Man follows black teen who seems "suspicious" and kills him.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Colossus-Big C
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17452878

Trayvon was travelling home in his own neighbourhood from the shop with a bag of sweets. It's raining on the street so he's got his hoodie up. Zimmerman is part of a local neighbourhood patrol team who hangs out in his car, armed, looking for people up to no good.

So he sees this black teen walking and decides he's "real suspicious". He calls the police to report it. He tells the police he's "Sick of these ***holes getting away with it"

He then gets out of his car to follow Trayvon. The police tell him not to do that. Trayvon runs away (presumably because he's just seen a man stare at him from his car, get out and start following him). Zimmerman follows him.

Zimmerman then shoots and kills Tray during an altercation. Now whatever about the defence of justifiable homicide, or self defence (Which given it's florida has quite wide definition) to not even ARREST the guy is ludicrous. There are sustained protests in the state and the Justice dept is investigating the FA police's behaviour. But if he gets away with this then as long as you have a licence to carry a concealed weapon, and don't know the person you're about to kill, you've pretty much got licence to kill in Florida as long as no one sees you.

here is the 911 calls . in some of them you hear the teen screaming help, then you hear gunshots.
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/GRAPHIC-Trayvon-Martin-911-calls-released/-/1637132/9450044/-/6m827cz/-/index.html

the ninjak
I thought such laws only existed if someone was trespassing on private property? Crazy U.S.

inimalist
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
you've pretty much got licence to kill in Florida as long as no one sees you you are white.

fixed

Colossus-Big C
what would have happened if it was the other way around and the black teen killed a "suspicious" guy?

Omega Vision
Yeah everything about Florida's government and legal system sucks

rudester
What happend to the man?

inimalist
Originally posted by rudester
What happend to the man?

nothing, police might have questioned him a little at the scene, but he was never placed under arrest or even brought in for questioning.

afaik, he is free right now

Robtard
Originally posted by inimalist
fixed

The man is a Latino.

http://static7.businessinsider.com/image/4f67453469beddf23e00005b/george-zimmerman.png

inimalist
his father claimed he is partially latino

Robtard
Originally posted by inimalist
his father claimed he is partially latino

His skin, features, hair etc all point to him being from a strong Latino background.

IMO, if you showed that picture and asked "is this man White or Latino", 99.9% of people would choose Latino.

inimalist
lol, fair enough

rudester
Zimmerman is a jewish cultured last name? A jewish latino maybe?

Whatever the case, there shouldn't be watch groups because they are lead by people who believe that they are above the law and that they have the right to intrude in other peoples affairs.

focus4chumps
Y0gh6IjZmtQ

His last name Zimmerman because he was adopted by white parents. and i would wager he hates his own kind as well as blacks.

rudester
either case I am still puzzled as to why he wasn't arrested? The kid was a minor in the eyes of the law, still 17 and he did not have a weapon of any kind? I dont know how a person can talk themselves out of being arrested and charged? Are neighbourhood watch groups allowed to carry weapons?

Colossus-Big C
justice is corrupt in florida

0mega Spawn
not only is the kid 17 but he looks 14!

that guy is a pussy

Stoic
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
justice is corrupt in florida

Oh yeah? You should visit New York City if you believe that Florida is bad.

Lord Lucien
Isn't New York from Florida? Apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

BackFire
Yeah this story has been all over the news here in the states. The law that allowed this man to commit murder and not face any charges is so absurd I don't know whether laughter or tears should be a response. It's actually stunning.

red g jacks
i spent most of my life in florida and i can assure you all that it is a fine state where all men of every background are accorded an equal license to kill.

just make sure you have your conceal carry permit.

rudester
There was no reason of intent with the kid for him to shoot? The kid was running away from Zimmerman, not the other way around; and as for why he was wearing the hoody? It was raining.

If ever anyone is in this situation where someone is chasing you to attack you, dont run away from plain site, run towards someones porch or house... Also he had no reason to take his gun. Zimmerman had a bias against black people before he chased him, if you listen to the video he said, these guys are going to get away again" something along the lines like that, meaning he already had an opinon about the kid before he met him? That should have been enough for him to go to jail because its premeditated.

He's going to jail. I can feel it, its only a matter of time before the people start protesting...

Also, Zimmerman looked like a young man himself, Why was he chosen as neighbourhood watcher? They should put strict laws against that, maybe even not have neighbourhood watchers and leave the gun slinging to the police... And it took the police a long time to get there. If I were the parents I would sue the state and the police force for Negligence.

Stoic
One word. Deplorable.

Symmetric Chaos
Good on the government for staying out of people's private business.

0mega Spawn
too soon symmetric no

rudester
It shouldnt really matter if this kid is black and normally it comes up as an issues of race but in this one case, from listening to the tapes the cop sounds racist. I just wish the parents would say, hey look you killed are son you should be in prision, nothing justifies the pursuit of this boy. He had no right for taking the law into his own hands, he had no reason because the kid wasn't near a house robbing, he was on the street, he wasn't running from a store.. he was on the street and it was raining thats why he was wearing a hoody...this case is so stupid I can't believe they havent arrested him yet? What are they waiting for?

Colossus-Big C
phuckin pigs

Lord Lucien
puckin phigs

rudester
phuccken phuc...

Lord Lucien
pukin figs

Deadline
Yea I was even thinking when I saw him on the news he looked latino. Well I guess latinos are more white than black (I'm assuming latinos have black dna, maybe I'm wrong).

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Deadline
I'm assuming latinos have black dna

Why?

inimalist
tqccyUpnZwA

rudester
Originally posted by Deadline
Yea I was even thinking when I saw him on the news he looked latino. Well I guess latinos are more white than black (I'm assuming latinos have black dna, maybe I'm wrong).

Latinos.. sounds like a pruduct on the stock market. Anyways, latinos have native DNA and Spanish DNA. It's a mixed culture, not everyone is mixed, the slaves that were brought here mixed with the cultures already here so... so its a mix.

Nietzschean
Originally posted by Deadline
Yea I was even thinking when I saw him on the news he looked latino. Well I guess latinos are more white than black (I'm assuming latinos have black dna, maybe I'm wrong). some latinos/hispanics are a grab back of various ethnic background.

but, some are more white than brown.

I mean someone in their family tree a century ago was native american but he could also just be mostly italian or spanish white.

hell, some families are random when it come to the appearance of their kids. some look native, some look mix and others look white while all sharing the same dna but it expressing itself randomly.

not all Italians have black heritage just b/c one small region had an encounter with the moors centuries ago.

just saying

Originally posted by rudester
Latinos.. sounds like a pruduct on the stock market. Anyways, latinos have native DNA and Spanish DNA. It's a mixed culture, not everyone is mixed, the slaves that were brought here mixed with the cultures already here so... so its a mix.


u forgot also have french heritage. In Mexico u have a mix of Native Americans mixed with french, Italians, spanish and even Irish blood.

Deadline
Originally posted by Nietzschean

not all Italians have black heritage just b/c one small region had an encounter with the moors centuries ago.

just saying



I dunno I thought my statement was a generalisation. I thought that would be common sense and I wouldn't need to state that. I think it depends on what part of southern europe you come from, I think if you're from Portugal or Spain there is more chance of you having black DNA then if you were from Italy.

So whats gonna happen to this guy then?

Nietzschean
Originally posted by Deadline
I dunno I thought my statement was a generalisation. I thought that would be common sense and I wouldn't need to state that. I think it depends on what part of southern europe you come from, I think if you're from Portugal or Spain there is more chance of you having black DNA then if you were from Italy.

So whats gonna happen to this guy then? probably nothing a slap on the wrist. I hope the dude goes to prison and shanked. lil racist turd deserves worse if u ask me

Deadline
Originally posted by Nietzschean
probably nothing a slap on the wrist. I hope the dude goes to prison and shanked. lil racist turd deserves worse if u ask me

Is it me or does the President of America being black change nothing?

Symmetric Chaos
I'm going to say what I always say when these big cases jump into the public eye: We really don't have enough good information to come to any kind of conclusion.

There are so many biased filters between us and the facts that jumping to "racist man guns down kid for no reason" is exactly as reasonable as "obviously the kid attacked him when the cops weren't around and he fired in self defense" (which I've heard people suggest).

