Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

George Zimmermen does some more sh*t involving guns.

96 replies to this topic
Chunkyman
  • Chunkyman

    Foot Soldier

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2012

#61

Posted 19 November 2013 - 04:34 AM Edited by Chunkyman, 19 November 2013 - 04:35 AM.

@theadmiral

 

Neither of those acts qualify as illegal or detainment.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    human right and human gain

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#62

Posted 19 November 2013 - 04:38 AM Edited by Melchior, 19 November 2013 - 04:38 AM.

disregard


theadmiral
  • theadmiral

    Founder And Opening Batsman: Vinewood Cricket Club

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013
  • Trinidad-and-Tobago

#63

Posted 19 November 2013 - 04:40 AM Edited by theadmiral, 19 November 2013 - 04:40 AM.

@theadmiral

 

Neither of those acts qualify as illegal or detainment.

There is no proof of that, you are right. Because the only other witness was shot to death. By the law Zimmerman is free and clear.


Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#64

Posted 19 November 2013 - 05:58 AM

So is OJ f*cking Simpson.

Finn 7 five 11
  • Finn 7 five 11

    Well I'm sorry, Princess.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2010
  • None

#65

Posted 19 November 2013 - 05:59 AM

Maybe he went crazy after killing someone haha

theadmiral
  • theadmiral

    Founder And Opening Batsman: Vinewood Cricket Club

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013
  • Trinidad-and-Tobago

#66

Posted 19 November 2013 - 06:02 AM

So is OJ f*cking Simpson.

We are in total agreement


lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • GTA Series Staff
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006
  • United-States
  • Contribution Award [San Andreas]

#67

Posted 19 November 2013 - 06:14 AM

  • No one called 911 until after Martin assaulted the unarmed Zimmerman. There was no emergency/life death situation before Martin attacked the unarmed Zimmerman.
  • It is always mentioned that it is a ‘Gated Community’ but not that it is of mixed racial content. From what I’ve seen it is a ‘walled’ community, there is no gate. It just has limited access. A ‘gated’ community implies a guarded community of no access without permission.
  • There is no implied attempt to ‘detain’ anyone. Zimmerman was merely attempting to keep tabs on the suspicious person. If the cops weren’t screwing around on what they presumed was a ‘cry wolf’ call they would have showed up before the incident occurred.
  • That there had been ongoing burglaries has nothing to do with it?
  • A ‘proper’ neighbourhood watch is some old biddies, hiding behind their curtains, with binoculars watching everything in view.
  • The kid wouldn’t be dead if he went home. Instead he attacked what he would have presumed to be an unarmed man. I’m sure Zimmerman wasn’t walking around with the gun in his hand.
  • There is no way a person on the ground straddled by an attacker has the choice of “Stand your ground” or “Attempt to Flee to safety”. The Martin has made the choice to assault an unarmed man and to his surprise found out otherwise.
  • It seems that the Law should be that the ‘victim’ should stay a victim, whether in the castle or not. The victim must always retreat.
  • Thus, if there is no defense by the victim it will be obvious that the aggressor is the person at fault. The whole idea of defending oneself or another creates problems for law enforcement. Police personnel don’t like problems, they don’t like paper work (unless they need the overtime). If someone must be seriously injured or die it should be the victim, that’s what victims are for.

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#68

Posted 19 November 2013 - 06:25 AM

This is why no one trusts your idiot ass with a gun.
  • Mr. House likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

    human right and human gain

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#69

Posted 19 November 2013 - 06:37 AM

The ongoing burglaries have nothing to do with it as Zimmerman was not a police officer. If there are burglaries in my neighbourhood I'd get an alarm, not chase random people through the streets.

 

And seriously, self-defense? He murdered someone to end a fist fight. Try to imagine this didn't happen to an upstanding neighbourhood watch captain protecting his gated white community from hordes or ravenous black gang members using a gun which is apparently a sacred, special and quasi-divine object. Imagine it happened between two white men in a pub, and the murder weapon was a broken bottle or a pool cue or a freaking syringe.


Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#70

Posted 19 November 2013 - 07:01 AM

Well, my controversial position is that if you come at someone, you forfeit any claim of innocence. And that's what happened here - Zimmerman hassled Martin under the (false) pretense of authority and I'd probably still be here arguing for Martin if had been him to shoot Zimmerman dead. That is, if the story had gotten any farther than the local news.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#71

Posted 19 November 2013 - 08:08 AM

The thing I don't understand about the argument Weasel always seems to make is the insinuation that Martin's actions constituted a mortal threat against Zimmerman and therefore he was justified in killing him. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that, even if Martin had attacked first, that attack was severe enough to justify lethal methods of self-defence. As Melchoir has already said, and as Chunkyman has dismissed in a strangely off-hand way, Zimmerman would probably be in jail in just about any other country in the world. Not because we've "outlawed self-defence" or anything so loaded and emotionally charged, but because killing an unarmed person who starts a fight with you is a serious over-stepping of the rules of reasonable, justified and legitimate self-defence. No-one has produced any evidence that Martin formed a clear, present fatal threat to Zimmerman, and judging by the lack of severity of Zimmerman's injuries and the forensic facts of the case either Martin was removed from a threatening position quite rapidly by Zimmerman, or the act of drawing a weapon actively dissuaded him. In both of these situations shooting the aggressor would constitute improper use of force basically anywhere else in the world. I have to side with Melchoir and Otter here- Zimmerman instigated a fight and then when confronted used wildly disproportionate force to defend himself from a threat that the forensic evidence of the case shows had probably been mitigated by the time he pulled the trigger. That's manslaughter at the very least.


Max
  • Max

    The Port Vila Killa.

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2009
  • Vanuatu
  • Contribution Award [Sports]

#72

Posted 19 November 2013 - 11:41 AM

Another thing I don't understand is what about Martin's initial actions constituted suspicious behaviour? As far as I understand it, he had been to the shop and was on his way home and there is nothing suspicious about that. Zimmerman must have allowed racial prejudice into his decision to follow this black youth, deem his actions suspicious and decide that he may have something to do with the recent spate of burglaries. Furthermore, if some strange guy was following me there is no way I'd lead him directly to my house, which could be one reason why Martin did not head straight home and just ignore Zimmerman's tail.

 

I'm with theadmiral, Otter, Melchior and Sivis on this one. Zimmerman's actions would be entirely unjustifiable in virtually every other civilised country in the world and if this man is allowed a weapon to threaten his girlfriend after such a high profile murder case then there are some serious failures in Florida's arms policy.


Finn 7 five 11
  • Finn 7 five 11

    Well I'm sorry, Princess.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2010
  • None

#73

Posted 19 November 2013 - 11:49 AM Edited by •¿F¡ññ4L¡ƒ£?•, 19 November 2013 - 11:55 AM.

 

 

 


This is a guy who has repeatedly used violence and threatening behaviour, both prior and after his murking of Treyvon Martin.

 

The guy is clearly irresponsible and shouldn't have guns, but the Trayvon Martin debacle is a lot more complicated than "he was an innocent kid that got shot by this guy". 

 

Meh, not really. If this happened anywhere else in the world Zimmerman would be in jail, no questions. He got off because gun-nut fantasists like the idea that if some black punk challenged them to a fight they could shoot him dead.

 

 

How is that? Most people, including the media, were on the side of Trayvon Martin. I don't see how gun-nut fantasists play a role here.

 

If that were true then surely Zimmerman would have been jailed, most of the US advocate the use of firearms and/or have been raised to think that if someone treads on their property they have the right to shoot them.
In Australia that's just ridiculousness, nobody in their right mind would shoot a PERSON on their property here, not for any reason, because trespassing does not warrant shooting in the minds of Australians. I have absolutely no doubt that if that happened here, Zimmerman would be in prison for murder or manslaughter.

However in America it is a different story I have found.


K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Best Poster [Programming] 2015
    Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#74

Posted 19 November 2013 - 12:51 PM

The thing I don't understand about the argument Weasel always seems to make is the insinuation that Martin's actions constituted a mortal threat against Zimmerman and therefore he was justified in killing him.

Weasel is horrible at making an argument, but he is sort of right in this. The law doesn't require a "mortal threat". Because that would always be impossible to prove. This varries a bit from state to state, but the general statement is along the lines of, "Deffender must prove that he believed he was in danger of death or grave injury." Proving that attacker was capable of either isn't necessary. If you can prove that you had sufficient reason to think attacker might pull a deadly weapon or beat you to within an inch of your life, you have proven grounds for self defense with a deadly weapon.

There is also an issue of wording of the second part. Killing is never justified. Manslaughter can be. If you used a deadly weapon with intent of killing an attacker, you are guilty of murder. End of story. The purpose of using a fire arm in self defense is for its stopping power. If prosecution proves that your intent was to kill, you're toast. In practice, that's almost impossible to prove in self-defense caases, so murder is almost never on the table. Zimmerman was on trial for manslaughter. That's by definition causing someone's death by willful action, but without intent.

So the question isn't whether you should be allowed to take someone's life if they attack you. That's illegal in every state without contest. The question is whether you should put attacker's life at risk if you believe attacker is doing the same with your life. And the answer to that is generally yes, and I can't say that I disagree with such reasoning.

Again, legal semantics might not apply to what really happened between Zimmerman and Martin, but apparently, jurry was convinced that Zimmerman acted within bounds of the law.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#75

Posted 19 November 2013 - 02:15 PM

That's what I meant by "mortal threat". I suppose a great deal of the difference comes from the nuances in law between Europe and the US. Whilst the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" applies in both cases, the difference to me appears that there is a default presumption in the US that acts of violence against an aggressor are self defence regardless of proportionality, and the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that actions were not proportionate. In Europe, the question of proportionality is taken before the fact and no automatic assumption implied; the measure of proportionality is based on the circumstances. Basically it would be illegal to kill an unarmed individual with a weapon as by doing so you would be using disproportionate force to the threat context. Of course that's a gross oversimplification. I support the idea of two degrees of manslaughter personally, one for wilfully dangerous actions and one for disproportionate or negligent ones.

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Best Poster [Programming] 2015
    Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#76

Posted 19 November 2013 - 02:39 PM

In US law, proportionality isn't a factor at all. Deffending party is automatically accused of manslaughter, and it is the deffendant's burden to prove that it was justifiable. Justifiable manslaughter has certain list of criteria, which may varry a bit by state, and deffender must prove that actions fit these criteria. It's far less subjective this way.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#77

Posted 19 November 2013 - 03:18 PM Edited by sivispacem, 19 November 2013 - 03:19 PM.

Really? That surprises me greatly. I thought that the onus would be on the prosecution to prove that the actions of the defender failed to meet the criteria, not vice versa. The automatic prosecution element seems strange to me too-in the UK you'll likely be arrested and interviewed under caution but you can kill someone legally in self defence and never be tried for it. There was a case not that long ago where an elderly gentleman disarmed two intruders to his shop and stabbed both of them with their own weapon, one fatally. He was arrested but never prosecuted as he had been wounded with the knife he used to kill the assailants and the one who was stabbed to death was armed with a blank firing handgun. The mere possession of a replica firearm by the aggressor makes their killing by the victim legally justifiable in the UK, as the presence of a firearm on the person itself constitutes a threat to life.

lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • GTA Series Staff
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006
  • United-States
  • Contribution Award [San Andreas]

#78

Posted 19 November 2013 - 05:37 PM

Yes, you can affect a 'bleeding heart' but

Law requires that ALL the elements of the Crime be met.

Examples of a :

Penal Code - Sec. 53a-54a. Murder.

