or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › killing Trayvon
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

killing Trayvon - Page 86

post #1276 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

As you know, I've said from the start, Z is a nightmare for folks that believe in gun ownership rights. The more I read of him I can't see how he had a CCW. Fighting with the cops? Restraining order (okay, they both filed them and it sounds bogus, but still on his record)? I can't see how he was issued a permit.
We talked about the "double tap" training and I think if that's part of his defense he's going to get into trouble. Why? The biggest part of training is usually of the "never confront, always disengage, attempt to flee, de-escalate" type talks. As I've said from the start Z was in the wrong when he started the confrontation. I'm sure that's not criminal but I think his complete disregard of all CCW training is going to hurt him if this goes to trial.

I recently read that he did disengage and that witness(es) actually saw him going back to his car or whatever when martin turned around and attacked him. This was relayed to police o nthe scene and probably played in to why he was never arrested.
post #1277 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQgeek View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

As you know, I've said from the start, Z is a nightmare for folks that believe in gun ownership rights. The more I read of him I can't see how he had a CCW. Fighting with the cops? Restraining order (okay, they both filed them and it sounds bogus, but still on his record)? I can't see how he was issued a permit.
We talked about the "double tap" training and I think if that's part of his defense he's going to get into trouble. Why? The biggest part of training is usually of the "never confront, always disengage, attempt to flee, de-escalate" type talks. As I've said from the start Z was in the wrong when he started the confrontation. I'm sure that's not criminal but I think his complete disregard of all CCW training is going to hurt him if this goes to trial.

I recently read that he did disengage and that witness(es) actually saw him going back to his car or whatever when martin turned around and attacked him. This was relayed to police o nthe scene and probably played in to why he was never arrested.

Two things about that. First, he should never have followed/antagonized in the first place. IMO, he lost any (for lack of a better term) moral authority right there. Second, I'd not hold my breathe about those witness accounts holding up. I do think we are going to see witnesses recant, change their story, and just plain refuse to come forward. I don't think the average person is going to want to be the witness that "freed" Z. I also think any jury is going to look at things like the original Rodney King trial and not want to be that jury.

Z is doomed if charged.
post #1278 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

As you know, I've said from the start, Z is a nightmare for folks that believe in gun ownership rights. The more I read of him I can't see how he had a CCW. Fighting with the cops? Restraining order (okay, they both filed them and it sounds bogus, but still on his record)? I can't see how he was issued a permit.

Because he was never convicted of anything? Did you read the facts surrounding those? One he allegedly put his hands on a cop, but he probably didn't do much since they dropped the charges. And in the second, it sounds bogus, as you say. No reason to think Zimmerman did anything in either of these cases that would disqualify him from carrying a gun.
Quote:
We talked about the "double tap" training and I think if that's part of his defense he's going to get into trouble. Why? The biggest part of training is usually of the "never confront, always disengage, attempt to flee, de-escalate" type talks. As I've said from the start Z was in the wrong when he started the confrontation. I'm sure that's not criminal but I think his complete disregard of all CCW training is going to hurt him if this goes to trial.

Good advice, but it's just that--advice. It's not binding, not a standing order or a standard of care. A lot of people (myself included) are offended by the suggestion that the police are the only people who have a right to watch out for burglars or carry guns for self-defense, and that's basically what you're saying. Zimmerman had a choice of whether to follow Martin, and he was perfectly within his rights to do what he did. I like the fact that someone would be afraid to menace my neighborhood because of people like Zimmerman. Hell, I wish I had more neighbors like him. It's what separates us from Europe where burglars and vandals walk around with impunity.
post #1279 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Good advice, but it's just that--advice. It's not binding, not a standing order or a standard of care. A lot of people (myself included) are offended by the suggestion that the police are the only people who have a right to watch out for burglars or carry guns for self-defense, and that's basically what you're saying. Zimmerman had a choice of whether to follow Martin, and he was perfectly within his rights to do what he did. Hell, I wish I had more neighbors like him. It's what separates us from Europe where burglars and vandals walk around with impunity.

No, that's not what I'm saying. "Watch out for" does not mean pursue and attempt to confront. And "self defense" does not mean "acting in such a manner that can, with a reasonable degree of foresight, be seen to cause a confrontation." IMO, self defense would indicate Z was minding his own business and M attacked him.

Don't try to make me out as someone that does not support gun ownership as you will fail there.
post #1280 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

No, that's not what I'm saying. "Watch out for" does not mean pursue and attempt to confront. And "self defense" does not mean "acting in such a manner that can, with a reasonable degree of foresight, be seen to cause a confrontation." IMO, self defense would indicate Z was minding his own business and M attacked him.

