Zimmerman Trial - What is wrong with the media

[42]

You folk may want to listen to what this gentleman is saying. It sounds a lot like what the president had to say today. ONLY DIFFERENT

[kmarei]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

You seem to really have a problem with this. It seems in your mind that GZ went out that night with the intent to find a young black man to kill.

Do you really think that? If not, what's your problem? It's not like this case was tried in a closed private courtroom where deals were made and what not. It was a highly scrutinized case with national coverage. It was by the book and all available evidence was submitted that could have proved him guilty of murder.

Not at all
I don't think he had the intention to kill tm
But the fact is he did
And he walked away from it without any retribution
That troubles me a lot
Tm wasn't looking for trouble
And he ended up dead, and his killer, that we all know as gz
Is alive and well, and not even in jail

Something about that is not right

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by kmarei

Not at all
I don't think he had the intention to kill tm
But the fact is he did
And he walked away from it without any retribution
That troubles me a lot
Tm wasn't looking for trouble
And he ended up dead, and his killer, that we all know as gz
Is alive and well, and not even in jail

Something about that is not right

I see.

So how are you so sure that TM wasn't looking for trouble or wasn't up to no good?

[3_runner]

I am surprised he wasn't convicted of a lesser charge. Assuming GZ approached TM. (cause I don't buy that whole. "getting out of his car to check what road he was on or something like that... If you're a neighborhood watch, you're pretty familiar with street names and location. Especially in your own neighborhood.) It sets a hell of a precedence when someone accosts you, you start beating his ass, he pulls out a gun and shots you... Then goes free.

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

I see that this leads to people learning that it's not ok to attack someone. Don't start shit there won't be shit.

That's what people who are responsible for their actions think. I don't start fights. Why? Because i KNOW that if i start a fight with someone and they pull out a knife and stab me i have no one to blame but myself. I am in control of my actions BECAUSE i will be accountable for them.
No, self defense has not gone haywire. Your example is flawed in so many ways. There is no way in hell that defense would hold up court. You can USE that defense when ever you want. But a jury of your peers have to be convinced that you believed your life was in danger and that your life was plausibly in danger.

What you described is intended murder with a vengeful motive. This in no way correlates to the GZ case.

Lastly, i am pro gun and i am also non-confrontational. I've never started or been in a fist fight in my life. I've defused all but 2 situations with words and non threatening actions. However on 2 occasions despite those efforts i was once punched in the side of the face from behind and the other was shot at in broad daylight with no provocation. You know what i learned in both of those situations? The cops were no where to be found when i needed them. This is why i carry a weapon. Should the rarest of situations arise where my life is in danger, i will be able to defend myself since the cops can not do so.

It's not my God given right to carry a weapon. It's my constitutional right. And if GZ was carrying a knife TM could have very well been killed in the same situation. Lets not forget that GZ was acting on behalf of a neighborhood watch program. He wasn't just out looking for some little black boy to kill like some of you make him out to be.

He did have to prove he didn't murder him. Do you think the outcome would have been the same if GZ lawyers didn't say a word? It'd called defense.

Should i be able to point at you and say you stole the wheels that are on your car from me? After all, the wheels are on YOUR car and not mine? Should i have to prove you stole them or should you have to prove you didn't? See how they are the same? I say you stole them, look they are on his car. You say, look at this receipt i have from this store i bought them from. I say, store, do you have record of him buying these wheels? Store says yes. I don't win in court unless i can prove you had the store lie for you.

You have every right to defend yourself, but the problem is what happens when you consider the other side? Could Trayvon not have felt threatened?
He was being followed.
So lets say he sees Zimmerman following him, so he turns around and says: hey dude WTF you following me for? with some fronting body language. Ol' georgy, now because he is trigger happy/PTSD/has confrontational issues, "feels threatened" and immediately reaches for or displays his firearm.
Trayvon, feels threatened AS WELL, not waiting for the next thing to happen, immediate reacts and tries to wrestle the gun away from Zimmerman.
Is Trayvon justified in reaching for the gun? In my mind, absolutely, because a random dude who is following you with a GUN - what do you do? You fight for your motherf**ing life.
All those of you who say Zimmerman didn't instigate anything, he was not the aggressor - this is BS and relies on racist/stereotypical thinking. Cause he is black he is likely to be the criminal that robbed us before .. neighbourhood watch has NO legality to do anything they are not cops.
This is not a situation where Zimmerman executed proper 'self-defence' because his actions were reckless, confrontational, dangerous - he was looking for trouble.
Martin was not looking for trouble. The only thing he did wrong was not run like a scared bitch because this is the 21st century and you already have a black president. What about a nation of laws, all equal before the law? Except when you still have juries consisting of people (let's face it, everybody is biased).
Case in point, South Africa, now that you have democratic rule with a black majority and a white minority .. ask the whites there how they think everything is going. It's going down the drain because the majority will just whip the ass of minorities (ask the Jews) at every opportunity. The only thing stopping this is a nation of laws, everybody is equal before the law.

