Jump to content

Zimmerman neighbors speak about injuries


Happy Jack

  

19 members have voted

  1. 1. Was the charge of 2nd degree appropriate

    • Yes and he is guilty of 2nd degree murder
    • Yes but he is guilty of something less than 2nd degree murder
      0
    • No but he is guilty of something less than 2nd degree murder
    • No it was self defense even though Zimmerman's actions were responsible and foolish


Recommended Posts

" It could have been avoided if Zimmerman had stayed in his truck." Duh. That could apply to most anything. Also. Could have been avoided if Martin stayed home!

 

"Martin wasn't doing anything illegal" That is true until he assaulted Zimmerman.

 

Facts are funny things. Need a bit of context.

 

Legally irrelevant. Zimmerman had every right to be where he was.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

 

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) 
Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself
, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

 

Getting out of the car was not provoking the use of force.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 550
  • Created
  • Last Reply

i gotta say the fact that the single gunshot was of indeterminate range is devastating news for the defense...

 

I thought they said intermediate range? If so, it can mean quite close - a foot or so.

 

"Examination of the gunshot wound can help determine many factors involved in the shooting, including the distance of the shooter from the victim. Gunshot wounds can be classified based on the range from the muzzle of the gun to the target. These classifications include contact, near-contact, intermediate, and distant wounds. A contact wound results when the muzzle is held against the body at the time of discharge, and can be further divided into hard, loose, angled, and incomplete contact wounds. In a hard-contact wound, the muzzle is held tightly against the skin. There is little external evidence that it is a contact wound, although if you inspect the entrance you will usually find searing and powder blackening of the immediate edge of the wound, while an autopsy will reveal particles of soot and unburnt powder in the wound track. In loose-contact wounds, the muzzle is held lightly against the skin, and the soot that is carried by the gas is deposited in a zone around the entrance, which can be wiped away. In an angled-contact wound, the barrel is held at an acute angle to the skin, and gas and soot radiate outwards from where the gun does not touch the skin. In an incomplete-contact wound, the barrel is held against the skin, but in a place where the skin is not completely flat. In this case, hot sooty gases escape the gap, leaving a long blackened and seared section of the skin, with scattered grains of powder.

 

http://www.relentles...gunshot-wounds/

 

 

 

 

another source but with graphic images: http://www.archiveso...GW%5D2.0.CO%3B2

 

 

"Trayvon's autopsy report is included in the released documents. In it, there is a diagram that shows the gunshot wound was approximately 3/8 inches across, and the "stippling," powder burns that come as a result of a gunshot, was approximately 2 inches in diameter.

 

The burns are important because they prove the gun was fired from a very close range.

 

FDLE firearms expert Amy Siewert examined Trayvon's gray sweatshirt and gray hoodie and wrote this about the gunpowder burns: "Both holes displayed residues and physical effects consistent with a contact shot."

 

Translation: The gun was touching Trayvon's clothing when Zimmerman pulled the trigger. " http://articles.orla...dence-documents

 

 

Trayvon Martin, the 17-year-old who was shot and killed by a neighborhood watch volunteer, had the drug THC in his system the night of this death, according to new information obtained by ABC News. http://abcnews.go.co...52#.T7V7r2if9wu

 

In the 911 tape, George Zimmerman reported to the police dispatcher that Martin seemed suspicious to him because it seemed Martin was "on drugs or something."

More accurately "had been on drugs at some point in the last 3 months". THC takes a long time to clear.

 

Depends on the metabolite being measured and the source of the sample and probably when the sample was taken. The THC was from blood taken from TMs chest a day later.

 

"Toxicology tests found elements of the drug in the teenager's chest blood -- 1.5 nanograms per milliliter of one type (THC), as well as 7.3 nanograms of another type (THC-COOH) -- according to the medical examiner's report. There was also a presumed positive test of cannabinoids in Martin's urine. It was not immediately clear how significant these amounts were."

"Concentrations of THC routinely rise to 100 to 200 ng/ml after marijuana use, though it typically falls to below 5 ng/ml within three hours of it being smoked, according to information on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's website.

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t2"

But I also don't see how TMs pot use is relevant one way or the other to either side of the case. It has no bearing on who attacked whom and whether Zimmerman was acting in self-defense, not that the defense won't bring it up. I'm sure they will, but it really boils down to who initiated the violent confrontation and whether Z feared for his life and shot TM as an act of self-defense or not. He had the right to shoot if he was attacked and being beaten whether TM was high or not, or no right to use his firearm regardless of TMs impairment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

" It could have been avoided if Zimmerman had stayed in his truck." Duh. That could apply to most anything. Also. Could have been avoided if Martin stayed home!

 

"Martin wasn't doing anything illegal" That is true until he assaulted Zimmerman.

 

Facts are funny things. Need a bit of context.

 

ULTIMATELY AVOIDABLE. Not, if Trayvon Martin had stayed out of the vigilante's self-appointed domain, but if said self-styled vigilante had acted in a responsible manner and not murdered someone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Martin wasn't doing anything illegal" That is true until he assaulted Zimmerman.

Seems to me that Martin was just exercising his Stand your Ground rights. Nothing illegal. In fact he could have killed Zimm and claimed self defense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There in no evidence that Zimmerman provoked Martin. Martin was a punk kid who had been suspended from school three times. Used to be three suspensions would mean expulsion from school!

Link to post
Share on other sites

There in no evidence that Zimmerman provoked Martin. Martin was a punk kid who had been suspended from school three times. Used to be three suspensions would mean expulsion from school!

In Florida, its a death sentence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Martin wasn't doing anything illegal" That is true until he assaulted Zimmerman.

Seems to me that Martin was just exercising his Stand your Ground rights. Nothing illegal. In fact he could have killed Zimm and claimed self defense.

 

(3)  A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

 

He could make that claim if he was attacked. Is there evidence he was attacked?

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Martin wasn't doing anything illegal" That is true until he assaulted Zimmerman.

Seems to me that Martin was just exercising his Stand your Ground rights. Nothing illegal. In fact he could have killed Zimm and claimed self defense.

 

(3)  A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

 

He could make that claim if he was attacked. Is there evidence he was attacked?

And there is the gaping hole in the law. The survivor gets to claim self defense because dead men can't testify.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Martin wasn't doing anything illegal" That is true until he assaulted Zimmerman.

Seems to me that Martin was just exercising his Stand your Ground rights. Nothing illegal. In fact he could have killed Zimm and claimed self defense.

 

(3)  A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

 

He could make that claim if he was attacked. Is there evidence he was attacked?

And there is the gaping hole in the law. The survivor gets to claim self defense because dead men can't testify.

 

I'll take that as a "no, there is no evidence, so my claim was just my speculation."

 

And what has happened since 2005 when it was passed?

 

justifiable-homicides.gif

 

1,000 or so murders per year in this state.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course there is no evidence. The survivors get to tell their side of the story, and get off the hook.

Evidence to support your claim would be those who tried to claim self defense and were denied SYG. Got any numbers for that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course there is no evidence. The survivors get to tell their side of the story, and get off the hook.

Evidence to support your claim would be those who tried to claim self defense and were denied SYG. Got any numbers for that?

 

If your view were correct, all survivors would get off the hook. There is clear evidence that does not happen right on this forum.

 

Anecdotes are evidence, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

" It could have been avoided if Zimmerman had stayed in his truck." Duh. That could apply to most anything. Also. Could have been avoided if Martin stayed home!

 

"Martin wasn't doing anything illegal" That is true until he assaulted Zimmerman.

 

Facts are funny things. Need a bit of context.

 

ULTIMATELY AVOIDABLE. Not, if Trayvon Martin had stayed out of the vigilante's self-appointed domain, but if said self-styled vigilante had acted in a responsible manner and not murdered someone.

 

There was no legal obligation on Z's part to "stay out of" the area where the confrontation occurred. And there is no evidence that Z acted "irresponsibly" in a legal sense. He may indeed have been irresponsible in ignoring the dispatcher's advice, but that was not an illegal act. You, for example are very irresponsible when it comes to your support for silly lefty ideas like CAGW, but there is no law against stupidity. And whether Z "murdered" TM (i.e. committed the crime of murder) or acted in self-defense will be for the judge and jury to decide. Right now, the evidence available and the law appear to favor Z, that he shot TM at close range to protect his own life in a legal act of self defense while being beaten by TM.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one moral of this story is that it doesn't always pay to punch someone out & commence to pummeling him against the ground, being as he may have a gun. Regardless of what he says to you or how he looks at you.

