Originally posted by steveholt956
What is bolded is deemed irrelevant to what you "think" you know about the case. The only real information you have is the so called "hours" of youtube videos. I can assure you, I watched 99% of this case in its entirety, and I felt the right decision was made. Add to the fact that I watched MSNBC most of the time (because I want to get an opposing side's opinion, no matter how stupid it is) and there wasn't an iota of fact in the opposing opinion. It was ALL more or less emotional. No facts, nothing.
Theres nothing bolded so ok. I wouldn't say its irrelevant though. Reading through dozens of people discussing the details of the case is a good way to pick up on said details.
Also good for you? The doesn't change the fact that I'm hardly ignorant and uninformed. Personally though I think its obvious that you're the one being emotional over this case. I'm not the one insulting everyone disagreeing with my point of view.
Originally posted by steveholt956
You are not an authority on what constitutes suspicious activity. Zimmerman was the only one in that situation that could have deemed whether something suspicious was going on or not. Now whether he was wrong or right, is another story.
I don't need to be, I have Zimmerman himself saying what he found suspicious about Trayvon. It isn't convincing.
Originally posted by steveholt956
This is something the idiotic left uses as a justification so they can sleep better at night.Also, while he didn't listen to the dispatcher, it doesn't mean he was unjustified in continuing, nor does it indicate depraved indifference or anything of the sort.
I'm not really political. But I only said possibly, based on his 'these people' comment.
It totally does mean that. He had no business ignoring the police and taking matters into his own hands unless he had good reason to believe a crime was immanent.
Originally posted by steveholt956
If it was self defense, then by definition, Zimmerman's actions were not the cause of Trayvon's death unless you're arguing semantics here. One can argue that Trayvon kicking Zimmerman's ass was the cause of Martin's death. Neither one is a particularly intelligent or objective point of view.
One can argue that, but since Zimmerman following Trayvon was the cause of that, its objectively true that that was the real root cause. Trayvon whooping his butt was the cause of him pulling out the gun and firing, but he wouldn't have been in that situation if he hadn't of followed him.
Originally posted by steveholt956
Monday morning quarterbacking doesn't help your case here. The case doesn't start and end with "Well he shouldn't have been following him!", buddy.
I don't know what that is. And I never said that it did. All I said is that if he'd stayed in his car Trayvon would almost certainly be still alive. And that the moral response would have been to say 'I wouldn't have followed him.'
Originally posted by Nephthys
Theres nothing bolded so ok. I wouldn't say its irrelevant though. Reading through dozens of people discussing the details of the case is a good way to pick up on said details.
Also good for you? The doesn't change the fact that I'm hardly ignorant and uninformed. Personally though I think its obvious that you're the one being emotional over this case. I'm not the one insulting everyone disagreeing with my point of view.
I don't need to be, I have Zimmerman himself saying what he found suspicious about Trayvon. It isn't convincing.
I'm not really political. But I only said possibly, based on his 'these people' comment.
It totally does mean that. He had no business ignoring the police and taking matters into his own hands unless he had good reason to believe a crime was immanent.
One can argue that, but since Zimmerman following Trayvon was the cause of that, its objectively true that that was the real root cause. Trayvon whooping his butt was the cause of him pulling out the gun and firing, but he wouldn't have been in that situation if he hadn't of followed him.
I don't know what that is. And I never said that it did. All I said is that if he'd stayed in his car Trayvon would almost certainly be still alive. And that the moral response would have been to say 'I wouldn't have followed him.' [/B]It's looking at things "after the fact", which doesn't work. And your last sentence is exactly what I'm talking about. You're looking at things "morally" and from your perspective, and I'm looking at them both morally AND legally. Morally, maybe he should have stayed in his car OR he thought there was enough reason to follow Martin. LEGALLY he was justified in following Martin.
DS, you should take your argument to this thread. I'm very interested in what you have to say and how the other posters there would handle it. Many of them are pretty smart, this could be a fascinating discussion.
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f11/t581915.html
LL's response to this is priceless, as is the picture of Stewie.
Also I don't care any more. So lets just sum up:
'And there was ample evidence to suggest there was good enough reason to pursue Martin'
No there bloody wasn't.
"You don't know what would have happened had Zimmerman not followed him. Martin could have robbed a liquor store, bought/sold drugs, or just went home and watched duck tales."
Or he could have become the herald of Galactus. Y'know, if we're throwing out bullshit speculation. By the way, was he going to rob that store with his skittles? Its just that I have some right now and need the cash.
"And your last sentence is exactly what I'm talking about. You're looking at things "morally" and from your perspective, and I'm looking at them both morally AND legally. Morally, maybe he should have stayed in his car OR he thought there was enough reason to follow Martin. LEGALLY he was justified in following Martin."
I'm not talking about the ****ing case for the last time. I'm saying that saying he wouldn't do anything different is a morally outrageous thing to say. That was my only point when I posted that video and now I wished that I hadn't cuz you're so damn annoying.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Also I don't care any more. So lets just sum up:'And there was ample evidence to suggest there was good enough reason to pursue Martin'
No there bloody wasn't.
Or he could have become the herald of Galactus. Was he going to rob that store with his skittles?
I'm not talking about the ****ing case for the last time. I'm saying that saying he wouldn't do anything different is a morally outrageous thing to say. That was my only point when I posted that video and now I wished that I hadn't cuz you're so damn annoying. [/B]
Originally posted by Nephthys
Its morally outrageous to respond to what was essentially 'would you not have killed that kid' with 'Nope. I would have done the exact same thing.'
Your reasoning ignores the actual question in its entirety. "What would I have done differently when I followed the kid, had him start a fight, had him kick my ass and shot him out of self defense? Nothing".
Originally posted by Nephthys
Except the first question in the video is 'Do you regret getting out of the car to follow Trayvon that night' to which he replies 'No sir.'Even if you think he was justified in following him, thats just ****ing cold.
The man thought he was suspicious, that was his right. While I disagree with his vigilance, that hardly makes what he said "morally outrageous".
Originally posted by The_Tempest
Gotta go with Neph on this one. That was a bad answer. Not following him would have 1) saved a kid's life, 2) spared Zimmerman lifelong stigma, 3) preserved his handsome face.Now I understand the political reasons for his answer, but it was still a bad one.
I can understand that line of thinking, it certainly makes sense. But his response also made sense when you look at it from his point of view in what actually happened. I don't think he was thinking "if I didn't get out of the car"...