i’ll ask again, to anyone who thinks they have a reasonable answer: How could Zimmerman’s life have been in danger if he was the only one with a gun?
It’s not an answer your will have, but it is a case that is going to trouble your nation for years to come without one and it’s not just the gun either, it’s more than that.
.
While I have yet to find an argument to sway me from my agreement with the verdict, somehow what you said - or maybe it’s just because I haven’t talked about the case in a while - has given me an argument as to why Zimmerman is a stupid-fuck as well as being as reckless as all who carry guns in public.
Since he had a gun and if he was following someone who he thought was dangerous - and he knew that Martin was aware that he was following him - and he lost sight of Martin, then he would have to be a stupid-shit for not avoiding any dark corners or bushes and then making use of the safety a gun affords him by keeping his hand on the handle so that if Martin did, as Zimmerman claimed, come upon him suddenly, he would have been able to draw the gun and told Martin to back off. I mean I have to agree that if one has a gun and is following someone they’d have to have previously suffered a specific form of cranial damage to let themselves get into a position of being beaten on the ground.
Let me reiterate, it is always reckless for random people to carry a gun in public, but the majority who do anyway are probably not shit-faced stupid and realize that since it’s there for protection it should be used as such before the only option for protection is to shoot someone on top of them in the chest.
But, let’s not think that logic speaks against the verdict. Apparently, when one gets a permit to carry a gun there’s no test to determine if they don’t suffer from piss-stupidity.
i agree as to the recklessness. Let’s hope you’re right about the majority not being quite so stupid as Zimmerman.
Stat the fact that he didn’t pull the gun immediately?
Where did you get this fact?
Now all of a sudden you want to talk about facts, ok, ok, haha. But, Smears let’s start small; elephants are mammals, lizards are reptiles. Now you name a couple facts. Maybe same day, with my help, you’ll get so used to the idea of facts that we can start using them in real discussions. Though, I think the notion that you could ever learn to apply facts to a trial may be a lost cause.
Dude I’ve beat like 6 charges and I’ve never been convicted of a crime. I’ve had probably 20 traffic tickets thrown out. I know facts.
I’m saying that stat says Zimmerman didn’t have his gun out.
I’m asking how he knows that.
What’s w/ the obfuscation?
It’s the only official version of the story we have and it fits with the evidence.
As a person who has carried a gun, you get more used to not touching it then touching it, couple that with adrenaline brain farts, you will not think of it at first. Your brain is in overdrive, that gun is not felt hanging off your side. Your brain is busy saying " Oh shit shit shiit" and trying to come up with a solution. Adrenaline fucks your processing up. Except of course in Hollywood.
So yea, I believe Zimmerman would not have pulled his gun out at first because of that and because, getting attacked never happens to us just other people syndrome.
My house won’t catch fire, my house won’t get robbed, I am a great driver, I know how to swim, etetc. Shit happens to others not me. Its that dominant thought that causes hesitation and forgetfulness when adrenaline hits in real life. Not Hollywood.
How does it become official? What does that even mean? Appeal to authority? How does it fit more so with the evidence that Martin was the aggressor when the evidence shows that Zimmerman was following him, against the instructions of the 911 operator, with the stated frustration about “these guys always getting away”? There’s Zimmerman’s bloody nose, and small cuts on the back of his head. Those are evidence of a fight for sure. Since Martin didn’t have injuries, you could half-assed infer that maybe he threw the first punch.
But I don’t think that makes Martin the aggressor. I don’t think that means Martin started it. I think it’s clear Zimmerman started it, unless you ignore his pursuit of Martin, and his statements to the 911 operator and just don’t take them for what they are. I think Martin a victim, who tried to defend himself and failed because Zimmerman, the guy who started the confrontation and the fight when he decided to chase after the kid shot and killed him.
Yes, it would be half assed to consider this evidence he threw the first punch. Given blocking, ducking, glancing blows, perhaps a grab or wrestling move started the ball Rolling etc.
I Think the official version is that we don’t know. Who would come up with an official version? No official body has had to weigh in and said ‘this is what happened.’ The jury decided it did not have enough evidence to conclude it was murder. So one potential official version was not approved of by the jury and hence the Court.
Exactly. How does ZImmerman go from a confident, angry, armed 28 year old man who fancies himself law enforcement, and who’s training to be a fighter to a scared, helpless victim of an unarmed 17 year old boy?
Well, this is possible, which is precisely why at the very least what he did was irreponsible, dangerous and reckless. He may have simply followed Martin who may have felt threatened and at some Point snapped and was the stronger and faster fighter. It is possible, which is one of a number of reasons why Z should have stayed in his car and let people actually trained and responsible for dealing with these things deal with it. I don’t Think there is any good way to rule out Z’s main assertions. They may be, in the main, what happened. But we should never consider Z’s version an official one. That he minimized any errors, misjudgements and ethical lapses he made is more than likely. Who wouldn’t?
No, no, no, those aren’t facts, facts have to be virtually indisputable. Most of the above implications are indisputably erroneous.
Yes, now taking your word for it, those are facts, keep them coming.
I can try and scan a copy of my record, but there isn’t one because my charges have all been dismissed.
I don’t think it’s disputable that the 911 operator instructed him not to follow. I think it’s disputable whether he interpreted that person’s words in the way that any reasonable person would who wasn’t trying to get out of a murder charge.
How can it be disputable, it’s like saying, ‘A giant chicken instructed him not eat poultry.’ Your statement is complete nonsense.
Stuart, how is it complete nonsense? The operator asked if he was following him, and then told him he didn’t need him to do that.
This isn’t nonsense:
This is: