Originally posted by juggerman
NO!well ok i guess. ive already stated i dont think "stand your ground" really works here for Zimmerman at all. he didnt feel threatened before confronting Martin so there was no obligation/choice to retreat. then (if his story is to be believed he was attacked and Martin was on top of him.
that kinda takes away any choice he had to flee so he was left with two options 1. be killed (iho) or 2. shoot his attacker. no reason to have "stand your ground" here imo
also im not quite sure if "stand your ground" is a good idea anyway. the way self defense works is you have to try to flee 1st and i like that aspect. without it you have a bunch of morons "standing their ground" and people die when it could have been avoided.
tho with self defense only it can be very hard to prove you had no other option and could end up in jail just because you cant prove you had no other option. hindsight can be a b!tch with this one.
in the end both have pros and cons im not sure if im for or against "stand your ground" at the moment
I suppose we just end it there
I have a very hard time seeing an unarmed teen with a weight disadvantage posing an existential threat to an armed man, but if "he hit him first" satisfies that to you, /shrug
I have a very hard time seeing an unarmed teen with a weight disadvantage posing an existential threat to an armed man, but if "he hit him first" satisfies that to you, /shrug
here you go again with that. no matter how many times it is explained you come back to the same point that we've already dismantled.
it wasn't a "he hit me 1st" kind of thing like you keep saying. or a "he hit me twice so it's ok" so please stop trying (and failing) to make your stance look better by saying it
if someone is on top of you slamming your head into the ground your life is in danger any way to slice it. slamming it once could kill someone so multiple is indeed putting you in danger. stop trying to downplay it with your "one punch" crap.
are you honestly trying to say that one's life is in no danger if their head is being slammed into the ground? if so please let me know now so i can just write you off as an actual debater here.
p.s. i feel like i need disclaimers with you so here we go. "im not saying that's what actually happened just using Zims defense"
I'm saying I don't think Zimmerman's wounds are consistent with his life being in danger at all.
you can repeat yourself over and over again, but the medical evidence is pretty clear.
The reason it is clear you support stand your ground is because you appeal to Zimmerman's assessment of the situation, not the facts.
So no wounds equal no danger? if someone holds you at gunpoint you arent in danger as long as there are no wounds? Zim also said that he manuvered himself onto the grass so his head wouldn't hit the concrete so if Martin was slamming his head and Zim moved on the grass wouldn't that account for the little damage?
and you can repeat your "one hit" stuff all you want but that doesnt make it true.
what facts are you supporting? the medical records that can be explained just as i've done? fact is Zim had a busted nose and wounds on his head. Martin had none. facts point to Martin as the attacker.
EDIT: again not stand your ground. self defense. pay attention
you're still avoiding my question. if someone is slamming your head into the ground are you in mortal danger? yes or no?
Originally posted by juggerman
you're right sorry about that. if someone is slamming your head into the concrete ground with (from what you assume) all their strength (which would be in this case the strength of a 17 year old male the size of Trayvon Martin) would it be reasonable to conclude that your life may be in danger?
I think he has answered this quite clearly, when he said "The reason it is clear you support stand your ground is because you appeal to Zimmerman's assessment of the situation, not the facts."
Originally posted by juggerman
you're right sorry about that. if someone is slamming your head into the concrete ground with (from what you assume) all their strength (which would be in this case the strength of a 17 year old male the size of Trayvon Martin) would it be reasonable to conclude that your life may be in danger?
well, if that had happened we could assume Zimmerman would have had much more serious wounds, or, say, idk, a concussion?
if, again, you want the decontextualized answer as to whether I think someone being hit against the ground with serious force could be fatal, well, ok. I'd suggest most hits to the head don't kill people, and it takes a fairly massive blow to break the skull. Like, ok, maybe some type of TBI... but even then, that would take immense force.
Think of how much force boxers take. its not a 1 to 1 comparison, but you seem to be of the opinion that people just drop dead after a slight blow to the head.
