Woman shoots at "ceiling", gets 20 years - the actual story.

[launchpadmcqwak]

And all Zimmerman did was follow a kid when he was told implicitly not to, approached the kid when he shouldn't have, then busted a cap in his ass because he was too much of a pussy to use his hands. A grown man vs. a kid? And he had to use a weapon? Pussy.

he was bashing his head on a curb, but no you're right he should have just punched him and walked away like in the movies.

 

[Jacco]

Yes you shoot to wound when the other person isn't armed. You shoot to kill when immediate, certain death is upon you. If Trayvon had a knife or a gun himself, that's a different story. All he had were his fists though, and Zimmerman has no long-lasting injuries save for superficial cuts and bruises. Was Trayvon a home invader? Nope. Did Zimmerman see him brandish a weapon? Nope. Was Zimmerman trained to handle a suspect who he didn't know was armed or not? Nope. You know who is trained to apprehend suspect who may or may not be armed? Cops. A stun gun or mace would've been sufficient to stop Trayvon without killing him, and if Zimmerman got off his fat ass and took up a martial art he would know locks and self-defense techniques to subdue or hold a person without killing him. You bet your ass Zimmerman would have stayed the fuck in his car if he didn't have a firearm, the pussy.

Have you ever been in a real fight? I mean one where you are legit trying to hurt each other? No? Didn't think so. Go watch a video of real Krav Maga in action and you'll see what I'm talking about.

You don't shoot to wound. Ever. If a weapon comes out, it's getting used, for better or worse. This is because people don't think like we are now in that situation. You just react. Your goal is to make the other person not a threat anymore as fast and efficiently as you possibly can. Often that means making them not alive anymore. You go for eyes, balls, knees, throats, whatever you can hit that will put them down.

If you think it's a pussy way of fighting, then that's your issue and I hope you never have to actually defend yourself because you will lose. If I was fighting with Trayvon Martin like that and I had a firearm, I would use it too. If I didn't, I'd probably attempt to break his neck or crush his larynx because those are the two fastest ways to put someone out of commission. In real fights, where its not a "lets work out our differences" fight, neither person ever comes out unscathed. Ever.

Had I been there and had to fight him hand-to-hand like you suggest, he'd still likely be dead and I wouldn't be in much better shape.

 

[launchpadmcqwak]

Look shit bird

Yeah i don't see you being on this website for very long gin the future.

 

[Jacco]

Again, since you don't seem to understand, NOTHING HE DID WAS ILLEGAL.

This one sentence, right here, is EXACTLY what is wrong with the whole fucked up scenario. Because you're exactly right that, legally speaking, all is proper.

The fact that we have a society where shooting to kill an unarmed civilian - even a criminal assailant - is EVER considered an acceptable response is reprehensible, period. No amount of "context" will ever change my stance on that matter. If you cannot defend yourself without murder, then you do not deserve your freedom or well being (and, yes, I realize "murder" has to be proven by rule of law to properly be called such; but I am using the term anyway because I refuse to acknowledge a moral difference between murder and "lethal force" even though a legal distinction exists).

So if a 5''4' 110lb woman is being sexually assaulted by a 6''5' 230lb man, and she has a firearm she can use to stop it, you're saying that she either deserves to go to jail, or she deserves to be raped?

 

[SSJBlastoise]

Then again, a fat shit like Zimmerman would need a gun because he couldn't throw a decent punch to save his life, and he was too fucking lazy to like a martial art that utilized locks, traps and escapes like Jujitsu.

This part right here goes completely against your argument that it was all Zimmerman's fault. You called him fat which would imply being unfit i.e. unable to chase a physically fit "kid" (more appropriately young adult). Martin could have simply outrun Zimmerman so why was there a fight then? Probably because Martin seemed to have instigated it.

Not even the cops do that because it's moronic.

Interesting anecdote, one of my teachers told us about one of his friends in the police force almost lost his job because when he shot at someone that was holding people hostage with a gun and he hit the hand of the person holding the gun which made him drop it and they then took him in. He almost lost his job because they are told if you are going to shoot, it is to kill.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Massive Snip

"I enjoy how you try to keep bashing your opponent with 'stealthy racism from people like you' despite no indication they are in any way racist (as you are the only one mentioning race)...

You appear to think this is about race, but it is mostly about the poorly worded Stand Your Ground laws."

And I enjoy how you keep talking about "Stand your Ground" laws, even though they have absolutely nothing to do with the Zimmerman/Martin case:
http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/14/sorry-the-zimmerman-case-still-has-nothi

http://www.policymic.com/articles/53303/trayvon-martin-s-legacy-has-nothing-to-do-with-stand-your-ground

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/07/17/eric_holders_stand_your_ground_squirrel_119255.html

And you work in Law Enforcement!? I hope they never make you a Detective.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Massive Snip

"I enjoy how you try to keep bashing your opponent with 'stealthy racism from people like you' despite no indication they are in any way racist (as you are the only one mentioning race)...

