The "anything" thread

[dibbler67]

At the end of the day the kid's dead and it's Zimmerman who killed him.

He gets to live with that, and having assaulted a cop, and the domestic violence and the alleged molestation. He really ought to be feeling pretty guilty

But who can know whether a man feels remorse? Perhaps one day he will reap what he's sown which, legal or not, is some pretty awful stuff.

 

[REZ]

Except he doesn't and won't ever feel any remorse because according to him, as he said in his interview with Hannity, and I quote - "it was God's plan"

It was God's plan that Zimmerman create this entire situation on his own and in this situation he kills an innocent young kid who was simply walking home from the store? The only thing he feels is vindication in his own twisted wannabe cop mind.

As far a race goes, you'd have to come from another planet to honestly think that if it was a black man who stalked ('followed' if you prefer, but I guess that depends on your point of view) and then shot an innocent unarmed white teenage kid who was walking home from the store and then tried to claim self-defense that this would have played out the same. Sorry, but you know it wouldn't. We all know it wouldn't. I won't even go into the profiling (which was in part based on race) on the part of Zimmerman.

Talking about the media and their motivations is a diversion from what happened here. As much as I agree with the sentiments about profit driven corporate media, what they have said, the framework in which they present their 'information' has nothing to do with the fact that what happened that night never should have happened in the first place.

Zimmerman created the whole situation on his own, knowing he was armed with deadly force. The kid was simply walking home and guilty of nothing other than being the wrong color and wearing the wrong clothing in George Zimmerman's neighborhood. They get into a fight; it doesn't matter how the fight starts given the fact it never would have happened had Zimmerman not created the situation himself. So therein he bears the majority of the responsibility for what happened; especially in light of his overzealous approach and mindset as evidenced by his language on the 911 call and his actions in following and confronting this kid while armed with a gun (not to mention his criminal record). Then to say the kid was armed with... wait for it... the sidewalk!?

This is why these 'stand your ground' laws are so dangerous.. because they are left up to the interpretation of the killer. Since the dead can't talk, and no one was there to see anything, he can say 'hey, I feared for my life so I shot this guy' and who is to say he did or didn't really fear for his life. You're gonna say a few scratches and a bloody nose is worth a persons life?

According to the law as it is written, you are given the privilege of self-defense before one is even injured. So in light of that, could it have been Trayvon who was 'standing his ground' when he was obviously being stalked by a stranger (if you actually believe it was Martin who started the fight in the first place, which I don't)? How come no one ever looks at it from that angle? So because of this law you have a situation where two people can go at each other, hell they don't even need to get to the point of physical contact, and whoever kills the other first can just invoke SYG and go free. These laws are insane. Castle Doctrine when it applies specifically to your home, okay. Stand Your Ground, no way.. too easily abused/manipulated and based totally on one person's account of their own level of fear. If no one is around to contradict your story, you can literally.. get away with murder.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

As far a race goes, you'd have to come from another planet to honestly think that if it was a black man who stalked ('followed' if you prefer, but I guess that depends on your point of view) and then shot an innocent unarmed white teenage kid who was walking home from the store and then tried to claim self-defense that this would have played out the same.

Of course it would not have played out the same, we never ever would have heard about it at all. It would have been like the thousand of other murders across the nation or like in DC or Chicago. There would not have been cries of racism and Obama would not have even take notice and commented (like he had no business doing so in the first place).

 

[REZ]

Can you hear what you just said? Thanks for confirming one of my points about how race played a part in this. Indeed, this should have been treated just like all the other murders that happen on a daily basis across our nation and Zimmerman should be in jail right now.

So, either Trayvon 'stands his ground' when he notices a strange man following him in the dark, or Zimmerman himself starts the confrontation. Either way, Zimmerman is to blame for the entire situation even happening in the first place. He created it. He was the pursuer. He was the one armed with deadly force.

The kid died just steps from his front door while on his way home from the store. If you believe Trayvon started the fight and you apply the law fairly, then Trayvon was simply 'standing his ground'. I mean, if you want to apply the law fairly and without race as a factor, then you have to allow Trayvon his right to stand his ground and defend himself from some stranger who he viewed as a threat.. right?

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

Can you hear what you just said? Thanks for confirming one of my points about how race played a part in this. Indeed, this should have been treated just like all the other murders that happen on a daily basis across our nation and Zimmerman should be in jail right now.

Race should never have played a part in this, other than for identification purposes (such as height, weight, age, normal things that may help identify people). The fact that the media, Obama and much of the public stepped in to make it an issue is a public disgrace. Also, from the trial's outcome, it wasn't murder as you keep insisting, (although I could see a civil case of wrongful death being brought up).

So, either Trayvon 'stands his ground' when he notices a strange man following him in the dark, or Zimmerman himself starts the confrontation. Either way, Zimmerman is to blame for the entire situation even happening in the first place. He created it. He was the pursuer. He was the one armed with deadly force.

The kid died just steps from his front door while on his way home from the store. If you believe Trayvon started the fight and you apply the law fairly, then Trayvon was simply 'standing his ground'. I mean, if you want to apply the law fairly and without race as a factor, then you have to allow Trayvon his right to stand his ground and defend himself from some stranger who he viewed as a threat.. right?

Neither you nor I really know what happened that night, and it could have been either one of them that escalated the ordeal. Who actually started the physical altercation, only Zimmerman knows at this point. The simple fact that Zimmerman started following Martin does not mean it had to end that way, and the fact that Martin isn't here to tell his side of the story does not mean Zimmerman is guilty of murder.

And you should really listen to what you wrote with your previous 'reverse race' example. First of all, Zimmerman was Hispanic not white (not that race matters, but somehow it sounds more sinister when said by the media) and your implication was that Zimmerman was following Martin, with the intention of shooting him.

Innocent until proven guilty... doesn't matter whether we like it or not, the whole principal is to minimize innocent people of being thrown in jail.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

Can you hear what you just said? Thanks for confirming one of my points about how race played a part in this. Indeed, this should have been treated just like all the other murders that happen on a daily basis across our nation and Zimmerman should be in jail right now.

Race should never have played a part in this, other than for identification purposes (such as height, weight, age, normal things that may help identify people). The fact that the media, Obama and much of the public stepped in to make it an issue is a public disgrace. Also, from the trial's outcome, it wasn't murder as you keep insisting, (although I could see a civil case of wrongful death being brought up).

So, either Trayvon 'stands his ground' when he notices a strange man following him in the dark, or Zimmerman himself starts the confrontation. Either way, Zimmerman is to blame for the entire situation even happening in the first place. He created it. He was the pursuer. He was the one armed with deadly force.

The kid died just steps from his front door while on his way home from the store. If you believe Trayvon started the fight and you apply the law fairly, then Trayvon was simply 'standing his ground'. I mean, if you want to apply the law fairly and without race as a factor, then you have to allow Trayvon his right to stand his ground and defend himself from some stranger who he viewed as a threat.. right?

Neither you nor I really know what happened that night, and it could have been either one of them that escalated the ordeal. Who actually started the physical altercation, only Zimmerman knows at this point. The simple fact that Zimmerman started following Martin does not mean it had to end that way, and the fact that Martin isn't here to tell his side of the story does not mean Zimmerman is guilty of murder.

And you should really listen to what you wrote with your previous 'reverse race' example. First of all, Zimmerman was Hispanic not white (not that race matters, but somehow it sounds more sinister when said by the media) and your implication was that Zimmerman was following Martin, with the intention of shooting him.

Innocent until proven guilty... doesn't matter whether we like it or not, the whole principal is to minimize innocent people of being thrown in jail.

PS: Not that it matters or is related, I think OJ was guilty

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

And just to further clarify... (hypothetical) If the case was that Zimmerman jumped Martin and Martin wrestled the gun away and shot Zimmerman in order to defend himself, I would be defending Martin.

 

[[-project.rattus-]]

Innocent until proven guilty... doesn't matter whether we like it or not, the whole principal is to minimize innocent people of being thrown in jail.

Now I'm not familiar with the case in detail, but THAT is exactly what rubs me the wrong way in this particular case, but of course not as a general principle.

Because, if it wasn't for the "stand your ground" laws, Zimmerman wouldn't be innocent: It's a fact he shot an unarmed boy under circumstances that, for lack of witnesses and other evidence, cannot be fully investigated. Thus, IMHO, it would qualify Zimmerman to be charged with (and sentenced for) manslaughter at least.

Also, I think that those "stand your ground" laws are quite a stupid idea basically, because, as precedenced in this case, it's a "get out of jail" card for killings.

 

[husbert]

i understand people who want guns to defend themselves. but i dont understand why you go out at night with your gun and shoot unarmed people.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

i understand people who want guns to defend themselves. but i dont understand why you go out at night with your gun and shoot unarmed people.

A broad and very incomplete description of the events...

 

[husbert]

difficult to explain it in a foreign language

but:
he goes out and takes his gun with him.
so he is ready to use it against anyone. against anyone who he thinks could attack or harm him. it was just a matter of time until he meets his first victim.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

difficult to explain it in a foreign language

but:
he goes out and takes his gun with him.
so he is ready to use it against anyone. against anyone who he thinks could attack or harm him. it was just a matter of time until he meets his first victim.