Originally posted by juggerman
you're right sorry about that. if someone is slamming your head into the concrete ground with (from what you assume) all their strength (which would be in this case the strength of a 17 year old male the size of Trayvon Martin) would it be reasonable to conclude that your life may be in danger?
It would be reasonable to conclude that he had no justification for following Trayvon in the first place like a pedophile our parents tell us never to take candy from, especially when the police told him not to.
well, if that had happened we could assume Zimmerman would have had much more serious wounds, or, say, idk, a concussion?if, again, you want the decontextualized answer as to whether I think someone being hit against the ground with serious force could be fatal, well, ok. I'd suggest most hits to the head don't kill people, and it takes a fairly massive blow to break the skull. Like, ok, maybe some type of TBI... but even then, that would take immense force.
Think of how much force boxers take. its not a 1 to 1 comparison, but you seem to be of the opinion that people just drop dead after a slight blow to the head.
im not saying it happened that way im asking you a question.
it is possible to be killed from just one so don't act like it can't happen. whatever happened that night is irrevelant to my question to you at this point. and again for the cheap seats lack of wounds really could mean dick here. if he moved his body onto the grass before serious damage was done it dosen't mean he still wasn't in danger or that the lack of injury means it didn't happen
again if someone is pointing a gun at you does that mean you actually have to be shot for it to have really happened? or you need to get shot or else the situation isn't life threatening? come now.
and again with the trying to lower threat levels. you don't know how mush force was behind the hits. ever hear of being grazed by a bullet? just because you get a glancing blow from a bullet and are fine does that now mean the man holding the gun is harmless? would "well you can't fire back at the man since you really weren't in danger. if you were you'd have more wounds" be the defense you'd use here too?
just answer my questions straight up please and stop blowing smoke about "if that happened then" stuff.
It would be reasonable to conclude that he had no justification for following Trayvon in the first place like a pedophile our parents tell us never to take candy from, especially when the police told him not to
again he wasn't "told not to" but that doesn't matter in my question right now. just want honest opinions about it not what did or did not happen that night
Originally posted by juggerman
it is possible to be killed from just one so don't act like it can't happen.
It's possible to die from just one punch to the face. So by your own rational, you can shoot and kill someone if they punch you once, since it was a potentially fatal attack and you might not be so lucky with the second punch.
You're really terrible at debating, logic and stuff.
Originally posted by juggerman
im not saying it happened that way im asking you a question.it is possible to be killed from just one so don't act like it can't happen. whatever happened that night is irrevelant to my question to you at this point. and again for the cheap seats lack of wounds really could mean dick here. if he moved his body onto the grass before serious damage was done it dosen't mean he still wasn't in danger or that the lack of injury means it didn't happen
1) if he got onto the grass to prevent serious injury, you are making my point, re: he wasn't in mortal danger
2) given the only physical evidence we have at this point are the wounds, that would seem to be the best evidence we have to assess how much danger zimmerman was in
Originally posted by juggerman
again if someone is pointing a gun at you does that mean you actually have to be shot for it to have really happened? or you need to get shot or else the situation isn't life threatening? come now.and again with the trying to lower threat levels. you don't know how mush force was behind the hits. ever hear of being grazed by a bullet? just because you get a glancing blow from a bullet and are fine does that now mean the man holding the gun is harmless? would "well you can't fire back at the man since you really weren't in danger. if you were you'd have more wounds" be the defense you'd use here too?
the only person in this situation with a gun was zimmerman, so I can't possibly see what your point is here.
could someone be in a life threatening situation and sustain no wounds? yes. could that be the case when the life threatening situation is allegedly having one's head smashed into concrete? no.
dur
Originally posted by juggerman
just answer my questions straight up please and stop blowing smoke about "if that happened then" stuff.
I'm not sure what you mean, I've answered every question you asked, afaik. clarify what it is you want me to comment on
Originally posted by juggerman
again he wasn't "told not to" but that doesn't matter in my question right now. just want honest opinions about it not what did or did not happen that night
right, what did or did not happen that night is of no relevance in determining if zimmerman is guilty.
your intellect stuns me