37
   

The politics of hoodie wearing

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 01:51 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
Nods. He was hit in the face and the back of his head was injured.
It looks like he just WAITED TOO LONG to defend himself.
Some people r simply too patient & forbearing for their own good. Poor Mr. Z.





David
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 02:13 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
It looks like he just WAITED TOO LONG to defend himself.
Some people r simply too patient & forbearing for their own good. Poor Mr. Z


My complements sir....you have made the needling of bleeding heart liberals into an art form. Having once been one of them I appreciate your gift..
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 02:17 am
@hawkeye10,
U r too kind.





David
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  6  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 06:41 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

I would like to clarify - weird that I think I have to - pointing out that those who denied Zimmerman had any marks from a fight were wrong means nothing more right now than they were wrong.

And they were.

Wrong.


Fair enough, but I don't think they were large in number and video evidence from the police station still supports the case that he wasn't beaten badly.

From the get-go it was clear that there was a fight. That being the case, "new" evidence detailing injuries doesn't do anything for me. The question was always, was he really being beaten so badly that he needed to kill the kid. Having seen many a real fight that was lopsided, and which involved much much more serious injuries (broken teeth, broken jaws, concussions... things which require emergency room treatment) nothing being released about Zimmerman's injuries is very compelling. Rodney King was beat with batons by several people. That's what someone being beaten to death looks like. Zimmerman was simply losing a fist fight.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 06:53 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Lash wrote:
Nods. He was hit in the face and the back of his head was injured.
It looks like he just WAITED TOO LONG to defend himself.
Some people r simply too patient & forbearing for their own good. Poor Mr. Z.





David


The problem with your argument David is that 'waiting too long' means I don't need a reason other than you are ON the sidewalk, which clearly is a weapon according to you. If I wait for you to use it, that would be waiting too long. Ergo, I can shoot your for simply standing on a sidewalk and claim self defense because you had a weapon and I felt threatened.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 08:42 am
@parados,
Lash wrote:
Nods. He was hit in the face and the back of his head was injured.
OmSigDAVID wrote:
It looks like he just WAITED TOO LONG to defend himself.
Some people r simply too patient & forbearing for their own good. Poor Mr. Z.





David
parados wrote:
The problem with your argument David is that 'waiting too long' means
I don't need a reason other than you are ON the sidewalk,
No. I meant that he waited too long after Mr. T began his attack,
slamming Zimmy 's head on the street.


parados wrote:
which clearly is a weapon according to you.
Yes; almost anything is a weapon
when combined with a little ingenuity. Some weapons r better than others.




parados wrote:
If I wait for you to use it, that would be waiting too long.
Ergo, I can shoot your for simply standing on a sidewalk and claim
self defense because you had a weapon and I felt threatened.
Everyone is Constitutionally and Naturally entitled to possess weapons; that is not an attack.
I did not imply that it was. If it were, then police & soldiers 'd be in constant states of attack upon one another,
for merely consorting together in an armed condition.





David
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 09:09 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

]No. I meant that he waited too long after Mr. T began his attack,
slamming Zimmy 's head on the street.
On what do you base that statement? He may have had his head slammed only once in which case he should have shot BEFORE any attack was made. So... that leads us back to he should have shot because the person was standing on the sidewalk.

Quote:

parados wrote:
which clearly is a weapon according to you.
Yes; almost anything is a weapon
when combined with a little ingenuity. Some weapons r better than others.
So that means you can shoot ANYONE because they might have access to a weapon which could threaten you.



Quote:

parados wrote:
If I wait for you to use it, that would be waiting too long.
Ergo, I can shoot your for simply standing on a sidewalk and claim
self defense because you had a weapon and I felt threatened.
Everyone is Constitutionally and Naturally entitled to possess weapons; that is not an attack.
I did not imply that it was. If it were, then police & soldiers 'd be in constant states of attack upon one another,
for merely consorting together in an armed condition.
You clearly imply it was when you argue that Zimmerman should have shot sooner than the attack.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 09:47 am
@parados,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
No. I meant that he waited too long after Mr. T began his attack,
slamming Zimmy 's head on the street.
parados wrote:
On what do you base that statement?
I base it on the victim 's statements.


