Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
I must have missed the release-do you recall what his name was?
I must have missed the release-do you recall what his name was?
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
Your news is slanted and opinion, my news is the gospel truth even when its slanted and opinion.
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
Interesting. But irrelevant to a discussion of NBC's fraud, don't you think?
Interesting. But irrelevant to a discussion of NBC's fraud, don't you think?
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
Yeah, and it's a little more subtle than just left and right. What stories are covered? How are they covered? Who is put on the screen? Where does it appear in the newscast? DOES it appear in the newscast? How much time is devoted to the story? What NBC did was a discreet, deliberate, totally inappropriate act. And no amount of sophistry about Fox changes that fact.
Yeah, and it's a little more subtle than just left and right. What stories are covered? How are they covered? Who is put on the screen? Where does it appear in the newscast? DOES it appear in the newscast? How much time is devoted to the story? What NBC did was a discreet, deliberate, totally inappropriate act. And no amount of sophistry about Fox changes that fact.
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
Can't speak to the validity or anything...but a case not unlike the Martin/Zimmerman case. Someone killed where the shooter is claiming self defense. Another sign these gun laws need to be dealt with:
Unstable ground: The fine line between self-defense and murder
CNN
Something was definitely wrong.
Adkins and his wife, Antonia, had searched the neighborhood just hours earlier, tracing their missing son's footsteps down two miles of dusty road to a cluster of strip malls. But they didn't make it as far as the Taco Bell. If they had, they would have come across the flashing police lights and the body of Daniel Jr., lying on the asphalt by the drive-thru window, with their dog Lady by his side.
The next morning brought two police detectives bearing news that Daniel Jr., who was 29 but had the mental capacity of a 13-year-old, had been shot and killed. The shooter said he acted in self-defense. He has not been charged.
Adkins' death on April 3 marks the most recent chapter in America's debate over the right to use lethal force. The controversy has ricocheted from coast to coast ever since unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin was shot to death in Sanford, Florida, on February 26.
In Arizona, where the Adkins family lives, a similar law was enacted in 2006, tacked on to another gun bill after a gun rights lobbyist promoted it for 20 seconds in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Called "Make my Day," it says people have no duty to retreat before using deadly force to protect themselves anywhere they have the legal right to be.
Can't speak to the validity or anything...but a case not unlike the Martin/Zimmerman case. Someone killed where the shooter is claiming self defense. Another sign these gun laws need to be dealt with:
Unstable ground: The fine line between self-defense and murder
CNN
Something was definitely wrong.
Adkins and his wife, Antonia, had searched the neighborhood just hours earlier, tracing their missing son's footsteps down two miles of dusty road to a cluster of strip malls. But they didn't make it as far as the Taco Bell. If they had, they would have come across the flashing police lights and the body of Daniel Jr., lying on the asphalt by the drive-thru window, with their dog Lady by his side.
The next morning brought two police detectives bearing news that Daniel Jr., who was 29 but had the mental capacity of a 13-year-old, had been shot and killed. The shooter said he acted in self-defense. He has not been charged.
Adkins' death on April 3 marks the most recent chapter in America's debate over the right to use lethal force. The controversy has ricocheted from coast to coast ever since unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin was shot to death in Sanford, Florida, on February 26.
In Arizona, where the Adkins family lives, a similar law was enacted in 2006, tacked on to another gun bill after a gun rights lobbyist promoted it for 20 seconds in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Called "Make my Day," it says people have no duty to retreat before using deadly force to protect themselves anywhere they have the legal right to be.
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
The struggle to make ambiguous "stand your ground" type killings into a big national problem continues, despite their relative rarity. Generally from folks who are always looking for ways to seriously proscribe the "right to bear arms." Frankly, I have no idea whether these laws are a problem. I do know that a couple of examples are insufficient to make the case that the laws have to be "dealt with." Expecially when no evidence pointing to the lives these laws have saved is offered. CNN just wants us to know we've got a "problem". Just like we "knew" that George Zimmerman was a drooling racist. And the Duke LAX boys "raped" that whore.
