🇺🇸 Discussion: Guns, The Second Amendment, NRA - Part II

US News
The same facts show that Zimmerman followed Martin for no reason (given that Martin was committing no crime) under Florida law, Martin had a right to self defense with no duty to retreat. on a personal note, I believe that the person who was unarmed and was doing nothing but walking from the store had far more to fear from the armed man who suspected him of I don't know what and kept following him around. that seems pretty nightmarish to me.

Zimmerman called the polices non emergency line to report a suspicious person in a neighborhood with recent home invasions. Zimmerman didn't meet the legal definition of stalking or harassment. There's no evidence Zimmerman hit Martin, only the opposite. Your self defense claim on Martin's behalf doesn't work.
 
So, the NRA's new president isn't exactly going to quell the claims that the NRA is a racist organization.
 
So, the NRA's new president isn't exactly going to quell the claims that the NRA is a racist organization.
Her whole interview is honestly pretty terrifying. She goes on and on talking about mobilizing "gun-toters" to support Trump.

Meanwhile, Rick Scott is the latest to try and label a National Gun Registry an "extremist idea".
 
A good analysis is that the NRA needs Trump more than he needs the NRA. They spent a significantly less in the 2018 elections than in 2016. They need to get in on the Trump grift. Jokes on them if they think Trump is going to allow them to get in on his grift.
 
Zimmerman called the polices non emergency line to report a suspicious person in a neighborhood with recent home invasions. Zimmerman didn't meet the legal definition of stalking or harassment. There's no evidence Zimmerman hit Martin, only the opposite. Your self defense claim on Martin's behalf doesn't work.

Martin's self defense claim should, by any logical standard, be just as strong or stronger than Zimmerman's. Was Martin not afraid for his life when an unknown and armed assailant came to confront him? Cause... if some guy approaches me in the dark of night for no reason, and he is brandishing a gun... then all bets are off. If that guy turns his head, he better watch out... cause I'm gonna rush him. I shouldn't have to be on my knees with a gun in my face for me to be able to defend myself against an assailant with a gun.
 
Martin's self defense claim should, by any logical standard, be just as strong or stronger than Zimmerman's. Was Martin not afraid for his life when an unknown and armed assailant came to confront him? Cause... if some guy approaches me in the dark of night for no reason, and he is brandishing a gun... then all bets are off. If that guy turns his head, he better watch out... cause I'm gonna rush him. I shouldn't have to be on my knees with a gun in my face for me to be able to defend myself against an assailant with a gun.

What is your source for the claim that Zimmerman brandished his gun?
 
The fact that he shot him, I guess. It doesn't really ring very true that this guy would follow Trayvon, confront Trayvon, but didn't allow Trayvon to know he was carrying until the moment before killing him. Like Trayvon was so ravenous... so manic... that Zimmerman couldn't even send off a warning shot? It was kill or be killed? Hmmm..

For that to be true, Zimmerman came up to Trayvon, told him that he called the police, and then Trayvon just started waling on him. That really doesn't ring true to me, is all I can say... but you know, maybe it went down that way. No way to tell. Sure seems weird, when the kid wasn't violent and had no reason to start trouble.

These "stand your ground" laws muddy the waters in this exact way. At what point, is offensive force warranted? If I walk into the hood, and I feel threatened, do I have a right to start waling on somebody? The point at which something becomes defensive feels like a pretty hazy thing. And when it's used to track and kill an unarmed teenager at night... it starts to become a pretty big problem. This is why we have police. So stupid idiots won't go up to others... start something... and then justifiably homicide them. That's not cool. Zimmerman should have called the cops, and kept his distance. He did his duty as neighborhood watch at that point.
 
Last edited:
The fact that he shot him, I guess. It doesn't really ring very true that this guy would follow Trayvon, confront Trayvon, but didn't allow Trayvon to know he was carrying until the moment before killing him. Like Trayvon was so ravenous... so manic... that Zimmerman couldn't even send off a warning shot? It was kill or be killed? Hmmm..

