Zimmerman to auction gun used to kill Martin

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-15-2016, 12:17 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: When you fight someone do you know when to stop beating on them?   Or do you go mortal Kombat and try to finish them? 

I know exactly when to stop, when they're no longer capable of posing a threat.  A real fight isn't like the movies, a couple of shots to the dome and the person is not capable of posing a credible threat.  Not that you'd know apparently.

[Rotobeast]

How can people sit here and defend someone assaulting (allegedly) another person for walking behind them and/or harassing them verbally ?
Should we nuke Putin, if he calls Obama a sissy ?
Zimmerman is a douchebag and I'm not defending him, but I cannot see excusing escalating the situation to something physical.
I also don't excuse the escalation to killing someone, either.
The proper thing to do would been to draw his weapon, before Martin was close enough for physical contact.
Had he done so, the kid would quite possibly be alive today.
As far as staying in the car, bullshit.
A man has every right to walk around in his own neighborhood, barring martial law/mandated curfew.
That act is not "asking for trouble".
It's a damn shame that kid lost his life and Zimmerman was probably itching to shoot someone, but you cannot sit here and he had no right to walk through his own neighborhood.

Regardless of how much we re-hash it....it's always going to be a damn tragedy.

[GMDino]

(05-15-2016, 07:42 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: How can people sit here and defend someone assaulting  (allegedly) another person for walking behind them and/or harassing them verbally  ?
Should we nuke Putin, if he calls Obama a sissy ?
Zimmerman is a douchebag and I'm not defending him, but I cannot see excusing escalating the situation to something physical.
I also don't excuse the escalation to killing someone, either.
The proper thing to do would been to draw his weapon, before Martin was close enough for physical contact.
Had he done so, the kid would quite possibly be alive today.
As far as staying in the car, bullshit.
A man has every right to walk around in his own neighborhood, barring martial law/mandated curfew.
That act is not "asking for trouble".
It's a damn shame that kid lost his life and Zimmerman was probably itching to shoot someone, but you cannot sit here and he had no right to walk through his own neighborhood.

Regardless of how much we re-hash it....it's always going to be a damn tragedy.

The highlighted part is where we disagree.  GZ was TOLD to stay in his car because he reported something "suspicious".  It was clear they wanted a professional there in case there was something really going on.  He decided to play cop and ended up killing someone and getting away with no punishment because "self defense".

[Rotobeast]

(05-15-2016, 09:59 AM)GMDino Wrote: The highlighted part is where we disagree.  GZ was TOLD to stay in his car because he reported something "suspicious".  It was clear they wanted a professional there in case there was something really going on.  He decided to play cop and ended up killing someone and getting away with no punishment because "self defense".

And... we CAN disagree.
That's ok.
But I do not believe your right to exit the vehicle and walk in your neighborhood can be taken away by a dispatcher who had no idea what the current environment was.
It doesn't matter if they TOLD him or not.
Had there been an officer on the scene that assessed the situation and ordered him to stay in the car, I'd be inclined to agree with you.
Zimmerman was stupid, but was not beyond his rights by exiting the vehicle.

[GMDino]

(05-15-2016, 10:11 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: And... we CAN disagree.
That's ok.
But I do not believe your right to exit the vehicle and walk in your neighborhood can be taken away by a dispatcher who had no idea what the current environment was.
It doesn't matter if they TOLD him or not.
Had there been an officer on the scene that assessed the situation and ordered him to stay in the car, I'd be inclined to agree with you.
Zimmerman was stupid, but was not beyond his rights by exiting the vehicle.

I agree that he had a right to be stupid and to do a stupid thing.  

[Rotobeast]

(05-15-2016, 12:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: I agree that he had a right to be stupid and to do a stupid thing.  

That's more than fair.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-15-2016, 04:19 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I know exactly when to stop, when they're no longer capable of posing a threat.  A real fight isn't like the movies, a couple of shots to the dome and the person is not capable of posing a credible threat.  Not that you'd know apparently.

so we can agree that when they are on the ground, bloody, and begging you to stop and giving up...  they no longer pose a threat.  

[Bilbo Saggins]

(05-15-2016, 07:42 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: A man has every right to walk around in his own neighborhood, barring martial law/mandated curfew.
That act is not "asking for trouble".