I am pro-gun too, I believe in self defence, but the issue is proportionality.
Without proportionality all hell will go out the window.
It's like, oh you hacking our computers? We'll nuke you.
Give us snowdon or we'll send an ICMB to a moscow suburb.
That would be irrational.
The first step is complaint, then sanctions, then more and more punitive stuff.
If everybody went FULL RETARD at the slightest provocation can you see what the mess everything would be?
My point is the reaction must be in proportion to the offense.. or we would live in a very dangerous world.
No time to react/think with someone beating down on you? Well, if you really feel that threatened and you want to use you gun, then there are going to be consequences because that is that is only rational.
Otherwise, there is nothing stopping everybody from going full retard at minute infractions.
Not a lawyer, but proportionality is a keystone to law.
I think it's a toss up between the lesser murder charge and a definite manslaughter ... Zimmerman was dumb ass with a gun looking for trouble. If it wasn't Trayvon it would have been someone else sooner or latter.
No body should be a vigilante, unless you draw the line at calling the cops and hiding, why the fuck are you following a 'criminal' with a gun in the dark?
"For self-defense"
Well, does Trayvon not have a right to self-defence?
I am all for protecting you body and your life, but the actions Zimmerman took were just way past the point of defending himself, he was doing something very dangerous, and Travyon had just as much, if not more, reason to be suspicious of this person following him in the dark with a motherf***ing gun AND HE IS NOT COP.
Can you see how Travyon would have felt threatened?
Zimmerman was dangerous, and idiotic and the law should not condone this type of behaviour.
If the prosecution had done a better job, the lesser murder charge, AT LEAST manslaughter even as they did poorly as they did now.
Nope, the all-women, half of which have family that own guns, bought into the Zimmerman feeling threatened..
People are biased.. needed better lawyers.
You think the arguments would hold up with all black jury? Even you don't think that ... why?
It's all personal everyone can only see things from their own perspective..
I'm just saying this is a wacked-out definition of self-defence .. and it's never going to work/stand in the long run

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by grimlock

You have every right to defend yourself, but the problem is what happens when you consider the other side? Could Trayvon not have felt threatened?
He was being followed.
So lets say he sees Zimmerman following him, so he turns around and says: hey dude WTF you following me for? with some fronting body language. Ol' georgy, now because he is trigger happy/PTSD/has confrontational issues, "feels threatened" and immediately reaches for or displays his firearm.
Trayvon, feels threatened AS WELL, not waiting for the next thing to happen, immediate reacts and tries to wrestle the gun away from Zimmerman.
Is Trayvon justified in reaching for the gun? In my mind, absolutely, because a random dude who is following you with a GUN - what do you do? You fight for your motherf**ing life.
All those of you who say Zimmerman didn't instigate anything, he was not the aggressor - this is BS and relies on racist/stereotypical thinking. Cause he is black he is likely to be the criminal that robbed us before .. neighbourhood watch has NO legality to do anything they are not cops.
This is not a situation where Zimmerman executed proper 'self-defence' because his actions were reckless, confrontational, dangerous - he was looking for trouble.
Martin was not looking for trouble. The only thing he did wrong was not run like a scared bitch because this is the 21st century and you already have a black president. What about a nation of laws, all equal before the law? Except when you still have juries consisting of people (let's face it, everybody is biased).
Case in point, South Africa, now that you have democratic rule with a black majority and a white minority .. ask the whites there how they think everything is going. It's going down the drain because the majority will just whip the ass of minorities (ask the Jews) at every opportunity. The only thing stopping this is a nation of laws, everybody is equal before the law.

