Originally posted by Robtard
Calm down. The uber-macho stuff is funny only the first 37 times.
it's not even about that. It is frustrating talking to people who have zero military, law enforcement, or similar experience. these people have no clue about weapon retention and seem to reason only from a sensitive, illogical stand point. carrying a weapon is a double edged sword because although you may have the advantage initially, you give the other guy the opportunity to kill you if that person gets in close.........kill you with your own weapon.
Zimmerman is fully justified in what he did. A person must fulfill
Oppportunity- Trayvon had access to Zimmerman's weapon. Trayvon was seen ground pounding Zimmerman
Intent- In Zimmerman's mind Trayvon wanted to kill him. Trayvon noticed the weapon and proceeded to bash Zimmerman while Zimmerman was on the ground. Skill level is taken into consideration, and those who know Zimmerman said he was soft. Trayvon, given how fast he knocked Zimmerman down, would seem like to formidable of an opponent.
Capability- Zimmerman on the ground. Access to a firearm.
No matter how much you hate it. Zimmerman was justified. I think Zimmerman should have left this to the police, but he was trying to be a good citizen.
Originally posted by Raisen
not even. why you so butthurt? this is why most Zimmerman bashers can't be taken seriously. you're arguing your point with your emotions, not professional experience or even your brain.
Ignore him, everybody else has ridiculed him to the point where the dumbass has no idea where he is.
Originally posted by Raisen
it's not even about that. It is frustrating talking to people who have zero military, law enforcement, or similar experience. these people have no clue about weapon retention and seem to reason only from a sensitive, illogical stand point. carrying a weapon is a double edged sword because although you may have the advantage initially, you give the other guy the opportunity to kill you if that person gets in close.........kill you with your own weapon.Zimmerman is fully justified in what he did. A person must fulfill
Oppportunity- Trayvon had access to Zimmerman's weapon. Trayvon was seen ground pounding Zimmerman
Intent- In Zimmerman's mind Trayvon wanted to kill him. Trayvon noticed the weapon and proceeded to bash Zimmerman while Zimmerman was on the ground. Skill level is taken into consideration, and those who know Zimmerman said he was soft. Trayvon, given how fast he knocked Zimmerman down, would seem like to formidable of an opponent.
Capability- Zimmerman on the ground. Access to a firearm.
No matter how much you hate it. Zimmerman was justified. I think Zimmerman should have left this to the police, but he was trying to be a good citizen.
As the self confessed professional gun carrier, do you think it's possible that it's you who is being emotional due to bias over another man who was carrying a gun to go on a neighborhood watch, when in reality, just a cellphone would have been sufficient?
Originally posted by Raisen
not even. why you so butthurt? this is why most Zimmerman bashers can't be taken seriously. you're arguing your point with your emotions, not professional experience or even your brain.
my bad.
i apologize for pointing out the fact that you were attempting to pull rank to win the thread.
Originally posted by Robtard
As the self confessed professional gun carrier, do you think it's possible that it's you who is being emotional due to bias over another man who was carrying a gun to go on a neighborhood watch, when in reality, just a cellphone would have been sufficient?
so ignore all the facts of the case, jury of peer decision, and focus on one aspect of me?
you got nothing.
Originally posted by Raisen
so ignore all the facts of the case, jury of peer decision, and focus on one aspect of me?you got nothing.
Facts are that you have accused others of looking at this case purely from an emotional stance, when someone dare question something about Zimmerman. I asked you if you think it's possible that you're doing the emotional debate in kind, considering your penchant for carrying a gun yourself and the possibility where you could find yourself in a like-Zimmerman situation.
Was just a question about possible bias; your dodging is telling.
you know what you tried to do.
Originally posted by Raisen
It is frustrating talking to people who have zero military, law enforcement, or similar experience. these people have no clue about weapon retention and seem to reason only from a sensitive, illogical stand point.
attempted pulling of rank AND strawman bashing. obviously you are attempting a 'win', and with cheat codes.
but nevermind that. get mad and post insults instead of learning how to argue constructively.
Originally posted by Robtard
Facts are that you have accused others of looking at this case purely from an emotional stance, when someone dare question something about Zimmerman. I asked you if you think it's possible that you're doing the emotional debate in kind, considering your penchant for carrying a gun yourself and the possibility where you could find yourself in a like-Zimmerman situation.Was just a question about possible bias; your dodging is telling.
answer to question. I have no gun carrying bias.
happy?
Originally posted by Raisen
[QUOTE=14400308]Originally posted by ssysys
[B]Apparently, you don't understand what "strawman" even means, much less "strawman bashing", which you most likely got from a retarded washingtonexaminer article. This isn't surprising. [/QUOTEdon't even waste your time. i'm done here. [/B]
we're not supposed to talk to the sock troll. just fyi.
Originally posted by Raisen
Zimmerman is fully justified in what he did. A person must fulfillOppportunity- Trayvon had access to Zimmerman's weapon. Trayvon was seen ground pounding Zimmerman
Intent- In Zimmerman's mind Trayvon wanted to kill him. Trayvon noticed the weapon and proceeded to bash Zimmerman while Zimmerman was on the ground. Skill level is taken into consideration, and those who know Zimmerman said he was soft. Trayvon, given how fast he knocked Zimmerman down, would seem like to formidable of an opponent.
Capability- Zimmerman on the ground. Access to a firearm.
Oh, I like this standard:
Opportunity: Zimmerman had a gun.
Intent: Martin though Zimmerman wanted to kill him.
Capability: Zimmerman had a gun.
So then Zimmerman killed a person who was legally defending himself. Do you not find it perverse that if Zimmerman had non-fatally shot Martin then he wouldn't have been justified because Martin would be able to say "I felt threatened"?