Open Thread on Zimmerman Verdict

  • Thread starter Thread starter sweetcharity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
adrift said:
Unless it is speech you don’t like because after all it is their free speech to say that it is beating a dead horse.:rolleyes: FYI it depends on how your setting are as to how many post not threads are on a page.

“Slander” you have got to be kidding. Slander first off is oral this is written so it would be libel since it is written. It would be libel if it were a malicious, false, and defamatory statement but it wasn’t.

Now you may feel that the subject has not been fully discussed but tell me what in the last 100 post has been stated that hadn’t been stated in the first 1000 post?

You have a right to protest their comment just as they have a right to make it, as you said Free Speech. It seems you are trying to stifle their free speech.
Click to expand...
Thank you for pointing out the definition of slander when I used the term but not in previous statements made by others.

What hasn’t been stated? I’m not sure if it has been emphasized George Zimmerman made the statement Martin said “You are going to die tonight” or words to that effect which strengthens his self-defense case but which sounds like something more that one sees in a movie.

You can draw whatever conclusions you wish.
 
Robert_Sock said:
To condone violence is a sin! And that’s what I see happening on this thread.
Click to expand...
I haven’t seen anyone condoning violence.

I HAVE seen people condoning self defense, which the Church accepts as not sinful and a right under the Natural Moral Law.

Do you have any specifics on who exactly has been committing sin on this board?
 
Robert_Sock said:
To condone violence is a sin! And that’s what I see happening on this thread.
Click to expand...
Robert Sock is the discerner of morals and faith of Catholic priests, the Catholic laity, can read the hearts of all who post on this thread and knows what all black people say! Is there anything he can’t do?
 
BroomWagon said:
Again, Zimmerman’s narrative Martin said “Do you have a problem” but Zimmerman’s defense is plausible but it does not mean it is factual or embellished. Zimmerman also says Trayvon Martin said “Tonight you are going to die”, again, this sounds a bit like something you would hear in a movie.
Click to expand...
So? You think Martin never watched a movie and couldn’t be influenced by same?
 
SamH said:
Just the ones walking through people’s yards dressed like a thug.
Click to expand...
The post modern propagandized mind is not allowed to make value judgements based on common sense and experience. Instead of acknowledging that outer appearance is indicative of inner disposition you must view such things as mere disembodied spirits traveling around seeking peace and justice.

There is no reason to have suspicion ever. You must have only empty thoughts in your head at all times and view reality only as your overlords instruct.
 
meltzerboy said:
I’m curious regarding why Martin should have had to explain his behavior of walking through the neighborhood to Zimmerman or anyone else? What was Martin doing that would have prohibited him from walking in this neighborhood?
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: He was legally following GZ but he was looking around.
 
maryjk said:
So what do you think should have happened, once Zimmerman was getting his head bashed in?
Click to expand...
Um, let me take a stab at this. Concealed carry law enforcement amateur personnel vigilante gun violence sin both perspectives!

Did I do okay?
 
Robert_Sock said:
Yes, but that’s why it’s important to provide both perspectives. That’s my point.
Click to expand...
You still don’t see that that is impossible. YOU cannot provide a perspective. YOU can only provide assumptions. That means we must deal with facts, and evidence, and the law.
LisaA said:
…The facts, the evidence, the testimony and the verdict all stand against a number of made up scenerios, what ifs, and speculation.

Lisa
Click to expand...
 
maryjk said:
So if Zimmerman had his back to Martin, why would Martin confront him? How could Zimmerman have been following Martin, if he had his back to Martin? At that point, why wouldn’t Martin leave? Go to his father’s girlfriend’s house?

A more plausible scenario?
Yes, Zimmerman had is back to Martin, because Zimmerman was walking toward his truck. Martin, asked him “Do you have a problem?” Zimmerman turns toward Martin, saying “no.” Martin sucker punches him. “Well, you do now.”

If Zimmerman was walking around the community with his weapon drawn, he is lacking in some smarts, yes. Because if you are walking around with your weapon drawn you are announcing that you are armed. And you are just waiting for someone to disarm you. Possibly the cops, since Zimmerman had already called them and expected someone to show up.

If Zimmerman was walking around with his weapon drawn, and Martin saw it, he is lacking in some smarts to confront someone with a weapon.

It would make more sense, if it is a Zimmerman stated, he didn’t have his weapon drawn.
Click to expand...
I agree, I believe I brought up the scenario of Zimmerman having his gun out of his holster, **not because I believe it **but because it has as much truthful foundation as much of what George Zimmerman says. We only have George Zimmerman’s version. We have 4 minutes of silence. So, just because George Zimmerman says it, there is little solid proof that it happened this way, it is only his version.
But you can continue to believe these fantasies.
Click to expand...
Avoid ad hominem posts. An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=508814
Click to expand...
That is your projection that someone is engaging in fantasies, if we take your word that everything George Zimmerman says is the truth, if one believes this stranger Trayvon Martin says something to George Zimmerman that strengthens the case for “Self Defense”, when Zimmerman asserts Martin says something like “Tonight you are going to die” that seems fantastic as well. Good luck in asserting Zimmerman’s statement that Martin said this is realistic.
 
Thank you for this thread. I was just inspired to seek out Mr Ayoob’s blog and now believe that Z was guilty of gross stupidity when he left his vehicle, but probably nothing else.

More importantly, I have reinforced that I as a citizen should remain in my vehicle and report possible property crimes from a place of safety remote from the crime. For crimes against persons, if I choose not to directly intervene I should also call from a remote place of safety even if that means a further delay in response time. Most importantly, if I have time to consider whether I would do the same thing if I was unarmed and the answer is no, I should most probably call from a remote place of safety.
 
maryjk said:
Think about it.

If Zimmerman already had his gun drawn, they are both really stupid.

Zimmerman because once you draw your weapon, you use it. Otherwise you risk someone using it against you. And when he got knocked to the ground he could have, and most likely would have, dropped it.

Martin because if he saw the guy had a gun, he certainly shouldn’t confronted him, even if he wanted to ask Zimmerman a question. If you see a gun, duck, run, something. Heck, who would be stupid enough to pick a fight with someone that had a gun drawn???
Click to expand...
What are you doing trying to inject common sense, reality and the laws of concealed carry into the discussion, maryjk?

😉
 
BroomWagon said:
That is your projection that someone is engaging in fantasies, if we take your word that everything George Zimmerman says is the truth, if one believes this stranger Trayvon Martin says something to George Zimmerman that strengthens the case for “Self Defense”, when Zimmerman asserts Martin says something like "Tonight you are going to die that seems fantastic as well.
Click to expand...
When you take 'facts not in evidence" and try to fit them into what happened, you are making up fantasies.

Zimmerman’s word is backed by actual facts in evidence. Facts based on times, position and eye witnesses.

Heck, Zimmerman’s word is backed by statements made by prosecution witnesses.
 
mek42 said:
Thank you for this thread. I was just inspired to seek out Mr Ayoob’s blog and now believe that Z was guilty of gross stupidity when he left his vehicle, but probably nothing else.

More importantly, I have reinforced that I as a citizen should remain in my vehicle and report possible property crimes from a place of safety remote from the crime. For crimes against persons, if I choose not to directly intervene I should also call from a remote place of safety even if that means a further delay in response time. Most importantly, if I have time to consider whether I would do the same thing if I was unarmed and the answer is no, I should most probably call from a remote place of safety.
Click to expand...
That is basically what the witnesses did. Instead of coming to Zimmerman’s aid when he screamed for help, they stayed where they were and called the police. We see the result of what happened after that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top