[QUOTE=lolwutdude;41494674]so you're saying trayvon martin, just decided to for no reason, go 'golly gee willickers, its a dude...imma go beat him up!!'
and what if trayvon thought upon seeing the man was armed, was simply going to shoot him in the back if he got back up? what if trayvon thought HIS life was in danger because an armed man approached him in the middle of the night?
why is every single sympathy going for zimmerman and trying to sympathize what he MIGHT have been thinking rather than trayvon?
i mean seriously, we're taking a dude on trial who might go to prison for life's word on what happened
that isn't the point, the point is the precedent this shit is making
the point is that it's literally saying if you don't want legal ramification for a confrontation you started out of stupidity, just shoot the dude and claim stand your ground, the point is that an unarmed kid is fucking dead[/QUOTE]
so you're saying George Zimmerman, just decided to for no reason, go 'golly gee willickers, its a dude...imma go shoot him!!'
The gun was hidden inside his waistband and under his jacket, no evidence points to him having the gun out or visible. No eye witness that has no bias (parents of both parties) has said it was Trayvon screaming for help, which he would be doing in that situation. Why did Trayvon not get home in the four minutes he had to get home?
Lets add another news source to the pit of despair, [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtcveaMUJSI"]The Young Turks [/URL], everything from using words like "stalking" which has a legal meaning not applicable here to never mentioning Trayvon hitting Zimmerman.
Honestly people, fucking Alex Jones is one of the few media outlets (I know I'm stretching his cred) to not make an arse of themselves in this incident. Think about that for a minute.
[QUOTE=benwaddi;41494773]so you're saying George Zimmerman, just decided to for no reason, go 'golly gee willickers, its a dude...imma go shoot him!!'
The gun was hidden inside his waistband and under his jacket, no evidence points to him having the gun out or visible. No eye witness that has no bias (parents of both parties) has said it was Trayvon screaming for help, which he would be doing in that situation. Why did Trayvon not get home in the four minutes he had to get home?
Lets add another news source to the pit of despair, [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtcveaMUJSI"]The Young Turks [/URL], everything from using words like "stalking" which has a legal meaning not applicable here to never mentioning Trayvon hitting Zimmerman.
Honestly people, fucking Alex Jones is one of the few media outlets (I know I'm stretching his cred) to not make an arse of themselves in this incident. Think about that for a minute.[/QUOTE]
it was hidden inside his waistband and under his jacket.........according to the incorruptible george zimmerman?
and im not saying zimmerman is evil, im calling him stupid for causing this mess in the first place because he decided to be a wannabe police officer, he didn't intent to kill trayvon, but the problem was that [B]he created the fucking problem[/B], if he decided to go back home and watch buddy-cop films instead, none of this would have happened
but he saw a black dude wearing a hoodie at night ( this is an extremely stupid fucking stereotype anyways, who the fuck robs people in such neighborhoods at night except in late night tv crime shows ) and decided to follow
the entire initial confrontation is all zimmerman's account, we'll never know if trayvon thought HIS life was in danger and that he in his mind was fighting for HIS life
all we know is that zimmerman popped a kid for a situation he could have easily avoided and then set a dangerous precedent for self-defense
whats stopping me from confronting you, shooting you afterwards, and then simply saying i was standing my ground even though i created the situation for you to fight me?
[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;41482854]
This is a terrible case of domestic and Gray's actions are inexcusable. However, as far as I know legally shooting "warning shots" at someone is just as bad as shooting at someone. Should it be that way???? I don't know.[/QUOTE]
That's completely not true, but even if they were "legally just as bad as each other" then they should have gotten the same sentence.
"Stand Your Ground" is [url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/is-there-racial-bias-in-stand-your-ground-laws/]disproportionately used[/url] to defend white on black killings. If you're black and you shot a person who was white, invoking "Stand Your Ground" would be less likely to stand up in court than if the races were reversed.