For that to be true, Zimmerman came up to Trayvon, told him that he called the police, and then Trayvon just started waling on him. That really doesn't ring true to me, is all I can say... but you know, maybe it went down that way. No way to tell. Sure seems weird, when the kid wasn't violent and had no reason to start trouble.

These "stand your ground" laws muddy the waters in this exact way. At what point, is offensive force warranted? If I walk into the hood, and I feel threatened, do I have a right to start waling on somebody? The point at which something becomes defensive feels like a pretty hazy thing. And when it's used to track and kill an unarmed teenager at night... it starts to become a pretty big problem. This is why we have police. So stupid idiots won't go up to others... start something... and then justifiably homicide them. That's not cool. Zimmerman should have called the cops, and kept his distance. He did his duty as neighborhood watch at that point.

The legal definition of brandishing a firearm is to display it in a threatening manner. There is no evidence to suggest Zimmerman ever pulled his firearm until Martin was on already on top of him.

Why does it not ring true that Zimmerman would not let Martin know he was armed? That could possibly be seen as a threat. A warning shot is a terrible idea, that bullet is going to land somewhere. From a legal standpoint, you claim your life is under threat but you have time to safely fire a warning shot into the air or ground? Doesn't make sense.

You say Martin wasn't violent but there is evidence he was (videotaped fights at school, allegedly hitting a bus driver).

Zimmerman did call the cops (non emergency line), and while he did follow Martin to some extent he also lost sight of Martin and told dispatch for the police to meet him back as his truck. Despite this, Martin did not go home, he found his way in a confrontation with Zimmerman.

At what point is offensive force warranted? When you're lying on the ground, being punched in the face with your head hitting the concrete maybe?
 
I can not believe that in 2019, people still side with George ****ing Zimmerman.

I can't believe people still argue about this case with what they think happened as opposed to what is factually proven to have happened but hey, here we are.
 
The legal definition of brandishing a firearm is to display it in a threatening manner. There is no evidence to suggest Zimmerman ever pulled his firearm until Martin was on already on top of him.

Trayvon isn't here to tell his side of the story. We can never know with certainty what happened that night. Zimmerman's story is that he didn't pull out his gun until Martin was on top of him. There's no more reason to believe that story than there is to believe any other, really.

Why does it not ring true that Zimmerman would not let Martin know he was armed?
Cause he was there at an official capacity. If an amateur were in any kind of danger, it'd make sense to say something like, "Stop, neighborhood watch!" or "Stop, I'm a cop!" "Freeze!" Something like that. That's why he's following him, right? To ask questions? After that, a normal person would do everything possible to avoid killing another human being. You'd shoot them in the leg. You'd say, "Hey seriously, stop" and shoot into the air. Stuff like that. You know, I question the fight. Like, did Martin essentially launch Zimmerman to the ground, and then immediately start hitting his head against the asphalt? It just seems like this perfect scenario that would have no real motivation. There'd be no reason for Trayvon to do any of this. He didn't do anything wrong. Doesn't it make a whole lot more sense that this Zimmerman guy made up his mind that this was a burglar before he even confronted him, and he confronted Trayvon, threatening him with violence? It does to me. I don't know why a blameless kid would go from 0 to nearly smashing a complete stranger's skull to death. For what? To avoid telling the cops that this weird dude was stopping him from going home? When faced with those two options, this kid was... "you know... it's time to kill some people." I just don't get it i guess.

Honestly... just the fact that he followed him should be enough. He shouldn't have gone in there. No way. No authorities would have told him to do so. If you run over someone with a car through neglect, then they get tried with vehicular homicide. Well, if you go into a situation with your gun so you can be a hero, and then you accidentally kill a totally innocent person, then you must account. I don't see what's unfair about that. This guy was reckless. We're not in the wild west. A gun does not give you license to play bounty hunter.

You say Martin wasn't violent but there is evidence he was (videotaped fights at school, allegedly hitting a bus driver).
Zimmerman did call the cops (non emergency line), and while he did follow Martin to some extent he also lost sight of Martin and told dispatch for the police to meet him back as his truck. Despite this, Martin did not go home, he found his way in a confrontation with Zimmerman.

