Trayvon Martin

[rick773]

I wasn't comparing homicide rates though but gun related deaths. And not between the UK and US but between all developed countries (other than Mexico which has a civil (drug) war going on, mainly to supply the US with drugs).

-- Wed Jul 24, 2013 2:56 pm --


What did you make of the clip preceding yours?

-- Wed Jul 24, 2013 2:58 pm --


1) Care to compare murder rates?
2) Which mosques have been blown up with homemade bombs?
3) What is better? A few nobs wanting to ban the burka (which won't happen) or people blowing up government buildings in Oklahoma?
4) Are you suggesting the UK has greater "racial harmony" problems than the US?
5) You know where the door is.

1)no
2)http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/tipton-mosque-nail-bomb-could-5096201
3)I don't remember an active "blow up the okc federal building" campaign, I remember a few crazy people blowing up a building. I don't think breivik killing a bunch of republicans was an indictment on Norway as a society.
4)institutionally- absolutely not,America stands alone there. On like a person to person level? It's definitely close.
5)aww I disagreed with your commie friend and you want me to leave. How cute. Though that seems a bit "clickish"

1) I didn't think you would.
2) You said "keep trying to blow mosques up", so let's have the others. (for avoidance of doubt, this is a blown up building:

3) No you wouldn't but the guy that did it is yet another of your right wing nut jobs that live in the hills.
4) Well I disagree.
5) I don't wish for you to leave, I simply stated no one is forced to live here. It's not like I said "go back to where you came from..."

2. I believe they found an unexploded bomb at another mosque near the original one. I think another was set fire to a few months back.

3. I'm not gonna even try to defend white trash hill people.

5. I love it here . If anything I felt like I had to defend America as the only other person doing it claimed there wasn't racism cause he went to a concert with a Korean last weekend , which didn't seem fair. I guess if I had a real point besides poorly formed arguing it would be that clearly there's problems in both places, and clearly there's things the uk does a lot better than America , however the things keeping lunatics, and crime in check here(better social welfare , better justice system to name a couple) seem to be getting more American like, or at least that's where a lot of people are trying to take it.

 

[SWP's back]

No real evidence to suggest Zimmerman confronted Trayvon. Infact the hard evidence suggests Trayvon confronted Zimmerman.

Zimmerman, armed with a gun pursued an unarmed Martin. You cant really argue that. That Martin blindsided him first, or not is irrelevant in my eyes. An armed man followed a unarmed man, lost him, found him, got into a fight, was losing and decided to shoot him.

Martins previous misdemeanours mean nothing, the lean, the cannibis, previous incidents, the fact he took longer than he should to walk a certain distance, whatever else are all irrelevant.

If Zimmerman did not pursue Martin, Martin would not have died that night. That can be accepted as fact. The racism thing is speculation and therefore can be discounted. The crime of murder shouldnt.

You see it's not murder though over there. I think the verdict was correct to the letter of the law but the law is an ass.

 

[ElanJo]

No real evidence to suggest Zimmerman confronted Trayvon. Infact the hard evidence suggests Trayvon confronted Zimmerman.

Zimmerman, armed with a gun pursued an unarmed Martin. You cant really argue that. That Martin blindsided him first, or not is irrelevant in my eyes. An armed man followed a unarmed man, lost him, found him, got into a fight, was losing and decided to shoot him.

Martins previous misdemeanours mean nothing, the lean, the cannibis, previous incidents, the fact he took longer than he should to walk a certain distance, whatever else are all irrelevant.

If Zimmerman did not pursue Martin, Martin would not have died that night. That can be accepted as fact. The racism thing is speculation and therefore can be discounted. The crime of murder shouldnt.

"unarmed" is hindsight being erroneously injected into the situation. It's just dumb.

Not walking home isn't irrelevant if the argument at hand is that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon. It's not that he took longer anyway. It's that he doubled back - which is what logic applied to the hard evidence would suggest.

Following someone for a minute or 2 is not grounds for murder.


If you want to talk about what truly is irrelevant to the trial, then we can discount everything up until the few seconds before Zimmerman pulled the trigger. Everything before then, from who started the fight, who followed who and for how long, all the way back to the butterfly flapping its wings over in China is irrelevant.<br /><br />-- Wed Jul 24, 2013 4:35 pm --<br /><br />

No real evidence to suggest Zimmerman confronted Trayvon. Infact the hard evidence suggests Trayvon confronted Zimmerman.

Zimmerman, armed with a gun pursued an unarmed Martin. You cant really argue that. That Martin blindsided him first, or not is irrelevant in my eyes. An armed man followed a unarmed man, lost him, found him, got into a fight, was losing and decided to shoot him.

Martins previous misdemeanours mean nothing, the lean, the cannibis, previous incidents, the fact he took longer than he should to walk a certain distance, whatever else are all irrelevant.

If Zimmerman did not pursue Martin, Martin would not have died that night. That can be accepted as fact. The racism thing is speculation and therefore can be discounted. The crime of murder shouldnt.