 

If it happened that way.

 

If it happened that George grabbed the kid or something like that, & started the physical altercation, then I've no sympathy for the guy. Though I have little as it is, for if he's going to claim "town watch" as justification for watching the eventual victim then he has to accept a few protocols that were in fact violated. Dumb ass.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one moral of this story is that it doesn't always pay to punch someone out & commence to pummeling him against the ground, being as he may have a gun. Regardless of what he says to you or how he looks at you.

 

I think everyone comes away from this saga with the knowledge that if you are in Florida and have any kind of altercation, it would be best for you to kill your opponent and claim self defense. Chances are you will not be charged. Unless the MSM gets a mob all ginned up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one moral of this story is that it doesn't always pay to punch someone out & commence to pummeling him against the ground, being as he may have a gun. Regardless of what he says to you or how he looks at you.

 

If it happened that way.

 

If it happened that George grabbed the kid or something like that, & started the physical altercation, then I've no sympathy for the guy. Though I have little as it is, for if he's going to claim "town watch" as justification for watching the eventual victim then he has to accept a few protocols that were in fact violated. Dumb ass.

 

If it hadn't ended so tragically, and Sam Clemons were still around, I think we might have gotten a nice little story about two town idiots bumping into each other in the middle of the night and thereby triggered a general riot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one moral of this story is that it doesn't always pay to punch someone out & commence to pummeling him against the ground, being as he may have a gun. Regardless of what he says to you or how he looks at you.

 

If it happened that way.

 

If it happened that George grabbed the kid or something like that, & started the physical altercation, then I've no sympathy for the guy. Though I have little as it is, for if he's going to claim "town watch" as justification for watching the eventual victim then he has to accept a few protocols that were in fact violated. Dumb ass.

 

If it hadn't ended so tragically, and Sam Clemons were still around, I think we might have gotten a nice little story about two town idiots bumping into each other in the middle of the night and thereby triggered a general riot.

 

+1

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one moral of this story is that it doesn't always pay to punch someone out & commence to pummeling him against the ground, being as he may have a gun. Regardless of what he says to you or how he looks at you.

 

I think everyone comes away from this saga with the knowledge that if you are in Florida and have any kind of altercation, it would be best for you to kill your opponent and claim self defense. Chances are you will not be charged. Unless the MSM gets a mob all ginned up.

 

I see your proctologist found some more material, no more accurate than what he got out before. A verbal altercation is "any kind" but it is not an attack, and regardless of what you keep repeating, the words and who is attacked are part of our law.

 

(3)  A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one moral of this story is that it doesn't always pay to punch someone out & commence to pummeling him against the ground, being as he may have a gun. Regardless of what he says to you or how he looks at you.

 

I think everyone comes away from this saga with the knowledge that if you are in Florida and have any kind of altercation someone whose strengths & intentions you don't know tries to split your head open, it would be best for you to kill your opponent defend yourself and claim self defense. Chances are you will not be charged. Unless the MSM gets a mob all ginned up.

 

Only as a last resort. A very last resort. But if you insist, better to be judged by 12 than to be carried by 6.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one moral of this story is that it doesn't always pay to punch someone out & commence to pummeling him against the ground, being as he may have a gun. Regardless of what he says to you or how he looks at you.

 

I think everyone comes away from this saga with the knowledge that if you are in Florida and have any kind of altercation, it would be best for you to kill your opponent and claim self defense. Chances are you will not be charged. Unless the MSM gets a mob all ginned up.

 

I see your proctologist found some more material, no more accurate than what he got out before. A verbal altercation is "any kind" but it is not an attack, and regardless of what you keep repeating, the words and who is attacked are part of our law.

 

(3)  A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Another example of how Florida should not be allowed to write laws. "Attacked". How. Does verbal suffice? Does it require physical abuse, or can the threat of an attack alone be an attack. Is a perp holding a gun 3 inches from your head an attack? Or does he actually have to touch you? Is pain involved?

How about if you are being stalked at night by an armed stranger? At what point does the "attack" clause get triggered?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another example of how Florida should not be allowed to write laws.

 

:lol: This from a guy with serious difficulty reading them??

