So.... good shoot?

[Maxima1]

Even if Zimmerman said something, you can't justify violence based on being provoked with words. Nor can you justify violence because you were "being followed." Period.

Agreed. My point was that I feel someone with the license to carry holds some responsibility for the situation if they were provocative. It's common sense that fighting words can lead to a fight.

Yeah all the evidence except that Zimmerman was deliberately following Martin, right?

Seriously? Do you guys just purposely ignore the testimony or aren't aware for some reason? Zimmerman wasn't near Martin's place that Martin was staying at despite Martin going there. He was at the T-section still not too far from his vehicle. Jeantel''s testimony claimed that Martin decided to go back to Zimmerman, which heavily implied he was itching for a fight.

 

[dank69]

Let's find out...


Yup! Your distinction / comparison makes absolutely no sense.

As I said, "self defense" is a legitimate legal defense / justification in Florida, Chicago, where I live, where you live, ... and practically anywhere else in the world.

It makes sense because if the shooter in Chicago started some shit and then claimed self-defense, the jury would still convict. You don't get to start some shit and then claim you feared for your life and blow someone away. That was the point I was trying to make. AFAIC SYG and self-defense are interchangeable in my argument because the minor difference between the two have no bearing on my point. Chicago gangster picks fight with another gangster, starts getting the shit kicked out of him, blows him away, claims self-defense = no deal, enjoy your life sentence. Chicago gangster picks fight with another gangster, starts getting the shit kicked out of him, blows him away, claims SYG (if it were available in Chicago) = no deal, enjoy your life sentence.

 

[dank69]

Agreed. My point was that I feel someone with the license to carry holds some responsibility for the situation if they were provocative. It's common sense that fighting words can lead to a fight.



Seriously? Do you guys just purposely ignore the testimony or aren't aware for some reason? Zimmerman wasn't near Martin's place that Martin was staying at despite Martin going there. He was at the T-section still not too far from his vehicle. Jeantel''s testimony claimed that Martin decided to go back to Zimmerman, which heavily implied he was itching for a fight.

I literally have no interest in any of the details or some he said she said bullshit. If GZ was a saint and TM was a shithead then fine, good shoot. I don't think anyone that wasn't there can make that determination either way. I have no idea who Jeantel is but I guarantee if he/she was offering testimony you didn't want to hear you would dismiss it out of hand as unreliable. He/she is offering testimony that backs your belief so you believe it without second thought. But anyway, we are not supposed to be discussing this...

 

[Maxima1]

I literally have no interest in any of the details or some he said she said bullshit. If GZ was a saint and TM was a shithead then fine, good shoot. I don't think anyone that wasn't there can make that determination either way. I have no idea who Jeantel is but I guarantee if he/she was offering testimony you didn't want to hear you would dismiss it out of hand as unreliable. He/she is offering testimony that backs your belief so you believe it without second thought. But anyway, we are not supposed to be discussing this...

Jeantel was Martin's girlfriend. She was ironically supporting the Zimmerman defense essentially. That's far from "he said/she said". We had some facts to work with as well. Zimmerman was still near his vehicle, and the amount of time that passed from the call was roughly three minutes, which fitted the theory that Martin came back to Zimmerman (and backed up by Jeantel).

 

[Ichinisan]

It makes sense because if the shooter in Chicago started some shit and then claimed self-defense, the jury would still convict. You don't get to start some shit and then claim you feared for your life and blow someone away. That was the point I was trying to make. AFAIC SYG and self-defense are interchangeable in my argument because the minor difference between the two have no bearing on my point. Chicago gangster picks fight with another gangster, starts getting the shit kicked out of him, blows him away, claims self-defense = no deal, enjoy your life sentence. Chicago gangster picks fight with another gangster, starts getting the shit kicked out of him, blows him away, claims SYG (if it were available in Chicago) = no deal, enjoy your life sentence.

Wow. You're too far gone.

No. If you have a valid self defense claim in any state, you can defend yourself. It doesn't matter who started the argument. It matters who started using physical violence. That's no different in Florida or Chicago. Period.

 

[Ichinisan]

I literally have no interest in any of the details or some he said she said bullshit. If GZ was a saint and TM was a shithead then fine, good shoot. I don't think anyone that wasn't there can make that determination either way. I have no idea who Jeantel is but I guarantee if he/she was offering testimony you didn't want to hear you would dismiss it out of hand as unreliable. He/she is offering testimony that backs your belief so you believe it without second thought. But anyway, we are not supposed to be discussing this...

