21 Jul 2013, 8:25 pm
21 Jul 2013, 8:27 pm
simon_says wrote:
Max000 wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Even if Zimmerman pushed, grabbed, or provoked Trayvon some other way it wouldn't of been okay for him to beat Zimmerman's face in. It wasn't an equal response to whatever Zimmerman was doing if anything.
And Zimmerman shooting Trayvon was an equal response to what Trayvon was doing?
Talk about a double standard. Zimmerman can do no wrong. Trayvon could do no right.
yes, it's a childish standard. Martin can't respond with fists if grabbed at night by a stranger. But Zimmerman can kill over a broken nose. Zimmerman can fear worse and escalate, Martin can't.
Your response is childish and ironic. Again we aren't in high school where the hallways are policed. This is technically the streets and it's "do or die" as the streets put it. Zimmerman saw a suspicious character maybe got a little zealous and pursued a suspect against dispatches advice (not illegal) and encountered a situation he did not expect. His response is questionable but still reasonable until proven otherwise. None of us who agree with the juries decision don't question the circumstances of the murder but with the evidence provided it seems that Zimmerman was in his right to defend himself. We are here to debate otherwise and the only arguments we get are Zimmerman wasn't "Fair" or Zimmerman was "Childish" these are speculations and contribute nothing to a debate. Honestly I am here to find someone to GIVE me a reason why Zimmerman should be found guilty. In some way I want him to be guilty. But no one in this thread has proven that fact! If I were a juror I would have to find him not guilty because of reasonable doubt too.
21 Jul 2013, 9:04 pm
0bey1sh1n0b1 wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Max000 wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Even if Zimmerman pushed, grabbed, or provoked Trayvon some other way it wouldn't of been okay for him to beat Zimmerman's face in. It wasn't an equal response to whatever Zimmerman was doing if anything.
And Zimmerman shooting Trayvon was an equal response to what Trayvon was doing?
Talk about a double standard. Zimmerman can do no wrong. Trayvon could do no right.
yes, it's a childish standard. Martin can't respond with fists if grabbed at night by a stranger. But Zimmerman can kill over a broken nose. Zimmerman can fear worse and escalate, Martin can't.
Your response is childish and ironic. Again we aren't in high school where the hallways are policed. This is technically the streets and it's "do or die" as the streets put it. Zimmerman saw a suspicious character maybe got a little zealous and pursued a suspect against dispatches advice (not illegal) and encountered a situation he did not expect. His response is questionable but still reasonable until proven otherwise. None of us who agree with the juries decision don't question the circumstances of the murder but with the evidence provided it seems that Zimmerman was in his right to defend himself. We are here to debate otherwise and the only arguments we get are Zimmerman wasn't "Fair" or Zimmerman was "Childish" these are speculations and contribute nothing to a debate. Honestly I am here to find someone to GIVE me a reason why Zimmerman should be found guilty. In some way I want him to be guilty. But no one in this thread has proven that fact! If I were a juror I would have to find him not guilty because of reasonable doubt too.
I don't think that you understood my comment or it's context or the series of nested comments that inspired it. So I can't really respond to your rant.
21 Jul 2013, 9:33 pm
21 Jul 2013, 9:39 pm
21 Jul 2013, 10:11 pm
21 Jul 2013, 10:15 pm
21 Jul 2013, 10:48 pm
21 Jul 2013, 10:48 pm
21 Jul 2013, 10:54 pm
simon_says wrote:
0bey1sh1n0b1 wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Max000 wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Even if Zimmerman pushed, grabbed, or provoked Trayvon some other way it wouldn't of been okay for him to beat Zimmerman's face in. It wasn't an equal response to whatever Zimmerman was doing if anything.
And Zimmerman shooting Trayvon was an equal response to what Trayvon was doing?
Talk about a double standard. Zimmerman can do no wrong. Trayvon could do no right.
yes, it's a childish standard. Martin can't respond with fists if grabbed at night by a stranger. But Zimmerman can kill over a broken nose. Zimmerman can fear worse and escalate, Martin can't.
Your response is childish and ironic. Again we aren't in high school where the hallways are policed. This is technically the streets and it's "do or die" as the streets put it. Zimmerman saw a suspicious character maybe got a little zealous and pursued a suspect against dispatches advice (not illegal) and encountered a situation he did not expect. His response is questionable but still reasonable until proven otherwise. None of us who agree with the juries decision don't question the circumstances of the murder but with the evidence provided it seems that Zimmerman was in his right to defend himself. We are here to debate otherwise and the only arguments we get are Zimmerman wasn't "Fair" or Zimmerman was "Childish" these are speculations and contribute nothing to a debate. Honestly I am here to find someone to GIVE me a reason why Zimmerman should be found guilty. In some way I want him to be guilty. But no one in this thread has proven that fact! If I were a juror I would have to find him not guilty because of reasonable doubt too.