Sec. 53a-54a. Murder. (a) A person is guilty of murder when, with intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person or causes a suicide by force, duress or deception; except that in any prosecution under this subsection, it shall be an affirmative defense that the defendant committed the proscribed act or acts under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse, the reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant's situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be, provided nothing contained in this subsection shall constitute a defense to a prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of, manslaughter in the first degree or any other crime.

(b) Evidence that the defendant suffered from a mental disease, mental defect or other mental abnormality is admissible, in a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section, on the question of whether the defendant acted with intent to cause the death of another person.

 

Sec. 53a-55. Manslaughter in the first degree: Class B felony.

(a) A person is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree when:

(1) With intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person;

OR

(2) with intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person under circumstances which do not constitute murder because he committed the proscribed act or acts under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance, as provided in subsection (a) of section 53a-54a, except that the fact that homicide was committed under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance constitutes a mitigating circumstance reducing murder to manslaughter in the first degree and need not be proved in any prosecution initiated under this subsection;

OR

(3) under circumstances evincing an extreme indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of another person.

 

We all have wants and desires (for revenge), but the law (written) is what must be followed.

When you can't stand back and examine the facts as presented you have no 'right' to scream and moan about 'injustice'.


Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#79

Posted 19 November 2013 - 06:16 PM

You have no 'clue' what you're 'talking' about, sadly. You constantly misrepresent the facts of the story to fit this pragmatic viewpoint that you try to push so hard. It's getting old.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#80

Posted 19 November 2013 - 07:01 PM

You know that description of manslaughter in the first degree is basically exactly what happened in the Martin case? You don't discharge a weapon in the direction of people unless you intend to do them serious injury.

lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • GTA Series Staff
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006
  • United-States
  • Contribution Award [San Andreas]

#81

Posted 19 November 2013 - 07:55 PM Edited by lil weasel, 19 November 2013 - 08:00 PM.

I am finding it easier to believe everyday that some of you people are playing at being Dense.

You can't possibly be as stupid as you're coming across regarding the idea of defending yourself against a thug mentality. Possibly in the next few weeks you may be permitted to experience such a situation.

Yes, we know you've been castrated by your Government regarding the need for self-defense, be sure to report back when you have personal experience on the subject.

 

Close range shooting while being on your back and firing into the chest of the person beating the sh*t out of you ... "Discharge a weapon in the direction of people". What people? There wasn't a single 'hero' in the bunch of cowards who stood there hidden behind their blinds who would come to the aid of either Martin or Zimmerman.


Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#82

Posted 19 November 2013 - 08:05 PM

Thug mentality? Jesus Christ, look at who you're defending: an idiot who failed at being a cop, was arrested for assaulting a cop, in the news for domestic violence, and now he's pointing a gun at his f*cking girlfriend.

Now you, buddy, tell me who's "playing at dense" here when it comes to thug mentality. Go ahead.

No, wait, I'll do it for you: Zimmerman is and always had been the f*cking 'thug' in this equation.

lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • GTA Series Staff
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006
  • United-States
  • Contribution Award [San Andreas]

#83

Posted 19 November 2013 - 09:01 PM

You are.

What Zimmerman is doing now is irrelevant.

What he did at the time of his being assaulted by a 6’3” muscled thug is what counts. Yes, I say thug, because a person who has attacked a smaller person for no more reason than “I’m being followed by some cracker” has that kind of mind set.

Remember that at trial none of Martin’s ‘prior bad acts’ were admitted and the Jury didn’t convict, even with Zimmerman’s past in evidence.

 

The facts as presented were:

Zimmerman reported to the Authority and requested Police for a suspicious person who appeared to be lurking.

Zimmerman asked for Police to  investigation.

Police took their time, maybe were not even coming.

Zimmerman followed the suspect until he lost sight of him.

Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle to await the Police (who weren’t coming).

Martin attacked the  presumably unarmed Zimmerman.

Martin bested Zimmerman, knocking him to the ground and continued his assault.

Zimmerman fearing for his life/limb managed to shoot the assailant.

The residents hearing calls for Help, refused to offer aid other than to call 911 and continue to hide. So they agree that the situation was dangerous.

Martin could have lived if he didn’t feel he could do a job on the unarmed Cracker, by simply going home OR calling the police himself OR having his squeeze call the Police  for him.

Three chances to live and Martin picked the fourth choice of attacking an unarmed man.

 

I don’t have to defend Zimmerman’s action, it is the current law that you  (in any state of the Union) don’t have to allow yourself to be beaten, maimed, or killed when you are attacked. The amount of force necessary is purely in the mind of the victim. The Police and ADA knew that when they first investigated. The only reason it went to trial was the mob (my boy can’t do no wrong). The Press announcing a White man killed an unarmed Black CHILD. The President involving himself and the Federal Government bullying the State with threats from the Justice Department.  A whole bunch of crap about ‘Standing Your Ground’ defense. When clearly a man on his back on the ground has no choice to leave while being beaten. If the Police weren’t lollygagging there could have been a different result.

 

Some people (bleeding hearts) need to have sense beaten into them. to fully understand the right to self-defense. Best is to never be in such a position and not to summarily judge others.

 

Now, what's all this about Senator Deeds being attacked? 


Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#84

Posted 19 November 2013 - 09:06 PM

I guess calling the murder victim a 'thug' is admissible in your eyes, however? Good lord man, can you not see your own predjudice waving in your face here, like the big black cock of truth?

The truth is, we ARE privy to the thugness and abusive nature of Zimmerman, and the jury should have been as well. How can you look at his behaviour and give him the benefit of the doubt? You talk about 'bleeding hearts' but you're really just being willfully ignorant.

lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • GTA Series Staff
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006
  • United-States
  • Contribution Award [San Andreas]

#85

Posted 19 November 2013 - 09:38 PM

I know what I've been taught about interpreting the Letter of the Law and the relevant evidence.

I know that it doesn't make the slightest difference what Race, Ethnic Group, or Creed a person has.

I know that the wording used in a report or giving evidence in court can be wildly deceiving.

I know that it isn't necessary to lie by statement, that phrasing can accomplish the same end.

I know that a conspiracy doesn't require people meeting and conspiring as a group, it can be done by merely taking advantage of a situation individually with those involved having the same goal whether stated or not.

 

I don't automatically perceive a person as guilty or innocent by what they are or who they appear to be.

It is what elements of the law that can be proved that make the crime.

A corrupt or lazy cop, like a paid for scientist, picks the result and makes the facts fit.

The mob mind doesn't help.

 

It does appear that some of you are biased merely because a Firearm was involved, without regard to the other elements.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#86

Posted 19 November 2013 - 10:11 PM

I am finding it easier to believe everyday that some of you people are playing at being Dense.

 

Climb off your paraplegic high horse, you catastrophic thunder-c*nt. I'm using your own f*cking definitions and quoting directly from you. Mentality doesn't come into it- by the f*cking definition that you posted, Zimmerman was guilty of manslaughter. Now, if you want to ramble on about thug mentality and the potential threat posed by Martin, then feel free, but you seem to be ignoring several prudent facts of the case. One, Martin was not shot point blank whilst on top of Zimmerman, as you claim- the blood spatter evidence refuted this as there was no direct spatter and no drip pattern on Zimmerman, as would have been the case had gravity been acting on fluid. He was shot from around 18 inches away whilst standing. Also, far from 6'3" as you claim, he was 5'11" and weighed about 11 1/2 stone, making him nearly 2 stone lighter than Zimmerman. Now, Zimmerman isn't a particularly fat individual and he was about 6 inches shorter than Martin, so the odds are he could have overpowered him and rendered him no longer a threat without resorting to shooting him. This is where the question of proportionality comes in. Now, I know you're some backwards-as-f*ck borderline-Fascist nutter who believes that everyone is one blink away from killing someone, but the rule of proportionality is not on Zimmerman's side and three posts entirely filled with personal insults and spurious and unjustified claims isn't going to change that.