You see it's not murder though over there. I think the verdict was correct to the letter of the law but the law is an ass.

What's the law?

 

[johnmc]

"unarmed" is hindsight being erroneously injected into the situation. It's just dumb.

Not walking home isn't irrelevant if the argument at hand is that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon. It's not that he took longer anyway. It's that he doubled back - which is what logic applied to the hard evidence would suggest.

Following someone for a minute or 2 is not grounds for murder.


If you want to talk about what truly is irrelevant to the trial, then we can discount everything up until the few seconds before Zimmerman pulled the trigger. Everything before then, from who started the fight, who followed who and for how long, all the way back to the butterfly flapping its wings over in China is irrelevant.
?

Not for me its not dumb - I would consider everyone unarmed. If I considered them armed I wouldnt pursue them. Whether I was armed or not.

Doubling back is not a sign that he was up to no good - even if he was "scoping" a location does not give grounds to shoot them. Do you know why he doubled back? As in not speculation but the actual reason?

Following someone is not grounds for murder - following them and then shooting is!

 

[ElanJo]

"unarmed" is hindsight being erroneously injected into the situation. It's just dumb.

Not walking home isn't irrelevant if the argument at hand is that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon. It's not that he took longer anyway. It's that he doubled back - which is what logic applied to the hard evidence would suggest.

Following someone for a minute or 2 is not grounds for murder.


If you want to talk about what truly is irrelevant to the trial, then we can discount everything up until the few seconds before Zimmerman pulled the trigger. Everything before then, from who started the fight, who followed who and for how long, all the way back to the butterfly flapping its wings over in China is irrelevant.
?

Not for me its not dumb - I would consider everyone unarmed. If I considered them armed I wouldnt pursue them. Whether I was armed or not.

Doubling back is not a sign that he was up to no good - even if he was "scoping" a location does not give grounds to shoot them. Do you know why he doubled back? As in not speculation but the actual reason?

Following someone is not grounds for murder - following them and then shooting is!

As interested as I am in how you go about deciding on who to follow, that has nothing to do with anything.

I'm not suggesting he was going back to scope a location. The question at hand is who confronted who. The evidence suggests if anyone did the confronting it was Trayvon.

You have to show murderous intent. There are multiple reasons why someone would look to follow someone else. Just because someone ended up dead it does not mean murder.

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

"unarmed" is hindsight being erroneously injected into the situation. It's just dumb.

Not walking home isn't irrelevant if the argument at hand is that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon. It's not that he took longer anyway. It's that he doubled back - which is what logic applied to the hard evidence would suggest.

Following someone for a minute or 2 is not grounds for murder.


If you want to talk about what truly is irrelevant to the trial, then we can discount everything up until the few seconds before Zimmerman pulled the trigger. Everything before then, from who started the fight, who followed who and for how long, all the way back to the butterfly flapping its wings over in China is irrelevant.
?

Not for me its not dumb - I would consider everyone unarmed. If I considered them armed I wouldnt pursue them. Whether I was armed or not.

Doubling back is not a sign that he was up to no good - even if he was "scoping" a location does not give grounds to shoot them. Do you know why he doubled back? As in not speculation but the actual reason?

Following someone is not grounds for murder - following them and then shooting is!

As interested as I am in how you go about deciding on who to follow, that has nothing to do with anything.

I'm not suggesting he was going back to scope a location. The question at hand is who confronted who. The evidence suggests if anyone did the confronting it was Trayvon.

You have to show murderous intent. There are multiple reasons why someone would look to follow someone else. Just because someone ended up dead it does not mean murder.

Exactly just because he was being followed does n't mean Martin could instigate a physical confrontation, if he did and Zimmerman honestly and reasonably feared for his life then he was legally allowed to use a gun with lethal force. Lets flip it back and say Zimmerman confronted Martin, but if Martin escalated to the point where Zimmerman feared for his life then the fact that Zimmerman provoked an attack does not bar him from raising self defense. So there is very little support for making a claim of murder against George Zimmerman.

 

[Bigga]

Not for me its not dumb - I would consider everyone unarmed. If I considered them armed I wouldnt pursue them. Whether I was armed or not.

Doubling back is not a sign that he was up to no good - even if he was "scoping" a location does not give grounds to shoot them. Do you know why he doubled back? As in not speculation but the actual reason?

Following someone is not grounds for murder - following them and then shooting is!

As interested as I am in how you go about deciding on who to follow, that has nothing to do with anything.

I'm not suggesting he was going back to scope a location. The question at hand is who confronted who. The evidence suggests if anyone did the confronting it was Trayvon.

You have to show murderous intent. There are multiple reasons why someone would look to follow someone else. Just because someone ended up dead it does not mean murder.

Exactly just because he was being followed does n't mean Martin could instigate a physical confrontation, if he did and Zimmerman honestly and reasonably feared for his life then he was legally allowed to use a gun with lethal force. Lets flip it back and say Zimmerman confronted Martin, but if Martin escalated to the point where Zimmerman feared for his life then the fact that Zimmerman provoked an attack does not bar him from raising self defense. So there is very little support for making a claim of murder against George Zimmerman.

