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

Originally posted by dadudemon
So when you are backed into a corner with your obviously wrong trolling, you deny the words in front of your face and call the other person a hypocrite.

it seems fashionable to misuse the word "hypocrite".

anyway, i was not protesting your speculation, even in the obnoxious form of absolute statements and pretentious "the end" comments based on the same "dipshit media" sources as the rest of us.

i was simply pointing out your hypocrisy in bashing people for doing it and then...doing it. what gives you the exclusive right? unless you intend to pull rank and declare yourself an expert? that does seem to be trendy here.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
it seems fashionable to misuse the word "hypocrite".

I didn't take you for a "ride the waves of pop-culture" type of person.

Oh, wait, I did. 🙂

Originally posted by focus4chumps
anyway, i was not protesting your speculation, even in the obnoxious form of absolute statements and pretentious "the end" comments based on the same "dipshit media" sources as the rest of us.

Define "us" in your comment above. If by "us" you mean KMC, no, not correct. If by "us" you mean the average joe idiot that believes everything on MSNBC of Fox News, yes...that would be the knee-jerking "dipshit media" consumers I was talking about earlier.

What's great about KMC is most of the people here are not dipshits. You can carry on a decent conversation and they don't automatically believe everything in the mainstream media.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
i was simply pointing out your hypocrisy in bashing people for doing it and then...doing it. what gives you the exclusive right? unless you intend to pull rank and declare yourself an expert? that does seem to be trendy here.

Actually, no, that's not what I "did" nor is what I did what I had pointed out. You probably need to look up the word hypocrisy and while you're at it, look up the word "strawman."

Lastly, I addressed the last "I am raging made at dadudemon for turning my arguments on their heads and making me look like a fool...again" comments about it being "serious business".

Bam.

Next? 🙂

Seems like a pretty clear case the has been completely muddled by name calling and people projecting their own ideas and bigotry on this case.

People were so quick to call racism on Zimmerman because he was a white man who shot and killed a black boy

Then it was found out that he was in fact Latino and mentored young black kids but that didnt stop it and they began calling him a "white Latino". What the F*** is a White Latino? Are Latinos now diverisified into subcatagories? What about Tan White people? or Brown Black People? It was just another way for the media to still call Zimmerman a racist because they jumped the gun without knowing the fact and now had to keep it going

Zimmerman claimed self defense and their argument now became "well Trayvon couldnt have posed that much of a treat to George since George outweighed him." I outweigh Mayweather so by that logic i should be able to beat his ass right? Weight can have little effect on a fight if the heavier person doesnt know how to use it or the smaller person is just that much better so that was just a stupid point to make. Plus Trayvon was much taller than Zimmerman which gives him an advantage all in itself so again that point was stupid

Then it was "oh George wasnt hurt enough to shoot Trayvon since the video of him in the police station showed no noticable damage" Really? The lighting was bad and when they enhanced the video it was clear he had an injury on his head. "well it wasnt a serious injury tho" Are you F***ING kidding me? he was on top of Zimmerman slamming his head into the groung! What was he supposed to do wait til he had brain damage? just stupid

Now did Zimmerman follow Tryayvon? yes. did he profile him? yes. did he racially profile him? maybe. is any of that against the law? NO

did Trayvon punch Zimmerman and slam his head into the ground? yes. is that a crime? yes.

Zimmerman used self defense cuz he felt his life was in danger

CASE CLOSED

So if you slammed someone's head into the ground during a fight, they could shoot you to death and it'd be "case closed". Got it.

Originally posted by Robtard
So if you slammed someone's head into the ground during a fight, they could shoot you to death and it'd be "case closed". Got it.

If you beat someone's head against the sidewalk, could you kill them?

Originally posted by Robtard
So if you slammed someone's head into the ground during a fight, they could shoot you to death and it'd be "case closed". Got it.

You can in fact suffer serious damage or even death from having your skull slammed into the ground, so shooting someone doing this to you would be self-defense.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you beat someone's head against the sidewalk, could you kill them?

Originally posted by NemeBro
You're not this stupid.

You can in fact suffer serious damage or even death from having your skull slammed into the ground, so shooting someone doing this to you would be self-defense.

The point I was making you two knee-jerkers is that all we know is that Zimmerman had a bash on his head, which he could have gotten from one hit during a fight, so saying "Travon obviously tried to kill him, so it's self-defense!" as fact is foolish.

We just don't know. Maybe he was trying to kill Zimmerman, maybe he was trying to push away from Zimmerman. I don't know.

