George Zmmerman trial begins...

[billc]

In light of the protests today here is a look at the reality of Martin and Zimmerman by Bill Whittle, a favorite video commentator...

He brings up in the embedded video the fact that the prosecution kept referring to the can that Martin had as Iced Tea, when in fact it was a watermelon flavored drink. He points out that many think they said Iced Tea due to the "racial," conotations of the watermelon drink but a more accurate reason would be that Scittles (also found with Martin ) and this watermelon drink are 2/3 of the ingredients for the drug based drink "lean." Also, he points out that the autopsy of Martin revealed liver damage, in his teenager body, that is consistent with prolonged "lean," use. What are some of the problems associated with "lean," use...paranoia and aggression...

The video is a good look at the individuals...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/07/bill-whittles-backgrounder.php

 

[elder999]

In light of the protests today here is a look at the reality of Martin and Zimmerman by Bill Whittle, a favorite video commentator...

He brings up in the embedded video the fact that the prosecution kept referring to the can that Martin had as Iced Tea, when in fact it was a watermelon flavored drink. He points out that many think they said Iced Tea due to the "racial," conotations of the watermelon drink but a more accurate reason would be that Scittles (also found with Martin ) and this watermelon drink are 2/3 of the ingredients for the drug based drink "lean." Also, he points out that the autopsy of Martin revealed liver damage, in his teenager body, that is consistent with prolonged "lean," use. What are some of the problems associated with "lean," use...paranoia and aggression...

The video is a good look at the individuals...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/07/bill-whittles-backgrounder.php

Oh my. I don't know where to begin.....

First off, though, Arizona and Snapple both make watermelon flavored iced tea.

Secondly, the recipe for "lean" calls for codeine (or cough syrup),Jolly Ranchers, sprite and purple syrup-no skittles, no ice tea.

Otherwise, whatever: he had a WATERMELON DRINK and CANDY. Clearly, he was up to no good, and deserved to be shot: let the post lynching-lynching continue.......

 

[arnisador]

he had a WATERMELON DRINK.

Look, can we all agree that that is a little weird?

 

[Makalakumu]

Matin may not have been up to no good, but he made a poor choice in assaulting Zimmerman. It cost him his life, sadly. Also, sadly, young men often make decisions that cost them their lives.

 

[Big Don]

Look, can we all agree that that is a little weird?

Some people eat snails...
The only tea I drink is named after Long Island...

 

[granfire]

Matin may not have been up to no good, but he made a poor choice in assaulting Zimmerman. It cost him his life, sadly. Also, sadly, young men often make decisions that cost them their lives.

We call this Darwin Award...if they do it early enough without having sewn their wild oats.
Where I live it's usually not preceded by swagger on the cell phone but by 'Hey y'all. looky here!' or 'Dude, hold my beer'

It don't take many guys to keep the species going.....

 

[billc]

Author Brad Thor has offered to buy George Zimmerman an new pistol since the Dept. of Justice has prevented him from getting his old pistol back. He stated that since Zimmerman was found not guilty, and since an F.B.I. investigation that interviewed over 30 people who know Zimmerman declared he isn't a racist, and therefore could not have violated Martin's civil rights as a racist, there is no reason for the Dept. of Justice to keep hounding him.

He was on a morning show in Chicago where he explained why he was going to not only buy him a new pistol but also the ammunition he needs for it...the video is below.

http://www.examiner.com/video/brad-thor-offers-to-buy-george-zimmerman-new-gun

 

[arnisador]

We call this Darwin Award

I'm finding that a bit harsh. We're talking about a scared kid being followed at night by a stranger.

Author Brad Thor has offered to buy George Zimmerman an new pistol[...]he explained why he was going to not only buy him a new pistol but also the ammunition he needs for it

I'm finding that a bit masturbatory. He deserves to get his gun back but no one should be slavering at the thought of him being armed again.

 

[Big Don]

I'm finding that a bit masturbatory. He deserves to get his gun back but no one should be slavering at the thought of him being armed again.

Just because a bunch of a holes have threatened his life and his family, there is no reason anyone should want him capable of defending himself.
Your anti-gun nuttiness is showing...

 

[elder999]

Just because a bunch of a holes have threatened his life and his family, there is no reason anyone should want him capable of defending himself.
Your anti-gun nuttiness is showing...

Actually, I'm the last person anyone could call "anti-gun," but I agree with arni here.

George Zimmerman has proven that he shouldn't be carrying a gun-carrying a gun isn't just a right, it's also a responsibility-one that assumes that the bearer can act with prudence and good judgment. Guilty or not-guilty, George Zimmerman demonstrated amply that he is neither prudent, nor capable of good judgment, and should not be going about armed. Anywhere. Ever.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

No....it is not.

The level of force used is what escalates a confrontation, not the tool used. If you are kicking my head in you are using deadly physical force (DPF)....my drawing a gun won't escalate the situation to "Really Deadly Physical Force".

Once someone is putting your life in danger THEY have pushed the encounter to to top....armed or not.

Of course this presumes that Zimmerman did indeed use DPF in response to DPF. Which of course we only have HIS word on. Throughout most of this thread my only intent is to refute some inaccurate armchair policing/lawyering (like the "stalking" and "refusal to obey 911" memes).


Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

Those weren't memes. That was my impression. As for armchair lawyering, this entire thread is armchair lawyering.

 

[granfire]

Actually, I'm the last person anyone could call "anti-gun," but I agree with arni here.

