Recommended Posts
rehmwa 2
QuoteAs long as we are playing movie now
Riddle me this
Why did the state hold the color picture of GZ until this month
shown here
http://www.bagnewsnotes.com/2012/12/latest-zimmerman-black-and-white-in-color/
But would only release the black and white of the same picture up to this point?
if you read the comments to the article, you see that no evidence of any kind will affect those that pre-judge this thing
and even those comments are a digression to the article that is asking why is the media biased? instead they ignore the basic premise and just stick to a preferred version
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteAs long as we are playing movie now
Riddle me this
Why did the state hold the color picture of GZ until this month
shown here
http://www.bagnewsnotes.com/2012/12/latest-zimmerman-black-and-white-in-color/
But would only release the black and white of the same picture up to this point?
if you read the comments to the article, you see that no evidence of any kind will affect those that pre-judge this thing
Ya
Same can be seen here
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteBut - the first person to actually get physical is the one that's 100% responsible for the physical confrontation regardless of what happens up to that part.
I disagree. I think there are comments that can be made that would place some of the blame with the person making the comments.
I don't think you should simply be able to say what you want and then shoot the person after he takes a swing at you and claim innocence.
Not saying that is what happened here, just stating I don't agree with that concept.
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteBut - the first person to actually get physical is the one that's 100% responsible for the physical confrontation regardless of what happens up to that part.
I disagree. I think there are comments that can be made that would place some of the blame with the person making the comments.
I don't think you should simply be able to say what you want and then shoot the person after he takes a swing at you and claim innocence.
Not saying that is what happened here, just stating I don't agree with that concept.
Sorry
but he is correct
That is the law
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteSorry
but he is correct
That is the law
That may be the case, but that doesn't mean I agree with it.
(also provides a relatively legal way to commit murder. I can get anybody to take a swing at me)
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteSorry
but he is correct
That is the law
That may be the case, but that doesn't mean I agree with it.
(also provides a relatively legal way to commit murder. I can get anybody to take a swing at me)
Better be careful as now you have given away your plans
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteBetter be careful as now you have given away your plans
Why?
I though the law was that the 1st person to get physical is 100% to blame?
rehmwa 2
QuoteQuoteBut - the first person to actually get physical is the one that's 100% responsible for the physical confrontation regardless of what happens up to that part.
I disagree. I think there are comments that can be made that would place some of the blame with the person making the comments.
I don't think you should simply be able to say what you want and then shoot the person after he takes a swing at you and claim innocence.
Not saying that is what happened here, just stating I don't agree with that concept.
I can only think of one comment....a VERY convincing promise of imminent violence to myself or others...."As soon as you leave, I will immediately go over to your house with this weapon you see in my hand and kill your entire family"
IMHO
other than that,
if one can't deal with the "sticks and stones" concept, they might consider therapy for lack of control
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
normiss 800
I heard an interview with the Governor that stated POTUS had called him and he was appointing the special prosecutor..
looking for the snippit now
looking for the snippit now
QuoteQuote[
He had a history of violence, why is it surprising that he'd confront someone who was following him?
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Did he not get suspended from school for punching a bus driver? Do you remember any of those twitter comments that he made before his family took them down?
Why is it suprising that he'd confront someone who was following him?
"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52
Quote
TM: What're you following me for?
GZ: What are you doing in this neighborhood?
TM: Who the hell are you?
GZ: Answer my question. The police are on the way.
TM: Fuck you, man (turns and walks away)
GZ: (grabbing TM by the hoodie) You're not going anywhere until you answer me!
TM: (pulling away) Let go!
GZ: (still hanging on the TM's hoodie) Not until you tell me what you're doing here!
TM: swings a punch at GZ
fight ensues, TM starts to get the better of GZ, GZ draws gun and shoots
Or a different scenario:
TM: What're you following me for?
GZ: What are you doing in this neighborhood?
TM: I aint gotta tell you shit.
GZ: Tell me what you're doing here.
TM: Who the hell are you?
GZ: Answer my question. The police are on the way.
TM: Fuck you, cracka (or insert your own words)
TM: swings a punch at GZ
fight ensues, TM starts to get the better of GZ, begins pounding his head into the ground. GZ has no choice and draws gun and shoots
Just as likely. IMO more likely, but my opinion doesn't mean a damn thing.
