9
   

To Whom Is George Zimmerman a Hero? And Why?

 
 
McTag
 
  3  
Reply Thu 27 Mar, 2014 05:52 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Well, Zimmy counter-attacked,
disabling the primary attack, as well he SHUD HAVE, but sooner.
I love it when the victim kills the predator. Its fun.


From what was reported here, he followed the young man in his car, then got out, armed, to confront him. He had been advised not to do this.
He had no authority to challenge anyone. He goaded him into a fight.
Who was the primary attacker?
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Thu 27 Mar, 2014 06:25 pm
@McTag,
Immaterial, unless the law is based on who was the "primary attacker."

I don't have any sympathy for those that stupidly or malignantly put themselves in harm's way and then reap an, arguably, asymmetrical reward, but we are a nation of laws.

Perfect example was Bernard Goetz. A fair argument can be made that Goetz rode the subway looking for thugs who would menace him with screwdrivers or that shooting them all multiple times went beyond self-defense, but if you don't ride the NY subway with the intent of preying on seemingly defenseless passengers, your chances of getting shot will be greatly reduced.

In that case the young thugs were clearly the"Primary attackers," but that didn't excuse Goetz from his vigilantism.


oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2014 08:54 am
@bobsal u1553115,
Quote:
To Whom Is George Zimmerman a Hero? And Why?

For starters, all the families in that neighborhood can consider themselves lucky that Trayvon wasn't able to get hopped up on PCP and break into their home later that night.


Quote:
This leads to what should bean inevitable question: Who are these people glorifying the killer of an unarmed teenager in one of the most racially polarized incidents in recent history?

Most likely they are people who are horrified at the way Mr. Zimmerman has been demonized and maliciously prosecuted.


Quote:
Haidt says that liberal morality rests on two principles:
Care/Harm
Fairness/Cheating
Killing someone certainly qualifies as harm, and, almost literally, getting away with murder is not fair.

Liberals refer to Self Defense as "murder" because they hate the Constitution.


Quote:
It’s hard to see how any of these describe the autograph-seekers. What else might explain that reaction?

Let's just say that Conservatives are sick of Liberals trying to lynch innocent people like Mr. Zimmerman, and are sick of Liberals trying to do away with America's Constitution and Civil Rights.


Quote:
The obvious candidate is racism.

No. It is the fact that Liberals hate our Freedom just as much as the 9/11 attackers did.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2014 08:54 am
@bobsal u1553115,
bobsal u1553115 wrote:
He's a murdering rat bastard. He'll kill again.

Liberals refer to Self Defense as "murder" because they hate Freedom and Civil Rights.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2014 08:56 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
Stand your ground is specifically designed as a legal means to kill off young black men, without admitting motive.

No it isn't. Nor does it have that effect even unintentionally.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2014 08:56 am
@bobsal u1553115,
bobsal u1553115 wrote:
He's a murdering rat bastard. He'll kill again.

Liberals refer to Self Defense as "murder" because they hate America's Constitution.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2014 08:57 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
Stand your ground is specifically designed as a legal means to kill off young black men, without admitting motive.

I stand by my statement.

Thankfully you are unable to alter reality, so your statement remains a complete falsehood.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  3  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2014 09:25 am
@oralloy,
What the hell does that even mean?

George Zimmerman will murder again. We both know what means and we both know its true.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2014 09:25 am
@Wilso,
Wilso wrote:
Unarmed black teenager dies.

Perhaps he shouldn't have been violently assaulting people.


Wilso wrote:
Killer is a hero to this disgusting maggot. Conservatives are scum, as this worthless **** proves again and again.

Your childish name-calling aside, Americans aren't going to give up our freedom like you guys did.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2014 09:25 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
He, for less than entirely noble reasons, put himself in a position of which the reasonable man would consider perilous. He wasn't coming to anyone's rescue and he wasn't preventing a crime in progress.

Less than entirely noble? He noticed that Trayvon was casing houses to break into, and was striving to help the police apprehend Trayvon.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2014 09:26 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
No it isn't. Nor does it have that effect even unintentionally.


Support that nugget with some facts. I call Bull **** on that statement.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2014 09:27 am
@McTag,
McTag wrote:
From what was reported here, he followed the young man in his car, then got out, armed, to confront him.

Sounds like your reporters are liars.

Mr. Zimmerman did not get out of his car to confront Trayvon, but rather to keep track of Trayvon's location so as to direct the police to him when they arrived.


McTag wrote:
He had been advised not to do this.

Wrong verb tense. He was not advised not to do that until after he had already left the car and begun his pursuit on foot.

And upon receiving that advice, he promptly ended his pursuit.


McTag wrote:
He had no authority to challenge anyone.

I'm not sure authority is required, but that's beside the point, as Mr. Zimmerman never attempted any such challenge.


McTag wrote:
He goaded him into a fight.

That is incorrect. There was no goading. Trayvon was just a violent thug.


McTag wrote:
Who was the primary attacker?

Trayvon was the only attacker.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2014 09:40 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
In that case the young thugs were clearly the"Primary attackers," but that didn't excuse Goetz from his vigilantism.

As I recall, Goetz was not in trouble for alleged vigilantism, but because he shot his attacker again, after the attack had ended and there was no longer a self defense situation.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2014 09:46 am
@bobsal u1553115,
bobsal u1553115 wrote:
oralloy wrote:

bobsal u1553115 wrote:
He's a murdering rat bastard. He'll kill again.

