon prevented him from serious injury, or whatever the level of injury is, I'm not sure off the top of my head. My point is that the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the shot should not have been fired. It's not a 50-50 question. "Very much up for debate" must equal acquittal. If there is room for debate, there is reasonable doubt, that is not guilty.
|
Who the eff is Diamond Eugene?
|
On June 28 2013 02:03 -Kaiser- wrote:
Who the eff is Diamond Eugene?
The froglady. It's her nickname (as far as google told me).
edit: no idea why you would sign such a letter with a nickname though, seems pretty idiotic to me, but who am i to judge.
edit2: she also calls herself "W8" and "Lakeyia Little". Which are pretty funny to me.
|
On June 28 2013 01:43 bugser 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. 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
Actually there is, despite your opinion that there isn't. And despite a 4chan-style MSpaint graphic. Anyway, it's beside the point, why are you pursuing this lol. Point was simple and not meant to start an off topic argument. I'll say it again: While ZImmerman may walk under the law as it is written in Florida, it's still unfortunate that avoidable gun violence plays a big role in the US. Maybe some day we'll see lower numbers as we grow more responsible with our gun culture.
Moving on back to the topic
|
On June 28 2013 02:05 m4inbrain wrote:The froglady. It's her nickname (as far as google told me). edit: no idea why you would sign such a letter with a nickname though, seems pretty idiotic to me, but who am i to judge.
That's correct. It's the name she used to sign the letter given to Trayvon's mother, although I'm not sure if she is actually the one who signed it or the girl who wrote the letter for her signed it.
On another note, that ABC article about her not being able to read the letter she wrote, I'm a bit disappointed in the headline. From my understanding in court, nobody was under the impression that she ever claimed to actually author the letter, but instead had a friend write the letter, while she provided the content. It's pretty unfair to make a headline that she couldn't read a letter she wrote when, to my knowledge, she never claimed to have written it. Fucking media. Unfortunately, I don't care enough about ABC to register to comment on their bullshit website.
|
On June 28 2013 01:51 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 01:48 bugser wrote: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.
As much as I pity him for being thrown under the bus by the media and politics, he still shot and killed an unarmed child. Now if Trayvon had been carrying around that gun he had in the picture on his phone, I'd say it's a different story, but he didn't have anything. Even if he was getting beaten, it's still just fists. He needed to have the sense to know that if he was carrying around a loaded gun.
|
On June 28 2013 02:06 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Maybe some day we'll see lower numbers as we grow more responsible with our gun culture.
What we need is for our "culture" to not fucking physically attack someone just because we can. Conducting ourselves in public in such a way that we don't justify being shot in self-defense would lower "gun violence" as well, and it would have resulted in Trayvon having lived through the night he was killed.
|
On June 28 2013 02:09 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:05 m4inbrain wrote:On June 28 2013 02:03 -Kaiser- wrote:
Who the eff is Diamond Eugene? The froglady. It's her nickname (as far as google told me). edit: no idea why you would sign such a letter with a nickname though, seems pretty idiotic to me, but who am i to judge. That's correct. It's the name she used to sign the letter given to Trayvon's mother, although I'm not sure if she is actually the one who signed it or the girl who wrote the letter for her signed it. On another note, that ABC article about her not being able to read the letter she wrote, I'm a bit disappointed in the headline. From my understanding in court, nobody was under the impression that she ever claimed to actually author the letter, but instead had a friend write the letter, while she provided the content. It's pretty unfair to make a headline that she couldn't read a letter she wrote when, to my knowledge, she never claimed to have written it. Fucking media. Unfortunately, I don't care enough about ABC to register to comment on their bullshit website.
Well, the low literacy rate in the American black population isn't really a secret.
|
On June 28 2013 02:12 czylu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 01:51 nihlon wrote:On June 28 2013 01:48 bugser wrote: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. As much as I pity him for being thrown under the bus by the media and politics, he still shot and killed an unarmed child. Now if Trayvon had been carrying around that gun he had in the picture on his phone, I'd say it's a different story, but he didn't have anything. Even if he was getting beaten, it's still just fists. He needed to have the sense to know that if he was carrying around a loaded gun.
