On July 17 2013 04:17 MrCon wrote: Suddenly I see this thread with a whole new perspective, at least it's interesting.
You see that pepper spray can't stop violent people, only slow them down. Serioulsy, without guns, the best response to knife crime is another knife or a large bat.
On July 17 2013 04:08 MrCon wrote: You can use a pepper spray against knife crime. And it's not like a gun would change anything anyway.
lol at pepper spray to thwart a knife crime. what a joke.
Come on, don't be dumb on purpose. If I point my gun on you from 3-5 meters, you do nothing. I can't do that with a knife, and if I do, my opponent has ample time to spray me. Wth is this discussion where people are trying to tell you that a knife is the same thing as a gun.
Have you ever been sprayed with pepper spray? Its not magic. If that person wants to stab you, they are going to do it, pepper spray or not. If they are drunk or on drugs, it is every more likely that spray will do nothing.
I have been on both end. You suddenly can't breath anymore, it's like your throat is blocked, which usually induce such a panic that you don't do anything because you want to stay alive (spray isn't lethal, but its effect make you think you'll die of asphyxiation). Also you can't see anymore because your eyes are too wet. Not sure it's pepper pray, we call that "lacrymogene"
edit : and now the french jokes. Really, it's funny how the people that seemed reasonable are suddenly turning ugly in light of this discussion. Time to get out.
On July 17 2013 04:17 MrCon wrote: Suddenly I see this thread with a whole new perspective, at least it's interesting.
You see that pepper spray can't stop violent people, only slow them down. Serioulsy, without guns, the best response to knife crime is another knife or a large bat.
And if you defend yourself with a knife or a large bat you are still extremely likely to suffer serious injuries..Whereas with a gun you have a good chance of preventing major injuries to yourself.
On July 17 2013 04:08 MrCon wrote: You can use a pepper spray against knife crime. And it's not like a gun would change anything anyway.
lol at pepper spray to thwart a knife crime. what a joke.
Come on, don't be dumb on purpose. If I point my gun on you from 3-5 meters, you do nothing. I can't do that with a knife, and if I do, my opponent has ample time to spray me. Wth is this discussion where people are trying to tell you that a knife is the same thing as a gun.
Have you ever been sprayed with pepper spray? Its not magic. If that person wants to stab you, they are going to do it, pepper spray or not. If they are drunk or on drugs, it is every more likely that spray will do nothing.
I have been on both end. You suddenly can't breath anymore, it's like your throat is blocked, which usually induce such a panic that you don't do anything because you want to stay alive (spray isn't lethal, but its effect make you think you'll die of asphyxiation). Also you can't see anymore because your eyes are too wet. Not sure it's pepper pray, we call that "lacrymogene"
C'mon dude at least watch the video I posted. That girl didn't look like she thought she was gonna die.
There's no need to misquote him. He said "Not until the number of white kids that die equals the number of black kids"
That is not "More white kids must die".
Be honest.
Its still a stupid statement in any context. In implies that more kids must die, not number of black children dying must go down. But it is MSNBC, so I am not really shocked. They have a demographic to pander to.
There's no need to misquote him. He said "Not until the number of white kids that die equals the number of black kids"
That is not "More white kids must die".
Be honest.
That is exactly the same thing.. Not until the numbers are equal suggests that more need to die to make the numbers equal.
Couldn't fewer black kids die? Get out of here with your trash.
Fewer black kids dying does not subtract from the total number dead, I don't see your point. That would just be reducing the death rate, not total number.
On July 17 2013 04:08 MrCon wrote: You can use a pepper spray against knife crime. And it's not like a gun would change anything anyway.
lol at pepper spray to thwart a knife crime. what a joke.
Come on, don't be dumb on purpose. If I point my gun on you from 3-5 meters, you do nothing. I can't do that with a knife, and if I do, my opponent has ample time to spray me. Wth is this discussion where people are trying to tell you that a knife is the same thing as a gun.
i dont think a knife is the same thing as a gun. but the idea that you are going to stop a dude coming at you with a knife with pepper spray is so incredibly stupid that i burst out laughing. i have been shot with pepper spray before (one of th ebenefits of growing up in the american ghetto), and although incredibly painful, it does nothing to incapacitate me. it would piss me off though. and its always good to piss off someone coming at you with a knife.
