Justice for Zimmerman

fanaskin · Jul 21, 2013

I stopped reading where I finished quoting because this is where the argument begins and ends.

Tanoomba_sl said:
Like I said many, many times, George Zimmerman was entirely justified in fearing for his life. Nothing controversial about that. But we simply can not make the assumption that he would have been killed or suffered serious injury if he had not shot Martin. We can't.

It's not an emphatic assumption and it doesn't need to be, the possibility existed and that possibility is what allowed his rights to be asserted. nobody can predict the exact future but we can say it was possible for him to have been permanently injured or even killed. Nobody knows what would have happened, NOBODY.

Because you can't predict who WOULD have been killed and the other side can't predict who WOULDN'T have been killed, we have to say NOBODY knows what would have happened, and it remains up to chance.

BoldW · Jul 21, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
Zimmerman was getting beat up. he was scared, and his fear was justified. But when we look at the facts (the damage he sustained, the fact that Martin had never killed anyone before and had no reason to kill this one guy with his bare hands in someone's back yard), it's silly to believe his gun saved his life or that he would have suffered death or severe injury had he not shot Martin. Is this really so difficult to understand?

You start by saying hey, he feared for his life, so he was ok to shoot Martin, no one disagrees.

But then you bring up the completely irrelevant fact of whether his life was in "danger" or not to hint that he wasn't justified in killing TM. You're bringing up anirrelevantfact meant to paint GZ as irresponsible with one hand while defending his action with the other.

Tanoomba · Jul 21, 2013

Gavinrad_sl said:
Maybe you should research the definition of the word 'could'

I know damn well what "could" means, thank you. Like many English words, the context in which its used affects its meaning.

If I say "The bell rang before I finished", it means the bell rang, then I finished.
If I say "The bell rang before I could finish", it means the bell signified the end of my time limit and I was unable to finish. In this case, the bell interrupted the expected outcome. Had the bell not rang, I would have finished. The "could" in this case does not imply an event thatmighthave happened, it implies an event thatwouldhave happened had the interrupting event not occurred.

Reading comprehension.

Tanoomba · Jul 21, 2013

fanaskin_sl said:
I stopped reading where I finished quoting because this is where the argument begins and ends.

It's not an emphatic assumption and it doesn't need to be, the possibility existed and that possibility is what allowed his rights to be asserted. nobody can predict the exact future but we can say it was possible for him to have been permanently injured or even killed. Nobody knows what would have happened, NOBODY.

Because you can't predict who WOULD have been killed and the other side can't predict who WOULDN'T have been killed, we have to say NOBODY knows what would have happened, and it remains up to chance.

I've never argued against this. Not once. I've made that very point several times.

Tanoomba · Jul 21, 2013

BoldW_sl said:
You start by saying hey, he feared for his life, so he was ok to shoot Martin, no one disagrees.

But then you bring up the completely irrelevant fact of whether his life was in "danger" or not to hint that he wasn't justified in killing TM. You're bringing up anirrelevantfact meant to paint GZ as irresponsible with one hand while defending his action with the other.

Why are you inferring it that way? I could not be more clear that Zimmerman was justified in his actions.

My problem is with the assumption that Zimmerman's gun saved his life or saved him from crippling injury. It's a false assumption and anybody who makes it is doing the same thing the Facebook crowd is doing: making assumptions that go counter to the evidence.

Gavinmad · Jul 21, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
I know damn well what "could" means, thank you. Like many English words, the context in which its used affects its meaning.

If I say "The bell rang before I finished", it means the bell rang, then I finished.
If I say "The bell rang before I could finish", it means the bell signified the end of my time limit and I was unable to finish. In this case, the bell interrupted the expected outcome. Had the bell not rang, I would have finished. The "could" in this case does not imply an event thatmighthave happened, it implies an event thatwouldhave happened had the interrupting event not occurred.

Reading comprehension.

Is English not your first language? Cause you are way off.

khalid · Jul 21, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
Why are you inferring it that way? I could not be more clear that Zimmerman was justified in his actions.

My problem is with the assumption that Zimmerman's gun saved his life or saved him from crippling injury. It's a false assumption and anybody who makes it is doing the same thing the Facebook crowd is doing, making assumptions that go counter to the evidence.

You are the one making false assumptions, which is why your signature makes you out to be the idiot. You are assuming that the fight would have somehow ended when it did if a gun didn't exist, so you are at least as guilty of false assumptions as the "idiot" in your sig.

edit: blah, really dont care. You agree about 99% with myself and most posters on this thread. Yet you seem to want to point to one last thing to show that you are superior to other people on this subject. One of these days you will see how silly that is.

Tanoomba · Jul 21, 2013

Gavinrad_sl said:
Is English not your first language? Cause you are way off.

English is not only my first language, it is the language I teach for a living.

Taloo_sl · Jul 21, 2013

BoldW_sl said:
I think I read somewhere that his head injuries WILL cause him permanent paranoia.

