So.... good shoot?

[Ichinisan]

wtf is the obsession with treyvon martin? 8 people were killed in chicago Aug 3 and 4 of this year. And nobody cares. But if the media tells you that it was a white guy (but wasn't he hispanic? Nah that doesn't sell as well) who killed a black kid, then some of you people just can't shut up about it 7 years later. It's baffling and comical.

Because if they catch the shooters in Chicago they don't go free because of some stand your ground law.

SYG wasn't used in the Zimmerman / Martin case. Sheesh!

Oh, jesus, here we go again!

Yup!

No, self defense was used but please tell me the huge difference. Either way, I think if you pick a fight you should lose your right to defend with lethal force.

With SYG, you don't have to retreat if you're able to. Zimmerman couldn't retreat when Martin was fighting him obviously.

We don't know if Zimmerman ever said anything provocative before the fight, though I doubt it. The evidence leans heavily that Martin initiated it.

Yeah all the evidence except that Zimmerman was deliberately following Martin, right?

Jesus fucking Christ

 

[allisolm]

SYG wasn't used in the Zimmerman / Martin case. Sheesh!

It wasn't used in this case either.

 

[CZroe]

It wasn't used in this case either.

Yes. This was a tangent from dank69 incorrectly saying that SYG would have made the difference between Sanford, FL and Chicago, IL with the Trayvon Martin case. Just like the FL case described in the OP, SYG was not involved. dank69 dug his heels in and demanded to know how it invalidates his original point regarding Trayvon and Chicago.

 

[dank69]

Because you were incorrectly trying to draw a distinction between Chicago, IL and Sanford, FL using two different legal defenses, even though the legal defense used applies and presumably would have worked in both places. Duh.

SYG's lack of duty to retreat before defending yourself with lethal force never even factored. The lack of duty to retreat in FL is not some difference in addition to SYG. It literally is SYG.

No I wasn't trying to draw that distinction. Railer brought up Chicago to make the point that nobody cares about those killings, they only care about TM, implying that the only reason people care about TM is because of political points that can be scored on racial issues. I was making the point that is false. People cared about TM because they believe GZ instigated an incident, the incident got out of hand, and then GZ used that as an excuse to kill someone and then walked. If someone from Chicago picked a fight and then killed someone because they feared for their life and then got off, people would care. It sets a dangerous precedent where armed people can just go around starting shit in order to murder people. I didn't enter this thread to argue about what did or did not happen between GZ and TM. I'm just explaining why that incident was such a big deal. People perceive it as GZ itching for an excuse to murder someone, whether or not that was the case. I perceive it that way as well because as I see it, we have two choices:

GZ was trying to watch TM only to make sure TM didn't break any laws. GM was not being aggressive in any manner. TM spotted GZ and proceeded to kick the shit out of GZ for no reason.
or
GZ started following TM in an intimidating manner to the point it made TM uncomfortable enough to initiate contact. Maybe words were exchanged first, maybe not. Maybe TM asked GZ "wtf dude?" and maybe GZ said nothing or maybe GZ said some shit. Maybe GZ was the first to initiate contact or say something. We don't know because TM is dead and GZ can say whatever he wants, so not really worth speculating. GZ gets a pass because we can't prove anything.

So, I'm left with choosing to believe TM decided to beat the shit out of someone for pretty much no reason or that GZ started some shit. Given GZ's behavior since the incident, I lean toward the latter.

 

[dank69]

Yes. This was a tangent from dank69 incorrectly saying that SYG would have made the difference between FL and IL with the Trayvon Martin case as an example. Just like the case described in the OP, SYG was not involved. dank69 dug his heels in and demanded to know why his original point regarding Trayvon and Chicago was not relevant.

No it was a tangent caused by you guys misinterpretting my statement "some SYG type of law" into "the difference was definitively SYG."

