State v Zimmerman

Post Reply
User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 51321
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Tero » Sun Jun 30, 2013 4:25 am

It's difficult to prove a threat unless the opponent is armed.

User avatar
Gallstones
Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
Posts: 8888
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Gallstones » Sun Jun 30, 2013 5:39 am

Gallstones wrote:From your quote: "except in cases of self-defense."

If Zimmerman had reason to think he needed to defend himself then he could legally have produced the weapon and could have done so legally prior to physical contact had he had time enough to perceive the imminent threat. So what circumstances would have prevented him from doing that?
Tero wrote:It's difficult to prove a threat unless the opponent is armed.
This answer is total bullshit and you are evading the question.
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010

The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter

User avatar
Robert_S
Cookie Monster
Posts: 13416
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:47 am
About me: Too young to die of boredom, too old to grow up.
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Robert_S » Sun Jun 30, 2013 6:10 am

We're assuming that either one of them were thinking clearly in that situation?
What I've found with a few discussions I've had lately is this self-satisfaction that people express with their proffessed open mindedness. In realty it ammounts to wilful ignorance and intellectual cowardice as they are choosing to not form any sort of opinion on a particular topic. Basically "I don't know and I'm not going to look at any evidence because I'm quite happy on this fence."
-Mr P

The Net is best considered analogous to communication with disincarnate intelligences. As any neophyte would tell you. Do not invoke that which you have no facility to banish.
Audley Strange

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Seth » Sun Jun 30, 2013 8:18 pm

Robert_S wrote:
Some people of certain age ans skin color don't usually call the police because they don't really expect protection, justice or fairness.
However true that might be it doesn't justify the use of unlawful force against another.
If someone's following you and you don't have an intimidation factor, hitting first might seem like the prudent thing to do. Following someone at night does seem sorta hostile and threatening doesn't it?
Except that the first thing he did, which was a good choice for him, was to RUN AWAY. He was CLEAR of the initial contact and out of sight of Zimmerman. That fact causes any argument he might have that he's being "profiled" or "harassed" or anything else to be invalidated. If he felt he was the victim of criminal harassment or stalking, then his prudent course, upon breaking contact, is to call the police, not his girlfriend. The idea that he might not be comfortable doing so is utterly irrelevant and does not justify his coming back and INITIATING A NEW CONFLICT with Zimmerman some minutes later.

THAT is what makes him the "initial aggressor" in the confrontation that cost him his life.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
Tyrannical
Posts: 6468
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Tyrannical » Tue Jul 02, 2013 11:29 am

The funny thing is, if Zimmerman was racist against blacks, Trayvon would still be alive. I think it would have went like this........ :thinks:

Following the old idiom, "Around Blacks, never relax!" Zimmerman would have been more alert and his hands near his holster. So when Trayvon popped out saying "What the fuck is your problem, homie?" Zimmerman could have responded with drawn gun and a loud "Freeze! Get down on the ground."

Zimmerman then holds him until the police arrive. As a non-resident guest causing problems, such as hopping the community fence, lurking in peoples backyards, and being confrontational, Zimmerman requests the police to remove him. Since Zimmerman is on the community watch and by community rules has that authority due to it being private property, Trayvon is whisked away where he is forced to call daddy to pick him up and take him back home.

The End.
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by mistermack » Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:18 pm

I think it went like this :
Zimmerman is a person who craves attention. He wants to be important. That's why he is described by many as over-keen on the neighborhood watch. All of those people are busybodies. Zimmerman was more than that, he was a bit obsessed.
He carried a gun, because he dreamed of one day using it to bring down a punk. The way lots of gun-carriers do.

He'd already rehearsed the scenario a thousand times in his mind, what he would do, if he ever used his gun. Just as I would, if I carried a gun, with the intention of using it, if the chance came up.
You HAVE to claim self-defence. You HAVE to be able to establish that YOU THOUGHT your life was in danger. What would I do?
I'd scream my head off, before shooting the "punk", I'd make sure I got a few scratches, I'd keep the gun hidden till I'd done all that, then pull it out and shoot. That's the only way you can be sure of a defence, if nobody is shooting at you.

And that's what Zimmerman did.
I'll bet that there isn't a gun-carrying loony anywhere, who hasn't run the scenario of what to do through their minds, to make sure you can claim self-defence.

Zimmerman's story is exactly what I would expect.
But he got it wrong. He didn't kill a thief on the prowl, he murdered an innocent kid, coming back from the sweet-shop.
He deserves to die.

