Justice for Zimmerman
- Thread starter Adebisi
- Start date
-
Guest, did you like the last podcast notification?? Well here's the second one, and for the third podcast! Yep. This Thursday 8-8-24 at 7pm Central
Go here to check out his podcast thread for info on topics and links!Go into the FoH discord and find the Happy Time Fun Hour channel and give it a listen!
- Status
Suprised they haven't brought up what sort of ammo he used. "JHPs!? He was just looking to kill."
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,656
Because it shows he intended the weapon to be functional. The argument, such as it is, is that he intended to use a weapon as a weapon and was irresponsible.
To which the response is both why are you belaboring the point that he had a weapon when no one is contesting that and why do you assume, and ask me to assume along with you, that maintenance of a weapon is by itself indicative of irresponsible behavior.
They belabor it because it's not Zimmerman on trial.
To which the response is both why are you belaboring the point that he had a weapon when no one is contesting that and why do you assume, and ask me to assume along with you, that maintenance of a weapon is by itself indicative of irresponsible behavior.
They belabor it because it's not Zimmerman on trial.
khalid
Unelected Mod
- 14,071
- 6,775
That is pretty much what the prosecution has been trying to imply for the entire case. It is despicable and I have a feeling it is going to result in a conviction.
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,656
Manslaughter maybe, but he probably is guilty of manslaughter.
In all honesty there are viable non-lethal weapons available to accomplish what he was working to accomplish. It's one of those "the only tool you had was a gun, and you used it, and I don't blame you for using it... but you probably should have brought a different tool" kinds of things.
In all honesty there are viable non-lethal weapons available to accomplish what he was working to accomplish. It's one of those "the only tool you had was a gun, and you used it, and I don't blame you for using it... but you probably should have brought a different tool" kinds of things.
Gavinmad
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 43,264
- 52,288
Let me know how well a taser or pepper spray works against someone who is literally right on top of you.
I'd also like to point out that there is no such thing as 'non-lethal' weapons, they're called less lethal weapons, because they're less lethal than a firearm but still extremely dangerous.
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,656
Shit dude, pepper spray would work even better than a gun against someone that's right on top of you. A small knife would work better than a gun. If you want to think about the actual physics of it, then think about the actual physics of it.
But the point is moot, because according the the Legislature of Florida he's not guilty of manslaughter. And according to the facts he ain't guilty of murder. So really he's not guilty of very much.
But the point is moot, because according the the Legislature of Florida he's not guilty of manslaughter. And according to the facts he ain't guilty of murder. So really he's not guilty of very much.
Gavinmad
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 43,264
- 52,288
Lolwut? With a gun I only have to shoot you once in the torso. Probably anywhere in the torso will be enough to take you out of the fight. With pepper spray, I have to hit your face and hope gravity doesn't get too much in my own face. With a small knife, unless I stab you somewhere vital within the first couple stabs, I'm not doing anything to you.
Gavinmad
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 43,264
- 52,288
Not sure what's worse, you still going on about this non existent 'non lethal' thing, or that you consider knives to be non lethal.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
To be fair, being a neighborhood watchman means you're looking for people who might be causing trouble and they may notice you doing so. Depending on the circumstances, some kind of conflict could pretty easily arise, which is probably why the neighborhood watch group doesn't want its members carrying guns. Zimmerman was legally carrying the gun, of course, but wasn't it him that said Martin reached for his gun, giving him no choice but to use it? Had the gun not been there, this may not have become a life-or-death situation.
And no, I don't believe Martin would have beaten Zimmerman to death. He might have instigated the fight (might) and gotten into a dominant position, but that in no way implies he intended to beat him to death with his bare hands then and there. Yes, blows to the head are serious and can result in death or permanent injury in any number of ways, but that doesn't mean somebody causing harm to your head is trying to kill you or that having your head hit means your life is in danger. Remember, Zimmerman didn't use his gun to stop Martin from beating him, he used his gun to stop Martin from using that same gun. I could see how manslaughter might apply in that case.
And no, I don't believe Martin would have beaten Zimmerman to death. He might have instigated the fight (might) and gotten into a dominant position, but that in no way implies he intended to beat him to death with his bare hands then and there. Yes, blows to the head are serious and can result in death or permanent injury in any number of ways, but that doesn't mean somebody causing harm to your head is trying to kill you or that having your head hit means your life is in danger. Remember, Zimmerman didn't use his gun to stop Martin from beating him, he used his gun to stop Martin from using that same gun. I could see how manslaughter might apply in that case.
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,656
Stop descending into gun-cock-worship dipshittery and hair splitting. Are you seriously confused about what the term "non-lethal" implies in the context of firearms versus other weapons? Do we really need to cover the fact that you can use a tree branch as a weapon and successfully kill someone with it whether it's pointy or not?
The use of force was excessive, but not murderous. With a less powerful weapon the application would have been less powerful and quite possibly not resulted in a killing. But the application of that force did result in a killing, and that's usually considered some form of manslaughter.
Chukzombi
Millie's Staff Member
- 72,758
- 214,038
whatchoo talkin bout willis? getting punched and having your head bashed against the concrete multiple times or even once isnt even remotely the same thing. if you just fall and your head hits the pavement, you should head to the hospital right away and get that shit looked at. look at liam neesons wife. girl took a tumble, hit her head, didnt do anything about it and look what happened. she was taken from liam.
and once again. if somebody is bashing your head on the pavement you arent exactly in the frame of mind to be pondering chess problems. you want the fucker who is beating you to stop before you die and if he felt something brush by his holster either TM was going for his gun or GZ thought he was. it comes to the same thing. GZ feared for his life due to the beating he was still receiving until he pulled his gun and killed the attacker. and thats why there is no case and thats why the police think there was no case here. all that other shit doesnt matter a hill of beans.
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
- 78,878
- 156,743
Let me punch you in the head for a while and slam your head against the concrete a few times, and then you can tell me if you feared that your life was in danger at any time, you dumb faggot.
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
- 78,878
- 156,743
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
By that logic, if someone got into a fight and got punched in the face, he could consider the other person as "trying to kill him". The face is above the neck, after all. He could be knocked unconscious and smack his head on something on the way down. He could suffer a concussion or permanent brain injury. Could he then justifiably produce a gun and shoot the other person to prevent these possible life-endangering outcomes?
Besides, you're ignoring that Zimmerman didn't use his gun to stop the beating. He used it because Martin was going for it. If Zimmerman himself didn't consider the fight life-threatening until the gun came into the picture, why make that assumption for him?
- Status