Another Stellar Day for Gun Owners

OK so the young man possibly floors Zimmerman with a punch and then he (Zimmerman)pulls a gun feeling his life is in danger.
Now tell me what is the natural reaction of a person when confronted with a gun?
In my own personal experience it is to raise there hands in a defensive posture and try to back away (now that is simply in my experience) Was there any evidence that the young man was on top of him? If not do we know the distance he was away from him? Was Zimmerman still on the ground when he fired or was he upright? These are quite important questions

 

I guess I've made my point when your only reply is a lame attempt at insults, huh?

 

See, this is where the stupidity shows through. "They" really aren't saying race had nothing to do with it, are they? I think everyone pretty much agrees the kid was was being watched because he fit the description of suspects in a series of break-ins in the community. The question is was Zimmerman acting in self defense...and a verdict hasn't been reached on that yet (even though Al Sharpton has the dim-witted convinced otherwise).

 

[quote="IQless1, post: 83403, member: 13400
And they still haven't explained why Martin didn't have the right to stand his ground in their eyes.[/quote]

Who said he didn't?

 

OOPS!!!!!!

 

Cheerleader!

 

Funny how they'll point to any post as if it actually was an example of an instance of what you asked then to point out yet never tell you where in that post you actually said what they claim you said. Whew! Read that fast twice. Then double-down Davy jumps in and agrees with the same nonsense still with no proof. You just have to admire their little circular firing squad.

 

You hit the nail squarely on the head, De Orc! This is the most important question of all: Did Zimmerman feel his life was in danger? I wish anyone here could tell us the answer to that question. Anyone?

That would probably be the reaction IF the two were some distance apart. Reports indicate the shot was fired point-blank while Martin was on top of Zimmerman in the act of beating him.

I believe the "evidence" will be up to the ballistics experts who will measure the gunshot residue on Zimmerman's hand and the impact wound on Martin. Forensic experts will measure the blood spatter patterns on both parties to see if they match Zimmerman's story that he was on his back on the ground with Martin directly on top of him when the shot was fired. This evidence hasn't been presented yet and probably won't be until trial. In the meantime, we only have Zimmerman's account of the story. Do I believe him? Not necessarily, but I don't disbelieve him either. I'm simply saying that we should let the man be tried in a court of law before we convict him in the court of public opinion.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...rman-said-he-was-knocked-to-ground-and-beaten

 

If as you say he might have been on top of him then I do think the charges will be changed as that would cast doubt on any premeditation, more of a reflexive/panic action

 

Funny part is that Zimmerman's clothes were not torn nor did they have any blood on them. That must have been some fight for his life. He probably could have phoned in his side of the fight.

 

Actually, the first question to be answered is who hit who first. Regardless if Zimmerman felt his life was in danger, if he started it (i.e. actually threw the opening punch), he is guilty and "stand your ground" does not even apply. It makes no difference who called who anything or who followed who. Whoever escalated it to physical is the guilty party. The only way "stand your ground" counts is if Martin started it and then Zimmerman felt his life was in danger. Both have to happen. At this stage, it seems rather easy to show Zimmerman feared for his life, but there is little to no evidence as to who started it - and following another person does not even remotely qualify not even circumstantially.

 

Congrats Coin! You not only have most of your assumptions wrong, but you win this moments Award!...(crowd cheers jeers)...That's right, you and one lucky rodent (I'm assuming you care for neither dogs nor cats, probably preferring the company of stray rodents who feast off the skin you shed nightly...though I may be incorrect, it's just a guess) have won a trip to , USA...which is where ever you happen to be at the moment!

Well, hypocrite? Were you there? Huh? Tell me, why do you think your comments about what happened during the incident are somehow more acceptable to post than anyone else's? What makes you the authoritive voice of reason? How is it only you have the "official" knowledge of what actually occurred that night?

C'mon social-one, explain why you're so special!

 

How are you not getting this? I said:

So you said:

And post #274 has no such opinions based on other people's opinions, therefore you lied.

As far as me "throwing around insults", I'll call you three hardcore Republicans on that! ...If you think only you three fools are allowed to "throw insults around", without insults being thrown back in your face, that makes you a hypocrite as well! Are you forgetting the rules of your own game again?

 

LLLOL....Deeeeeeep rlm! Realy, really deep!...

...and the smell is somethin' terrible! You may want to check the amount of O2 on your tank, 'cause you're sinking fast, and you're in a giant pool of nasty, nasty poo! LOLLLL

 

Yeah, they are... but apparently you shouldn't be asking them...only Coin has that "right" here......maybe if you bow in front of him and call him "Master" he'll allow you to ask such things. Until then, you're questions are immaterial hypothetical, unnecessary, irrelevant and unwarranted.

Oh, and I'm pretty certain Martin was in the wrong neighborhood... being a young black man in a hoody an' all...

 

Now I would have thought that the young man might well have felt intimidated and Threatened been followed by a stranger and he might well have reacted in what he thought was a defensive manner we have no way of knowing differently

 

Coming from the insult-master-debater! ...and I thought your christian religion forbade such things! I guess you can always "repent" when it's necessary, then go out and do more unchristian things, then repent again and all will be well again.

Now tell me, would you support Martin's family filing a lawsuit claiming their dead son's right to "stand his ground"? ...or do you think Martin, being a black teen with a hoody, was in the wrong neighborhood and deserved to be killed?

 

Yeah, that's unknown as far as I can tell. Weeks ago I found a claim that said Martin may have been on his cell-phone talking to his girlfriend at the time of his shooting, which was quickly dismissed by "the master", but that appears to have been confirmed. What I'd like to know is what that conversation was. That would say a lot on Martin's frame of mind at the time. It's obvious to me he knew Zimmerman was tailing him, and it's highly likely he was pissed at that and confronted Zimmerman when Zimmerman approached. It comes down to who had the right to "stand his ground". Martin was being tailed, and that should qualify.

 

This is simply my opinion on the matter but if I was been followed then I would feel that I had the right to turn about and confront the person following me on my terms as I would be unaware of his intentions (In other words I don't want to be supprised by any actions the person behind me might decide to make) and as they say attack is the best form of defense (By that I am not simply talking about a physical attack)

 

For people like me, that's one thing we want to know. For people like you, it's about how best to ensure Zimmerman isn't found guilty.

What about Martin's right to stand his ground? That thought never crossed your mind? Who had the greater right? Martin, being chased by a man with a gun, or Zimmerman?