Zimmerman's abnormal screaming gives the game away. He's a grown man, who has been in many fights.
I've seen many fights, far more violent than this one. I've never heard a grown man scream like Zimmerman did.
He was carrying out his plan. He thought he'd be the hero, but he fucked it up.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
Poto
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 11:52 pm
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Poto » Tue Jul 02, 2013 1:04 pm

What a baby. I think he really was screaming for help.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by mistermack » Tue Jul 02, 2013 1:31 pm

Poto wrote:What a baby. I think he really was screaming for help.
Naaaaaaah.
He was fighting an unarmed kid, and he had a gun. He knew what he was doing.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
Poto
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 11:52 pm
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Poto » Tue Jul 02, 2013 1:36 pm

These punks. They always get away. But not this time.

User avatar
Warren Dew
Posts: 3781
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:41 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Warren Dew » Tue Jul 02, 2013 6:30 pm

Tero wrote:It's difficult to prove a threat unless the opponent is armed.
True. You'd need something like actual injuries ... for example, bleeding from the back of the head.
mistermack wrote:Zimmerman's abnormal screaming gives the game away. He's a grown man, who has been in many fights.
I've seen many fights, far more violent than this one.
You've seen many, many fights where more than half the people died? I guess I don't live in your neighborhood.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by mistermack » Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:29 am

Warren Dew wrote:
Tero wrote:It's difficult to prove a threat unless the opponent is armed.
True. You'd need something like actual injuries ... for example, bleeding from the back of the head.
mistermack wrote:Zimmerman's abnormal screaming gives the game away. He's a grown man, who has been in many fights.
I've seen many fights, far more violent than this one.
You've seen many, many fights where more than half the people died? I guess I don't live in your neighborhood.
I was of course talking about the fist fighting, not the subsequent murder. Was that really so hard to work out?

I've seen people with very serious wounds, still fighting, and certainly not screaming like Zimmerman did. Tens of thousands of people get more scratches in fights, every saturday night in the USA. I've had worse myself, many times.
It never crossed my mind to kill someone.

It's perfectly obvious he knew what he intended to do, and was just preparing his excuse.
He thought he was going to kill a thief, and that he would be a hero, and nobody would care about the victim.

Lethal injection is the reward he SHOULD be getting.
Last edited by mistermack on Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Seth » Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:32 am

mistermack wrote:
Warren Dew wrote:
Tero wrote:It's difficult to prove a threat unless the opponent is armed.
True. You'd need something like actual injuries ... for example, bleeding from the back of the head.
mistermack wrote:Zimmerman's abnormal screaming gives the game away. He's a grown man, who has been in many fights.
I've seen many fights, far more violent than this one.
You've seen many, many fights where more than half the people died? I guess I don't live in your neighborhood.
I was of course talking about the fist fighting, not the subsequent murder. Was that really so hard to work out?

I've seen people with very serious wounds, still fighting, and certainly not screaming like Zimmerman did. HE was the one with the gun.
It's perfectly obvious he knew what he intended to do, and was just preparing his excuse.
He thought he was going to kill a thief, and that he would be a hero, and nobody would care about the victim.

Lethal injection is the reward he SHOULD be getting.
Screaming is one of the prudent things to do when you're being attacked because it draws attention and may dissuade the attacker, thus being a lesser application of force than hitting or shooting the attacker.

I'd scream like a little girl if I thought it would benefit me in the slightest if I were under violent attack. There is no such thing as a "fair fight" with a criminal, and absolutely anything you need to do to win when you're the victim is just fine by me.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by mistermack » Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:37 am

Seth wrote:I'd scream like a little girl if I thought it would benefit me in the slightest if I were under violent attack.
I don't doubt it. I always thought there was a lying pussy, hiding behind your bullshit.

Nice of you to confirm it.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by mistermack » Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:41 am

doubled
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: State v Zimmerman

Post by Seth » Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:54 am

mistermack wrote:
Seth wrote:I'd scream like a little girl if I thought it would benefit me in the slightest if I were under violent attack.
I don't doubt it. I always thought there was a lying pussy, hiding behind your bullshit.

Nice of you to confirm it.
Go fuck yourself.

Winning is the only thing that counts in a street fight, and any tactic that enhances your chance of winning (including a jury acquittal) is perfectly valid.

Ask the Marines about the "war face."
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests