|
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 July 02 2013 08:53 Krohm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 08:38 kmillz wrote:On July 02 2013 08:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 08:28 SKC wrote:On July 02 2013 08:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:On July 02 2013 08:18 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:10 Kaitlin wrote:
To anyone of you who feel it was morally wrong for GZ to keep an eye on where Trayvon had gone, if GZ had stopped tracking where Trayvon went, and he found out the next day that one of his neighbors had experienced a home invasion and they had been killed, would that affect your analysis of what GZ did ? Short answer: No. Long answer: No because mob-justice and vigilantism goes against the foundations of a society build upon laws. What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. His neighborhood watch training specifically said not to follow suspects. The police told him he didn't have to follow. It's not about illegality, its about stupidity. It's not illegal to walk home after stopping by the store; but apparently that's enough to get shot. The issue is when people consider what he did worse than what Trayvon did. Although I still believe what he did is worse--I can't deny Good's testimony. Trayvon got the upper hand enough for a third party to ask him to stop. Trayvon continuing makes it self defense no matter how much Zimmerman may or may not have wanted to kill him. At what point before George Zimmerman shot him did Trayvon not have the upper-hand based on the evidence we have? (from the first point it got physical that is) The narrative of events only makes sense to me that Martin acted out in self defense, most likely from seeing a gun or seeing someone in the pose of having a gun. To me, Martin didn't have the upper hand since the opponent was heavier and armed. Martin getting on top of Zimmerman and firing blows is when he got the upper hand, enough that John Good asked him to stop (showing that the fight at least seemed over). It was when Trayvon continued from this point that no argument can be made that Trayvon was not on the offensive. To put it bluntly. Even if Zimmerman jumped trayvon, with gun in hand, saying "die nigga!" as he did, the fact that we have a witness see Trayvon take down the victim, hitting the victim, and the witness asking trayvon to stop meant that the fight was over at least visibly. There's a third person now meaning the violence didn't have to continue. Trayvon continuing means that momentum had shifted from self defense to vengeance. Oh look you're making up more facts to fit your personal view of things. It doesn't matter if Zimmerman was "heavier" and "armed". That doesn't give anyone the upper hand where do you keep coming up with this stuff. Also you keep thinking that people only attack other people for a very good reason. This isn't the case in the real world. What are you going to start saying if Zimmerman is acquitted?
He agrees with the evidence that Zimmerman should be acquitted. That doesn't mean that he believes Zimmerman. From what I read before the case and some of the non-sense having to do with their crowd funded legal defense, I don't think 100% Zimmerman's story either, specifically that Trayvon jumped him or said "your gunna die tonight." However, there is no way he should go to jail with the evidence in hand.
|
On July 02 2013 08:53 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:41 Krohm wrote:On July 02 2013 08:35 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 08:25 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:On July 02 2013 08:18 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:10 Kaitlin wrote:
To anyone of you who feel it was morally wrong for GZ to keep an eye on where Trayvon had gone, if GZ had stopped tracking where Trayvon went, and he found out the next day that one of his neighbors had experienced a home invasion and they had been killed, would that affect your analysis of what GZ did ? Short answer: No. Long answer: No because mob-justice and vigilantism goes against the foundations of a society build upon laws. What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. You assume that I am arguing about legality (which I am not) and that I am approving of neighborhood watches (I do not). how can you not approve of neighborhood watches? that seems absurd to me. I should have worded that more clearly. I am opposed to armed neighborhood watches as that suggest they will do enforcing of laws. I am not opposed to keeping an eye open and then call the police if need be. I can agree with you but at the same time you location is Denmark. I'm assuming you live there? America is a whole different type of animal when it comes to firearms. People there feel it's necessary to carry one to properly defend yourself because there is a higher chance that a potential perpetrator will be carrying one as well. It's sort like a false security blanket I guess you could say. Although you may sometimes get a neighbourhood watch member who oversteps their authority I don't think Zimmerman really qualifies as that though. He may have been a bit over-zealous and should have complied to the dispatchers suggestion but I don't feel he took the law into his own hands that night. I actually live in San Francisco and have done so for more than a year (just haven't updated as I will move back to Denmark soon, and my cultural background, which is really what you are alluding to, is Danish). I realize that there is a higher risk of the culprit wearing firearms in the states than in the land of fairytales, rainbows, and unicorns aka Denmark. I just do not think that from a moral standpoint it really provides you with an excuse and I would argue that the moral intent of a neighborhood watch changes as soon as it is armed, because why would you really need a weapon if you are simply watching?
It is absolutely their right to carry a firearm if they are licensed to do so. Does that mean that if they witness a crime happening that then can go in gunzablazin and expect not to be persecuted? Hell no. But it is a legitimate means of defense if you are out alone on a stormy night and someone confronts you and threatens your life while having you pinned. Neighborhood watches aren't armed individuals are armed.
|
On July 02 2013 08:59 Dosey wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:53 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:41 Krohm wrote:On July 02 2013 08:35 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 08:25 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:On July 02 2013 08:18 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:10 Kaitlin wrote:
To anyone of you who feel it was morally wrong for GZ to keep an eye on where Trayvon had gone, if GZ had stopped tracking where Trayvon went, and he found out the next day that one of his neighbors had experienced a home invasion and they had been killed, would that affect your analysis of what GZ did ? Short answer: No. Long answer: No because mob-justice and vigilantism goes against the foundations of a society build upon laws. What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. You assume that I am arguing about legality (which I am not) and that I am approving of neighborhood watches (I do not). how can you not approve of neighborhood watches? that seems absurd to me. I should have worded that more clearly. I am opposed to armed neighborhood watches as that suggest they will do enforcing of laws. I am not opposed to keeping an eye open and then call the police if need be. I can agree with you but at the same time you location is Denmark. I'm assuming you live there? America is a whole different type of animal when it comes to firearms. People there feel it's necessary to carry one to properly defend yourself because there is a higher chance that a potential perpetrator will be carrying one as well. It's sort like a false security blanket I guess you could say. Although you may sometimes get a neighbourhood watch member who oversteps their authority I don't think Zimmerman really qualifies as that though. He may have been a bit over-zealous and should have complied to the dispatchers suggestion but I don't feel he took the law into his own hands that night. I actually live in San Francisco and have done so for more than a year (just haven't updated as I will move back to Denmark soon, and my cultural background, which is really what you are alluding to, is Danish). I realize that there is a higher risk of the culprit wearing firearms in the states than in the land of fairytales, rainbows, and unicorns aka Denmark. I just do not think that from a moral standpoint it really provides you with an excuse and I would argue that the moral intent of a neighborhood watch changes as soon as it is armed, because why would you really need a weapon if you are simply watching? It is absolutely their right to carry a firearm if they are licensed to do so. Does that mean that if they witness a crime happening that then can go in gunzablazin and expect not to be persecuted? Hell no. But it is a legitimate means of defense if you are out alone on a stormy night and someone confronts you and threatens your life while having you pinned. Neighborhood watches aren't armed individuals are armed.
