Another Stellar Day for Gun Owners

Oh! I understood your words loud and clear. I wonder if you really knew what you were saying, however. When it is all said and done, I base my opinion on facts as best possible. You base your opinion on hearsay. Before you get all bent out of shape, you might try looking up the definition of hearsay. You might find it enlightening.

 

Me neither, but I haven't really looked since it's common sense to follow the instructions. Failing to do so means you can no longer say it's not your responsibility, that you take on the responsibility for whatever happens afterwards. In this case, the guy ignored those instructions and IMO became responsible for any consequences that occurred, in this instance, a death.

This is a very serious issue, who is responsible and who isn't, when someone willfully ignores instructions given to them from a 911 operator, or any other representative of law enforcement, and the result is a dead 17 year old boy. IMO, the shooter takes on that responsibility because if he had followed the instructions the kid would more likely than not still be alive.

It's my opinion that the 911 operator's instructions are "official orders", but it's my opinion only and not an actual fact that I can verify.

It needs to be verified though, as it is a crucial aspect (IMO), for any potential prosecution, in determining whether or not the shooter is responsible for the death of a 17 year old male. It's not the only point that needs to be verified, but it needs to be fully investigated by the authorities ...to determine if the shooter became legally liable for the incident by not heeding the instructions.

 

Hearsay? And what part is hearsay?

FACT: The 911 operator instructed him to not follow the suspicious person he was reporting in the area.

FACT: A 17 year old male is dead as a result.

Your opinion is that you'll wait for the courts to decide the outcome. My opinion is that the shooter is responsible for that death.

 

Actually, everything you wrote is technically hearsay to you. Again, you need to look up the definition.
FACT #1 I will concede as true.
FACT #2 Trevon is dead. True. As a result of what? Any answer you have to that is supposition based solely on hearsay. Not only that, as I have shown you, not all of what you are hearing is even factual.

And, no, I do not think I will need a courts outcome, but that is a distinct possibility. However, hearing NBC, ABC, CBS, and probably even FOX say what they have will not convince me.

 

I heard Trayvon died of AIDS. I don't know if it's true or not, I just heard someone say it.

 

You are getting too technical here, and it's a pointless exercise. My comments are in the realm of Public Opinion, that is obvious, and shouldn't need to be vetted any further than that.

As an example though: Above you say everything I wrote is hearsay, but you go on to concede some of what I say is true (beyond a reasonable doubt). Technically I could say that is conflicting comments, and to reasonable people that would be evident, but what's the point? There's no reason to get too technical about this.

I mean technically, all information we ever get is hearsay (IMO, and yeah... I know that is going to the extreme, but that's the point I'm making here, about what is more likely than not), and it comes down to wheter or not the likelyhood the information is true or not that convinces us to believe in it.

Yes, some things are easier to believe in than how a 17 year old male came to have a bullet enter his chest, but technically everything is a matter of belief.

From my pov it's highly unlikely the kid shot himself in the chest, and highly likely the hispanic male did. Hearsay? Well yeah, it is! It's also possible a "little person" in a minivan had a minor dispute with the kid and shot him... but that's even more unlikely than the kid shooting himself with the hispanic male's gun.

It comes down to probability. Here, in this forum, the burden of proof isn't a neccessity like it would be in a court of law, but probability is a tool used by investigators to help them determine what actually happened in the incident, and I use it here to form my opinion as well.

My opinions are based on the probabilities that govern the situation:

The man was (probably) determined to protect his neighborhood. I don't believe anyone disputes this.

The kid was (probably) walking through the man's neighborhood. I don't think anyone disputes this.

The man (probably) believed the kid was suspicious, and walking through his neighborhood. I doubt anyone will disagree.

The man (probably) called 911. I doubt anyone would consider that anything less than a fact.

The man was (probably) told by the 911 operator to refrain from following the kid. I don't think that can be disputed.

The man (probably) ignored the order. Exactly how hasn't been revealed to my knowledge. Did the man follow the kid for a few seconds? A few minutes? I don't know. Did the kid approach the man? Highly unlikely. It's highly likely the man followed the kid for a short period of time and at some point (unknown in the time-frame to me) a confrontation occurred.

A confrontation (probably) occurred. The details of any confrontation that may have occurred are not known to me, but in the realm of Public Opinion... and probability... I can say it's highly likely a confrontation did indeed occur. From what I have read, the man had injuries that suggested a physical altercation with the kid. I've also read that the kid didn't have those types of injuries, and I'd like to find out more about the state of his knuckles before I can say with a higher degree of likelyhood that the kid threw a punch or two at the man. That said, the probability that he did is significantly higher (IMO) than that he didn't.

In any case, in order to be shot in the chest (by another person) a person must at least be facing the shooter, and that facing is an aspect of confrontation... it shows a likelyhood of two people facing each other... or confronting each other. If the kid shot himself, the gun had to be taken from the man at some point and therefore a confrontation between the two would become a certainty.

The kid was (probably) shot in the chest by the man. I doubt anyone disagrees. How that came to be exactly is in dispute. I have read nothing from the man's perspective from the man himself, but I have not read of anyone indicating the kid shot himself either (I included the kid shooting himself as a probabilty exercise, and not as any stated claim). What I hear is "stand your ground" law, which leads me to believe the man did indeed shoot the kid and is claiming "self defense".

It is my opinion, my belief, that the man is guilty of manslaughter because of the folowing:

The man confronted the kid walking through his neighborhood after being instructed not to.

Therefore, the man had no right to confront the kid (the police were alerted and it's their responsibility to confront the kid, and not a private citizen's).

The man became responsible for the outcome at the time of confrontation.

The outcome resulted in the death of a 17 year old male.

AGAIN though... these are my opinions only, opinions I've formed using probabilty, and heresay isn't relevant to them since this is a forum. These probabilities are relevant to my opinion, and should be to investigators, but ultimately I concede that in law they are less important that provable facts... but those facts can't come about unless investigators use probabilty, and I use it here to form my opinion.

 

You go through a whole bunch of probablies and then say "The man confronted the kid walking through his neighborhood after being instructed not to." You still have zero evidence of who confronted whom and there is still zero evidence that a 911 operator can officially order, or instruct anything. You don't even have any evidence that he did not follow the "need".

 

Let's try this. Regardless of how those two got together, only the one who first escalated the confrontation beyond words is the one who is guilty of a felony here. (You can argue all you want that Zimmerman did not follow "orders", but you have no evidence that it is even a misdemeanor.) All the words you can imagine do not change the fact (of law) that the first one to make it physical is guilty - or at best it may be ruled mutual combat. The evidence that has been released by the pathologist was that Martin's body was unmarked except for the bullet. ( I realize that that is hearsay and second party at that, but it has an official source at least.) Can you explain just how Martin had no marks on his body if Zimmerman was the first to get physical?

 

Certainly that is easy to do, if I poke someone in the chest with a finger or push with the palm of my hand then that is getting physical You do not have to leave a mark on the other person to have assaulted them.
You can stand in front of another shoutin/screaming at them and waving your fist under there noses in a threatening manner all of which can lead a person to assume that the are in danger of been violently attacked and that is when a person might well react.

 

Why do the RW'ers here feel the need to defend a guy who murdered an unarmed child? What is their motivation? Zimmerman was the adult in the situation and he alone was responsible for keeping the situation from escalating. Martin was a kid dealing with all the things that go along with being a kid. What is Zimmerman's excuse?
When Zimmerman went through neighborhood watch training, he was specifically told not to follow people and to never to carry a gun. He clearly assumes responsibility for the outcome of this situation by his actions. Who could possibly defend that? Right-wingers!

 

The latest version has been released by the Sanford. Oh, my! The "unarmed child" attacked the adult - and there are witnesses (note; that is plural witness) to support this version.
http://news.yahoo.com/video/orlando...peak-out-in-trayvon-martin-case-28640523.html

BTW, I cannot comprehend the logic, but I do know why the LW'ers are TRYING to support Martin

 

I think the guy is guilty of manslaughter based upon the fact that he followed a person who was not commiting any crime with a gun and ended up shooting him to death. A horrible series of events that went out of control from how I see it.
However,
rim'scents is 100 percent correct in saying that this man should not be judged and lynched in the media. This nation was suppose to be innocent until proven guilty and there are to many people willing to throw that away to either be seen as better then others or for political agendas.

 

It amazes me that some people literally want to crucify this man before they know whether or not he's guilty. These same people calling for blood are on the Left. That part doesn't surprise me. What DOES surprise me is that they're so vocal about it. How does it feel to be Pilate, Lefties?

 

I believe that people are asking that Zimmerman be arrested and charged with murder. Neither of which has happened in over a month since the killing. Is it so unreasonable to ask that Zimmerman be charged and let the evidence fall where it may? Leave it to our resident RW'ers to frame the outrage over this murder of a child as the "Left calling for blood".

 

Remember the communist proganda newspaper called Pravda which means the truth in Russian

With the left: Political agenda's were always more important then the truth and the truth is what they define as the truth to get their agenda carried through.

 

rlm, to be clear, we are talking about two different points here: I am stating my opinion, on an internet forum, that I believe there is cause to charge the man with a crime. You appear to be confusing my opinion on the incident with the laws (that we are aware of) that govern it.

I don't need "evidence" since I'm stating an opinion on an internet forum. I'm not presenting a case as a prosecutor in a trial. You want to wait until any potential trial is over before you form your opinion? That's your business. I'm not obligated to wait though, since my opinion means little to nothing at all, coming from an obscure internet forum as it is, and there is a zero likelyhood that I will be involved in any potential future trial that may result from the incident.

I've given my opinion, and I understand that my opinion isn't law. There really isn't any need to continue to tell me something so obvious. It's ridiculous that I even have to point that out again, but here we are.

 

That is exactly why we have laws following the "presumption of innocence". Despite you apparent opinion, arresting and/or charging someone for doing something you think might be what you do not like is both against the law and a punishment.

 

Didn't I read that in the Saudi Times?

 

So long as you state that it is your opinion, I have no problem with your saying such things, but you initial statement was "the kid had the right to defend himself from an attacker". That was not prefaced as an opinion or belief, but stated as a fact. The evidence now released by the investigating police (Sanford Police) is that the "the kid" was the attacker and Zimmerman had the right to defend himself and that there is more than one witness to support that story. BTW, it is also being inferred that Zimmerman did in fact "obey" the "need" to discontinue following Martin.

 

Why don't you let the system proceed as it should? First, law enforcement investigates the incident and, if facts warrant, the evidence is turned over to the District Attorney who will decide whether or not charges are filed. Why are you in such a hurry for this man to be charged with "murder"? You and the other LWers sound like a bunch of ravenous wolves calling for this man's blood. Unless you were at the scene and have firsthand knowledge and witnessed the incident, all I'm asking is that you allow the system to proceed as intended.