I am pro-gun too, I believe in self defence, but the issue is proportionality.
Without proportionality all hell will go out the window.
It's like, oh you hacking our computers? We'll nuke you.
Give us snowdon or we'll send an ICMB to a moscow suburb.
That would be irrational.
The first step is complaint, then sanctions, then more and more punitive stuff.
If everybody went FULL RETARD at the slightest provocation can you see what the mess everything would be?
My point is the reaction must be in proportion to the offense.. or we would live in a very dangerous world.
No time to react/think with someone beating down on you? Well, if you really feel that threatened and you want to use you gun, then there are going to be consequences because that is that is only rational.
Otherwise, there is nothing stopping everybody from going full retard at minute infractions.
Not a lawyer, but proportionality is a keystone to law.
I think it's a toss up between the lesser murder charge and a definite manslaughter ... Zimmerman was dumb ass with a gun looking for trouble. If it wasn't Trayvon it would have been someone else sooner or latter.
No body should be a vigilante, unless you draw the line at calling the cops and hiding, why the fuck are you following a 'criminal' with a gun in the dark?
"For self-defense"
Well, does Trayvon not have a right to self-defence?
I am all for protecting you body and your life, but the actions Zimmerman took were just way past the point of defending himself, he was doing something very dangerous, and Travyon had just as much, if not more, reason to be suspicious of this person following him in the dark with a motherf***ing gun AND HE IS NOT COP.
Can you see how Travyon would have felt threatened?
Zimmerman was dangerous, and idiotic and the law should not condone this type of behaviour.
If the prosecution had done a better job, the lesser murder charge, AT LEAST manslaughter even as they did poorly as they did now.
Nope, the all-women, half of which have family that own guns, bought into the Zimmerman feeling threatened..
People are biased.. needed better lawyers.
You think the arguments would hold up with all black jury? Even you don't think that ... why?
It's all personal everyone can only see things from their own perspective..
I'm just saying this is a wacked-out definition of self-defence .. and it's never going to work/stand in the long run

No offense, but unless you were there hovering over the whole incident from start to finish, everything you're saying is garbage.

You're acting as if this case is going to set a precedent that anyone can walk up to anyone and kill them while claiming it's self defense. That can happen now, it could happen 10 years ago and it will happen 10 years from now. You still have to convince a jury that it was self defense and that isn't as easy as you think.

Could have GZ fabricated the whole story? yes. But forensic experts examined all physical evidence and decided that it supported GZ's statement. Some aural witnesses didn't support GZ's statement and some did. The only eye witness's testimony supports GZ's statement. The injuries GZ's sustained could have been caused by many things but have a higher probability that they were caused by the events according to GZ's statement. Yet you are acting like the cops rolled up to the scene and shook GZ's hand and wished him a safe ride home. GZ didn't break any laws. Again, it's not illegal to follow someone and he had justification to do so. I've been part of a neighborhood watch when a string of break-ins were happening. I walked the streets in the middle of the night with my cell phone & firearm. I'm traveling the same paths as criminals during the same time they will be out. Is it not justified to bring something to defend myself with me that may be equal to what they have? If you are going to walk a game trail in africa when the predators are out are you going to just bring your flash light or will you bring a gun as well?

The majority of that post is you making stuff up. You can throw out hypothetical scenarios all you want but his statement of what happened was convincing enough, consistent enough, and substantiated enough by physical evidence and witness testimony to be acquitted of the charges. Why would GZ call 911 before the incident if he were just out looking for trouble? You think he concocted the whole plan before heading out that night? If so, stop asking for a lesser charge and accuse him of murder1. Also, it's not illegal for me to look at you and assume you are good at math or have a nice camera because you are Japanese. As you said, people profile, people stereo type, people are biased. It's something you and every other person on this planet does every day. It's human nature to categorize people by the differences between us. It's been going on since the dawn of time. Get over it. What you're doing is choosing not to believe his statement is true which is fine, you're entitled to that. But what i have a problem with is your intent to change a law that affects millions of people based on your speculation of what actually happened. And what happened could be exactly as GZ said it happened. You just don't know.

