Well, this thread is likely to be closed soon :s
Printable View
Well, this thread is likely to be closed soon :s
[/QUOTE]Quote:
Crime under Hitler and Stalin was low also.
Tell that to the 6 million Jews or the 20 + million Russians. All of the gypsies, homosexuals and the handicapped whether it were physical or mental.
In your miniscule space occupying too much space and absorbing too much air I would consider any insult from you as a compliment fromQuote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
someone who does not know or understand any better.
Some of the attitudes towards human life displayed in the thread is truly shocking.
In what way?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
In what way? Suggesting that a trespasser should be treated like a stray dog in a herd of sheep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
'zimmerman should have wait until the "Punk" was within 20 ft and then shot him. That way is would have still been innocent but without a broken nose and head injuries.'
The overriding impression I'm getting is that you guys across the pond value your constitution over human life. And it seems to me that the US constitution created this situation. If Zimmerman didn't have a gun he probably wouldn't have approached Martin, if he hadn't approached him the said fight and 'self-defence killing' wouldn't have happened. Martin would have been arrested and none of this thread would exist.
Sadly it says a lot about the country you live in when you had to ask that question......Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
You have several misunderstandings above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
1) A trespasser (your word) is, by definition, a criminal - though trespassing is a minor crime. Why should such a person be allowed to continue his/her crime?
2) Our Constitution embodies the freedoms we have. And you don't have - that's why we fought against you back in our revolutionary war.
3) The Constitution nowhere values itself over human life. But it is the Constitution which allows us (legally) to protect ourselves.
4) There is nowhere in the trial testimony where Z approached M - in fact exactly the opposite seemed to have been true. So who was the aggressor? Who initiated physical contact? Who used their weapon late in the situation instead of at the beginning? Hardly the act of a "cowboy" looking to shoot someone.
So all trespassers should be shot dead and this is okay because your guys fought for the right to do this against my guys in the 1800s?
Is this nonsense the best you can come up with?
Point 4 you make is possibly true (most of what I really know about this case is what I've read from on this thread), but it doesn't change some of the pathetic views that have come across on this thread.
If only point 4 was actually true............Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...tin.html?_r=2&