Agreed. Self-defense is a right everyone has. But policing should be left to the professionals.
post #1281 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

No, that's not what I'm saying. "Watch out for" does not mean pursue and attempt to confront. And "self defense" does not mean "acting in such a manner that can, with a reasonable degree of foresight, be seen to cause a confrontation." IMO, self defense would indicate Z was minding his own business and M attacked him.
Don't try to make me out as someone that does not support gun ownership as you will fail there.

Can be seen to cause a confrontation--what does that mean? You seem to have difficulty with the word "confrontation" like that other poster. Confronting someone means, well, engaging them.

"Excuse me, son, what's your business here?" is confronting someone. It's not improper, it's not picking a fight, it doesn't make Zimmerman the aggressor. That's bullshit. You can maybe argue that Z should have played it safe, but that's as far as that goes, and you should admit that it was his decision to make.
post #1282 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

No, that's not what I'm saying. "Watch out for" does not mean pursue and attempt to confront. And "self defense" does not mean "acting in such a manner that can, with a reasonable degree of foresight, be seen to cause a confrontation." IMO, self defense would indicate Z was minding his own business and M attacked him.
Don't try to make me out as someone that does not support gun ownership as you will fail there.

Can be seen to cause a confrontation--what does that mean? You seem to have difficulty with the word "confrontation" like that other poster. Confronting someone means, well, engaging them.

"Excuse me, son, what's your business here?" is confronting someone. It's not improper, it's not picking a fight, it doesn't make Zimmerman the aggressor. That's bullshit. You can maybe argue that Z should have played it safe, but that's as far as that goes, and you should admit that it was his decision to make.

Of course it was his decision. A decision he made and look at how wise a one it was. You can argue with me all you want but my opinion on this will not be changed. It doesn't mean I'm in the anti-Z lynch mob, like our buddy 16 Ton, but you cannot convince me Z acted in a responsibly, wise, or prudent fashion.
post #1283 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Martin's aggressiveness gets Zimmerman on the ground with a broken nose. After that Zimmerman should have been able to gain the upper hand. Didn't I read somewhere that he used to be a bouncer?
If Z really did eventually overpower M and shoot him in a rage, that's manslaughter at least.

If Z used to be a bouncer then I change my guess from quick acquittal to possible manslaughter.
post #1284 of 6250
I really wish both of these dipshits died already.
post #1285 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Of course it was his decision. A decision he made and look at how wise a one it was. You can argue with me all you want but my opinion on this will not be changed. It doesn't mean I'm in the anti-Z lynch mob, like our buddy 16 Ton, but you cannot convince me Z acted in a responsibly, wise, or prudent fashion.

Lynch mob? I want him arrested and tried. If he is acquitted, then so be it. How is that a lynch mob?

If he can't get a fair trial you can blame that ridiculous stand your ground law and Z's cover up (understandable because he was probably scared of what happened). This allows the media to turn this into a conspiracy when it is probably just a series of bad decisions adding up to what looks like a cover up. Somehow Z got caught up in the fire storm. There are worse things happening but that doesn't mean he should not answer for bullying someone and seeing it go horribly wrong. We have a lot of crime in this country and it's drug, poverty and gun related. When you use a gun and you mess up, it's the end for you.

What real decisions did Z use to profile T? Had any home been burgled? Wasn't T on the property legally? Z made some very bad decisions and now he does not want to account for it.

He may not get a fair trial but that is neither my wish nor my problem.


What kind of trial did T get?
post #1286 of 6250
I have completely ignored this story. Can someone give me a quick recap?
post #1287 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMRouse View Post

I have completely ignored this story. Can someone give me a quick recap?

OK.

Once upon a time there was a white Hispanic who lived in a chocolate shoe.

Unfortunately, he shot the shoe, and then he was homeless.

SF has been arguing ever since. Hope that helps.
post #1288 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMRouse View Post

I have completely ignored this story. Can someone give me a quick recap?

Which version do you want?

1. Sweet honors student is returning home from the store with Skittles and ice tea when he is hunted down and killed in cold blood by trigger-happy, racist lunatic.

2. Conscientious neighborhood watchman follows suspicious-looking thug on suspension from high school, is confronted, sucker punched and beaten to an inch of his life, forcing him to use his gun in self-defense.
post #1289 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMRouse View Post

I have completely ignored this story. Can someone give me a quick recap?

ITT: White Hispanics Gone Bad
post #1290 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by itsstillmatt View Post

I've moved on to defiling the Catholic Church.

We Catholics are doing a fine job of that all by ourselves, thank you very much. So good, in fact, what makes you think that your contributions would be noticed? tongue.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › killing Trayvon