So, who actually can claim 'self defence' then, if you should put it so?? For all Martin knows, Zimmerman was a paedo, maybe a kidnapper.

Could I argue that Martin was 'justifiably' in fear of his safety/ life if he felt the need to, hypothetically, 'confront' Zimmerman as to what his intentions for following him were??

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

As interested as I am in how you go about deciding on who to follow, that has nothing to do with anything.

I'm not suggesting he was going back to scope a location. The question at hand is who confronted who. The evidence suggests if anyone did the confronting it was Trayvon.

You have to show murderous intent. There are multiple reasons why someone would look to follow someone else. Just because someone ended up dead it does not mean murder.

Exactly just because he was being followed does n't mean Martin could instigate a physical confrontation, if he did and Zimmerman honestly and reasonably feared for his life then he was legally allowed to use a gun with lethal force. Lets flip it back and say Zimmerman confronted Martin, but if Martin escalated to the point where Zimmerman feared for his life then the fact that Zimmerman provoked an attack does not bar him from raising self defense. So there is very little support for making a claim of murder against George Zimmerman.

So, who actually can claim 'self defence' then, if you should put it so?? For all Martin knows, Zimmerman was a paedo, maybe a kidnapper.

Could I argue that Martin was 'justifiably' in fear of his safety/ life if he felt the need to, hypothetically, 'confront' Zimmerman as to what his intentions for following him were??

You could yes, lets say Zimmerman confronted Martin physically and with a force that made Martin fear serious injury or death (regardless of whether Zimmerman actually intended to kill him), Martin can respond with equal force or escalate to the point where it was required. However Martin was n't armed with a weapon, so if he responds through unarmed contact he can't exactly claim beating Zimmerman mercilessly to death was justified. If he were to punch Zimmerman and cause him to fall backwards breaking his skull that may me justified self defense. However Martin is n't allowed to confront somebody physically because he feels threatened, if he confronted Zimmerman verbally and GZ responded with violence then he could probably claim self defence. On the actual facts though Martin had bettered Zimmerman in any physical fight and was no longer in danger, if he had carried on GZ would have probably ended up seriously injured or dead, this was the time for TM to stop- he didn't and that is why he is dead.

 

[Bigga]

Exactly just because he was being followed does n't mean Martin could instigate a physical confrontation, if he did and Zimmerman honestly and reasonably feared for his life then he was legally allowed to use a gun with lethal force. Lets flip it back and say Zimmerman confronted Martin, but if Martin escalated to the point where Zimmerman feared for his life then the fact that Zimmerman provoked an attack does not bar him from raising self defense. So there is very little support for making a claim of murder against George Zimmerman.

So, who actually can claim 'self defence' then, if you should put it so?? For all Martin knows, Zimmerman was a paedo, maybe a kidnapper.

Could I argue that Martin was 'justifiably' in fear of his safety/ life if he felt the need to, hypothetically, 'confront' Zimmerman as to what his intentions for following him were??

You could yes, lets say Zimmerman confronted Martin physically and with a force that made Martin fear serious injury or death (regardless of whether Zimmerman actually intended to kill him), Martin can respond with equal force or escalate to the point where it was required. However Martin was n't armed with a weapon, so if he responds through unarmed contact he can't exactly claim beating Zimmerman mercilessly to death was justified. If he were to punch Zimmerman and cause him to fall backwards breaking his skull that may me justified self defense. However Martin is n't allowed to confront somebody physically because he feels threatened, if he confronted Zimmerman verbally and GZ responded with violence then he could probably claim self defence. On the actual facts though Martin had bettered Zimmerman in any physical fight and was no longer in danger, if he had carried on GZ would have probably ended up seriously injured or dead, this was the time for TM to stop- he didn't and that is why he is dead.

You're surmising an end result.

There are lots of fist fights in which the loser ends up with a bloody/ broken nose and walks away with their tail between their legs. Those people have cried out on many an occasion and walked away to lick their wounds.

Would you class those situations as 'life threatening'? What now becomes assessed as 'life threatening'?? Receiving a punch? Two? Pushed?

How many times have you stopped handing out a beat down just because you have bettered an opponent for the moment? Would it been fine for that person to shoot you??

It's all very contrived and subjective.

 

[ElanJo]

Although it's irrelevant to how Zimmerman was aquitted, I have mixed feelings about Stand Your Ground.

I'm sure there are cases where only SYG saves innocent lives. For instance, imagine someone coming at you with a knife. Without SYG you have a duty to retreat. You have a gun but you can't use it because you have to exhaust every possible avenue of escape first. You turn and run but end up tripping over and your gun goes flying away from you. The crazy fuck with the knife catches up to you. You're stabbed to death.
With SYG, you simply shoot the fucker and be done with it.

On the other hand, it can cause innocent lives to be lost.

In principle, I don't think it's that bad a law but in practice it probably causes more harm than good. It's a shame because I think you should be able to just shoot a knife wielding ****.