Trayvon Martin - Page 14

**Malorn** · 2012-04-02, 08:08 PM

Meh.

Vecha · 2012-04-02, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

We know he followed Martin because of the 911 call and statement to the police.

And Zimmerman was allowed to walk, so who thinks it's acceptable? Well, I guess the state legislature which made a law saying that people could do that sort of thing and just walk away from it.

My comment should have been more clear.

I took issue with your comment in how it seemed to suggest he followed him with the intention of doing harm.

Also...I don't think the state legislature said, "Gee, let's make a law that let's people shoot whoever they want."

Laws could always be made more clear. Perhaps this law does need to be changed.

Warborn · 2012-04-02, 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by Vecha

Also...I don't think the state legislature said, "Gee, let's make a law that let's people shoot whoever they want."

And yet that's essentially the effect. The cops have to take the shooter's word for it and unless they have a witness or the event becomes a national thing, that's the end of it. I wonder how many situations have gone down like the Zimmerman-Martin one did, where someone kills someone else in self-defense and they simply take the shooter's word as gospel.

Vecha · 2012-04-02, 09:37 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

And yet that's essentially the effect. The cops have to take the shooter's word for it and unless they have a witness or the event becomes a national thing, that's the end of it. I wonder how many situations have gone down like the Zimmerman-Martin one did, where someone kills someone else in self-defense and they simply take the shooter's word as gospel.

I thought there was a witness?

Anywho, I get your point, and for the most part agree with it.

If the law is worded that anyone can shoot someone and claim self defense, then it needs to be changed.

For now, I'll wait to see what the investigation find...was he actually defending himself...did he actually have a broken nose/was roughed up.

Hamma · 2012-04-02, 09:50 PM

Laws like this need to exist otherwise you have criminals suing homeowners when they cut their arms on the glass as they break into their homes.

It happens all the time in states like Massachusetts.

Citizens who carry guns are not looking for reasons to get in a shootout. Quite the contrary however they hope they never have to use it but they have the piece of mind that if they need to they won't become a victim.

WildGunsTomcat · 2012-04-02, 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by Hamma

Laws like this need to exist otherwise you have criminals suing homeowners when they cut their arms on the glass as they break into their homes.

It happens all the time in states like Massachusetts.

Citizens who carry guns are not looking for reasons to get in a shootout. Quite the contrary however they hope they never have to use it but they have the piece of mind that if they need to they won't become a victim.

That's something people in lily white Canada...all safe as a bug in a rug in their neighborhoods where everyone is apparently perfect will never understand.

Someone got shot? OMG WHY????? WHY IS THERE A NEED FOR VIOLENCEEEEE????!!!

Warborn · 2012-04-02, 11:17 PM

Originally Posted by WildGunsTomcat

That's something people in lily white Canada...all safe as a bug in a rug in their neighborhoods where everyone is apparently perfect will never understand.

Someone got shot? OMG WHY????? WHY IS THERE A NEED FOR VIOLENCEEEEE????!!!

Yes, it is a bad thing that we don't let our citizens shoot each other in the street like it's the wild west. This is a thing that reflects poorly upon us as a nation.

Vecha · 2012-04-02, 11:40 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

Yes, it is a bad thing that we don't let our citizens shoot each other in the street like it's the wild west. This is a thing that reflects poorly upon us as a nation.

I hope you realize that not all states in the US have the same laws as Florida(and other states).

The US is more like...Europe...some states are drastically different from one another..like setting foot in another country.

California for instance has stricter gun laws than many southern states.

(Not saying Florida and other states are horrible--I live in Alabama. Somewhat Liberal too. Yes, my life is interesting some days.--...but just thought I'd mention that.)

TheSHiFT · 2012-04-03, 12:11 AM

Originally Posted by Hamma

Laws like this need to exist otherwise you have criminals suing homeowners when they cut their arms on the glass as they break into their homes.

It happens all the time in states like Massachusetts.

Citizens who carry guns are not looking for reasons to get in a shootout. Quite the contrary however they hope they never have to use it but they have the piece of mind that if they need to they won't become a victim.

False dichotomy. You can have laws like the castle doctrine but you dont need laws such as Florida's shitty SYG statute.

Figment · 2012-04-03, 03:00 AM

Originally Posted by Hamma

Laws like this need to exist otherwise you have criminals suing homeowners when they cut their arms on the glass as they break into their homes.

It happens all the time in states like Massachusetts.

Citizens who carry guns are not looking for reasons to get in a shootout. Quite the contrary however they hope they never have to use it but they have the piece of mind that if they need to they won't become a victim.

Uhm... Sorry, but castle law (shooting people) doesn't exactly mean "burglars are allowed to cut themselves by glass bla bla".

Obviously that's an indication of bad laws though, that a burglar can sue house owners for damage they did themselves while tresspassing. But that has nothing to do with the right to shoot them. That would be the right to cut them with glass. :s

**Malorn** · 2012-04-03, 03:24 AM

Meh.

Figment · 2012-04-03, 04:16 AM

Never said there wasn't any bias on either side: as said before on several occassions, BOTH sides that claim to know for a 100% certainty if he is guilty or innocent of a hate crime before court has decided are biased. Anyone claiming Zimmerman should go free without trial is just as much biased as anyone saying he should be hang for racial murder right now.

Then again,

"Yep, completely stable and rational people attending those rallies."

Can I loan this non-argument/insult/insinuation/character murder of opposition/strawman/etc. for later debates?

Figment · 2012-04-03, 04:46 AM

Originally Posted by Vecha

I thought there was a witness?

Anywho, I get your point, and for the most part agree with it.

If the law is worded that anyone can shoot someone and claim self defense, then it needs to be changed.

For now, I'll wait to see what the investigation find...was he actually defending himself...did he actually have a broken nose/was roughed up.

The problem with that is that, say there's a rape attempt, but it never got to the raping part as the guy shot or stabbed the woman first during a struggle. Say the rapist got scratched by the woman's nails and has other bruises.

Could he then go and claim self-defense against self-defense?

WildGunsTomcat · 2012-04-03, 08:28 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

(Warning: This post contains references to content that may be offensive to sensitive people)

Since many folks like to call George Zimmerman a racist, how would you classify this woman?

Here's a glimpse of the media-fueled race riots that are going to occur when Zimmerman is either a) not arrested, or b) not convicted

Here's one news account:
http://nation.foxnews.com/weird-news...volution-class

Here's the Youtube video (definitely not work safe)
girl goes crazy in class at FAU - YouTube

Here's the police report:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/86380970/J...-Police-Report

She had to be tazed three times and sent directly to the nut house under the Florida "Baker Act" which allows for immediate involuntary commitment to a mental institution.

Apparently she really doesn't like Peacocks. Or whites. Or ****. Or Arabs. But she's still out on Asians...they might be ok.

In a completely unrelated note, this woman was interviewed the day before by the local news for organizing a Treyvon Martin rally. Yep, completely stable and rational people attending those rallies.

What Malorn is pointing out here, is the same thing being pointed out by a great many people...but no one is listening apparently:

Everyone is screaming that Zimmerman MUST be racist because he killed a black child. But these are the types of people screaming that: Racists.

Completely sane, rational people indeed.

Figment · 2012-04-03, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by WildGunsTomcat

What Malorn is pointing out here, is the same thing being pointed out by a great many people...but no one is listening apparently:

Everyone is screaming that Zimmerman MUST be racist because he killed a black child. But these are the types of people screaming that: Racists.

Completely sane, rational people indeed.

So you are, as Malorn already was, insinuating that anyone attending rallies is a deranged racist, simply because one person apparently is? Isn't that... stereotyping?