According to Zimmerman. That seems like another convenient interpretation that depends on him. Seems much more likely, that he lost track of him, and then found him again, confronted him, and killed him. Zimmerman was on the hunt for a burglar, and he wasn't gonna stop till he found him. What are you suggesting? That Martin realized that some guy was following him, and then he basically double backed in order to set the guy up and attack him? It's really weird how there is an obvious interpretation of how it could have gone, and then this far out depiction that paints Trayvon as this blood hungry teenager. Like, I don't know man. There's got to be more to it than that.

At what point is offensive force warranted? When you're lying on the ground, being punched in the face with your head hitting the concrete maybe?

Do you have data that that actually happened like that? That the bruising on the head wasn't the result of a scuffle.. getting pushed down, etc? You seem genuinely well informed about the topic, so I'm down to be wrong. My initial reaction is that you seem to be relying a lot on Zimmerman's word. The truth is we don't know what happened that night. We don't know.
 
Zimmerman called the polices non emergency line to report a suspicious person in a neighborhood with recent home invasions. Zimmerman didn't meet the legal definition of stalking or harassment. There's no evidence Zimmerman hit Martin, only the opposite. Your self defense claim on Martin's behalf doesn't work.
And why was Martin suspicion to Zimmerman? Because he was black person. There was zero reason to suspect Martin of anything. He wasn't scouting houses, he was walking home.
 
And why was Martin suspicion to Zimmerman? Because he was black person. There was zero reason to suspect Martin of anything. He wasn't scouting houses, he was walking home.

"Because he was black person"

Prove it as a fact that is why he called the police to report Martin.

He didn't volunteer Martin's race, he was asked if Martin was White, Black, or Hispanic and responded with, "He looks black". He said Martin looked like he was on drugs (he was).
 
Trayvon isn't here to tell his side of the story. We can never know with certainty what happened that night. Zimmerman's story is that he didn't pull out his gun until Martin was on top of him. There's no more reason to believe that story than there is to believe any other, really.

Martin had grass stains on his knees, abrasions on his knuckles. At least one eye witness said the man in the dark jacket (Martin) was on top of the man in the red jacket (Zimmerman). Martin was shot from underneath.

With that established, what makes more sense: Zimmerman pulled a gun on Martin who then took Zimmerman to ground (as opposed to running away) and started beating him in the face instead of going for the gun?



Cause he was there at an official capacity. If an amateur were in any kind of danger, it'd make sense to say something like, "Stop, neighborhood watch!" or "Stop, I'm a cop!" "Freeze!" Something like that. That's why he's following him, right? To ask questions? After that, a normal person would do everything possible to avoid killing another human being. You'd shoot them in the leg. You'd say, "Hey seriously, stop" and shoot into the air. Stuff like that. You know, I question the fight. Like, did Martin essentially launch Zimmerman to the ground, and then immediately start hitting his head against the asphalt? It just seems like this perfect scenario that would have no real motivation. There'd be no reason for Trayvon to do any of this. He didn't do anything wrong. Doesn't it make a whole lot more sense that this Zimmerman guy made up his mind that this was a burglar before he even confronted him, and he confronted Trayvon, threatening him with violence? It does to me. I don't know why a blameless kid would go from 0 to nearly smashing a complete stranger's skull to death. For what? To avoid telling the cops that this weird dude was stopping him from going home? When faced with those two options, this kid was... "you know... it's time to kill some people." I just don't get it i guess.

You're arguing about what you think happened and what makes
sense to you personally instead of looking at what is proven.

Again, you don't shoot your gun in the air. You don't try to shoot someone in the leg either. You'll likely miss and be attacked, this isn't a movie.

You say Martin had no motivation to attack Zimmerman based on what? We do know he was irritated by the "creepy ass cracka" following him and that he was prone to violence.