There's no need to misquote him. He said "Not until the number of white kids that die equals the number of black kids"
That is not "More white kids must die".
Be honest.
That is exactly the same thing.. Not until the numbers are equal suggests that more need to die to make the numbers equal.
Couldn't fewer black kids die? Get out of here with your trash.
Fewer black kids dying does not subtract from the total number dead, I don't see your point. That would just be reducing the death rate, not total number.
Did he say that "The number of white kids who die must equal the number of white kids who die assuming that the total number of people dead remains the same?"
what you all fail to realize is the moment zimmerman "stalked" treyvon, was the moment he was the aggressor. The argument is such that treyvon could have simply just "walked away", well he was actively walking away the whole time.
It a pretty f***** up world when I can run down someone, confront them, begin to defend/attack rather then avoiding confrontation, begin to lose the mutual combat, then shoot the person to death 300 meters away from where I started running after the kid.
Did you just make all that up as you went? That isn't the facts of the case at all. You need to read up on it, rather than just believing what other people tell you.
"About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[13] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[74] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[75] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[13] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[76] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[13] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[13]"
Sounds pretty much like Zimmerman followed Trayvon.
Your own quote says Zimmermann lost him at some point. It doesn't have a timeline. It in no way disproves the fact that Trayvon could have just walked away to his house. If you want more detailed information you need something better than Wikipedia.
Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point?
That there is other evidence that Trayvon got into a conflict with Zimmerman, got the upper hand and was beating Zimmerman against the ground. This was backed up by an eye witness and the police reports. The jury members said that they believed Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he defended himself.
The stuff how provided doesn't prove anything except that Zimmerman followed Martin, which isn't illegal.
But it should be. Why is an untrained person allowed to play police? For me that sounds like climbing into a tiger cage, killing the tiger when he attacks you and saying: "I didn't do anything wrong, it attacked me!" Of course it's true, but Zimmerman got himself into a dangerous confrontation that escalated because both people didn't know how to handle the situation. I don't see why something like this is not illegal.
If the situation could be avoided that should be the first option. If the "defender" willingly engages in the confrontation, he risks the health of himself and others involved.
Following someone is not the same as playing police. It's public space and Zimmerman had every right to be there. It would have been smarter for him not to have been there, but it shouldn't be made a crime.
Are gated communities public space?
usually, no. which is why a federal civil rights claim is likely going to fail. they only cover public spaces, not private.
On July 17 2013 04:08 MrCon wrote: You can use a pepper spray against knife crime. And it's not like a gun would change anything anyway.
lol at pepper spray to thwart a knife crime. what a joke.
Come on, don't be dumb on purpose. If I point my gun on you from 3-5 meters, you do nothing. I can't do that with a knife, and if I do, my opponent has ample time to spray me. Wth is this discussion where people are trying to tell you that a knife is the same thing as a gun.
Have you ever been sprayed with pepper spray? Its not magic. If that person wants to stab you, they are going to do it, pepper spray or not. If they are drunk or on drugs, it is every more likely that spray will do nothing.
I have been on both end. You suddenly can't breath anymore, it's like your throat is blocked, which usually induce such a panic that you don't do anything because you want to stay alive (spray isn't lethal, but its effect make you think you'll die of asphyxiation). Also you can't see anymore because your eyes are too wet. Not sure it's pepper pray, we call that "lacrymogene"
edit : and now the french jokes. Really, it's funny how the people that seemed reasonable are suddenly turning ugly in light of this discussion. Time to get out.
Well, you made a quip about every mother in the US owning a Kalashnikov.
FWIW you are right that a non lethal solution is generally the best. But that's generally the solution used in the US. Yes, lethal solutions are also used, but that's not unreasonable as the US is different than France.
There's no need to misquote him. He said "Not until the number of white kids that die equals the number of black kids"
That is not "More white kids must die".