Originally posted by Robtard
The point I was making you two knee-jerkers is that all we know is that Zimmerman had a bash on his head, which he could have gotten from one hit during a fight, so saying "Travon obviously tried to kill him, so it's self-defense!" as fact is foolish.

We just don't know. Maybe he was trying to kill Zimmerman, maybe he was trying to push away from Zimmerman. I don't know.

I never said that. I have no idea. I wasn't there, and I haven't looked at the evidence.

Not you, Mr. Case Closed.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you beat someone's head against the sidewalk, could you kill them?

Originally posted by NemeBro
You're not this stupid.

You can in fact suffer serious damage or even death from having your skull slammed into the ground, so shooting someone doing this to you would be self-defense.

in most civilized nations, with rational approaches to gun possession, no, you could not shoot someone who hit your head off the ground, nor would it be a valid case of self defense, and WTF are you doing chasing after a teenager with a gun in the first place?

Originally posted by inimalist
in most civilized nations, with rational approaches to gun possession, no, you could not shoot someone who hit your head off the ground, nor would it be a valid case of self defense, and WTF are you doing chasing after a teenager with a gun in the first place?

You act like you know more then you do.

So if you slammed someone's head into the ground during a fight, they could shoot you to death and it'd be "case closed". Got it.

only problem was it wasnt a fight. Zimmerman had no marks on his hands to show he was fighting and since there has been no talk about Trayvon having bruises or cuts due to fighting with Zimmerman we can only conclude that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he couldnt really fight back. And if i did that to someone and slammed their head into the ground repeatedly (which could kill them) and they had a gun and shot me it would still be self defense

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You act like you know more then you do.

not really

name a nation where there would be any controversy on this case?

the only reason there is question is because American gun laws are so insane. Its not that we don't know enough about the scuffle, what we know is an armed man chased down a kid and shot him for some reason.

To an America and the American legal system, it matters what happened in that altercation, because gee wilikers, nothing wrong with Zimmerman's actions before that, no clear malicious intent, nope, hes a good ol'boy. In Canada, the UK, any European nation I can think of, the issue would be, why is the armed man chasing down a citizen? Like, in Canada for sure, our self-defense laws do not work like yours do. You have to prove literal threat of life. Its not "were you scared" or "were you being attacked", and even then, we don't let maniacs walk around with concealed weapons. If I were being mugged and shot the man dead, I would be looking at hugely serious charges merely for having a concealed weapon on my person, defense be damned. (edit: in fact, this is true if I were carrying mace or other items clearly for self-defense, like a baton; a knife would only be excusable if I could come up with a valid reason for having it, like construction work or whatever).

For example, there was a recent case of a man being arrested for fire-arm possession. He kept his weapon in a legally compliant container, unloaded, etc, in full compliance with the law. He had a ongoing sort-of feud with neighbours, that eventually escalated to them firebombing his property, with him asleep inside. He grabbed his gun to go confront them, and they ran off (I don't believe he fired a shot, but he might have, not at them of course). When the police arrived he still had the revolver, and he was arrested on the spot. There is controversy about whether his actions constitute self-defense.

I'm not giving this example as a policy choice I support, just trying to give you context on how inane this looks to anyone who isn't American.

Originally posted by juggerman
which could kill them

so, your standard here is, if one person does something to another that has even some potential of killing them, regardless of intent, regardless of context, the person being assailed can straight up murder that other person as a first option?

EDIT: for example:

Imagine I'm carrying a gun, concealed, in accordance with whatever crazy American law you have. Now, I come up to you and call you a coward pussy *****, an ignorant idiot fool, start insulting your mother, your family, essentially everything you might hold dear.

Now, some people might not get sucked into a fight like this, but imho, you would be well within your rights to knock me in the face if I did this. However, punching someone in the face can kill them. By your very own logic, I can now shoot you dead. I can pick a fight with you, and when you defend yourself, I can kill you. As long as I only use words to instigate the fight, I'm in the right, by your own logic.

Originally posted by juggerman
only problem was it wasnt a fight. Zimmerman had no marks on his hands to show he was fighting and since there has been no talk about Trayvon having bruises or cuts due to fighting with Zimmerman we can only conclude that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he couldnt really fight back. And if i did that to someone and slammed their head into the ground repeatedly (which could kill them) and they had a gun and shot me it would still be self defense

Because people always have"marks on their hands" after a fight? Always as fact? Nope. Travon could have jumped him for the purpose of not trying to kill him, another possibility.

Why aren't you jumping to the conclusion that Travon attacked Zimmerman in self-defense, considering Zimmerman was the one following him with a gun? Are you not allowed to defend yourself against a gun-wielder by using lethal force?

