|
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 05:32 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:29 QQKachoo 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. I don't understand why he punched him in the first place. This is assuming Zimmerman didn't grab him first and the beginning of the altercation as stated is true. 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.
can't tell if you are being sarcastic or serious
|
On July 12 2013 05:43 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:40 dotHead 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:On July 12 2013 05:02 Millitron wrote:On July 12 2013 05:01 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 04:59 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
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.
What does this have to do with the price of tea in china? The man had a gun, it was legal and he could carry it legally. You can't claim that people have weird intent when they are doing something that is totally allowed by law. If he had stabbed Martin, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
|
On July 12 2013 05:40 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:36 Kaitlin wrote: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!"
People with concealed permits bring their weapons everywhere. Remember the story a few years back where an elderly lady stopped a gunman IN A CHURCH by shooting him?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 12 2013 05:44 dAPhREAk wrote:did the court agree to instruct on manslaughter?
Yes.
|
On July 12 2013 05:40 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:36 Kaitlin wrote: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!"
No, it isn't a necessity, but it's always good to have a habit of doing things so you don't forget them when you need them
|
What's this press conference about?
|
On July 12 2013 05:40 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:36 Kaitlin wrote: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!"
You never know when you will need it. To quote my female colleague at my previous job: "I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it" You don't get a concealed carry license for the sole purpose of saying you have it, you actually put it to use.
|
On July 12 2013 05:45 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:43 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:40 dotHead 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:On July 12 2013 05:02 Millitron wrote:On July 12 2013 05:01 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
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. What does this have to do with the price of tea in china? The man had a gun, it was legal and he could carry it legally. You can't claim that people have weird intent when they are doing something that is totally allowed by law. If he had stabbed Martin, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Yes we would. I'd be saying "why the fuck did Zimmerman think he needed a knife?!"
Concealed carry stats aside (although I still don't think I'm wrong) the only reason you'd carry a weapon around is if you thought violence was a big enough possibility that you figured the protection the weapon provided outweighed the potential danger it causes itself. It is a well known fact that the human brain grossly overestimates the probability that bad things will happen to us so it's no surprise that people on a day to day basis carry around guns convinced that they're gonna get to be batman for a day. But that doesn't change the fact that it's irrational and, in my opinion, weird as fucking hell to be that paranoid.
Zimmerman doing something legal doesn't mean he wasn't irresponsible. The law allows us to do all sorts of irresponsible things. I think Zimmerman is kinda a racist asshole who acted irresponsibly.
|
On July 12 2013 05:43 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:40 dotHead 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:On July 12 2013 05:02 Millitron wrote:On July 12 2013 05:01 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 04:59 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
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.
Texas has almost a million people with CHL's, while not a high percentage of the population, I would still say that shows that people do carry, or at least have the ability to.
It looks like there are only about 6 million chls in all of the USA, but it seems to be going up.
No point in arguing.
|
On July 12 2013 05:44 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:41 Plansix 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 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?
Depositions SUCK, but at least your witness is an expert and not someone who had no idea what they should be answering. Getting people sanctioned is way more fun.
You didn't miss much really, just a lot of windbagging. At the end of the day, it is what we expected.
|
On July 12 2013 05:43 LegalLord wrote:
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.
Once again, in the REAL WORLD, you do not have the right to attack or start a fight with someone because they are creeping you out, or they are following you. It is a good explanation of why martin attacked him, but once again in the real world you cant just hit someone under any circumstances unless you are attacked first and have to defend yourself. I dont see how some people can hold the opinion that Martin was in the right to attack Zimmerman. If martin felt threatened then he should have called the police, not just start swinging.
|
On July 12 2013 05:49 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:45 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2013 05:43 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:40 dotHead 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:On July 12 2013 05:02 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
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. What does this have to do with the price of tea in china? The man had a gun, it was legal and he could carry it legally. You can't claim that people have weird intent when they are doing something that is totally allowed by law. If he had stabbed Martin, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Yes we would. I'd be saying "why the fuck did Zimmerman think he needed a knife?!"
I have a knife in my bag right now. I am in the office. Do you know why I have it? Because I don't know when I will need a knife. Same with fire and tape.