Be honest.
That is exactly the same thing.. Not until the numbers are equal suggests that more need to die to make the numbers equal.
Couldn't fewer black kids die? Get out of here with your trash.
Fewer black kids dying does not subtract from the total number dead, I don't see your point. That would just be reducing the death rate, not total number.
Did he say that "The number of white kids who die must equal the number of white kids who die assuming that the total number of people dead remains the same?"
I don't hear that.
He says " not until and unless the number of white kids died that approximates the number of black and other kids that died". That clearly implies that more white kids need to die for whites to understand the situation.
what you all fail to realize is the moment zimmerman "stalked" treyvon, was the moment he was the aggressor. The argument is such that treyvon could have simply just "walked away", well he was actively walking away the whole time.
It a pretty f***** up world when I can run down someone, confront them, begin to defend/attack rather then avoiding confrontation, begin to lose the mutual combat, then shoot the person to death 300 meters away from where I started running after the kid.
Did you just make all that up as you went? That isn't the facts of the case at all. You need to read up on it, rather than just believing what other people tell you.
"About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[13] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[74] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[75] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[13] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[76] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[13] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[13]"
Sounds pretty much like Zimmerman followed Trayvon.
Your own quote says Zimmermann lost him at some point. It doesn't have a timeline. It in no way disproves the fact that Trayvon could have just walked away to his house. If you want more detailed information you need something better than Wikipedia.
Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point?
That there is other evidence that Trayvon got into a conflict with Zimmerman, got the upper hand and was beating Zimmerman against the ground. This was backed up by an eye witness and the police reports. The jury members said that they believed Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he defended himself.
The stuff how provided doesn't prove anything except that Zimmerman followed Martin, which isn't illegal.
But it should be. Why is an untrained person allowed to play police? For me that sounds like climbing into a tiger cage, killing the tiger when he attacks you and saying: "I didn't do anything wrong, it attacked me!" Of course it's true, but Zimmerman got himself into a dangerous confrontation that escalated because both people didn't know how to handle the situation. I don't see why something like this is not illegal.
If the situation could be avoided that should be the first option. If the "defender" willingly engages in the confrontation, he risks the health of himself and others involved.
Following someone is not the same as playing police. It's public space and Zimmerman had every right to be there. It would have been smarter for him not to have been there, but it shouldn't be made a crime.
Are gated communities public space?
usually, no. which is why a federal civil rights claim is likely going to fail. they only cover public spaces, not private.
Oh I forgot that part about federal law. That is a rough issue to overcome for sure.
what you all fail to realize is the moment zimmerman "stalked" treyvon, was the moment he was the aggressor. The argument is such that treyvon could have simply just "walked away", well he was actively walking away the whole time.
It a pretty f***** up world when I can run down someone, confront them, begin to defend/attack rather then avoiding confrontation, begin to lose the mutual combat, then shoot the person to death 300 meters away from where I started running after the kid.
Did you just make all that up as you went? That isn't the facts of the case at all. You need to read up on it, rather than just believing what other people tell you.
"About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[13] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[74] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[75] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[13] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[76] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[13] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[13]"
Sounds pretty much like Zimmerman followed Trayvon.
Your own quote says Zimmermann lost him at some point. It doesn't have a timeline. It in no way disproves the fact that Trayvon could have just walked away to his house. If you want more detailed information you need something better than Wikipedia.
Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point?
That there is other evidence that Trayvon got into a conflict with Zimmerman, got the upper hand and was beating Zimmerman against the ground. This was backed up by an eye witness and the police reports. The jury members said that they believed Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he defended himself.
The stuff how provided doesn't prove anything except that Zimmerman followed Martin, which isn't illegal.
But it should be. Why is an untrained person allowed to play police? For me that sounds like climbing into a tiger cage, killing the tiger when he attacks you and saying: "I didn't do anything wrong, it attacked me!" Of course it's true, but Zimmerman got himself into a dangerous confrontation that escalated because both people didn't know how to handle the situation. I don't see why something like this is not illegal.