I don't think that you understood my comment or it's context or the series of nested comments that inspired it. So I can't really respond to your rant.
My rant is sound with reason. Now either your comment was a sarcasm to what you quoted which at first sounded that way then I can see how I missed your point. But at face value and I'm not about to go hunt for your nested crap it sounds to me like you seriously thought this was child's play. Tell you what I'm not going to even rephrase myself I think it was nicely put the first time around so reread my post and let that sink in!
21 Jul 2013, 10:55 pm
21 Jul 2013, 10:59 pm
21 Jul 2013, 11:10 pm
0bey1sh1n0b1 wrote:
Max000 wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Even if Zimmerman pushed, grabbed, or provoked Trayvon some other way it wouldn't of been okay for him to beat Zimmerman's face in. It wasn't an equal response to whatever Zimmerman was doing if anything.
And Zimmerman shooting Trayvon was an equal response to what Trayvon was doing?
Talk about a double standard. Zimmerman can do no wrong. Trayvon could do no right.
You still don't get it lol. This isn't a tit-for-tat. This isn't a "fair" game. Trayvon could have said "Not sure what you want but leave me alone!" and walked away then no one would have seen Trayvon over Zimmerman and Zimmerman would have gone to jail for murder end of story. I haven't seen this thread in a few days and I see your response and it BLOWS my mind that you still haven't pieced the puzzle together. You insist that the sky is green regardless of the obvious facts.
I'm going to play devils advocate here for a second and say that MAYBE Trayvon did tell Zimmerman to go away but Zimmerman still provoked Trayvon. In fear Trayvon could have responded in violence but if you are scared of the guy you would not straddle yourself over the assailant and continuously beat him. You'd hit him knock him down and RUN. The FACT that he was beating Zimmerman says either he was under the influence of something or he is just a rage full person looking to give someone a beating.
Please if you are going to argue a point the least you could do is listen to your response, take into consideration ALL points of view and deliver a debatable point. Whether Zimmerman's response was fair or not is irrelevant. Under the circumstances Zimmerman was in he had reason to fear for his life. The same reason the jury found to create REASONABLE doubt.
Personally I think that Zimmerman accosted Trayvon with his gun drawn and Trayvon was fighting for his life. I think it was Trayvon who was in fear for his life. I believe that because Zimmerman's story is impossible, therefore not believable.
Regardless, if it was justified for Zimmerman to shoot Trayvon because he broke his nose. Then you have to admit that it was justified for Trayvon to punch Zimmerman, because he grabbed him in the dark. Step 1 grabbing, step 2 punching, step 3 shooting. Each step is just one more level in the escalation of violence. It's no more wrong for one person to escalate to the next level then the other person. If you can't accept that, then there is no logic to your argument. Therefor your opinion is base on your personal bias for Zimmerman.
21 Jul 2013, 11:18 pm
zer0netgain wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Max000 wrote:
And Zimmerman shooting Trayvon was an equal response to what Trayvon was doing?
So if I were to knock you to the ground and then straddle you while punching you in the face and/or slamming the back of your head into a concrete sidewalk, you'd consider that to be non-lethal force?
Most "armchair quarterbacks" have no knowledge or training on what constitutes "deadly force."
ANY BLOW TO THE HEAD OR GENITALS can qualify as an attempt at deadly force because the sub-dermal injuries can be fatal.
A blow to the genitals is not life-threatening. Very, very, very, unpleasant, and possibly disabling, but not life-threatening by it's self.
21 Jul 2013, 11:31 pm
22 Jul 2013, 12:07 am
Quote:
Independently of other trials being unfair, you agree than in this case it was a fair trial outcome. So what do you think about all the people saying they don't accept the veredict and yelling about taking the law in their own hands and even killling him?
People can say what they like but I don't think it was unfair based on what little I read. I don't like him and wouldnt shake his hand but he certainly shouldnt be harmed. I might or might not piss on him if he were on fire. Depends on the nature of the fire.
I think Zimmerman didnt get a clear victory. One that resonated with the public outside of the jury box. He didnt take the stand forcefully and defend himself and endure a cross examination, he didnt have a secret witness who saw the whole thing, etc. So he leaves the trial with some of the same uncertainty he went into it with. That will dog him in the real world where many people have heard a lot of negative things about him and where many arent convinced of his innocence due to the ambiguity of the trial. That's his world now. He's going to get the stink eye for years.
Quote:
Didn't follow the OJ case. But it was a similar case, nothing to argue about.
OJ was clearly guilty and got away with it. The not guilty didnt hold much water. People complained about it for years.