Honestly... just the fact that he followed him should be enough. He shouldn't have gone in there. No way. No authorities would have told him to do so. If you run over someone with a car through neglect, then they get tried with vehicular homicide. Well, if you go into a situation with your gun so you can be a hero, and then you accidentally kill a totally innocent person, then you must account. I don't see what's unfair about that. This guy was reckless. We're not in the wild west. A gun does not give you license to play bounty hunter.

You describe Martin as a totally innocent person but can't prove it. We know he was on top of Zimmerman hitting him in the face.

What we don't know is what started the actual confrontation so how can say for a fact that Martin did not initiate the fight? You can't.


According to Zimmerman. That seems like another convenient interpretation that depends on him. Seems much more likely, that he lost track of him, and then found him again, confronted him, and killed him. Zimmerman was on the hunt for a burglar, and he wasn't gonna stop till he found him. What are you suggesting? That Martin realized that some guy was following him, and then he basically double backed in order to set the guy up and attack him? It's really weird how there is an obvious interpretation of how it could have gone, and then this far out depiction that paints Trayvon as this blood hungry teenager. Like, I don't know man. There's got to be more to it than that.




Do you have data that that actually happened like that? That the bruising on the head wasn't the result of a scuffle.. getting pushed down, etc? You seem genuinely well informed about the topic, so I'm down to be wrong. My initial reaction is that you seem to be relying a lot on Zimmerman's word. The truth is we don't know what happened that night. We don't know.

We don't know what happened that night, we don't know, but also Trayvon Martin did nothing wrong. That's a contradiction.

I'm looking at the evidence and going off of that. Feel free to show where I said something that isn't true. You have this long winded post filled with hypotheticals about what you think happened and what seems likely to you yet you don't seem to know the facts of this case that are readily available. Not trying to be rude, it's just a pain to respond to a post like this on mobile.
 
We don't know what happened that night, we don't know, but also Trayvon Martin did nothing wrong. That's a contradiction.

I'm looking at the evidence and going off of that. Feel free to show where I said something that isn't true. You have this long winded post filled with hypotheticals about what you think happened and what seems likely to you yet you don't seem to know the facts of this case that are readily available. Not trying to be rude, it's just a pain to respond to a post like this on mobile.

You're going off of Zimmerman's story... which is suspect to say the least. I've laid out both stories and told you why I think Trayvon's possible story is more compelling than Zimmerman's. It relies on common sense. Zimmerman's story puts Trayvon in the position, of whaling against an armed man... for essentially no reason. Trayvon was doing nothing illegal. Zimmerman's story is suggesting that Trayvon would rather kill someone than wait 20 minutes for authorities to come. I find that highly suspicious and convenient for Zimmerman.

You don't know the facts either. You are presuming Zimmerman's story to be based on facts, which you don't know.

At the end of the day Zimmerman tracked this young man, confronted this young man, and then killed this unarmed man. Zimmerman had no business being there. He's not a law enforcement authority. At very least... like I said... that is a reckless use of a gun, and should be considered a homicide... just like negligently running over someone with your car is a homicide. Even if Zimmerman got into a confrontation with Trayvon... Zimmerman initiated it by cornering this young man at night.
 
"Because he was black person"

Prove it as a fact that is why he called the police to report Martin.

He didn't volunteer Martin's race, he was asked if Martin was White, Black, or Hispanic and responded with, "He looks black". He said Martin looked like he was on drugs (he was).
So I am clear. How close was Zimmerman that he could tell that Martin, who was wearing his hoodie, had trace amounts of marijuana in his system, a drug getting legalized all over the country? Could he see his eyes?

Can you present an actual reason for him to follow a kid on his way home?
 
Oh come on. He had traces of marijuana in his system. 1) those traces could have been weeks old and 2) it's ****ing marijuana, who cares that he smoked marijuana?
Those who want to defend Zimmerman killing a black kid who was just walking home.

It is always amazing when people make excuse for Zimmerman. Arguing the idea of what he must have felt. You notice they never mention what Martin must have been feeling, being followed at night, just walking home?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"