07-15-2013, 06:36 PM | #51 |
The hostess with the mostess
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 226,522
|
Zimmerman is not white though. He's Hispanic (Peruvian).
|
07-15-2013, 06:50 PM | #52 |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Peruvian, hispanic, white-latino, whatever you want to call him. The point is that Zimmerman is not caucasian white (which is what many people are insinuating).
|
07-15-2013, 07:48 PM | #53 |
The Path of Now & Forever
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
|
Hispanics can be racists too. Asians can be racists. Africans can be racists.
|
07-15-2013, 07:51 PM | #54 |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
My point exactly
|
07-15-2013, 08:03 PM | #55 |
Not sure if gone...
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Or just lurking.
Posts: 2,709
|
We're all white on the inside.
|
07-15-2013, 08:28 PM | #56 |
The Path of Now & Forever
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
|
Everyone hates everyone.
|
07-15-2013, 08:35 PM | #57 |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
I hate you. <3
|
07-16-2013, 02:06 PM | #58 | |
Ducks gonna duck
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,824
|
Quote:
Well, you're a little bit too~ |
|
07-16-2013, 02:48 PM | #59 |
Silver LO
|
I saw the verdict, and it pissed me off. As someone said to Markus the other day, Martin was found guilty of his own murder. Clearly his crime was Walking While Black.
|
07-17-2013, 02:03 AM | #60 |
Foot, meet mouth.
|
His crime was attacking Zimmerman. Which, you know, was proved in the court.
|
07-17-2013, 05:11 PM | #61 | ||
Volcano Badge
|
Quote:
Quote:
but on an entirely different note, has anyone heard about the Juror (B37) that apparently said some things when interviewed that not only 4 of the other jurors disowned/claimed were only her words alone, that questioned her impartiality to the case? |
||
07-17-2013, 05:46 PM | #62 | |||
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Quote:
Quote:
And once again the fact that Zimmerman was beaten is ignored. This is starting irk me a bit - I'm not on Zimmerman's side here, but your bias to this case is probably the heaviest I've seen out of everyone here Not that there's anything wrong with a bias, but when you start disregarding facts and events instead of arguing in their favor or defending them, I feel like I have to say something. And again, we do not know if Trayvon was actually justified in his attack/counter attack or not. All anyone can do is make assumptions. I'm not able to tell you he was wrong, nor am I able to say he was right. What I can say is based on putting myself in the situation, if I was on the ground, immobile, and felt like I was scared for my life in the heat of the moment, and I had a gun on me, I would probably use it to save myself (of course, that is if I literally felt like I had no other way out or I felt like I was overpowered. I would obviously try every means of escape I could and physical self-defense first - something we don't know if Zimmerman did or not). Now is that what Zimmerman did? Is that the situation he was in? That's what we're told. Is it the truth? Probably not. Is it a lie? I doubt it was entirely a lie given the evidence, but it's incredibly likely it wasn't the whole story. Quote:
|
|||
07-18-2013, 09:18 AM | #63 | |||
Volcano Badge
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I may sound biased, but I honestly think that Zimmerman started the entire conflict. I don't see the evidence that would have shown that Martin attacked first, and even then I don't see why Martin had to "earn" the right to defend himself, and subsequently gets himself shot. If someone's following me, i'd be concerned, call someone to tell them the situation or something, I don't believe that I would try and attack them while i'm on the phone with someone, and if there was the chance that they had a gun I would try to avoid them. Some of this may be true, in terms of Zimmerman's testimony, but I think it's a lie when it comes to who attacked first and why/when Zimmerman went for the gun, but the fight did happen. |
|||
07-18-2013, 10:14 AM | #64 | |
Foot, meet mouth.
|
Quote:
But that's beyond anything. Let me put it this way: If you take out a gun in self-defence, you fire it in self-defence. If he had just pointed the gun and expected Martin to run...yeah, no. Martin could have grabbed the gun from him, for fuck's sake. He _had_ to shoot Martin for the exact same reason he had to take out his gun in the first place: Because he had ample reason to fear that if he didn't, he was going to die. Last edited by Rangeet; 07-18-2013 at 10:29 AM. |
|
07-18-2013, 10:25 AM | #65 |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
> I am saying that the shooting was not acceptable and he killed Martin in cold blood.
So do you believe he had every intention of murdering this kid right from the start? >and even then I don't see why Martin had to "earn" the right to defend himself No one is saying he had to earn that right. No one is saying this. Not a single person has even implied it. All that has been said was the evidence we were given points to Martin being the first aggressor. And as we have addressed multiple times now, that can't be proven. More or less all anyone has is a guess. What you believe is he was the one who was attacked and was well within his right to fight, which obviously, if true, makes you 100% right. And you obviously can't use Zimmerman's testimony, it doesn't prove anything and he could very well be making it up. Everyone has the right to defend themselves, always. It just depends on how the situation itself unraveled and what led to what consequences happening. Therein lies the key. edit: rangeet stop flaming it's getting annoying |
07-18-2013, 10:37 AM | #66 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
The point is that almost nothing about the situation could be proven because of the lack of reliable witness testimony. All we have is the physical evidence, but that won't tell us who struck first.
