So just stalking people like Michael Myers in case they might be a criminal, then killing them for unjustified reasons. Yeah, that’s a brilliant plan.
Not in active shooter situations. I think there are maybe 20 examples over 30 years. Stastically that’s not great. Good for propaganda and the simple minded though.
Whether Martin was justified in following Martin, the evidence is clear: Martin attacked Zimmerman, got the upper hand, and Zimmerman--in legitimate fear of his life--shot and killed him. You may not like it, but it's a very prominent example that supports my position.
I'm as concerned about being in an active shooting incident as I am of dying in a plane crash. Statistically, it's about as likely as winning the lottery. (And I've noted the subtle shift from general self-defense to active shooter situations.) However, if you were in an active shooter situation, would you rather you or someone other potential victim have a gun or not? If you truly believe that defense with a gun is not feasible...
you specifically said "if someone is beating you up". yes, the attacker has initiative... until then, you're not in a fight, are you? if it's a heated argument that might come to fighting, you pulling your gun makes you the aggressor and escalates the situation. Zimmerman, besides being of questionable credibility, also appeared to have both age and size going for him. That he couldn't subdue a 15 year old with a can of pepsi would be laughable if the outcome weren't so tragic.
Yes, but grasp my complete point: 1. You do not actually have to be engaged in fighting to justifiably pull a gun to defend yourself. Being credibly threatened is sufficient. 2. Your point about being in a fight and not being able to pull a gun does not apply in many cases because of what I stated in point #1. 3. That being said, there are still examples of people who successfully defend themselves with a gun even after they are physically engaged by an attacker. Again, you're stuck on "fighting." You do not need to be "fighting" to defend yourself. A person can be a credible threat to your life and not have laid a finger on you. If you pull a gun during an argument, you are not engaging in self-defense. The evidence and eyewitness testimony say that Martin kicked Zimmerman's ass pretty solidly.
Which under the circumstances, Zimmerman richly deserved. The Marines say don't start what you can't finish. Zimmerman started it and the only reason the incident ended the way it did was because he wanted to be a fucking cowboy and had to use deadly force to stop a butt-whipping that he would have never started without a serving of Dutch courage. Zimmerman's track record since that incident confirms that he is a future Darwin award candidate. ETA: what crime did that shithead having a gun prevent?
Did Zimmerman deserve criticism? Yes. Did Zimmerman deserve Martin's anger? Probably. Did Zimmerman deserve to be physically assaulted and put in fear of his life? No. Zimmerman may have initiated the whole chain of events, but that does not absolve Martin. Even if Martin was wronged by Zimmerman's actions, he had no legitimate cause to attack him. If A crashes his car into B's, and A and B get into an argument over it, and B subsequently attacks A, and A shoots him, B cannot simply claim that "A started it." There was nothing about the preceding events that made it inevitable or necessary that B would attack A. B chose to do that. Zimmerman did not just get a butt-whipping. Zimmerman reported that Martin sucker-punched him; his broken nose is evidence of that. Zimmerman said Martin slammed his head into the concrete walkway; Zimmerman had wounds on the back of his head consistent with that. An eyewitness reported that Martin had Zimmerman down on the ground and was landing blows on him MMA-style. A reasonable person who puts politics aside and considers the situation just from the facts would almost certainly conclude that a person in Zimmerman's position could reasonably be in fear for his life. And, again, "Zimmerman started it by following Martin" does not give Martin a pass for his subsequent behavior. Irrelavent to the case. Murder? At a very minimum, further battery.
By the way, great job on you folks who don't want to talk about the actual article and the factual information it has. The thread is now completely derailed. Well done!
Kinda catchy, but not really long on logic. Apparently, Zimmerman's plan to "execute" Martin involved allowing Martin to beat the shit out of him. How does that work? Zimmerman's lying on the ground, fake-screaming, thinking "Yeah, I'll just let him land a few more punches and then BLAM-O!"
