I would think that even if you’re legally entitled to carry a gun, you can still create a reasonable fear in someone that you’re going to hurt them.
A smoldering look and an “accidental” glimpse of a holstered pistol says a lot without needing to, you know, say something.
You said that “Martin was not entitled to swing at him” – that’s a moral indictment of a dead child, and to me it seems awfully callous, without the knowledge of what really happened in the moment, to judge a kid who may have truly believed (perhaps with good reason) that he was fighting for his life.
The law didn’t find beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman broke the law in shooting Martin. That says nothing about whether Martin broke the law or did anything wrong in striking Zimmerman.
Assuming one of those meets the legal requirements (I doubt they do, but lest assume for the sake of argument they do), what evidence is there that either of those things happened? There are certain problematic things about a homicide with no witnesses other than the killer that you just can’t get around. It’s unfortunate because GZ is hardly a sympathetic character, but you can’t convict a guy of murder on speculation.
Just out of curiosity, and keeping in mind that the discussion is about whether GZ broke the law or not, what would your default assumption be?
Can we, like, not do this for the 300th time? Nobody is going to be convinced of anything at this point.
Unfortunately, that’s true of pretty much every subject discussed on this MB. Might as well shut this sucker down and call it a day.
Post 1058 -
Hahahaha. You’re a hoot. I didn’t reopen the discussion. Really Not All That Bright did that in post 1058. If you really feel the need to bitch about rehashing old threads, you need to address the issue with Really Not All That Bright.
I brought up something new that happened to Zimmerman. You reopened the discussion of the Martin case in post 1073.
It’s much more true of this particular argument. There are no new facts or arguments in GZ/Trayvon debates.
You’re the one who restarted the conversation. :smack: You’re the one who wanted to rehash this for the 300th time. :smack:
Well, John, I’m a wild man, I lean towards the idea that whoever brought the weapon into the situation bears the responsibility for its being used.
(I’m not sure if this complies with paragraph C, subsection VII(d) of the Thread Relevancy Code, you may need to refer to an expert on that question.)
Where’s that goddam “like” button?
Responsible? Well, yeah, of course he’s “responsible”. The guy who shot bin Laden is “responsible” for bin Laden’s death, too*. Is that what we’re talking about? Because that makes it easy. We’re all “responsible” for actions we take of our own volition.
*If you really want to nit pick, you might argue Obama was “responsible” since he gave the order. If that makes any difference…
(Underline added)
According to the forensic evidence and the testimony of Rachel Jeantel as it was presented in court.
FYI - GZ wasn’t the only person there when the confrontation escalated. just sayin’
You might try reading my post before saying damn silly things like this. You did quote it, so it shouldn’t be that hard.
We, as in the American Public, are responsible for killing bin Laden because we elected the people who gave the order and also pay for the people who pull the trigger (and, for that matter, payed for the trigger and the bullet, too.)
George Zimmerman is entirely responsible for shooting Trayvon Martin, a minor, with a gun which Zimmerman payed for with his own money. He bought the bullet. He brought the gun. He pulled the trigger.
We, as in the American Public, are responsible for allowing Zimmerman to shoot Martin with no repercussions. We are at fault for creating a situation where it is acceptable for Zimmerman to stalk and shoot a minor. We have also created a society in which some people view Zimmerman as a hero.
Zimmerman is also solely responsible for posting revenge porn to harass his ex-girlfriend. We, the American Public, mostly don’t care about that sort of thing. We, the American Public, have a lot to answer for, really.
Glad we got that cleared up.
Only if the only part of this message board that you look at is GD and the Pit. And at least in GD we could report the hijack and maybe get it rolled into a different thread. This is supposed to be about Zimmerman being in the news again, not rehashing his old case over and over and over and over and over.
Though I will point out that Bricker made an incorrect statement of fact and has not disclaimed it. He just tries to change his words to mean something else. “Martin was not entitled to swing at him” is a statement of fact. The fact is that the state couldn’t prove that Martin was entitled to swing at him. It’s quite likely that the same would go the other direction had it been Martin who killed Zimmerman.
And what you are arguing about is another fact. Zimmerman broke the law if X happened, and did not break the law if Y happened, and the court could not prove that X happened. There’s no debate here, just pointless bickering.
You want to talk about GZ but you don’t want to talk about GZ. In a thread about GZ.
Yes, kinda. It has apparently escaped your notice but this thread is not about the Martin case. You weren’t here but we had about 500 of them, including one big one that ran to something like 50 pages.
doorhinge, can I give you some constructive criticism?
You’re really fucking stupid.
True. Although if he was open-carrying, his gun would have been obvious. But yeah, Zimmerman got to craft the story seeing as he had the gun, and thus survived.
I think my question was if Martin had smashed Zimmerman’s head with a rock, would he be able to play it off as a stand-your-ground defense as well?