 

[CZroe]

No it was a tangent caused by you guys misinterpretting my statement "some SYG type of law" into "the difference was definitively SYG."

*facepalm*

That's BS and you know it.

wtf is the obsession with treyvon martin? 8 people were killed in chicago Aug 3 and 4 of this year. And nobody cares. But if the media tells you that it was a white guy (but wasn't he hispanic? Nah that doesn't sell as well) who killed a black kid, then some of you people just can't shut up about it 7 years later. It's baffling and comical.

Because if they catch the shooters in Chicago they don't go free because of some stand your ground law.

What made you think I wouldn't go back and quote it?

You literally answered that the difference was some SYG law when it demonstrably wasn't any kind of SYG law. Your point was entirely and completely invalid once your assumption was addressed and yet you still dug your heels in and demanded to know how it was invalid, even going as far as to act like SYG and having no duty to retreat were different things in order to incorrectly imply that one still had some bearing on Trayvon's case. You are grasping at imaginary straws.

Would've been better to know what you were talking about in the first place.

 

[CZroe]

So the only differences are that SYG isn't available everywhere and the retreat thing Maxima mentioned. How does that invalidate my original point?

Because you were incorrectly trying to draw a distinction between Chicago, IL and Sanford, FL using two different legal defenses, even though the legal defense used applies and presumably would have worked in both places. Duh.

SYG's lack of duty to retreat before defending yourself with lethal force never even factored. The lack of duty to retreat in FL is not some difference in addition to SYG. It literally is SYG.

No I wasn't trying to draw that distinction.

Just keep saying it. Absolutely everyone can see you were trying to draw that distinction in the following quote:

wtf is the obsession with treyvon martin? 8 people were killed in chicago Aug 3 and 4 of this year. And nobody cares. But if the media tells you that it was a white guy (but wasn't he hispanic? Nah that doesn't sell as well) who killed a black kid, then some of you people just can't shut up about it 7 years later. It's baffling and comical.

Because if they catch the shooters in Chicago they don't go free because of some stand your ground law.

That invalid distinction was literally your only point yet now you have the nerve to balk at the people who answer you when you ask "How does that invalidate my original point?"

You opened yourself up to this and you aren't even man enough to admit your mistake. You were wrong. The media made a big deal about SYG and Trayvon/Zimmerman. Blame them if you must.

Railer brought up Chicago to make the point that nobody cares about those killings, they only care about TM, implying that the only reason people care about TM is because of political points that can be scored on racial issues. I was making the point that is false. People cared about TM because they believe GZ instigated an incident, the incident got out of hand, and then GZ used that as an excuse to kill someone and then walked. If someone from Chicago picked a fight and then killed someone because they feared for their life and then got off, people would care. It sets a dangerous precedent where armed people can just go around starting shit in order to murder people.

Don't mince your words. "Because if they catch the shooters in Chicago they don't go free because of some stand your ground law." implies that Zimmerman went free because of some SYG law, then you asked how the truth invalidated your point and I obliged.

I didn't enter this thread to argue about what did or did not happen between GZ and TM. I'm just explaining why that incident was such a big deal. People perceive it as GZ itching for an excuse to murder someone, whether or not that was the case.

Well, it sure doesn't look like you did much to avoid the mess Paladin3 saw coming. It looks like you deliberately asked for it, even challenging people to tell you why your point was invalid after refusing to clarify your messy/incorrect distinction.

I perceive it that way as well because as I see it, we have two choices:

GZ was trying to watch TM only to make sure TM didn't break any laws. GM was not being aggressive in any manner. TM spotted GZ and proceeded to kick the shit out of GZ for no reason.
or
GZ started following TM in an intimidating manner to the point it made TM uncomfortable enough to initiate contact. Maybe words were exchanged first, maybe not. Maybe TM asked GZ "wtf dude?" and maybe GZ said nothing or maybe GZ said some shit. Maybe GZ was the first to initiate contact or say something. We don't know because TM is dead and GZ can say whatever he wants, so not really worth speculating. GZ gets a pass because we can't prove anything.

