First  Prev  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next  Last
Post Reply George Zimmerman - Not Guilty
Posted 7/15/13 , edited 7/15/13

digs wrote:


anti-lambsacrifice wrote:

C

digs wrote:


anti-lambsacrifice wrote:

IMO this is bullshit. Murder is murder, and no one deserves death before their time. But he'll get his, whether the judge gives it to him or not. I believe truth always prevails.


It's not murder when done in self defense. The court ruling was appropriate given the evidence. If Martin was on Zimmerman bashing him and pounding him into concrete then the killing was justified under self defense.

Yes, because being beat up is the same as shooting someone. I don't really care what the court considers good reasoning - I'm saying it makes no sense.




Having your head bashed against concrete (which was Zimmerman's take on things) can kill you, using lethal force is appropriate to defend yourself in such situation. GZ was probably wrong to get out of his car and confront TM in the first place, but his shooting was done in self defense according to accounts and for that no penalty should be given. Trayvon was in the wrong to attack him like that.


I agree he never should have hurt him first. But killing is not self defense - when you defend yourself, no one should have to get hurt as a result. And now that kid can never do anything again - be it hurting someone or living a decent life - because Zimmerman couldn't think to do anything but end his life. Meanwhile, if he simply defended himself, he would be okay and so would Trayvon.
12505 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / California
Offline
Posted 7/15/13 , edited 7/15/13

anti-lambsacrifice wrote:


digs wrote:


anti-lambsacrifice wrote:

C

digs wrote:


anti-lambsacrifice wrote:

IMO this is bullshit. Murder is murder, and no one deserves death before their time. But he'll get his, whether the judge gives it to him or not. I believe truth always prevails.


It's not murder when done in self defense. The court ruling was appropriate given the evidence. If Martin was on Zimmerman bashing him and pounding him into concrete then the killing was justified under self defense.

Yes, because being beat up is the same as shooting someone. I don't really care what the court considers good reasoning - I'm saying it makes no sense.




Having your head bashed against concrete (which was Zimmerman's take on things) can kill you, using lethal force is appropriate to defend yourself in such situation. GZ was probably wrong to get out of his car and confront TM in the first place, but his shooting was done in self defense according to accounts and for that no penalty should be given. Trayvon was in the wrong to attack him like that.


I agree he never should have hurt him first. But killing is not self defense - when you defend yourself, no one should have to get hurt as a result. And now that kid can never do anything again - be it hurting someone or living a decent life - because Zimmerman couldn't think to do anything but end his life period. Meanwhile, if he simply defended himself, he would be okay and so would Trayvon.


Clearly you have never been in a situation where your life is in immediate danger and there is the risk of death if you don't stop your assailant. When in such a situation and confronting an attacker who is using dangerous force against you, not hurting your attacker is silly and is perhaps the thing you will be concerned with the least. People can't afford to be soft-hearted pacifists in such life-or-death situations. It is also unreasonable to want to make the person being attacked concerned about the well-being of the attacker. Not only will they be getting attacked first (attacker gets the first strike), they will be unable to use their full power to defend themselves if they have to be concerned about the attacker's well-being. You will want to incapacitate your attacker as soon as possible so that they can no longer pose a threat to you, whether they stay alive or not. You can kill in self-defense, intentionally or unintentionally. Your adrenaline will be pumping, your natural instinct to defend yourself will kick in. I can almost guarantee that you will not be your usual self at that moment. It's hard-wired into us.

If someone is bashing my head on concrete and I have a gun, of course I will shoot the guy. Whether he lives or dies after that is up to fate, since I won't be taking the time to leisurely aim at the guy carefully to ensure his life won't be in danger. I simply won't have that luxury since I am already in a bad position and losing the gun to the attacker will mean that I will either die or suffer very severe injuries. Even if I don't shoot him in the head, there are many major blood vessels that could be ruptured by a speeding bullet, causing him to bleed out very quickly. Shooting him in the head will be the fastest way to incapacitate him.
11478 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Washington State USA
Offline
Posted 7/15/13

moonhawk81 wrote:

What I don't really understand is how this incident became such a media circus to begin with. People are shot every day: people of every age and race, and under various circumstances. How did this case become so special? Maybe I'm just cynical after years in law enforcement, but seems like just another shooting to me.


Zionist controlled media chose this story because its a black person killed by "white"-hispanic to increase racial tensions and to further bombard the US citizens of anti-gun propaganda. Call me crazy but I bet its true.
54289 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / PA, USA
Offline
Posted 7/15/13
What people don't seem to understand is that in court the defendant must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There just isn't enough evidence to prove that it was murder. The only witness is Zimmerman himself as Trayvon is no longer here. I don't know one way or another what happened because I wasn't there to witness it and neither does anyone else except for Zimmerman and Trayvon. People that are basically wishing death upon Zimmerman when they don't know what actually happened in the situation honestly leaves me in awe. With no witnesses backing up Trayvon's side of things and Zimmerman indeed having injuries there is simply not enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the key phrase here.

