I don't mean to imply that "looking for trouble" is the same as "looking for a fight". I mean that if you've got an eye out for suspicious people who look like they might be involved in criminal activity, in a very real sense that's looking for trouble. That's not a bad thing at all, by the way.How is a neighborhood watch "looking for trouble"? That's like saying you're "looking for trouble" if you keep an eye on your staff to make sure they aren't looting the safe.
I feel like you've made some legit strides in the last few posts but this quote rubs me wrong. I can't put my finger on it but it seems to be coming down to "chicken or the egg."However, seemingly because he was carrying that gun, the events that unfurled that night resulted in an unnecessary death.
this sounds like gun control topic and considering it's previous posts in the past, I am gonna go for both. what a shit.It's either a gun control topic or a "LOOK AT THE American Inventor KILLER" topic.
There just isn't anything else to talk about. Pretty much a bullshit case to begin with.
The reason that quote is rubbing you wrong is because the quote places the blame on the victim (Zimmerman) and completely absolves the criminal (Martin) of any wrongdoing.I feel like you've made some legit strides in the last few posts but this quote rubs me wrong. I can't put my finger on it but it seems to be coming down to "chicken or the egg."
Well That's the rub of it. It's not something that anyone can possibly know. Would T have run away, or would T have beaten Z to injury/death, or something else? Either way as cad pointed out it doesn't matter, but that natural and inescapable assumption of what didn't happen does color your perception of what did happen.I feel like you've made some legit strides in the last few posts but this quote rubs me wrong. I can't put my finger on it but it seems to be coming down to "chicken or the egg."
Yeah, from a legal standpoint at least it seems more and more like there simply isn't any good reason reason to charge Zimmerman with anything at all.I feel like you've made some legit strides in the last few posts but this quote rubs me wrong. I can't put my finger on it but it seems to be coming down to "chicken or the egg."
Well said.why does it even matter that gun may have lead to death.... presumptive conclusion of any deadly force is probable death but not absolutely....this is a danger which criminals or an alleged criminal should have been aware of in case they are to commit crime and face a lawful citizen who may possess these deadly fire-arms..either in property protection or self-defense cases...
non-lethal is great, until it doesn't work, which is quite often.And all of that is a viable non lethal alternative.
You're talking about it's easier to kill someone with a gun. I agree with you.
Yeah, you get one shot with a taser, if they're wearing a leather jacket you're shit outta luck. Pepperspray just pisses off a drunk or pumped up with adrenaline/cocaine attacker. Non lethal tech is a joke currently.non-lethal is great, until it doesn't work, which is quite often.
It's not the same as looking for trouble at all. It is being alert and aware of any person trying to do harm, whether it be theft or violence to your community. Don't ignore the fact he called an emergency number to get law enforcement or at least someone with legal power to come. He did not, from the evidence we have, go around shoving and starting fights with suspicious people.I don't mean to imply that "looking for trouble" is the same as "looking for a fight". I mean that if you've got an eye out for suspicious people who look like they might be involved in criminal activity, in a very real sense that's looking for trouble. That's not a bad thing at all, by the way.
Trademark would have continued making Zimmerman his bitch until the Police arrived, at which point they would have shot Trademark. And we would be in the same spot we are in today.Well That's the rub of it. It's not something that anyone can possibly know. Would T have run away, or would T have beaten Z to injury/death, or something else? Either way as cad pointed out it doesn't matter, but that natural and inescapable assumption of what didn't happen does color your perception of what did happen.
Retarded. Yah, a teen fucking around with rebellious behavior is a dead lok to be a murdering drug addict thug. I did shit like that when I was a teen. Then I got my fucking head on straight and grew up.I'd like to take a moment to remind everyone that TM was a little shit. Headed full speed to a life of crime.
http://m.globalgrind.com/news/trayvo...photos-details
But... but Treyvonsmoked pot. Only thugs do that.Retarded. Yah, a teen fucking around with rebellious behavior is a dead lok to be a murdering drug addict thug. I did shit like that when I was a teen. Then I got my fucking head on straight and grew up.
That shit has nothing to do with the topic. Take all that away and make trayvon a straight a student and the nights events would have played out the same way. Feel like I'm the only person that thinks both trayvon and Zimmerman are equally responsible for the event. Everyone else feels the need to make Zimmerman a racist or trayvon a thug.
They both are responsible for the fight which ended it a dead teenager. And unless they change the laws, Zimmerman didn't break any. I do agree he is a wannabe vigilante but he's not a murderer.
It's Tanoomba, he only applies deduction if it makes his argument and calls it bullshit/racism if not.I'm confused how you can call Zimmerman a wannabe vigilante but dismiss the claims that Martin was a wannabe thug.