-: So you shot this guy. Self-defense I assume?
-: Yes, officer. At first I wasn’t sure so I made the reasonable and responsible thing and started to shout and taunt him - within the limits of the first amendment of course - until he snapped proving clearly that he indeed was an unstable person. And since the danger was imminent I shot him in self-defense.
-: Fair enough, sounds good to me, have a nice day, sir.
Also I find it odd that to you the only solution to any altercation is to kill the other person.
You haven’t mentioned walking away, punching or pistol-whipping or even wounding - it’s always killing the other person.
Steophan has made it clear in his Zimmerman defense that he believes “stand your ground” allows you to continue to advance until the fateful moment you just HAVE to kill someone. Who would walk away when they want to be a big-shot hero who saved the world from yet another thug?
The other person might follow you. If they move or writher on the ground after punching or shooting them, they may get back up. You must stand your ground and eliminate the threat. “Self Defence”!!!
He was a well-liked guy, the local chief of police in Leechburg, PA. On his time off he volunteered to help with a fireworks display and his arm was blown to smithereens. I really felt bad for the guy (though I stopped short of hero worship).
The former chief in my town (Apollo, PA) was convicted of selling guns he’d confiscated and ammo he’d ordered so his underlings could do some practice shooting. Thing is, his salary as chief was just a bit over minimum wage. He broke the law, sure. He was and is a truly nice guy who I say hi to when I see him around (he served a couple of years in prison).
Chief: Watch me light the world’s strongest firecracker. explosion and loss of limb
Local Lass with cartoon hearts emerging from chest: You’re my HE-RO!
Actually, the “volunteer” part does not seem quite right, according to the stories i’ve found from back in June. It seems that, in addition to being a cop, he ran a fireworks business on the side, and was licensed to handle fireworks.
Huh. Well, after he lost his arm, everyone was lauding him for serving the community by lighting the fireworks that harmed him. I had heard he’d had “training” to light fireworks, but talk around town (and there was a lot of it, arm being blown to smitereens and all) had him volunteering to help the community.
Thanks for posting this, I really needed a good laugh today, and this totally delivered. You need to believe in yourself more Steophan, because I’m fairly certain that almost everyone else participating in this thread correctly believes that you are that arrogant and stupid.
It might be relevant if it was accurate. That it was not his primary residence is hair-splitting. He was staying there, if but for a few days. Coming back to the place your are staying is semantically identical to going home. It is only “relevant” in the sense that it is pathetically wrong-headed pedantry of the worst kind.
Imagine you are visiting someone, you go to the store and on the way back to where you have been staying, you see a strange person shadowing you. I know that makes me pretty uncomfortable, having someone staring at me in the darkness. What the fuck does that person want? Are they planning to case my house or something? Are they looking for a chance to grab me and ass-rape me behind those bushes? What do they want?
I am saying that Zimmerman was not invested with more rights than Martin. We have no idea what the body language was between them, but Martin almost certainly perceived Zimmerman as a threat. No less reasonable than Zimmerman being concerned about Martin being there. But, to Martin, Zimmerman looked like a real, immediate danger, so he tried to drive Zimmerman off.
Was he a thug? Possibly. We will never know. But we have rather ample evidence that Zimmerman is a serious piece of shit. Perhaps even close to as putrid and vile a piece of shit as you are. What are you doing in this thread? I believe you do not belong here. Show me your papers.
There is, quite literally, no evidence of that. Literally all we know is that Zimmerman was following him, and asked him where he was going. That is not a threat.
It is possible Zimmerman threatened Martin. But, as there is no evidence whatsoever for it, it is not a possibility that’s worth considering.
Remember, again, the standard is not that someone felt fear, that they felt threatened. That alone does not justify self defence. It’s interesting, though, that it’s a standard that you support now, but don’t when you believe that’s what a cop is claiming.
There is no evidence one way or the other. Except for the testimony from Zimmerman that Martin attacked him. Why would Martin have attacked him?
Note that I never said that Zimmerman “threatened” Martin. I said that Martin perceived Zimmerman as a threat. Like the analogy earlier in the thread of a large man and normal/smallish woman on a dark road. The reality appears to be that Martin was mostly acting normal (such as one can with a phone in their ear), and Zimmerman was the one behaving suspiciously.
Apart from the evidence, there is no evidence :smack:
You claimed, with no evidence, that Martin perceived Zimmerman as a threat, and strongly - and falsely - implied that that would be enough to justify self defence. You have a preconceived idea of what happened, and are twisting or inventing evidence to support it.
Well, the person he was talking to on the phone at the time was a major witness at the trial. I assume you’ve read or listened to her testimony before deciding what happened at the time?
There’s no suggestion from it that Martin felt in imminent fear of attack at any point, and nothing that suggests that such fear would have been reasonable. There was someone following him and asking what he was doing, not anything threatening.
…its amazing how you’ve managed to re-contextualise what happened at trial. Creepy. Might be a rapist. Tried to elude him. “the nigga is behind me.”
No suggestion that Martin felt in imminent fear? A creepy white man was following him and according to the witness you just told me to look up she thought the creepy white man was going to rape him.
Given that your entire scope of arguments have been demonstrably false, got a cite for that pile of shit? Besides from someone on trial for murder, of course.
Based on what we have come to understand about Zimmerman, I am not inclined to regard anything he says as substantial evidence.
Here, I was unjustifiably giving Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt. Zimmerman claimed that Martin attacked him. Martin was not really known to be emotionally unstable, at least, not more than someone else his age. If Zimmerman is being truthful (there does seem to be evidence of an altercation), why then did Martin attack him. I can think of no other reason that he would, than that he perceived Zimmerman as a threat. Unless, of course, Zimmerman is lying about even that, and it was actually he who started the fight.
Holy fuck. You apologize for police officers who have killed people for less. What the fuck is your standard for self defense, you slippery glob of wet shit?
Which makes my interpretation of the events qualitatively different from yours, how?