This proportionality business is garbage also because it's subjective. What's proportional? How about an 60 year old man who came to a woman's aid who was being attacked by a 21 year old man. What is the proportional response when the 21 year old is kicking the shit out of the old guy when he's on the ground? What is the proportional response when the old man is clearly just trying to block kicks and punches yet the 21 year old keeps attacking? How about you mouth off to Chuck Liddell or any other MMA capable fighter and he starts whoopin your ass? What's your proportional response going to be when you're going in and out of consciousness while getting your ass handed to you? According to you the measured response would be to fight back without weapon since they aren't being attacked with a weapon. What happens when someone of Kimbo Slice stature starts beating your ass. Are you supposed to be trained to fight at a world class level or have a MMA body guard with you when you're attacked? Do you see how the law can't make this happen because all cases are subjective? The law can't deny someone from defending themselves and the law can't deny them the use of a weapon for self defense should they lack hand to hand combat skills.

My problem with what your saying is that I don't want your speculation creating laws that affect my ability to legally protect my life and the lives of my family. I don't want my wife to go to jail because she shot a guy who trying to rape her at knife point. I don't want to go to jail because I shot some unarmed jack ass who broke into my house in the middle of the night. And i don't want to be confined to a wheelchair because i wasn't allowed to defend myself with anything other than my fist when some drunk MMA style fighter thinks i smiled at his girlfriend.

Have you contemplated anything outside of your imaginary version of what happened that night in Orlando?

[kmarei]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

I see.

So how are you so sure that TM wasn't looking for trouble or wasn't up to no good?

Well he was walking in the street, minding his own business, with a concealed bag of skittles
Had gz not been there
He would probably still be alive right now

Unless you count being black, and wearing a hoodie as "looking for trouble"

Even if he was up to no good, gz is not a cop
This isn't the Wild West anymore, where every man carries a gun and serves justice on his own.

[kmarei]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

No offense, but unless you were there hovering over the whole incident from start to finish, everything you're saying is garbage.

You're acting as if this case is going to set a precedent that anyone can walk up to anyone and kill them while claiming it's self defense. That can happen now, it could happen 10 years ago and it will happen 10 years from now. You still have to convince a jury that it was self defense and that isn't as easy as you think.

Could have GZ fabricated the whole story? yes. But forensic experts examined all physical evidence and decided that it supported GZ's statement. Some aural witnesses didn't support GZ's statement and some did. The only eye witness's testimony supports GZ's statement. The injuries GZ's sustained could have been caused by many things but have a higher probability that they were caused by the events according to GZ's statement. Yet you are acting like the cops rolled up to the scene and shook GZ's hand and wished him a safe ride home. GZ didn't break any laws. Again, it's not illegal to follow someone and he had justification to do so. I've been part of a neighborhood watch when a string of break-ins were happening. I walked the streets in the middle of the night with my cell phone & firearm. I'm traveling the same paths as criminals during the same time they will be out. Is it not justified to bring something to defend myself with me that may be equal to what they have? If you are going to walk a game trail in africa when the predators are out are you going to just bring your flash light or will you bring a gun as well?

The majority of that post is you making stuff up. You can throw out hypothetical scenarios all you want but his statement of what happened was convincing enough, consistent enough, and substantiated enough by physical evidence and witness testimony to be acquitted of the charges. Why would GZ call 911 before the incident if he were just out looking for trouble? You think he concocted the whole plan before heading out that night? If so, stop asking for a lesser charge and accuse him of murder1. Also, it's not illegal for me to look at you and assume you are good at math or have a nice camera because you are Japanese. As you said, people profile, people stereo type, people are biased. It's something you and every other person on this planet does every day. It's human nature to categorize people by the differences between us. It's been going on since the dawn of time. Get over it. What you're doing is choosing not to believe his statement is true which is fine, you're entitled to that. But what i have a problem with is your intent to change a law that affects millions of people based on your speculation of what actually happened. And what happened could be exactly as GZ said it happened. You just don't know.