She's the girl Trayvon was on the phone with when Zimmerman was initially following him.

 

[Muse]

I watched the video multiple times. The shooter's getting convicted of manslaughter. I don't know what his sentence will be but it's clear that him pulling the trigger was unjustified and should be punished big time.

 

[IJTSSG]

Wow. You're too far gone.

No. If you have a valid self defense claim in any state, you can defend yourself. It doesn't matter who started the argument. It matters who started using physical violence. That's no different in Florida or Chicago. Period.

Bullshit.

 

[Paladin3]

If SYG isn't a ticket to murder then we have no problem. I and many others will always show concern when there is a reason to believe SYG or even self-defense was used to kill someone when there were better alternatives, especially in cases where the person claiming SYG/self-defense was the one who started shit in the first place. That's it. IMO if you start some shit, take your fucking beating like a man. Don't puss out and pull your gun when you are getting your ass handed to you. Don't like that rule? Then don't start shit in the first place. If someone else starts some shit with you and then it escalates and then gets really bad then have at it, blow the original asshole away for all I care.

Following, observing and reporting the activities of someone is not "starting shit," and if you think doing so justifies being physically attacked then you are fucked in the head. Do you not respect the very laws you keep screaming about? If anyone started shit it was Martin by initiating the attack, and you are the one guilty of the "puss out" because he got killed for it and it was ruled self-defense.

 

[Paladin3]

The truest wedge being between guns and dead people.

Because if you don't think there's a difference between being followed and being followed by someone with a gun... I guess I can't help you.

Are you trying to say Martin somehow knew Zimmerman was armed and that's why Martin attacked? That Martin picked a fist fight with a man he knew had a gun? What do you smoke to come up with the bullshit?

 

[Paladin3]

Agreed. My point was that I feel someone with the license to carry holds some responsibility for the situation if they were provocative. It's common sense that fighting words can lead to a fight.

Words are never a legal justification for attacking someone. Yes, when I carry I am extra polite and go out of my way to avoid any possible confrontation. But if I was part of a neighborhood watch and legally carrying while on patrol, it doesn't give anyone I'm following any justification for illegally attacking me.

All the evidence shows that Martin returned to confront Zimmerman. No mater what Zimmerman might have said, and there is no evidence he said anything to Martin, it does not justify Martin's attack.

But the Martin shooting isn't about who was legally at fault for most of America. Most only see race and are willing to lie and convince themselves that Martin was 100% an innocent victim so they can feel special that they are fighting the good fight against racism.

 

[Maxima1]

Words are never a legal justification for attacking someone. Yes, when I carry I am extra polite and go out of my way to avoid any possible confrontation. But if I was part of a neighborhood watch and legally carrying while on patrol, it doesn't give anyone I'm following any justification for illegally attacking me.

All the evidence shows that Martin returned to confront Zimmerman. No mater what Zimmerman might have said, and there is no evidence he said anything to Martin, it does not justify Martin's attack.

But the Martin shooting isn't about who was legally at fault for most of America. Most only see race and are willing to lie and convince themselves that Martin was 100% an innocent victim so they can feel special that they are fighting the good fight against racism.

Again, I agreed there's no justification for anyone to attack someone over words. But I feel someone with concealed carry should get punished if they were provoking a fighting response. It's common sense that it raises the risk that you'll get into a fight and only have to use the gun due to stupidity.

 

[Paladin3]

I literally have no interest in any of the details or some he said she said bullshit. If GZ was a saint and TM was a shithead then fine, good shoot. I don't think anyone that wasn't there can make that determination either way. I have no idea who Jeantel is but I guarantee if he/she was offering testimony you didn't want to hear you would dismiss it out of hand as unreliable. He/she is offering testimony that backs your belief so you believe it without second thought. But anyway, we are not supposed to be discussing this...

Sounds like you haven't even read up on the facts of the case, yet you are convinced that Martin was the innocent victim of a racist, kill-happy Zimmerman. I'm ashamed of our legal system when it allows political pressure from the ignorant masses to influence the process to any degree. Justice is supposed to be (color) blind. And past injustices don't justify future ones to even the score.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Its because using a gun is all too easy these days especially if you're a cop! This behavior is reinforced on practically every tv show on air right now and people are convinced that gun violence is the solution to pretty much everything.

 

[Paladin3]

Its because using a gun is all too easy these days especially if you're a cop! This behavior is reinforced on practically every tv show on air right now and people are convinced that gun violence is the solution to pretty much everything.