Unknowable. But let's assume not. Now, it's a saying among people who carry guns "Never do something armed you wouldn't do unarmed." In other words, don't let the fact that you're armed inspire you to do risky things or engage in any kind of bravado. So, Zimmerman can arguably be said to have disregarded that little tenet. But after Zimmerman called the cops did he engage in anything unduly risky or provocative? I'd argue no. From HIS perspective, Martin was gone, run off to a place Zimmerman knew not where. Zimmerman was not chasing Martin, and was instead talking to the police dispatcher and attempting to get the address of the apartment complex for the police. There's no debate about this; you can listen to Zimmerman's recorded phone call during this period. It's clear that Zimmerman had no intention of confrontation. If you claim otherwise, then his known movements during this period are inexplicable.
Inanimate objects are not morally culpable. If there was a crime, Zimmerman would have to be the one committing it. But there was no crime.
You mean would I rather be shot by an active shooter or you? Neither really makes a difference if I get shot since I don't trust you or any other dickless loser with a gun to protect me.
I imagine you see hostility in a lot of places it doesn't exist. You might want to see a therapist about that before someone gets hurt. I was being dismissive of your delusions, but I doubt that will soothe your paranoia. They're out to get you. 1123 9938 7784
I've had this position for a long time and expressed it. I just don't think more gun control laws would do any good either. More guns, fewer guns. I don't think either would make a difference.
So the fact that most societies with fewer guns have a great deal less gun violence doesn't impact your thought process at all? That includes countries with armed police and authorised private ownership. I never get the American denial of the figures. The US is tenth in the entire world for gun related deaths. Tenth! How can the solution be more guns or do nothing? Debating how you would reduce the number of guns is another matter entirely given there are so many in circulation in the US. But on the face of it, being tenth in the world for gun related deaths means the American attitude and approach to the issue to date is a failure. How can rehashing the same nonsense arguments from gun lovers or simply doing nothing, as has been the case after most of the worst mass shootings, still be the way forward? Surely a new approach is needed?
height, yeah... about 4" weight wise, Z had about 30 lbs on him. Not too mention, 28 years old vs 17. from what you're saying in this thread, you'll take it as a credible and immediate threat to your life. to the man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. it follows here that to the man with the gun, everything is a potential threat.
Exactly! The MMA-trained, healthy, strong 17-year-old who had tons of fight experience and liked to pick fights, versus the soft, out-of-shape 28-year-old average guy. Place yer bets, folks. Trayvon was 5' 11" and 158 pounds - a lean, healthy fighter. Zimmerman was 5'7". His weight of 185 pounds was taken 2 months after the event. It's well known that he put on considerable weight afterward because of worry and stress. He was up to 200 lbs at the trial. So it's probable he was a bit lighter than 185 during the fight. Neither of them had a leather jacket. We need Jennee now to spew more uninformed rhetoric about a case that was decided years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
I cared little for Zimmerman. His actions at the time (and after) make him seem way too self righteous and gung ho to be running around with a handgun. But that said I was not inclined to punish him after the media did their horrendous hatchet job on him in a blatant and obvious effort to stoke the narrative of "white man guns down black kid". 1) The first Trayvon Martin photo released being of him when he was a smiling 12 year old. 2) The entire narrative "Martin was armed with tea and skittles". They should have simply said "Martin was unarmed". The entire "tea and skittles" thing was a conscious effort to make Martin seem more juvenile and an obvious victim than he was. 3) Editing the 911 call to make Zimmerman sound like a racist saying "He's black" apparently unprompted when in reality the 911 operator ask specifically if Martin was white or black and Zimmerman finally replied "I think he's black".
The Wordforge corollary to Godwin’s Law: every discussion will eventually come back around to Martin/Zimmerman.
I didn't bring it up... although, it seems Zimmerman wasn't without the MMA training. However, it seems he sucked at it... probably explains the gun. Leather is useful as a defense against a <6" knife, not a soda can or candy.
This problem has a solution, as proven by 95% of other nations. Why do your have to be like the other morons and hide behind neg reps and bare denials? I expect better from one of my friends. If you are going to disagree why not afford me the courtesy of articulating me your position. You’re a graduate professional, not a Walmart shelve stacker. Do better.