This proportionality business is garbage also because it's subjective. What's proportional? How about an 60 year old man who came to a woman's aid who was being attacked by a 21 year old man. What is the proportional response when the 21 year old is kicking the shit out of the old guy when he's on the ground? What is the proportional response when the old man is clearly just trying to block kicks and punches yet the 21 year old keeps attacking? How about you mouth off to Chuck Liddell or any other MMA capable fighter and he starts whoopin your ass? What's your proportional response going to be when you're going in and out of consciousness while getting your ass handed to you? According to you the measured response would be to fight back without weapon since they aren't being attacked with a weapon. What happens when someone of Kimbo Slice stature starts beating your ass. Are you supposed to be trained to fight at a world class level or have a MMA body guard with you when you're attacked? Do you see how the law can't make this happen because all cases are subjective? The law can't deny someone from defending themselves and the law can't deny them the use of a weapon for self defense should they lack hand to hand combat skills.

My problem with what your saying is that I don't want your speculation creating laws that affect my ability to legally protect my life and the lives of my family. I don't want my wife to go to jail because she shot a guy who trying to rape her at knife point. I don't want to go to jail because I shot some unarmed jack ass who broke into my house in the middle of the night. And i don't want to be confined to a wheelchair because i wasn't allowed to defend myself with anything other than my fist when some drunk MMA style fighter thinks i smiled at his girlfriend.

Have you contemplated anything outside of your imaginary version of what happened that night in Orlando?

When I first came to the states
I was 100% against gun ownership
After loving here, and seeing the amount of whackos
I agree if you have ONE hand gun to protect your house, makes perfect sense
But to walk around with a gun, is just a walking time bomb

Going out in the street and playing cop, is not a matter of self defense
Gzs life was not in danger initially
He placed himself in such a position
Tm did not come looking for gz

I think in this kind of a situation, maybe a taser would have been a much better option
Even if we believe gzs version of the events, he would have spared his life had he used a taser.
Ending someone's life as a way to end conflict should not be happening in a first world county
That kind of shit happens in 3rd world countries, where the masses are ignorant, and there is no police force to speak of.

[KingOfJericho]

Originally Posted by kmarei

When I first came to the states
I was 100% against gun ownership
After loving here, and seeing the amount of whackos
I agree if you have ONE hand gun to protect your house, makes perfect sense
But to walk around with a gun, is just a walking time bomb

Going out in the street and playing cop, is not a matter of self defense
Gzs life was not in danger initially
He placed himself in such a position
Tm did not come looking for gz

I think in this kind of a situation, maybe a taser would have been a much better option
Even if we believe gzs version of the events, he would have spared his life had he used a taser.
Ending someone's life as a way to end conflict should not be happening in a first world county
That kind of shit happens in 3rd world countries, where the masses are ignorant, and there is no police force to speak of.

Just to be clear, you think it makes perfect sense to have a gun to protect your house but not to protect your life? Your life travels with you, thus the carry and conceal permit.

You are also contradicting yourself because as a captain of the neighborhood watch in his community, he is carrying his ONE handgun to protect his home and those of his community which you just said makes perfect sense.

GZs life was not in danger until he was punched in the face and having his head slammed onto the sidewalk. That was brought on by TM, not GZ. The situation was not violent until TM made it so. Following someone does not justify a violent assault.

[kmarei]

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

Just to be clear, you think it makes perfect sense to have a gun to protect your house but not to protect your life? Your life travels with you, thus the carry and conceal permit.

You are also contradicting yourself because as a captain of the neighborhood watch in his community, he is carrying his ONE handgun to protect his home and those of his community which you just said makes perfect sense.

GZs life was not in danger until he was punched in the face and having his head slammed onto the sidewalk. That was brought on by TM, not GZ. The situation was not violent until TM made it so. Following someone does not justify a violent assault.

And as a captain of the neighborhood watch, he was not supposed to be carrying a weapon. Those are the rules. If he didn't like them, he shouldn't have been part of it
GZs life was not in any danger had he phoned the police and stayed in his car

How do you known that TM did not slam GZs head into the ground when he found out GZ was carrying a gun, and was doing whatever is necessary to protect his own life?

Fact remains that TM did not start this situation
gz did this by choosing to play cop
Had GZ not been around
TM would have gone to the store, bought his stupid skittles and went home
End of story.

[Mr Tonka]

you guys can't just rewrite reality as fact. What you are saying are possibilities not certainties. If GZ wasn't there TM may have broken into a car or a house or maybe gone around the corner to buy or sell some weed. And yes, he may have just gone home. All of this however, is speculation.

