|
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 12 2013 05:34 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:30 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:24 Kaitlin wrote:On July 12 2013 05:23 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:22 Kaitlin wrote:On July 12 2013 05:21 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:18 SKC wrote:On July 12 2013 05:16 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:12 SKC wrote:On July 12 2013 05:09 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
Yeah...you're not disagreeing with me. If all you want is a non-zero possibility then we should all be carrying guns at all times and that would be effing weird. Zimmerman must have considered the possibility of violence high enough that a gun was necessary.
Bear in mind that many police forces outside the states don't even consider the possibility of violence high enough to warrant a gun in their own day to day activities. That threshold has to be high. High enough that I think Zimmerman was going to...help the violence along. I think he got lucky that Martin overreacted and that's the only reason he's getting off.
He did bad, but Martin did worse.
How did he get lucky that Martin overreacted? His live got pretty much screwed because of it, even if he is not convicted. If Martin had not overreacted, nothing would have happened. Do you seriously believe he would randomly shoot him for no reason just because he was carrying a gun? Just because he was carrying a gun? No I think he was looking for trouble based on his arrogant actions combined with the fact that he was carrying a gun in a role (neighborhood watchmen) that doesn't use guns. And I use lucky in a relative sense here. had Martin not overreacted but violence still happened, Zimmerman would be guilty. How exactly do you think violence would still happen had Martin not attacked him? Zimmerman would aproach him, arrogantly, in your own words, maybe even hold him until the police arrives, and nothing would happen. He could be accused of racism or being a vigilante, but I don't believe there is evidence that Zimmermann would actually attack him. Because Martin would, justifiably, resist being held, especially if Zimmerman's only claim to hold him was that he "looked suspicious." And again, ya'll are like totally missing the "carrying a gun" thing. Even in Texas it's not normal to just see people carrying guns. It's still rare even here. It's effing weird that he was carrying a gun, license or no. Need a definition of CONCEALED ??? Oh please. It's trivial to spot a concealed weapon on someone unless they're wearing particularly baggy clothes. I have seen people carrying before. It's super easy to spot. Do you search purses ? You simply have no idea about much, apparently. Obviously, Trayvon wasn't able to realize GZ was armed, otherwise he wouldn't have done what he did. Yeah now you're diverging from my point. I'm not talking about Martin knowing whether or not Zimmerman was carrying. I'm talking about the fact that Zimmerman was carrying at all. I'm saying people do not just walk around with guns. The ones I have seen were just kinda shoved in their pants and pretty clearly showing so it's not like the people that have them feel the need to hide them. I'm saying it's unusual for Zimmerman to be carrying a gun at all unless he thought the probability of violence was unusually high. Given that probability, I feel that his actions were reckless and that he put himself in an unnecessary amount of danger. Again, this is just my opinion. I don't like Zimmerman. I don't think he acted appropriately at all. Under the law he's probably innocent. But by my judgement he's an asshole. http://legallyarmed.com/ccw_statistics.htmMillions of people have concealed weapon permits.
Having a permit to carry a gun and actually carrying said gun are wildly different things.
|
just got back to the office. what is the tl;dr version of today? there are 400 unread messages. o.O
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 12 2013 05:34 LeroyJenkem wrote:
Does anyone else feel like theres a hidden agenda behind this entire event / trial? Its obvious Zimmerman was charged solely for political reasons and to appease a certain percentage of the public. I just feel like the outcome of this trial has been predetermined (Zimmerman gets acquitted). And once he does theres a high chance of a certain percentage of the public rioting / protesting to the point it turns violent. Maybe im just being paranoid but this whole ordeal just smells a little bit fishy to me.
Not a conspiracy per se, just a bunch of people acting in their own self-interest.
The media wants ratings, and racist crime fits the bill.
The prosecutors want reputation. This is a nice way to get it.
The special prosecutor who brought this to trial is well-known for being overzealous in her pursuit of criminals.
There were no charges brought because no one had anything substantial to pin on GZ.
|
On July 12 2013 05:38 dAPhREAk wrote:
just got back to the office. what is the tl;dr version of today? there are 400 unread messages. o.O
Jury instruction arguments, prosecution tries to add 3rd degree murder by child abuse to charges, West pisses the judge off some more.
Judge denies request for 3rd degree. Prosecution makes closing arguments.
|
On July 12 2013 05:39 ConGee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:38 dAPhREAk wrote:
just got back to the office. what is the tl;dr version of today? there are 400 unread messages. o.O Jury instruction arguments, prosecution tries to add 3rd degree murder by child abuse to charges, West pisses the judge off some more. Judge denies request for 3rd degree. Prosecution makes closing arguments.
wtf is third degree murder? lol.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 12 2013 05:38 dAPhREAk wrote:
just got back to the office. what is the tl;dr version of today? there are 400 unread messages. o.O
Prosecution wanted to pin some BS charges on GZ (Murder 3 + Child abuse) that get denied.
Closing statement heavy on conjecture, light on evidence.
Lots of accusations of foul play.
|
On July 12 2013 05:36 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:30 Klondikebar wrote:
Yeah now you're diverging from my point. I'm not talking about Martin knowing whether or not Zimmerman was carrying. I'm talking about the fact that Zimmerman was carrying at all. I'm saying people do not just walk around with guns. The ones I have seen were just kinda shoved in their pants and pretty clearly showing so it's not like the people that have them feel the need to hide them.
I'm saying it's unusual for Zimmerman to be carrying a gun at all unless he thought the probability of violence was unusually high. Given that probability, I feel that his actions were reckless and that he put himself in an unnecessary amount of danger.
Based on what you've written, I'll just conclude that you're woefully uninformed. Many more people than you realize "just walk around with guns". People who are concealed carry permit holders generally are armed by default, unless they know ahead of time they are going somewhere or will be in a situation where it's inappropriate, such as going out drinking. GZ was going to Target to shop. He was armed by default. He was already armed when he encountered TM.
Why the fuck would you take a gun to a Target?! Am I really the only person who thinks that's weird?! Thinking a gun is a necessity at all times is not normal unless you've been specifically trained to have one at all times (i.e. military). Maybe I'm just in the wrong crowd. But given how many times I've gone in public and not been the victim of random violence I think you'd have to be extraordinarily paranoid to think a gun would do more good than harm on a day to day basis. And this is coming from a Texan who prides himself on being the best shot in his family...most of whom are gun nuts.
"Time to go shopping for well priced home goods! Got my keys, wallet, phone, and gun!"
|
On July 12 2013 05:21 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:18 SKC wrote:On July 12 2013 05:16 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:12 SKC wrote:On July 12 2013 05:09 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:02 Millitron wrote:On July 12 2013 05:01 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 04:59 Millitron wrote:On July 12 2013 04:55 ComaDose wrote:On July 12 2013 04:49 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
I still have trouble with this "instigation" thing. Zimmerman was safe, in a car, on the phone with police. He wasn't even on Martin's radar and other than "he looks suspicious" (an incredibly vague modifier) he had no reason to follow him. Like...no matter who won the fight or who actually escalated it to violence, surely Zimmerman is partly responsible for the confrontation. The fact that he was carrying a gun with him means he anticipated violence. But he went anyway?
And unless Florida has really aggressive neighborhood watches, I thought that neighborhood watchmen didn't even confront criminals. They just looked out for them and then reported to police.
