Why no gunlovers condemning Zimmerman?

Statistical facts in terms of who commits more crimes based on the color of their skin does not matter when it comes to the law. You can't go in to court and say, "black people commit more crimes therefore I'm justified in tracking them down", lol.

It's hilarious how you think those facts justify what Zimmerman did.

 

Lol, you literally have no clue how the court of law works. Feelings of being threatened are more than solid evidence. You feeling threatened because someone is chasing you at night is acceptable in the court of law.

 

Stop trying to convince yourself, that everyone but yourself was born 'yesterday'.

You are dealing with people who for lack of a perfect explanation, know better.

OR

You are living in a world full of equals; you may not want to believe that, but it is so.

 

You can continue to "lol" all day long, but don't think that it justifies your "debating" method - a method that appears to consist purely of: ignoring facts, taking my statistics out of the context in which they were proffered, playing the race card, and lying outright.

And I never claimed those statistics justified Zimmerman's actions. The natural right to defend one's neighbors and one's self is what justified his actions.
To claim that I said something I did not is the height of sophistry.

You don't grow corn and you have no crows, so quit building men of straw to keep them away.

 

I literally hope and pray it doesn't happen, but if or when some "African American" guy is the "ground-stander" and the White American guy is face-down dead in the dirt... I would desire that those in this forum REMEMBER what they thought/said about this State vs. Zimmerman case.

 

Your statistics don't matter. You can't go in to court saying black people commit more crimes therefore I'm justified to believe this black person walking on the sidewalk is up to no good. You are obviously a low information voter.

 

I remember from jury duty, the LAW is the LAW; it isn't necessarily about "circumstances". The case I experienced gave me a much greater appreciation for the law itself.

 

Wrong.

If what you state is true, I could go into any secluded alley and cut a man's throat, and then tell the jury that I "felt" threatened.

If what you state is true, I could shoot a large biker in Walmart and say that I "felt" threatened.

I have felt threatened by police officers before; therefore, I must be able to slaughter them indiscriminately whenever I "feel" threatened. After all, they have guns.

I hope you don't need more explanation to reveal the glaring flaw in your reasoning.

 

Amen. And that is why it is important to rely upon the system in this case. We ALL have 'feelings' about this, but the most objective approach is the one being taken in that Florida courtroom, for the next few weeks to come.

 

You don't grow corn and you have no crows, so you must be building men of straw to keep unfortunate facts away.

- - - Updated - - -

Will do.

 

Of course the various parameters of a situation (including emotions experienced) will be considered, but there is more to a ruling than that. It took us a good while to decide on a case much less complex than this one, and yes... emotions were considered in the testimony, but did not carry as much weight as the LAW itself.

 

My post: "That's nice. Now use facts to show me how the picture that paints itself is wrong..."

Your post:

So where are these facts? Or are you content to bandy about assertions and generalities as though they bear the weight of evidence?

 

Thank you for your admission. Hopefully akphidelt2007 will know see reason and also recognize the relative insignificance of emotion when dealing with the law.
As you said, yourself, "the law is the law; it isn't necessarily about circumstances."

 

Because he didn't do anything wrong.

 

What are you talking about?

All of that you just ranted about, is why cases involving violence do end up in court.

- - - Updated - - -

It's like some people bend reality just enough to suit them; like adding creamer to coffee.

 

Not really. The law is far more clear than most people on this thread would like us to think.

 

I have had the same thoughts. I doubt seriously they will remember. Some of them are honest enough to admit that they view black people as a threat. Those who claim it's not about race would sing a different tune if the black guy ended up being the gunman and the white guy dead face down in the dirt. I had hoped our country would have risen above that sort of thing by now, but sadly it hasn't. When the rest of the 9-11 tapes are played where Zimmerman called in about suspicious behavior from black teenagers is played, that will shine a brighter light on the racist attitude that lead to this tragedy. Not that the Zimmerman supporters will see the light.

 

That's your first "straw" in the man you are building yourself.

A perfect example of how a person takes of reality what they want, then pretend that they've painted a perfect representation of the same.

Like I inferred before, no one participating here was born yesterday.

- - - Updated - - -

Even so... the judge, jury and existing evidence will decide this case; give it a few more days.

 

I guarantee you that you'll get mostly my OPINION here, like you'll get from everyone else who is outside of the Florida courtroom.

And if you think I'm going to be led by your specious commentary... you need to think again.

 

You're a genius, language has a beginning and from that it evolves hence old, middle and modern English. I'm done educating you, DODO-BIRD. Now if you'll excuse me I'm off to inform The National Geographic Society to take the dodo off The List of Extinct Animals, as you are alive and well in Florida. GDAY!!!

 

For what? He hasn't been found guilty of anything. For all you know, he was defending himself.

We are not advocating unquestioned violence. We're advocating a Constitutional right.

A gun is just a tool. It is only an inanimate object incapable of sinister, devious, or malicious thoughts. It takes external forces for it to be used.

Nor do we think that everyone who dies as a result of a gunwound is a victim of unsafe handling. Now you're just lying.

Statistically though, gun violence results in less deaths than you try to make it look.

I've been around guns my entire life and yet I, and millions of others, have not killed anyone, intentionally or not.



On other threads against my rights, I've pointed out that gun violence is a small minute percentage:

Assuming each murder was by a different person, and not a multiple homicide, and assuming each murder was done by an actual US citizen (which we know illegals are likely perpetrators for crimes as seen by their high numbers in our prison system) it would still only show that ~.002% of the population committed murder with firearms.​

This you cannot say.

We're not deifying him nor is Zimmerman a bully.

If he used it in defense of his person then he should be found innocent, but of course you would rather have him be beaten up and then the police never find the perpetrator.

We do not believe the 2nd Amendment gives us a license to kill. This is one of the dumbest statements ever. Please take your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) elsewhere.

In the end, you're thread is a judgement made without merit and is nothing more than partisan bull(*)(*)(*)(*) from liberal who thinks he knows better than everyone else. You'd rather have a victim than a survivor.

When you're life is threatened you will use whatever means you can to survive. Plus, last time I checked the founders didn't put in an exceptions clause under the 2nd Amendment.

No! That would make too much sense.

He's not far off. There are many demanding a guilty verdict or face race riots as a result. Some people don't want justice, they want vengeance.

I agree with that we need to wait and see, but trials don't always have all of the evidence as lawyers use tricks to get things removed and the jury is only allowed to make their decision based on what evidence the Judge lets them see.

 

Again, you speak in generalities.

You see, we can spout opposing generalities all day long; that is an exercise in futility.

Be specific in your accusations, and then we can have what is commonly referred to as a "meaningful discussion." Perhaps you've heard of it?

Currently, though, all you are offering in your offense is a preponderance of meaninglessness rather than evidence.

That's right - I'm still waiting for those facts I requested. Haven't seen them yet - why is that?
Don't be afraid to admit mistakes. It builds character.

 

But keep in mind, few of us have seen the very BORING part where there are paragraphs of law to consider... that surely isn't mentioned (in full) on TV and not listed in this forum either. If you do your job on a jury... it is harder than many people might imagine, especially in a case like this one.

There is more to the coming decision than ANY of us here are aware of or privy to.

So, we'll see.

 

And so are you. YOU aren't involved with that case officially; there is a LOT that I've heard that you haven't even touched upon. So, I know that your method is far less 'specific' than you imagine.