Originally posted by Deadline
I dunno I thought my statement was a generalisation. I thought that would be common sense and I wouldn't need to state that. I think it depends on what part of southern europe you come from, I think if you're from Portugal or Spain there is more chance of you having black DNA then if you were from Italy.

Everyone is going to have African ancestry if you trace things back far enough. The average Latino is almost certainly going to be as dilute in that regard as anyone else with Euro heritage. In the US cultural tensions might even make them more diluted than other Caucasian groups.

Deadline
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Everyone is going to have African ancestry if you trace things back far enough.


You don't say.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

The average Latino is just as dilute in that regard as anyone else with Euro heritage.

Like I said I'm not entirely sure about their origins but no I don't see a Spanish person being just as dilute as a Scandanvian especially somebody from Finland.

Edit: Reread your post...in that regard. Anyway not saying anything we don't know really.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm going to say what I always say when these big cases jump into the public eye: We really don't have enough good information to come to any kind of conclusion.



Thats true. I have thought that.

Nietzschean
i've read various sources and I think that it was not self defense even if the kid did attack him when the guy went to confront him.

I dont see how stand your ground law can support this guy and his self defense BS argument.

Flyattractor
After listing to the audio of the 911 call Zimmerman made to the PD he dosen't really sound all that...NOT FUHED UP IN THE HEAD!

inimalist
Originally posted by Nietzschean
i've read various sources and I think that it was not self defense even if the kid did attack him when the guy went to confront him.

I dont see how stand your ground law can support this guy and his self defense BS argument.

laws in Fla state that a person occupying any space legally is allowed to defend that space with lethal force if they feel their life may be in danger.

Additionally, in Fla it is the requirement of the prosecution to prove a person did not act in self-defense rather than the defendant needing to prove they did.

what might be worse than the shooting itself is that this may be entirely legal in Fla, depending on how the "stand-your-ground" law is interpreted.

Colossus-Big C
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm going to say what I always say when these big cases jump into the public eye: We really don't have enough good information to come to any kind of conclusion.

There are so many biased filters between us and the facts that jumping to "racist man guns down kid for no reason" is exactly as reasonable as "obviously the kid attacked him when the cops weren't around and he fired in self defense" (which I've heard people suggest).



Everyone is going to have African ancestry if you trace things back far enough. The average Latino is almost certainly going to be as dilute in that regard as anyone else with Euro heritage. In the US cultural tensions might even make them more diluted than other Caucasian groups. the 911 calls are recorderded. He called the kid a phucken coon. And said "they always get away"
Clearly racist...

Nietzschean
Originally posted by inimalist
laws in Fla state that a person occupying any space legally is allowed to defend that space with lethal force if they feel their life may be in danger.

Additionally, in Fla it is the requirement of the prosecution to prove a person did not act in self-defense rather than the defendant needing to prove they did.

what might be worse than the shooting itself is that this may be entirely legal in Fla, depending on how the "stand-your-ground" law is interpreted.

I know how the law works, thx.

it really shouldnt be that difficult to completely destroy his argument.
the kid was eating gummi worms. the guy went to him. the kid was on public streets. by the guys own words he went to confront and keep the guy from leaving.

he should be charged by kidnapping. holding someone against their will or forceably moving him from one location to another even if it is only a single foot.

Colossus-Big C
Also what kind of man gets beat up by a 17 year old? And then shoots the unarmed kid? Because you were scared for your life?
He is phucken 17

Nietzschean
08Rf4G0JOOk&feature=related

Colossus-Big C
Also zimmerman has previous assault charges against police officers?

inimalist
Originally posted by Nietzschean
I know how the law works, thx.

roll eyes (sarcastic)

clearly you do

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Nietzschean
I know how the law works, thx.

it really shouldnt be that difficult to completely destroy his argument.
the kid was eating gummi worms. the guy went to him. the kid was on public streets. by the guys own words he went to confront and keep the guy from leaving.

he should be charged by kidnapping. holding someone against their will or forceably moving him from one location to another even if it is only a single foot.
This would all be fine and good except it happened in Florida.

Florida's legal system is awful. As I recall they were recently trying to put up a law where police could search your home without a warrant if they had reason to believe you're destroying evidence. So like...if cops hear you flushing a toilet they could bust your door in, assuming that law was/will be passed.

Nietzschean
Originally posted by inimalist
roll eyes (sarcastic)

clearly you do I read the same thing u did on stand your ground.
there was absolutely no need to repeat it to me. erm

I am sure u are aware the guy did not adhere to the law he hid behind.. smokin'

inimalist
/sigh

forward me a list of everything you have read before you ask questions you already know the answer to then

the ninjak
Jeez. Reading those Youtube comments are usually mind numbingly bad but the tribe mentality Blacks and the redneck Whites are out in force. The Fundamentalist Islamics predictably are out to convert some little soldiers as well.

Spreading fear to sate their own. The police are a disgrace there but with the stories I've been reading lately of police invasion of privacy, the economic collapse and international incidents. Personally it just looks inevitable that the US will soon go full Police State. Personal freedoms say bye bye. A kid just got killed in cold blood and the force did nothing about it.

It's just circumstantial that it had to involve these two people. A perfect cocktail of an innocent teen black kid and an obviously mentally disturbed Hispanic man with a Jewish surname. Violent hate crimes happen everyday in the US. Aggressors from all races. And it will never stop.

Tribe mentality will always be the ultimate enemy of mankind. And its downfall.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by the ninjak
Personally it just looks inevitable that the US will soon go full Police State.

Originally posted by the ninjak
A kid just got killed in cold blood and the force did nothing about it.

And just like that the term "police state" lost all meaning.

I'll go sit on my high horse and wait for other people see how effectively Libertarian rehtoric has brainwashed the population of the internet. I just saw a guy put up an 1984 picture in relation to getting screwed by a company.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And just like that the term "police state" lost all meaning.

laughing out loud

Colossus-Big C
Originally posted by Omega Vision
laughing out loud What do you think about this?

1. Hate Crime
2. Legit Self Defence
3. Non racist but still went overboard?

the ninjak
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And just like that the term "police state" lost all meaning.

I'll go sit on my high horse and wait for other people see how effectively Libertarian rehtoric has brainwashed the population of the internet. I just saw a guy put up an 1984 picture in relation to getting screwed by a company.

The fact that such a crime has gone by unpunished without federal intervention, plus the unfair invasive arrests that are rampant in the country are proof of where the country is heading down such a path.

Economic crisis means more crime and poverty. I'm no Anarchist. Law and Order is necessary. But not this kind of police.

red g jacks
Originally posted by inimalist
laws in Fla state that a person occupying any space legally is allowed to defend that space with lethal force if they feel their life may be in danger.

Additionally, in Fla it is the requirement of the prosecution to prove a person did not act in self-defense rather than the defendant needing to prove they did.

what might be worse than the shooting itself is that this may be entirely legal in Fla, depending on how the "stand-your-ground" law is interpreted. i wouldn't be surprised if this doesn't even go to trial tbh

that's why i don't really understand the motives behind instituting a stand your ground law.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by the ninjak
The fact that such a crime has gone by unpunished without federal intervention, plus the unfair invasive arrests that are rampant in the country are proof of where the country is heading down such a path.

A police state is a state in which there is extraordinary control over the population not one with incompetent police. Government not using its power when it needs to is exactly the opposite of a police state. Advocating for less government involvement is absurd when you yourself identify the problem as insufficient government involvement.

It's Libertarian rhetoric, the solution to all problem is less government. It becomes brainwashing when people jump to it mindlessly, which is exactly what you did.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by the ninjak
The fact that such a crime has gone by unpunished without federal intervention, plus the unfair invasive arrests that are rampant in the country are proof of where the country is heading down such a path.

Economic crisis means more crime and poverty. I'm no Anarchist. Law and Order is necessary. But not this kind of police.
What you just said made no sense.

the ninjak
laughing out loud man I was drunk and probably rattled by online comments last night. I gotta stop doing that.blink

I'm reading what I wrote now and it's a blur. I agree it makes no sense. It looks like I was having 3 different conversations in 1.

Anyways now I'm sober the polices actions are completely disrespectful to the public. I don't know why higher powers haven't gotten involved yet.

Stoic
Originally posted by the ninjak
laughing out loud man I was drunk and probably rattled by online comments last night. I gotta stop doing that.blink

I'm reading what I wrote now and it's a blur. I agree it makes no sense. It looks like I was having 3 different conversations in 1.