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;41494674]so you're saying trayvon martin, just decided to for no reason, go 'golly gee willickers, its a dude...imma go beat him up!!'[/QUOTE]
according to zimmerman, he went up to him and said "wtf is your problem" and then beat him up because he had seen zimmerman before the altercation and had the suspicion that zimmerman was following him
also i wouldnt put it past him beating someone up for no reason anyway because he has talked a lot about how much he likes fighting
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;41494869]whats stopping me from confronting you, shooting you afterwards, and then simply saying i was standing my ground even though i created the situation for you to fight me?[/QUOTE]
uhm that isn't what happened. let me break it down for you
1. standing your ground is about options of retreat. if you're on your back having your head hit against concrete, there's no need to cite the 'standing your ground' law because it's just flat out self-defence. there's no need to over-complicate that
2. we don't know that zimmerman created the situation and that's why he walked free
that's really all there is too it. yes there is the possibility that zimmerman was a doofus and someone died unnecessarily, but there is also the chance that trayvon started the fight. there was no evidence to prove the former and some evidence to reasonably prove or at least not disprove the latter, so that's why he walked free
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;41494869]it was hidden inside his waistband and under his jacket.........according to the incorruptible george zimmerman?
and im not saying zimmerman is evil, im calling him stupid for causing this mess in the first place because he decided to be a wannabe police officer, he didn't intent to kill trayvon, but the problem was that [B]he created the fucking problem[/B], if he decided to go back home and watch buddy-cop films instead, none of this would have happened
but he saw a black dude wearing a hoodie at night ( this is an extremely stupid fucking stereotype anyways, who the fuck robs people in such neighborhoods at night except in late night tv crime shows ) and decided to follow
the entire initial confrontation is all zimmerman's account, we'll never know if trayvon thought HIS life was in danger and that he in his mind was fighting for HIS life
all we know is that zimmerman popped a kid for a situation he could have easily avoided and then set a dangerous precedent for self-defense
whats stopping me from confronting you, shooting you afterwards, and then simply saying i was standing my ground even though i created the situation for you to fight me?[/QUOTE]
Firstly, why are you attacking Zimmerman's character? His version of events has been backed up by eyewitness's.
Second, if I punch you then I have created a violent confrontation, if you could not retreat you have every right to shoot me, your actions prior to me assaulting you are irrelevant. That is why next to none assault cases are dropped because the other persons demeanor or non-physical actions.
Zimmerman did some things wrong but nothing he did justified Trayvon assaulting him.
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;41494674]so you're saying trayvon martin, just decided to for no reason, go 'golly gee willickers, its a dude...imma go beat him up!!'
and what if trayvon thought upon seeing the man was armed, was simply going to shoot him in the back if he got back up? what if trayvon thought HIS life was in danger because an armed man approached him in the middle of the night?
why is every single sympathy going for zimmerman and trying to sympathize what he MIGHT have been thinking rather than trayvon?
i mean seriously, we're taking a dude on trial who might go to prison for life's word on what happened
that isn't the point, the point is the precedent this shit is making
the point is that it's literally saying if you don't want legal ramification for a confrontation you started out of stupidity, just shoot the dude and claim stand your ground, the point is that an unarmed kid is fucking dead[/QUOTE]
If Martin thought his life was in danger, why didn't he keep running? Zimmerman lost him once he ran off, Martin then returned to confront him
here's another thing to drum into people's heads:
following someone on a one-off occasion is not illegal. you have no right to privacy in a public place
even if i followed you and said "hey nigga asshole ur a prick and i hate you", if you punch me, knock me to the ground, and start smashing my head against the concrete, i can still shoot you in self-defence
THAT'S JUST HOW IT WORKS
sorry i know it's pretty crummy but the law does not defend people who talk with their fists and ask questions later
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;41494869]it was hidden inside his waistband and under his jacket.........according to the incorruptible george zimmerman?
and im not saying zimmerman is evil, im calling him stupid for causing this mess in the first place because he decided to be a wannabe police officer, he didn't intent to kill trayvon, but the problem was that [B]he created the fucking problem[/B], if he decided to go back home and watch buddy-cop films instead, none of this would have happened
but he saw a black dude wearing a hoodie at night ( this is an extremely stupid fucking stereotype anyways, who the fuck robs people in such neighborhoods at night except in late night tv crime shows ) and decided to follow
the entire initial confrontation is all zimmerman's account, we'll never know if trayvon thought HIS life was in danger and that he in his mind was fighting for HIS life
all we know is that zimmerman popped a kid for a situation he could have easily avoided and then set a dangerous precedent for self-defense
whats stopping me from confronting you, shooting you afterwards, and then simply saying i was standing my ground even though i created the situation for you to fight me?[/QUOTE]
i guess zimmerman was just out for some blood and the witnesses were just wrong or something, and nevermind how his story actually adds up
lock him up for life just to be sure
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;41494869]it was hidden inside his waistband and under his jacket.........according to the incorruptible george zimmerman?[/QUOTE]
Sure it was hidden. If it wasn't, I'd damn well hope Martin wasn't dumb enough to attack a guy who is visibly carrying a firearm.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;41495069]Sure it was hidden. If it wasn't, I'd damn well hope Martin wasn't dumb enough to attack a guy who is visibly carrying a firearm.[/QUOTE]
According to Stand Your Ground, martin had "no duty to retreat" when confronted by a potentially dangerous individual with a firearm.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;41495093]According to Stand Your Ground, martin had "no duty to retreat" when confronted by a potentially dangerous individual with a firearm.[/QUOTE]
Thats the problem with the law, not George Zimmerman.
People are forgetting Zimmerman told the dispatcher in older 911 calls he really didn't want to follow anyone, it is a huge leap to go from being scared to follow someone to wanting to "hunt them down"
BTW he had his firearm at the time so that did not give him the confidence.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;41495093]According to Stand Your Ground, martin had "no duty to retreat" when confronted by a potentially dangerous individual with a firearm.[/QUOTE]
According to Stand Your Ground, the law doesn't apply because both individuals had the right to be in the area.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;41495093]According to Stand Your Ground, martin had "no duty to retreat" when confronted by a potentially dangerous individual with a firearm.[/QUOTE]
Martin returned to confront Zimmerman - he also clearly had a huge upper hand in the altercation, we could very well assume he instigated it. SYG doesn't apply if you're the aggressor..
[QUOTE=benwaddi;41495008]Firstly, why are you attacking Zimmerman's character? His version of events has been backed up by eyewitness's.
Second, if I punch you then I have created a violent confrontation, if you could not retreat you have every right to shoot me, your actions prior to me assaulting you are irrelevant. That is why next to none assault cases are dropped because the other persons demeanor or non-physical actions.
Zimmerman did some things wrong but nothing he did justified Trayvon assaulting him.[/QUOTE]
except thats the bloody problem, we don't know whether or not he started the assault or caused a situation that made trayvon felt provoked enough to attack or trayvon decided to feel risky then attacked him for feeling he was being followed by a stranger
its really odd how people justify zimmerman pulling the trigger because he thought his life was in danger, but trayvon pulling punches because perhaps he thought his life was in danger is suddenly a red flag
the problem is that zimmerman can simply say what he wish what started the initial confrontation, create a situation that wasn't in his favor, and kill an unarmed kid then get away with it, it's all bloody fucking hearsays, but it creates a dangerous precedent, the witnesses statements doesn't confirm what started the initial fistifhgt, only that trayvon got the upper hand in the midst of it
whats so hard to understand here?
no one here is saying zimmerman is a monster thats out to kill every black people, that's such a stupid hyperbole and it really shows
there's a huge difference between: "zimmerman created the situation he could have easily avoided and it caused a kid's death, therefore should at least pay reparations to the family" and "zimmerman stalked and shot a kid cause he was black and zimmerman is a white monster"
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;41495302]except thats the bloody problem, we don't know whether or not he started the assault or caused a situation that made trayvon felt provoked enough to attack or trayvon decided to feel risky then attacked him for feeling he was being followed by a stranger
its really odd how people justify zimmerman pulling the trigger because he thought his life was in danger, but trayvon pulling punches because perhaps he thought his life was in danger is suddenly a red flag
the problem is that zimmerman can simply say what he wish what started the initial confrontation, create a situation that wasn't in his favor, and kill an unarmed kid then get away with it, it's all bloody fucking hearsays, but it creates a dangerous precedent, the witnesses statements doesn't confirm what started the initial fistifhgt, only that trayvon got the upper hand in the midst of it
whats so hard to understand here?
no one here is saying zimmerman is a monster thats out to kill every black people, that's such a stupid hyperbole and it really shows
there's a huge difference between: "zimmerman created the situation he could have easily avoided and it caused a kid's death, therefore should at least pay reparations to the family" and "zimmerman stalked and shot a kid cause he was black and zimmerman is a white monster"[/QUOTE]
Because you are saying he went into a situation with ill intent after he thought the cops were on the way, he must be king dummy. However all of his statements have the same story, including the one a few minutes after the shooting, he must be a genius to create a story that convincing and legal in that short a time in a high stress situation.
We know Zimmerman did not hit Trayvon as Trayvon had no marks on him and Zimmerman had no marks on his hands.
Anyway any payments will be equal to Trayvons earning power , so says Judge Napolitano.
[QUOTE=benwaddi;41495435]Because you are saying he went into a situation with ill intent after he thought the cops were on the way, he must be king dummy. However all of his statements have the same story, including the one a few minutes after the shooting, he must be a genius to create a story that convincing and legal in that short a time in a high stress situation.
We know Zimmerman did not hit Trayvon as Trayvon had no marks on him and Zimmerman had no marks on his hands.[/QUOTE]
a) there's a difference between ill intent and stupidity ( is this really hard to understand????? )
b) saying he was attacked first is not exactly a supergenius-type material ( the point of it wasn't that he was telling the truth or a lie, the point was we'll never know while a kid is still dead, and he gets off scott-free despite the one creating the trouble in the first place )
c) not all hits, grabs, or provocation creates marks
d) you're still missing the point behind my posts is that he started the situation which caused the whole mess to happen and it's setting a dangerous precedent of hearsays are acceptable if you kill somebody to avoid ramification
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;41495302]except thats the bloody problem, we don't know whether or not he started the assault or caused a situation that made trayvon felt provoked enough to attack or trayvon decided to feel risky then attacked him for feeling he was being followed by a stranger
[B]its really odd how people justify zimmerman pulling the trigger because he thought his life was in danger, but trayvon pulling punches because perhaps he thought his life was in danger is suddenly a red flag[/B]
the problem is that zimmerman can simply say what he wish what started the initial confrontation, create a situation that wasn't in his favor, and kill an unarmed kid then get away with it, it's all bloody fucking hearsays, but it creates a dangerous precedent, the witnesses statements doesn't confirm what started the initial fistifhgt, only that trayvon got the upper hand in the midst of it
whats so hard to understand here?
