By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Breaking News: George Zimmerman Found Not Guilty!

badgenome said:
Mr Khan said:
Something really should be happening to this guy. I doubt he had lethal intent, but it's clear that he needs to learn that guns kill people, and that if it hadn't been a black teenager he killed, he would have gotten in a lot of trouble

I think he's pretty clear on the fact that guns kill people after he took a guy's life with one. Now that his life has been turned upside down for the past year and a half, hating Zimmerman has become a national pastime for about half of the population, and he and his family will have to look over their shoulders for the rest of their days, I'm not sure what else you think should happen to him at this point given the lack of evidence.

And the bolded is race-baiting that is beneath even you...

... is what I'd say, but I seem to remember you insinuating that something really should be happening to kowenicki for being a "class traitor", whatever the fuck that is, so I guess I'm not that surprised.

Quite the contrary, though. If Zimmerman were black rather than mestizo (with a "white" sounding name), this would never have been a national news story.

I think it's pretty clear that if Zimmerman were black, his mom would have gotten scared and he'd be moving with his auntie and uncle to Bel Air.



Around the Network
insomniac17 said:
 
 
disolitude said:

I can understand having weapons for self defense in your house, for home defense purposes. Hell I grew up in a house which had a hunting rifle and a shotgun that belonged to my grandfather and my dad... However where I live, I absolutely dont see a reason why a civilians need to carry guns on them.

I dont live in USA, and am not saying you are wrong or dont know better... you do what you need to do to protect yourself where you live.

Here is a video which argues my point that civilians and guns do not mix, even for "self denfense"...especially when an argument occurs and people lose their cool.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZ87CGV9Wkg

But there are plenty of times where the mere presence of a firearm carried by a civilian prevents a crime from being committed. And it's not like crime shoots way up when people carry. If anything, there is a weak correlation towards the opposite. Also, cops accidentally shoot more people than people who carry concealed firearms. The cops can get away with it. The civilian will go through hell and will probably face some very serious punishments.


Its possible that some crimes may be prevented but if you look at the overall stats and yearly deaths by firearms, USA tends have 10000+ per year while a neighbouring country Canada has around 150. Even when you adjust the population difference, you still get to a 7:1 higher death ratio involving firearms in USA.

Having a gun on you at all times can protect you in grave danger. But it can also lead to irrational decisions, escalated arguments and remove the likelyhood for civilized and  non violent resolutions for fights and arguments. After all, youre packing heat...why would you not charge in to a potential altercation head first? Push comes to shove, its self defense...



disolitude said:
insomniac17 said:
 
 
disolitude said:

I can understand having weapons for self defense in your house, for home defense purposes. Hell I grew up in a house which had a hunting rifle and a shotgun that belonged to my grandfather and my dad... However where I live, I absolutely dont see a reason why a civilians need to carry guns on them.

I dont live in USA, and am not saying you are wrong or dont know better... you do what you need to do to protect yourself where you live.

Here is a video which argues my point that civilians and guns do not mix, even for "self denfense"...especially when an argument occurs and people lose their cool.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZ87CGV9Wkg

But there are plenty of times where the mere presence of a firearm carried by a civilian prevents a crime from being committed. And it's not like crime shoots way up when people carry. If anything, there is a weak correlation towards the opposite. Also, cops accidentally shoot more people than people who carry concealed firearms. The cops can get away with it. The civilian will go through hell and will probably face some very serious punishments.


Its possible that some crimes may be prevented but if you look at the overall stats and yearly deaths by firearms, USA tends have 10000+ per year while a neighbouring country Canada has around 150. Even when you adjust the population difference, you still get to a 7:1 higher death ratio involving firearms in USA.

Having a gun on you at all times can protect you in grave danger. But it can also lead to irrational decisions, escalated arguments and remove the likelyhood for civilized and  non violent resolutions for fights and arguments. After all, youre packing heat...why would you not charge in to a potential altercation head first? Push comes to shove, its self defense...

how many of those gun deaths are concetrated in inner cities with massive gangs. Heck, how many have come out of detroit and chicago alone this year?



thismeintiel said:
attaboy said:
Guys that keep saying that the story wouldn't have ever made national news if _________: The reason the story made national news is because the family brought this to the attention of mainstream media. It WOULD have gone unnoticed, otherwise.

The only reason the media picked up on the story is because they falsely assumed Zimmerman was white and saw a way to start up the "race wars," again.  And what did they do when it turned out he was Hispanic?  They created a brand new term and started calling him a White Hispanic, just so they could still attach the word "white" to him.  I guess from now on, I should refer to the current President as a White Black man.  And we still have to wait to have the first black President.

White hispanic is a real term as hispanic is not a race. Hispanic people can be black, white, american Indian, and asian.



killerzX said:

yes we will, zimmerman back of his head was cut and bloody, he had a broken nose. martin had bruising on his knuckles, and a gun shot wound to the chest.

as for the street thug, there is zero evidence that zimmerman was looking for "black kids".  but the "kid" who was known for getting in fights at school and constantly getting in trouble at school, and doing drugs, and displaying on social media his love for the gangster life (also evident by the people he surrounded himself with, his friends).

yes someone is dead, for assaulting someone. is zimmerman didnt have his weapon theres a good chance he would be dead.

