The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[Uncensored2008]

What I meant to say is why does anyone need a gun to follow someone? To add trouble to the mix, amirite?

Dunno, what if the guy you're following circles back around you, breaks your nose with a sucker punch, climbs on top of you, and starts bashing your head into the concrete?

Having a gun would sure come in handy - assuming that death wasn't in your plans for the evening.

 

[testarosa]

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

What I meant to say is why does anyone need a gun to follow someone? To add trouble to the mix, amirite?

Dunno, what if the guy you're following circles back around you, breaks your nose with a sucker punch, climbs on top of you, and starts bashing your head into the concrete?

Having a gun would sure come in handy - assuming that death wasn't in your plans for the evening.

How convenient.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

OMG already!!!

Where is your sense, Quick? So what if GZ had a gun? Your comments are just.....ignorant. Sorry. But for you to say it's all about the gun is beyond ridiculous. You must be painfully naive.

The violence and crime and guns used in crimes - guns that are used in murders - are NOT the guns owned, possessed and registered to licensed carry permit holders!!! Those guns are unregistered, or stolen street weapons.

Why in the name of the Lord do you keep insisting Zimmerman was irresponsible or that he was puffed up because he had a gun? You're delusional, you really are. Do you not know people who have concealed carry permits? Are they in any manner similar to the way you are portraying Zimmerman?

We weren't only talking about Zimmerman. Maybe you'll accept the challenge.

Should just ANY ARMED PERSON follow around ANYONE who they deem suspicious?

Any PERSON should follow around anyone who they deem suspicious. Why are you emphasizing ARMED? If they are licensed to carry a weapon then the fact they are ARMED has nothing to do with anything.

If any person is so inclined to follow around a suspicious person then they should do it since it is not unlawful. Whether they have a weapon or not is completely, totally, indisputably irrelevant...except for the fact that they would be better able to protect themselves if they are attacked if they are armed.

What's your point, anyway?

If someone is a black belt, they are held to a higher standard. What's the difference between that and being armed with a gun?

 

[Mertex]

What I meant to say is why does anyone need a gun to follow someone? To add trouble to the mix, amirite?

Dunno, what if the guy you're following circles back around you, breaks your nose with a sucker punch, climbs on top of you, and starts bashing your head into the concrete?

Having a gun would sure come in handy - assuming that death wasn't in your plans for the evening.

So, if there is someone I don't like, all I have to do is follow them around with my gun, and when they ask me why I'm following them, I'll just call them a name. If they come at me, well, I'll pull my gun and shoot them. That's fair. Nice easy way for someone to get rid of those people they don't like and have the law behind you.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX_rgHHWwv8]The Tarantula Song (Tarantulas) By Bryant Oden - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What I meant to say is why does anyone need a gun to follow someone? To add trouble to the mix, amirite?

Dunno, what if the guy you're following circles back around you, breaks your nose with a sucker punch, climbs on top of you, and starts bashing your head into the concrete?

Having a gun would sure come in handy - assuming that death wasn't in your plans for the evening.

So, if there is someone I don't like, all I have to do is follow them around with my gun, and when they ask me why I'm following them, I'll just call them a name. If they come at me, well, I'll pull my gun and shoot them. That's fair. Nice easy way for someone to get rid of those people they don't like and have the law behind you.

Don't let that strawman fall on you, you might need help from someone like Zimmermann to get out from under.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So, if there is someone I don't like, all I have to do is follow them around with my gun, and when they ask me why I'm following them, I'll just call them a name. If they come at me, well, I'll pull my gun and shoot them. That's fair. Nice easy way for someone to get rid of those people they don't like and have the law behind you.

Well, if they hide in the shadows and cold cock you as you walk by, then jump you and start bashing your skull into the concrete.

But I'm betting someone already bashed your skull into the concrete, explaining the brain damage preventing you from grasping even simple concepts....

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Murder, Inc.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Murder, Inc.

What does the Obama administration have to do with this?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Murder, Inc.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLQ2TIul8pI]Soul Asylum - Misery - YouTube[/ame]

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktvTqknDobU]Imagine Dragons - Radioactive - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Oldstyle]

We were talking about if ANYONE were following someone with a gun. Try to follow along and not make replies that can't be answered because of the false premise.

How does ANYONE following someone at a distance with a gun (while they're talking to the Police!) that remains concealed, constitute "menace"? Talk about your "false premise"! The Prosecution's entire case was based on a false premise...that George Zimmerman was responsible for a FIGHT because he followed someone at a distance.

You're making me answer my own question but cool. Because following someone can lead to a chance encounter. People do unexpected things for any reason. If you can somehow absolutely keep your following clandestine, that's one thing but not a good bet. We know George engaged in a confrontational mode in any case while armed. There's no excuse for that.

Now you answer my question. How does any Joe Blow following with a gun not likely present a menace? No one has dared to answer yet.