Anyways now I'm sober the polices actions are completely disrespectful to the public. I don't know why higher powers haven't gotten involved yet.


Because it's the higher powers that are making things the way that they are?

Omega Vision
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/24/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I just saw a guy put up an 1984 picture in relation to getting screwed by a company.

I think that's more Apple's fault.

the ninjak
Originally posted by Stoic
Because it's the higher powers that are making things the way that they are?

You would think the feds could arrest the murderer regardless of the local police not doing so based on this "stand your ground" law.

The boy was unarmed. Showed no ability to harm the assailant. The assailant made a phone call to the police spouting mentally disturbed rantings before doing the deed. The police showed little intent on solving the case.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by the ninjak
You would think the feds could arrest the murderer regardless of the local police not doing so based on this "stand your ground" law.

The boy was unarmed. Showed no ability to harm the assailant. The assailant made a phone call to the police spouting mentally disturbed rantings before doing the deed. The police showed little intent on solving the case.
No because the United States is still clinging to the last vestiges of states' rights, the notion that geographical location completely changes what is right and what is wrong from a legalistic perspective.

You'd think we'd have done away with it after it caused the Civil War, but no.

red g jacks
Originally posted by Omega Vision
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/24/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 looks like jeb might actually be correct:


The 2011 Florida Statutes

though im really no good at interpreting legalese. it all seems so vaguely written to me.

rudester
But the law should be change to a case by case basis because it makes no sense...

I kinda feel sorry for Zimmerman for trying to be a hero and being driven by stupidity, he went to wreck his life...it is his fault but at the same time stupidity drives us to do stupid things! I still think he should go to jail and face the music; I fear if he doesnt someone is going to try to kill him wherever that may be. An eye for an eye or so they say.

Symmetric Chaos
I like this cartoon.
http://themoderatevoice.com/142346/stand-your-ground-before-he-stands-his-ground/

It actually brings up a good point about the stand your ground law. If the kid though he was in danger from the armed man following him through the ran then defense that "he attacked me so I shot him" is invalid since (as I understand the law) it would have been 100% legal for the kid to try and kill him.

rudester
The law is that if someone is trying to break into your house, if you try to defend yourself by killing them then you can go to jail, however until they actually break in then you can shoot them to defend yourself. But in a case like this, Zimmerman sought out the kid and endangered himself, if Zimmerman felt danger they why on earth did he go towards the hooded man??

Symmetric Chaos
Reading the statute there is no mention of "in your house". If that law is Zimmerman's defense it should be Trayvon's defense, too.

rudester
I think they are looking to change that law, Zimmerman may be a free man but not for longer, the people demand justice and the law is made to protect those such people, if the law fails to do so then there is no point of having laws and we would be in chaos.

Zimmerman might have felt he was doing the right thing but he has already had to move from his house, and has started to get alot of death threats, it's only a matter of time before he turns himself in or kills himself. I feel sorry for that fact that he made such a stupid mistake..

RE: Blaxican
I don't. There's too many people on the planet for me to care about one idiot killing himself. Walking around with a gun antagonizing people because they "look suspicious" is just asking for trouble. Society doesn't need people like that wandering around unchecked. That's why we have police.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by rudester
I think they are looking to change that law, Zimmerman may be a free man but not for longer, the people demand justice and the law is made to protect those such people, if the law fails to do so then there is no point of having laws and we would be in chaos.

It's not a matter of the law itself, just a failure of the authorities to apply it right.

rudester
Originally posted by Omega Vision
It's not a matter of the law itself, just a failure of the authorities to apply it right.

Remember Zimmerman called the police first, the policeman told him to sit back the police are on their way, Zimmerman then made the conscious choice to follow him.

rudester
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I don't. There's too many people on the planet for me to care about one idiot killing himself. Walking around with a gun antagonizing people because they "look suspicious" is just asking for trouble. Society doesn't need people like that wandering around unchecked. That's why we have police.

Unfortunitly neighbourhood watchers work with the police to rat people out, I've been reading online and there are a few programs where police use neighbourhood watchers to tag people for speeding violations; infact the whole police system is a business like it or not, the business of crime. Police inforce tickets, by using the law they can say you commited a small infraction.

Robtard
Feeling sorry for Zimmerman? Hahaha, funny.

He shot someone fleeing. Even if that kid were a thief, shooting him to death is excessive and outright criminal, as he was fleeing; that's the opposite of attacking.

Shakyamunison
I head that Zimmerman had a broken arm from this fleeing guy. It also took place a mount ago. This whole thing sticks, in all directions.

inimalist
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I head that Zimmerman had a broken arm from this fleeing guy. It also took place a mount ago. This whole thing sticks, in all directions.

given even Zimmerman's own 911 call, the teen would have been well within his rights to defend himself...

I hope he broke the idiot's arm

Robtard
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I head that Zimmerman had a broken arm from this fleeing guy.

First I heard of that. I'm certain that would come out in a trial, hospital records and such.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Robtard
First I heard of that. I'm certain that would come out in a trial, hospital records and such.

I think there is something bigger behind all of this. I know that sounds conspiratorial, but I am not a conspiracy type person. I just have a gut feeling, that could be wrong.

rudester
Black man screams racist? It's ok to say it, white man screams racist all the time, we live in a racist world still even though many things have happend for people's view points to change; not much has changed in the surface of things.

And I do feel bad for the guy but not necessarily support his actions, he should go to jail and probably will.

http://www.pixelscapes.com/multiplex/romeo/hi/openwide.jpg

As of this day forward Romeo shall be banished....lol

inimalist
so, its pretty clear that Zimmerman works in some capacity for Mars corporation, as the sales of Skittles in the wake of the shooting clearly show there is a conspiracy at work here.

follow the money my friends, follow the money. They are getting rich while us sheeple argue about hoodies!

En Sabah Nur X
Originally posted by inimalist
so, its pretty clear that Zimmerman works in some capacity for Mars corporation, as the sales of Skittles in the wake of the shooting clearly show there is a conspiracy at work here.

follow the money my friends, follow the money. They are getting rich while us sheeple argue about hoodies!

Mars corp? Wasn't aware there was ac corporation that used the name associated with men.

StyleTime
Originally posted by inimalist
so, its pretty clear that Zimmerman works in some capacity for Mars corporation, as the sales of Skittles in the wake of the shooting clearly show there is a conspiracy at work here.

follow the money my friends, follow the money. They are getting rich while us sheeple argue about hoodies!
laughing out loud

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X
Mars corp? Wasn't aware there was ac corporation that used the name associated with men. Really?

dadudemon
Apparantly there's more to this story than the intitial "liberal backlash".






When put in that perspective, yeah, it doesn't seem as bad (I did not read that entire list, btw).



Also, the dude may have been telling the truth about getting beat down by the young man because the back of his head was busted so his story is adding up from at least one angle.



Is this case an example of liberal frenzy? Meaning, it is a case where people THINK something really bad went down but nothing bad actually went down but the initial backlash changed everything including the general idea of what happened?

focus4chumps
bashing liberals for forcing opinions based on hearsay by...forcing opinions based on hearsay
PLUS strawman bashing. way to raise the bar and one-up those career slackers.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by dadudemon
When put in that perspective, yeah, it doesn't seem as bad (I did not read that entire list, btw).

If you really think that list puts things into "perspective" you're exactly the kind of utterly deluded Libertarian I advocate gunning down on the streets.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, the dude may have been telling the truth about getting beat down by the young man because the back of his head was busted so his story is adding up from at least one angle.

And if Zimmerman's defense holds up then Tayvor was acting 100% within his rights by bashing him on the head and that would mean Zimmerman is still a criminal, since he killed a person who was defending himself. The stand-your-ground defense turns this whole situation into a complete black hole.

rudester
Originally posted by inimalist
so, its pretty clear that Zimmerman works in some capacity for Mars corporation, as the sales of Skittles in the wake of the shooting clearly show there is a conspiracy at work here.

follow the money my friends, follow the money. They are getting rich while us sheeple argue about hoodies!

No I beg to differ, think its the umbrella corporation thats behind all this, I think we should stop buying umbrellas...

dadudemon
Originally posted by focus4chumps
someone else calling out the idiocy of liberals for forcing opinions based on hearsay by calling attention to several problems with their liberal arguments. Way to provide an alternate perspective on an obviously one-sided and unclear problem.