Liberals refer to Self Defense as "murder" because they hate Freedom and Civil Rights.

What the hell does that even mean?

It means that the reason why Liberals refer to Self Defense as "murder", is because Liberals hate Freedom and Civil Rights.


bobsal u1553115 wrote:
George Zimmerman will murder again. We both know what means and we both know its true.

Liberals refer to Self Defense as "murder" because they hate our Freedom.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2014 09:48 am
@bobsal u1553115,
bobsal u1553115 wrote:
oralloy wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
Stand your ground is specifically designed as a legal means to kill off young black men, without admitting motive.

No it isn't. Nor does it have that effect even unintentionally.

Support that nugget with some facts.

Fact: Stand Your Ground is designed to function only in cases where someone is being attacked and they defend themselves.

Fact: Stand Your Ground does function only in cases where someone is being attacked and they defend themselves.


bobsal u1553115 wrote:
I call Bull **** on that statement.

Denial of reality does not prevent the existence of reality.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2014 11:39 am
@bobsal u1553115,
Oralboy is the lowest of the low, a sick little rat who fantasises about killing babies. He has absolutely no redeeming features whatsoever.
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2014 11:58 am
It's scary to see how many posters here are ones for trial by media. They have missing facts and assume guilt. Usually anyone who is anti-gun sees all gun men as evil and wrong doers. Doesn't matter if it was in self defense they are still murderers. Sad really.

I don't think Zimmerman should have gotten off so easily even if it was in self defense. He clearly escalated the problem by getting out of his truck and pursuing Martin on foot. I mean if you see a mountain lion roaming about, is it wise to get out of your car and track it down? You are asking for trouble by getting out of the car.

Personally I don't see it as a stand your ground issue. Zimmerman clearly caused the problem to get to the next level. But also at the same time Martin should not have attacked Zimmerman. This was a problem as well. There were several witnesses that testified that they seen Martin on top of Zimmerman.

That is where the situation turns into a stand your ground case. Zimmerman claims that while Martin was on top of him, Martin was saying he was going to kill him, bust his head open on the ground. Not sure if that is true or not but what exactly would you do in that situation? Oh that is right, you wouldn't get yourself into that sort of situation.

I think they were both equally to blame. It should have been at least a manslaughter verdict. It wasn't cold blooded murder, but it was definitely manslaughter. There were definitely moments when Zimmerman could have prevented the incident, but didn't use proper judgment.

If I saw someone who I thought was on drugs, roaming around, as it was getting dark, in the rain. I sure as hell am not going to get out of my truck to track them. It is asking for trouble. Call me a wimp, but it is just common sense. This decision Zimmerman makes should have put him into the manslaughter position because it was inviting a dangerous life threatening situation.

I am on both sides to gun ownership. I hate guns, but I see them as a necessary evil. People should be allowed to protect themselves as they see fit. I know people hate that, but the alternative is worse. If you ban guns, criminals don't care about laws, they will still own and find ways to purchase illegal guns. This will give them an advantage over the law abiding citizens. I bet you a billion dollars that gun related crimes in the US would sky rocket if guns were banned. Not to mention the trade of illegal guns would make a huge black market.

It is better to keep the legal. We need better education. We need better coverage of mental health.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2014 12:21 pm
Anybody that thinks Martin had no right to defend himself does not grasp the situation. If somebody stalks me with a gun, for no apparent reason, I am defending myself by any means I can find.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2014 12:48 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

bobsal u1553115 wrote:
oralloy wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
Stand your ground is specifically designed as a legal means to kill off young black men, without admitting motive.

No it isn't. Nor does it have that effect even unintentionally.

Support that nugget with some facts.

Fact: Stand Your Ground is designed to function only in cases where someone is being attacked and they defend themselves.

Fact: Stand Your Ground does function only in cases where someone is being attacked and they defend themselves.


bobsal u1553115 wrote:
I call Bull **** on that statement.

Denial of reality does not prevent the existence of reality.
I understand that more BLACKS have invoked the protection of SYG
in defending themselves from other blacks than whites have used it.

Zimmy did not use SYG. He was forced to lay on the ground, instead.
He cud not turn his back and flee because there was a black sitting on his chest trying to kill him.





David
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2014 05:35 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
This whole thing was not about guilt or innocence, we have the opinions of several of America's foremost legal experts that the prosecution had no case at all. It's not even about the 2'nd amendment or gun rights.

This is about:

  • A quasi-trained MMA fighter whose mind was blasted on "purple drank" trying to kill a guy with no combat training.
  • The victim saving his own life and likely the lives of other people with a small pistol.
  • A rogue political party legitimizing a pair of race-hustling criminals by the names of Jackson and Sharpton.
  • An open threat of large numbers of brainwashed and ignorant people rioting and demanding a human sacrifice not to riot.
  • A desperate rogue-party president claiming that if he had a son, the son would look like an asshole, i.e. like the purple-dranked-out former MMA artist.
  • A rogue prosecutor and judge insisting on holding the victim in prison prior to trial for no rational reason and in fact seeking to force him to cop a plea to bullshit charges by threatening his wife with prison over more bullshit occasioned by themselves, and otherwise conducting themselves in a rogue, unprofessional, corrupt, and illegal manner.


It's also about the basic idea of equality in our society and the question of whether or not we now have special/protected groups of people who are legally untouchable to the extent that the rest of us can't even defend ourselves when one of them goes crazy on drugs and tries to kill us.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/02/2024 at 12:34:31