OT: Zimmerman Not Guilty

[RoboticDreams]

Dimwitted says that guy who believes that STALKING, is only defined by a lion hunting prey.

Don't make me laugh.

Says the guy who thinks keeping an eye on someone is "stalking." You're grasping at straws that don't exist.

 

[Dodub]

As Americans we also have the right to assure our neighbors aren't being robbed. If you can prove that Zimmerman was doing anything else, please provide that evidence.

You're right, next time we see someone in the neighborhood that we don't know lets just start shooting. When the cops come I will tell them "as an American I have the right to assure my neighbors aren't being robbed, even though I don't know if this is a criminal, I couldn't take that chance". I'm sure that would go over well.

 

[RoboticDreams]

You're right, next time we see someone in the neighborhood that we don't know lets just start shooting. When the cops come I will tell them "as an American I have the right to assure my neighbors aren't being robbed, even though I don't know if this is a criminal, I couldn't take that chance". I'm sure that would go over well.

Because Zimmerman was "stalking" this "kid" while unloading his clip. Sound logic, smart guy.

 

[Dodub]

Says the guy who thinks keeping an eye on someone is "stalking." You're grasping at straws that don't exist.

So now he was only "keeping an eye" on someone. Stop using the words stalk and stalking because you've proven that you don't know what those words mean. I provided with you several official definitions of stalking and they matched up perfectly with what Zimmerman was doing. You can play dumb all you want, the rest of us will live in the real world.

Here is another definition of stalking, this time from Webster's:



: to pursue obsessively and to the point of harassment

 

[imac_21]

Because if the opportunity presents itself to get off an easy shot to the guy (like if he lowers his weapon & is facing away from you at relatively close range) a guy with a concealed gun can end the situation right then & there (an prevent any further crimes by the assailant). If he has the gun & doesn't have a clean shot, having the gun & not using it has no down side.

There are a lot of assumptions being made here. You're assuming that the shot will kill/incapacitate. What if it doesn't? What if grazes the guy? Now he's shooting too. That sounds like a real safe situation.

If it's a clean, easy shot then yes.

And we're going to trust people to make that judgement? What if he thinks he has an easy shot, draws, and the situation changes? Are we assuming this guy is Hollywood's Billy the Kidd and he will quick draw a concealed weapon and hit the guy with a kill shot? Or is he going to have to take his time to aim? Are we trusting everyone else in the bank to keep quiet when a second gun is drawn?

I'm curious as to how well trained you want these guys carrying concealed weapons to be, because my understanding is that police go through pretty intensive training, yet still sometimes fail to fire kill shots in tense situations. Is part of the training going to be removing adrenal glands so that these guys can maintain their cool in a dynamic situation where they are shooting a human being rather than a static target in a gun range with a completely controlled environment?

Fewer ATTEMPTS at robberies because of the potential of a robber being shot. He'll go somewhere he's confident there are no guns instead.

Because the majority of armed robbers are choosing the state they will commit their crimes in based on intensive research on gun laws. They aren't people that are in a desperate situation that are looking to knock off someplace nearby, say within the same state.

More risky = less common in the long run IMO.

Your opinion seems to contradict the evidence. Unless there are just all kinds of armed robberies in Canada that go unreported.

Fair enough. I strongly disagree with that, but fair enough. Have you seen the beginning of Pulp Fiction? Remember the part where he's talking about how you'll get your head blown off robbing a liquor store but coffee shops are much safer? You don't think that logic applies to real life at all?

What do you disagree with? That liquor store robberies are common, or that robbers have been killed in the act of committing the crime?

Are you really citing Quentin Tarantino as evidence? Let's dig into that quote though. I have presented two types of robber in a few posts. You haven't disagreed with them at any point, so I present them again. Would you consider our Pulp Fiction robbers to be the ones that meticulously plan out their crimes, or the type that is desperate for cash and is committing the robbery out of necessity?

I would also point out that just because liquor store robberies aren't the most common, that doesn't mean they aren't common. I don't see a lot of 16 year old kids that live in the hood and have decided they need to rob a place hopping in a cab and going to Starbucks when there is a liquor store two blocks away.

 

[Dodub]

Because Zimmerman was "stalking" this "kid" while unloading his clip. Sound logic, smart guy.

This is your logic, not mine. You posted it, I simply put it into a scenario. If you don't like the stupidity of the concept then speak to the man from whom it came (yourself).