 

SYG allows you do use lethal force if you perceive your life is in danger. Clearly Martin's life was in danger. You don't have to be attacked first.

 

If "and who is attacked" means "you don't have to be attacked" to you, I'm pretty sure I can't explain the law to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another example of how Florida should not be allowed to write laws.

 

:lol: This from a guy with serious difficulty reading them??

 

SYG allows you do use lethal force if you perceive your life is in danger. Clearly Martin's life was in danger. You don't have to be attacked first.

 

If "and who is attacked" means "you don't have to be attacked" to you, I'm pretty sure I can't explain the law to you.

If Zimmerman were holding a gun to Trayvon, would that have been an attack?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another example of how Florida should not be allowed to write laws.

 

:lol: This from a guy with serious difficulty reading them??

 

SYG allows you do use lethal force if you perceive your life is in danger. Clearly Martin's life was in danger. You don't have to be attacked first.

 

If "and who is attacked" means "you don't have to be attacked" to you, I'm pretty sure I can't explain the law to you.

If Zimmerman were holding a gun to Trayvon, would that have been an attack?

 

I don't know the legally correct answer, but I would interpret a gun held on me as a serious threat worthy of a response. Congratulations, you have hit on one reason why I did not support the law when it was passed.

 

But it says what it says, and it says nothing about perceiving a danger like you said it did, it talks about an attack.

 

(3)  A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the lack of specificity in the law on what constitutes an attack leaves it open for interpretation. I say it requires only a perceived threat. Because that makes sense. Like being stalked by an armed stranger at night.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the lack of specificity in the law on what constitutes an attack leaves it open for interpretation. I say it requires only a perceived threat. Because that makes sense. Like being stalked by an armed stranger at night.

 

Stone perceived a threat. SYG claim denied. I would not try your theory in court.

 

Joseph G. Charlton, 55, was found dead in a pool of blood near a vacant bowling alley in the 200 block of South State Road 7. Stone argued Monday that he was defending himself in the early hours of July 3, 2010, when he clubbed Charlton to death with a metal pole or pipe outside the bowling alley.

 

Stone said Charlton was combative and seemed to be reaching for a sharp instrument, possibly a knife. Stone's lawyer, James "Jim" Wells, described Charlton as an aggressor who forced Stone to use deadly force.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Zimmerman were holding a gun to Trayvon, would that have been an attack?

 

Relevance? Prove that this is what occurred and it might matter. Presumptions aside - In my jurisdiction, court precedent says that when under an immediate threat such as described - gun pointed at you, axe being swung up for a strike - a person is not obliged to wait for the assailant to strike the first blow. I'm not sure what the burden of proof is but that's how the law reads. Perhaps this case will set such a precedent if no other exists in FL to that affect.

 

As to whether Trayvon is justified in defending himself against someone following him with a gun (with what, a preemptive strike?), first show us that Treyvon knew he was being followed by someone with a gun.... I'm betting he only knew he was being followed by an asshole. It's a meaningless question. Reading Tom's citations at face value it doesn't seem legal to attack someone for something the other person "might" do.

 

We really ought to wait to hear what the evidence is when it's presented and subsequently challenged by people versed in the Florida criminal code.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Zimmerman were holding a gun to Trayvon, would that have been an attack?

 

Relevance? Prove that this is what occurred and it might matter. Presumptions aside - In my jurisdiction, court precedent says that when under an immediate threat such as described - gun pointed at you, axe being swung up for a strike - a person is not obliged to wait for the assailant to strike the first blow. I'm not sure what the burden of proof is but that's how the law reads. Perhaps this case will set such a precedent if no other exists in FL to that affect.

 

As to whether Trayvon is justified in defending himself against someone following him with a gun (with what, a preemptive strike?), first show us that Treyvon knew he was being followed by someone with a gun.... I'm betting he only knew he was being followed by an asshole. It's a meaningless question. Reading Tom's citations at face value it doesn't seem legal to ambush and attack someone for something the other person "might" do.

 

We really ought to wait to hear what the evidence is when it's presented and subsequently challenged by people versed in the Florida criminal code.

Very relevant. What CWP holder, while actively pursuing a target, wouldnt at least have his hand on his weapon? Probably have it drawn. Kinda defeats the purpose of carrying if you arent ready to use it, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Project much? "Pursuing a target"? "Probably had it drawn."

