Zimmerman

[Glocktogo]

I've done no such thing!

I'm pretty sure that I have Never said he should be found guilty.
The search function is your friend. Look it up and get back to me.

Nice try, but I'm not rising to the bait. Are you now admitting that he should be found not guilty?

 

[Hobbes]

I'm merely working with what you've typed so far. I and many others here have focused on the process and rule of law, while you have focused on Zimmerman personally and his alleged but unverifiable motives at the moment the shot was fired. Had you stated that you believe Zimmerman was in over his head and shot when he wasn't in danger of death or great bodily harm (which by the way is NOT the standard to convict), I might tend to agree with you. Instead you've stated several times you believe Zimmerman to have committed murder. OK fine, that's what you believe. I can relate to that.

What I can't relate to is your continued and unwavering insistence that he should be found guilty of something that hasn't been proven. You and you alone are responsible for the impression you're making. I am inferring nothing in your posts, you've implied it. You may think that's semantics, but in fact it's a very important distinction.

Back that accusation up or GTFO.

 

[n2sooners]

I don't know about Hobbes but I don't think he had anything to fear.
If Barney Fife stays in his car, and keeps his bullet in his pocket, we never even hear about this.
This is what vexes me so about this whole thread. Conservatives defending a busybody who has to investigate a person walking down the street minding his own business.

And if Martin had gone on home instead of confronting Zimmerman then he would still be alive today. Doesn't address the question though. If Zimmerman had reasonable cause to fear great bodily harm or death then he acted in self defense and committed no crime.

 

[Glocktogo]

Back that accusation up or GTFO.

LOL... This isn't a court of law, it's the interwebz. I said what I said and I stand by it. Prove it isn't true or GTFO.

 

[Hobbes]

LOL... This isn't a court of law, it's the interwebz. I said what I said and I stand by it. Prove it isn't true or GTFO.

So, you can't then.

You just resort to false accusations when you're in a bind in a interwebz argument.

 

[Glocktogo]

If Zimmerman had reasonable cause to fear great bodily harm or death then he acted in self defense and committed no crime.

The valiant Trayvon defenders don't get that part. The standard of a reasonable man at the time the shot was fired is the one and only point under which Zimmerman could be rightly convicted, under FL law. They can prove Zimmerman was an idiot. They can prove he followed Martin at least at the beginning. They can even prove that Zimmerman assumed Martin was a punk. They can't prove Zimmerman waasn't in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm at the moment he drew the gun and fired.

Rule of law, rule of law, rule of law. I am not and will not defend Zimmerman's actions leading up to the shooting. I will defend the rule of law though!

 

[Glocktogo]

So, you can't then.

You just resort to false accusations when you're in a bind in a interwebz argument.

YOU, just resort to accusations of personal attacks when none exist. I haven't called you any names or undermined your integrity. I've called into question your debate tactics and your "facts". As in the court case, the problem is you're focusing on the person and not the content. Focus on the actions and words, not the person(s) themselves.

 

[ignerntbend]

And if Martin had gone on home instead of confronting Zimmerman then he would still be alive today. Doesn't address the question though. If Zimmerman had reasonable cause to fear great bodily harm or death then he acted in self defense and committed no crime.

But who put him in that situation, N2?
My biggest concern here is that a bunch of people will turn into vigilantes who are always fearful for their lives.
If I have some sort of conjured suspicion of a guy who is bigger and younger than me[and walking down the God Damned street], I can't confront him just because I've got a gun in my pocket, and I know that I can kill him if need be.

Your gun rights come with responsibilities.

 

[Hobbes]

YOU, just resort to accusations of personal attacks when none exist. I haven't called you any names or undermined your integrity. I've called into question your debate tactics and your "facts". As in the court case, the problem is you're focusing on the person and not the content. Focus on the actions and words, not the person(s) themselves.

See, there you go again!

Where did I say personal attacks? You can't stop trying to put words in my mouth, can you?
You tried to back me into holding a position that I don't hold by claiming I said something I didn't.

You want to argue the case or continue to try and mis-characterize my position?

 

[n2sooners]

But who put him in that situation, N2?
My biggest concern here is that a bunch of people will turn into vigilantes who are always fearful for their lives.
If I have some sort of conjured suspicion of a guy who is bigger and younger than me[and walking down the God Damned street], I can't confront him just because I've got a gun in my pocket, and I know that I can kill him if need be.

Your gun rights come with responsibilities.

I don't know who put him in that situation? Who made the initial contact? Who started the fight? We don't know for sure. And it doesn't matter how he ended up there, it matters that he was there and he had reason to fear he was going to suffer great bodily harm or death. The reason stand your ground doesn't apply here is because at that point, fleeing wasn't an option for Zimmerman. You don't lose your right to get out of your car if there is a suspicious person in your neighborhood just because you are exercising your second amendment rights. As far as we know, Zimmerman never got too close to Martin and it was Martin who initiated the contact. But many are willing to condemn Zimmerman and try to put conditions on using self defense or even exercising your constitutional rights. It's funny how some are upset that they can't carry in their favorite restaurant while others don't think you should be allowed to walk outside in the dark while carrying.