Corrected for accuracy and less knee-jerking.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you really think that list puts things into "perspective" you're exactly the kind of utterly deluded Libertarian I advocate gunning down on the streets.

You advocate gunning me down?

Should I report this post to the FBI, firstly, and then to the moderators?

1. I am not a libertarian. I am extreme center with very littler leanings. Just because I have stated I have libertarian leanings does not mean I am libertarian.

2. Being a libertarian has nothing to do with the quote (I hope you read that...it's a quote, not my words) I posted as it came from a democrat.

3. It does put things into perspective. It advocates reasoning, evidence, and a clam approach to the situation and calls out allof the liberal bullshit that has happened because of this. It must scare you to think someone would advocate reason and evidence based judgements rather than knee-jerk reactions.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And if Zimmerman's defense holds up then Tayvor was not acting within his rights by bashing him on the head. Zimmerman's defense would become "Stand your ground" and Tayvor's becomes a charge of aggravated battery that resulted in his death. That would mean Zimmerman did not commit a crime, since he killed someone in self-defense against a person that was beating the shit out of him. The stand-your-ground defense turns this whole situation completely around from the knee-jerking we saw from the media and people.

*le sigh*

Corrected for accuracy.







http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-case-video-shows-injury-george-zimmermans/story?id=16055412#.T3po3qtYtgh


http://personalliberty.com/2012/04/02/new-video-reveals-zimmermans-head-wounds/

I see similar stories but different conclusions.

Another website shows a convincing shot of Zimmerman's nose being swollen. What I wouldlike to see is the black eyes that would have resulted from the broken nose. Where are the screenshots or pictures of that? Hmm?



Oh, and for you knee-jerkers, I have not decided which side to choose. I only provided the arguments against the knee-jerking: hell, I didn't even read them all.



If Zimmerman's camp provides some photos that occurred after this event that shows him having black eyes, I will then change my mind. Until then, neither side is convincing despite how strong the "liberal" side came on with this from the beginning.

rudester
Zimmerman said he's going to turn himself in if he is found guilty...

dadudemon
Originally posted by rudester
Zimmerman said he's going to turn himself in if he is found guilty...

How is that possible?


Or are you referring to a grand jury indictment? That's not finding someone guilty. That just finds that there's enough evidence or reason to proceed with the case.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by rudester
Zimmerman said he's going to turn himself in if he is found guilty...
so he won't turn himself in.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by dadudemon
1. I am not a libertarian.

No, you just buy into every single element of their sick ideology and suck at the rotting cocks of Ron Paul and Ayn Rand.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It advocates reasoning

Lets have a look at that quote. Line one:

"Liberals think following someone is a crime."

Yep that's clearly the phrasing of a person who wants there to be a reasoned debate. I mean it clearly isn't a strawman or a total invention. As we all know so long as as sentence supports a Libertarian agenda no one is allowed to question it in anyway.

Okay so that was pretty good. Line two:

"Liberals think asking someone a question is a crime."

Again very much in to pro-reasoned debate arena. Not a single strawman argument there, no attempt to appeal to rehtoric. State the facts and move on. Well thought out and in no way intended as a form of trolling.



But seriously the person who wrote that clearly feels pretty much the same way about Liberals that I do about Libertarians.

Originally posted by dadudemon
*le sigh*

If Zimmerman can prove that Trayvon attacked him first then he has a defense. Too bad someone killed Trayvon so we can never hear his defense. It's almost like the stand-your-ground laws have a terrible loophole in them.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If Zimmerman's camp provides some photos that occurred after this event that shows him having black eyes, I will then change my mind.

The fact that he was injured does not prove his innocence at all. Whether you get punched before or after pulling out a gun does not change what the injuries look like.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Another website shows a convincing shot of Zimmerman's nose being swollen. What I wouldlike to see is the black eyes that would have resulted from the broken nose. Where are the screenshots or pictures of that? Hmm?

Sure.

Would you like to see the corpse of an unarmed 17 year old? Give me your mailing address, I think Ron Paul has a few grandkids I can go defend myself against.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
...Would you like to see the corpse of an unarmed 17 year old? Give me your mailing address, I think Ron Paul has a few grandkids I can go defend myself against.

So, is murder the solution to you?

RE: Blaxican
Sym, lay off the crack dude. You're being autismal as **** right now.

BackFire
Sym, despite the fact that you are right about most of the list DDM posted being utterly full of shit, please keep things civil and nonthreatening.

rudester
Originally posted by dadudemon
How is that possible?


Or are you referring to a grand jury indictment? That's not finding someone guilty. That just finds that there's enough evidence or reason to proceed with the case.

Im referring to the article I read online today.. where he said that. But I can't seem to find my own reference again.. ill keep looking for it.

RE: Blaxican
I don't really see most of that list as being bullshit, honestly. Coming from the viewpoint of a San Francisco, CA denizen, and looking at facebook, a looooot of people really do think like the way that list asserts they do.

I wrote that poorly because I'm tired, but you get my point. That list is definitely one of those "stereotypes: they always seem to play themselves out" types of lists.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, you just buy into every single element of their sick ideology and suck at the rotting cocks of Ron Paul and Ayn Rand.

I expect you to back up your claims with actual evidence from my posts.

Otherwise, it is libel, as you perceive it (meaning, you are intentionally libeling me).



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Lets have a look at that quote. Line one:

"Liberals think following someone is a crime."


Keep in mind that the quote came from a democrat (US), not from me.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yep that's clearly the phrasing of a person who wants there to be a reasoned debate.

Despite the sarcastic implications of your words, you are correct at face value: there is no crime in following someone in generally public areas. If it were illegal, there would be no such thing as a real private investigator: we'd just call them data miners.

But, if we are to take your words as you intended them - sarcastically - it is quite clear that you are definitely not interested in reasoned debate. I know you know the law well enough to realize that implications of your sarcasm are plain wrong.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I mean it clearly isn't a strawman or a total invention. As we all know so long as as sentence supports a Libertarian agenda no one is allowed to question it in anyway.

I'd be careful throwing around the word "libertarian" with such ignorance.

And you're correct: it isn't strawman at all (I am ignoring the sarcasm, still). People have accused Zimmerman of illegally tailing Trayvon.

Control + F this article to see commentors discussing such a case (all I had to do was google search to see that some people think what he was doing was illegal)

http://www.mediaite.com/online/george-zimmermans-police-report-trayvon-martin-approached-him-from-behind-bashed-his-head-against-sidewalk/



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Okay so that was pretty good.

Well, considering I destroyed your snarky sarcasm for what is was, yeah, it was pretty good. It wasn't very hard to do so, either. I am not as familiar with this case as you are (well, as much as I thought you were).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"Liberals think asking someone a question is a crime."

Yeah, you'll probably take that out of context. I'll read on to see if you do...


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Again very much in to pro-reasoned debate arena. Not a single strawman argument there, no attempt to appeal to rehtoric. State the facts and move on. Well thought out and in no way intended as a form of trolling.

Yeah, figured: you took it out of context. By liberals, this person is not including every last liberal, ever: else he include himself. He was referring to the idiot kneejerking liberals addressing this "case".

Now that that strawman of yours is out of the way...

That dude's entire quote is tongue-in-cheek, borderline humor. So when you call it rhetoric, I call it a light-hearted call to reason. But despite your sarcasm, your face-value reading is still more correct than the intended sarcastic one: many idiots (read: libtards) have said that him questioning Trayvon was illegal as he had no authority to do so.

To me, it seems as if you're not aware of the arguments going back and forth on this case. I mean...have you run into that particular argument, yet, on the interwebz?


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But seriously the person who wrote that clearly feels pretty much the same way about Liberals that I do about Libertarians.

You think he's a self-loathing liberal? I thought of him more like a liberal that is tired of idiot libtards making liberals look bad, personally. Kind of how I feel about kneejerking Christians. I mean, sure...I can be lumped into the same camp as them but I do grow tired of the idiocy and kneejerking from many different Christians about lots of things science related. It gets irritating. So I think I can understand where this guy his coming from.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If Zimmerman can prove that Trayvon attacked him first then he has a defense. Too bad someone killed Trayvon so we can never hear his defense. It's almost like the stand-your-ground laws have a terrible loophole in them.