So, I'm left with choosing to believe TM decided to beat the shit out of someone for pretty much no reason or that GZ started some shit. Given GZ's behavior since the incident, I lean toward the latter.

You mean his behavior where he tried to keep his distance and direct police to Trayvon, only exiting his vehicle when it became impossible to follow from the street? Do you mean his behavior where the 911 operator asked him not to follow and he agreed? Do you mean his behavior where he expressed concern with how long it was taking for the police to arrive and stopped short of giving his home address out of explicitly-stated concern that Trayvon may be near enough to overhear and ambush him there?

This whole Trayvon tangent started with HomerJS' notion that "gun nutters" get away with murder by counting on there being no witnesses "Similar to what happened to Trayvon Martin." Not only were there witnesses, but he was actively calling for police and fretting that they may not arrive in time. If he was cruisin' for a bruisin' because he wanted to murder someone and get away by claiming self defense he probably should have shot before calling the police... don't you think?

If you ask me, the conspiracy to commit and get away with murder is the one that sounds far less likely.

 

[allisolm]

How 'bout let's not discuss Martin any more in this thread. Please!

 

[dank69]

*facepalm*

That's BS and you know it.


What made you think I wouldn't go back and quote it?

You literally answered that the difference was some SYG law when it demonstrably wasn't any kind of SYG law. Your point was entirely and completely invalid once your assumption was addressed and yet you still dug your heels in and demanded to know how it was invalid, even going as far as to act like SYG and having no duty to retreat were different things in order to incorrectly imply that one still had some bearing on Trayvon's case. You are grasping at imaginary straws.

Would've been better to know what you were talking about in the first place.

I'm sorry you don't understand the word "some" in this context. I deliberately put the word "some" there because I didn't know exactly what law applied, I just knew is was something like SYG or self-defense, but the specific law didn't matter AT ALL to the point I was making. Hopefully you are better able to understand how communication works going forward.

 

[jackstar7]

I'm sorry you don't understand the word "some" in this context. I deliberately put the word "some" there because I didn't know exactly what law applied, I just knew is was something like SYG or self-defense, but the specific law didn't matter AT ALL to the point I was making. Hopefully you are better able to understand how communication works going forward.

He just likes to beat the GZ was right drum.

 

[dank69]

He just likes to beat the GZ was right drum.

They also both love their pedantry.

 

[Paladin3]

With SYG, you don't have to retreat if you're able to. Zimmerman couldn't retreat when Martin was fighting him obviously.

We don't know if Zimmerman ever said anything provocative before the fight, though I doubt it. The evidence leans heavily that Martin initiated it.

Even if Zimmerman said something, you can't justify violence based on being provoked with words. Nor can you justify violence because you were "being followed." Period.

And stand your ground only applies in very specific situations, mostly in your own home. It makes it okay to defend yourself, your family and sometimes your home with reasonable deadly force without the automatic duty to try to retreat. But the attack and threat must be found reasonable in a court of law. Just because the shooter thinks they had sufficient cause to shoot doesn't make it automatically so.

People keep saying that Stand Your Ground laws automatically justify any shoot if the shooter claims they were afraid. It's a fucking lie. I'm tired of arguing with people who lie and think they have the moral high ground in this argument.

 

[Paladin3]

No, self defense was used but please tell me the huge difference. Either way, I think if you pick a fight you should lose your right to defend with lethal force.

So, following someone is now picking a fight. Being followed justifies you attacking someone as Martin did? You have a fucked up set of morals and a very skewed idea of what the law says.

I'd hate to think you are letting race cloud your judgement in this case.

 

[Paladin3]

Yeah all the evidence except that Zimmerman was deliberately following Martin, right?

And that justifies a physical attack in your lame brain?

 

[Paladin3]

...until he wasn't.

...not that it would justify the attack if he still were. Seriously. Is this the level you operate on? Neighborhood Watch can't justifiably watch?

This level of perpetual self-delusion around the incident soliciting others to correct the record wherever they see it misrepresented is exactly why Paladin3 said "here we go again."

And when the shout of disinformation is louder than the truth it really makes you want to weep for humanity. When did science, truth and facts become so subjective and malleable by those who hate? Some men will surrender their souls for the thrill of being a rebel.

 

[Ichinisan]

I'm sorry you don't understand the word "some" in this context. I deliberately put the word "some" there because I didn't know exactly what law applied, I just knew is was something like SYG or self-defense, but the specific law didn't matter AT ALL to the point I was making. Hopefully you are better able to understand how communication works going forward.

LOL! Sure.

 

[Paladin3]

No I wasn't trying to draw that distinction. Railer brought up Chicago to make the point that nobody cares about those killings, they only care about TM, implying that the only reason people care about TM is because of political points that can be scored on racial issues. I was making the point that is false. People cared about TM because they believe GZ instigated an incident, the incident got out of hand, and then GZ used that as an excuse to kill someone and then walked. If someone from Chicago picked a fight and then killed someone because they feared for their life and then got off, people would care. It sets a dangerous precedent where armed people can just go around starting shit in order to murder people. I didn't enter this thread to argue about what did or did not happen between GZ and TM. I'm just explaining why that incident was such a big deal. People perceive it as GZ itching for an excuse to murder someone, whether or not that was the case. I perceive it that way as well because as I see it, we have two choices:

GZ was trying to watch TM only to make sure TM didn't break any laws. GM was not being aggressive in any manner. TM spotted GZ and proceeded to kick the shit out of GZ for no reason.
or
GZ started following TM in an intimidating manner to the point it made TM uncomfortable enough to initiate contact. Maybe words were exchanged first, maybe not. Maybe TM asked GZ "wtf dude?" and maybe GZ said nothing or maybe GZ said some shit. Maybe GZ was the first to initiate contact or say something. We don't know because TM is dead and GZ can say whatever he wants, so not really worth speculating. GZ gets a pass because we can't prove anything.

So, I'm left with choosing to believe TM decided to beat the shit out of someone for pretty much no reason or that GZ started some shit. Given GZ's behavior since the incident, I lean toward the latter.

I quit reading when you characterized Martin physically attacking Zimmerman as things "getting out of hand." Zimmerman following Martin does not justify the attack. Following someone is 100% legal and not considered anything even close to starting a fight or "creating a situation." Period. We have neighborhood watch and patrols that do exactly that all over the world.

The idiot in Florida wasn't found guilty because he started "the situation" when he confronted the woman over parking in a handicap spot. He was found guilty because at the moment he shot, the man who had just assaulted him was backing up and in retreat. Thus he was no longer a sufficient threat that justified the use of deadly force.

Your racial bias is showing something awful.

 

[Paladin3]

No I wasn't trying to draw that distinction. Railer brought up Chicago to make the point that nobody cares about those killings, they only care about TM, implying that the only reason people care about TM is because of political points that can be scored on racial issues. I was making the point that is false. People cared about TM because they believe GZ instigated an incident, the incident got out of hand, and then GZ used that as an excuse to kill someone and then walked. If someone from Chicago picked a fight and then killed someone because they feared for their life and then got off, people would care. It sets a dangerous precedent where armed people can just go around starting shit in order to murder people. I didn't enter this thread to argue about what did or did not happen between GZ and TM. I'm just explaining why that incident was such a big deal. People perceive it as GZ itching for an excuse to murder someone, whether or not that was the case. I perceive it that way as well because as I see it, we have two choices:

GZ was trying to watch TM only to make sure TM didn't break any laws. GM was not being aggressive in any manner. TM spotted GZ and proceeded to kick the shit out of GZ for no reason.
or
GZ started following TM in an intimidating manner to the point it made TM uncomfortable enough to initiate contact. Maybe words were exchanged first, maybe not. Maybe TM asked GZ "wtf dude?" and maybe GZ said nothing or maybe GZ said some shit. Maybe GZ was the first to initiate contact or say something. We don't know because TM is dead and GZ can say whatever he wants, so not really worth speculating. GZ gets a pass because we can't prove anything.