no one here is saying zimmerman is a monster thats out to kill every black people, that's such a stupid hyperbole and it really shows
there's a huge difference between: "zimmerman created the situation he could have easily avoided and it caused a kid's death, therefore should at least pay reparations to the family" and "zimmerman stalked and shot a kid cause he was black and zimmerman is a white monster"[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;41495523]a) there's a difference between ill intent and stupidity ( is this really hard to understand????? )
b) saying he was attacked first is not exactly a supergenius-type material ( the point of it wasn't that he was telling the truth or a lie, the point was we'll never know while a kid is still dead, and he gets off scott-free despite the one creating the trouble in the first place )
c) not all hits, grabs, or provocation creates marks
[B]d) you're still missing the point behind my posts is that he started the situation which caused the whole mess to happen and it's setting a dangerous precedent of hearsays are acceptable if you kill somebody to avoid ramification[/B][/QUOTE]
Are you being deliberately dense? Trayvon had run away and Zimmerman lost sight of him, he then returned to [B]attack[/B] Zimmerman
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;41495302]but trayvon pulling punches because perhaps he thought his life was in danger is suddenly a red flag[/QUOTE]
why would he feel endangered by a fat guy quite a bit shorter than him who hasn't attacked him and isn't visibly armed? unless zimmerman grabbed him first and somehow didn't manage to land a punch or leave any mark at all, which we can never know for certain, trayvon made the first move. that's all that matters in a court of law
i don't know what this "what if, what if" arguing everyone is doing is supposed to be going towards. courts operate on facts. if there are only flimsy facts and very little evidence, the defence walks free. why is this hard to understand? do you want a man to go to jail based on the vague possibility that he [I]may[/I] have done something bad? what a retarded idea
Can anyone find me that picture that was posted somewhere on FP before that had the captions
"Photo of George Zimmerman fleeing the crime scene" (next to a photoshopped image of Zimmerman's face on some sort of idealistic nazi art)
and
"Picture taken seconds before Zimmerman's bullet prevented Tray Von Martin's conception" (next to a picture of an egg and sperm)
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;41495523]a) there's a difference between ill intent and stupidity ( is this really hard to understand????? )
b) saying he was attacked first is not exactly a supergenius-type material ( the point of it wasn't that he was telling the truth or a lie, the point was we'll never know while a kid is still dead, and he gets off scott-free despite the one creating the trouble in the first place )
c) not all hits, grabs, or provocation creates marks
d) you're still missing the point behind my posts is that he started the situation which caused the whole mess to happen and it's setting a dangerous precedent of hearsays are acceptable if you kill somebody to avoid ramification[/QUOTE]
How did he create the trouble? Even if we say he followed him how is that creating trouble? that is some low level thinking.
I'm going to punch my friend in the nose for following me[SUB]on twitter[/SUB]
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;41495598]why would he feel endangered by a fat guy quite a bit shorter than him who hasn't attacked him and isn't visibly armed? unless zimmerman grabbed him first and somehow didn't manage to land a punch or leave any mark at all, which we can never know for certain, trayvon made the first move. that's all that matters in a court of law
i don't know what this "what if, what if" arguing everyone is doing is supposed to be going towards. courts operate on facts. if there are only flimsy facts and very little evidence, the defence walks free. why is this hard to understand? do you want a man to go to jail based on the vague possibility that he [I]may[/I] have done something bad? what a retarded idea[/QUOTE]
i'd rather have him do community service and pay amends to the family of trayvon for creating a situation that wasn't needed that resulted in a death of an unarmed teenager
and there is no confirmation whatsoever who made the first strike. fuck, for all we know, trayvon came back to convert zimmerman into christianity or to murder him via cannibalizing him. it's all hearsay, it's all assumptions, he says, he says, but this thing is definitely confirmed: the entire situation would have been avoided if he simply stayed in his car and went home instead of what he did now.
i mean shit, all i have to do is shoot one of you guys and simply state you were the aggressors then i'd get off scott-free even if i caused the trouble
do you not see the problem with this?
[QUOTE=benwaddi;41495713]How did he create the trouble? Even if we say he followed him how is that creating trouble? that is some low level thinking.
I'm going to punch my friend in the nose for following me[SUB]on twitter[/SUB][/QUOTE]
if we want to play the suspicious and assumption card, why can't we assume that trayvon felt threatened or confused with a guy following him in the dark with an area that has increased robberies?
but i guess you're a troll, so okay, gg wp
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;41495742]
i mean shit, all i have to do is shoot one of you guys and simply state you were the aggressors then i'd get off scott-free even if i caused the trouble
do you not see the problem with this?
[/QUOTE]
If i beat you up to the point of endangering your life before you shot me, then no, i don't see the problem with it at all. Even if you called me a disgusting nigger.
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;41495742]i mean shit, all i have to do is shoot one of you guys and simply state you were the aggressors then i'd get off scott-free even if i caused the trouble
do you not see the problem with this?[/QUOTE]
Well, this only works on a castle doctrine defense. Which requires someone to be unlawfully entering a location that you are in (and also allowed to be in.) For all intents and purposes, Martin attacked Zimmerman - the Zimmerman trial was on a self-defense claim, not stand your ground.
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;41494502]if you really wanna play speculations, why cant trayvon martin use stand your ground / self-defense law as well?
if wearing a hoodie and being black is suspicious, so is a big dude with a gun approaching you for no reason
but no, apparently the story that trayvon just decided to for no reason, slam a man's head into concrete and beat him up, is a sound story
honestly, just fuck this case, it's decided upon hearsays with zimmerman knowing who truly started the confrontation, a prosecutor thats out there to try get glory, and people wanting riots, it's just insanely stupid
but the moral of the story is, you can go ahead and confront people then kill them while claiming stand your ground without consequences
guess human life isn't so precious[/QUOTE]
lol you have no idea what you're talking about. There is so much misinformation in this post it's sad.
After a quick scan of this story I can't see how people are fretting so much about this decision, if there's not enough evidence you physically [I]can't[/I] convict a defendant.
[QUOTE=Reimu;41462411]I don't think prejudice is right at all.
But denying the existence of privilege and writing off the concept of white privilege as "reverse racism" is ludicrous. If someone can't handle the concept of white privilege, then they have no place discussing the sociological impact of the Zimmerman trial.[/QUOTE]
[editline]15th July 2013[/editline]
My heart goes out to you. I have friends who grew up in the rougher areas of New Jersey, and they haven't been blessed with the same social, financial, and security benefits that I have. It's extremely eye-opening and life changing, and I can't imagine living in those conditions.[/QUOTE]
Reimu thanks for your empathy you seem to be the only person here with some open-mindedness.
As for the rest of you below I feel sorry for your insensitivity and ignorance. Assuming I'm racist and insulting my intelligence should say enough about your insensitivity to your fellow Americans and human beings. The fact that one of you would even dare call the untimely death of a Mother's child "rightful self-defense" is disgusting but I suppose that's a level of humanity we can't relate on.
[QUOTE=gudman;41461760]So, excuse me for not crying at your story, but I want to ask you this: have you also been taught to attack people and hit their heads against concrete plates? For whatever reason? And if not, do you really have to line up with the guy who did just that, and got killed because of it?
You see, I don't doubt that your life is hard, please, don't think I do. What makes me insensitive prick I am being, is an attempt to justify an obvious crime with "oh be we have a hard life, give us a break!". Don't do that.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=HighdefGE;41463400]Trayvon stopped minding his own business when he decided to assault and batter Mr. Zimmerman. Mr. Zimmerman being armed had nothing to do with confronting a suspicious person who doesn't belong to a neighborhood. In fact had he not have been armed Mr. Zimmerman would most likely be either severely injured, in a coma, or worst case worse, dead from continued battering. Also yes, Trayvon was profiled [i]but there's a difference[/i]. He was not profiled based on his race, he was profiled based on his appearance and activity.
Mr. Zimmerman was part of his neighborhood watch and undoubtedly he would be more active because of more recent burglaries in his community. There is no law against following someone (which can be argued he wasn't until he was attacked), but anyway he has a right to walk around in his [i]own[/i] neighborhood.
No this was not a wrongful death. It's another case of rightful self defense. The only reason you're riled up about this is because our overly liberal sensationalist media watered and edited recordings and imagery to feed people like you to increase their ratings. How would networks increase their number of viewers: reporting an average case of self defense, or turning this average case of self defense into a hate crime? That's what fueled this whole fiasco in the first place.