Injuries aside being fucking attacked causes permanent paranoia. The assumed knowledge that someone might just decide to assault you without physical provocation and having it actually happen is something you never forget. Being injured simply makes it that much more intense.

Six or so years later in my case I don't step outside at night without thinking about it. I don't get out of my car without looking around. At noon in a crowded parking lot in the "best area of town" I watch anyone behind me in the reflection on a car window as I walk to my car with my $7 coffee. It changes the routes I take to get around town and sometimes something I really need to go grab at the grocery store tonight may have to wait until tomorrow. It's something you adjust to and learn to live with, but it's very very permanent.

Tanoomba · Jul 21, 2013

khalid_sl said:
You are the one making false assumptions, which is why your signature makes you out to be the idiot. You are assuming that the fight would have somehow ended when it did if a gun didn't exist, so you are at least as guilty of false assumptions as the "idiot" in your sig.

When did I ever make that assumption? I'm saying that, based on the evidence, it's certainly more likely that Zimmerman would not have died or suffered serious injury that night, but I never stated this as a fact. Ever. I'm not making assumptions at all.

Famm · Jul 21, 2013

I'm getting sick of all these people on FB and whatever other comments using "skittles and juice/tea" as some reason Martin was free of all culpability. So if he had a 40 oz of malt liquor and a pack of Newports would you be all like "yeah shoot him...shoot him DEAD!". Who gives a fuck, lots of people of any age might eat and drink sugary ass garbage. It works both ways if you actually think that shit was indicative of something.

Chukzombi · Jul 21, 2013

When zim shot tray, he was in danger, which is why he shot him. The beating was still going. No reason to assume he was going to stop. The fact is zim was in danger and nothing else.

Tanoomba · Jul 21, 2013

Famm_sl said:
I'm getting sick of all these people on FB and whatever other comments using "skittles and juice/tea" as some reason Martin was free of all culpability. So if he had a 40 oz of malt liquor and a pack of Newports would you be all like "yeah shoot him...shoot him DEAD!". Who gives a fuck, lots of people of any age might eat and drink sugary ass garbage. It works both ways if you actually think that shit was indicative of something.

The whole shooting was actually a viral ad campaign for Skittles. Their sales are through the roof now.

khalid · Jul 21, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
English is not only my first language, it is the language I teach for a living.

Which really shows, since this entire argument is really just a word game. You are mocking someone for saying would instead of could. Fucking english majors.

Tanoomba · Jul 21, 2013

Maester Chuk_sl said:
When zim shot tray, he was in danger, which is why he shot him. The beating was still going. No reason to assume he was going to stop. The fact is zim was in danger and nothing else.

Never argued against that.

Jovec · Jul 21, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
Why are you inferring it that way? I could not be more clear that Zimmerman was justified in his actions.

My problem is with the assumption that Zimmerman's gun saved his life or saved him from crippling injury. It's a false assumption and anybody who makes it is doing the same thing the Facebook crowd is doing: making assumptions that go counter to the evidence.

It's not a false assumption. Any blow to the head or spine has the potential for serious injury or death. This is not up for debate.

Zimmerman might not have died that night if he didn't shoot Martin. Zimmerman's life was in danger based on the blows he had already received. These two things are not related.

Chukzombi · Jul 21, 2013

Then what are we arguing about?

Tanoomba · Jul 21, 2013

khalid_sl said:
Which really shows, since this entire argument is really just a word game. You are mocking someone for saying would instead of could. Fucking english majors.

So you get it now, then. Well, almost. I'm not mocking someone for saying "would" instead of "could". I'm mocking someone for being an insufferably obnoxious douchebag who bent over backwards to be as offensive towards me as possible rather than admit he used the wrong choice of words. Fuck that shit.

Gavinmad · Jul 21, 2013

There's nothing more entertaining than frustrated english majors. There's one that writes modules for Pathfinder, I forget his name, and you can really tell from the 'read this to your players' sections of his modules that the dude really wishes he went to school for something else.

Tanoomba · Jul 21, 2013

Jovec_sl said:
It's not a false assumption. Any blow to the head or spine has the potential for serious injury or death. This is not up for debate.

Zimmerman might not have died that night if he didn't shoot Martin. Zimmerman's life was in danger based on the blows he had already received. These two things are not related.

Zimmerman's life was not in danger based on the blows he received. His lifecould havebeen in danger based on the blows hemight havereceived, but he just got two cuts to the back of the head and a broken nose.

Justice for Zimmerman

Well known agitator

Molten Core Raider

ジョーディーすれいやー

ジョーディーすれいやー

ジョーディーすれいやー

Mr. Poopybutthole

Unelected Mod

ジョーディーすれいやー

shitlord

ジョーディーすれいやー

Ahn'Qiraj Raider

Millie's Staff Member

ジョーディーすれいやー

Unelected Mod

ジョーディーすれいやー

?

Millie's Staff Member

ジョーディーすれいやー

Mr. Poopybutthole

ジョーディーすれいやー