You appear to think this is about race, but it is mostly about the poorly worded Stand Your Ground laws."

And I enjoy how you keep talking about "Stand your Ground" laws, even though they have absolutely nothing to do with the Zimmerman/Martin case:

So? The case itself is almost totally irrelevant. If the pair of them had died of heart attacks the week before, nobody much would have cared.

The issues raised weren't because of them, they were sitting around waiting for something to bring them up, it doesn't really matter what that thing was.

EDIT: Many of the issues raised, that is.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Massive Snip

"I enjoy how you try to keep bashing your opponent with 'stealthy racism from people like you' despite no indication they are in any way racist (as you are the only one mentioning race)...

You appear to think this is about race, but it is mostly about the poorly worded Stand Your Ground laws."

And I enjoy how you keep talking about "Stand your Ground" laws, even though they have absolutely nothing to do with the Zimmerman/Martin case:

So? The case itself is almost totally irrelevant. If the pair of them had died of heart attacks the week before, nobody much would have cared.

The issues raised weren't because of them, they were sitting around waiting for something to bring them up, it doesn't really matter what that thing was.

EDIT: Many of the issues raised, that is.

I would argue that it matters quite a lot what the "thing" was that causes an issue to be brought up. If you have to pick something that doesn't even apply and/or isn't related to what you want to talk about to raise awareness of an issue, it generally means one of two things:

A: It's not nearly that big of an issue. After all, if it was, you would have plenty of actual pertinent examples to choose from, and you wouldn't have to pick something unrelated or non-applicable to try and talk about it.

or B: You have a severe lack of understanding about the issue, and thus you don't even understand how the two things aren't related. In which case you're severely unqualified to discuss it anyway.

On an unrelated note, 11774 posts!? Holy shit!!

 

[Grahav]

Well, the media just played with the pre-conceived notion that it is always the man's fault. Because everything in the world is fine and dandy for them.

 

[Axzarious]

I remember a documentary about the chemical Lactase used in dairy production. There was a whole fiasco about it.

Long story short, it was proven that it's not illegal to publish false news in America. Unlike other countries where it's a criminal offense. (Though one can argue that there's still the loophole of claiming ignorance.)

 

[Ihateregistering1]

I remember a documentary about the chemical Lactase used in dairy production. There was a whole fiasco about it.

Long story short, it was proven that it's not illegal to publish false news in America. Unlike other countries where it's a criminal offense. (Though one can argue that there's still the loophole of claiming ignorance.)

Not 100% true, though this gets into a little bit of a grey area. For example, if you say or print something that is defamatory to someone knowing it isn't true, then it is illegal (slander or libel). Likewise, if you make a false accusation towards someone with the purpose of getting them punished or attempting to defame their character, you can be charged with criminal sanctions.

To give an example of this related to what we're talking about, Zimmerman is actually suing NBC news for the doctored 911 tape they released last December, and he's within his legal rights to do so.

 

[TechNoFear]

Massive Snip

"I enjoy how you try to keep bashing your opponent with 'stealthy racism from people like you' despite no indication they are in any way racist (as you are the only one mentioning race)...

You appear to think this is about race, but it is mostly about the poorly worded Stand Your Ground laws."

And I enjoy how you keep talking about "Stand your Ground" laws, even though they have absolutely nothing to do with the Zimmerman/Martin case:
http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/14/sorry-the-zimmerman-case-still-has-nothi

http://www.policymic.com/articles/53303/trayvon-martin-s-legacy-has-nothing-to-do-with-stand-your-ground

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/07/17/eric_holders_stand_your_ground_squirrel_119255.html

And you work in Law Enforcement!? I hope they never make you a Detective.

I prefer facts to opinion.

Here is a quote from Judge Debra Nelson's instructions to the Zimmerman jury;

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2013/07/12/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Massive Snip

"I enjoy how you try to keep bashing your opponent with 'stealthy racism from people like you' despite no indication they are in any way racist (as you are the only one mentioning race)...

You appear to think this is about race, but it is mostly about the poorly worded Stand Your Ground laws."

And I enjoy how you keep talking about "Stand your Ground" laws, even though they have absolutely nothing to do with the Zimmerman/Martin case:
http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/14/sorry-the-zimmerman-case-still-has-nothi

http://www.policymic.com/articles/53303/trayvon-martin-s-legacy-has-nothing-to-do-with-stand-your-ground

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/07/17/eric_holders_stand_your_ground_squirrel_119255.html

And you work in Law Enforcement!? I hope they never make you a Detective.

I prefer facts to opinion.