I feel the same way you do but the law doesn't look at it that way and thats all that really matters. Zimmerman was legally allowed to follow Martin. You've never coincidentally been going the same direction as someone? That's indistinguishable from following. Zimmerman was legally allowed to carry that gun. Carrying a gun does not mean he anticipated violence. You wear your seatbelt right? Do you anticipate getting in a car crash? Umm...yes wearing a seat belt means you are anticipating a car crash. No, it means you are aware it is a possibility and want to be prepared, not that you expect it to happen. Yeah...you're not disagreeing with me. If all you want is a non-zero possibility then we should all be carrying guns at all times and that would be effing weird. Zimmerman must have considered the possibility of violence high enough that a gun was necessary. Bear in mind that many police forces outside the states don't even consider the possibility of violence high enough to warrant a gun in their own day to day activities. That threshold has to be high. High enough that I think Zimmerman was going to...help the violence along. I think he got lucky that Martin overreacted and that's the only reason he's getting off. He did bad, but Martin did worse. How did he get lucky that Martin overreacted? His live got pretty much screwed because of it, even if he is not convicted. If Martin had not overreacted, nothing would have happened. Do you seriously believe he would randomly shoot him for no reason just because he was carrying a gun? Just because he was carrying a gun? No I think he was looking for trouble based on his arrogant actions combined with the fact that he was carrying a gun in a role (neighborhood watchmen) that doesn't use guns. And I use lucky in a relative sense here. had Martin not overreacted but violence still happened, Zimmerman would be guilty. How exactly do you think violence would still happen had Martin not attacked him? Zimmerman would aproach him, arrogantly, in your own words, maybe even hold him until the police arrives, and nothing would happen. He could be accused of racism or being a vigilante, but I don't believe there is evidence that Zimmermann would actually attack him. Because Martin would, justifiably, resist being held, especially if Zimmerman's only claim to hold him was that he "looked suspicious." And again, ya'll are like totally missing the "carrying a gun" thing. Even in Texas it's not normal to just see people carrying guns. It's still rare even here. It's effing weird that he was carrying a gun, license or no.
I lived in Dallas for almost 15 years, and I think almost everyone I knew had a CHL, and carried daily (Including myself). I now live in Philadelphia, where I would say about half of everyone I know carrys.
Florida alone has over a million people with CHLs.
Source
|
How about because some "creepy ass cracker" was following him simply because he was "walking while black in a gated community" and he was upset at being treated in this way. Perhaps he wanted to beat him up for treating him this way, when he had done nothing wrong to deserve such a treatment ? It's pretty obvious that this black youth felt the GZ had wronged him by following him and calling the police on him. Is that hard to believe ? Because, to me, it's very likely what brought about the physical attack initiated by Trayvon.
You cant physically attack another person in the real world just because you felt you had been "wronged" by someone. Its against the law. Unless someone physically attacks you first, which then you have the right to defend yourself. Martin was kid and he was underage. He had been in fights before and probably thought that he would just get released to his parents for getting in a fist fight. Too bad Zimmerman happened to have a firearm on him.
|
oh, third degree murder is felony murder. what is the felony they are alleging? child abuse?
|
On July 12 2013 05:38 dAPhREAk wrote:
just got back to the office. what is the tl;dr version of today? there are 400 unread messages. o.O
The DA tried some BS, went for manslaughter, tried for 3rd degree murder via Child abuse. The Judge shot down the 3rd degree murder charge and said the DA was dumb. Close arguments started and the DA made the argument we all expected and may have pushed the truth slightly beyond what is reasonable.
Most of the debate in the thread has been about dumb stuff. How did you do in Court today? Get anyone sanctioned?
|
On July 12 2013 05:40 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:39 ConGee wrote:On July 12 2013 05:38 dAPhREAk wrote:
just got back to the office. what is the tl;dr version of today? there are 400 unread messages. o.O Jury instruction arguments, prosecution tries to add 3rd degree murder by child abuse to charges, West pisses the judge off some more. Judge denies request for 3rd degree. Prosecution makes closing arguments. wtf is third degree murder? lol.
from the way they described it seemed like a negligent homicide when child abuse occurred. sort of like if you abused your child and as a result the child died.
it was really, really, really, really, stupid.
|
On July 12 2013 05:36 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:34 Millitron wrote:On July 12 2013 05:30 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:24 Kaitlin wrote:On July 12 2013 05:23 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:22 Kaitlin wrote:On July 12 2013 05:21 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:18 SKC wrote:On July 12 2013 05:16 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:12 SKC wrote:
[quote]
How did he get lucky that Martin overreacted? His live got pretty much screwed because of it, even if he is not convicted.
