Zimmerman arrested again

[Stoked]

yeah reading back through it he probably didn't, but like I said it boils my blood.

We all have those subjects. I dislike throwing around terms like racist and political correctness.

 

[LogGrad98]

He was going home.

According to the trial, the kid doubled back and confronted Zimmerman about following him, and that was corroborated by the woman who said she had talked to the kid on the phone. That was why she was a crappy witness, she confirmed part of Zimmerman's story.

 

[LogGrad98]

Yep. I've done all the posting on this subject.

Again there is an entire internet between us. If you don't want to talk about it or respond it's simple. Don't.

or just continue to pretend that I have somehow sucked you in.

I guess replying to you (and others), and then getting the same post quoted twice for some reason, constitutes me heading up a gang of street thugs out to get poor little mr. HeyHey who was just minding his own business until all of us internet tough guys came along to drag him screaming into the muck and force him to discuss a subject he had no interest in. Gotcha. Don't worry, this is the last time I will reply to you. Ever.





Gotta love ignore.

 

[LogGrad98]

Oh I am not attempting to paint him as a person worhty of sympathy. I think his main problem is impulse control. He cannot control himself. He is responsible for the death of Trayvon. It is entirely possible that he murdered him in cold blood. Just couldn't be proven.

If this keeps up he might make himself such a target that he gets taken out. He is just cementing that he is guilty int he Martin case in the minds of the public. Being in the publics eye is the last thing he should want.

This. It will eventually come back to bite him, but hopefully something sticks before he causes another death.

 

[♪alt13]

I guess replying to you (and others), and then getting the same post quoted twice for some reason, constitutes me heading up a gang of street thugs out to get poor little mr. HeyHey who was just minding his own business until all of us internet tough guys came along to drag him screaming into the muck and force him to discuss a subject he had no interest in. Gotcha. Don't worry, this is the last time I will reply to you. Ever.





Gotta love ignore.

pfft

I wasn't the one claiming that I got dragged into it. That was you and gf.

 

[VINYLONE]

Shooting someone, even when justified (not specific to Zimmerman/Martin), has massive consequences for the shooter. I'm always appalled when I hear people say that if someone broke into their home they would kill them. They talk about it like they get a free pass to take someone's life. First, that's not what your rights are. Your right is to defend yourself. Seldom do I hear people talk about using deadly force as a means to self-defense. Usually they talk about it as a means to kill. Bragging about the caliber or ammo type of their weapon and how it would be sure to kill a person dead. Worse is when they say things like "two in the chest one in the head" as if to put the point on it that the goal is not to stop the threat but to kill a scumbag.

What I think they are entirely failing to realize is that regardless of their fantasies, they are not stone cold killers. The act of killing another human being will likely leave them severely traumatized. The act may be called into question, especially if they went beyond self defense and sought to make sure the person was dead, and they'll be defending them self against serious legal action. Their life will almost certainly not just return to normal even if the killing was justified.

Zimmerman was having marital problems before he killed Martin. His wife seems to have felt some sense of duty to stand by her man during his trial, but that's over now. Are Zimmerman's actions evidence that he's always been prone to violence and aggression? Or, are his actions evidence of the strain the using deadly force puts on a person coupled with the strain of a failed marriage? I don't think we can say.

What I can say, though, is that it is far better to use the least amount of force necessary to defend yourself than to seek out confrontations and use the maximum amount of force or equip yourself in a way that makes any use of force likely to be deadly.

What a great post. I could not agree with you more.

I'm a complete supporter of gun rights and conceal carry. But with that support comes a lot of responsibility and forethought. Like you, I am always suspect of those that individuals that describe their scenarios of self defense is grandiose fashion. While I do own a firearm, I hope I never, ever have to be in a position where I have to take someone else's life. Furthermore, I think as a law abiding citizen, part of owning that firearm is preparing yourself mentally for some unforeseen encounter where you have to discharge the weapon. Meaning, I've gone the scenario a million times in my head. If I ever have to shot an intruder, I hope I've programmed myself enough to remember to specifically say the term "castle doctrine" to the responding LE and then to shut up and not say another word. I do not trust the scene investigating abilities of the LAPD and would not want to incriminate myself in any way.

This video has always been a favorite of mine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

 

[Gameface]

I agree with this and disagree too. I've been around guns all my life and am comfortable with any standard pistol or rifle. I don't feel a need to practice regularly and have shot maybe 50 rounds through my home defense .40. I don't conceal carry and on that I agree regular aim training is a duty.

Where I agree -- a single mother at work is scared of guns but wanted the home protection. She's a 2x widower and found Mr. 1 dead suicide by gun. She kept saying she'd go for the knee caps. Several separate gun owning, cc coworkers plus myself advised her to not get a gun.

One of the big reasons I would want to fire a few hundred rounds through any carry or home defense gun is because I owned an early model Springfield XD (they were still being made in Croatia, what used to be an HS2000 before Springfield bought the rights and renamed it) in .40cal and I loved the thing. At about 200rnds it started developing a problem where the nose of the round would bump the slide-release lever tab (this is probably confusing, but it's the piece that the magazine follower pushes up when the magazine is empty to lock the slide back) and cause the slide to stay in the back position when there were still rounds in the magazine. After it started happening it progressively became more frequent. So, I lost confidence in that particular firearm. So now I feel like I would want to fire at least a few hundred rounds through any gun I was going to bet my life on.

 

[VINYLONE]

early model Springfield XD

I've got a Sig P229 that I've put a few thousand rounds through without so much as a fail to fire or stovepipe. Love that firearm. I was thinking about getting a CZ75 compact but am probably going to get a Glock G26.

 

[Gameface]

Back Handedly polite, maybe. This always boils my blood. If you want to be dismissive I'm cool with that but don't cover it in a veil of platitudes.

I did not pick a target, but reading through it yep I was being a jerk.

Please don't think I'm one of those whiny short guys. Whiny maybe short no.

I can see how it seemed like a backhanded response. It wasn't. I've gone several rounds on this with One Brow, ElRoach, NUMBERICA (maybe not directly), GVC, Candrew, and on and on and on. There are probably more than 10,000 words from me on the Trayvon/Zimmerman thing in the other thread.

I'm not The Black Swordsman. I don't think I've dominated anyone on this issue. I expressed my take. Other people have expressed theirs. I doubt I changed many minds. I really didn't mean any offense to you in deciding not to go at it one more time. In all honesty, if anyone wants to know how I feel or what my position is, it's out there. I haven't been perfectly consistent. I feel like I've expressed different things based on my own changing opinion or even just based on my mood for the day. I'm not a Zimmerman fan. He killed a kid that didn't need to die. But I do feel like I've taken the issue apart and evaluated it as unemotionally as I possibly can. Of course I'm biased, I'm imperfect and I'm probably blind to my own faults in logic...but I have put in an honest effort. That's all I've got.

 

[♪alt13]

I can see how it seemed like a backhanded response. It wasn't. I've gone several rounds on this with One Brow, ElRoach, NUMBERICA (maybe not directly), GVC, Candrew, and on and on and on. There are probably more than 10,000 words from me on the Trayvon/Zimmerman thing in the other thread.

I'm not The Black Swordsman. I don't think I've dominated anyone on this issue. I expressed my take. Other people have expressed theirs. I doubt I changed many minds. I really didn't mean any offense to you in deciding not to go at it one more time. In all honesty, if anyone wants to know how I feel or what my position is, it's out there. I haven't been perfectly consistent. I feel like I've expressed different things based on my own changing opinion or even just based on my mood for the day. I'm not a Zimmerman fan. He killed a kid that didn't need to die. But I do feel like I've taken the issue apart and evaluated it as unemotionally as I possibly can. Of course I'm biased, I'm imperfect and I'm probably blind to my own faults in logic...but I have put in an honest effort. That's all I've got.

When I read through the thread again I realized that I clearly misinterpreted your post.

When I first heard the story(sans details) of Trayvon Martin I thought that there may be legitimate mitigating circumstances. As the details began to emerge I more and more began to wonder that age old question "Why?". I really thought that he(Zimmerman) probably would not get murder, but that the jury had no other option, given the evidence, but to convict him of manslaughter. When the acquittal came through I imagined all the black mothers in this country and the strike of fear that must have gone through their hearts.

Many right wing pundits have approached this story, imo, disgracefully. I believe that many had made up their minds that this kid deserved it, and they spent weeks grasping at straws trying to paint Trayvon as just another violent gun toting thug(which I found to be hilarious from a group of broadcasters that will defend gun rights so forcefully). In a country that clearly by the numbers does not hand down justice equally, they dismissed fears of racial bias from the police, judge, prosecutor, and jury. They dismissed the importance of the case saying "If Trayvon was named Trevor and he was white this case would not matter, and it would not make headlines."

If Trayvon was white and a picture of him with a handgun surfaced they would have said it was irrelevant because he was not carrying it at the time of the incident. If Trayvon was white they would have expressed their disappointment in hearing that he used marijuana, but this surely they would have found to be irrelevant as well. But Trayvon was not white.

I know that was kind of a diatribe, but I hope it explains why when I thought you were being dismissive it riled me up so much.