The struggle to make ambiguous "stand your ground" type killings into a big national problem continues, despite their relative rarity. Generally from folks who are always looking for ways to seriously proscribe the "right to bear arms." Frankly, I have no idea whether these laws are a problem. I do know that a couple of examples are insufficient to make the case that the laws have to be "dealt with." Expecially when no evidence pointing to the lives these laws have saved is offered. CNN just wants us to know we've got a "problem". Just like we "knew" that George Zimmerman was a drooling racist. And the Duke LAX boys "raped" that whore.
Last edited:
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
I understand your more nuanced position. Mine shouldn't be a surprise.
It quite apparent that this could be and is being used to protect folks that kill with little justification. Whether it turns out Adkins was killed justly or not, its quite evident that there is a potential scenario here of obvious gross misjustice. A few unprosecuted murders is too many. On the other hand, there is no evidence to show that stand your ground have been helpful at all. Until any proof shows up on the other side of the ledger...this is a one sided argument.
In the end, if the suggestion is that its not important because of a small number of cases...then it shouldn't be a problem to repeal it as the only proof is that its unjust.
Likewise, these laws are a microcosm of the larger issue of guns everywhere laws. When Rep Gifford was shot...one dude almost plugged an innocent guy who was running away. Does that shooter then claim self defense? Its out of control. When it happened nobody on this board posted that they thought if everyone was armed that it would have made the situation better. Likewise, the day government facilities and businesses where security is important allow concealed handguns, then we can talk...until then guns do not make society safer. Absolutely the gun laws should be dealt with.
I understand your more nuanced position. Mine shouldn't be a surprise.
It quite apparent that this could be and is being used to protect folks that kill with little justification. Whether it turns out Adkins was killed justly or not, its quite evident that there is a potential scenario here of obvious gross misjustice. A few unprosecuted murders is too many. On the other hand, there is no evidence to show that stand your ground have been helpful at all. Until any proof shows up on the other side of the ledger...this is a one sided argument.
In the end, if the suggestion is that its not important because of a small number of cases...then it shouldn't be a problem to repeal it as the only proof is that its unjust.
Likewise, these laws are a microcosm of the larger issue of guns everywhere laws. When Rep Gifford was shot...one dude almost plugged an innocent guy who was running away. Does that shooter then claim self defense? Its out of control. When it happened nobody on this board posted that they thought if everyone was armed that it would have made the situation better. Likewise, the day government facilities and businesses where security is important allow concealed handguns, then we can talk...until then guns do not make society safer. Absolutely the gun laws should be dealt with.
Last edited:
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
Apparant to you, perhaps, but not to me. Evidence, please, not annecdotes. As to the Giffords shooting, many people here blamed Sarah Palin, personally, directly.
Apparant to you, perhaps, but not to me. Evidence, please, not annecdotes. As to the Giffords shooting, many people here blamed Sarah Palin, personally, directly.
Last edited:
bronconick
Yep, still here
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
I don't think any of the laws are bad ones. I think the combination of them has me worried.
A law expanding the right to self defense when in fear of one's life, family's life or property? Fine.
A law allowing people to apply for a concealed weapons permit? Fine.
The combination as written in some places apparently leaves us with Americans with a dozen hours of training making shoot/no-shoot decisions like they're cops, who go through an entire academy which I assume includes more than 10-15 hours on the subject. At a minimum, I'd say the CCW licenses should require more hours of training and discussion. Anyone's who's had firearms training has heard the saying about "Don't point the gun unless you're prepared to fire." Add in some work on when a good time to point the gun is.
I don't think any of the laws are bad ones. I think the combination of them has me worried.
A law expanding the right to self defense when in fear of one's life, family's life or property? Fine.
A law allowing people to apply for a concealed weapons permit? Fine.