George Zimmerman has proven that he shouldn't be carrying a gun-carrying a gun isn't just a right, it's also a responsibility-one that assumes that the bearer can act with prudence and good judgment. Guilty or not-guilty, George Zimmerman demonstrated amply that he is neither prudent, nor capable of good judgment, and should not be going about armed. Anywhere. Ever.

Considering that nobody except him really knows what went down....
how do you arrive at that judgement?

Just curious....

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Daniel did you watch the trial? Your basically saying all the evidence presented can't be used to form an opinion. You come across as Z shot M and we don't know anything else.

That actually isn't what I'm saying. Not even close.

 

[granfire]

I'm finding that a bit harsh. We're talking about a scared kid being followed at night by a stranger.

No, we were in this case talking about young men making wrong decisions that sometimes eliminate them from the gene pool. That's the Darwin Award.
And no, I do not buy that the 'kid' was scared, frightened or otherwise intimidated by the 'creepy a$$ cracka' following him. He wasn't wearing high heels...he could have run home - that's what scared kids do! Or call the cops.


Seems there is that one little problem in the story:
Zimmermann loses him and next thing they are in a scuffle and Zimmermann is at the bottom.

 

[Tgace]

We're talking about a scared kid being followed at night by a stranger.

Talk about assumptions not in evidence...and even contradicted by the apparent sequence of events. A "scared kid" doesn't take a four minute flanking run on his pursuer and confront him with a "whats your problem homie ?".

 

[elder999]

Considering that nobody except him really knows what went down....
how do you arrive at that judgement?

Just curious....

I carry a gun.

I wouldn't have followed him. I wouldn't have gotten out of my vehicle. I'd have called 911, and continued to observe him from my vehicle.

I wouldn't have gotten lost in my own neighborhood. I wouldn't have had to get out of the vehicle to "see what street I was on" in my own neighborhood.

I probably wouldn't have carried my pistol-it's against the guidelines for most neighborhood watches-just as I don't carry it into establishments that serve alcohol in the state of NM, as it's against the law (so I don't carry everywhere, only "almost everywhere.")

If I'd followed him, I wouldn't have gotten close enough for him to identify me in a phone call-he wouldn't have known I was following him, but I wouldn't have followed him on foot in the first place.

I wouldn't have followed him. I'd have done the prudent thing and heeded the advice of the 911 dispatcher, rather than my frustration at how these @#$^As always get away with it.

So, how do I know George Zimmerman is an incompetent, imprudent idiot who should never carry a firearm again? He shot someone whom he wouldn't have had to shoot, if not for his own foolish, reckless and imprudent actions. They were neither measured, well judged or prudent. This is all I've ever really had to say about this case from the very beginning-that the wannabe cop was off the rez on this one.

Should. Never.Carry. A. Gun. Again.

(But is within his legal rights to do so, and so he shall....and so he shall....)

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

No....it is not.

The level of force used is what escalates a confrontation, not the tool used. If you are kicking my head in you are using deadly physical force (DPF)....my drawing a gun won't escalate the situation to "Really Deadly Physical Force".

Once someone is putting your life in danger THEY have pushed the encounter to to top....armed or not.

Of course this presumes that Zimmerman did indeed use DPF in response to DPF. Which of course we only have HIS word on. Throughout most of this thread my only intent is to refute some inaccurate armchair policing/lawyering (like the "stalking" and "refusal to obey 911" memes).


Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

This...

Within the use-of-force continuum as usually taught, and as embodied in the law, OK--but you can't tell me that things don't jump up a level when a gun is tossed into the mix. Everyone's adrenaline level goes up then. Everyone knows you can be killed with fists but you will be killed by bullets.

...is exactly what I meant. Whether or not Martin knew Zimmerman was armed is up for debate, though I agree with Ballen0351; Martin probably wasn't aware that Zimmerman was armed. I suspect his strategy would have been very different if he had.

However, when you use a firearm against a person unarmed, you are escalating the level of force. This isn't lawyering, by the way. I never once said Zimmerman's use of deadly force wasn't justified. Only that his use of a gun was an escalation to a greater level of force.

I don't form my opinion from memes, by the way. Nor am I debating the legality of what Zimmerman did. He was acquitted by a jury in a trial that, as far as I could tell, was fair. It isn't my place to say he was or was not justified. What I am saying is that the actions of both participants led to the eventual outcome.

If you want argue legalese over the words "stalking," "refusal" or "escalation", you're barking up the wrong tree. This isn't a legal scholar site and I'm not a lawyer and I'm not questioning the outcome of the trial. If I were debating the outcome of the trial, it would be different, but I'm neither lawyer nor a cop, so please don't expect me to speak or write like a lawyer or a cop in what is a casual discussion about a current event.

 

[Tgace]

However, when you use a firearm against a person unarmed, you are escalating the level of force.

Sorry..no. Legally you are not. Not if the person attacking you is using DPF.

Im not claiming that I know 100% that Martin was using DPF on Zimmerman at the time. But IF he was, drawing a gun in response to DPF doesn't escalate the force any higher. DPF is the top. If Martin used it first Zimmerman wasn't raising it any higher.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Sorry..no. Legally you are not. Not if the person attacking you is using DPF.

You apparently missed the part of my post where I said I wasn't discussing the legality of it and wasn't debating the verdict.

 

[Tgace]

Discussing escalation of force levels is all about the legality of it.....