Yawn
Zimmerman/Martin Jury
- Thread starter Stoked
- Start date
He could have easily just strolled up to the kid in his car, or just not even go there. There is always less of a possibility of death when guns aren't involved. Not trying to advocate banning of concealed laws or anything, or more control. Just advocating people to stop being idiots.
The jury couldn't convict because of lack of evidence. We don't know if Zimmerman didn't pull his gun out of form the get-go, causing the kid to panic.
I know I've been overactive in the Zimmerman threads, but I've laid out a pretty strong (in my opinion, lol) argument against armed neighborhood watch volunteers. I've also suggested the rules for those carrying a concealed weapon should be revised to include "rules of engagement" that I think should be printed on a card and carried at all times that a person carries a concealed weapon. I think "stand your ground" is fine, but I think there should be rules forbidding a person with a concealed carry weapon from ever pursuing someone, or initiating any sort of physical confrontation while carrying a weapon. A concealed carry weapon provides certain options in extreme situations that an unarmed person would not have, but I also feel that it should limit a person to some extent as well.
All that said, Zimmerman was keeping an eye on someone he deemed as suspicious. He was on the phone with the police for the majority of the time that he was watching Trayvon. According to his story and consistent with the evidence Trayvon had essentially gotten away from Zimmerman but doubled back, laid in wait and attacked Zimmerman. While I think the law should have been different, making any claim of self defense while being armed and pursuing someone he himself deemed as dangerous invalid, that wasn't the law at the time. Zimmerman was obeying the law, carrying according to the law, in a place he had a legal right to be...and he was attacked. He had a right at that moment to not be attacked. He had a right to self defense. He had the means to defend himself. He fired a single round into his attacker's chest which stopped the attack and Zimmerman took no further actions to harm Trayvon.
Last edited by a moderator:
In this case that is worlds better than the accusations of his opponents. If they want to attack his self righteousness than that is more than fine. Just do it in a way that has substance. Provide real critique and actual ideas. Not crap about how O'Reilly isn't black so he cannot comment on it. That is lunacy. By attacking those that bring the problem up they are only ensuring that the problem will never be fixed.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
If Zimmerman was correct, and the acquital means that there is at least some possibility that his version of the story is correct, then Zimmerman may have been the one that died that night, and it may have been Trayvon on the stand instead, if Zimmerman hadn't had a gun to protect himself. But that wouldn't be sensational enough to even make regional media, so we wouldn't be discussing that here most likely.
Oh just saw this one, must have missed it. This is right on.
I don't care to get drawn into a debate framed in this left v right paradigm that you're hitting on. I don't care what O'Reilly's "opponents" have to say anymore than I care what he's blathering on about. You're being naïve too if you think he's sparking important discussion instead of destroying it; the debate has been vibrant for decades and O'Reilly is an ideologue. He's biased by his own definition, thus incapable of adding anything to the discussion.
There's plenty of scholarly literature on inner city poverty. What does it tell you when O'Reilly refuses to read it and instead sidetracks the discussion with his inflammatory talking points? His job is to stir people up to anger, which is one reason I call his ilk self-righteous Christians. The only difference between our political hack trolls and the Oh-Really's is that the latter is good enough to make millions off of working people up over their own stupidity.
He still provides a stage for real debate.
Cute.
Cute my ***. He provides a chance for real debate. Even if he is off his points. If people don't take that chance than that's one thing but the chance is there.
It was a great opportunity for sharpton, mk3, Jackson...to bust out their thoughts on what the problems are and how to address them.
If any real debate is started it'll happen with people like oreilly, hannity, sharpton and Jackson. As pathetic as that is. That's the power of a national stage.
I'm talking debate on a national level. Not two college professors sitting at a table. Such a high profile "debate" would get people thinking. At least some people.
You forgot Mission Accomplished.