Guess who gets his gun back

Hellsangel wrote:Is he a convicted felon?

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Is he a convicted felon?

No.

This case is an excellent illustration of the broken legal system. Even those who think Zimmerman shot the kid in self defense can see that Zimmerman was the one who initiated the conflict, and his possession of the gun emboldened him to do so. Just the sort of guy who should be allowed to carry a gun!

Hellsangel wrote:There are several shootings that involve self defense that largely go unreported. In case of George Zimmerman, he probably needs it even more now than ever.

Hellsangel wrote:What do you think of this case? The shooter in this case was black:

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2003297197_shooting10m.html

goodcitizn wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:What do you think of this case? The shooter in this case was black:

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2003297197_shooting10m.html

Here the victim had a long criminal record who barged into someone's property and got killed in self-defense so it matters little whether the 52-year-old shooter was black or white. The District Attorney would be stupid if he considered this a homicide.

Hellsangel wrote:There are several shootings that involve self defense that largely go unreported. In case of George Zimmerman, he probably needs it even more now than ever.

Hellsangel wrote:The thing is, in the Zimmerman case a large section of people including the media decided to play the race card.

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:What do you think of this case? The shooter in this case was black:

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2003297197_shooting10m.html

Here the victim had a long criminal record who barged into someone's property and got killed in self-defense so it matters little whether the 52-year-old shooter was black or white. The District Attorney would be stupid if he considered this a homicide.

I don't think the killing happened on the shooter's property. But anyway, did the fact that the victim had a long criminal record in itself mean that he could be killed with impunity?

The thing is, in the Zimmerman case a large section of people including the media decided to play the race card.

Idéfix wrote:I hope gun control advocates run with the Zimmerman case.

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:The thing is, in the Zimmerman case a large section of people including the media decided to play the race card.

That started with Zimmerman. If he had noticed a white teenager walking on that block, he wouldn't have tried to prevent the "punk" from getting away.

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:I hope gun control advocates run with the Zimmerman case.

Too bad the verdict did not go the way they hoped then.

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:I hope gun control advocates run with the Zimmerman case.

Too bad the verdict did not go the way they hoped then.

The case was not about gun control, so "the verdict did not go the way they hoped" makes no sense.

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:The thing is, in the Zimmerman case a large section of people including the media decided to play the race card.

That started with Zimmerman. If he had noticed a white teenager walking on that block, he wouldn't have tried to prevent the "punk" from getting away.

And you know this how?

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:The thing is, in the Zimmerman case a large section of people including the media decided to play the race card.

That started with Zimmerman. If he had noticed a white teenager walking on that block, he wouldn't have tried to prevent the "punk" from getting away.

And you know this how?

Because his statement  "fucking punks, these assholes, they always get away" makes no sense if applied to someone of a race that constitutes 75% of the city's population. 

The irony is this: my speculation about what Zimmerman would have done if the kid was white is as solid as the idea that Zimmerman killed in self defense.

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:I hope gun control advocates run with the Zimmerman case.

Too bad the verdict did not go the way they hoped then.

The case was not about gun control, so "the verdict did not go the way they hoped" makes no sense.

Well you brought in "gun control advocates run with this case". So what does this case have to do with gun control?

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:I hope gun control advocates run with the Zimmerman case.

Too bad the verdict did not go the way they hoped then.

The case was not about gun control, so "the verdict did not go the way they hoped" makes no sense.

Well you brought in "gun control advocates run with this case". So what does this case have to do with gun control?

The criminal case against Zimmerman has nothing to do with gun control, so the verdict in that case has nothing to do with gun control.

Gun control advocates have an opportunity to use the Zimmerman situation to communicate to the American people who broken the system is. This man exemplifies irresponsible gun use, and the law of the land does not restrict his ability to carry a gun. I am sure most Americans would find that odd.

Hellsangel wrote:Most Americans who think like you might. Not necessarily "most Americans".

http://www.examiner.com/article/why-zimmerman-verdict-is-important-to-all-armed-citizens wrote:A Zimmerman acquittal will be bad news politically to the gun prohibition lobby, which is also anti-self-defense. Gun grabbers do not like it when armed citizens defend themselves, demonstrating one case at a time that guns in the right hands are good, and dead criminals pose no further threat to the community. Recent years have seen an increasing number of people successfully using guns in self-defense with no criminal charges, a scenario that seems to elicit revulsion or stony silence from the gun control crowd.

Hellsangel wrote:I am sure gun control advocates are jumping up and down to try to use this as an example.

a) To use your own criteria above, was it an assault weapon?

b) Did Zimmerman buy the gun illegally that it could not be tracked?

c) Was he a convicted felon that would have caused him to fail a background check?

d) of course, the school situation does not apply.

http://www.examiner.com/article/why-zimmerman-verdict-is-important-to-all-armed-citizens wrote:A Zimmerman acquittal will be bad news politically to the gun prohibition lobby, which is also anti-self-defense. Gun grabbers do not like it when armed citizens defend themselves, demonstrating one case at a time that guns in the right hands are good, and dead criminals pose no further threat to the community. Recent years have seen an increasing number of people successfully using guns in self-defense with no criminal charges, a scenario that seems to elicit revulsion or stony silence from the gun control crowd.