And the "guy" was known for assaulting a POLICE OFFICER, resisting arrest, domestic violence, and being a self styled crime fighter/wannabe cop (as evident by his CRIMINAL RECORD--something Martin didn't have yet-- and the people he surrounded himself with).  There's a reason that the jury wasn't allowed to know anything about the character of either person.  Why people seem to think that Zimmerman was this mild and innocent babe of a man and a man of such strong moral fiber is beyond me!  Neither was as pure as the driven snow.  People seem to remember the things they want to remember, here.

What's done is done, and as an American, I accept the judgement.  The man is free and I hope he goes on to live a productive life.  I just wish it wasn't such a dividing issue right now.  I wish these two guys weren't the ones that we were arguing over.



Around the Network
psrock said:
killerzX said:
psrock said:
haxxiy said:
psrock said:
 

 



 

yes we will, zimmerman back of his head was cut and bloody, he had a broken nose. martin had bruising on his knuckles, and a gun shot wound to the chest.

as for the street thug, there is zero evidence that zimmerman was looking for "black kids".  but the "kid" who was known for getting in fights at school and constantly getting in trouble at school, and doing drugs, and displaying on social media his love for the gangster life (also evident by the people he surrounded himself with, his friends).

yes someone is dead, for assaulting someone. is zimmerman didnt have his weapon theres a good chance he would be dead.

Alright, you got me, I can't take you seriously. Sorry. 

yeah, facts are kind of inconvienient for some, like you.



thranx said:
disolitude said:
insomniac17 said:
 
 
disolitude said:

I can understand having weapons for self defense in your house, for home defense purposes. Hell I grew up in a house which had a hunting rifle and a shotgun that belonged to my grandfather and my dad... However where I live, I absolutely dont see a reason why a civilians need to carry guns on them.

I dont live in USA, and am not saying you are wrong or dont know better... you do what you need to do to protect yourself where you live.

Here is a video which argues my point that civilians and guns do not mix, even for "self denfense"...especially when an argument occurs and people lose their cool.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZ87CGV9Wkg

But there are plenty of times where the mere presence of a firearm carried by a civilian prevents a crime from being committed. And it's not like crime shoots way up when people carry. If anything, there is a weak correlation towards the opposite. Also, cops accidentally shoot more people than people who carry concealed firearms. The cops can get away with it. The civilian will go through hell and will probably face some very serious punishments.


Its possible that some crimes may be prevented but if you look at the overall stats and yearly deaths by firearms, USA tends have 10000+ per year while a neighbouring country Canada has around 150. Even when you adjust the population difference, you still get to a 7:1 higher death ratio involving firearms in USA.

Having a gun on you at all times can protect you in grave danger. But it can also lead to irrational decisions, escalated arguments and remove the likelyhood for civilized and  non violent resolutions for fights and arguments. After all, youre packing heat...why would you not charge in to a potential altercation head first? Push comes to shove, its self defense...

how many of those gun deaths are concetrated in inner cities with massive gangs. Heck, how many have come out of detroit and chicago alone this year?

I wouldnt know exactly butI do remember watching a Michael Moore movie where he compares Detroit to Windsor which are right next to each on different sides of the border and the firearms death rate difference was staggering. And I did drive through Chicago once while going to Ozzfest and honestly, I was downright scared for my life while passing some of the suburbs... 

I do understand what youre saying though and am not arguing against protecting yourself or that people in USA are not doing the right thing by carying guns. Ive lived in 3 different countries for an extensive period of time during my life, one of which had an armed conflict for many years while I was a kid. I understand the different needs that have to be taken for protection...

But I do find it a little strange that a country with the might and power that USA has isn't able to come up with a better solution to the problem of gangs and self defense which you are describing, other than to essentiially force its citizens to carry firearms for self defense.

Ron Paul keeps saying to bring the troops home... That may have some merit. 



haxxiy said:
chapset said:
Dumb ass Treyvon tried to stand his ground without a gun and look what happened to him, this is why so many urban youths in the states need more access to guns, to prevent such tragedies

Stand his ground? Okay...

To think you are being followed by someone isn't reason to charge and maul someone to the ground. Anything you might intend to protect - your personal safety, a robber from knowing where you live - is still too far away from actual harm to justify self defense. That's why there isn't any laws in this case. It's borderline paranoid behaviour if you think so, really.

On the other hand, as you might now, in Florida you actually can shoot someone if they're mauling to the ground. Unlike on wonderful civilized Canada or Western Europe where you are supposed to let someone beat you to death to protect his innocent life.

Ya that's why our murder rate is so high, because we don't have those wonderful laws of yours. By the way, if some random dude if follow me I think I have the right to be paranoid, in this case we only have Zimmerman point of view I wouldn't be surprised if both of them acted like jackasses which escalated the situation but Zimmerman had the gun so he's the one left to tell the story. Enjoy your gun craze society you created for yourselves while I enjoy being able to go anywhere I want without the fear of being shot by some random guy.



Bet reminder: I bet with Tboned51 that Splatoon won't reach the 1 million shipped mark by the end of 2015. I win if he loses and I lose if I lost.

There's a saying where I'm from and it goes like this: "I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six". I'd heard this years ago from a coworker. Makes perfect sense, now.



I didn't know bleeding nose and some scrapes behind the back of the head were reasons enough to use deadly force if that's the case be careful the next time you are involved in a fight.



Bet reminder: I bet with Tboned51 that Splatoon won't reach the 1 million shipped mark by the end of 2015. I win if he loses and I lose if I lost.