I agree. That's probably been a point brought up over and over when these arguments start to rage on between both sides.

It is also part of why I am still undecided.

BUT....the good news: some people may have seen what went down. Some of the response personnel are backing up Zimmerman's claim (that Zimmerman get his ass kicked).

If anything, this should be a good reason for liberals to bring up why we need better gun control (or no guns). Where are those arguments? I have not run across them.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The fact that he was injured does not prove his innocence at all. Whether you get punched before or after pulling out a gun does not change what the injuries look like.

You do not have to prove innocence in a court of law: you have to prove reasonable doubt. You are found "not guilty". Not "innocent". Being acquitted just means you are not longer charged with the offense because there is not enough "evidence" to convict you.

This has been part of my problem with the case from the beginning: we will probably never know if Zimmerman did the following:

1. Thought that Trayvon was a drug dealer doing stupid shit in the neighborhood.

2. Followed him to catch him in the act.

3. Verbally confronted Trayvon.

4. Trayvon then beat the shit out of him.

5. Zimmerman pulled his gun out and shot Trayvon in the chest.



That's pretty much Zimmerman's side of the story. Only RECENTLY have we seen anything that corroborates with Zimmerman's side of the story: a swollen nose and some lacerations on the back of his head.


But everyone had already convicted Zimmerman. They instantly found him guilty. This is what that other dude was raging about when he referred to the "liberals".



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Sure.

Would you like to see the corpse of an unarmed 17 year old? Give me your mailing address, I think Ron Paul has a few grandkids I can go defend myself against.

I am unsure how this post even remotely addressed what I have stated.

You do know that I am demanding pictures of Zimmerman's black eyes to prove Zimmerman's side of the story to be a bit more credible, right? RIGHT? RIIIIGHT??!?!?!?!?!?!? Please tell me you understand that and were just making a joke. sad



And now, you have made an indirect threat to life against the grandchildren of Ron Paul. *shudders* You ain't right, man.




Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I don't really see most of that list as being bullshit, honestly. Coming from the viewpoint of a San Francisco, CA denizen, and looking at facebook, a looooot of people really do think like the way that list asserts they do.

Indeed. That list was just a backlash from a democrat (read: liberal) who had had enough of the bullshit and unreasonable claims from fellow liberals.

BackFire
He had enough unreasonable claims from fellow liberals, so he decided to make his own set of unreasonable claims. Got it.

RE: Blaxican
It's called "satire", my son.

dadudemon
Originally posted by BackFire
He had enough unreasonable claims from fellow liberals, so he decided to make his own set of unreasonable claims. Got it.

Feel free to:

1. Point out any claims he made.

2. Then point out which ones are unreasonable.

3. Then explain why those in #2 are unreasonable.



I mean, I'm all for rhetoric but at one point, we have got to stop with the one liners or short phrases that actually do not delve into the meat of the topic (not just this one, any topic).



Edit -

I finally took the time to read over all his whining. You know what it looks like? It looks like he is lashing out against a crap ton of different idiotic claims made by various people on the interwebz. I have seen some of the claims he was lashing out against (note: I was a newb to this case until about 2 days ago).

Like the claim, that it isn't bad that Trayvon was possibly a drug dealer (I actually agree with the "libtards" that being an MJ drug dealer is NOT bad). Obviously, that claim is rather stupid because the extreme majority of the US thinks "drugs are bad. Mkay."

Just sayin'.


If any of you have read any of the idiocy from the liberal side of things, you'll see a direct response by that gent who wrote up that diatribe.

What is obvious, though, is the idiocy from the conservatards. The racism seen on the interwebz is ridiculous. The "Trayvon was bad because he was black and Zimmerman is innocent because he is not black" sentiments are just stupid. Yes, that is how some arguments can be boiled down.

focus4chumps
Originally posted by dadudemon
Corrected for accuracy and less knee-jerking.

isnt it against forum rules to troll people by altering their quotes? oh well i guess thats better than an 8 paragraph cool story...oh damn...im too late.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, is murder the solution to you?

Are you saying I'm not allowed to defend myself against people related to Ron Paul?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I don't really see most of that list as being bullshit, honestly.

So you honestly believe that all liberals think following people and asking questions are crimes? Good to know that list supported some reasoned thinking from you.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Are you saying I'm not allowed to defend myself against people related to Ron Paul?

With intent to kill? NO!

NemeBro
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So you honestly believe that all liberals think following people and asking questions are crimes? Good to know that list supported some reasoned thinking from you. Why do you insist on strawmanning everyone you reply to? Are you perhaps, frustrated?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by dadudemon
That dude's entire quote is tongue-in-cheek, borderline humor. So when you call it rhetoric, I call it a light-hearted call to reason.

It really isn't and I think you know that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
BUT....the good news: some people may have seen what went down. Some of the response personnel are backing up Zimmerman's claim (that Zimmerman get his ass kicked).

If anything, this should be a good reason for liberals to bring up why we need better gun control (or no guns). Where are those arguments? I have not run across them.

Good news and a very good question.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You do not have to prove innocence in a court of law: you have to prove reasonable doubt. You are found "not guilty". Not "innocent". Being acquitted just means you are not longer charged with the offense because there is not enough "evidence" to convict you.

True, I'm thinking more of public opinion and what may have actually happened than what he actually needs to demonstrate in court.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This has been part of my problem with the case from the beginning: we will probably never know if Zimmerman did the following:

1. Thought that Trayvon was a drug dealer doing stupid shit in the neighborhood.

2. Followed him to catch him in the act.

3. Verbally confronted Trayvon.

4. Trayvon then beat the shit out of him.

5. Zimmerman pulled his gun out and shot Trayvon in the chest.

The particularly awful part is that its possible for most of this to happen without either of them strictly being in the wrong at any point. Its possible that Trayvon saw the gun Zimmerman was carrying at some point during their confrontation which frightened him which lead to a fight.

This kind of thing is why I haven't picked a side (actually I make it a policy not to ever pick a side on these sorts of cases). We probably don't have all the available information and what we do have is all carefully selected by the people giving it to us, far too often in hopes of getting a reaction.

You pretty much never get the information in the form "Zimmerman and Trayvon had an altercation and Trayvon was shot". Its almost always "a white guy shot and black kid and he's going to get away with it" or "liberals love n*gger crack dealers".

Originally posted by dadudemon
But everyone had already convicted Zimmerman. They instantly found him guilty. This is what that other dude was raging about when he referred to the "liberals".

Except that the initial outcry was not that Zimmerman was guilty it was that he shot a kid and then the cops apparently let him walk before they started investigating. The debate over his guilt took a bit longer to form, at which point you can't really pin down a "kneejerk" reaction to anyone since everyone was on the attack and everyone perceives everyone else as having had a kneejerk reaction.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You do know that I am demanding pictures of Zimmerman's black eyes to prove Zimmerman's side of the story to be a bit more credible, right? RIGHT? RIIIIGHT??!?!?!?!?!?!? Please tell me you understand that and were just making a joke. sad

They present a tiny bit of evidence in favor of his side. There are lots of ways to get into a fight, many of which do not involve being illegitimately assaulted. It seems much too quick to say that if he's been injured then you'll immediately come down on his side.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by NemeBro
Why do you insist on strawmanning everyone you reply to?

I don't, people have a tendency to say stupid things and then immediately claim they said something else when I point it out. Do you remember the time dadude say "**** political correctness" and went into hysterics when I suggested that he had a negative view of political correctness?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
With intent to kill? NO!

Fair enough, you don't believe lethal self defense is justified in general.

NemeBro
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't, people have a tendency to say stupid things and then immediately claim they said something else when I point it out. Do you remember the time dadude say "**** political correctness" and went into hysterics when I suggested that he had a negative view of political correctness? Yes yes, dadudemon is a contrarian troll ( maybe not here, but in other forums I have him pegged as one ) , but do you honestly believe either he or Blax claim all liberals act in such a way?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
...Fair enough, you don't believe lethal self defense is justified in general.

Ya, walking around with a gun, with the intent of killing anyone who attacks you is wrong. Getting away is always the right answer. If you are cornered and your life is in danger, then you have to do what you have too. I do not believe in stand your ground. That is stupid, in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with running away. After all, the person who is attacking you, might be defending them-self, because you might have inadvertently cornered them.