He's saying he finds it bad to allow neighborhood watch people to be armed.
|
On July 02 2013 09:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:59 Dosey wrote:On July 02 2013 08:53 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:41 Krohm wrote:On July 02 2013 08:35 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 08:25 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:On July 02 2013 08:18 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:10 Kaitlin wrote:
To anyone of you who feel it was morally wrong for GZ to keep an eye on where Trayvon had gone, if GZ had stopped tracking where Trayvon went, and he found out the next day that one of his neighbors had experienced a home invasion and they had been killed, would that affect your analysis of what GZ did ? Short answer: No. Long answer: No because mob-justice and vigilantism goes against the foundations of a society build upon laws. What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. You assume that I am arguing about legality (which I am not) and that I am approving of neighborhood watches (I do not). how can you not approve of neighborhood watches? that seems absurd to me. I should have worded that more clearly. I am opposed to armed neighborhood watches as that suggest they will do enforcing of laws. I am not opposed to keeping an eye open and then call the police if need be. I can agree with you but at the same time you location is Denmark. I'm assuming you live there? America is a whole different type of animal when it comes to firearms. People there feel it's necessary to carry one to properly defend yourself because there is a higher chance that a potential perpetrator will be carrying one as well. It's sort like a false security blanket I guess you could say. Although you may sometimes get a neighbourhood watch member who oversteps their authority I don't think Zimmerman really qualifies as that though. He may have been a bit over-zealous and should have complied to the dispatchers suggestion but I don't feel he took the law into his own hands that night. I actually live in San Francisco and have done so for more than a year (just haven't updated as I will move back to Denmark soon, and my cultural background, which is really what you are alluding to, is Danish). I realize that there is a higher risk of the culprit wearing firearms in the states than in the land of fairytales, rainbows, and unicorns aka Denmark. I just do not think that from a moral standpoint it really provides you with an excuse and I would argue that the moral intent of a neighborhood watch changes as soon as it is armed, because why would you really need a weapon if you are simply watching? It is absolutely their right to carry a firearm if they are licensed to do so. Does that mean that if they witness a crime happening that then can go in gunzablazin and expect not to be persecuted? Hell no. But it is a legitimate means of defense if you are out alone on a stormy night and someone confronts you and threatens your life while having you pinned. Neighborhood watches aren't armed individuals are armed. He's saying he finds it bad to allow neighborhood watch people to be armed.
So if a concerned citizen, who happens to have a license to carry, signs up for his local neighborhood watch program, we should revoke his right to carry because of some unfounded belief that it leads to vigilantism? How absurd is that?
|
On July 02 2013 08:53 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:41 Krohm wrote:On July 02 2013 08:35 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 08:25 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:On July 02 2013 08:18 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:10 Kaitlin wrote:
To anyone of you who feel it was morally wrong for GZ to keep an eye on where Trayvon had gone, if GZ had stopped tracking where Trayvon went, and he found out the next day that one of his neighbors had experienced a home invasion and they had been killed, would that affect your analysis of what GZ did ? Short answer: No. Long answer: No because mob-justice and vigilantism goes against the foundations of a society build upon laws. What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. You assume that I am arguing about legality (which I am not) and that I am approving of neighborhood watches (I do not). how can you not approve of neighborhood watches? that seems absurd to me. I should have worded that more clearly. I am opposed to armed neighborhood watches as that suggest they will do enforcing of laws. I am not opposed to keeping an eye open and then call the police if need be. I can agree with you but at the same time you location is Denmark. I'm assuming you live there? America is a whole different type of animal when it comes to firearms. People there feel it's necessary to carry one to properly defend yourself because there is a higher chance that a potential perpetrator will be carrying one as well. It's sort like a false security blanket I guess you could say. Although you may sometimes get a neighbourhood watch member who oversteps their authority I don't think Zimmerman really qualifies as that though. He may have been a bit over-zealous and should have complied to the dispatchers suggestion but I don't feel he took the law into his own hands that night. I actually live in San Francisco and have done so for more than a year (just haven't updated as I will move back to Denmark soon, and my cultural background, which is really what you are alluding to, is Danish). I realize that there is a higher risk of the culprit wearing firearms in the states than in the land of fairytales, rainbows, and unicorns aka Denmark. I just do not think that from a moral standpoint it really provides you with an excuse and I would argue that the moral intent of a neighborhood watch changes as soon as it is armed, because why would you really need a weapon if you are simply watching?
go to hunter's point at night, and then tell me how you feel about concealed carry permits. ;-) i am from SF Bay Area too.
|
On July 02 2013 08:59 Dosey wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:53 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:41 Krohm wrote:On July 02 2013 08:35 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 08:25 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:On July 02 2013 08:18 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:10 Kaitlin wrote:
To anyone of you who feel it was morally wrong for GZ to keep an eye on where Trayvon had gone, if GZ had stopped tracking where Trayvon went, and he found out the next day that one of his neighbors had experienced a home invasion and they had been killed, would that affect your analysis of what GZ did ? Short answer: No. Long answer: No because mob-justice and vigilantism goes against the foundations of a society build upon laws. What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. You assume that I am arguing about legality (which I am not) and that I am approving of neighborhood watches (I do not). how can you not approve of neighborhood watches? that seems absurd to me. I should have worded that more clearly. I am opposed to armed neighborhood watches as that suggest they will do enforcing of laws. I am not opposed to keeping an eye open and then call the police if need be. I can agree with you but at the same time you location is Denmark. I'm assuming you live there? America is a whole different type of animal when it comes to firearms. People there feel it's necessary to carry one to properly defend yourself because there is a higher chance that a potential perpetrator will be carrying one as well. It's sort like a false security blanket I guess you could say. Although you may sometimes get a neighbourhood watch member who oversteps their authority I don't think Zimmerman really qualifies as that though. He may have been a bit over-zealous and should have complied to the dispatchers suggestion but I don't feel he took the law into his own hands that night. I actually live in San Francisco and have done so for more than a year (just haven't updated as I will move back to Denmark soon, and my cultural background, which is really what you are alluding to, is Danish). I realize that there is a higher risk of the culprit wearing firearms in the states than in the land of fairytales, rainbows, and unicorns aka Denmark. I just do not think that from a moral standpoint it really provides you with an excuse and I would argue that the moral intent of a neighborhood watch changes as soon as it is armed, because why would you really need a weapon if you are simply watching? It is absolutely their right to carry a firearm if they are licensed to do so. Does that mean that if they witness a crime happening that then can go in gunzablazin and expect not to be persecuted? Hell no. But it is a legitimate means of defense if you are out alone on a stormy night and someone confronts you and threatens your life while having you pinned. Neighborhood watches aren't armed individuals are armed.
Well, why shouldn't the watches be armed? The act of observing a crime could put the observer at risk. We can then argue about the appropriate weaponry but I think the root contention is about whether or not the watch is transformed by weaponry and I would argue it is not.