He wasn't just out for a stroll. He stalked someone, even after a professional emergency worker told him not to. He most certainly violated anti-stalking laws and he did it with a loaded weapon. He wasn't just out for a walk in the park when he got punched in the face. For all we know he started the punching and started losing before blowing a kid to kingdom come. The only reason that he got away with it IMO is because the real story got lost in the legal fiction.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-15-2016, 01:06 PM)Bilbo Saggins Wrote: He wasn't just out for a stroll. He stalked someone, even after a professional emergency worker told him not to. He most certainly violated anti-stalking laws and he did it with a loaded weapon. He wasn't just out for a walk in the park when he got punched in the face. For all we know he started the punching and started losing before blowing a kid to kingdom come. The only reason that he got away with it IMO is because the real story got lost in the legal fiction.

Nearly everyone carries a gun down here . That's not that unique to anyone who lives in Florida...  


And a jury of peers found him innocent and as bfine has said before .... They had more access to details of the case than anyone on this message board.    

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-15-2016, 01:02 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: so we can agree that when they are on the ground, bloody, and begging you to stop and giving up...  they no longer pose a threat.  

If those things were happening and the person in question wasn't in possession of a firearm, absolutely.  However, no one knows how that encounter went down, except for a person with shit credibility.  Allow me to please flip the script, you're being followed by a person and when you confront them they reveal a handgun, would you fall to your knees and piss yourself or would you try and prevent that person from shooting you?

[StLucieBengal]

(05-15-2016, 01:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If those things were happening and the person in question wasn't in possession of a firearm, absolutely.  However, no one knows how that encounter went down, except for a person with shit credibility.  Allow me to please flip the script, you're being followed by a person and when you confront them they reveal a handgun, would you fall to your knees and piss yourself or would you try and prevent that person from shooting you?

I would find out why they are following me.   If he said he was neighborhood watch I would ask his name and then request the police be called.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-15-2016, 03:04 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I would find out why they are following me.   If he said he was neighborhood watch I would ask his name and then request the police be called.  

What if he looked like this?

[StLucieBengal]

(05-15-2016, 03:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What if he looked like this?

Sorry I don't live in Dearborn Michigan.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-15-2016, 03:19 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Sorry I don't live in Dearborn Michigan.  

I'll repeat the question, what if the guy in the example looked like that?

[StLucieBengal]

(05-15-2016, 03:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll repeat the question, what if the guy in the example looked like that?

A Muslim commando?  In my neighborhood?   Was GZ dressed up as a commando?  Am I missing something... Or are you trying to compare GZ to a Muslim commando?   Regardless I would have the same response.   I would also ask why my neighborhood watch was dressing as Islamic militants.   

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-15-2016, 03:31 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: A Muslim commando?  In my neighborhood?   Was GZ dressed up as a commando?  Am I missing something... Or are you trying to compare GZ to a Muslim commando?   Regardless I would have the same response.   I would also ask why my neighborhood watch was dressing as Islamic militants.   

He's just open carrying dude, just like these guys.




Why would you call the man in my example an islamic militant?  

[Rotobeast]

(05-15-2016, 01:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If those things were happening and the person in question wasn't in possession of a firearm, absolutely.  However, no one knows how that encounter went down, except for a person with shit credibility.  Allow me to please flip the script, you're being followed by a person and when you confront them they reveal a handgun, would you fall to your knees and piss yourself or would you try and prevent that person from shooting you?

Is it still holstered, or drawn ?
How close am I ?

Again, Zimmerman is a scumbag.
My assessment is based on the idea that the information provided is true.
Do I think that it is the way it really went down ?
No, not at all.
I agree with the direction your taking.
Zimmerman was probably in the process of unholstering his weapon to intimidate and detain Martin (which he had no right to do), Martin sees the gun, and jumps him before he has the muzzle pointed at him.
A struggle ensues, Zimmerman falls backwards with Martin on top.
The gun fires when Zimmerman hits the pavement, or he fires intentionally and jumps up to yell self-defense

[Bilbo Saggins]

(05-15-2016, 01:17 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: And a jury of peers found him innocent and as bfine has said before .... They had more access to details of the case than anyone on this message board.    