If Martin had not overreacted, nothing would have happened. Do you seriously believe he would randomly shoot him for no reason just because he was carrying a gun? Just because he was carrying a gun? No I think he was looking for trouble based on his arrogant actions combined with the fact that he was carrying a gun in a role (neighborhood watchmen) that doesn't use guns. And I use lucky in a relative sense here. had Martin not overreacted but violence still happened, Zimmerman would be guilty. How exactly do you think violence would still happen had Martin not attacked him? Zimmerman would aproach him, arrogantly, in your own words, maybe even hold him until the police arrives, and nothing would happen. He could be accused of racism or being a vigilante, but I don't believe there is evidence that Zimmermann would actually attack him. Because Martin would, justifiably, resist being held, especially if Zimmerman's only claim to hold him was that he "looked suspicious." And again, ya'll are like totally missing the "carrying a gun" thing. Even in Texas it's not normal to just see people carrying guns. It's still rare even here. It's effing weird that he was carrying a gun, license or no. Need a definition of CONCEALED ??? Oh please. It's trivial to spot a concealed weapon on someone unless they're wearing particularly baggy clothes. I have seen people carrying before. It's super easy to spot. Do you search purses ? You simply have no idea about much, apparently. Obviously, Trayvon wasn't able to realize GZ was armed, otherwise he wouldn't have done what he did. Yeah now you're diverging from my point. I'm not talking about Martin knowing whether or not Zimmerman was carrying. I'm talking about the fact that Zimmerman was carrying at all. I'm saying people do not just walk around with guns. The ones I have seen were just kinda shoved in their pants and pretty clearly showing so it's not like the people that have them feel the need to hide them. I'm saying it's unusual for Zimmerman to be carrying a gun at all unless he thought the probability of violence was unusually high. Given that probability, I feel that his actions were reckless and that he put himself in an unnecessary amount of danger. Again, this is just my opinion. I don't like Zimmerman. I don't think he acted appropriately at all. Under the law he's probably innocent. But by my judgement he's an asshole. http://legallyarmed.com/ccw_statistics.htmMillions of people have concealed weapon permits. Having a permit to carry a gun and actually carrying said gun are wildly different things.
Having a permit to own a gun and having a permit to carry a concealed weapon are also wildly different things. At least in Colorado, most of the people with a concealed carry license have one because they intend to carry a weapon with them at all times, aside from instances where it is inappropriate or illegal (courthouses, airports, etc.)
You are out of touch with reality on this issue, there is no evidence for your assumption that by carrying a gun he thought the probability of violence was unusually high.
|
The concpect that carrying a fire arm increases the chance of violence is stupid and a poor argument.
To quote GZ again:
"..He was on top of me, beating me, than he saw my gun and reached for it, and said something like "You gonna die tonight", I got it first and I shot him.."
Carrying a loaded firearm increased the chance of TM´s death from being struck by lighting to survive closeranged shot in the chest.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Is it really so implausible that a kid with a long history of fighting, angered by what he perceives to be a case of a creepy racist white man following him, possibly under the influence of drugs, would start a fight?
If nothing else, that turn of events is at the very least plausible.