Here is a quote from Judge Debra Nelson's instructions to the Zimmerman jury;

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2013/07/12/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf

If you'd bothered to actually read the articles I posted, you would have read that the first article I posted already dealt with your fact in an addendum. From the Reason article:

"Addendum: A few commenters note that the jury instructions in Zimmerman's case included "stand your ground" language:

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

That language is part of the standard jury instruction [3.6(f)] in cases where the defendant claims his use of deadly force was justified. But it is hard to see how it applies to the facts of this case, since Zimmerman claimed he was unable to retreat and therefore did not base his defense on the right to stand your ground. The fact that a legal provision was mentioned in the instructions does not necessarily mean it was relevant in reaching a verdict. For example, the instructions also mentioned accidental killings and attacks on dwellings, neither of which applies to the circumstances of the encounter between Zimmerman and Martin."
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/instructions.shtml#

 

[TechNoFear]

That language is part of the standard jury instruction [3.6(f)] in cases where the defendant claims his use of deadly force was justified.

More opinion, rather than facts from sources actually involved....

You ignore that Stand Your Ground changed those instructions to the jury.

They used to read;

The fact that the defendant was wrongfully attacked cannot justify his use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if by retreating he could have avoided the need to use that force

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/files/fsc-self-defense-.pdf

You ignore that members of the jury state the judge's instructions, specifically the Stand Your Ground laws, influenced their decision;

because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground, he (Zimmerman) had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.

My prayers are with all those who have the influence and power to modify the laws that left me with no verdict option other than 'not guilty' in order to remain within the instructions

 

[the clockmaker]

Then again, a fat shit like Zimmerman would need a gun because he couldn't throw a decent punch to save his life, and he was too fucking lazy to like a martial art that utilized locks, traps and escapes like Jujitsu.

This part right here goes completely against your argument that it was all Zimmerman's fault. You called him fat which would imply being unfit i.e. unable to chase a physically fit "kid" (more appropriately young adult). Martin could have simply outrun Zimmerman so why was there a fight then? Probably because Martin seemed to have instigated it.

Not even the cops do that because it's moronic.

Interesting anecdote, one of my teachers told us about one of his friends in the police force almost lost his job because when he shot at someone that was holding people hostage with a gun and he hit the hand of the person holding the gun which made him drop it and they then took him in. He almost lost his job because they are told if you are going to shoot, it is to kill.

The main reason for this is that firing a weapon alters the situation, you have moved from a situation in which there is either non-lethal force or the threat of force into a situation where lethal force is being used. Now I don't know about you lot, but I'm no psychic, so I don't know if the fucker shooting at me intends to wound or to kill, as such, the sensible option is that he is trying to kill me and so I retaliate with lethal force.

As such, if you are firing your weapon, you need to bring the situation to a definite, conclusive end as soon as possible. This is why many armies do not allow for warning shots, and why only complete idiots shoot to wound.

Also, is it just me, or has old mate Patty above clearly never been in a fight that didn't include either tickling or pillows?

 

[Thaluikhain]

The main reason for this is that firing a weapon alters the situation, you have moved from a situation in which there is either non-lethal force or the threat of force into a situation where lethal force is being used. Now I don't know about you lot, but I'm no psychic, so I don't know if the fucker shooting at me intends to wound or to kill, as such, the sensible option is that he is trying to kill me and so I retaliate with lethal force.

As such, if you are firing your weapon, you need to bring the situation to a definite, conclusive end as soon as possible. This is why many armies do not allow for warning shots, and why only complete idiots shoot to wound.

As an aside, it really gets tiring hearing people complain about police killing people after shooting then X times, as if they are more dead than someone killed with less bullets.

Now, complaints about the decision to shoot in the first place, fine, that's a separate issue, but once that decision has been made, it's been made.

 

[the clockmaker]

The main reason for this is that firing a weapon alters the situation, you have moved from a situation in which there is either non-lethal force or the threat of force into a situation where lethal force is being used. Now I don't know about you lot, but I'm no psychic, so I don't know if the fucker shooting at me intends to wound or to kill, as such, the sensible option is that he is trying to kill me and so I retaliate with lethal force.

As such, if you are firing your weapon, you need to bring the situation to a definite, conclusive end as soon as possible. This is why many armies do not allow for warning shots, and why only complete idiots shoot to wound.

As an aside, it really gets tiring hearing people complain about police killing people after shooting then X times, as if they are more dead than someone killed with less bullets.

Now, complaints about the decision to shoot in the first place, fine, that's a separate issue, but once that decision has been made, it's been made.

Pretty much, yeah. But then, violence is actually a lot more complicated than people think. It kind of annoys me that, while people won't watch Jurassic park and say 'I know how to clone a dinosaur', they will watch Rambo, or Swat or something and think that they are now experts in the application of violence.