|
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 02:33 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:25 Kaitlin wrote: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:
[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. 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
Perhaps you should take those thoughts to the thread used to discuss carrying guns in a general sense, since this topic is about this specific case, under the current laws.
|
On June 28 2013 02:30 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:28 Thieving Magpie 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? 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.
No kidding. People posting in this thread need to understand that the only evidence that can be considered is what is presented at trial. There is way too much pre-judging going on based on stuff that is not even guaranteed to be admitted or even presented.
|
On June 28 2013 02:34 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:28 Thieving Magpie 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? 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.
There may not be a necessity, but in the eyes of a jury, the lack of extraneous blood in the crime scene is definitely going to factor into how they judge the relative threat posed towards Zimmerman and the merits of his "fear".
|
On June 28 2013 02:33 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:25 Kaitlin wrote: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:
[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. 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
Fair enough. The sole purpose of my quoted question was to point out that it led to the conclusion that he should be acquitted. I had actually directed the question to someone else, who hasn't responded to it, while you and another have.
|
On June 28 2013 02:34 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:28 Thieving Magpie 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? 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.
if it contradicts zimmerman's testimony of having his head bashed against the sidewalk, the jury may disregard his theory of events, including his claim of self defense.
|
On June 28 2013 02:34 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:28 Thieving Magpie 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? 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.
Being bloody =/= being brutalized. Someone could slip and be bloody. Brutalized means that there is a narrative where the conclusion is great harm to one's self.
|
On June 28 2013 02:14 PanN 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. 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.
Have you ever gotten a beat down? Most fist fights don't end in death(out of a million assault cases(fists) per year you get about 1000 deaths, compare that with guns).
Do you know how to defend yourself? If this asshole was running around town with a gun, he should atleast have the decency to learn how to fight.
Lastly, if he was knocked unconscious, he is knocked unconscious, at least he's not dead.
|
Do you know how to defend yourself? If this asshole was running around town with a gun, he should atleast have the decency to learn how to fight.
I recall him taking self defense lessons, but i can't tell if it was in the trial or here in the thread.
|
On June 28 2013 02:34 m4inbrain wrote:
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.
First, I agree that both would have lived had ZMan left the gun in the car. However, I firmly support ZMan's or anyone else's right to arm themselves when not legally disallowed from doing so.
Having said that, in response to your first paragraph. "Senseless violence" is common in the U.S., which is precisely the scenario you describe.
|
On June 28 2013 02:41 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +Do you know how to defend yourself? If this asshole was running around town with a gun, he should atleast have the decency to learn how to fight. I recall him taking self defense lessons, but i can't tell if it was in the trial or here in the thread.
if he knows how to defend himself, then he has no reason to pull a gun out in a fist fight.
|
On June 28 2013 02:40 czylu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:14 PanN 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. 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. Have you ever gotten a beat down? Most fist fights don't end in death(out of a million assault cases(fists) you get about 1000 deaths per year, compare that with guns). Do you know how to defend yourself? If this asshole was running around town with a gun, he should atleast have the decency to learn how to fight. Lastly, if he was knocked unconscious, he is knocked unconscious, at least he's not dead.
Why is he an asshole? He wasn't 'running around town with a gun' he was a neighborhood watchman keeping his gated community safe and carry a legally owned and licensed firearm. Decency to learn to fight? He's not out looking for fights you moron he's trying to keep his community safe, and when criminals either carry guns or work in groups 'learning to fight' doesn't mean shit.
|
It's also key that he only has to reasonably believe he was in danger of "great bodily harm". It doesn't have to be death, and it doesn't even have to be actual danger.
|
On June 28 2013 02:43 czylu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:41 m4inbrain wrote:Do you know how to defend yourself? If this asshole was running around town with a gun, he should atleast have the decency to learn how to fight. I recall him taking self defense lessons, but i can't tell if it was in the trial or here in the thread. if he knows how to defend himself, then he has no reason to pull a gun out in a fist fight.
Being assaulted at night in a gated community that has had a string of burglaries by someone who may or may not be carrying a weapon is not a fist fight. This isn't a student fight outside a nightclub.
|
On June 28 2013 02:40 czylu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:14 PanN 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. 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. Have you ever gotten a beat down? Most fist fights don't end in death(out of a million assault cases(fists) per year you get about 1000 deaths, compare that with guns). Do you know how to defend yourself? If this asshole was running around town with a gun, he should atleast have the decency to learn how to fight. Lastly, if he was knocked unconscious, he is knocked unconscious, at least he's not dead.
just as an FYI, fear of "great bodily harm" is good enough for self defense. fear of death is not necessary.
i wonder how many hits to the face (fists or concrete) result in head injuries, which are normally considered pretty serious.
|
On June 28 2013 02:43 Yorke wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:40 czylu wrote:On June 28 2013 02:14 PanN 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. 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. Have you ever gotten a beat down? Most fist fights don't end in death(out of a million assault cases(fists) you get about 1000 deaths per year, compare that with guns). Do you know how to defend yourself? If this asshole was running around town with a gun, he should atleast have the decency to learn how to fight. Lastly, if he was knocked unconscious, he is knocked unconscious, at least he's not dead. Why is he an asshole? He wasn't 'running around town with a gun' he was a neighborhood watchman keeping his gated community safe and carry a legally owned and licensed firearm. Decency to learn to fight? He's not out looking for fights you moron he's trying to keep his community safe, and when criminals either carry guns or work in groups 'learning to fight' doesn't mean shit.