|
I don't think I've ever seen someone who wasn't a cop or a soldier with a weapon :o Nobody here has weapons 
|
On July 12 2013 05:40 dotHead wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:21 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:18 SKC wrote:On July 12 2013 05:16 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:12 SKC wrote:On July 12 2013 05:09 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:02 Millitron wrote:On July 12 2013 05:01 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 04:59 Millitron wrote:On July 12 2013 04:55 ComaDose wrote:
[quote]
I feel the same way you do but the law doesn't look at it that way and thats all that really matters. Zimmerman was legally allowed to follow Martin. You've never coincidentally been going the same direction as someone? That's indistinguishable from following. Zimmerman was legally allowed to carry that gun. Carrying a gun does not mean he anticipated violence. You wear your seatbelt right? Do you anticipate getting in a car crash? Umm...yes wearing a seat belt means you are anticipating a car crash. No, it means you are aware it is a possibility and want to be prepared, not that you expect it to happen. Yeah...you're not disagreeing with me. If all you want is a non-zero possibility then we should all be carrying guns at all times and that would be effing weird. Zimmerman must have considered the possibility of violence high enough that a gun was necessary. Bear in mind that many police forces outside the states don't even consider the possibility of violence high enough to warrant a gun in their own day to day activities. That threshold has to be high. High enough that I think Zimmerman was going to...help the violence along. I think he got lucky that Martin overreacted and that's the only reason he's getting off. He did bad, but Martin did worse. How did he get lucky that Martin overreacted? His live got pretty much screwed because of it, even if he is not convicted. If Martin had not overreacted, nothing would have happened. Do you seriously believe he would randomly shoot him for no reason just because he was carrying a gun? Just because he was carrying a gun? No I think he was looking for trouble based on his arrogant actions combined with the fact that he was carrying a gun in a role (neighborhood watchmen) that doesn't use guns. And I use lucky in a relative sense here. had Martin not overreacted but violence still happened, Zimmerman would be guilty. How exactly do you think violence would still happen had Martin not attacked him? Zimmerman would aproach him, arrogantly, in your own words, maybe even hold him until the police arrives, and nothing would happen. He could be accused of racism or being a vigilante, but I don't believe there is evidence that Zimmermann would actually attack him. Because Martin would, justifiably, resist being held, especially if Zimmerman's only claim to hold him was that he "looked suspicious." And again, ya'll are like totally missing the "carrying a gun" thing. Even in Texas it's not normal to just see people carrying guns. It's still rare even here. It's effing weird that he was carrying a gun, license or no. I lived in Dallas for almost 15 years, and I think almost everyone I knew had a CHL, and carried daily (Including myself). I now live in Philadelphia, where I would say about half of everyone I know carrys.
I've lived in Dallas for 24 years and scarce few people I know actually carry their guns on a daily basis even if they have licenses. Now, tons of cars have guns in them. But actual on person guns...nope.
We can both play the anecdotal numbers game about Texas. I bet I win.
|
On July 12 2013 05:40 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:39 ConGee wrote:On July 12 2013 05:38 dAPhREAk wrote:
just got back to the office. what is the tl;dr version of today? there are 400 unread messages. o.O Jury instruction arguments, prosecution tries to add 3rd degree murder by child abuse to charges, West pisses the judge off some more. Judge denies request for 3rd degree. Prosecution makes closing arguments. wtf is third degree murder? lol.
Super dumb. Its the crime of passion murder charge, slightly above manslaughter and rarely used. It is what my attorney would refer to as a "creative legal argument for the losing side".
|
On July 12 2013 05:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:38 dAPhREAk wrote:
just got back to the office. what is the tl;dr version of today? there are 400 unread messages. o.O The DA tried some BS, went for manslaughter, tried for 3rd degree murder via Child abuse. The Judge shot down the 3rd degree murder charge and said the DA was dumb. Close arguments started and the DA made the argument we all expected and may have pushed the truth slightly beyond what is reasonable. Most of the debate in the thread has been about dumb stuff. How did you do in Court today? Get anyone sanctioned?
expert deposition. finished my questions in person, now im on phone for remainder. cant watch. =(
did the court agree to instruct on manslaughter? or are they doing all or nothing like some people are thinking?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 12 2013 05:43 Microchaton wrote:I don't think I've ever seen someone who wasn't a cop or a soldier with a weapon :o Nobody here has weapons
This happened in the US, where much of the country considers the right to carry a firearm to be one of the most fundamental rights that they have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