Now the next question is whether a tazer would be sufficient in every instance. That then would depend on the neighborhood though one has to imagine the constitutionality on the effective subversion of the second amendment through laws on the use of firearms in self-defense or in deterring crime.
|
On July 02 2013 08:59 Dosey wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:53 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:41 Krohm wrote:On July 02 2013 08:35 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 08:25 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:On July 02 2013 08:18 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:10 Kaitlin wrote:
To anyone of you who feel it was morally wrong for GZ to keep an eye on where Trayvon had gone, if GZ had stopped tracking where Trayvon went, and he found out the next day that one of his neighbors had experienced a home invasion and they had been killed, would that affect your analysis of what GZ did ? Short answer: No. Long answer: No because mob-justice and vigilantism goes against the foundations of a society build upon laws. What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. You assume that I am arguing about legality (which I am not) and that I am approving of neighborhood watches (I do not). how can you not approve of neighborhood watches? that seems absurd to me. I should have worded that more clearly. I am opposed to armed neighborhood watches as that suggest they will do enforcing of laws. I am not opposed to keeping an eye open and then call the police if need be. I can agree with you but at the same time you location is Denmark. I'm assuming you live there? America is a whole different type of animal when it comes to firearms. People there feel it's necessary to carry one to properly defend yourself because there is a higher chance that a potential perpetrator will be carrying one as well. It's sort like a false security blanket I guess you could say. Although you may sometimes get a neighbourhood watch member who oversteps their authority I don't think Zimmerman really qualifies as that though. He may have been a bit over-zealous and should have complied to the dispatchers suggestion but I don't feel he took the law into his own hands that night. I actually live in San Francisco and have done so for more than a year (just haven't updated as I will move back to Denmark soon, and my cultural background, which is really what you are alluding to, is Danish). I realize that there is a higher risk of the culprit wearing firearms in the states than in the land of fairytales, rainbows, and unicorns aka Denmark. I just do not think that from a moral standpoint it really provides you with an excuse and I would argue that the moral intent of a neighborhood watch changes as soon as it is armed, because why would you really need a weapon if you are simply watching? It is absolutely their right to carry a firearm if they are licensed to do so. Does that mean that if they witness a crime happening that then can go in gunzablazin and expect not to be persecuted? Hell no. But it is a legitimate means of defense if you are out alone on a stormy night and someone confronts you and threatens your life while having you pinned. Neighborhood watches aren't armed individuals are armed.
I do not want to live in a neighborhood that has a "neighborhood watches" that allows its members to be armed. I pay a lot of taxes to have police trained for that job and I would like them to do it. People can look out for my safety and I appreciate it, but they can do it with the guns in their house.
And to be clear, I don't think I should be able to prohibit people from having armed neighborhood watches. I just won't live there.
|
On July 02 2013 09:03 Dosey wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 09:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 08:59 Dosey wrote:On July 02 2013 08:53 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:41 Krohm wrote:On July 02 2013 08:35 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 08:25 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:On July 02 2013 08:18 Ghostcom wrote:
[quote]
Short answer: No.
Long answer: No because mob-justice and vigilantism goes against the foundations of a society build upon laws. What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. You assume that I am arguing about legality (which I am not) and that I am approving of neighborhood watches (I do not). how can you not approve of neighborhood watches? that seems absurd to me. I should have worded that more clearly. I am opposed to armed neighborhood watches as that suggest they will do enforcing of laws. I am not opposed to keeping an eye open and then call the police if need be. I can agree with you but at the same time you location is Denmark. I'm assuming you live there? America is a whole different type of animal when it comes to firearms. People there feel it's necessary to carry one to properly defend yourself because there is a higher chance that a potential perpetrator will be carrying one as well. It's sort like a false security blanket I guess you could say. Although you may sometimes get a neighbourhood watch member who oversteps their authority I don't think Zimmerman really qualifies as that though. He may have been a bit over-zealous and should have complied to the dispatchers suggestion but I don't feel he took the law into his own hands that night. I actually live in San Francisco and have done so for more than a year (just haven't updated as I will move back to Denmark soon, and my cultural background, which is really what you are alluding to, is Danish). I realize that there is a higher risk of the culprit wearing firearms in the states than in the land of fairytales, rainbows, and unicorns aka Denmark. I just do not think that from a moral standpoint it really provides you with an excuse and I would argue that the moral intent of a neighborhood watch changes as soon as it is armed, because why would you really need a weapon if you are simply watching? It is absolutely their right to carry a firearm if they are licensed to do so. Does that mean that if they witness a crime happening that then can go in gunzablazin and expect not to be persecuted? Hell no. But it is a legitimate means of defense if you are out alone on a stormy night and someone confronts you and threatens your life while having you pinned. Neighborhood watches aren't armed individuals are armed. He's saying he finds it bad to allow neighborhood watch people to be armed. So if a concerned citizen, who happens to have a license to carry, signs up for his local neighborhood watch program, we should revoke his right to carry because of some unfounded belief that it leads to vigilantism? How absurd is that?
As long as the law will penalize the person for being an idiot with that fire arm, even if they were attempting to prevent a crime, its fine. The instant they get special legal protection due to their intent to prevent a crime, I am out. That is a license for stupidity.
|
On July 02 2013 09:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:59 Dosey wrote:On July 02 2013 08:53 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:41 Krohm wrote:On July 02 2013 08:35 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 08:25 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:On July 02 2013 08:18 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:10 Kaitlin wrote:
To anyone of you who feel it was morally wrong for GZ to keep an eye on where Trayvon had gone, if GZ had stopped tracking where Trayvon went, and he found out the next day that one of his neighbors had experienced a home invasion and they had been killed, would that affect your analysis of what GZ did ? Short answer: No. Long answer: No because mob-justice and vigilantism goes against the foundations of a society build upon laws. What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. You assume that I am arguing about legality (which I am not) and that I am approving of neighborhood watches (I do not). how can you not approve of neighborhood watches? that seems absurd to me. I should have worded that more clearly. I am opposed to armed neighborhood watches as that suggest they will do enforcing of laws. I am not opposed to keeping an eye open and then call the police if need be. I can agree with you but at the same time you location is Denmark. I'm assuming you live there? America is a whole different type of animal when it comes to firearms. People there feel it's necessary to carry one to properly defend yourself because there is a higher chance that a potential perpetrator will be carrying one as well. It's sort like a false security blanket I guess you could say. Although you may sometimes get a neighbourhood watch member who oversteps their authority I don't think Zimmerman really qualifies as that though. He may have been a bit over-zealous and should have complied to the dispatchers suggestion but I don't feel he took the law into his own hands that night. I actually live in San Francisco and have done so for more than a year (just haven't updated as I will move back to Denmark soon, and my cultural background, which is really what you are alluding to, is Danish). I realize that there is a higher risk of the culprit wearing firearms in the states than in the land of fairytales, rainbows, and unicorns aka Denmark. I just do not think that from a moral standpoint it really provides you with an excuse and I would argue that the moral intent of a neighborhood watch changes as soon as it is armed, because why would you really need a weapon if you are simply watching? It is absolutely their right to carry a firearm if they are licensed to do so. Does that mean that if they witness a crime happening that then can go in gunzablazin and expect not to be persecuted? Hell no. But it is a legitimate means of defense if you are out alone on a stormy night and someone confronts you and threatens your life while having you pinned. Neighborhood watches aren't armed individuals are armed. I do not want to live in a neighborhood that has a "neighborhood watches" that allows its members to be armed. I pay a lot of taxes to have police trained for that job and I would like them to do it. People can look out for my safety and I appreciate it, but they can do it with the guns in their house. And to be clear, I don't think I should be able to prohibit people from having armed neighborhood watches. I just won't live there.