You make it sound as if he was cackling with glee that he had the chance to shoot someone when you put it that way.

 

[Lt_Kettch]

Combo breaker

http://steamcommunity.com/id/CrystalTheory

 

[Oldih]

Then to say the kid was armed with... wait for it... the sidewalk!?

To be fair you don't exactly need firearm to inflict wound which may end up being fatal or simply take the upper hand under certain circumstances. Of course I parrot the sentiment there is no way to know whether or not that was true in the first place (and of course likelihood of such assumptiong being true is nothing but speculation), but I do not see it that ridiculous.

 

[Nestor Makhno]

Combo breaker

http://steamcommunity.com/id/CrystalTheory

Well at least she isn't doing a duck-face.

 

[Fishsticks]

difficult to explain it in a foreign language

but:
he goes out and takes his gun with him.
so he is ready to use it against anyone. against anyone who he thinks could attack or harm him. it was just a matter of time until he meets his first victim.

Since you don't live in America I'll cut you some slack. The way it works in the states is that you have a right to defend yourself (with a firearm) from any attacker.

I carry concealed everyday...why? to protect myself and my family from wannabe streetfighter/thugs/theives (like Trayvon Martin)

I pray to God I never have to use my firearm in self defense but I would hope I don't hesitate if I or my family is attacked by a thug!

 

[Fishsticks]

i understand people who want guns to defend themselves. but i dont understand why you go out at night with your gun and shoot unarmed people.

Imagine being pummelled ruthlessly cagefighter style with a thug mounted on top of you breaking your nose and smashing your head against the tarmac.....


Still think you don't have a right to defend yourself with a firearm??

Forensics testified that Zimmerman shot Martin while underneth him and being beaten. Zimmermans head was beaten to a pulp and Martins only scuff marks were on his knuckles.

Really, If you have any doubts listen to the 911 call of Zimmerman being pummelled and screaming for help before the gunshot rings out.

Do a little research. There is a reason a jury acquitted Zimmerman. Facts don't lie.

 

[Moyako]

I carry concealed everyday...why? to protect myself and my family from wannabe streetfighter/thugs/theives (like Trayvon Martin)

I pray to God I never have to use my firearm in self defense but I would hope I don't hesitate if I or my family is attacked by a thug!

Honest question here. If for whatever reason you get involved in a street fight, you could shoot your rival and yell self defense?

I mean, if two guys are throwing punches one to another, and one happens to carry a gun, he can kill the other one legally?

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

Honest question here. If for whatever reason you get involved in a street fight, you could shoot your rival and yell self defense?

I mean, if two guys are throwing punches one to another, and one happens to carry a gun, he can kill the other one legally?

You could use a hammer, fists, bat, etc whatever is nearby. He could claim it was self defense (it may or may not be), but under most circumstances the case would go to trial with witnesses, forensics etc all brought in.

Different states and cities here have different laws. In many places you could get in serious trouble even if it was clearly self defense and there are witnesses, others you have a better chance with your case. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[[-project.rattus-]]

I carry concealed everyday...why? to protect myself and my family from wannabe streetfighter/thugs/theives (like Trayvon Martin)

I'd really hate to live under constant fear like you seem to do.

Also, I fail to see how a firearm would make you safer. I mean, it's not like many criminals are out there with the intent to kill random people on the streets, not even in America.
Most people commit hold ups to get some money. Now if the general public isn't armed, the victim loses some valuables, perhaps a little pride (I wouldn't) and has to go through a bit of a hassle with the police, banks, credit card companies etc. All in all, a loss of time and money that's quite easily recuperated.
But if people are armed, there's a bigger risk for the robber than the punishment for breaking the law. Thus, not only is the robber more jumpy and nervous, he's also more likely to take rash actions like preventitavely wounding/killing you, before you could even reach for your gun. Not to mention he might misinterpret your actions and THINKS you reach for a gun instead of your wallet and "pops a cap in yo ***" just to protect his own life. (Which incidentally is a situation that makes you alot more likely to get shot by the police accidentally).
Also, IIRC, most gun related deaths in America and almost everywhere else happen in families, be them accidents or murders.

So, by my logic, owning a gun makes you and your loved ones actually quite a lot less safe. Even if you feel safer for carrying one.

But then you might call me a hippy, because I generally deem a human life (even of a criminal "low life") to be worth more than all the things I own. I'm not saying that such persons should go unpunished, but they shouldn't die.

Of course I could imagine resorting to violence if other people (their lives, that is, NOT their posessions) are in danger, but never with the intent to kill.