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:I am sure gun control advocates are jumping up and down to try to use this as an example.

a) To use your own criteria above, was it an assault weapon?

b) Did Zimmerman buy the gun illegally that it could not be tracked?

c) Was he a convicted felon that would have caused him to fail a background check?

d) of course, the school situation does not apply.

http://www.examiner.com/article/why-zimmerman-verdict-is-important-to-all-armed-citizens wrote:A Zimmerman acquittal will be bad news politically to the gun prohibition lobby, which is also anti-self-defense. Gun grabbers do not like it when armed citizens defend themselves, demonstrating one case at a time that guns in the right hands are good, and dead criminals pose no further threat to the community. Recent years have seen an increasing number of people successfully using guns in self-defense with no criminal charges, a scenario that seems to elicit revulsion or stony silence from the gun control crowd.

This article highlights the reason this is a good case that resonates with the public. Let me highlight the relevant portions of what you posted for your benefit. 

Gun grabbers do not like it when armed citizens defend themselves, demonstrating one case at a time that guns in the right hands are good, and dead criminals pose no further threat to the community. 
 
In this case, even the most ardent advocates of gun rights cannot argue that the gun was "in the right hands." The dead person is not a criminal, but an innocent, unarmed kid who was minding his own business. The only person who posed a threat to the community was the one who had a gun.

Hellsangel wrote:The reason that there is such a hue and cry about this case in the public is because someone decided to push the race factor hard. Gun control advocates will of course try to say that Zimmerman had no right to own a gun.

Hellsangel wrote:I am sure you are aware that the charges weren't even brought until much later after someone decided to play the race card hard. But then this discussion will go nowhere, no one denies it was unfortunate that the "kid", whose angelic 12-year old pics were plastered all over the media, got killed. But was it in self defense? A jury believed so. You can choose not to believe it.

PS: Any property damage from the rioting in Oakland?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:I am sure you are aware that the charges weren't even brought until much later after someone decided to play the race card hard. But then this discussion will go nowhere, no one denies it was unfortunate that the "kid", whose angelic 12-year old pics were plastered all over the media, got killed. But was it in self defense? A jury believed so. You can choose not to believe it.

PS: Any property damage from the rioting in Oakland?

that's what gun-toting idiots want us to believe when in reality that picture was taken 6 months prior to the incident

goodcitizn wrote:The substance of this post has zero to do with the race card.

The reality is that Zimmerman gets his gun back with hardly a slap on his wrist. The fault is with the victim not the gun. To me that is insane.

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:The substance of this post has zero to do with the race card.

The reality is that Zimmerman gets his gun back with hardly a slap on his wrist. The fault is with the victim not the gun. To me that is insane.

This is very similar to how people viewed the OJ trial. Depending on which side of the political spectrum you were on, your sympathies lay there.

goodcitizn wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:The substance of this post has zero to do with the race card.

The reality is that Zimmerman gets his gun back with hardly a slap on his wrist. The fault is with the victim not the gun. To me that is insane.

This is very similar to how people viewed the OJ trial. Depending on which side of the political spectrum you were on, your sympathies lay there.

OJ got away with murder(s) as the saying goes. So did Casey Anthony.

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:The substance of this post has zero to do with the race card.

The reality is that Zimmerman gets his gun back with hardly a slap on his wrist. The fault is with the victim not the gun. To me that is insane.

This is very similar to how people viewed the OJ trial. Depending on which side of the political spectrum you were on, your sympathies lay there.

OJ got away with murder(s) as the saying goes. So did Casey Anthony.

And Foxy Knoxy? That wasn't even in the US.

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:I am sure you are aware that the charges weren't even brought until much later after someone decided to play the race card hard. But then this discussion will go nowhere, no one denies it was unfortunate that the "kid", whose angelic 12-year old pics were plastered all over the media, got killed. But was it in self defense? A jury believed so. You can choose not to believe it.

PS: Any property damage from the rioting in Oakland?

that's what gun-toting idiots want us to believe when in reality that picture was taken 6 months prior to the incident

Sure and MSNBC did not edit their tapes either.

goodcitizn wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:The substance of this post has zero to do with the race card.

The reality is that Zimmerman gets his gun back with hardly a slap on his wrist. The fault is with the victim not the gun. To me that is insane.

This is very similar to how people viewed the OJ trial. Depending on which side of the political spectrum you were on, your sympathies lay there.

OJ got away with murder(s) as the saying goes. So did Casey Anthony.

And Foxy Knoxy? That wasn't even in the US.

LOL! As Confucius once didn't say, "If you keep beating a dead horse, it screws up the autopsy."

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Is he a convicted felon?

No.

This case is an excellent illustration of the broken legal system. Even those who think Zimmerman shot the kid in self defense can see that Zimmerman was the one who initiated the conflict, and his possession of the gun emboldened him to do so. Just the sort of guy who should be allowed to carry a gun!