I'm sorry, I just had to laugh out loud at the bold. Apparently you missed the whole Christopher Dorner incident and how much collateral damage occurred on the LAPD's account? I'd say police are much more trigger happy than an civilian with a license. Police are looking for action and can basically act without repercussions. Civilians on the other hand have this case to look forward to.
|
On July 02 2013 08:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:
The narrative of events only makes sense to me that Martin acted out in self defense, most likely from seeing a gun or seeing someone in the pose of having a gun. To me, Martin didn't have the upper hand since the opponent was heavier and armed.
Funny. If weight were the determinant of fighting ability, then UFC would be indistinguishable from sumo wrestling.
And if Zimmerman's being armed were a determining factor from the outset, then he wouldn't got himself into a position where he was grappling on the floor with Martin, and he wouldn't have sustained any injuries.
If you intend to use your gun on someone, the last thing you do is grapple on the floor with them.
|
On July 02 2013 08:31 Dosey wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:19 Leporello wrote:On July 02 2013 08:03 SilverLeagueElite wrote:On July 02 2013 07:36 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 07:27 SKC wrote:On July 02 2013 07:25 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 07:15 SilverLeagueElite wrote:
Tragic for the Martins but I'm kinda starting to feel bad for Zimmerman. He has a history of being sympathetic towards blacks but is having his life ruined because of perceived racism on his part. I don't feel bad for Zimmerman at all. He at least is getting his day in court, and is being tried by a court of law and his peers for his indiscretions Martin was sentenced to death by Zimmerman. It's like people are forgetting that he did technically kill a 17 year old who's only plans that night were to visit his dad. It might have been in self-defence but still. Worst. Neighborhood. Watch. Ever. Assuming Zimmerman's words are true, Martin sentenced himself to death. Well, that's when it becomes a question of morals. If someone you were following turns around and beats you up, does that mean he deserves to get shot in the chest? Punishment doesn't fit the crime, IMO. George Zimmerman may be innocent, and is probably only guilty of defending himself in the heat of the moment. But personally, I don't think Trayvon deserved to die for for how he reacted. It's a pitch black night with heavy rains. You're having your head dashed against the pavement after having your nose broken. You've been yelling for help for a good 40 secs but no one comes. At what point should you stop to consider whether or not to use deadly force? Hmm, well before the fight happened GZ made a decision to bring a gun with him, when confronting a stranger with accusatory suspicions. The gun has a safety switch on it. Either the safety was off the entire time GZ was in possession of it, or he had the time and ability to switch the safety off while in the midst of (allegedly) fighting for his life. GZ had the time and luxury of ending the fight in this fatal manner. Trayvon, quite obviously, didn't. Again, we don't know what happened to start the fight, or how the fight went. The only facts we know are that GZ shot Trayvon, and that GZ had somehow sustained some injuries. We have no real witnesses as to how GZ sustained those injuries. I understand that to claim murder under such cloudy circumstances is wrong. We can't prove GZ is a murderer. But he is certainly someone who should never be allowed to carry a gun. He certainly proved himself grossly incompetent, and that's the best that can be said about him. I really don't care about this actual trial. It's actually meaningless in a lot of ways. Trayvon is dead, and GZ -- while I do think he may be guilty of simple manslaughter, he isn't a malicious killer. I don't worry about him to the point that I think he needs to be locked up, I just don't want this idiot ever following anyone with a gun ever again. I hope everyone can agree with that, at least. @ the bold: Wat? Have you never held a gun before, or are you trying to make the safety seem like some sort of complex mechanism for the purpose of your own agenda? The safety can literally be flicked with the thumb in a millisecond. Anyone trained with firearms is trained to immediately flick the safety off AS they are drawing their weapon. Under the circumstances and given the evidence, I'd say GZ is exactly the type of person I'd want to be able to carry a gun. He screamed for help for a good 40 seconds and only fired his weapon after receiving substantial damage to his head/face while being pinned down and (allegedly) hearing a threat on his own life. Afterwards he kept his cool, waited for the police, and reported the incident to the police. You are talking as if the gun was sitting on his dash and he purposely grabbed for it before heading out while saying "I'm gonna get me a punk tonight" He was fucking wearing it as a means of protection.
I've actually fired guns of all kinds, from handguns, to an M249 MG. Yes, safeties are easy to flick off, but they exist for a reason -- you have to consciously flick that safety. GZ had a hand free, and was able to shoot Trayvon -- that is a fact. That he was actually defending himself -- that is NOT a fact. See the difference?
I'm glad you were there to witness it, to know that GZ was justified in shooting this guy. Seriously, have you given the police this testimony? Because the only facts I know of are that GZ followed a kid he didn't even know, and ended up shooting him.
GZ has clearly demonstrated he is not the type of person to be carrying a gun. Guns are for self-defense, not for following people that wear hoodies. GZ was only defending himself IF YOU BELIEVE HIS TESTIMONY -- which you obviously do, fully. Going by the facts, GZ was defending himself against a random stranger that he decided to follow. That is not a good gun owner. A responsible gun owner would've brought a witness or some backup, not confronted somebody by himself. GZ was told to wait for the police, he didn't. He went alone, and shot an unarmed man.
GZ is NOT a responsible gun owner, which is evidenced by the fact that he finds himself IN this situation. Responsible gun owners don't shoot unarmed people without witnesses.
Yes, that's a really intelligent person. You must be a genius too.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On July 02 2013 08:59 Dosey wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:53 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:41 Krohm wrote:On July 02 2013 08:35 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 08:25 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:On July 02 2013 08:18 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:10 Kaitlin wrote:
To anyone of you who feel it was morally wrong for GZ to keep an eye on where Trayvon had gone, if GZ had stopped tracking where Trayvon went, and he found out the next day that one of his neighbors had experienced a home invasion and they had been killed, would that affect your analysis of what GZ did ? Short answer: No. Long answer: No because mob-justice and vigilantism goes against the foundations of a society build upon laws. What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. You assume that I am arguing about legality (which I am not) and that I am approving of neighborhood watches (I do not). how can you not approve of neighborhood watches? that seems absurd to me. I should have worded that more clearly. I am opposed to armed neighborhood watches as that suggest they will do enforcing of laws. I am not opposed to keeping an eye open and then call the police if need be. I can agree with you but at the same time you location is Denmark. I'm assuming you live there? America is a whole different type of animal when it comes to firearms. People there feel it's necessary to carry one to properly defend yourself because there is a higher chance that a potential perpetrator will be carrying one as well. It's sort like a false security blanket I guess you could say. Although you may sometimes get a neighbourhood watch member who oversteps their authority I don't think Zimmerman really qualifies as that though. He may have been a bit over-zealous and should have complied to the dispatchers suggestion but I don't feel he took the law into his own hands that night. I actually live in San Francisco and have done so for more than a year (just haven't updated as I will move back to Denmark soon, and my cultural background, which is really what you are alluding to, is Danish). I realize that there is a higher risk of the culprit wearing firearms in the states than in the land of fairytales, rainbows, and unicorns aka Denmark. I just do not think that from a moral standpoint it really provides you with an excuse and I would argue that the moral intent of a neighborhood watch changes as soon as it is armed, because why would you really need a weapon if you are simply watching? It is absolutely their right to carry a firearm if they are licensed to do so. Does that mean that if they witness a crime happening that then can go in gunzablazin and expect not to be persecuted? Hell no. But it is a legitimate means of defense if you are out alone on a stormy night and someone confronts you and threatens your life while having you pinned. Neighborhood watches aren't armed individuals are armed.