Is it unreasonable for you to believe that Trayvon could have rendered Zimmerman unconscious had Zimmerman not shot him first ? Please just answer that one simple question for me.
|
On June 28 2013 02:12 czylu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 01:51 nihlon wrote:On June 28 2013 01:48 bugser wrote: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. As much as I pity him for being thrown under the bus by the media and politics, he still shot and killed an unarmed child. Now if Trayvon had been carrying around that gun he had in the picture on his phone, I'd say it's a different story, but he didn't have anything. Even if he was getting beaten, it's still just fists. He needed to have the sense to know that if he was carrying around a loaded gun.
It's still just fists? ..... You can easily kill somebody with "just fists". You're beyond crazy and sheltered if you don't think so.
|
Netherlands19129 Posts
Stop the racism discussion. Get back on topic.
|
On June 28 2013 02:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:09 Kaitlin wrote:On June 28 2013 02:05 m4inbrain wrote:On June 28 2013 02:03 -Kaiser- wrote:
Who the eff is Diamond Eugene? The froglady. It's her nickname (as far as google told me). edit: no idea why you would sign such a letter with a nickname though, seems pretty idiotic to me, but who am i to judge. That's correct. It's the name she used to sign the letter given to Trayvon's mother, although I'm not sure if she is actually the one who signed it or the girl who wrote the letter for her signed it. On another note, that ABC article about her not being able to read the letter she wrote, I'm a bit disappointed in the headline. From my understanding in court, nobody was under the impression that she ever claimed to actually author the letter, but instead had a friend write the letter, while she provided the content. It's pretty unfair to make a headline that she couldn't read a letter she wrote when, to my knowledge, she never claimed to have written it. Fucking media. Unfortunately, I don't care enough about ABC to register to comment on their bullshit website. Well, the low literacy rate in the American black population isn't really a secret.
I don't automatically conclude she's illiterate because someone else wrote a letter to the mother of her dead friend. I simply assume she wanted a neatly, handwritten, nice letter to the grieving mother of a killed son. For me, it would be justified by as little as not having good handwriting.
|
On June 28 2013 02:05 m4inbrain wrote:The froglady. It's her nickname (as far as google told me). edit: no idea why you would sign such a letter with a nickname though, seems pretty idiotic to me, but who am i to judge.
Why would you sign a letter you can't read, let alone write, with a nickname?
This illiterate retard has helped make this trial an amusing joke. I can't imagine Zimmerman not being acquitted.
My opinion is that Zimmerman stepped over the line in following Trayvon Martin, Trayvon did a stupid fuck thing and turned to confront him, they probably both closed the distance (Martin to fight and Zimmerman to restrain him) and they fought and Zimmerman ended up losing and shooting Trayvon.
Zimmerman was seeking a confrontation, got what he asked for when Martin decided he'd had enough of his shit, and then realized he was getting his ass kicked and shot him.
IMO, Zimmerman made a criminal out of Martin, but that still makes Martin the criminal.
|
On June 28 2013 02:13 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:06 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Maybe some day we'll see lower numbers as we grow more responsible with our gun culture.
What we need is for our "culture" to not fucking physically attack someone just because we can. Conducting ourselves in public in such a way that we don't justify being shot in self-defense would lower "gun violence" as well, and it would have resulted in Trayvon having lived through the night he was killed.
Yes I don't disagree with that. Our culture also needs a lot of things. The two things we mention aren't mutually exclusive.
|
On June 28 2013 02:14 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:12 czylu wrote:On June 28 2013 01:51 nihlon wrote:On June 28 2013 01:48 bugser wrote: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:
[quote]
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. As much as I pity him for being thrown under the bus by the media and politics, he still shot and killed an unarmed child. Now if Trayvon had been carrying around that gun he had in the picture on his phone, I'd say it's a different story, but he didn't have anything. Even if he was getting beaten, it's still just fists. He needed to have the sense to know that if he was carrying around a loaded gun. Is it unreasonable for you to believe that Trayvon could have rendered Zimmerman unconscious had Zimmerman not shot him first ? Please just answer that one simple question for me.
Is it unreasonable to think Zimmerman could have extricated himself from the mess without squeezing the trigger? Lots of possible outcomes eh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