None fo this stuff is illegal or unreasonable. I don't know what you are fishing for. Just because it doesn't make sense to you does mean there is something wrong.
|
On July 12 2013 05:45 QQKachoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:32 Kaitlin wrote:On July 12 2013 05:29 QQKachoo 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. I don't understand why he punched him in the first place. This is assuming Zimmerman didn't grab him first and the beginning of the altercation as stated is true. 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. can't tell if you are being sarcastic or serious
I was serious. I wasn't justifying Trayvon's reason for punching Zimmerman in the face, just explaining why I think he did it. Of course it was absolutely unjustified, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. It happened because Trayvon reacted in the way I described.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 12 2013 05:51 LeroyJenkem wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:43 LegalLord wrote:
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. Once again, in the REAL WORLD, you do not have the right to attack or start a fight with someone because they are creeping you out, or they are following you. It is a good explanation of why martin attacked him, but once again in the real world you cant just hit someone under any circumstances unless you are attacked first and have to defend yourself. I dont see how some people can hold the opinion that Martin was in the right to attack Zimmerman.
Who said it was right for him to do so?
I certainly don't think it is.
|
On July 12 2013 05:51 LeroyJenkem wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:43 LegalLord wrote:
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. Once again, in the REAL WORLD, you do not have the right to attack or start a fight with someone because they are creeping you out, or they are following you. It is a good explanation of why martin attacked him, but once again in the real world you cant just hit someone under any circumstances unless you are attacked first and have to defend yourself. I dont see how some people can hold the opinion that Martin was in the right to attack Zimmerman. If martin felt threatened then he should have called the police, not just start swinging.
Stop responding to people who are trying to explain why Trayvon did what he did as if they are justifying what Trayvon did. Of course Trayvon was wrong to do it. These are merely explanations as to why he did it, not justifications.
|
On July 12 2013 05:53 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:51 LeroyJenkem wrote:On July 12 2013 05:43 LegalLord wrote:
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. Once again, in the REAL WORLD, you do not have the right to attack or start a fight with someone because they are creeping you out, or they are following you. It is a good explanation of why martin attacked him, but once again in the real world you cant just hit someone under any circumstances unless you are attacked first and have to defend yourself. I dont see how some people can hold the opinion that Martin was in the right to attack Zimmerman. Who said it was right for him to do so? I certainly don't think it is.
I apologize then. I misunderstood you and thought you were saying that in your opinion Martin was in the right. Sorry.
|
On July 12 2013 05:52 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:49 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:45 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2013 05:43 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:40 dotHead 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. 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. What does this have to do with the price of tea in china? The man had a gun, it was legal and he could carry it legally. You can't claim that people have weird intent when they are doing something that is totally allowed by law. If he had stabbed Martin, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Yes we would. I'd be saying "why the fuck did Zimmerman think he needed a knife?!" I have a knife in my bag right now. I am in the office. Do you know why I have it? Because I don't know when I will need a knife. Same with fire and tape. None fo this stuff is illegal or unreasonable. I don't know what you are fishing for. Just because it doesn't make sense to you does mean there is something wrong.
Is it not against company policy to have a knife on the premises? I'd get fired on the spot if they discovered anything like that in my bag.
|
On July 12 2013 05:43 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:40 dotHead 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:On July 12 2013 05:02 Millitron wrote:On July 12 2013 05:01 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 04:59 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
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.
I live in Dallas as well and recently got my CHL. I carry everyday but that's because the sales territory I work is all of southeast Dallas. I sell windows to apartment buildings. After you measure as many windows that have bullet holes as I have you might change your mind about the need to protect yourself. How's that for anecdotal evidence?
|
depo done. when did prosecutor's closing argument start?
|
On July 12 2013 05:49 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:45 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2013 05:43 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:40 dotHead 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:On July 12 2013 05:02 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
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. What does this have to do with the price of tea in china? The man had a gun, it was legal and he could carry it legally. You can't claim that people have weird intent when they are doing something that is totally allowed by law. If he had stabbed Martin, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Yes we would. I'd be saying "why the fuck did Zimmerman think he needed a knife?!"
Again, it is entirely legal to carry a knife (within blade inch limits per your states laws) and you would never know when you actually need a knife. So you would be just as wrong for this line of thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
