The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

by **GOSD** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:48 pm

The President wrote:So being reactionary caused this whole case to become a tool for people to use for their own purposes.

Here's what it looks like. Zimmerman saw a black guy and got scared. He followed him when he was told not to. Trayvon realized this and confronted him. Zimmerman says he reached for his phone at this point. I'm guessing Trayvon thought he was pulling a weapon and beat up Zimmerman. Zimmerman pulls a gun and kills him.

All this is is an unfortunate series of events that lead to the death of a kid. Do I think Zimmerman should be arrested for murder? No. I do think that he should be arrested for something. Being a dumbass? Calling 911 for being scared of a black man? Not knowing where he was when calling 911? He still deserves some sort of punishment.

I hate that this is a partisan issue. I heard Hannity practically jerking off when the new facts came out. Look at this thread. GOSD and achilles and Snug are in the anti-Trayvon camp. Why is a racial issue an issue to divide down party lines (rhetorical question)?

Where did I say that I was against Trayvon? :roll:

by **ReturnoftheMack** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:50 pm

GOSD wrote:
Where did I say that I was against Trayvon?

I was paraphrasing.

by **GOSD** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:53 pm

The President wrote:
I was paraphrasing.

You did it wrong then. :wink:

I'm in the "wait until the facts come out corner".

by **ReturnoftheMack** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:01 am

I stand corrected.

by **DMM** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 6:01 am

I don't understand why this a black and white thing.

by **achilles** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 10:03 am

GOSD wrote:
You did it wrong then.

I'm in the "wait until the facts come out corner".

He did. I've consistently said to wait until much more is known, rather than listen to gossip or innuendo, or judgments based on little other than personal bias; which is what this case seems all about at this time. As I've said, if Zimmerman is indeed guilty of what the press and Martin's parents, and indeed numerous demagogues including Sharpton and Obama himself accuse him of, then at some point he will be charged, and tried, and if the evidence is compelling, convicted. But you guys seem to have missed that "fair trial" step, and have already convicted him, in much the same manner Jewell was tried and convicted in the press with no facts out there---before he was proven innocent.

by **achilles** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 10:06 am

To put this in a bit more context, there's this, a case I never even heard about until just now. But Martin, you can't get away from.

Is there something about the one case that makes it worthy of being a national media crisis, and the other that makes it worthy of being buried, with Obama never to say jack about it?

by **e_galston** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 10:19 am

Just gonna point out the only reason Obama said anything about this case is the press asked him about it. Its not something he went out of his way to talk about.

by **CountD** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 10:23 am

Sitebreaker wrote:Just gonna point out the only reason Obama said anything about this case is the press asked him about it. Its not something he went out of his way to talk about.

how many press questions does he get a day/month/year?

by **achilles** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 10:24 am

Sitebreaker wrote:Just gonna point out the only reason Obama said anything about this case is the press asked him about it. Its not something he went out of his way to talk about.

He routinely ducks press questions, he could have avoided this one. But he has a history of commenting on such things, and ramping up tensions by doing so, rather than easing them.

by **S.F. Jude Terror** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 10:46 am

DMM wrote:I don't understand why this a black and white thing.

Maybe the media going out of their way to make race a focal point of the story, along with various black "leaders" doing so? I notice that most of the time, perpetrators of crimes are referred to only as "youths." Obviously they wanted a different reaction to this. I wonder why.

by **Snug** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 10:49 am

I am not anti-Trayvon. I am pro-individual right to self-defense.

At the point that one man is sitting on top of another beating on him, it doesn't much matter how that situation came to be. If - note I said IF - that was indeed what was happening when Mr. Zimmerman fired his gun, then I support his actions. I don't think you should have to wait until your skull is fractured to defend yourself, with lethal force if necessary.

by **S.F. Jude Terror** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 10:57 am

Zimmerman acted very irresponsibly with his gun. Perhaps he shot Martin in self defense, but he still had no right to go around like a vigilante with his gun stalking "criminals." He created the situation. So while he may not be guilty of murder (because two wrongs don't make a right), his should certainly be the end of his right to carry a gun and his "crime fighting" career, and he deserves to be punished in some way for causing this a well (though I'm not sure how). There is a reason we have paid professionals to perform police work... so that this sort of thing doesn't happen (though of course it a still does sometimes, but at least there was a good faith effort to train the person with the gun to react properly in situations like this).

by **DMM** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 11:10 am

If armed individuals can go around picking fights with people, if - note I said IF - that was indeed what was happening when Mr. Zimmerman fired his gun, and then shoot those people and hide behind Stand Your Ground, then I think everybody should carry a gun. At the fist sign of physical aggression, shoot to kill. Actually, I don't understand why there isn't a Stand Your Ground law for unarmed individuals. Technically, Trayvon was "Standing his Ground" and defending his life that he percieved to be in danger by a gun toting man who was folllowing him around his neighborhood. I don't think you should have to wait until you have a sucking gun shot wound to your chest to defend yourself, with lethal force if necessary.

by **S.F. Jude Terror** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 11:17 am

DMM wrote:If armed individuals can go around picking fights with people, if - note I said IF - that was indeed what was happening when Mr. Zimmerman fired his gun, and then shoot those people and hide behind Stand Your Ground, then I think everybody should carry a gun. At the fist sign of physical aggression, shoot to kill. Actually, I don't understand why there isn't a Stand Your Ground law for unarmed individuals. Technically, Trayvon was "Standing his Ground" and defending his life that he percieved to be in danger by a gun toting man who was folllowing him around his neighborhood. I don't think you should have to wait until you have a sucking gun shot wound to your chest to defend yourself, with lethal force if necessary.

How did Martin know Zimmerman had a gun when he was following him? This is all speculation. Zimmerman should not have been following people like a fat Mexican Philip Marlowe, and Martin shouldn't have started a physical altercation with someone regardless of what they were doing. IMO, if that is what actually happened.