Your final statement is like saying that the army isn't armed, the soldiers are.
With that sillyness aside: would you actually bother to read the discussion at hand instead of reacting to what you think is the discussion? It is a moral one, not a pragmatic one.
I am morally opposed to armed neighborhood watches because the function of a neighborhood watch is not to uphold the law, it is to alert the police whose job it is to do that. As soon as a neighborhood watchmen, like George Zimmerman, brings a weapon to the "job" there is a definitive suggestion of intent to not remain passive and leave the enforcemnt to the police which has been appointed by society as a whole to undertake this task. And then you are in the field of mob-justice and vigilantism.
|
On July 02 2013 09:09 Dosey wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 09:05 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 08:59 Dosey wrote:On July 02 2013 08:53 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:41 Krohm wrote:On July 02 2013 08:35 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 08:25 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:On July 02 2013 08:18 Ghostcom wrote:
[quote]
Short answer: No.
Long answer: No because mob-justice and vigilantism goes against the foundations of a society build upon laws. What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. You assume that I am arguing about legality (which I am not) and that I am approving of neighborhood watches (I do not). how can you not approve of neighborhood watches? that seems absurd to me. I should have worded that more clearly. I am opposed to armed neighborhood watches as that suggest they will do enforcing of laws. I am not opposed to keeping an eye open and then call the police if need be. I can agree with you but at the same time you location is Denmark. I'm assuming you live there? America is a whole different type of animal when it comes to firearms. People there feel it's necessary to carry one to properly defend yourself because there is a higher chance that a potential perpetrator will be carrying one as well. It's sort like a false security blanket I guess you could say. Although you may sometimes get a neighbourhood watch member who oversteps their authority I don't think Zimmerman really qualifies as that though. He may have been a bit over-zealous and should have complied to the dispatchers suggestion but I don't feel he took the law into his own hands that night. I actually live in San Francisco and have done so for more than a year (just haven't updated as I will move back to Denmark soon, and my cultural background, which is really what you are alluding to, is Danish). I realize that there is a higher risk of the culprit wearing firearms in the states than in the land of fairytales, rainbows, and unicorns aka Denmark. I just do not think that from a moral standpoint it really provides you with an excuse and I would argue that the moral intent of a neighborhood watch changes as soon as it is armed, because why would you really need a weapon if you are simply watching? It is absolutely their right to carry a firearm if they are licensed to do so. Does that mean that if they witness a crime happening that then can go in gunzablazin and expect not to be persecuted? Hell no. But it is a legitimate means of defense if you are out alone on a stormy night and someone confronts you and threatens your life while having you pinned. Neighborhood watches aren't armed individuals are armed. I do not want to live in a neighborhood that has a "neighborhood watches" that allows its members to be armed. I pay a lot of taxes to have police trained for that job and I would like them to do it. People can look out for my safety and I appreciate it, but they can do it with the guns in their house. And to be clear, I don't think I should be able to prohibit people from having armed neighborhood watches. I just won't live there. I'm sorry, I just had to laugh out loud at the bold. Apparently you missed the whole Christopher Dorner incident and how much collateral damage occurred on the LAPD's account? I'd say police are much more trigger happy than an civilian with a license. Police are looking for action and can basically act without repercussions. Civilians on the other hand have this case to look forward to.
That is one police officer out of how many? How many thousands of arrests and violent altercations take place per year that turn out just fine? I can find endless examples of idiots who never should have been handed a firearm, let alone sold one, but that doesn't mean no one should get them. The same goes for police. The majority of them do a fine job, with exception of a few idiots.
|
On July 02 2013 09:11 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:31 Dosey wrote:On July 02 2013 08:19 Leporello wrote:On July 02 2013 08:03 SilverLeagueElite wrote:On July 02 2013 07:36 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 07:27 SKC wrote:On July 02 2013 07:25 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 07:15 SilverLeagueElite wrote:
Tragic for the Martins but I'm kinda starting to feel bad for Zimmerman. He has a history of being sympathetic towards blacks but is having his life ruined because of perceived racism on his part. I don't feel bad for Zimmerman at all. He at least is getting his day in court, and is being tried by a court of law and his peers for his indiscretions Martin was sentenced to death by Zimmerman. It's like people are forgetting that he did technically kill a 17 year old who's only plans that night were to visit his dad. It might have been in self-defence but still. Worst. Neighborhood. Watch. Ever. Assuming Zimmerman's words are true, Martin sentenced himself to death. Well, that's when it becomes a question of morals. If someone you were following turns around and beats you up, does that mean he deserves to get shot in the chest? Punishment doesn't fit the crime, IMO. George Zimmerman may be innocent, and is probably only guilty of defending himself in the heat of the moment. But personally, I don't think Trayvon deserved to die for for how he reacted. It's a pitch black night with heavy rains. You're having your head dashed against the pavement after having your nose broken. You've been yelling for help for a good 40 secs but no one comes. At what point should you stop to consider whether or not to use deadly force? Hmm, well before the fight happened GZ made a decision to bring a gun with him, when confronting a stranger with accusatory suspicions. The gun has a safety switch on it. Either the safety was off the entire time GZ was in possession of it, or he had the time and ability to switch the safety off while in the midst of (allegedly) fighting for his life. GZ had the time and luxury of ending the fight in this fatal manner. Trayvon, quite obviously, didn't. Again, we don't know what happened to start the fight, or how the fight went. The only facts we know are that GZ shot Trayvon, and that GZ had somehow sustained some injuries. We have no real witnesses as to how GZ sustained those injuries. I understand that to claim murder under such cloudy circumstances is wrong. We can't prove GZ is a murderer. But he is certainly someone who should never be allowed to carry a gun. He certainly proved himself grossly incompetent, and that's the best that can be said about him. I really don't care about this actual trial. It's actually meaningless in a lot of ways. Trayvon is dead, and GZ -- while I do think he may be guilty of simple manslaughter, he isn't a malicious killer. I don't worry about him to the point that I think he needs to be locked up, I just don't want this idiot ever following anyone with a gun ever again. I hope everyone can agree with that, at least. @ the bold: Wat? Have you never held a gun before, or are you trying to make the safety seem like some sort of complex mechanism for the purpose of your own agenda? The safety can literally be flicked with the thumb in a millisecond. Anyone trained with firearms is trained to immediately flick the safety off AS they are drawing their weapon. Under the circumstances and given the evidence, I'd say GZ is exactly the type of person I'd want to be able to carry a gun. He screamed for help for a good 40 seconds and only fired his weapon after receiving substantial damage to his head/face while being pinned down and (allegedly) hearing a threat on his own life. Afterwards he kept his cool, waited for the police, and reported the incident to the police. You are talking as if the gun was sitting on his dash and he purposely grabbed for it before heading out while saying "I'm gonna get me a punk tonight" He was fucking wearing it as a means of protection. I've actually fired guns of all kinds, from handguns, to an M249 MG. Yes, safeties are easy to flick off, but they exist for a reason -- you have to consciously flick that safety. GZ had a hand free, and was able to shoot Trayvon. I'm glad you were there to witness it, to know that GZ was justified in shooting this guy. Seriously, have you given the police this testimony? Because the only facts I know of are that GZ followed a kid he didn't even know, and ended up shooting him. GZ has clearly demonstrated he is not the type of person to be carrying a gun. Guns are for self-defense, not for following people that wear hoodies. GZ was only defending himself IF YOU BELIEVE HIS TESTIMONY -- which you obviously do, fully. Going by the facts, GZ was defending himself against a random stranger that he decided to follow. That is not a good gun owner. A responsible gun owner would've brought a witness or some backup, not confronted somebody by himself. GZ was told to wait for the police, he didn't. He went alone, and shot an unarmed man. Yes, that's a really intelligent person. You must be a genius too.
Because the only facts I know of are that GZ followed a kid he didn't even know, and ended up shooting him.
http://www.youtube.com/user/thecount/videos
John Good would be a good start.
|
On July 02 2013 09:11 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:31 Dosey wrote:On July 02 2013 08:19 Leporello wrote:On July 02 2013 08:03 SilverLeagueElite wrote:On July 02 2013 07:36 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 07:27 SKC wrote:On July 02 2013 07:25 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 07:15 SilverLeagueElite wrote:
Tragic for the Martins but I'm kinda starting to feel bad for Zimmerman. He has a history of being sympathetic towards blacks but is having his life ruined because of perceived racism on his part. I don't feel bad for Zimmerman at all. He at least is getting his day in court, and is being tried by a court of law and his peers for his indiscretions Martin was sentenced to death by Zimmerman. It's like people are forgetting that he did technically kill a 17 year old who's only plans that night were to visit his dad. It might have been in self-defence but still. Worst. Neighborhood. Watch. Ever. Assuming Zimmerman's words are true, Martin sentenced himself to death. Well, that's when it becomes a question of morals. If someone you were following turns around and beats you up, does that mean he deserves to get shot in the chest? Punishment doesn't fit the crime, IMO. George Zimmerman may be innocent, and is probably only guilty of defending himself in the heat of the moment. But personally, I don't think Trayvon deserved to die for for how he reacted. It's a pitch black night with heavy rains. You're having your head dashed against the pavement after having your nose broken. You've been yelling for help for a good 40 secs but no one comes. At what point should you stop to consider whether or not to use deadly force? Hmm, well before the fight happened GZ made a decision to bring a gun with him, when confronting a stranger with accusatory suspicions. The gun has a safety switch on it. Either the safety was off the entire time GZ was in possession of it, or he had the time and ability to switch the safety off while in the midst of (allegedly) fighting for his life. GZ had the time and luxury of ending the fight in this fatal manner. Trayvon, quite obviously, didn't. Again, we don't know what happened to start the fight, or how the fight went. The only facts we know are that GZ shot Trayvon, and that GZ had somehow sustained some injuries. We have no real witnesses as to how GZ sustained those injuries. I understand that to claim murder under such cloudy circumstances is wrong. We can't prove GZ is a murderer. But he is certainly someone who should never be allowed to carry a gun. He certainly proved himself grossly incompetent, and that's the best that can be said about him. I really don't care about this actual trial. It's actually meaningless in a lot of ways. Trayvon is dead, and GZ -- while I do think he may be guilty of simple manslaughter, he isn't a malicious killer. I don't worry about him to the point that I think he needs to be locked up, I just don't want this idiot ever following anyone with a gun ever again. I hope everyone can agree with that, at least. @ the bold: Wat? Have you never held a gun before, or are you trying to make the safety seem like some sort of complex mechanism for the purpose of your own agenda? The safety can literally be flicked with the thumb in a millisecond. Anyone trained with firearms is trained to immediately flick the safety off AS they are drawing their weapon. Under the circumstances and given the evidence, I'd say GZ is exactly the type of person I'd want to be able to carry a gun. He screamed for help for a good 40 seconds and only fired his weapon after receiving substantial damage to his head/face while being pinned down and (allegedly) hearing a threat on his own life. Afterwards he kept his cool, waited for the police, and reported the incident to the police. You are talking as if the gun was sitting on his dash and he purposely grabbed for it before heading out while saying "I'm gonna get me a punk tonight" He was fucking wearing it as a means of protection. I've actually fired guns of all kinds, from handguns, to an M249 MG. Yes, safeties are easy to flick off, but they exist for a reason -- you have to consciously flick that safety. GZ had a hand free, and was able to shoot Trayvon. I'm glad you were there to witness it, to know that GZ was justified in shooting this guy. Seriously, have you given the police this testimony? Because the only facts I know of are that GZ followed a kid he didn't even know, and ended up shooting him. GZ has clearly demonstrated he is not the type of person to be carrying a gun. Guns are for self-defense, not for following people that wear hoodies. GZ was only defending himself IF YOU BELIEVE HIS TESTIMONY -- which you obviously do, fully. Going by the facts, GZ was defending himself against a random stranger that he decided to follow. That is not a good gun owner. A responsible gun owner would've brought a witness or some backup, not confronted somebody by himself. GZ was told to wait for the police, he didn't. He went alone, and shot an unarmed man. Yes, that's a really intelligent person. You must be a genius too.
There were witnesses, see John Good for example.
|
The PF 9 does not have an external safety
|
On July 02 2013 09:14 Chezinu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 09:11 Leporello wrote:On July 02 2013 08:31 Dosey wrote:On July 02 2013 08:19 Leporello wrote:On July 02 2013 08:03 SilverLeagueElite wrote:On July 02 2013 07:36 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 07:27 SKC wrote:On July 02 2013 07:25 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 07:15 SilverLeagueElite wrote:
Tragic for the Martins but I'm kinda starting to feel bad for Zimmerman. He has a history of being sympathetic towards blacks but is having his life ruined because of perceived racism on his part. I don't feel bad for Zimmerman at all. He at least is getting his day in court, and is being tried by a court of law and his peers for his indiscretions Martin was sentenced to death by Zimmerman. It's like people are forgetting that he did technically kill a 17 year old who's only plans that night were to visit his dad. It might have been in self-defence but still. Worst. Neighborhood. Watch. Ever. Assuming Zimmerman's words are true, Martin sentenced himself to death. Well, that's when it becomes a question of morals. If someone you were following turns around and beats you up, does that mean he deserves to get shot in the chest? Punishment doesn't fit the crime, IMO. George Zimmerman may be innocent, and is probably only guilty of defending himself in the heat of the moment. But personally, I don't think Trayvon deserved to die for for how he reacted. It's a pitch black night with heavy rains. You're having your head dashed against the pavement after having your nose broken. You've been yelling for help for a good 40 secs but no one comes. At what point should you stop to consider whether or not to use deadly force? Hmm, well before the fight happened GZ made a decision to bring a gun with him, when confronting a stranger with accusatory suspicions. The gun has a safety switch on it. Either the safety was off the entire time GZ was in possession of it, or he had the time and ability to switch the safety off while in the midst of (allegedly) fighting for his life. GZ had the time and luxury of ending the fight in this fatal manner. Trayvon, quite obviously, didn't. Again, we don't know what happened to start the fight, or how the fight went. The only facts we know are that GZ shot Trayvon, and that GZ had somehow sustained some injuries. We have no real witnesses as to how GZ sustained those injuries. I understand that to claim murder under such cloudy circumstances is wrong. We can't prove GZ is a murderer. But he is certainly someone who should never be allowed to carry a gun. He certainly proved himself grossly incompetent, and that's the best that can be said about him. I really don't care about this actual trial. It's actually meaningless in a lot of ways. Trayvon is dead, and GZ -- while I do think he may be guilty of simple manslaughter, he isn't a malicious killer. I don't worry about him to the point that I think he needs to be locked up, I just don't want this idiot ever following anyone with a gun ever again. I hope everyone can agree with that, at least. @ the bold: Wat? Have you never held a gun before, or are you trying to make the safety seem like some sort of complex mechanism for the purpose of your own agenda? The safety can literally be flicked with the thumb in a millisecond. Anyone trained with firearms is trained to immediately flick the safety off AS they are drawing their weapon. Under the circumstances and given the evidence, I'd say GZ is exactly the type of person I'd want to be able to carry a gun. He screamed for help for a good 40 seconds and only fired his weapon after receiving substantial damage to his head/face while being pinned down and (allegedly) hearing a threat on his own life. Afterwards he kept his cool, waited for the police, and reported the incident to the police. You are talking as if the gun was sitting on his dash and he purposely grabbed for it before heading out while saying "I'm gonna get me a punk tonight" He was fucking wearing it as a means of protection. I've actually fired guns of all kinds, from handguns, to an M249 MG. Yes, safeties are easy to flick off, but they exist for a reason -- you have to consciously flick that safety. GZ had a hand free, and was able to shoot Trayvon. I'm glad you were there to witness it, to know that GZ was justified in shooting this guy. Seriously, have you given the police this testimony? Because the only facts I know of are that GZ followed a kid he didn't even know, and ended up shooting him. GZ has clearly demonstrated he is not the type of person to be carrying a gun. Guns are for self-defense, not for following people that wear hoodies. GZ was only defending himself IF YOU BELIEVE HIS TESTIMONY -- which you obviously do, fully. Going by the facts, GZ was defending himself against a random stranger that he decided to follow. That is not a good gun owner. A responsible gun owner would've brought a witness or some backup, not confronted somebody by himself. GZ was told to wait for the police, he didn't. He went alone, and shot an unarmed man. Yes, that's a really intelligent person. You must be a genius too. There were witnesses, see John Good for example.
GZ didn't bring John Good with him. That somebody may have witnessed it is simply fortunate for GZ, not a result of his good decision-making.
Again, a responsible gun-owner, would not have put themselves in this situation, let alone shot the kid. I really don't understand how anyone could justify putting a gun back into GZ's hands.
|
On July 02 2013 09:11 Leporello wrote:
That is not a good gun owner. A responsible gun owner would've brought a witness or some backup, not confronted somebody by himself. GZ was told to wait for the police, he didn't. He went alone, and shot an unarmed man.
Yes, that's a really intelligent person. You must be a genius too. But the defense maintains that Martin started the confrontation. Zimmerman told the police he had no intention of confronting Martin and recognized it wasn't his job.
Get down from your high horse. YOU are the one who sounds like an uninformed idiot for using as a premise in your post an important question on which the entire case against Zimmerman turns.
|
On July 02 2013 09:16 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 09:14 Chezinu wrote:On July 02 2013 09:11 Leporello wrote:On July 02 2013 08:31 Dosey wrote:On July 02 2013 08:19 Leporello wrote:On July 02 2013 08:03 SilverLeagueElite wrote:On July 02 2013 07:36 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 07:27 SKC wrote:On July 02 2013 07:25 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 07:15 SilverLeagueElite wrote:
Tragic for the Martins but I'm kinda starting to feel bad for Zimmerman. He has a history of being sympathetic towards blacks but is having his life ruined because of perceived racism on his part. I don't feel bad for Zimmerman at all. He at least is getting his day in court, and is being tried by a court of law and his peers for his indiscretions Martin was sentenced to death by Zimmerman. It's like people are forgetting that he did technically kill a 17 year old who's only plans that night were to visit his dad. It might have been in self-defence but still. Worst. Neighborhood. Watch. Ever. Assuming Zimmerman's words are true, Martin sentenced himself to death. Well, that's when it becomes a question of morals. If someone you were following turns around and beats you up, does that mean he deserves to get shot in the chest? Punishment doesn't fit the crime, IMO. George Zimmerman may be innocent, and is probably only guilty of defending himself in the heat of the moment. But personally, I don't think Trayvon deserved to die for for how he reacted. It's a pitch black night with heavy rains. You're having your head dashed against the pavement after having your nose broken. You've been yelling for help for a good 40 secs but no one comes. At what point should you stop to consider whether or not to use deadly force? Hmm, well before the fight happened GZ made a decision to bring a gun with him, when confronting a stranger with accusatory suspicions. The gun has a safety switch on it. Either the safety was off the entire time GZ was in possession of it, or he had the time and ability to switch the safety off while in the midst of (allegedly) fighting for his life. GZ had the time and luxury of ending the fight in this fatal manner. Trayvon, quite obviously, didn't. Again, we don't know what happened to start the fight, or how the fight went. The only facts we know are that GZ shot Trayvon, and that GZ had somehow sustained some injuries. We have no real witnesses as to how GZ sustained those injuries. I understand that to claim murder under such cloudy circumstances is wrong. We can't prove GZ is a murderer. But he is certainly someone who should never be allowed to carry a gun. He certainly proved himself grossly incompetent, and that's the best that can be said about him. I really don't care about this actual trial. It's actually meaningless in a lot of ways. Trayvon is dead, and GZ -- while I do think he may be guilty of simple manslaughter, he isn't a malicious killer. I don't worry about him to the point that I think he needs to be locked up, I just don't want this idiot ever following anyone with a gun ever again. I hope everyone can agree with that, at least. @ the bold: Wat? Have you never held a gun before, or are you trying to make the safety seem like some sort of complex mechanism for the purpose of your own agenda? The safety can literally be flicked with the thumb in a millisecond. Anyone trained with firearms is trained to immediately flick the safety off AS they are drawing their weapon. Under the circumstances and given the evidence, I'd say GZ is exactly the type of person I'd want to be able to carry a gun. He screamed for help for a good 40 seconds and only fired his weapon after receiving substantial damage to his head/face while being pinned down and (allegedly) hearing a threat on his own life. Afterwards he kept his cool, waited for the police, and reported the incident to the police. You are talking as if the gun was sitting on his dash and he purposely grabbed for it before heading out while saying "I'm gonna get me a punk tonight" He was fucking wearing it as a means of protection. I've actually fired guns of all kinds, from handguns, to an M249 MG. Yes, safeties are easy to flick off, but they exist for a reason -- you have to consciously flick that safety. GZ had a hand free, and was able to shoot Trayvon. I'm glad you were there to witness it, to know that GZ was justified in shooting this guy. Seriously, have you given the police this testimony? Because the only facts I know of are that GZ followed a kid he didn't even know, and ended up shooting him. GZ has clearly demonstrated he is not the type of person to be carrying a gun. Guns are for self-defense, not for following people that wear hoodies. GZ was only defending himself IF YOU BELIEVE HIS TESTIMONY -- which you obviously do, fully. Going by the facts, GZ was defending himself against a random stranger that he decided to follow. That is not a good gun owner. A responsible gun owner would've brought a witness or some backup, not confronted somebody by himself. GZ was told to wait for the police, he didn't. He went alone, and shot an unarmed man. Yes, that's a really intelligent person. You must be a genius too. There were witnesses, see John Good for example. GZ didn't bring John Good with him. That somebody may have witnessed it is simply fortunate for GZ, not a result of his good decision-making.