 

One minute you're asking us to assume Zimmerman had his piece to Martin's head, deserving of a defensive response that put the former on the ground, and now - rather than prove that this happened - you're jumping straight to some fantasy protocol you believe all CWP holders follow.

 

Someone's running real short of straws to grasp.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Project much? "Pursuing a target"? "Probably had it drawn."

 

One minute you're asking us to assume Zimmerman had his piece to Martin's head, deserving of a defensive response that put the former on the ground, and now - rather than prove that this happened - you're jumping straight to some fantasy protocol you believe all CWP holders follow.

 

Someone's running real short of straws to grasp.

Never asking you to assume. Just consider hypotheticals that might make you reevaluate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypotheticals, by definition, require assumptions. And in the latest examples, they require belief in fairy tales.

 

I might try to work out a hypothetical if the questions were based on real-world actions and procedures, rather than some mental invention as to how those crazy gun owners all would do things (or, "should" do things in order to fit a particular & desired model of irresponsibility).. This is not Hollywood out here.

 

Besides, I already answered one question, i.e., taking Tom's citations at face value, it doesn't seem legal (in FL) to attack someone for what he "might" do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very relevant. What CWP holder, while actively pursuing a target, wouldnt at least have his hand on his weapon? Probably have it drawn. Kinda defeats the purpose of carrying if you arent ready to use it, right?

 

Another word for having your weapon drawn in such a situation is brandishing and it's illegal. If CWP holders behaved as you suggest, we might have a violent crime rate approaching that of the general population. But we don't, so we don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having a CWP, I have never had to draw it or felt the need to have my hand on it. If it is not concealed there is no need for a permit. We have the second amendment for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What CWP holder, while actively pursuing a target, wouldnt at least have his hand on his weapon? Probably have it drawn. Kinda defeats the purpose of carrying if you arent ready to use it, right?

 

The question began as, if Zimmerman had a gun to Martin's head, would that constitute an attack. A Florida attorney should address that. For my part, I'd treat it as an attack. Now, as to the above, supporting questions, I can't tell you what George did or "would have" done. I'm comfortable asserting that most if not all of those proposals fail to describe popular wisdom among responsible people who have taken defensive firearms training. Heck, even martial artists are told that if it's you who pursue with the intent to fight, YOU are the attacker. So, it's not all about the gun.

 

On the matter of guns, some of the "rules" of conduct are that -

 

* You don't go places you wouldn't otherwise go, simply because you now have a gun. The principle involved is that of being able to go places you already go, do lawful things you already have a right to do, unmolested. It doesn't mean you should now go downtown where people like you ought not walk at night just to feel tough.

 

* If confronted with a defensive situation - in the home or elsewhere - should the assailant turn to flee, the fight is over. Once you take a step in his direction (or God forbid, shoot at him on his way out the window), you become the assailant in a brand new fight.

 

If - hypothetically - Georgie followed Treyvon when he otherwise would not have (owing to his possession of a firearm), I would say that speaks to state of mind (along with, "these assholes... they always get away".) If -hypothetically - he was chasing rather than mainly keeping an eye on the guy, that certainly says something bad.

 

But to rhetorically aak why he wouldn't have a gun drawn and simultaneously attach that as expected behavior by any carry-permit holder begs contempt. It is akin to supposing a DUI in a traffic accident had a bottle in his hand (without evidence that he did) and - since all people who enjoy a drink now & again pour from a bottle - that it must be accepted practice for all who drink, to drive drunk and want to get into a wreck.

 

I don't know whether Zimmerman had a drawn pistol or if he had his hand on it; if either were true, and known to be true, they can hang him from his nuts for all I care. That said - it fails basic logic to take some assumptions borne of ignorance of accepted practice, attach them to Zimmerman without evidence, then, suppose that your assumptions apply to legal gun permit holders in general.... and use that misapplication to support your assumptions as to what Zimmerman would have done.

 

I don't mind discussing things, but defending mythical practices with origins from within a theater presentation take more time than it's worth. I'd rather stick to the real world, and discuss what we know, being stuff vetted by credible sources.