"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52
GeorgiaDon 362
Sure. That could have happened. We don't know. We weren't there, and neither were any other objective witnesses.
As Kelpdiver said, in the absence of proof the benefit of the doubt will have to go to GZ, and that is preferable (IMO) to a system where one has to prove their innocence.
What I object to is this program of character assassination that retroactively seeks to paint TM as a drug-addled violent maniac who "needed killing", based on a couple of alleged tweets and a school suspension over an empty baggie. To "prove" that GZ was factually (not just legally) innocent, that in fact he had no alternative, it seems necessary to demonize a dead kid.
In a larger sense, I also object to the idea that I could be minding my own business, doing something I have every legal right to do in a place I have a right to be, and be legally gunned down by someone who gets a hair up their ass that I am somehow a threat to them. SYG has been used to excuse shootings where people have been shot in the back as they were leaving an altercation, to excuse someone shooting at workers who were just checking power lines, to excuse drug dealers shooting at each other during a car chase, and on and on. One driver nearly ran down someone who was walking (with their their dog) on a sidewalk as the driver exited a fast food restaurant; the guy on the sidewalk shook his fist at the driver and yelled at him, whereupon the driver stopped, got out of his car, shot the dog-walker dead, got back in his car, and drove away. He was arrested later, but successfully invoked SYG on the grounds that he "thought" he saw something that "might have been a weapon" in the dog-walker's hand (it was actually the dog leash). It has always been the case that you could use lethal force to defend yourself if you reasonably believed that no alternative was available. Now you don't have to consider alternatives, you just have to make a convincing case that you felt threatened. If you made a mistake, perceived a threat where there was none or even where most people would know there was none, that's OK as long as you believed there was a threat.
Don
As Kelpdiver said, in the absence of proof the benefit of the doubt will have to go to GZ, and that is preferable (IMO) to a system where one has to prove their innocence.
What I object to is this program of character assassination that retroactively seeks to paint TM as a drug-addled violent maniac who "needed killing", based on a couple of alleged tweets and a school suspension over an empty baggie. To "prove" that GZ was factually (not just legally) innocent, that in fact he had no alternative, it seems necessary to demonize a dead kid.
In a larger sense, I also object to the idea that I could be minding my own business, doing something I have every legal right to do in a place I have a right to be, and be legally gunned down by someone who gets a hair up their ass that I am somehow a threat to them. SYG has been used to excuse shootings where people have been shot in the back as they were leaving an altercation, to excuse someone shooting at workers who were just checking power lines, to excuse drug dealers shooting at each other during a car chase, and on and on. One driver nearly ran down someone who was walking (with their their dog) on a sidewalk as the driver exited a fast food restaurant; the guy on the sidewalk shook his fist at the driver and yelled at him, whereupon the driver stopped, got out of his car, shot the dog-walker dead, got back in his car, and drove away. He was arrested later, but successfully invoked SYG on the grounds that he "thought" he saw something that "might have been a weapon" in the dog-walker's hand (it was actually the dog leash). It has always been the case that you could use lethal force to defend yourself if you reasonably believed that no alternative was available. Now you don't have to consider alternatives, you just have to make a convincing case that you felt threatened. If you made a mistake, perceived a threat where there was none or even where most people would know there was none, that's OK as long as you believed there was a threat.
Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Quote
What I object to is this program of character assassination that retroactively seeks to paint TM as a drug-addled violent maniac who "needed killing", based on a couple of alleged tweets and a school suspension over an empty baggie. To "prove" that GZ was factually (not just legally) innocent, that in fact he had no alternative, it seems necessary to demonize a dead kid.
This was more a less a tit for tat for the character assassination of GZ and character beautification of TM done in order to get the murder charge filed.
When this thread first started - we were given an image of a short, scrawny 14yo kid who looked like he still could sing soprano for the church choir. In the other side of the ring was a heavy weight adult, who showed "no apparent" signs of injury from this claimed fight to the death. But both of those distortions were years old. GZ trimmed down a bit. TM grew much taller and bigger, and certainly had an unsavory record to go with it. So instead of a lopsided fight that favored GZ (see my first comments that this looked very suspect), we now have a fight that really favored TM. And this is more apparent when you see the more accurate photos of GZ in the aftermath.
Summed up: "Prove to me that GZ is innocent!"
But that is not how the American system of justice works. The state must prove that he is guilty. If they cannot, he walks, no matter how fishy it feels to you.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites