Justice for Zimmerman

Tanoomba · Jul 22, 2013

Soygen_sl said:
This is the part I have issue with. You don't have to respond to him every single time. Is the part of your brain that can ignore people completely broken? Are you physically compelled to respond to every inane post someone makes that you take issue with? And there's a large gap between defending yourself(which I have no problem with) and making giant responses back and forth ad nausaem. People are reporting both of you guys and this thread alone has garnered so many fucking reported posts I wish we could lock it, set it on fire and push it off a cliff.

Did you not see the thread yesterday? There was a science experiment that proved your hypothesis correct.

EDIT: It's all in the past, though. Relax, Tuco.

hodj · Jul 22, 2013

Soygen_sl said:
This is the part I have issue with. You don't have to respond to him every single time.

Go take a look at my posts yesterday.

I made 4. None of them in response to him. Until 11 pm last night, after he spent HOURS spamming this thread with attacks against me and my statements personally.

So basically, me ignoring him the entire day yesterday until the mods didn't do anything about it at 11 pm last night and then me responding to him for an hour before he ran away = "I responded to him every single time".

Now, Saturday, I did respond sooner, and I did go round and round with him, and I got an infraction for it, and I didn't complain and I'm not complaining about that. But then to avoid an infraction I did the right thing all day yesterday and no one did anything about it, and so then when I felt at 11 pm last night that enough had finally become enough, I become the bad guy for defending myself.

I too wish the thread had been locked and rickshawed over a week ago, but it didn't happen for some reason.

I'm not even mad at the mods, I'm just saying that if you guys are going to let him blatantly troll this thread for weeks on end, which he has clearly been doing this entire time, don't blame the counter trolls for trying to do something about it.

iannis · Jul 22, 2013

Actually I think it's pretty funny. Tanoomba is locked into the pretty common "last post wins" mentality and Hodj just isn't gonna let him do it. It's perverse. But funny.

As you get more familiar with message boards you come to realize that last post actually loses.

Insult the guy below you.

iannis · Jul 22, 2013

| thinks pit bulls make wonderful pets
|
|
v

ZyyzYzzy · Jul 22, 2013

Ossoi_sl said:
I'm from the UK and until a few days ago when I read the original post I did not know that TM attacked GZ first. Most of the reporting in the UK recently has been about the outrage at the decision rather than the facts themselves. The case gives further fuel to the UK belief that no gun control is stupid and that the stand your ground law is stupid. Another example of the lack of reporting in UK media is that I didn't realise the SYG law wasn't used by the defence until recently...

REGARDLESS.

Picked a fight for nothing, are you MENTAL? A 17 year old kid was being followed/stalked by an Adult who was armed, that's hardly nothing, jesus.

In my opinion if GZ was able to reach for his gun and point it in TM's chest whilst being straddled and attacked, then he could easily have fought TM off without reaching for the gun. TM might have had a longer reach but GZ on the date of the shooting had a massive weight/strength advantage.. Plus why shoot him in the chest which would evidently be fatal, why not just shoot him in the shoulder or something.

The biggest flaw I see with people who say this is he was being stalked by an armed adult. Zimmerman was carrying a firearm legally. Your statement is also worded for it to seem like Trayvon knew Zimmerman was carrying a CONCEALED firearm.

The only illegal thing that occurred that night was Trayvon assaulting someone.

Gavinmad · Jul 22, 2013

Ossoi_sl said:
Picked a fight for nothing, are you MENTAL? A 17 year old kid was being followed/stalked by an Adult who was armed, that's hardly nothing, jesus.

In my opinion if GZ was able to reach for his gun and point it in TM's chest whilst being straddled and attacked, then he could easily have fought TM off without reaching for the gun. TM might have had a longer reach but GZ on the date of the shooting had a massive weight/strength advantage.. Plus why shoot him in the chest which would evidently be fatal, why not just shoot him in the shoulder or something.

Already been addressed, but Zimmerman followed Martin for only a very short distance, and stopped when told he didn't need to follow by the non-emergency phone operator. Martin returned to the scene a few minutes later and attacked Zimmerman.

As for that other crap, you obviously know nothing about guns and have never been in a fight as an adult.

Siliconemelons · Jul 22, 2013

Ossoi_sl said:
Plus why shoot him in the chest which would evidently be fatal, why not just shoot him in the shoulder or something.

America has some fucked up laws, it usually is better to kill someone than not- if you don't they will sue you, press charges on you etc etc- if someone is breaking into your house and you are going to use force- you better kill them or they most likely will press charges on you and win.

hodj · Jul 22, 2013

Azeth_sl said:
that black chewbacca looking thing on the left there is apparently whoopi G

Menopause has not been good to Whoopie.

Ossoi · Jul 22, 2013

Gavinrad_sl said:
you obviously know nothing about guns

Did you fail to read the bit where I said I'm from the UK (and ergo have sensible laws on gun control!)

BoldW · Jul 22, 2013

Ossoi_sl said:
I'm from the UK and until a few days ago when I read the original post I did not know that TM attacked GZ first. Most of the reporting in the UK recently has been about the outrage at the decision rather than the facts themselves. The case gives further fuel to the UK belief that no gun control is stupid and that the stand your ground law is stupid. Another example of the lack of reporting in UK media is that I didn't realise the SYG law wasn't used by the defence until recently...

REGARDLESS.

Picked a fight for nothing, are you MENTAL? A 17 year old kid was being followed/stalked by an Adult who was armed, that's hardly nothing, jesus.

In my opinion if GZ was able to reach for his gun and point it in TM's chest whilst being straddled and attacked, then he could easily have fought TM off without reaching for the gun. TM might have had a longer reach but GZ on the date of the shooting had a massive weight/strength advantage.. Plus why shoot him in the chest which would evidently be fatal, why not just shoot him in the shoulder or something.