NemeBro
Speaking as someone living in Florida, this is the only time I have ever heard of someone applying Stand Your Ground outside of one's home, but it seems odd that Zimmerman would try to use the law as a defense, since it would actually justify Trayvon beating his ass if he felt threatened by Zimmerman, assuming the law does indeed apply to the street.

dadudemon
Originally posted by focus4chumps
isnt it against forum rules to troll people by altering their quotes? oh well i guess thats better than an 8 paragraph cool story...oh damn...im too late.

No, it is not against forum rules to alter quotes and tell the person for which you altered the quote that you had done so. And no it is not trolling.

No 8-paragraph story from me is required to correct the obvious trolling you did to me, either. We agree there.

rudester
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, it is not against forum rules to alter quotes and tell the person for which you altered the quote that you had done so. And no it is not trolling.

No 8-paragraph story from me is required to correct the obvious trolling you did to me, either. We agree there.

It's against forum rules to be a nark..lol

RE: Blaxican
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So you honestly believe that all liberals think following people and asking questions are crimes? Good to know that list supported some reasoned thinking from you. You frustrated bro? Your strawmans bounce off of me like oil on water.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So you honestly believe that all liberals think following people and asking questions are crimes? Good to know that list supported some reasoned thinking from you.

That's a straw....nevermind.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It really isn't and I think you know that.

It is, really, and I know you know that.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Good news and a very good question.

Yes, it is good news. If it is accurate and holds up in court, much of the knee-jerking becomes null and Zimmerman MAY walk (that last part may not be good news, though).

And I think the question is valid: where are the gun control complaints?



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
True, I'm thinking more of public opinion and what may have actually happened than what he actually needs to demonstrate in court.

Understood. But I think you're treating what will be presented in court as already being different between what happened in real life (this sometimes IS true, of course).

My problem is with what people think happened in real life: they do not know all the facts (the absurd extreme majority of us still do not know exactly went down) so public opinion can go **** itself until we have more information: it is far too ignorant and lay to matter.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The particularly awful part is that its possible for most of this to happen without either of them strictly being in the wrong at any point. Its possible that Trayvon saw the gun Zimmerman was carrying at some point during their confrontation which frightened him which lead to a fight.



Indeed. I find the unnecessary loss of just about any human life to be saddening. The young man was looking into going to colleges, ffs. sad

For me, it doesn't matter if he was a "thug" or a "criminal": he was still trying to do something big and improve his life.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This kind of thing is why I haven't picked a side (actually I make it a policy not to ever pick a side on these sorts of cases). We probably don't have all the available information and what we do have is all carefully selected by the people giving it to us, far too often in hopes of getting a reaction.

Holy shit. I think we agree almost completely about this entire topic.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You pretty much never get the information in the form "Zimmerman and Trayvon had an altercation and Trayvon was shot". Its almost always "a white guy shot and black kid and he's going to get away with it" or "liberals love n*gger crack dealers".

lol

That's just about right on the characterization.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Except that the initial outcry was not that Zimmerman was guilty it was that he shot a kid and then the cops apparently let him walk before they started investigating. The debate over his guilt took a bit longer to form, at which point you can't really pin down a "kneejerk" reaction to anyone since everyone was on the attack and everyone perceives everyone else as having had a kneejerk reaction.


Sure, maybe some people were stating that.

But others had already found Zimmerman guilty and some even demanded Zimmerman's execution. Closed-minded knee-jerking to the max.

The initial outcry was the Zimmerman was guilty and people demanded justice (some people demanded Zimmerman's life like some sort of Code of Hammurabi). "Zimmerman should be locked up for life." Or "Zimmerman should be executed".

I found a few like that in the comment sections from various websites and on some forums using Google's "to and from" search features.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They present a tiny bit of evidence in favor of his side. There are lots of ways to get into a fight, many of which do not involve being illegitimately assaulted. It seems much too quick to say that if he's been injured then you'll immediately come down on his side.

This is what I stated:

"...I am demanding pictures of Zimmerman's black eyes to prove Zimmerman's side of the story to be a bit more credible..."

I did not state this: "...I am demanding pictures of Zimmerman's black eyes to prove Zimmerman's innocence...".


Do you want to revisit that portion of my post and respond with something else?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
You frustrated bro? Your strawmans bounce off of me like oil on water.

I love it when people say "I believe X" and then when I say "It is stupid to believe X" suddenly they don't believe it anymore. It's like a superpower, the ability to control the minds of others.

RE: Blaxican
I love it when people's internet butthurt causes a massive drop in their IQ and reading comprehension skills.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's a straw....nevermind.

When someone comes right out and says "I agree with X" you don't get to call strawman on people who say "This person agrees with X". Perhaps you don't know what a strawman is.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is what I stated:

"...I am demanding pictures of Zimmerman's black eyes to prove Zimmerman's side of the story to be a bit more credible..."

I did not state this: "...I am demanding pictures of Zimmerman's black eyes to prove Zimmerman's innocence...".

Do you want to revisit that portion of my post and respond with something else?

That isn't what you stated. I'm actually going to quote what you said.

First this:
Originally posted by dadudemon
I have not decided which side to choose.

Then this:
Originally posted by dadudemon
If Zimmerman's camp provides some photos that occurred after this event that shows him having black eyes, I will then change my mind.

You're saying here, very clearly, that if evidence is provided that Zimmerman was beaten up you will pick a side. If that isn't what you meant I cannot be blamed for misunderstanding. If you wish to be understood express yourself clearly.

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
And I think the question is valid: where are the gun control complaints?

what do you mean? Google: Trayvon Martin gun control

BackFire
Originally posted by dadudemon
Feel free to:

1. Point out any claims he made.

2. Then point out which ones are unreasonable.

3. Then explain why those in #2 are unreasonable.



I mean, I'm all for rhetoric but at one point, we have got to stop with the one liners or short phrases that actually do not delve into the meat of the topic (not just this one, any topic).



Edit -

I finally took the time to read over all his whining. You know what it looks like? It looks like he is lashing out against a crap ton of different idiotic claims made by various people on the interwebz. I have seen some of the claims he was lashing out against (note: I was a newb to this case until about 2 days ago).

Like the claim, that it isn't bad that Trayvon was possibly a drug dealer (I actually agree with the "libtards" that being an MJ drug dealer is NOT bad). Obviously, that claim is rather stupid because the extreme majority of the US thinks "drugs are bad. Mkay."

Just sayin'.


If any of you have read any of the idiocy from the liberal side of things, you'll see a direct response by that gent who wrote up that diatribe.

What is obvious, though, is the idiocy from the conservatards. The racism seen on the interwebz is ridiculous. The "Trayvon was bad because he was black and Zimmerman is innocent because he is not black" sentiments are just stupid. Yes, that is how some arguments can be boiled down.

They'd all be reasonable if he replaced the word "liberals" with "some idiot on the internet". Simply saying "liberals" implies the number of people saying those things that belong to the group being labeled is a significant amount, and it's not.

As it is, it's just Rush Limbaugh style idiocy, him proclaiming himself a democrat is meaningless, the claims themselves are what matter.

focus4chumps
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, it is not against forum rules to alter quotes and tell the person for which you altered the quote that you had done so. And no it is not trolling.

No 8-paragraph story from me is required to correct the obvious trolling you did to me, either. We agree there.

i can tell you feel like you're a pretty big deal here, but i wasnt even addressing you until you addressed me.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
When someone comes right out and says "I agree with X" you don't get to call strawman on people who say "This person agrees with X". Perhaps you don't know what a strawman is.

When someone intentionally and knowingly adds words or changes the meaning of "I agree with some of X" then you don't get to claim that "So you agree that all X is X?" and then pretend it is not a strawman.

You do know what a strawman is and so do I. smile



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That isn't what you stated. I'm actually going to quote what you said.


laughing laughing laughing


Now now, let's not make stuff up.

Now, before the screenshot, you said, "That isn't what you stated."



Here is a screen shot for you:

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z238/dadudemon/convo-1.png





Try as you might, you still can't libel me. You are very bad at that so you may want to stop.

That is what I stated word for word.

Nice try, but you need to troll harder to get me to say something else.




Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
First this:


Then this:


You're saying here, very clearly, that if evidence is provided that Zimmerman was beaten up you will pick a side. If that isn't what you meant I cannot be blamed for misunderstanding. If you wish to be understood express yourself clearly.


Now, you have made a very big assumption. What is that assumption?

The assumption is what I meant by "change my mind".



This is not a case of me blaming anything on misunderstanding, this is you specifically making up meanings.


As that post was, it was not clearly defined what I meant by "change my mind". One could assume I meant "side with Zimmerman" or one could assume a whole bunch of things in-between because I had not yet clarified.

However, and this is why you failed so horribly to troll me:

I did clarify exactly what I meant by "change my mind".

Here it is again for you:


Originally posted by dadudemon
You do know that I am demanding pictures of Zimmerman's black eyes to prove Zimmerman's side of the story to be a bit more credible, right? RIGHT? RIIIIGHT??!?!?!?!?!?!? Please tell me you understand that and were just making a joke. sad

Now, at that point, you should have done this in your head: "OH! That's what dadudemon meant by 'change my mind'. He means that he will see Zimmerman's story as having a bit more credibility. Clearly, he did no say Zimmerman would be exonerated, innocent, or completely in the right. He just meant that all of Zimmerman's claims are suspect until evidence backs it up."



But, nope! You concluded something entirely different specifically because of you agenda to rage at me.


COME AT ME BRO! estahuh


Originally posted by BackFire
They'd all be reasonable if he replaced the word "liberals" with "some idiot on the internet". Simply saying "liberals" implies the number of people saying those things that belong to the group being labeled is a significant amount, and it's not.

As it is, it's just Rush Limbaugh style idiocy, him proclaiming himself a democrat is meaningless, the claims themselves are what matter.

Okay. I agree and concede that point. He obviously was fed up with what he perceived as liberals. I will note, as I have noted to SC, that he never said "all liberals" as he is a liberal, himself.

And I despise Rush Limbaugh. Part of me thinks Rush is just putting on an act and he doesn't really believe half of that idiocy he spews.




Originally posted by inimalist
what do you mean? Google: Trayvon Martin gun control

When reading over this case and searching comment sections and forums about this topic, it has not once come up.

Granted, I did not search specifically for "trayvon gun control" in google search. I was approaching the topic from a general "news" portion and did not read anything that could address this case even better.


BRB, I will research that.



Originally posted by focus4chumps
i can tell you feel like you're a pretty big deal here, but i wasnt even addressing you until you addressed me.

Troll harder.

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
When reading over this case and searching comment sections and forums about this topic, it has not once come up.

Granted, I did not search specifically for "trayvon gun control" in google search. I was approaching the topic from a general "news" portion and did not read anything that could address this case even better.


BRB, I will research that.

It may simply be a geographical thing. Canadians tend to see our stance on guns as being more enlightened than yours, so when people get shot in America, it is very quickly brought up.

Though, idk, is the "stand your ground" law really considered "gun control"? Like, would Americans see something like repealing "concealed carry" as specifically "gun-control", even if access to guns isn't being restricted at all? idk, you guys have weird stances on guns...

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
It may simply be a geographical thing. Canadians tend to see our stance on guns as being more enlightened than yours, so when people get shot in America, it is very quickly brought up.

Though, idk, is the "stand your ground" law really considered "gun control"? Like, would Americans see something like repealing "concealed carry" as specifically "gun-control", even if access to guns isn't being restricted at all? idk, you guys have weird stances on guns...

Found something from a slightly liberal leaning new site:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/02/trayvon-martin-petition-gun-control-group_n_1397575.html


But the article seems to be ... more humorous than serious. "Right to buy skittles and tea without being shot". WTF?




But about the case: if some dude approached me "flashing" a gun, I would definitely not back-talk, mouth off, or try to punch the dude.

Did Zimmerman flash a gun? Some people would have you believe he did. Some would have you believe he pulled it out of his pocket while Trayvon was showing him what's what.

Who is correct?

I really do think that distinction is very important to this case. If Zimmerman approached the situation with the gun out, that could have provoked a more hostile response from Trayvon (I could cite a study that shows our thoughts are more violence focused when a gun is about). It is also threatening to start out a convo with a gun. The 9-1-1 call does not seem show Zimmerman as having started the convo with the gun out at least from my experience when thugs (or not thugs) start a convo with a gun.

BackFire
You have a point about the lack of major conversation in regards to gun control and how it relates to this case. I personally think there's great effort being taken right now by the gun loving conservatives to try and avoid that discussion at all costs, which is why you're seeing various irrelevant topics being raised by the right, like trayvon martin's possession of pot and what not, they really don't want that topic to be brought up because this case could really damage our lenient gun laws, I think.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
Though, idk, is the "stand your ground" law really considered "gun control"? Like, would Americans see something like repealing "concealed carry" as specifically "gun-control", even if access to guns isn't being restricted at all? idk, you guys have weird stances on guns...

Americans a very pro gun, probably even moreso than Europe and Canada realize. Currently the only states that are not required to issue CC permits are New Jersey, California, Massachusetts, and New York. Those are probably the four most left leaning states in the entire country.

In fact groups like the NRA (though I'm not sure of the NRA in particular) tend to see even shall-issue laws as excessive. These are laws that say "so long as you have qualities X, Y, and Z the states is required to give a CC license". Its the X, Y, and Z that get people angry. Finger printing is a way to build up a data base for oppression. Gun safety classes are paternalism. Age limits are probably the only thing you could get a majority of Americans to agree are reasonable and even then maybe not.

Wikipedia has a nice map of this. Gun laws have gotten progressively less restrictive. Since the 80s no states has gone from "shall" to "may" or "may" to "never".

Honestly its one of a few issues I find myself to be very right leaning on.

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Americans a very pro gun, probably even moreso than Europe and Canada realize. Currently the only states that are not required to issue CC permits are New Jersey, California, Massachusetts, and New York. Those are probably the four most left leaning states in the entire country.

In fact groups like the NRA (though I'm not sure of the NRA in particular) tend to see even shall-issue laws as excessive. These are laws that say "so long as you have qualities X, Y, and Z the states is required to give a CC license". Its the X, Y, and Z that get people angry. Finger printing is a way to build up a data base for oppression. Gun safety classes are paternalism. Age limits are probably the only thing you could get a majority of Americans to agree are reasonable and even then maybe not.

woah, so in most states, CC isn't even this special thing that people have to apply for? Its just a rubber stamp essentially?

thats strange. So, saying you couldn't bring a gun to a playground would be seen as, specifically, a 2nd amendment issue rather than a public safety issue?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Wikipedia has a nice map of this. Gun laws have gotten progressively less restrictive. Since the 80s no states has gone from "shall" to "may" or "may" to "never".

Honestly its one of a few issues I find myself to be very right leaning on.

I'm to the right certainly of where Canadian gun laws are, but I'm not sure, in a practical sense, about things like CC. In a perfect world, sure, people should have the right to defend themselves, and if they aren't hurting anyone nobody has the right to stop them, but we don't live in anything close to a perfect world, and I can think of few situations that are made better if more people were armed.

The Swiss system is cool, though I'm not sure how I feel about mandatory military service.

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
I'm to the right certainly of where Canadian gun laws are, but I'm not sure, in a practical sense, about things like CC. In a perfect world, sure, people should have the right to defend themselves, and if they aren't hurting anyone nobody has the right to stop them, but we don't live in anything close to a perfect world, and I can think of few situations that are made better if more people were armed.

The Swiss system is cool, though I'm not sure how I feel about mandatory military service.


Could you sum up Canada's gun system and the contemporary social position on it? You say you are to the right...so Canada must be really far to the left. But I thought Canada had way more guns per capita than the US?

So I R confused and I do not want to spend an hour reading about it.

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
Could you sum up Canada's gun system and the contemporary social position on it?

alright, here is a good summary of the licences and procedures necessary to get one:

http://www.canadianlawsite.ca/gunlaws.htm

the classes of licences are:

http://www.firearmstraining.ca/licences.htm

and gun classes:

http://stason.org/TULARC/society/guns-canadian/25-What-is-restricted-in-Canada.html

our transport licences:

http://www.firearmstraining.ca/permits.htm

basically, anything that is a hunting rifle or similar shotgun requires a fairly standard licence, hand guns require an additional licence, and anything that can fire more than one bullet with a single trigger pull is prohibited. It is possible to get a licence to own a prohibited weapon, but in practice it is nearly impossible. They generally exist only to allow people who owned these weapons before the laws came in to continue to own them, and there has been talk that the government doesn't want people to be allowed to "grandfather" the licence after they die, so the guns would have to be destroyed.