__________________
|
07-18-2013, 10:45 AM | #67 |
Foot, meet mouth.
|
Well, the court did acquit Zimmerman of all charges. And the people who made the decision know way more about it than we do. Of course, since we don't have access to whatever evidence made them make up their mind...
|
07-18-2013, 10:55 AM | #68 | |||
Volcano Badge
|
Quote:
Quote:
adrenaline- sure, I'm pretty sure it doesn't dull all of your senses in terms of knowing what is right or wrong to do. I'm pretty sure it doesn't stop you from thinking rationally- I know how that fucking works and it could be a factor in the fight, it's still not an excuse- I get adrenaline rushes, I've seen them before in other people in real life and they still can think clearly, rationalize actions, have more energy to work without losing their common sense. And you know what? Adrenaline wears off in many ways, whether it's fear, exhaustion, or just at the en of the event, it wears off. I still maintain that just pointing the gun stops the fight. There are certain lessons, or well an "education" that certain groups of people are taught to survive, for example, how my parents and many other black and other minority families have to tell their sons to act so that something shitty like this doesn't happen and you don't end up being the one dead on the sidewalk with candy and a soda in your hand. Also, for your drugs argument- why the fuck does that matter? that sounds like some bias that isn't founded on any sort of report. Even if Martin had smoked something, it doesn't make you violent- even the people who knew him said that he might have smoked pot. And so what if he did- that doesn't make him a threat. College does a lot of things, or at least I've seen people smoke and have smoked it myself (not a justification, but context), and you know what pot doesn't do? It doesn't make you violent. I have never seen any person ever get angry or enraged from smoking a joint, in fact, everyone i've seen gets more happy/relaxed as a result, not less. And another thing Rangeet- why should suspicion of being under some drug warrant harassment? what if a person was instead sick, or had some other problem? Quote:
|
|||
07-18-2013, 11:10 AM | #69 |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Honestly it'd probably best if you and rangeet just don't debate each other at all. Just something I learned debating him myself a while ago...
|
07-18-2013, 11:11 AM | #70 |
Foot, meet mouth.
|
I don't think you understand the situation whatsoever.
Zimmerman knew none of this shit about Martin. As far as he was concerned, Martin could have been the greatest drug dealer in the world. He could have been high on bath salts. He could have been a trained soldier. That alone is reason enough to pull the trigger. And your reasoning is what's flawed. People don't see a gun and think "RUN!" People _hear_ a gun and think that, you could argue that, but that doesn't even enter the equation. Adrenaline dulls every single one of your senses and there's a REASON it's called the fight or flight reaction. I've jumped an entire flight of stairs under its influence, don't tell me that people always think rationally when their blood is pumping. And you're missing the entire point. Rule 3 of gun safety is that YOU DO NOT POINT A GUN AT ANYTHING YOU DO NOT WISH TO DESTROY. If you are intentionally pointing a firearm at something or someone, you wish to destroy that thing or person. I honestly think you don't understand. That is the rule and there is a god damn good reason for that rule. You seem to think people wave around guns like a stick. They don't, they really don't. Ask anyone who has experience with firearms. I don't, and even then I know the rules of gun safety. And again, I have to say this: All Zimmerman knew about Martin was that he was a guy who was 'acting suspiciously', and, if the court is to be believed, someone who attacked him. Either way, witness statements directly tell you that Martin was being goddamn vicious in attacking Zimmerman, whether it was a counterattack or an attack. |
07-18-2013, 11:18 AM | #71 |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
>YOU DO NOT POINT A GUN AT ANYTHING YOU DO NOT WISH TO DESTROY. If you are intentionally pointing a firearm at something or someone, you wish to destroy that thing or person.
not true. Pointing your gun at someone 80% of the time is a threat and nothing more. See - common bank/convenience store robbers. It's a way to get someone to freeze and do what you want them to when you're in a bad situation. I don't know if your opinion on this issue is because of some sort of difference in India's and the US' culture or something but pointing a gun at someone does not automatically mean you want to kill them. |
07-18-2013, 09:06 PM | #72 |
Foot, meet mouth.
|
Robberies and mugging are the only places where you can count that. This was supposed to be a self-defense scenario.
|
07-18-2013, 09:08 PM | #73 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
The average unarmed person will stop fighting if a gun is pulled. Cause they know if they go after the gun they will get shot before they can reach it. This kind of thing happens all the time Geet.
__________________
|
07-18-2013, 09:18 PM | #74 |
Foot, meet mouth.
|
Not only did Zimmerman not have any idea if Martin was an "average unarmed person" or not, Martin was literally on top of him and beating him down. We KNOW this from multiple witness statements. If you really think that in that situation, you would just take out your gun and wave it around...you're really stupid.
|
07-18-2013, 09:34 PM | #75 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
It's funny how much witness testimony we have changes with your answers Geet. We go from barely any to multiple witnesses. If we had the witnesses, then there would not be such an outcry over this. It would have been pretty obvious Zimmerman did it in self-defense.
__________________
|
Lower Navigation | ||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|