parados wrote:
He may have had his head slammed only once
in which case he should have shot BEFORE any attack was made.
That is not what the victim says.
I think that the black dog-walker supports him in that,
but I 'm not 1OO% sure of it.



parados wrote:
So... that leads us back to he should have shot
because the person was standing on the sidewalk.
mindless non-sequitur



parados wrote:
which clearly is a weapon according to you.
DAVID wrote:
Yes; almost anything is a weapon
when combined with a little ingenuity. Some weapons r better than others.
Quote:
So that means you can shoot ANYONE
because they might have access to a weapon which could threaten you.
No weapon has ever threatened anyone.
Only sentient beings can threaten.




parados wrote:
If I wait for you to use it, that would be waiting too long.
Ergo, I can shoot your for simply standing on a sidewalk and claim
self defense because you had a weapon and I felt threatened.
DAVID wrote:
Everyone is Constitutionally and Naturally entitled to possess weapons; that is not an attack.
I did not imply that it was. If it were, then police & soldiers 'd be in constant states of attack upon one another,
for merely consorting together in an armed condition.
Quote:
You clearly imply it was when you argue that Zimmerman
should have shot sooner than the attack.
That is a radical misunderstanding on your part.
I did not imply that.





David

parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 10:00 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
I base it on the victim 's statements.

The statement where Martin was circling his car before he got out if it? Or a different statement?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 10:06 am
@parados,
David's position is clearly completely bankrupt, and everyone here but him recognizes that.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 11:54 am
@snood,
Of course. Does it factor in with you at all that Zimmerman was telling the truth about his injuries, and may have been attacked by Martin?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 11:55 am
@Irishk,
You seem to be the lawyer for one side instead of an unbiased observer.
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 12:00 pm
@FreeDuck,
It was not clear to me from the get - go that there was any fight.

People called Zimmerman a liar, stating there was no evidence he'd been injured.

I haven't made any further claims as to the severity - or how badly one should be beaten before they use a gun to defend himself.

The rush to a defense is an interesting phenomena.
FreeDuck
 
  4  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 12:31 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

It was not clear to me from the get - go that there was any fight.


I guess it depends on where you initially read the story, but every early story I read indicated that eye witnesses reported fighting. All of the 911 calls were from people who said that two guys were fighting.

Quote:
People called Zimmerman a liar, stating there was no evidence he'd been injured.

Initially there was no evidence of his injuries other than the abrasions on his head which were noted in the police report. Paramedics didn't take him to the hospital and police station video showed a man who did not look like he had just received a severe beating. It's reasonable to be skeptical of the claims of someone who has very strong incentive to lie, and who has already modified their story at least once (initially he said he was attacked from behind). Regardless, proving that he was injured is not the same thing as proving he was justified, which was my point.

Quote:

The rush to a defense is an interesting phenomena.

I was addressing your comment that news of the injuries "changes things". For me it doesn't, and I said why. I may be misinterpreting your meaning.

0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 01:00 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
I base it on the victim 's statements.

Was this some seance where you communicated with Trayvon?
0 Replies
 
Irishk
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 01:09 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
You seem to be the lawyer for one side instead of an unbiased observer.
I'm not unbiased -- probably because I haven't believed one word Zimmerman has said since I first listened to his lies on the 911 tape.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 01:46 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
It was not clear to me from the get - go that there was any fight.

People called Zimmerman a liar, stating there was no evidence he'd been injured.

I haven't made any further claims as to the severity - or how badly one should be beaten
before they use a gun to defend himself.

The rush to a defense is an interesting phenomena.
Its ez to empathize with the hapless Zimmy
(not including his earlier chasing of the perp).
We, the decent people, need strong freedom of self defense laws, for our security.





David
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 01:54 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
We, the decent people, need strong freedom of self defense laws, for our security

This almost sounds like a manifesto of a Davidian worldview. (Apparently with a concomitant denial of the civil rights of others)
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 02:44 am
@farmerman,

DAVID wrote:
We, the decent people, need strong freedom of self defense laws, for our security
farmerman wrote:
This almost sounds like a manifesto of a Davidian worldview.
(Apparently with a concomitant denial of the civil rights of others)
WHICH "others" ??????????
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 05:09 pm
@Irishk,
What lies did he tell?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/29/2024 at 02:13:42