Does a "chance encounter" lead to violence? I have chance encounters with people all the time yet I've never punched one of them in the face...nor have any of them punched me in the face.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence that George Zimmerman confronted, Trayvon Martin that night. ALL of the evidence shows that it was actually Trayvon that back tracked, leaving the safety of the condo he was staying at to walk back and emerge out of the darkness with his "You got a problem?" challenge right before he sucker punched Zimmerman in the nose as Zimmerman replied "I don't have a problem with you." So was that statement that started a fight? "I don't have a problem with you." Hard to BE less confrontational than that!

I hate to break this to you, Quick...but there are literally tens of thousands of "Joe Blows" walking around right now legally carrying a gun. Almost without exception NONE of them menace society. They carry a weapon for self defense. Most of them will never draw that weapon in anger or in fear. This naive belief on your part that anyone who legally carries a concealed is a menace to society is laughable when you look at crime statistics and see who is REALLY a menace. It ISN'T people legally carrying that society has to worry about...it's the thugs who could care less about the law and carry weapons illegally that menace society.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Ok, you're armed and have a large bucket full of KFC. You eat a few pieces while shopping downtown. You inadvertently set it down on a park bench while you walk back to your car to drop off some groceries. When you come back, you see someone has walked off with your chicken and is eating it while they walk. Having a gun now, would you approach them and demand your chicken back or let them be, thinking they must be hungry?

 

[SantaFeWay]

We weren't only talking about Zimmerman. Maybe you'll accept the challenge.

Should just ANY ARMED PERSON follow around ANYONE who they deem suspicious?

Any PERSON should follow around anyone who they deem suspicious. Why are you emphasizing ARMED? If they are licensed to carry a weapon then the fact they are ARMED has nothing to do with anything.

If any person is so inclined to follow around a suspicious person then they should do it since it is not unlawful. Whether they have a weapon or not is completely, totally, indisputably irrelevant...except for the fact that they would be better able to protect themselves if they are attacked if they are armed.

What's your point, anyway?

If someone is a black belt, they are held to a higher standard. What's the difference between that and being armed with a gun?

I believe everyone should be held to the highest standard. What do you mean?

People should be judicious in their use of force. Is that what you're getting at? Yes. I agree. That holds true in all aspects of life. You can take this as far as you'd like.

The fact remains that GZ was assaulted by TM and the jury confirmed his contention that he was in fear for his life or great bodily harm. (The worst outcome would have been GZ losing control of his weapon but that is another discussion altogether.)

But you keep going back to your belief that somehow GZ acted unreasonably and that's where we disagree. You harp on the fact that he had a gun. So what?

When you ask if he should be held to the highest standard I agree. I do not see where you feel he diverged from that standard. Fear of loss of life or of great bodily harm is there. He has a lawful firearm. Where do you think he went wrong?

He was obviously attacked. The evidence and testimony proved that. So what now?

 

[Oldstyle]

Ok, you're armed and have a large bucket full of KFC. You eat a few pieces while shopping downtown. You inadvertently set it down on a park bench while you walk back to your car to drop off some groceries. When you come back, you see someone has walked off with your chicken and is eating it while they walk. Having a gun now, would you approach them and demand your chicken back or let them be, thinking they must be hungry?

What difference does it make that you have a gun? LOL Seriously, dude...what's wrong with you? If I REALLY wanted my chicken, I'd politely ask the guy to give it back. Chances are they're going to apologize and do just that.

Let me guess...you think that if someone has a gun that they're going to whip it out and start blasting the "chicken thief"? Too funny...

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Any PERSON should follow around anyone who they deem suspicious. Why are you emphasizing ARMED? If they are licensed to carry a weapon then the fact they are ARMED has nothing to do with anything.

If any person is so inclined to follow around a suspicious person then they should do it since it is not unlawful. Whether they have a weapon or not is completely, totally, indisputably irrelevant...except for the fact that they would be better able to protect themselves if they are attacked if they are armed.

What's your point, anyway?

If someone is a black belt, they are held to a higher standard. What's the difference between that and being armed with a gun?

I believe everyone should be held to the highest standard. What do you mean?

People should be judicious in their use of force. Is that what you're getting at? Yes. I agree. That holds true in all aspects of life. You can take this as far as you'd like.

The fact remains that GZ was assaulted by TM and the jury confirmed his contention that he was in fear for his life or great bodily harm. (The worst outcome would have been GZ losing control of his weapon but that is another discussion altogether.)

But you keep going back to your belief that somehow GZ acted unreasonably and that's where we disagree. You harp on the fact that he had a gun. So what?

When you ask if he should be held to the highest standard I agree. I do not see where you feel he diverged from that standard. Fear of loss of life or of great bodily harm is there. He has a lawful firearm. Where do you think he went wrong?

He was obviously attacked. The evidence and testimony proved that. So what now?

As you said yourself, we are all held to the highest standard. That's not what I asked: Should someone with a black belt be held to a higher standard? Before a fight starts, a black belt is required by law to identify himself as a black belt. Shouldn't we have some rules and guidelines for armed people as well, and isn't a federal trial into what Zimmerman did a golden opportunity to establish just that?