[Louder]

To me, it speak volumes when defendants of any murder trial do not take the stand such as Zimmerman, Anthony and the Juice. I know defendants are allowed not to testify because of constitutional protections, but I would like to see murder defendants be required to testify in their trials. There is just too much at stake to let a potential threat back on the streets. The justice system is more about winning a trial rather than finding true justice.

My biggest question in this case is if GZ brandished or warned TM that he was packing heat prior to the physical altercation. Overall, this event was tragic and avoidable.

[Devious21]

Originally Posted by grimlock

Trayvon, feels threatened AS WELL, not waiting for the next thing to happen, immediate reacts and tries to wrestle the gun away from Zimmerman.

1) There was no DNA from Trayvon on the gun.
2) You think it's likely Zimmerman would call the police minutes before approaching Trayvon and committing a crime with police on the way?

People that are unfamiliar with guns might think that CCW holders wait for any excuse to draw their weapon. Drawing or brandishing your firearm can be a felony and is an easy way to permanently lose your 2nd amendment rights. This is a very illogical series of made up events.

Originally Posted by grimlock

This is not a situation where Zimmerman executed proper 'self-defence' because his actions were reckless, confrontational, dangerous - he was looking for trouble.
Martin was not looking for trouble. The only thing he did wrong was not run like a scared bitch because this is the 21st century and you already have a black president.

Regardless of what color you are, you can only use deadly force if someone poses an IMMEDIATE threat to your life. If at any time during the confrontation, the attacker is no longer a threat, your life is no longer in danger. If you attempt to kill someone from behind, or who's down or in any way not an immediate threat, you go to jail.

From what we can tell, Zimmerman did not do this. Trayvon did.

Originally Posted by grimlock

I am pro-gun too, I believe in self defence, but the issue is proportionality.
Without proportionality all hell will go out the window.
If everybody went FULL RETARD at the slightest provocation can you see what the mess everything would be?

What part of being brutally assaulted is a "slightest provocation"? If you ever find yourself on your back, in the dark while it's raining, with a broken nose pouring blood into your eyes and down the back of your throat, hindering your ability to see or breath, while an attacker has you mounted and is pounding your skull into the pavement as you're screaming for help for over 45 seconds and you DO NOT legitimately fear for your life, one of these three things is happening:

1) Brain damage has already set in from your injuries and you will be missed.
2) This is natural selection finishing a job that should have been done long ago and you will not be missed.
3) You're lying because your ashamed that "fearing for your life" would make you a "scared bitch"

[schoy]

Originally Posted by kmarei

Name me another first world country where everyone knows gz shot tm
We yet he walks away
Not even a slap on the wrist
Well unless you count the fact that he hasn't gotten his gun back yet
Poor fellow

No one's arguing that GZ shot TM. But that alone does not convict for second-degree murder.

I'm sorry, perhaps I was presumptuous as well. Do you even understand the concept of "burden of proof"? I'll make this very simple: we live in a country where one is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Not the other way around. At this point, either you're completely ignorant about the basic principles of due process of law, or you're just trolling.

[schoy]

Originally Posted by kmarei

And as a captain of the neighborhood watch, he was not supposed to be carrying a weapon. Those are the rules. If he didn't like them, he shouldn't have been part of it
GZs life was not in any danger had he phoned the police and stayed in his car

Was he illegally carrying a gun?

Originally Posted by kmarei

How do you known that TM did not slam GZs head into the ground when he found out GZ was carrying a gun, and was doing whatever is necessary to protect his own life?

Now you're just speculating again. Again, it's your burden to prove that GZ intentionally sought out TM to murder him.

Originally Posted by kmarei

Fact remains that TM did not start this situation
gz did this by choosing to play cop
Had GZ not been around
TM would have gone to the store, bought his stupid skittles and went home
End of story.

You're STILL speculating. How is it "fact"? Were you there? Did you see what happened? Do you have eyewitnesses? So quick to accuse, but without any proof ...

EDIT: Oh, and your "Had GZ not been around" is a completely specious argument. By this logic, you might as well blame TM's dad: Had TM's dad not taken TM to visit his fiancee and her son, TM would never have been in the neighborhood, and TM would still be alive. Ergo, by your argument, TM's dad should be guilty of a crime ... [Completely ridiculous]

[R1robot]

This should answer any doubts on both ends of supporters.

