Printable View
You asked Ioan a question and assumed the answer in your own post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
That is exactly what most of us here that believe there was a miscarriage of justice feel. You have had him(Trayvon Martin) tried and convicted and as you state above without a sense of dignity to a young victim of gun violence "criminal scum". What would you really like to have said, Walker?
"What the jury heard" convinced them that killing Martin was a shooting justified in self defense. So in reality the law and the jury decided that the young man some are attempting to paint as innocent was endangering another persons life to the point that his shooting did not result in any conviction of wrongdoing.
I'm curious for all those so opposed to the "stand your ground" laws, why only Zimmerman shouldn't have stood his ground? If in fact nobody could legally stand their ground the first aggressor would be the one in the right, and the other should flee. But, what if you can't flee due to being less capable? Do you just scream for help and take a beating?
I'm not at all surprised that a question I posed much earlier during this issue was never answered by many. If the same circumstances took place, but Zimmerman killed Martin with a lethal blow, would people think of the issue different?
Except the answer he assumed is precisely the opposite of the one he intended, because of his poor English. 'Thought not' would have been accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spafranco
I'd still think there was a blood lust on the part of some.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Oh funny, more personal attacks from dunnell. What a surprise :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
As I have said before, english is not my native language. So please be so kind and do enlighten me on why was what I said incorrect. Show us your wisdom.
Young victim? He was a druggie, with criminal past who attacked someone who perhaps was not doing something smart, but it sure was not illegal. Martin was no victim in this case. By all accounts, he brought this on himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spafranco
Not a personal attack, just a legitimate correction. 'Thought so' indicates that the person of whom you were asking the question does actually have proof for their statement. 'Thought not' does not. Quite easy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
A druggie? A criminal? Attacked a person?Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
Gary, please do me a favor. Why not admit your real reason for calling the death of the young man a good thing and in the process you will cleanse yourself of everything that is hindering or may be hindering your vision of reality. This is not an insult. It is a proven and credited point of view that people who have a right wing view differ from those with a left wing view. However, critical thinking can allow the person to take a more thought provoking analysis of the events during certain times.
Critical thinking?
Illegal drugs in his system, burglary tools hidden during the incident, and at a bare minimum engaged in a violent fight in which the jury decided was sufficient enough for a second party to fear for his life to the extent of justification of deadly force.
What the jury heard was not the entire story, but it was enough to decide that it was legal for this person to be killed in another persons self defense. A lot of the "critical thinking" seems based on emotions rather than facts, which is a very flawed model of critical thinking IMO.
Fact > fiction in critical thinking skills.
Once more another person has decided Trayvon Martin's guilt and the jury did also. That much I cn agree with you. Beside that, I look at it and peruse the situation and without a shadow of a doubt in any other western/industrialized country, Zimmerman would be in prison. No if's ad's or but's. I could almost guarantee it.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
A person being followed for no reason other than suspicion and the fact that he had tools that were "supposedly for a burglary" was shot dead because he accosted or was said to have because he was being followed. Where is the aggression. Only with Zimmerman. Oh, and in every industrialized/western country he would NOT have had the gun as it would be illegal.
Gary Walker could have his "druggie, criminal" to fret about. Let he without sin cast the first stone.
Critical thinking Airshifter does not explain your answer as you assume and presume all at once.
So far I haven't seen a list of the tools said to be used for burglary . If we had seen them , we could judge as well if they were tools used for such purposes .Quote:
Originally Posted by Spafranco
As it is , we have to trust the court , if that's what they deemed them to be .
Surely , if we trust that to be true , must we not take that as some proof that there was potentially more to Trayvon's trip to the corner store than just a pack of skittles and a watermelon iced tea .
It isn't that much of a stretch to see having tools used for burglary , and stashing them , so as to avoid be caught with them , as being justification of Zimmerman's suspicion firstly , and being the reason he was acting abnormally enough to draw that suspicion in the first place .
Having stashed them backs the idea that he was returning to confront Zimmerman , who was , somewhat foolishly , following him into an ambush .