I try real hard not to let the TV do my thinking for me. And the defensive use of a firearm is only warranted in a very, very rare set of circumstances. Please, stop spreading disinformation to the contrary.

 

[Paladin3]

Again, I agreed there's no justification for anyone to attack someone over words. But I feel someone with concealed carry should get punished if they were provoking a fighting response. It's common sense that it raises the risk that you'll get into a fight and only have to use the gun due to stupidity.

You can't have it both ways and hold someone responsible for the illegal actions of another. Or does a provocatively dressed woman bear some responsibility if she is raped? How about if she tells the guy no after they are kissing and getting him all worked up?

 

[dank69]

Sounds like you haven't even read up on the facts of the case, yet you are convinced that Martin was the innocent victim of a racist, kill-happy Zimmerman. I'm ashamed of our legal system when it allows political pressure from the ignorant masses to influence the process to any degree. Justice is supposed to be (color) blind. And past injustices don't justify future ones for even the score.

You are right, I have never read up on the case because I literally do not care. Nobody knows everything that happened that night except GZ and TM. If you want to believe GZ never said anything to TM, and TM just decided to go beat someone up for no reason, that is your prerogative.

 

[dank69]

Wow. You're too far gone.

No. If you have a valid self defense claim in any state, you can defend yourself. It doesn't matter who started the argument. It matters who started using physical violence. That's no different in Florida or Chicago. Period.

Yes, if you have a valid claim, you get acquitted. What I am saying is that when you start some shit, I think you should lose the right to that claim. Guess what happens then? People stop starting shit with each other.

 

[Maxima1]

You can't have it both ways and hold someone responsible for the illegal actions of another. Or does a provocatively dressed woman bear some responsibility if she is raped? How about if she tells the guy no after they are kissing and getting him all worked up?

That's just being retarded. A more relevant example is a cop talking shit. Rape is never okay. If you're able to carry, use it wisely. Provoking someone is not being responsible. We all know self-defense involves valuing one's own life more than another in that you'll shoot to incapacitate (commonly results in death) even if the risk of death to you is low. Obviously you should avoid putting someone else into that position when avoidable.

 

[Ichinisan]

Yes, if you have a valid claim, you get acquitted. What I am saying is that when you start some shit, I think you should lose the right to that claim. Guess what happens then? People stop starting shit with each other.

Well there's no difference between Chicago and Florida in that regard.

 

[dank69]

Well there's no difference between Chicago and Florida in that regard.

Gee, you don't say?

 

[JD50]

Well there's no difference between Chicago and Florida in that regard.

Unbelievable it took you this long to finally get his point.

 

[Ichinisan]

Gee, you don't say?

You're the one who said there was a difference and failed to explain it.

Understand?

wtf is the obsession with treyvon martin? 8 people were killed in chicago Aug 3 and 4 of this year. And nobody cares. But if the media tells you that it was a white guy (but wasn't he hispanic? Nah that doesn't sell as well) who killed a black kid, then some of you people just can't shut up about it 7 years later. It's baffling and comical.

Because if they catch the shooters in Chicago they don't go free because of some stand your ground law.

I said SYG had nothing to do with the GZ/TM case. You said "well change my statement to self defense instead of "SYG" and the meaning doesn't change."

I said it absolutely DOES change the meaning because self defense is valid in both places --- and almost anywhere in the world. You're basically saying "they're different because they're exactly the same." It does not explain the disparity railer pointed out in any way at all.

 

[Ichinisan]

Unbelievable it took you this long to finally get his point.

No. He said there is a difference in the laws to explain the disparity pointed out by railer, and the difference dank69 pointed out was completely inapplicable to the examples railer gave.

Idiots. Both of you.

 

[JD50]

No. He said there is a difference to explain the disparity pointed out by railer, and the difference he pointed out was completely inapplicable to the examples provided.

Idiots. Both of you.

People care more about what happened in Florida because self defense or SYG or WHATEVER is being used when the killer starts a fight. Gangbangers in Chicago aren't getting off due to self defense, SYG, or WHATEVER. That is the difference he was pointing out originally.

The similarity mentioned above is that in both places self defense (which is what he meant by "some stand your ground law") COULD be used.

The point is that the person that started the fight shouldn't get to murder someone and then claim they were defending themselves. If you want to argue about that go for it, but jesus stop quibbling over the exact phrase that people use.

This is like the ammosexuals quibbling over clip vs. magazine.