[grimlock]

^Well that's that then, consistency is the only thing anyone is asking for.
(Just my personal requirement for self-defence is just a little higher than what the courts have determined. Seems like in America nobody should want to start shit on a physical level, ever)

[grimlock]

American definition of self-defence

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by grimlock

^Well that's that then, consistency is the only thing anyone is asking for.
(Just my personal requirement for self-defence is just a little higher than what the courts have determined. Seems like in America nobody should want to start shit on a physical level, ever)

Yeah, the days of settling something outside are gone. People are just different. 20 years ago when two guys got into a heated argument it was settled with a fight. But the people in the fight were still reasonable. If one was really beating the other, the fight would end either by the winner stoping or the loser giving up. And sometimes these fights were even followed up with them have a beer together.

Now when someone is losing they just keep coming or talking shit or run home to get friends. And lots of time the guy that is the winner doesn't stop. We've all seen videos of fights where someone knocks another guy out and after he's out he AND his friends continues to kick the guy, then piss on him and rob him.

There are no more gentlemanly fights anymore. People are too prideful and unpredictable anymore.

So yes you're right. Don't start shit, there won't be shit. Seems perfectly fine with me. You should always be in control of your actions and emotions.

[Devious21]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

Yeah, the days of settling something outside are gone. People are just different. 20 years ago when two guys got into a heated argument it was settled with a fight. But the people in the fight were still reasonable. If one was really beating the other, the fight would end either by the winner stoping or the loser giving up. And sometimes these fights were even followed up with them have a beer together.

Now when someone is losing they just keep coming or talking shit or run home to get friends. And lots of time the guy that is the winner doesn't stop. We've all seen videos of fights where someone knocks another guy out and after he's out he AND his friends continues to kick the guy, then piss on him and rob him.

There are no more gentlemanly fights anymore. People are too prideful and unpredictable anymore.

So yes you're right. Don't start shit, there won't be shit. Seems perfectly fine with me. You should always be in control of your actions and emotions.

I agree. A normal disagreement these days can too easily turn deadly with people shooting or stabbing the other person or like you said, kicking the person while they're down. I think that's an issue of honor in our society. If someone shoots another person for insulting them, they are seen as "hard" instead of a coward or social outcast. There is no social punishment for that behaviour any more, which is a problem.

But even today, if you mix words with someone in a bar and the they offer to "take it outside", at that point you are either choosing to either apologize and solve it with words or you are choosing to fight and solve it physically. It may not end up being a fair fight but its understood that's the purpose. A fight. One you're agreeing to.

BUT - If you get into a spontaneous altercation on the street in the dark with no one else around and that person beats you to the ground and continues beating you, nothing about that seems consensual and there's no one around to help. At that point I would do anything within my power to prevent the attacker from possibly taking my life, including taking his.

[Devious21]

Originally Posted by R1robot

This should answer any doubts on both ends of supporters.

Imagine how much harder it would have been for Zimmerman if he hadn't have allowed Trayvon to beat him for over 45 seconds before shooting him.

I wonder if he'd be in jail right now.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by Devious21

BUT - If you get into a spontaneous altercation on the street in the dark with no one else around and that person beats you to the ground and continues beating you, nothing about that seems consensual and there's no one around to help. At that point I would do anything within my power to prevent the attacker from possibly taking my life, including taking his.

When i put myself in the positions of each person in the same alleged situation i find myself doing something different if i were in TM's position and doing the same thing if i were in GZ's position. Switching places with them after GZ was out of his truck i mean.

If i were TM and was really worried about someone following me i would have just taken off running. If i jump into his shoes after he confronts GZ i would have thrown a punch and then run.

If i were in GZ's place, when TM hit me i would have been a bit surprised as i hit the ground. But my first though would have been that the kid that just hit me is off and running. I would have been shocked when he mounted my chest and continued the assault. At that point my assessment of the situation would have changed dramatically. I would have gone from thinking that the kid got the best of me to i'm in serous trouble. Staying to continue the beating shows his intent is was different than escaping a scary situation. A person that does this leads others to believe they intend to do great bodily harm, including possibly killing the person they are beating. If i were on the receiving end of this beating, like you, i too would use what ever means i had to end the assault.