So, I'm left with choosing to believe TM decided to beat the shit out of someone for pretty much no reason or that GZ started some shit. Given GZ's behavior since the incident, I lean toward the latter.

...And one of them is black. <---Fixed that for you. No charge.

 

[Paladin3]

I'm sorry you don't understand the word "some" in this context. I deliberately put the word "some" there because I didn't know exactly what law applied, I just knew is was something like SYG or self-defense, but the specific law didn't matter AT ALL to the point I was making. Hopefully you are better able to understand how communication works going forward.

Understand how communication works? Shit, I'd give anything if you just understood how SYG laws work. They are not a ticket to murder simply by claiming you were afraid. But I think you already know that, it just doesn't support your racist agenda.

 

[Paladin3]

How 'bout let's not discuss Martin any more in this thread. Please!

I understand, but when lies are posted as fact sometimes we have to oppose them whether we wish to or not. Especially when it's an issue like the Martin shooting which has been used as a wedge to drive people apart and create racial tension and hatred.

 

[jackstar7]

The truest wedge being between guns and dead people.

Because if you don't think there's a difference between being followed and being followed by someone with a gun... I guess I can't help you.

 

[dank69]

LOL! Sure.

So if in my original post you switched SYG to self defense it would change my point? Is that what you think? Please illustrate if you think so.

 

[dank69]

Understand how communication works? Shit, I'd give anything if you just understood how SYG laws work. They are not a ticket to murder simply by claiming you were afraid. But I think you already know that, it just doesn't support your racist agenda.

If SYG isn't a ticket to murder then we have no problem. I and many others will always show concern when there is a reason to believe SYG or even self-defense was used to kill someone when there were better alternatives, especially in cases where the person claiming SYG/self-defense was the one who started shit in the first place. That's it. IMO if you start some shit, take your fucking beating like a man. Don't puss out and pull your gun when you are getting your ass handed to you. Don't like that rule? Then don't start shit in the first place. If someone else starts some shit with you and then it escalates and then gets really bad then have at it, blow the original asshole away for all I care.

 

[Ichinisan]

So if in my original post you switched SYG to self defense it would change my point? Is that what you think? Please illustrate if you think so.

Let's find out...

wtf is the obsession with treyvon martin? 8 people were killed in chicago Aug 3 and 4 of this year. And nobody cares. But if the media tells you that it was a white guy (but wasn't he hispanic? Nah that doesn't sell as well) who killed a black kid, then some of you people just can't shut up about it 7 years later. It's baffling and comical.

Because if they catch the shooters in Chicago they don't go free because of some SELF DEFENSE law.

Yup! Your distinction / comparison makes absolutely no sense.

As I said, "self defense" is a legitimate legal defense / justification in Florida, Chicago, where I live, where you live, ... and practically anywhere else in the world.

 

[Ichinisan]

If SYG isn't a ticket to murder then we have no problem. I and many others will always show concern when there is a reason to believe SYG or even self-defense was used to kill someone when there were better alternatives, especially in cases where the person claiming SYG/self-defense was the one who started shit in the first place. That's it. IMO if you start some shit, take your fucking beating like a man. Don't puss out and pull your gun when you are getting your ass handed to you. Don't like that rule? Then don't start shit in the first place. If someone else starts some shit with you and then it escalates and then gets really bad then have at it, blow the original asshole away for all I care.

Don't ever tell anyone when you disapprove of their behavior, unless you're ready to take your beating like a man.