We have a registry of ever legally owned handgun, and I assume all other restricted/prohibited weapons. The Liberals, years ago, tried to implement the same thing for shotguns and rifles, but it became a billion(s) dollar nightmare and was recently scrapped.

In general, gun politics are a regional thing. Cities are against them and in a place like Toronto any gun death is widespread news (there were gun deaths one year and it was dubbed the "year of the gun"wink. You would have a very difficult time running in Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec, Vancouver, Winnipeg, and maybe to a lesser extend Calgary or Edmonton , with a policy that wanted to allow people to carry guns in public. In the farm land, there would be no real support for more access to restricted or prohibited guns, but this is where resistance to the long-gun registry came from. Because hunting and farming were just sort of a way of life, they resisted the idea of needing to be on some "government list"

Originally posted by dadudemon
You say you are to the right...so Canada must be really far to the left.

is that left? idk, because it is such a political non-issue here (handguns/restricted/prohibited) we really don't have a left/right spectrum to it. I think it is a little draconian in terms of what I as a citizen should be allowed to own and what I can do with it, I just can't really say I'm in favor of there being more guns in public places. I've met people, they are assholes.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But I thought Canada had way more guns per capita than the US?

not even close man... you have almost 3 times

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

Originally posted by dadudemon
So I R confused and I do not want to spend an hour reading about it.

I believe it was Bowling for Columbine that gave that impression...

Micheal Moore... and lets leave it at that...

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
alright, here is a good summary of the licences and procedures necessary to get one:

http://www.canadianlawsite.ca/gunlaws.htm

the classes of licences are:

http://www.firearmstraining.ca/licences.htm

and gun classes:

http://stason.org/TULARC/society/guns-canadian/25-What-is-restricted-in-Canada.html

our transport licences:

http://www.firearmstraining.ca/permits.htm

basically, anything that is a hunting rifle or similar shotgun requires a fairly standard licence, hand guns require an additional licence, and anything that can fire more than one bullet with a single trigger pull is prohibited. It is possible to get a licence to own a prohibited weapon, but in practice it is nearly impossible. They generally exist only to allow people who owned these weapons before the laws came in to continue to own them, and there has been talk that the government doesn't want people to be allowed to "grandfather" the licence after they die, so the guns would have to be destroyed.

We have a registry of ever legally owned handgun, and I assume all other restricted/prohibited weapons. The Liberals, years ago, tried to implement the same thing for shotguns and rifles, but it became a billion(s) dollar nightmare and was recently scrapped.

In general, gun politics are a regional thing. Cities are against them and in a place like Toronto any gun death is widespread news (there were 6 gun deaths one year and it was dubbed the "year of the gun"wink. You would have a very difficult time running in Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec, Vancouver, Winnipeg, and maybe to a lesser extend Calgary or Edmonton , with a policy that wanted to allow people to carry guns in public. In the farm land, there would be no real support for more access to restricted or prohibited guns, but this is where resistance to the long-gun registry came from. Because hunting and farming were just sort of a way of life, they resisted the idea of needing to be on some "government list"



is that left? idk, because it is such a political non-issue here (handguns/restricted/prohibited) we really don't have a left/right spectrum to it. I think it is a little draconian in terms of what I as a citizen should be allowed to own and what I can do with it, I just can't really say I'm in favor of there being more guns in public places. I've met people, they are assholes.



not even close man... you have almost 3 times

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country



I believe it was Bowling for Columbine that gave that impression...

Micheal Moore... and lets leave it at that...


Cool! Thanks for explaining that. I now know more about Canada's gun laws and gun control.

In the US, right wingers want less gun control and left wingers want more.


However...technically, the further left you go, the more rights a person has. So if we go far enough left, eventually we leave the part where "gun control" is an issue and we hit "no gun control/anarchy".


But that's how it rolls here in the US.


But, yes, it might have been Michael Moore's movie that made me think Canadians had plenty of guns.

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
In the US, right wingers want less gun control and left wingers want more.


However...technically, the further left you go, the more rights a person has. So if we go far enough left, eventually we leave the part where "gun control" is an issue and we hit "no gun control/anarchy".


But that's how it rolls here in the US.

thats actually sort of what I meant. I get that its a Dem/Rep thing, and in terms of like the long-gun registry, our left/right split was like that too, I just mean, you could see an argument from either side supporting more gun freedom.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by dadudemon
...However...technically, the further left you go, the more rights a person has. So if we go far enough left, eventually we leave the part where "gun control" is an issue and we hit "no gun control/anarchy".

The truth is, if you go far enough right or left you become a nut!

Robtard
Originally posted by inimalist
. So, saying you couldn't bring a gun to a playground would be seen as, specifically, a 2nd amendment issue rather than a public safety issue?

How else is a parent going to defend themselves and their child from pedo-rapist-gunmen if they're not allowed to carry a gun at all times too?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Robtard
How else is a parent going to defend themselves and their child from pedo-rapist-gunmen if they're not allowed to carry a gun at all times too?

I hate those pedo-rapist-gunmen who roam the streets. stick out tongue

Robtard
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I hate those pedo-rapist-gunmen who roam the streets. stick out tongue

if everyone in America carried a gun, there would not be a problem with crime. It's a fact, guns save lives.

eg What if every teacher and student of age had a gun at Columbine? See where I'm going? Exactly.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
thats strange. So, saying you couldn't bring a gun to a playground would be seen as, specifically, a 2nd amendment issue rather than a public safety issue?

Yes. The stronger pro-gun groups would usually couch it as leaving children in danger.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Robtard
if everyone in America carried a gun, there would not be a problem with crime. It's a fact, guns save lives.

eg What if every teacher and student of age had a gun at Columbine? See where I'm going? Exactly.

When I was in high school (70s), there were kids who brought their rifles on the bus so they could take shooting class after school. They were not loaded, and no one freaked out. Guns are not the problem, it is a cultural problem. So, I disagree. With this culture, everyone having guns would be a disaster. However, I am not saying that guns should be banned, but both extremes are equally bad.

inimalist
Originally posted by Robtard
eg What if every teacher and student of age had a gun at Columbine? See where I'm going? Exactly.

you would have several dozen people in a confused and panicked state shooting at one another, with no clear idea of who or why they are shooting?

Robtard
Originally posted by inimalist
you would have several dozen people in a confused and panicked state shooting at one another, with no clear idea of who or why they are shooting?

That wouldn't happen, guns make people rational.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Robtard
That wouldn't happen, guns make people rational.

Well, how do you explain accidental deaths caused by "Hey! is this loaded?"? big grin

Robtard
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, how do you explain accidental deaths caused by "Hey! is this loaded?"? big grin

Darwinism.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Robtard
Darwinism. laughing

inimalist
Al Jazeera is reporting that, in about 45min to an hour, the special prosecutor will lay charges on Zimmerman at a press conference.

It will not be murder, but likely manslaughter. Apparently there are a number of white supremacists hanging around waiting for the press conference.

Robtard
Innocent or not, with the amount of news and controversy this story has had, Zimmerman's likely not getting a fair trial.

inimalist
oh, I forget her name, but couldn't the same argument have been made for the woman accused of killing her child(ren)?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Robtard
Innocent or not, with the amount of news and controversy this story has had, Zimmerman's likely not getting a fair trial.

You think?

Robtard
Originally posted by inimalist
oh, I forget her name, but couldn't the same argument have been made for the woman accused of killing her child(ren)?

The party mom who waited to tell anyone her child was missing?

Yeah, can't explain that one, since the news vilified her. Maybe the combination that she was hot and had the 'lost her child' going for her, cos I followed the news on that one, the evidence was very damning.

inimalist
Originally posted by Robtard
The party mom who waited to tell anyone her child was missing?

Yeah, can't explain that one, since the news vilified her. Maybe the combination that she was hot and had the 'lost her child' going for her, cos I followed the news on that one, the evidence was very damning.

I totally agree, it will be hard for Zimmerman to get a fair trial, but I don't think its just going to be a show trial or anything like that

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>