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

killing Trayvon - Page 165

post #2461 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

What in the fuck are you talking about? Did you miss the probably > 100 times I said Z was in the wrong? Your whole post if fucking bullshit and/or an obvious troll. Can you just quote me once offering Z "support" and again quote my view on the STYG law.
This has to be another lame troll. Either that or you are far more stupid than I thought you were.
Here's my last post addressing my position on the situation. Please pull your head out of your ass:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

What in the fuck are you talking about? Did you miss the probably > 100 times I said Z was in the wrong? Your whole post if fucking bullshit and/or an obvious troll. Can you just quote me once offering Z "support" and again quote my view on the STYG law.
This has to be another lame troll. Either that or you are far more stupid than I thought you were.

Let's agree to disagree on that one...

Resorting to personal attacks weakens your moral high ground...
post #2462 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by lasbar View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

What in the fuck are you talking about? Did you miss the probably > 100 times I said Z was in the wrong? Your whole post if fucking bullshit and/or an obvious troll. Can you just quote me once offering Z "support" and again quote my view on the STYG law.
This has to be another lame troll. Either that or you are far more stupid than I thought you were.
Here's my last post addressing my position on the situation. Please pull your head out of your ass:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

What in the fuck are you talking about? Did you miss the probably > 100 times I said Z was in the wrong? Your whole post if fucking bullshit and/or an obvious troll. Can you just quote me once offering Z "support" and again quote my view on the STYG law.
This has to be another lame troll. Either that or you are far more stupid than I thought you were.

Let's agree to disagree on that one...

Resorting to personal attacks weakens your moral high ground...

What exactly are we disagreeing on? That you are trolling or that you are far stupider than I thought you were?
post #2463 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

What exactly are we disagreeing on? That you are trolling or that you are far stupider than I thought you were?

I value very much your assessment of my personal intelligence...
post #2464 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by lasbar View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

What exactly are we disagreeing on? That you are trolling or that you are far stupider than I thought you were?

I value very much your assessment of my personal intelligence...

Well, you have given me quite a few data points. It's the conclusion that is still in play. Are you trolling or are you that stupid? I have yet to reach my own conclusion on that so feel free to chime in which way you think I should lean.
post #2465 of 6250
My problem with the Zimmerman case is the fact that Zimmerman had multiple opportunities to avoid confrontation and ultimately Trayvons death.

He had no reason to leave his car. He had no reason to engage in a conversation let alone a fight with Trayvon. And armed with a gun, he could have kept his distance when approaching him. He could fire warning shots or shoot his leg.

He deliberately made a series of bad decisions that put in him a dangerous position. Hypothetically, if I walk up to a gang banger at night to engage in a conversation that I knew would put me at risk, how can I claim self defense? It's like calling the Iraq war self defense.
post #2466 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraiche View Post

My problem with the Zimmerman case is the fact that Zimmerman had multiple opportunities to avoid confrontation and ultimately Trayvons death.
He had no reason to leave his car. He had no reason to engage in a conversation let alone a fight with Trayvon. And armed with a gun, he could have kept his distance when approaching him. He could fire warning shots or shoot his leg.
He deliberately made a series of bad decisions that put in him a dangerous position. Hypothetically, if I walk up to a gang banger at night to engage in a conversation that I knew would put me at risk, how can I claim self defense? It's like calling the Iraq war self defense.

There were some elected to high office that did just that.
post #2467 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraiche View Post

My problem with the Zimmerman case is the fact that Zimmerman had multiple opportunities to avoid confrontation and ultimately Trayvons death.
He had no reason to leave his car. He had no reason to engage in a conversation let alone a fight with Trayvon. And armed with a gun, he could have kept his distance when approaching him. He could fire warning shots or shoot his leg.
He deliberately made a series of bad decisions that put in him a dangerous position. Hypothetically, if I walk up to a gang banger at night to engage in a conversation that I knew would put me at risk, how can I claim self defense? It's like calling the Iraq war self defense.

Are you suggesting that if you walk up to a gang banger and insult him, justice demands that you allow yourself to be murdered?
post #2468 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraiche View Post

Hypothetically, if I walk up to a gang banger at night to engage in a conversation that I knew would put me at risk, how can I claim self defense?

That's not really a good example. Walking up to someone and talking to them, outside any threatening context, shouldn't remove your ability to defend yourself if they decide to attack you for no reason. Now if you walked up to him and started yelling at him for being a drug dealing scumbag and to get the fuck out of your neighborhood, that might change the situation.
post #2469 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

That's not really a good example. Walking up to someone and talking to them, outside any threatening context, shouldn't remove your ability to defend yourself if they decide to attack you for no reason. Now if you walked up to him and started yelling at him for being a drug dealing scumbag and to get the fuck out of your neighborhood, that might change the situation.

How so? You should be murdered for calling someone names? If you walk up to him and tell him you are going to kill right now him if he doesn't get out of your neighborhood, then yeah, you're the one starting the fight. Anything else is not a sufficient provocation. To say otherwise is to say that honest people are required by law to cower in fear from violent thugs.
post #2470 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post

How so? You should be murdered for calling someone names? If you walk up to him and tell him you are going to kill right now him if he doesn't get out of your neighborhood, then yeah, you're the one starting the fight. Anything else is not a sufficient provocation. To say otherwise is to say that honest people are required by law to cower in fear from violent thugs.

I'm certainly not a lawyer and obviously this changes state to state, but it was my understanding from reading about this stuff recently that if you started the confrontation, you couldn't use self-defense as an excuse for killing someone. Except in Florida and the other Stand Your Ground states. I thought that was the whole differentiating factor of that law. Would you really have to threaten someone before self defense isn't viable? It seems like "don't be an idiot and pick fights and then claim self defense" would be a reasonable standard, but the law doesn't work that way I suppose.


Also not necessarily that you should be murdered, but that killing the person might result in some sort of criminal charge for provoking the confrontation.
post #2471 of 6250
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post

How so? You should be murdered for calling someone names? If you walk up to him and tell him you are going to kill right now him if he doesn't get out of your neighborhood, then yeah, you're the one starting the fight. Anything else is not a sufficient provocation. To say otherwise is to say that honest people are required by law to cower in fear from violent thugs.

if you get yourself into a situation that you didn't have to get into, because you know that you have the ability to easily kill somebody in your pocket, and then you end up killing somebody, you did something stupid and immoral, although not illigal.

I think that Z killed Martin in self defence. did he fuck up? yes. did he put himself in harms way and cause an innocent kid to get klilled? yes.

if z didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have gotten out of his car, and martin would be alive. this is my, personal, speculation, but I am 100% convinced of it. if Z had sat in his car with locked doors and talked to the police, he would have prevented a break in (in the event that Martin was really a theif), and nobody would have been killed.

I am not against personal ownership of firearms, but I do believe that they are a responsiblity, and they are not for this kind of situation. nobody needed to die here.
post #2472 of 6250
Globe this is where I end up conflicted. Everyone keeps talking about stand your ground. Stand your ground means exactly that. It does not mean chase someone down and when it all goes wrong you get to play the self defense card and shoot someone. Now if Zimmerman actually did stop his pursuit and Martin decided to flank him and initiate an assault then I have no problem saying he certainly can stand his ground and his self defense shooting was justifiable.

IMO it'll be the interpretation of FLA's SYGL that's going to decide this case.
post #2473 of 6250
I'm really annoyed that you guys will go on for days about how Zimmerman shouldn't have put himself in a position where Martin could attack him, then call Martin "an innocent kid" as if him attacking Zimmerman was an accident.

LIke I said: either Zimmerman was reckless or Martin was innocent. You can't have it both ways.
post #2474 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

I'm really annoyed that you guys will go on for days about how Zimmerman shouldn't have put himself in a position where Martin could attack him, then call Martin "an innocent kid" as if him attacking Zimmerman was an accident.
LIke I said: either Zimmerman was reckless or Martin was innocent. You can't have it both ways.


Why is this so hard to understand?
post #2475 of 6250
Because it was Zimmerman's neighborhood? Because the cops were on the way? Because 99% of burglars would just run away? Because a normal innocent who is wrongly suspected wouldn't respond with violence? I can think of a lot of reasons other than Zimmerman just wanting to kill someone.

The fact is that it's Martin whose actions were unusual, stupid, and criminal here, not Zimmerman's.
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