 

I'm fed up with your utter bullsh*t, Weasel. You're f*cking pathetic at debating like a rational, sensible and reasonable human being and seem to consistently get away with composing arguments that consist of nothing more than personal attacks against people who disagree with you. I wish you could see, from an objective, informed and intelligent point of view what a bitter, cynical and not to mince words truly vile contributor you can be. You sadly do the General Chat section of this forum a great disservice; not because your contributions are any more worthwhile than the relentless procession of trolls that have preceded and will doubtlessly succeed you when you finally shuffle off the mortal coil, drooling into a plastic bag nappy as a stout Estonian nurse force-feeds you cold Stagg chili from the can, but because you're actually vaguely respected around the SA forums and I'm worried about the younger and more impressionable members who can't see you for the fountain of utter bullsh*t you really are getting the wrong idea and looking at you as some kind of wise old sage instead of the piss-sodden geriatric you've become.

  • Otter, Captain VXR, Finn 7 five 11 and 3 others like this

Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#87

Posted 19 November 2013 - 10:15 PM

Another thing I don't understand is what about Martin's initial actions constituted suspicious behaviour? As far as I understand it, he had been to the shop and was on his way home and there is nothing suspicious about that. Zimmerman must have allowed racial prejudice into his decision to follow this black youth, deem his actions suspicious and decide that he may have something to do with the recent spate of burglaries. Furthermore, if some strange guy was following me there is no way I'd lead him directly to my house, which could be one reason why Martin did not head straight home and just ignore Zimmerman's tail.

 

I'm with theadmiral, Otter, Melchior and Sivis on this one. Zimmerman's actions would be entirely unjustifiable in virtually every other civilised country in the world and if this man is allowed a weapon to threaten his girlfriend after such a high profile murder case then there are some serious failures in Florida's arms policy.

I'm going to have to call you out on this one. He was charged and found not guilty, why should anything happen to his firearms after the fact? If he was found guilty and later released I might agree with you, but to say he shouldn't have a firearm after being found innocent is a bit silly, don't you think?


Peregrin Brandytook
  • Peregrin Brandytook

    One Ring to rule them all.

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Jan 2013
  • None

#88

Posted 19 November 2013 - 10:19 PM

I don't even know who the f*ck he is

yet you still clicked on the thread?  :facedesk:


John Smith
  • John Smith

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#89

Posted 19 November 2013 - 10:22 PM

With all due respect sivis, that was a little out of order; not to mention out of your normally composed demeanour. I think you need to calm down a little mate. Just being honest.


Max
  • Max

    The Port Vila Killa.

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2009
  • Vanuatu
  • Contribution Award [Sports]

#90

Posted 19 November 2013 - 10:36 PM Edited by Max., 19 November 2013 - 10:36 PM.

 

Another thing I don't understand is what about Martin's initial actions constituted suspicious behaviour? As far as I understand it, he had been to the shop and was on his way home and there is nothing suspicious about that. Zimmerman must have allowed racial prejudice into his decision to follow this black youth, deem his actions suspicious and decide that he may have something to do with the recent spate of burglaries. Furthermore, if some strange guy was following me there is no way I'd lead him directly to my house, which could be one reason why Martin did not head straight home and just ignore Zimmerman's tail.

 

I'm with theadmiral, Otter, Melchior and Sivis on this one. Zimmerman's actions would be entirely unjustifiable in virtually every other civilised country in the world and if this man is allowed a weapon to threaten his girlfriend after such a high profile murder case then there are some serious failures in Florida's arms policy.

I'm going to have to call you out on this one. He was charged and found not guilty, why should anything happen to his firearms after the fact? If he was found guilty and later released I might agree with you, but to say he shouldn't have a firearm after being found innocent is a bit silly, don't you think?

 

I knew I'd be called out on that, and whilst by the letter of Florida law he is entitled to his firearms, that sentence is more an expression of exasperation at the whole gun control issue in America. The fact that men this unstable have easy access to firearms at all is something I simply cannot understand.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users