Poor decision making doesn't mean it wasn't self defense. I was with you until I got more facts, specifically that everyone sided with GZ version of the events, including John Good. The DA's case is kinda shit.
|
On July 02 2013 09:11 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:31 Dosey wrote:On July 02 2013 08:19 Leporello wrote:On July 02 2013 08:03 SilverLeagueElite wrote:On July 02 2013 07:36 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 07:27 SKC wrote:On July 02 2013 07:25 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 07:15 SilverLeagueElite wrote:
Tragic for the Martins but I'm kinda starting to feel bad for Zimmerman. He has a history of being sympathetic towards blacks but is having his life ruined because of perceived racism on his part. I don't feel bad for Zimmerman at all. He at least is getting his day in court, and is being tried by a court of law and his peers for his indiscretions Martin was sentenced to death by Zimmerman. It's like people are forgetting that he did technically kill a 17 year old who's only plans that night were to visit his dad. It might have been in self-defence but still. Worst. Neighborhood. Watch. Ever. Assuming Zimmerman's words are true, Martin sentenced himself to death. Well, that's when it becomes a question of morals. If someone you were following turns around and beats you up, does that mean he deserves to get shot in the chest? Punishment doesn't fit the crime, IMO. George Zimmerman may be innocent, and is probably only guilty of defending himself in the heat of the moment. But personally, I don't think Trayvon deserved to die for for how he reacted. It's a pitch black night with heavy rains. You're having your head dashed against the pavement after having your nose broken. You've been yelling for help for a good 40 secs but no one comes. At what point should you stop to consider whether or not to use deadly force? Hmm, well before the fight happened GZ made a decision to bring a gun with him, when confronting a stranger with accusatory suspicions. The gun has a safety switch on it. Either the safety was off the entire time GZ was in possession of it, or he had the time and ability to switch the safety off while in the midst of (allegedly) fighting for his life. GZ had the time and luxury of ending the fight in this fatal manner. Trayvon, quite obviously, didn't. Again, we don't know what happened to start the fight, or how the fight went. The only facts we know are that GZ shot Trayvon, and that GZ had somehow sustained some injuries. We have no real witnesses as to how GZ sustained those injuries. I understand that to claim murder under such cloudy circumstances is wrong. We can't prove GZ is a murderer. But he is certainly someone who should never be allowed to carry a gun. He certainly proved himself grossly incompetent, and that's the best that can be said about him. I really don't care about this actual trial. It's actually meaningless in a lot of ways. Trayvon is dead, and GZ -- while I do think he may be guilty of simple manslaughter, he isn't a malicious killer. I don't worry about him to the point that I think he needs to be locked up, I just don't want this idiot ever following anyone with a gun ever again. I hope everyone can agree with that, at least. @ the bold: Wat? Have you never held a gun before, or are you trying to make the safety seem like some sort of complex mechanism for the purpose of your own agenda? The safety can literally be flicked with the thumb in a millisecond. Anyone trained with firearms is trained to immediately flick the safety off AS they are drawing their weapon. Under the circumstances and given the evidence, I'd say GZ is exactly the type of person I'd want to be able to carry a gun. He screamed for help for a good 40 seconds and only fired his weapon after receiving substantial damage to his head/face while being pinned down and (allegedly) hearing a threat on his own life. Afterwards he kept his cool, waited for the police, and reported the incident to the police. You are talking as if the gun was sitting on his dash and he purposely grabbed for it before heading out while saying "I'm gonna get me a punk tonight" He was fucking wearing it as a means of protection. I've actually fired guns of all kinds, from handguns, to an M249 MG. Yes, safeties are easy to flick off, but they exist for a reason -- you have to consciously flick that safety. GZ had a hand free, and was able to shoot Trayvon -- that is a fact. That he was actually defending himself -- that is NOT a fact. See the difference? I'm glad you were there to witness it, to know that GZ was justified in shooting this guy. Seriously, have you given the police this testimony? Because the only facts I know of are that GZ followed a kid he didn't even know, and ended up shooting him. GZ has clearly demonstrated he is not the type of person to be carrying a gun. Guns are for self-defense, not for following people that wear hoodies. GZ was only defending himself IF YOU BELIEVE HIS TESTIMONY -- which you obviously do, fully. Going by the facts, GZ was defending himself against a random stranger that he decided to follow. That is not a good gun owner. A responsible gun owner would've brought a witness or some backup, not confronted somebody by himself. GZ was told to wait for the police, he didn't. He went alone, and shot an unarmed man. GZ is NOT a responsible gun owner, which is evidenced by the fact that he finds himself IN this situation. Responsible gun owners don't shoot unarmed people without witnesses. Yes, that's a really intelligent person. You must be a genius too.
Good lord. At least take the time to read up on the facts of the case and the testimony before you start posting so that you're not just shitting up the thread with baseless speculation like the above. Let's just start with the very basic fact that Zimmerman's gun does not have a safety, like pretty much every modern semi-automatic pistol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