What? He's trying to "keep his community safe", and yet learning self-defense doesn't mean shit? I suppose that part of officer training is useless then?
|
On June 28 2013 02:43 Yorke wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:40 czylu wrote:On June 28 2013 02:14 PanN 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. 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. Have you ever gotten a beat down? Most fist fights don't end in death(out of a million assault cases(fists) you get about 1000 deaths per year, compare that with guns). Do you know how to defend yourself? If this asshole was running around town with a gun, he should atleast have the decency to learn how to fight. Lastly, if he was knocked unconscious, he is knocked unconscious, at least he's not dead. Why is he an asshole? He wasn't 'running around town with a gun' he was a neighborhood watchman keeping his gated community safe and carry a legally owned and licensed firearm. Decency to learn to fight? He's not out looking for fights you moron he's trying to keep his community safe, and when criminals either carry guns or work in groups 'learning to fight' doesn't mean shit.
You can be a neighborhood watchman without chasing someone down resulting in a 17yo death. He could've informed the police (in which he did) and let it be. We do not need vigilante running around with guns.
|
On June 28 2013 02:44 Yorke wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:43 czylu wrote:On June 28 2013 02:41 m4inbrain wrote:Do you know how to defend yourself? If this asshole was running around town with a gun, he should atleast have the decency to learn how to fight. I recall him taking self defense lessons, but i can't tell if it was in the trial or here in the thread. if he knows how to defend himself, then he has no reason to pull a gun out in a fist fight. Being assaulted at night in a gated community that has had a string of burglaries by someone who may or may not be carrying a weapon is not a fist fight. This isn't a student fight outside a nightclub.
Well, Travyon was young, and sadly he was threatened by someone with a weapon. If he hadn't been shot, he'd know that the real world is not a student fight outside a night club.
|
On June 28 2013 02:43 Yorke wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:40 czylu wrote:On June 28 2013 02:14 PanN 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. 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. Have you ever gotten a beat down? Most fist fights don't end in death(out of a million assault cases(fists) you get about 1000 deaths per year, compare that with guns). Do you know how to defend yourself? If this asshole was running around town with a gun, he should atleast have the decency to learn how to fight. Lastly, if he was knocked unconscious, he is knocked unconscious, at least he's not dead. Why is he an asshole? He wasn't 'running around town with a gun' he was a neighborhood watchman keeping his gated community safe and carry a legally owned and licensed firearm. Decency to learn to fight? He's not out looking for fights you moron he's trying to keep his community safe, and when criminals either carry guns or work in groups 'learning to fight' doesn't mean shit.
He's an asshole b/c he used a gun on an unarmed kid. Yes, he carried around a weapon, and as a neighborhood watchman, his job is to PROTECT the community, not KILL people in it -.-.
|
On June 28 2013 02:41 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:34 m4inbrain wrote:
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. First, I agree that both would have lived had ZMan left the gun in the car. However, I firmly support ZMan's or anyone else's right to arm themselves when not legally disallowed from doing so. Having said that, in response to your first paragraph. "Senseless violence" is common in the U.S., which is precisely the scenario you describe.
Don't get me wrong. In germany we had and have cases like this (i mean with senseless violence) as well. Couple of month ago a youngster was beaten to death by four people at a train station. But if you look at the relation, it's more likely to get shot in the US than being punched to death. I say that without looking at the numbers, but from "feeling", i'd say you have more homicides with guns than with bare fists (knives and bats n stuff not counted, since he did not have that and Zman wasn't attacked with it). If i'm wrong there, i apologize, but i actually don't think so.
I'm not even arguing about gun control, or the right to have a gun. If you can be responsible with it, have fun. But if it "forces you" to make stupid decisions because you feel powerful/invincible, then it's a problem. Zman made stupid decisions, based on which a kid is dead now. I'm not saying he murdered him, i'm not saying he didn't - i'm just saying someone's dead (unnecessary) because of his judgement. And for that he has to be punished. In germany we say "Dummheit schützt vor Strafe nicht" ("stupidity doesn't prevent you from being punished"), the question to me is not IF he has to be punished, but for what.
|
I think everyone has a different idea of what they consider "danger of their life"
When I was jumped years ago, I was genuinely in danger of my life. If I had a gun on me, I would have shot the people, but I didn't. Instead, I had to have someone drive me to a hospital with blood everywhere. It turns out I was fine (didn't crack the orbital), but at the time I genuinely would have used a gun if I had one.
In the heat of the moment, anything can happen, so in a way I see why Zimmerman shot Trayvon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