If there's anything that's wrong with your intelligence it's the fact that you're taking an average case of self defense and adding "hate crime" to it while covering your ears every time someone lays out the facts.
I'm not convinced that every time you go out everybody is automatically watching you. And even if they were it's probably not because of your race, it's likely because of the way you dress and talk.
It's people like you who are pushing this situation to the limits and don't know when to stop and make the majority of the black population look bad.
Every sentence in your post is about race and why you deserve special treatment because of the color of your skin while you ignore the fact that white people can live in poorer conditions as well.
You, sir, are the true racist whether you believe it or not.[/QUOTE]
I honestly don't have the time to sit around and type all day. Instead I'd rather uplift my community and make a positive impact through unity and social/education awareness. So while your sitting behind your computer-screen spending your precious energy to insult me , I hope you imagine me not giving one fuck while I'm outside making a productive advancement of my people -and by people I mean all people.
To sum up my last point in this pointless thread. I give you an excerpt from Brother Ali:
[QUOTE][B]"If you think that the media is what made people of color feel this way it shows me that not only do you not know allot about history -of the history of young black boys being killed -and nobody getting in any trouble for it , but you also don't engage in real ways with communities of color. Do you go to the hood ? Do you engage in communities of color in any kind of real way? Because if you did you would know that the media didn't make this an issue ..Black, and brown people and native brothers and sisters and Asians and gay people -they're not sitting at home waiting for the news to tell them what a problem in their life , they're living it everyday and if you were in the hood and you knew that - i mean go to your community center...talk to the kids...work with the kids ask them how they are treated by the police...and you'll see 13 yr olds put on the ground because they think somebody stole a candy bar and guns put to their head, and police treating them a certain way." [/B][/QUOTE]
[video=youtube;8HgH-Hgk06Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HgH-Hgk06Q&feature=youtu.be[/video]
I still find it fucked up how you can shoot and kill an unarmed person. It's not self defense, it's murder.
You don't need to put a bullet in your attackers chest to give them the message to back the fuck off.
[QUOTE=Otsegolation;41515124]I still find it fucked up how you can shoot and kill an unarmed person. It's not self defense, it's murder.
You don't need to put a bullet in your attackers chest to give them the message to back the fuck off.[/QUOTE]
If the aggressor is slamming your head against the sidewalk and punching your face in, you do have the right to shoot him, his fists was the weapon.
[QUOTE=Snapster;41515222]If the aggressor is slamming your head against the sidewalk and punching your face in, you do have the right to shoot him, his fists was the weapon.[/QUOTE]
First of all, you should never go looking for trouble.
If however trouble finds you, you have to use the least amount of force to get what you need done, which is the attacker to stop trying to hurt/kill you.
But if you're using more force than you need to, (unless it was an accident) then you probably are looking to hurt/kill the attacker, which is more than what you need to be doing.
[QUOTE=Otsegolation;41515272]First of all, you should never go looking for trouble.
If however trouble finds you, you have to use the least amount of force to get what you need done, which is the attacker to stop trying to hurt/kill you.
But if you're using more force than you need to, (unless it was an accident) then you probably are looking to hurt/kill the attacker, which is more than what you need to be doing.[/QUOTE]
And you are willing to draw that line for him? How are you certain Zimmerman would still be alive and well today if he hadn't used what force he felt was necessary? If he was in fact being beaten senseless on the pavement, he could have gone unconscious at any moment. What I mean to say is that in any situation like this there is no reset button, so using "undue" force and surviving beats applying too little force and being killed or more seriously wounded.
[editline]18th July 2013[/editline]
Also your first statement could apply to either Travon or Zimmerman; how do you know Travon [i]wasn't[/i] seeking out trouble? How do you know that Zimmerman was?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.