You're jumping to conclusions and making statements of fact when you don't know much about the case.

By your very own logic, I can now shoot you dead. I can pick a fight with you, and when you defend yourself, I can kill you. As long as I only use words to instigate the fight, I'm in the right, by your own logic.

a punch in the face can kill you but if i hit you then do nothing else your life is not in immediate danger. If i were to keep hitting you then yes you could shot. it would have to be a continuing threat. Im just saying what i know about how the self defense law works

Because people always have"marks on their hands" after a fight? Always as fact? Nope. Travon could have jumped him for the purpose of not trying to kill him, another possibility.

anything is possible i guess but there is no EVIDENCE that Zimmerman assulted him in any way prior to the beating he took. what we have is evidence that Trayvon punched and slammed Zimmermans head. the why is unimportant since it cant be proven. your opinion of what took place doesnt matter the facts are.

Why aren't you jumping to the conclusion that Travon attacked Zimmerman in self-defense, considering Zimmerman was the one following him with a gun? Are you not allowed to defend yourself against a gun-wielder by using lethal force?

im infering what took place with the facts. you are making up what could have maybe happened with no evidence at all. Even if Zimmerman hit/pushed/slapped/name called Trayvon 1st and Trayvon was intimidated once he got on top of Zimmerman and started slamming his head he was no longer defending himself. he was assulting at that point. He could of hit the guy and ran home screaming for his dad but instead chose to try to beat the guy into the earth.

You're jumping to conclusions and making statements of fact when you don't know much about the case.

again i simply infering due to the facts. im not assuming all that much anyway. youre the one making baseless claims such as Trayvon was defending himself with nothing to back it up with. Trayvon could have hit 1st or Zimmerman could have but the fact of the matter is Trayvon took it to where Zimmermans life was in danger. NOTHING shows Trayvon was in ANY danger at all

Originally posted by juggerman
a punch in the face can kill you but if i hit you then do nothing else your life is not in immediate danger. If i were to keep hitting you then yes you could shot. it would have to be a continuing threat. Im just saying what i know about how the self defense law works

wait

so you agree?

I can pick a fight with you and then shoot you when you start hitting me, as long as you do it more than once?

are you ****ing serious?

wait

so you agree?

I can pick a fight with you and then shoot you when you start hitting me, as long as you do it more than once?

are you ****ing serious?

Sorry i meant in general if a person starts attacking and you believe your life is in danger yes. Not if you planned to do it from the getgo thats called intent. Might be hard to prove tho

Originally posted by juggerman

anything is possible i guess but there is no EVIDENCE that Zimmerman assulted him in any way prior to the beating he took. what we have is evidence that Trayvon punched and slammed Zimmermans head. the why is unimportant since it cant be proven. your opinion of what took place doesnt matter the facts are.

im infering what took place with the facts. you are making up what could have maybe happened with no evidence at all. Even if Zimmerman hit/pushed/slapped/name called Trayvon 1st and Trayvon was intimidated once he got on top of Zimmerman and started slamming his head he was no longer defending himself. he was assulting at that point. He could of hit the guy and ran home screaming for his dad but instead chose to try to beat the guy into the earth.

again i simply infering due to the facts. im not assuming all that much anyway. youre the one making baseless claims such as Trayvon was defending himself with nothing to back it up with. Trayvon could have hit 1st or Zimmerman could have but the fact of the matter is Trayvon took it to where Zimmermans life was in danger. NOTHING shows Trayvon was in ANY danger at all

No evidence released to the media outlets so far. Funny how you dismiss my opinion, yet your conclusion that is was self-defense on Zimmerman's behalf is just that, opinion.

No, you're running to conclusions based on minimal information, much of which could have been distorted due to the media.

I see, you're inferring; not making up a scenario like I did, right. I've yet to make a "claim" as fact, as I stand on the "I don't know what happened". I used other scenarios to illustrate that making up scenarios based on minimal information is silly.

But again, we do know Zimmerman had a loaded gun and we do know Zimmerman pursued Travon (his own words). Travon's not allowed to defend himself against a gunmen that is following him and apparently entered an altercation with him, he should have ran as to not break the law? Really.

Originally posted by juggerman
Sorry i meant in general if a person starts attacking and you believe your life is in danger yes. Not if you planned to do it from the getgo thats called intent. Might be hard to prove tho

hence my initial point:

In any sane nation, an armed man chasing after an otherwise innocent civilian, is intent. Because Americans are insane about guns, they don't see it that way.