UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-15-2013, 06:36 PM   #51
Lady Kuno
The hostess with the mostess
 
Lady Kuno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 226,522
Zimmerman is not white though. He's Hispanic (Peruvian).
__________________
JUST NUKE THE FUCKING SUN


PROUD OWNER OF A MISSINGNO. IN FIZZY BUBBLES
Lady Kuno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2013, 06:50 PM   #52
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
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).
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2013, 07:48 PM   #53
Loki
The Path of Now & Forever
 
Loki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
Hispanics can be racists too. Asians can be racists. Africans can be racists.
Loki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2013, 07:51 PM   #54
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
My point exactly
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2013, 08:03 PM   #55
Amras.MG
Not sure if gone...
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Or just lurking.
Posts: 2,709
We're all white on the inside.
Amras.MG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2013, 08:28 PM   #56
Loki
The Path of Now & Forever
 
Loki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
Everyone hates everyone.
Loki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2013, 08:35 PM   #57
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
I hate you. <3
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 02:06 PM   #58
SoS
Ducks gonna duck
 
SoS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki View Post
Hispanics can be racists too. Asians can be racists. Africans can be racists.
You're a little bit racist~

Well, you're a little bit too~
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
Why are you always a pretty princess?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son_of_Shadows View Post
Because I look damn good in a dress.
Fizzy Bubbles Team
PASBL
Wild Future
SoS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 02:48 PM   #59
Slash
Silver LO
 
Slash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Tokyo Underground Sewage Facility
Posts: 6,760
Send a message via Yahoo to Slash Send a message via Skype™ to Slash
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.
Slash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2013, 02:03 AM   #60
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,362
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
His crime was attacking Zimmerman. Which, you know, was proved in the court.
Rangeet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2013, 05:11 PM   #61
Firewater
Volcano Badge
 
Firewater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,727
Send a message via Skype™ to Firewater
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangeetsuper View Post
His crime was attacking Zimmerman. Which, you know, was proved in the court.
I shouldn't use ad-homs, but are you stupid? None of the evidence that was presented showed anything that proved that Martin attacked first. Second, the testamony of the LAST person who spoke to Martin said that he sounded scared, and was worried about the person following him. And even if that's true, why should Zimmerman get to call foul and shoot someone just because he was losing a fight that he started in the first place? Even then, if the knowledge that he had a gun was there, why would have Martin attacked Zimmerman? Would you attack someone you knew was stalking you if you knew they had a gun or other weapon?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kairne View Post
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.
I feel the same way tbh.


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?
__________________
PASBL: Record: 61-55-8, 361.5 TP, 174 KO, 2.5 SP, Trainer Level 5
My ASB pokes
Firewater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2013, 05:46 PM   #62
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firewater
why should Zimmerman get to call foul and shoot someone just because he was losing a fight that he started in the first place?
And this is where I feel I have to say something. By saying this, you are making the exact same assumption you called out Rangeet for only a sentence prior. No one knows who attacked first. Based on the evidence we have from the situation, though, it points to Trayvon having done it. And even if so, his reasons for doing it might really have been legitimate as you said, as perhaps he was scared for his life himself. Again, we DO NOT know this for a fact, and even if that is the case, as you'll see in an earlier post of mine, it very well might have been because he was frightened. We literally do not know because what went down is only something that can be known for sure by two people, and one of them is unfortunately no longer with us.

Quote:
Would you attack someone you knew was stalking you if you knew they had a gun or other weapon?
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm pretty sure it was a concealed carry. Trayvon probably wouldn't have known about it. Again, though, I might be wrong on this, but a quick google search to confirm seems to agree with me.


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:
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?
I haven't heard anything about this but I'll look into it a bit. If that is true then this needs to be reviewed pronto.
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2013, 09:18 AM   #63
Firewater
Volcano Badge
 
Firewater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,727
Send a message via Skype™ to Firewater
Quote:
Originally Posted by deoxys View Post
And this is where I feel I have to say something. By saying this, you are making the exact same assumption you called out Rangeet for only a sentence prior. No one knows who attacked first. Based on the evidence we have from the situation, though, it points to Trayvon having done it. And even if so, his reasons for doing it might really have been legitimate as you said, as perhaps he was scared for his life himself. Again, we DO NOT know this for a fact, and even if that is the case, as you'll see in an earlier post of mine, it very well might have been because he was frightened. We literally do not know because what went down is only something that can be known for sure by two people, and one of them is unfortunately no longer with us.
Except that the last person who was not George Zimmerman that spoke to, Martin when he was alive state that she heard the phone hit the ground and him (Martin) yelling get off or something to that effect. Otherwise, you're right.

Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm pretty sure it was a concealed carry. Trayvon probably wouldn't have known about it. Again, though, I might be wrong on this, but a quick google search to confirm seems to agree with me.
fine, doesn't make it right- it makes a terrible precedent for future incidents- I can start a fight, and if I have a gun that the other person doesn't know about, and I start to lose I can shoot them and call for self defense.
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.
I did not deny that Zimmerman got injured to some level. I am saying that the shooting was not acceptable and he killed Martin in cold blood. If he would have tried to stop the fight without violence, why shoot the damn gun, just pointing it would have stopped the fight immediately- I don't care about fear or anything else, that should have been common sense. And if Trayvon wasn't justified to do anything, Zimmerman had even less justification to do something or start an altercation- especially after he was told not to pursue or bother Martin.

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.
__________________
PASBL: Record: 61-55-8, 361.5 TP, 174 KO, 2.5 SP, Trainer Level 5
My ASB pokes
Firewater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2013, 10:14 AM   #64
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,362
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firewater View Post
just pointing it would have stopped the fight immediately- I don't care about fear or anything else, that should have been common sense.
.
FW, ever heard of adrenaline? This is basic level knowledge about firearms. People have been shot multiple times and they've continued to do exactly and literally whatever the hell they wanted to do until the adrenaline- or, more likely, their entire body- gave out. Pointing a gun won't do anything. Nothing. ESPECIALLY if Martin had been on any kind of drugs, which Zimmerman was almost certainly suspecting in the first place.

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.
Rangeet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2013, 10:25 AM   #65
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
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
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2013, 10:37 AM   #66
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
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.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2013, 10:45 AM   #67
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,362
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
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...
Rangeet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2013, 10:55 AM   #68
Firewater
Volcano Badge
 
Firewater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,727
Send a message via Skype™ to Firewater
Quote:
Originally Posted by deoxys View Post
> 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
Fair enough, I know that Zimmerman didn't plan on killing Martin, but I think the main thing is that we both interpret the facts/evidence in the verdict in different way. I still don't like the precedent that the case has appeared to have given people, but the case was decided.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangeetsuper View Post
FW, ever heard of a quite obscure chemical we like to call adrenaline? Do you know anything- anything at all about guns? People have been shot multiple times and they've continued to do exactly and literally whatever the hell they wanted to do until the adrenaline- or, more likely, their entire body- gave out. Pointing a gun won't do anything. Nothing. ESPECIALLY if Martin had been on any kind of drugs, which Zimmerman was almost certainly suspecting in the first place.

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:
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.[/color]
Training. Parents that are good parents tell their kids don't fuck with a gun. Black or Hispanic parents, or any race or class of people who have had problems with police and other figures, or jut violence won't fuck with a gun and they wil have been warned about it. You can be knocked out of adrenaline by fear- you don't lose your mental faculties with adrenaline, you lose whatever your body does to tell you that you can't stop. Your reasoning is flawed because if it was, guns would be banned because humanity is too fucking stupid to not use a weapon that can kill at any opportunity. And even if he feared from his life, I'm pretty sure that adrenaline would not make Martin think "i'm going to get this gun". I'm pretty sure that adrenaline or not, any person would stop immediately if they knew that there was a gun in the mix, that could be pointed at them and used. I think you undervalue people's inability to think rationally even when their blood is pumping or are in a high risk situation.
__________________
PASBL: Record: 61-55-8, 361.5 TP, 174 KO, 2.5 SP, Trainer Level 5
My ASB pokes
Firewater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2013, 11:10 AM   #69
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
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...
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2013, 11:11 AM   #70
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,362
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
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.
Rangeet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2013, 11:18 AM   #71
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
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.
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2013, 09:06 PM   #72
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,362
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
Robberies and mugging are the only places where you can count that. This was supposed to be a self-defense scenario.
Rangeet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2013, 09:08 PM   #73
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
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.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2013, 09:18 PM   #74
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,362
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
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.
Rangeet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2013, 09:34 PM   #75
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
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.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:33 AM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.