 

Ed, I share your concern for justice and I'm firmly on record that morally or common-sense wise, this guy (Z) was in the best position from start to finish, to prevent this thing. Whether this is "legally" his responsibility remains to be seen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My intentions are to plant seeds of doubt and get those set in their preconceptions to become free thinkers. You will thank me later.

You believe Zimmerman should be sacrificed to appease the mob. In that context the details are moot.

I'll pass on your brand of free thinking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My intentions are to plant seeds of doubt and get those set in their preconceptions to become free thinkers. You will thank me later.

 

Sticking to the real world, providing possible explanations as to what happened based upon what we do know (stuff vetted by credible sources) is not inconsistent with free thought.

 

Making up stuff, inventing smack about how your typical gun owner Would or Should act in some farcical scenario is not simply free thinking. It's more like asking me to accept an explanation of the origins of the world that somebody came up with while stoned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My intentions are to plant seeds of doubt and get those set in their preconceptions to become free thinkers. You will thank me later.

You believe Zimmerman should be sacrificed to appease the mob. In that context the details are moot.

I'll pass on your brand of free thinking.

Your Malarkey Mind Reader needs focus. Never have I said Zimmerman should be sacrificed. I believe, the charges should be dropped and they should put up a statue of him in Florida paying tribute to the Stand Your Ground law. I've always held that position. I also hold the position that had Trayvon been able to kill Zimmerman, the same tribute to Stand Your Ground should have been erected.

Free your mind. Your body will follow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My intentions are to plant seeds of doubt and get those set in their preconceptions to become free thinkers. You will thank me later.

 

Sticking to the real world, providing possible explanations as to what happened based upon what we do know (stuff vetted by credible sources) is not inconsistent with free thought.

 

Making up stuff, inventing smack about how your typical gun owner Would or Should act in some farcical scenario is not simply free thinking. It's more like asking me to accept an explanation of the origins of the world that somebody came up with while stoned.

Speculating on how a gun holder might react to a situation like this is not inconsistent with free thought. Its an exercise to see the situation from all angles. Its sometimes unpleasant when you realize your beliefs are challenged.

To say that an over zealous wannabe neighborhood watch captain with a concealed gun, who exits his vehicle to pursue a suspect, might have his hand on his gun when confronts the suspect, is plausible. And it changes the game.

I'm not saying that is what happened. We don't know. Its possible, perhaps likely. But we do know we only know what the killer has said. And some here take that as gospel. Some free thinkers will not make that assumption.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's more like asking me to accept an explanation of the origins of the world that somebody came up with while stoned.

 

You apparently have little familiarity with some things that fueled Silicon Valley and the computer revolution. Don't worry - just use your computer (that they developed stoned) and the net "that they expanded stoned)......and forums like this (preceded by The Well, that some of my stoned friends created and ran).

 

I have a friend who worked at Ampex - those guys were always stoned.

 

THINK DIFFERENT....as Ed Says!

 

"Jobs even let drop that Microsoft's Bill Gates would "be a broader guy if he had dropped acid once." Apple's mantra was"Think different." Jobs did. And he credited his use of LSD as a major reason for his success."

 

"While some of the technology industry's brightest minds were inventing the first PCs and developing groundbreaking software, they were also feeding their heads with LSD. Here's a look at nine tech visionaries who's mind-blowing adventures on acid have forever influenced the direction and ethos of the computer industry"

 

"Long before he co-founded The Hackers Conference, The WELL (considered by many to be the first online social network) and the Global Business Network, Stewart Brand was staging acid tests with Ken Kesey"

 

Use "very drunk" instead.....that does make one dumb.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"You" assume too much about what people know and don't know. Lots of old news there.

 

But there is a funny connection. Once while at an awards banquet for the kid's swim team, in my 3-piece suit, these people kept eyeballing me. It turns out that then, as now. I could be Bill Gates' stunt double.

 

By the way, being also of his generation, I'm all too familiar with the thought processes of the stoned mind. While some creative ideas can from that state arise, it's not necessarily the place from which to invent hypothetical anecdotes about armed self-defense.

 

Peace, my friend.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My intentions are to plant seeds of doubt and get those set in their preconceptions to become free thinkers. You will thank me later.

 

Sticking to the real world, providing possible explanations as to what happened based upon what we do know (stuff vetted by credible sources) is not inconsistent with free thought.