I think the justice system worked well in this case with how the laws currently are. I'm not saying its a good thing that Trayvon is dead, its very sad that it happened that way, but there was not enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the jurors ruled the only ruling that you can rule when there is still reasonable doubt.

Maybe he did murder Trayvon, maybe he didn't, but no one actually knows besides Zimmerman himself and Trayvon, but with the limited information the jurors had to go on they made the best decision they could. For example, what if Zimmerman was jailed and 10 years from now a witness comes forward who saw the entire thing and says that Trayvon did indeed attack Zimmerman? At the time the witness was a child and remembered clearly what he saw, but did not know what to do because they were scared so they just kept quiet. Then a man who was acting in self-defense had been jailed for 10 years even though he was within the law with his actions.

The example above is exactly why guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt so that innocent people do not get jailed when there is flimsy evidence.

If people want to be angry at something they should be trying to get the laws changed because that is what led to this. Everything Zimmerman said he did fell under a law that is currently in place. Such as license to carry a concealed weapon, and Stand Your Ground (which is a state law in Florida).

As a last note: you shouldn't go around saying Zimmerman should die, because that makes you just as bad as the person you are wishing death upon.
Posted 7/15/13 , edited 7/15/13
Unfortunately, I'm on my phone and cannot reply to drawn out messages.

I never said care about an attacker's well-being. I said stop doing more harm than good. What are you going to do if anyone tries to hurt you? If you kill anyone who tries to hurt you, you may as well say good bye to humanity, or at least several more people who were put on this Earth to make something of themselves and STILL COULD HAVE. They are not an attacker - attacking is what they did in that INSTANT.
12505 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / California
Offline
Posted 7/15/13 , edited 7/15/13

anti-lambsacrifice wrote:

Unfortunately, I'm on my phoe and cannot reply to drawn out messages.

I never said care about their well-being. I said stop doing more harm than good. What are you going to do if anyone tries to hurt you? If you kill anyone who tries to hurt you, you may as well say good bye to humanity, or at least several more people who were put on this Earth to make something of themselves and STILL COULD HAVE. They are not an attacker - attacking is what they did in that INSTANT.


This is too broad. Nobody is advocating that lethal force should be used against any source of potential harm. It is fair to respond in life-or-death situations or situations in which you could be dealt grievous bodily harm with potentially lethal force. Death is a by-product of you defending yourself in such a case.

They are attackers if they are attacking. The danger is immediate and requires immediate and drastic response. Nobody is going to be thinking about 'their potential' when that person is threatening you with potentially lethal force.
Posted 7/15/13 , edited 7/15/13

Morbidhanson wrote:


anti-lambsacrifice wrote:

Unfortunately, I'm on my phoe and cannot reply to drawn out messages.

I never said care about their well-being. I said stop doing more harm than good. What are you going to do if anyone tries to hurt you? If you kill anyone who tries to hurt you, you may as well say good bye to humanity, or at least several more people who were put on this Earth to make something of themselves and STILL COULD HAVE. They are not an attacker - attacking is what they did in that INSTANT.


This is too broad. Nobody is advocating that lethal force should be used against any source of potential harm. It is fair to respond in life-or-death situations or situations in which you could be dealt grievous bodily harm with potentially lethal force. Death is a by-product of you defending yourself in such a case.

They are attackers if they are attacking. The danger is immediate and requiremmediate and drastic response. Nobody is going to be thinking about 'their potential' when that person is threatening you with potentially lethal force.



Well maybe they should, and should also learn how to help themselves without hurting someone else.

What you don't seem to realize is that kids that grow up in those neighborhoods don't kill because they want to. It's all they know. And I'm not saying they shouldn't learn better. But to KILL THEM because of that is just plain CRUEL. You don't have to die because they try to kill you, nor do they. No SANE OR INTELLIGENT PERSON wants to hurt other people for the hell of it.
12505 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / California
Offline
Posted 7/15/13 , edited 7/15/13

anti-lambsacrifice wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:


anti-lambsacrifice wrote:

Unfortunately, I'm on my phoe and cannot reply to drawn out messages.

I never said care about their well-being. I said stop doing more harm than good. What are you going to do if anyone tries to hurt you? If you kill anyone who tries to hurt you, you may as well say good bye to humanity, or at least several more people who were put on this Earth to make something of themselves and STILL COULD HAVE. They are not an attacker - attacking is what they did in that INSTANT.


This is too broad. Nobody is advocating that lethal force should be used against any source of potential harm. It is fair to respond in life-or-death situations or situations in which you could be dealt grievous bodily harm with potentially lethal force. Death is a by-product of you defending yourself in such a case.

They are attackers if they are attacking. The danger is immediate and requiremmediate and drastic response. Nobody is going to be thinking about 'their potential' when that person is threatening you with potentially lethal force.



Well maybe they should, and should also learn how to help themselves without hurting someone else.

What you don't seem to realize is that kids that grow up in those neighborhoods don't kill because they want to. It's all they know. And I'm not saying they shouldn't learn better. But to KILL THEM because of that is just plain CRUEL. You don't have to die because they want to kill you, nor do they.