Jurors like this one?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/25/justice/zimmerman-juror-b29-interview/

I believe that you're confusing legality with what is right and what is wrong. Anyone with any legal experience can tell you that they are not one and the same. The Tuskegee Experiments were legal. Cointelpro was legal. The Church Committee never prosecuted anyone for the crimes perpetrated during operation MK Ultra. Remember "if the glove don't fit you must acquit?"

Also, if Florida is one giant OK Corral where everyone is packing, then why didn't Martin have a gun? Also, why would Martin start a fight if this is common knowledge? There is 0 evidence that Martin initiated a physical altercation, just some evidence to suggest that he was winning at one point.

At the end of the day I truly believe that if you disobey an emergency worker to illegally stalk someone, then you should have the balls to take an ass beating for your crime as opposed to shooting an unarmed person and then crying victim. The letter of the law isn't written that way, and that's understandable. The law can't predict each and every scenario that's going to happen in real life. That being said, please don't pretend that just because something is determined to be legal at a specific time that it is also just. That is a ludicrous argument and it is easily torn to shreds.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-15-2016, 03:53 PM)Bilbo Saggins Wrote: Jurors like this one?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/25/justice/zimmerman-juror-b29-interview/

I believe that you're confusing legality with what is right and what is wrong. Anyone with any legal experience can tell you that they are not one and the same. The Tuskegee Experiments were legal. Cointelpro was legal. The Church Committee never prosecuted anyone for the crimes perpetrated during operation MK Ultra. Remember "if the glove don't fit you must acquit?"

Also, if Florida is one giant OK Corral where everyone is packing, then why didn't Martin have a gun? Also, why would Martin start a fight if this is common knowledge? There is 0 evidence that Martin initiated a physical altercation, just some evidence to suggest that he was winning at one point.

At the end of the day I truly believe that if you disobey an emergency worker to illegally stalk someone, then you should have the balls to take an ass beating for your crime as opposed to shooting an unarmed person and then crying victim. The letter of the law isn't written that way, and that's understandable. The law can't predict each and every scenario that's going to happen in real life. That being said, please don't pretend that just because something is determined to be legal at a specific time that it is also just. That is a ludicrous argument and it is easily torn to shreds.

Well stated.  I would add that the DA was influenced by media and political pressure and clearly overcharged in this case.  Second degree murder was an asinine overcharge and made it impossible to convict Zimmerman.  Even someone who thought Zimmerman was a complete asshat, like myself, wouldn't go so far as accuse him of wanting to initiate the encounter so he could kill Martin.  That's what happens when you allow outside pressure to influence your professionalism.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-15-2016, 03:53 PM)Bilbo Saggins Wrote: Jurors like this one?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/25/justice/zimmerman-juror-b29-interview/

I believe that you're confusing legality with what is right and what is wrong. Anyone with any legal experience can tell you that they are not one and the same. The Tuskegee Experiments were legal. Cointelpro was legal. The Church Committee never prosecuted anyone for the crimes perpetrated during operation MK Ultra. Remember "if the glove don't fit you must acquit?"

Also, if Florida is one giant OK Corral where everyone is packing, then why didn't Martin have a gun? Also, why would Martin start a fight if this is common knowledge? There is 0 evidence that Martin initiated a physical altercation, just some evidence to suggest that he was winning at one point.

At the end of the day I truly believe that if you disobey an emergency worker to illegally stalk someone, then you should have the balls to take an ass beating for your crime as opposed to shooting an unarmed person and then crying victim. The letter of the law isn't written that way, and that's understandable. The law can't predict each and every scenario that's going to happen in real life. That being said, please don't pretend that just because something is determined to be legal at a specific time that it is also just. That is a ludicrous argument and it is easily torn to shreds.

So 1 juror says he was guilty?   Why didn't she fight more?  Sounds more like she is grandstanding to get a book deal.  

As for Florida.   We encourage everyone to carry.    No idea why TM wasn't.... That's his business.    I don't know his specifics.    But I do know that most homes down here have an extensive collection of firearms.   You may not like this but I assume you are not from or live here.