|
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 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.
Being that evidence can only prove that only one punch was thrown, and that punch not being sufficient to knock out zimmerman, I fail to see why you even think its possible?
|
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. edit2: she also calls herself "W8" and "Lakeyia Little". Which are pretty funny to me.
W8 I would assume is in reference to Witness 8, as she was being identified in reference to this case. It wasn't her choosing. Other names, such as how the letter was signed, I believe, was because she was trying to remain anonymous. I guess it's also possible the she didn't want her handwriting to be recognized, as far as to explain someone else writing the letter. But, it seems clear, she was making attempts to not have her real name be known.
|
On June 28 2013 02:16 -Kaiser- 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. 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.
Quoting myself to add to it, bit of a question...
I'm wondering, Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest. I'm trying to imagine how the altercation would have gone where they go from fighting to Zimmerman shooting Martin in the chest without Zimmerman having a different exit strategy. If the defense has to prove that Zimmerman had to shoot to save himself from serious injury, then I suppose the offense just has to prove that the confrontation could have ended a different way with Zimmerman not suffering serious injury? What is "serious injury" in this context? I can't imagine Trayvon Martin chasing Zimmerman down if Zimmerman started to run away. If Zimmerman can shoot Martin in the chest, I have to imagine he'd be able to disengage.
|
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.
It wasn't directed at me, but i will take the bait.
Trayvon could have knocked Zman out, yes. Please, follow up.
edit
W8 I would assume is in reference to Witness 8, as she was being identified in reference to this case. It wasn't her choosing. Other names, such as how the letter was signed, I believe, was because she was trying to remain anonymous. I guess it's also possible the she didn't want her handwriting to be recognized, as far as to explain someone else writing the letter. But, it seems clear, she was making attempts to not have her real name be known.
Wow, okay, witness 8 actually makes sense, didn't get that reference. I thought more about W-eight. Which was funny. And Lathingy Little, when the only little thing she has seemingly is her ability to restrain herself from being bitchy, but meh.
|
On June 28 2013 02:16 -Kaiser- 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. 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.
can we stop referring to her as a retard and commenting on her physical appearance, please.
|
On June 28 2013 02:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:14 Kaitlin wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Being that evidence can only prove that only one punch was thrown, and that punch not being sufficient to knock out zimmerman, I fail to see why you even think its possible?
Sorry If I'm understanding you wrong... just because that one punch didn't knock out zimmerman doesn't mean trayvon couldn't knock him unconscious yes?
|
On June 28 2013 02:15 Nyovne wrote:
Stop the racism discussion. Get back on topic.
It was brought up because it was assumed by some that Trayvon was the aggressor because the word cracker was used to define an white person who was mysteriously following him at night. The discussion was about the relevance of this description as one of hate for whites or one that is merely a a descriptor of someone he was scared of.
Some argued that any type of racial term towards whites = racial terms towards non-whites, the discussion was about how silly that sounds.
|
On June 28 2013 02:18 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:14 Kaitlin wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
You do realize that instead of answering the question you quoted, you simply posed an alternative scenario, and noted that there were "lots of possible outcomes". You've effectively taken the position that you have a reasonable doubt about this case, and if on that jury, you would be voting to acquit, as you consider my question to be an example of a reasonable scenario. Correct ?
|
On June 28 2013 02:24 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 28 2013 02:14 Kaitlin wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Being that evidence can only prove that only one punch was thrown, and that punch not being sufficient to knock out zimmerman, I fail to see why you even think its possible? Sorry If I'm understanding you wrong... just because that one punch didn't knock out zimmerman doesn't mean trayvon couldn't knock him unconscious yes?