 

[RoboticDreams]

So now he was only "keeping an eye" on someone. Stop using the words stalk and stalking because you've proven that you don't know what those words mean. I provided with you several official definitions of stalking and they matched up perfectly with what Zimmerman was doing. You can play dumb all you want, the rest of us will live in the real world.

Here is another definition of stalking, this time from Webster's:



: to pursue obsessively and to the point of harassment

Haha, thanks for another definition. Why didn't the prosecution at least get a "stalking" conviction? That has to carry some time.

 

[Dodub]

Haha, thanks for another definition. Why didn't the prosecution at least get a "stalking" conviction? That has to carry some time.

Why didn't the prosecution try to get a stalking conviction? Are you mentally challenged? Honestly you shouldn't have to be walked through these things. I'm just impressed at the fact that you can use a computer.

Again you were proven wrong (this time by being told what stalking is) and you are trying to divert the conversation by using stupidity

I feel like I'm talking to Cazic on the ESPN board. Seriously, are you trolling right now?????? That is an honest question, are you trolling?

 

[RoboticDreams]

Why didn't the prosecution try to get a stalking conviction? Are you mentally challenged? Honestly you shouldn't have to be walked through these things. I'm just impressed at the fact that you can use a computer.

Again were proven wrong (this time by being told what stalking is) and you are trying to divert the conversation by using stupidity

I feel like I'm talking to Cazic on the ESPN board. Seriously, are you trolling right now?????? That is an honest question, are you trolling?

Dude, you have nothing but flimsy arguments, which are juvenile at best. I think it's time for you to quit arguing with the big boys and head to bed. You base your entire argument off this "stalking" dream of yours. I can't argue stupid and ill informed.

 

[imac_21]

You make a fair point. So if Trayvon was so creeped out, why did he go back and confront Zimmerman? I wouldn't go and confront someone I feared had ill intent.

It depends on the context of the situation for me. It's the "fight or flight" response. They're both options. Choosing one over the other should not be a death sentence.

Martin made a choice that cost him his life. I'm not disputing that.

However, Zimmerman made two decisions that cost Martin his life, and made Zimmerman a killer.

First, he chose to follow Martin against the SUGGESTION of the 911 operator.
Second, he chose to follow Martin rather than speak to him.

Personally, I believe the second decision is the key. Had Zimmerman spoken to Martin, asked him what he was doing, then this is a non-story.

That being said, given the evidence in the case and Florida State law, Zimmerman's "fatal decision" does not lead to him being guilty of murder or manslaughter.

 

[Kinzu]

I do think this was racial profiling. If it was a white man walking down the street Im 99% sure Zimmerman wouldnt have followed. Zimmerman even said on the tape he was tired of these punks getting away with it. There had been robberies in his area and it was young black kids that did it. I think Zimmerman saw this young black kid and thought maybe he was trying to rob the area.

I'm sorry but if robberies are happening in my neighborhood, and they are believed to be caused by certain looking people be it a description or race, sex, height, or weight, and I see someone fitting the bill wandering around I'm certainly going to be suspicious. Now then is that profiling or common sense? If crimes were occurring in the area and believed to be caused by black men why shouldn't Zimmerman be suspicious after spotting one walking around at night? Robberies happening in the area gives him a clear reason to suspect anyone wandering around at night.

He wasn't suspicious of Trayvon because of a stereotype on being black. He was suspicious because of prior events that had been occurring in the area.

 

[imac_21]

You've got to be kidding me. You pulled up a google definition and think that means going up to someone and questioning him is the LEGAL definition of stalking? Do you know how hard it is to get convicted of stalking? This is the reach of all reaches.



Talking to someone when they don't want to be talked to isn't harassment. If that were true, then about 10,000 people could be arrested at every sports event in history. I can go up to you (a stranger) and ask you all kinds of questions. I can't threaten you, but I can question you all I want.

Maybe I missed something in this conversation, but I haven't seen anything that said Zimmerman spoke to Martin at all before Martin attacked him.

 

[imac_21]

The issue isn't whether racism exists or not. The issue is calling something or someone racist when it or he / she is nothing of the sort. There are things that are truly racist like taking race into consideration when hiring someone or taking race into consideration when renting a home to someone or treating someone worse (or better) because of their race. Or how Hmong people have been treated in Southeast Asia, etc.