It's simply unrealistic to want to make people think about the well-being of their attacker in deadly situations. You say that you don't mean that, but you do based on what you are saying. Defending yourself will naturally be the priority if you are threatened with grievous bodily harm or death and escape is not an option. You equate the outcome of the situation with the intent of the person defending him/herself. That is illogical. As I said, the death of the attacker is a possible by-product of using potentially lethal force in self-defense. It is NOT the main intent of the defender, as his/her main intent is to defend him/herself.

Why should they be attempting to not hurt the attacker if they themselves are being threatened with grievous harm and/or death and the use of force in self-defense is hard-wired into our brains? Very few people will be able to remain calm and rational in these sorts of situations. You will be freaking out at the thought that you might die and that you don't want to die, so you must stop your attacker. You aren't hurting them 'for the hell of it,' and it does not mean you are not 'sane' or not 'intelligent.' Self-defense is very different from murder or having the intent to hurt someone for no reason. Not only does the attacker get the advantage of striking first, the attacker may be armed, stronger and bigger than you are, or mentally unstable. Let that sink in for a moment. Think about how you would respond if you couldn't escape.

It would be more cruel, as well as blatantly un-just, to back an undeserving victim of an attack into a corner. They are either killed or injured, or the 'justice system' dings them for protecting themselves.
Posted 7/15/13
I've already said what I had to say. And it's a shame that there are so many people in this world who would rather fight fire with fire than learn to make peace. Good bye.
12505 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / California
Offline
Posted 7/15/13 , edited 7/15/13

anti-lambsacrifice wrote:

I've already said what I had to say. And it's a shame that there are so many people in this world who would rather fight fire with fire than learn to make peace. Good bye.


Geez, few people like to fight and kill people for no reason. We are talking about life-or-death situations in which your only option is to hurt your attacker or be seriously harmed or killed. How are you supposed to make peace with some stranger who is trying to crack your skull open or shoot you? Are you seriously going to just try to talk to them? That's probably not going to work. This is not an anime. You. Are. Going. To. Die.

It's a shame that practicality and realism is of no concern to you. It's good that you want people to be peaceful, but it is bad to not take reality into consideration when judging the morality of others.
402 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Greensboro, North...
Offline
Posted 7/15/13
If you really think he did that in self defense then you are stupid and an ass wipe. He followed him around cause he was black.. He was walking from the store with skittles and shit with a weird man following him asking for his address...... Comeon people think Zimmerman could lie cause no witnesses. If people didn't say it was racial, would you still take Zimmerman side? Zimmerman was a racist and regardless of what race he was he shot a black 17 year old boy cause he was black and looked "suspicious". The jury all women are white and one is a hispanic right. Tell me how those bitches believed his bullshit? Im hearing all over the news now everytime i turn on the tv some old looking white man talking about Zimmerman is innocent it was self defense blah blah blah justice was served..... WHAT!!!!!

If you reply to this saying that you are stupid then yes i will believe you.
Posted 7/15/13 , edited 7/15/13


I find it funny how everyone is claiming how Zimmerman acted in self-defense, but not Trayvon.
Posted 7/15/13

Morbidhanson wrote:


anti-lambsacrifice wrote:

I've already said what I had to say. And it's a shame that there are so many people in this world who would rather fight fire with fire than learn to make peace. Good bye.


Geez, few people like to fight and kill people for no reason. We are talking about life-or-death situations in which your only option is to hurt your attacker or be seriously harmed or killed. How are you supposed to make peace with some stranger who is trying to crack your skull open or shoot you? Are you seriously going to just try to talk to them? That's probably not going to work. This is not an anime. You. Are. Going. To. Die.

It's a shame that practicality and realism is of no concern to you. It's good that you want people to be peaceful, but it is bad to not take reality into consideration when judging the morality of others.



If you really want to know what I have to suggest, I would be more than happy to discuss it with you. If you're asking to be condescending, and are jumping to conclusions, I cannot talk to you at the moment. But if you really would rather there be peace, you can at least try and listen to what I have to say. There's a reason I'm disagreeing with you, and before you call me illogical, you ought to know WHY.
12505 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / California
Offline
Posted 7/15/13

LosingOrbit wrote:



I find it funny how everyone is claiming how Zimmerman acted in self-defense, but not Trayvon.


I sort of think it's one of those weird cases where both people saw each other as a potential threat and attacked each other in self-defense.
3230 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 7/15/13

Wrathfulram wrote:


moonhawk81 wrote:

What I don't really understand is how this incident became such a media circus to begin with. People are shot every day: people of every age and race, and under various circumstances. How did this case become so special? Maybe I'm just cynical after years in law enforcement, but seems like just another shooting to me.


Zionist controlled media chose this story because its a black person killed by "white"-hispanic to increase racial tensions and to further bombard the US citizens of anti-gun propaganda. Call me crazy but I bet its true.


Only you're not crazy, because you're not the only one who's been saying what you've been saying. Go back to the 4th page at the bottom and you'll see me addressing it too.
First  Prev  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.