A lot of people can render someone unconscious but it does not mean he had the intent to or does he deserve to get shot? yes?
|
On June 28 2013 02:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:15 Nyovne wrote:
Stop the racism discussion. Get back on topic. It was brought up because it was assumed by some that Trayvon was the aggressor because the word cracker was used to define an white person who was mysteriously following him at night. The discussion was about the relevance of this description as one of hate for whites or one that is merely a a descriptor of someone he was scared of. Some argued that any type of racial term towards whites = racial terms towards non-whites, the discussion was about how silly that sounds.
For me, the relevance was limited to only what could be ascertained regarding Trayvon's mindset in calling him that name. It's not a history lesson or inquiry. It's extracting what Trayvon's use of the term means to me (or a juror) regarding how he acted on that night.
|
On June 28 2013 02:24 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 28 2013 02:14 Kaitlin wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Being that evidence can only prove that only one punch was thrown, and that punch not being sufficient to knock out zimmerman, I fail to see why you even think its possible? Sorry If I'm understanding you wrong... just because that one punch didn't knock out zimmerman doesn't mean trayvon couldn't knock him unconscious yes?
No Zimmerman DNA on Travyon's body plus the lack of blood on the sidewalk refutes Zimmerman's testimony that he was being brutalized. He was punched, once, fell to the ground. A scuffle then happened where he shot the kid. The scuffle was not enough to get the blood on his head and face to hit the ground.
He then said he was scared that Martin had a weapon and searched Martin for a weapon, splaying his arms to specifically look for it. This was proven false by the testimony of police saying that the body was still hunched over clasping the chest wound.
So Zimmerman was not scared of a weapon, nor was he attacked ruthlessly.
|
On June 28 2013 02:26 Forgottenfrog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:24 PanN wrote:On June 28 2013 02:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 28 2013 02:14 Kaitlin wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Being that evidence can only prove that only one punch was thrown, and that punch not being sufficient to knock out zimmerman, I fail to see why you even think its possible? Sorry If I'm understanding you wrong... just because that one punch didn't knock out zimmerman doesn't mean trayvon couldn't knock him unconscious yes? A lot of people can render someone unconscious but it does not mean he had the intent to or does he deserve to get shot? yes?
It's not about deserving to be shot. If Zimmerman reasonably thought he could be rendered unconscious, then he would be in a position to not be able to defend himself from Trayvon getting his gun and shooting him with it.
|
On June 28 2013 02:28 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:26 Forgottenfrog wrote:On June 28 2013 02:24 PanN wrote:On June 28 2013 02:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 28 2013 02:14 Kaitlin wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Being that evidence can only prove that only one punch was thrown, and that punch not being sufficient to knock out zimmerman, I fail to see why you even think its possible? Sorry If I'm understanding you wrong... just because that one punch didn't knock out zimmerman doesn't mean trayvon couldn't knock him unconscious yes? A lot of people can render someone unconscious but it does not mean he had the intent to or does he deserve to get shot? yes? It's not about deserving to be shot. If Zimmerman reasonably thought he could be rendered unconscious, then he would be in a position to not be able to defend himself from Trayvon getting his gun and shooting him with it.
It's pretty far fetched though.
edit: actually, it's pretty unlikely to happen. He might get knocked out and his gun taken. What then? What reason is there for a 17 year old boy to shoot an unconcious white unarmed man?
|
On June 28 2013 02:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:24 PanN wrote:On June 28 2013 02:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 28 2013 02:14 Kaitlin wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Being that evidence can only prove that only one punch was thrown, and that punch not being sufficient to knock out zimmerman, I fail to see why you even think its possible? Sorry If I'm understanding you wrong... just because that one punch didn't knock out zimmerman doesn't mean trayvon couldn't knock him unconscious yes? No Zimmerman DNA on Travyon's body plus the lack of blood on the sidewalk refutes Zimmerman's testimony that he was being brutalized. He was punched, once, fell to the ground. A scuffle then happened where he shot the kid. The scuffle was not enough to get the blood on his head and face to hit the ground. He then said he was scared that Martin had a weapon and searched Martin for a weapon, splaying his arms to specifically look for it. This was proven false by the testimony of police saying that the body was still hunched over clasping the chest wound. So Zimmerman was not scared of a weapon, nor was he attacked ruthlessly.