Then there are things that are not at all racist but are called racist for political reasons. This case is a perfect example. So is liberal commentators saying that it is racist to criticize with Barack Obama (by that token it's also racist to agree with Condoleezza Rice, Allen West, Tim Scott, etc). Or when they call the Tea Party racist because they disagree with a black president (even though they'd support Tim Scott over ANY Democrat on earth for President). It's a straw man.

Again, maybe I missed something as the thread is moving really fast, but I didn't see anyone accuse rvnight of being racist.

I assume that you will acknowledge that racism exists in the USA. To dismiss it because one didn't cause the problem is absolute bullshit.

 

[RoboticDreams]

It depends on the context of the situation for me. It's the "fight or flight" response. They're both options. Choosing one over the other should not be a death sentence.

Martin made a choice that cost him his life. I'm not disputing that.

However, Zimmerman made two decisions that cost Martin his life, and made Zimmerman a killer.

First, he chose to follow Martin against the SUGGESTION of the 911 operator.
Second, he chose to follow Martin rather than speak to him.

Personally, I believe the second decision is the key. Had Zimmerman spoken to Martin, asked him what he was doing, then this is a non-story.

That being said, given the evidence in the case and Florida State law, Zimmerman's "fatal decision" does not lead to him being guilty of murder or manslaughter.

Again, fair point. The problem is, we have no way of knowing what Martin would've done had Zimmerman questioned him. We do know that if Trayvon had stayed at his dads he wouldn't be dead.

 

[yossarian]

Nevermind, didn't look at who posted that. It's clearly sarcasm.

Yes it was.

 

[Dodub]

Dude, you have nothing but flimsy arguments, which are juvenile at best. I think it's time for you to quit arguing with the big boys and head to bed. You base your entire argument off this "stalking" dream of yours. I can't argue stupid and ill informed.

HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHA

The big boys? Ask anyone on this board if they think that you are a big boy and they will laugh your ass off of SportsHoopla. You are a joke. You haven't made a solid argument yet and continue to make a fool out of yourself.

But hey, if not knowing the definition of stalking makes you a "big boy" in your little club of one, then you can have it.

Come see me when you're worthy because honestly you have no argument.

I can run through them for you. Robotic Dreams "arguments":

1) Stalking is a term that is solely used on Animal Planet to describe what a lion does when hunting his prey. Regardless of the definition of the word, this is what we are all to believe.

2) Following someone against their will to the point of harassment is not stalking even though this is the Webster's definition of stalking.

3) TM might have the right to walk down the street, but GZ's right to assure that his neighbors aren't being robbed supersedes, TM's right to walk down the street and mind his own business.

4) Police dispatchers should not be listened to and "drugged out thugs" should be pursued regardless of the suggestions from the police dispatcher.


These are ALL of the arguments that have been made by Robotic. He's such a "big boy" LMAO!!

 

[imac_21]

As Americans we also have the right to assure our neighbors aren't being robbed. If you can prove that Zimmerman was doing anything else, please provide that evidence.

I can't.

Exactly which law(s) was Martin breaking while Zimmerman followed him? Which house did he rob? Did he not have a right to walk in that neighbourhood? If not, why?

 

[imac_21]

Haha, thanks for another definition. Why didn't the prosecution at least get a "stalking" conviction? That has to carry some time.

Do you think they would have an easier time convicting Zimmerman of stalking, or Martin of burglary?

 

[Dodub]

I can't.

Exactly which law(s) was Martin breaking while Zimmerman followed him? Which house did he rob? Did he not have a right to walk in that neighbourhood? If not, why?

Mac I don't know why you are wasting you time with this kid.

He's worthless. He has his ridiculous opinions and his mind won't be swayed by anything. Martin was a drugged out thug who was up to no good and looking to rob every house in the neighborhood, who knows what he would have been capable of if GZ didn't stop him.

 

[yossarian]

Again, maybe I missed something as the thread is moving really fast, but I didn't see anyone accuse rvnight of being racist.

I assume that you will acknowledge that racism exists in the USA. To dismiss it because one didn't cause the problem is absolute bullshit.

I think he's referring to me saying that a middle class white guy saying a black man is worsening race relations by calling attention to race is kind of thoughtless. To be clear, I'm not calling anyone racist under these circumstances, just thoughtless about the context of making such a statement. I think that given the racial history of this country, particularly in the criminal justice system, calling attention to racial aspects of a criminal case should be looked at thoughtfully, even if it turns out to be wrong, without people getting so offended that they think it's "worsening race relations."