What's new
By:

Zimmerman/Martin Jury

Gameface said:
Dude, Zimmerman's not my brother or my friend. If he died tomorrow I wouldn't care. If he was found guilty I wouldn't care (other than it would be the wrong decision). I'm not invested in this case and I'm done talking to you about it since I've already covered all this ground at least twice now with other people and you seem to think I'm being unreasonable.

Your points are valid. Go back and look at the things I've said in the past about this case. I've agreed with most of what you're saying. My opinion has changed based on the facts I've seen. Suck it.
Click to expand...

You should create a Zimmerman brew. It would be a great chaser....

"I wasn't following him, I was just going in the same direction as him". - George Zimmerman
Police laughing, "mmm, that's following...."
 
Revolution 9 said:
You should create a Zimmerman brew. It would be a great chaser....

"I wasn't following him, I was just going in the same direction as him". - George Zimmerman
Police laughing, "mmm, that's following...."
Click to expand...

Even if he was a reasonable doubt is obviously there. He gets off.
 
Gameface said:
Infringed on what rights? You're getting silly here. If you're walking around outside I can follow you around all I want. If you run I can run to keep up. If you dodge behind a wall I can go take a look at the other side of the wall. What rights did Zimmerman violate?
Click to expand...

This is ridiculous. You make the claim that Zimmerman is legally innocent(quite likely true, whether I like it or not), but you also make the claim that he is morally innocent. Then you come up with his gem. Are you actually suggesting that as long as everything Zimmerman did was legal, he cannot have done something immoral?

If I were to walk up to a random man at a restaurant who is having dinner with his wife and 16-year old daughter, I could legally stand next to him and tell him in graphic details what nasty, German-porn kind of things I would do to his very-much-of-legal-age daughter(given her consent, naturally). I could also legally keep my finger a few inches from his eye while laughing and chanting "Not touching you. Not touching you. Ha-ha-ha!" I could then legally follow him out of the restaurant while he and his family walk two blocks to their car. I could then legally get into my car(by a fortuitous coincidence, it is next to theirs) and follow the family to their house in some cul-de-sac. I could then legally park my car on the public street in front of their house with lights on and spend the entire night there.

All these things are legal, but do I not at some point acquire moral responsibility for any and every outcome of this ridiculous situation? Or is it all cool if I'm not breaking the law?
 
Zimmerman is probably innocent legally, but definitely not morally. He'll live with it the rest of his life that his overzealous actions killed a kid.

This post brought to you by UGLI baby
 
UGLI baby said:
Zimmerman is probably innocent legally, but definitely not morally. He'll live with it the rest of his life that his overzealous actions killed a kid.

This post brought to you by UGLI baby
Click to expand...

Good job recapping the majority opinion. Bold move.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JimLes said:
This is ridiculous. You make the claim that Zimmerman is legally innocent(quite likely true, whether I like it or not), but you also make the claim that he is morally innocent. Then you come up with his gem. Are you actually suggesting that as long as everything Zimmerman did was legal, he cannot have done something immoral?

If I were to walk up to a random man at a restaurant who is having dinner with his wife and 16-year old daughter, I could legally stand next to him and tell him in graphic details what nasty, German-porn kind of things I would do to his very-much-of-legal-age daughter(given her consent, naturally). I could also legally keep my finger a few inches from his eye while laughing and chanting "Not touching you. Not touching you. Ha-ha-ha!" I could then legally follow him out of the restaurant while he and his family walk two blocks to their car. I could then legally get into my car(by a fortuitous coincidence, it is next to theirs) and follow the family to their house in some cul-de-sac. I could then legally park my car on the public street in front of their house with lights on and spend the entire night there.

All these things are legal, but do I not at some point acquire moral responsibility for any and every outcome of this ridiculous situation? Or is it all cool if I'm not breaking the law?
Click to expand...


Did you get your example from a post I made on this very subject?

https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php?13402-Zimmerman-Martin-Case&highlight=zimmerman
There is a question in all this I don't really know the answer to. If Zimmerman was the aggressor and your story is fairly accurate, at what point does Zimmerman surrender his right to self-defense? If I can make a loose analogy, just because a girl is making out with you and wearing provocative clothes (or not wearing clothes) she retains the right to say "no" at any point. So, even if Zimmerman was following Martin and harassing him, does that mean he has surrendered his right to defend himself should Martin react to the harassment by attacking Zimmerman? Unless Zimmerman struck first Martin would have committed a crime by physically attacking Zimmerman, correct? So doesn'tZimmerman have the right to protect himself from an illegal physical attack?

Now, to me this is actually a big problem for supporters of individuals' right to self defense and by extension the right to use firearms for self defense. If I can basically taunt someone, sort of like the big brother poking at his little brother while saying "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you," then when the person being taunted responds I pull out my firearm and kill them and claim justified self defense. That's not okay in my book, even though I'm a very avid supporter of a person's right to defend them self. I think that's what may have happened in this case. I think a clearer guideline needs to be established based on this case.
Click to expand...

Go ahead and read the rest of what I wrote if you or anyone else wants to continue arguing with me about this. I have been over this **** already.
 
So if Zimmerman walks, what is the over/under on A) How long he lives before somebody exacts their "revenge"? B) How long/big the riots will be?
 
Surely said:
So if Zimmerman walks, what is the over/under on A) How long he lives before somebody exacts their "revenge"? B) How long/big the riots will be?
Click to expand...

Neither will happen.
 
Stoked said:
I think the posibility of some riots is possible.
Click to expand...

I can see demonstrations, I think the reality of the matter will prevent any large scale rioting. Anyone who's paying attention to the trial knows that the prosecution has not proved anything beyond reasonable doubt. If it was clear that this was 100% not self-defense I could see a stronger reaction, but I think it's obvious Zimmerman shot Trayvon in the heat of a physical altercation, one in which Zimmerman was injured. That right there makes a guilty verdict pretty much impossible based on the state seeking 2nd degree murder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top