In the trial I'm watching, Zimmerman has not yet testified. Are you discussing evidence that the jury has to consider ? How about holding off on Zimmerman's testimony until he actually testifies.
|
On June 28 2013 02:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:24 PanN wrote:On June 28 2013 02:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 28 2013 02:14 Kaitlin wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Being that evidence can only prove that only one punch was thrown, and that punch not being sufficient to knock out zimmerman, I fail to see why you even think its possible? Sorry If I'm understanding you wrong... just because that one punch didn't knock out zimmerman doesn't mean trayvon couldn't knock him unconscious yes? No Zimmerman DNA on Travyon's body plus the lack of blood on the sidewalk refutes Zimmerman's testimony that he was being brutalized. He was punched, once, fell to the ground. A scuffle then happened where he shot the kid. The scuffle was not enough to get the blood on his head and face to hit the ground. He then said he was scared that Martin had a weapon and searched Martin for a weapon, splaying his arms to specifically look for it. This was proven false by the testimony of police saying that the body was still hunched over clasping the chest wound. So Zimmerman was not scared of a weapon, nor was he attacked ruthlessly.
where does he say he was scared that trayvon had a weapon? i thought he said that trayvon saw zimmerman's weapon and reached for it.
|
On June 28 2013 02:29 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:28 Kaitlin wrote:On June 28 2013 02:26 Forgottenfrog wrote:On June 28 2013 02:24 PanN wrote:On June 28 2013 02:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 28 2013 02:14 Kaitlin wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Being that evidence can only prove that only one punch was thrown, and that punch not being sufficient to knock out zimmerman, I fail to see why you even think its possible? Sorry If I'm understanding you wrong... just because that one punch didn't knock out zimmerman doesn't mean trayvon couldn't knock him unconscious yes? A lot of people can render someone unconscious but it does not mean he had the intent to or does he deserve to get shot? yes? It's not about deserving to be shot. If Zimmerman reasonably thought he could be rendered unconscious, then he would be in a position to not be able to defend himself from Trayvon getting his gun and shooting him with it. It's pretty far fetched though. edit: actually, it's pretty unlikely to happen. He might get knocked out and his gun taken. What then? What reason is there for a 17 year old boy to shoot an unconcious white unarmed man?
Not far fetched to anyone who has received any firearms training. It's pretty much lesson number one. Weapon retention.
edit on your edit: I don't believe Zimmerman's perception of the situation would render that unlikely at all, given that he thought he was suspicous, a rash of burglaries in the neighborhood, and this person having just initiated a physical confrontation. Zimmerman is probably pretty intimidated and thinking this is a thug who may very well unreasonably shoot him, as he has already attacked him for what Zimmerman considers to be unreasonable.
|
On June 28 2013 02:29 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:28 Kaitlin wrote:On June 28 2013 02:26 Forgottenfrog wrote:On June 28 2013 02:24 PanN wrote:On June 28 2013 02:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 28 2013 02:14 Kaitlin wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Being that evidence can only prove that only one punch was thrown, and that punch not being sufficient to knock out zimmerman, I fail to see why you even think its possible? Sorry If I'm understanding you wrong... just because that one punch didn't knock out zimmerman doesn't mean trayvon couldn't knock him unconscious yes? A lot of people can render someone unconscious but it does not mean he had the intent to or does he deserve to get shot? yes? It's not about deserving to be shot. If Zimmerman reasonably thought he could be rendered unconscious, then he would be in a position to not be able to defend himself from Trayvon getting his gun and shooting him with it. It's pretty far fetched though. edit: actually, it's pretty unlikely to happen. He might get knocked out and his gun taken. What then? What reason is there for a 17 year old boy to shoot an unconcious white unarmed man?