If the situation could be avoided that should be the first option. If the "defender" willingly engages in the confrontation, he risks the health of himself and others involved.
Following someone is not the same as playing police. It's public space and Zimmerman had every right to be there. It would have been smarter for him not to have been there, but it shouldn't be made a crime.
Zimmerman played police no matter how you look at the matter. He followed someone carrying a gun being told he should not. Something is beyond messed up when you actively put yourself in the position Zimmerman did and completely go free because you defended yourself.
I'm not saying he is guilty of murder but he is sure guilty of something and what needs to be done so that this tragic event doesn't occur again is that people one way or another is not allowed to play police in the first place.
what you all fail to realize is the moment zimmerman "stalked" treyvon, was the moment he was the aggressor. The argument is such that treyvon could have simply just "walked away", well he was actively walking away the whole time.
It a pretty f***** up world when I can run down someone, confront them, begin to defend/attack rather then avoiding confrontation, begin to lose the mutual combat, then shoot the person to death 300 meters away from where I started running after the kid.
Did you just make all that up as you went? That isn't the facts of the case at all. You need to read up on it, rather than just believing what other people tell you.
"About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[13] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[74] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[75] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[13] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[76] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[13] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[13]"
Sounds pretty much like Zimmerman followed Trayvon.
Your own quote says Zimmermann lost him at some point. It doesn't have a timeline. It in no way disproves the fact that Trayvon could have just walked away to his house. If you want more detailed information you need something better than Wikipedia.
Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point?
That there is other evidence that Trayvon got into a conflict with Zimmerman, got the upper hand and was beating Zimmerman against the ground. This was backed up by an eye witness and the police reports. The jury members said that they believed Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he defended himself.
The stuff how provided doesn't prove anything except that Zimmerman followed Martin, which isn't illegal.
But it should be. Why is an untrained person allowed to play police? For me that sounds like climbing into a tiger cage, killing the tiger when he attacks you and saying: "I didn't do anything wrong, it attacked me!" Of course it's true, but Zimmerman got himself into a dangerous confrontation that escalated because both people didn't know how to handle the situation. I don't see why something like this is not illegal.
If the situation could be avoided that should be the first option. If the "defender" willingly engages in the confrontation, he risks the health of himself and others involved.
Following someone is not the same as playing police. It's public space and Zimmerman had every right to be there. It would have been smarter for him not to have been there, but it shouldn't be made a crime.
Zimmerman played police no matter how you look at the matter. Something is beyond messed up when you actively put yourself in the position Zimmerman did and completely go free because you defended yourself.
I'm not saying he is guilty of murder but he is sure guilty of something and what needs to be done so that this tragic event doesn't occur again is that people one way or another is not allowed to play police in the first place.
Well, nothing occurring to the actual FACTS suggest he played police. Following someone is not playing police no matter how you look at it. How do you think he played police, I'm curious?
On July 17 2013 04:08 MrCon wrote: You can use a pepper spray against knife crime. And it's not like a gun would change anything anyway.
lol at pepper spray to thwart a knife crime. what a joke.
Come on, don't be dumb on purpose. If I point my gun on you from 3-5 meters, you do nothing. I can't do that with a knife, and if I do, my opponent has ample time to spray me. Wth is this discussion where people are trying to tell you that a knife is the same thing as a gun.
Have you ever been sprayed with pepper spray? Its not magic. If that person wants to stab you, they are going to do it, pepper spray or not. If they are drunk or on drugs, it is every more likely that spray will do nothing.
I have been on both end. You suddenly can't breath anymore, it's like your throat is blocked, which usually induce such a panic that you don't do anything because you want to stay alive (spray isn't lethal, but its effect make you think you'll die of asphyxiation). Also you can't see anymore because your eyes are too wet. Not sure it's pepper pray, we call that "lacrymogene"
C'mon dude at least watch the video I posted. That girl didn't look like she thought she was gonna die.
Don't police and military personnel, especially those taking up security roles, train for situations where they are getting sprayed with mace or pepper spray in case it is turned against them?
EPT