 

Making up stuff, inventing smack about how your typical gun owner Would or Should act in some farcical scenario is not simply free thinking. It's more like asking me to accept an explanation of the origins of the world that somebody came up with while stoned.

Speculating on how a gun holder might react to a situation like this is not inconsistent with free thought. Its an exercise to see the situation from all angles. Its sometimes unpleasant when you realize your beliefs are challenged.

To say that an over zealous wannabe neighborhood watch captain with a concealed gun, who exits his vehicle to pursue a suspect, might have his hand on his gun when confronts the suspect, is plausible. And it changes the game.

I'm not saying that is what happened. We don't know. Its possible, perhaps likely. But we do know we only know what the killer has said. And some here take that as gospel. Some free thinkers will not make that assumption.

 

I'm fine with most all of that. On the other hand, it doesn't work to suppose ("dream up") what gun owners in general do, then suppose that since Zimmerman is a gun owner, he Must have done that as well.

 

Free thought as to alternate scenarios? If they're consistent with reported witness statements, tape recordings, and forensic evidence, then, I say, bring it forth... or wait for a jury to hear it, & get out of the house a little more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"You" assume too much about what people know and don't know. Lots of old news there.

 

But there is a funny connection. Once while at an awards banquet for the kid's swim team, in my 3-piece suit, these people kept eyeballing me.

 

What does a male three piece swim suit look like? No wonder they were eyeballing you. With one eyebrow raised no doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"You" assume too much about what people know and don't know. Lots of old news there.

 

But there is a funny connection. Once while at an awards banquet for the kid's swim team, in my 3-piece suit, these people kept eyeballing me.

 

What does a male three piece swim suit look like? No wonder they were eyeballing you. With one eyebrow raised no doubt.

 

I stepped right into that. Fuque.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

My intentions are to plant seeds of doubt and get those set in their preconceptions to become free thinkers. You will thank me later.

You believe Zimmerman should be sacrificed to appease the mob. In that context the details are moot.

I'll pass on your brand of free thinking.

 

get with it Dog, the mob is always right - especially in an election year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My intentions are to plant seeds of doubt and get those set in their preconceptions to become free thinkers. You will thank me later.

You believe Zimmerman should be sacrificed to appease the mob. In that context the details are moot.

I'll pass on your brand of free thinking.

 

get with it Dog, the mob is always right - especially in an election year.

 

Requiring someone to face a jury of his peers after killing an unarmed teenager is a terrible sacrifice. It is clearly unfair.

 

Boo hoo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

My intentions are to plant seeds of doubt and get those set in their preconceptions to become free thinkers. You will thank me later.

You believe Zimmerman should be sacrificed to appease the mob. In that context the details are moot.

I'll pass on your brand of free thinking.

 

get with it Dog, the mob is always right - especially in an election year.

 

Requiring someone to face a jury of his peers after killing an unarmed teenager is a terrible sacrifice. It is clearly unfair.

 

Boo hoo.

 

Didja happen to listen to the news clip from NBC... it refutes something you asserted. You don't care do you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

My intentions are to plant seeds of doubt and get those set in their preconceptions to become free thinkers. You will thank me later.

You believe Zimmerman should be sacrificed to appease the mob. In that context the details are moot.

I'll pass on your brand of free thinking.

 

get with it Dog, the mob is always right - especially in an election year.

 

Requiring someone to face a jury of his peers after killing an unarmed teenager is a terrible sacrifice. It is clearly unfair.

 

Boo hoo.

 

The prosecutor should charge the Florida legislature with the crime. If you write a law that allows punks to rape old ladies, who's fault is it when an old lady gets raped by punks?

 

This is some simple logic here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

My intentions are to plant seeds of doubt and get those set in their preconceptions to become free thinkers. You will thank me later.

You believe Zimmerman should be sacrificed to appease the mob. In that context the details are moot.

I'll pass on your brand of free thinking.

 

get with it Dog, the mob is always right - especially in an election year.

 

Requiring someone to face a jury of his peers after killing an unarmed teenager is a terrible sacrifice. It is clearly unfair.

 

Boo hoo.

 

The prosecutor should charge the Florida legislature with the crime. If you write a law that allows punks to rape old ladies, who's fault is it when an old lady gets raped by punks?

 

This is some simple logic here.

 

You're giving him more credit than he deserves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...