I can't tell if that is a serious question. If it is then you should stop posting because your ignorance is too great.
|
On June 28 2013 02:25 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:18 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 28 2013 02:14 Kaitlin wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You do realize that instead of answering the question you quoted, you simply posed an alternative scenario, and noted that there were "lots of possible outcomes". You've effectively taken the position that you have a reasonable doubt about this case, and if on that jury, you would be voting to acquit, as you consider my question to be an example of a reasonable scenario. Correct ?
Yeah. Correct. I stated earlier I think Zimmerman's a free man under the law in Florida. I'm accepting this and moving on to other things that follow from this incident, such as thinking about carrying guns in a general sense and what dangers that may entail stacked up against what benefits it may provide
|
On June 28 2013 02:31 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:29 m4inbrain wrote:On June 28 2013 02:28 Kaitlin wrote:On June 28 2013 02:26 Forgottenfrog wrote:On June 28 2013 02:24 PanN wrote:On June 28 2013 02:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 28 2013 02:14 Kaitlin wrote:On June 28 2013 02:12 czylu wrote:On June 28 2013 01:51 nihlon wrote:On June 28 2013 01:48 bugser wrote:
[quote]
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. Being that evidence can only prove that only one punch was thrown, and that punch not being sufficient to knock out zimmerman, I fail to see why you even think its possible? Sorry If I'm understanding you wrong... just because that one punch didn't knock out zimmerman doesn't mean trayvon couldn't knock him unconscious yes? A lot of people can render someone unconscious but it does not mean he had the intent to or does he deserve to get shot? yes? It's not about deserving to be shot. If Zimmerman reasonably thought he could be rendered unconscious, then he would be in a position to not be able to defend himself from Trayvon getting his gun and shooting him with it. It's pretty far fetched though. edit: actually, it's pretty unlikely to happen. He might get knocked out and his gun taken. What then? What reason is there for a 17 year old boy to shoot an unconcious white unarmed man? Not far fetched to anyone who has received any firearms training. It's pretty much lesson number one. Weapon retention.
Oh believe me, i'm used to guns and high powered rifles, even though not in a civilian surrounding (army). Lesson number one is to make sure not to pull the trigger without reason, not weapon retention. At least outside the USA, that is.
That doesn't change the fact though.
I can't tell if that is a serious question. If it is then you should stop posting because your ignorance is too great.
Maybe i'm not american enough to understand it. I knock you out in a fistfight after you follow me. For some reason i see your gun, and take it. Why would i shoot you now, knowing that i have all the trumps in my hands? There's literally NO argument supporting you. Based on that bullshit, you could shoot everyone just looking provocative, because he MIGHT KNOCK YOU OUT and shoot you with your gun.
edit: would also support the argument that both would've lived if Zman would have left his gun in the car.
|
On June 28 2013 02:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:24 PanN wrote:On June 28 2013 02:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 28 2013 02:14 Kaitlin wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Being that evidence can only prove that only one punch was thrown, and that punch not being sufficient to knock out zimmerman, I fail to see why you even think its possible? Sorry If I'm understanding you wrong... just because that one punch didn't knock out zimmerman doesn't mean trayvon couldn't knock him unconscious yes? No Zimmerman DNA on Travyon's body plus the lack of blood on the sidewalk refutes Zimmerman's testimony that he was being brutalized. He was punched, once, fell to the ground. A scuffle then happened where he shot the kid. The scuffle was not enough to get the blood on his head and face to hit the ground. He then said he was scared that Martin had a weapon and searched Martin for a weapon, splaying his arms to specifically look for it. This was proven false by the testimony of police saying that the body was still hunched over clasping the chest wound. So Zimmerman was not scared of a weapon, nor was he attacked ruthlessly.
I don't understand why the prosecution is making such a big deal about no blood being on the side walk. There are photos of Zimmerman clearly beaten up and bloody. There is no necessity that some of the blood transfer to the ground for the attack to be considered brutal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