I hope Hodj concentrates on this instead, lol. Don't want to see either RRPed if they can just stop the silly argument they're stuck on.

TM did indeed pick a fight for nothing. TM was not being stalked/followed, the exact opposite is what all the evidence tells us (TM circled back and confronted GZ).

He was receiving repeated blows to his head. He was yelling for help, and was futilely attempting to "wriggle" out from under TM, to no avail. I imagine it was all he could do to reach his gun (once he saw TMs attention drawn to it), point it in TMs general direction, and fire one shot. There was no aiming involved, just blind "luck" that caused it to go through the heart. The gun was not pressed up against TM's chest. It was just pointed towards TM, which touched the hoodie sagging down. This is what the evidence shows us.

Old article, so I'm not sure on current numbers, but given that nothing has changed in regard to "guns", UK still has a higher violent crime rate than the US. Roughly 4% of Britons are victims of violent crime vs. 2% in the US.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ritain-US.html

Gavinmad · Jul 22, 2013

Ossoi_sl said:
Did you fail to read the bit where I said I'm from the UK (and ergo have sensible laws on gun control!)

No I didn't. Abstinence is not sensible, and ignorance of guns is not gun safety. You know nothing about guns, so you should refrain from making judgemental comments about the way someone used a gun.

hodj · Jul 22, 2013

Ossoi_sl said:
Did you fail to read the bit where I said I'm from the UK (and ergo have sensible laws on gun control!)

This is highly debatable. People are prosecuted in England for defending their home from intruders with knives and you have to show an ID to buy a set of kitchen knives. Guns are outright banned except for hunting.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...break-ins.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-his-home.html

Meanwhile two young Islamic men can literally walk up to a military person walking down the street and behead him in the streets of the UK while people just walk by, oblivious, and no one can stop it and you have to wait over half an hour for police to respond and do anything about it...

None of this sounds very sensible to me.

Ossoi · Jul 22, 2013

what a surprise, Americans defending their right to bear arms.

Do a survey in the UK (and any other Country with similar gun control laws) and ask if gun control should be relaxed..overwhelming majority will say no!

And GJ on picking a the most extreme possible "one off" case to support your argument

azeth · Jul 22, 2013

Ossoi_sl said:
what a surprise, Americans defending their right

im okay with this

fanaskin · Jul 22, 2013

Ossoi_sl said:
Did you fail to read the bit where I said I'm from the UK (and ergo have sensible laws on gun control!)

Which is why your attempted homicide and violent crime per capita outstripped the united states.

In the UK there are 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people. .The US has a violent crime rate of 466 [violent] crimes per 100,000 residents."
-----

BUT IT'S OK CAUSE NOBODY DIED FROM A GUN.

oh wait gun violence went UP after the ban
---
"Despite the handguns ban imposed under the 1997 Firearms Amendment, research carried out following the implementation of the Act saw a 40 per cent increase in the number of gun crime incidents in the UK.

While the number of homicides from gun crime remained largely static for over a decade, 2007 proved a decisive year for this issue. A wave of gang related incidents were committed by teenagers against other teenagers, with some high profile cases ending in fatalities. London, Manchester and Nottingham were most notably affected."

iannis · Jul 22, 2013

If our criminals get too rowdy we don't shoot them. We're notsavages.

We allow them shoot each other.

fanaskin · Jul 22, 2013

Ossoi_sl said:
what a surprise, Americans defending their right to bear arms.

Do a survey in the UK (and any other Country with similar gun control laws) and ask if gun control should be relaxed..overwhelming majority will say no!

And GJ on picking a the most extreme possible "one off" case to support your argument

Yeah because your society is docile and full of brainwashed socialists, it'll be chuckle worthy watching your nanny state fall under unbearable demographics of debt burden. Guess what england you get to watch europe collapse first so you can see the kind of rioting and violence that awaits you, greece is a closer reality to britian than it is in america.

The TTIP is busy right now underminding your workers rights and will probably lead to more social strife, that should be awesome for an island where you aren't allowed to protect yourself

hodj · Jul 22, 2013

Ossoi_sl said:
what a surprise, Americans defending their right to bear arms.

Do a survey in the UK (and any other Country with similar gun control laws) and ask if gun control should be relaxed..overwhelming majority will say no!

And GJ on picking a the most extreme possible "one off" case to support your argument

Argument from popularity is a fallacy.

If its so one off, why are so many people arrested for protecting their homes from intruders in the UK? Why, despite being infinitely smaller, with a much smaller population, does the UK have more break ins and robberies and other violent crimes than the US per capita?

Basically, your post tells us that you don't have a real rebuttal to what I just said, that's why your post is so weak in response "Oh its a one off thing!"

ZyyzYzzy · Jul 22, 2013

No legal gun ownership and royal families collecting taxpayer dollars. Seems like a nice place.

hodj · Jul 22, 2013

The dirty truth is the more the UK bans, the higher their crime rate goes, the more the US allows people the right to bear arms, to stand their ground, to carry concealed, etc. the further our crime rate declines.

But keep that nose up in the air there, England. Also make sure you're doing your best to memorize this

You're gonna need it.

Oh and your violent crime rates are greater than South Africa's.

Not something I would brag about, seeing as its one of the most violent nations on Earth

Justice for Zimmerman

ジョーディーすれいやー

Vox Populi Jihadi

Musty Nester

Musty Nester

RIP USA

Mr. Poopybutthole

Avatar of War Slayer

Vox Populi Jihadi

Potato del Grande

Molten Core Raider

Mr. Poopybutthole

Vox Populi Jihadi

Potato del Grande

Well known agitator

Musty Nester

Well known agitator

Vox Populi Jihadi

RIP USA

Vox Populi Jihadi