The combination as written in some places apparently leaves us with Americans with a dozen hours of training making shoot/no-shoot decisions like they're cops, who go through an entire academy which I assume includes more than 10-15 hours on the subject. At a minimum, I'd say the CCW licenses should require more hours of training and discussion. Anyone's who's had firearms training has heard the saying about "Don't point the gun unless you're prepared to fire." Add in some work on when a good time to point the gun is.
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
I have just stated the obvious example of someone gunning down someone with the functions of a 13 yo and they know who did the shooting. The trial hasn't happened, but he could easily be found innocent when without the law he would be death penalty bait. Regardless, not being arrested when a proven shooting has occurred is already misjustice. Do you believe otherwise?
Now its your turn. Show any proof that stand your ground has saved lives. Is this where you back down?
I have just stated the obvious example of someone gunning down someone with the functions of a 13 yo and they know who did the shooting. The trial hasn't happened, but he could easily be found innocent when without the law he would be death penalty bait. Regardless, not being arrested when a proven shooting has occurred is already misjustice. Do you believe otherwise?
Now its your turn. Show any proof that stand your ground has saved lives. Is this where you back down?
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
I haven't got any. I have no idea whether "stand your ground" is a net gain or a net loss in terms of innocent lives saved. And neither do you .However, you have made up your mind based on a couple of incidents in a country of over 300 million people and tens of millions of crimes every year. It's obvious, what we're dealing with here are your prejudices, rather than any empirical evidence. You could be right. But you haven't made an effective case. Just shared with us anti-gun bumper sticker thinking.
I haven't got any. I have no idea whether "stand your ground" is a net gain or a net loss in terms of innocent lives saved. And neither do you .However, you have made up your mind based on a couple of incidents in a country of over 300 million people and tens of millions of crimes every year. It's obvious, what we're dealing with here are your prejudices, rather than any empirical evidence. You could be right. But you haven't made an effective case. Just shared with us anti-gun bumper sticker thinking.
Last edited:
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
James Patrick Wonder is claiming "Stand Your Ground" immunity on manslaughter charges in the shooting of a customs agent, Donald Pettit, in the parking lot of a Pembroke Pines post office. Wonder claims Pettit followed him to the lot in a road rage incident, before he shot the agent in front of Pettit's 12-year-old daughter, who was in the car with him.
James Patrick Wonder is claiming "Stand Your Ground" immunity on manslaughter charges in the shooting of a customs agent, Donald Pettit, in the parking lot of a Pembroke Pines post office. Wonder claims Pettit followed him to the lot in a road rage incident, before he shot the agent in front of Pettit's 12-year-old daughter, who was in the car with him.
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
Pile the annecdotes as high as the roof. They're still annecdotes. With no balance or nuance whatsoever. We're up to 3 now. Obviously you're convinced, I'm not. As a practical matter, whether or not there's a "stand your ground law," any citizen is permitted to use whatever force available to protect his life. In these annecdotes, we just "know" the shooters involved actually committed murder. Just as we "know" George Zimmerman acted out of racial animus, and that whore in Durham was telling the truth.
Somewhere the Queen of Hearts is pleased.
Pile the annecdotes as high as the roof. They're still annecdotes. With no balance or nuance whatsoever. We're up to 3 now. Obviously you're convinced, I'm not. As a practical matter, whether or not there's a "stand your ground law," any citizen is permitted to use whatever force available to protect his life. In these annecdotes, we just "know" the shooters involved actually committed murder. Just as we "know" George Zimmerman acted out of racial animus, and that whore in Durham was telling the truth.
Somewhere the Queen of Hearts is pleased.
Last edited:
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
Miami Dade Circuit Judge Beth Bloom cleared Garcia under Stand Your Ground, after Garcia chased a Miami man, Pedro Roteta, for two blocks, after Roteta stole his car radio. The judge ruled the alleged thief swung a bag of stolen radios, which was enough of a threat for Garcia to stab him to death. Garcia didn't call 911. Instead he hid the knife and sold the radios, even the ones that weren't his.
With Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, an analysis of state data shows deaths due to self defense are up over 200 percent since the law took effect. Do you really think that the number of crimes are up 200%?
You find anything on the number of lives saved yet?
Miami Dade Circuit Judge Beth Bloom cleared Garcia under Stand Your Ground, after Garcia chased a Miami man, Pedro Roteta, for two blocks, after Roteta stole his car radio. The judge ruled the alleged thief swung a bag of stolen radios, which was enough of a threat for Garcia to stab him to death. Garcia didn't call 911. Instead he hid the knife and sold the radios, even the ones that weren't his.
With Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, an analysis of state data shows deaths due to self defense are up over 200 percent since the law took effect. Do you really think that the number of crimes are up 200%?
You find anything on the number of lives saved yet?
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
Up 200% from what number? I don't share your obsession with this issue. I'm not a gun person, neither am I swayed by sweaty earnest anti-gun propaganda. So you can keep plodding along, citing annecdotes which "prove" that "stand your ground" is a horrible miscarriage of justice. Particularly as it applies to the Zimmerman case, which has you so worked up. But remember this, if Martin attacked Zimmerman, he would have been justified in using whatever force was necessary to defend himslef. Including lethal force.
And if you're going to cite statistics from "studies", you really should provide attribution.
Up 200% from what number? I don't share your obsession with this issue. I'm not a gun person, neither am I swayed by sweaty earnest anti-gun propaganda. So you can keep plodding along, citing annecdotes which "prove" that "stand your ground" is a horrible miscarriage of justice. Particularly as it applies to the Zimmerman case, which has you so worked up. But remember this, if Martin attacked Zimmerman, he would have been justified in using whatever force was necessary to defend himslef. Including lethal force.
And if you're going to cite statistics from "studies", you really should provide attribution.
Last edited:
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
And if Zimmerman attacked Martin, Zimmerman will still likely be justified in killing Martin. That's the problem with the law.
There's no upside for justice here, only downside...its a one sided discussion.
And if Zimmerman attacked Martin, Zimmerman will still likely be justified in killing Martin. That's the problem with the law.
There's no upside for justice here, only downside...its a one sided discussion.
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
Man, these delusions about "profiling" and "racism" and "Zimmerman attacking Martin" just won't go away, will they? Despite the lack of evidence (I guess Zimmerman could have banged his head on the cement just to cover his a*s) Not as long as libs keep stoking the fires, even though the evidence points away from their prejudiced conclusions (to which so many people reflexively jumped).
Some people who have posted here (not you, I believe) have taken the position that based on their extensive medical training, Zimmerman "didn't look hurt to me." And even if he sustained injuries due to an attack by Martin, it doesn't make any difference. This was a black kid killed by a "WHITE latino" man. Get the rope.
Man, these delusions about "profiling" and "racism" and "Zimmerman attacking Martin" just won't go away, will they? Despite the lack of evidence (I guess Zimmerman could have banged his head on the cement just to cover his a*s) Not as long as libs keep stoking the fires, even though the evidence points away from their prejudiced conclusions (to which so many people reflexively jumped).
Some people who have posted here (not you, I believe) have taken the position that based on their extensive medical training, Zimmerman "didn't look hurt to me." And even if he sustained injuries due to an attack by Martin, it doesn't make any difference. This was a black kid killed by a "WHITE latino" man. Get the rope.
Last edited:
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
???? You just said this:
I said the opposite could also be true:
And suddenly I'm racist and profiling? Whatever floats the boat.
???? You just said this:
I said the opposite could also be true:
And suddenly I'm racist and profiling? Whatever floats the boat.
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
I did not suggest you were either. However, it is people on your side of this incident who've been making arguments about racism and profiling. It's just too good an opportunity to pass up.
I did not suggest you were either. However, it is people on your side of this incident who've been making arguments about racism and profiling. It's just too good an opportunity to pass up.