Idéfix wrote:The guy who disregards the advice of the 911 responder and kills an unarmed teenager!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/15/george-zimmerman-gun-back_n_3598228.html

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:I am sure you are aware that the charges weren't even brought until much later after someone decided to play the race card hard. But then this discussion will go nowhere, no one denies it was unfortunate that the "kid", whose angelic 12-year old pics were plastered all over the media, got killed. But was it in self defense? A jury believed so. You can choose not to believe it.

PS: Any property damage from the rioting in Oakland?

that's what gun-toting idiots want us to believe when in reality that picture was taken 6 months prior to the incident

Sure and MSNBC did not edit their tapes either.

If you only did a bit of fact checking first

A widely circulated photograph of Martin wearing a Hollister T-shirt shows him much younger than he was the night he died.  Those who fervently believe that Martin was a thug or a thug-in-training are especially incensed by the photo of him smiling in a red Hollister T-shirt. Not only do they claim that the photo makes Martin look more innocent and sympathetic, they also charge that it depicts him at a much younger age than he was when he was killed. Their assumption is that Martin is between 11 and 14 years old in the photo. For more than a year, some have been sharing what one reader told me was “an up-to-date photo” of Martin. The person in the photo is the rapper Game, who was about 30 years old when the snapshot was taken for XXL magazine in 2010.  Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump told me in February that the Hollister T-shirt photo of Trayvon was taken in August 2011, when he was 16 years old. That was six months before he turned 17, on Feb. 5, 2012. He was killed three weeks after that.

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:The reason that there is such a hue and cry about this case in the public is because someone decided to push the race factor hard. Gun control advocates will of course try to say that Zimmerman had no right to own a gun.

The reason there is such a hue and cry is that an innocent, unarmed kid was killed by a vigilante who took it upon himself to not let "fucking punks" and "assholes" like that "get away." Gun nuts will of course try to blame the media and any one else rather than admit this fact.

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:I am sure you are aware that the charges weren't even brought until much later after someone decided to play the race card hard. But then this discussion will go nowhere, no one denies it was unfortunate that the "kid", whose angelic 12-year old pics were plastered all over the media, got killed. But was it in self defense? A jury believed so. You can choose not to believe it.

PS: Any property damage from the rioting in Oakland?

that's what gun-toting idiots want us to believe when in reality that picture was taken 6 months prior to the incident

Sure and MSNBC did not edit their tapes either.

If you only did a bit of fact checking first

A widely circulated photograph of Martin wearing a Hollister T-shirt shows him much younger than he was the night he died.  Those who fervently believe that Martin was a thug or a thug-in-training are especially incensed by the photo of him smiling in a red Hollister T-shirt. Not only do they claim that the photo makes Martin look more innocent and sympathetic, they also charge that it depicts him at a much younger age than he was when he was killed. Their assumption is that Martin is between 11 and 14 years old in the photo. For more than a year, some have been sharing what one reader told me was “an up-to-date photo” of Martin. The person in the photo is the rapper Game, who was about 30 years old when the snapshot was taken for XXL magazine in 2010.  Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump told me in February that the Hollister T-shirt photo of Trayvon was taken in August 2011, when he was 16 years old. That was six months before he turned 17, on Feb. 5, 2012. He was killed three weeks after that.

Oh I read that. There are other photographs. You should read what MSNBC themselves said. And yeah, I read the snopes.com article too.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03/31/10952926-are-old-photos-of-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-deceptive?lite

More later.

confuzzled dude wrote:
What does this prove! besides this article is from last year where as the one I gave was from a week or two ago.

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
What does this prove! besides this article is from last year where as the one I gave was from a week or two ago.

It proves that a large section of the media was very biased in their portrayal of the story and people like those who regularly read the WaPo will swallow that like a sugar pill.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
What does this prove! besides this article is from last year where as the one I gave was from a week or two ago.

It proves that a large section of the media was very biased in their portrayal of the story and people like those who regularly read the WaPo will swallow that like a sugar pill.

Doesn't make much sense, are you saying that this applies to only to Trayvon Martin's side, as you don't seem to have any objections to the inconsistencies with Zimmerman's claims or pictures, for crying out loud, he was in better shape during the altercation than in that picture (if it indeed was 7,8 year old picture)

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:The reason that there is such a hue and cry about this case in the public is because someone decided to push the race factor hard. Gun control advocates will of course try to say that Zimmerman had no right to own a gun.

The reason there is such a hue and cry is that an innocent, unarmed kid was killed by a vigilante who took it upon himself to not let "fucking punks" and "assholes" like that "get away." Gun nuts will of course try to blame the media and any one else rather than admit this fact.

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:The reason that there is such a hue and cry about this case in the public is because someone decided to push the race factor hard. Gun control advocates will of course try to say that Zimmerman had no right to own a gun.

The reason there is such a hue and cry is that an innocent, unarmed kid was killed by a vigilante who took it upon himself to not let "fucking punks" and "assholes" like that "get away." Gun nuts will of course try to blame the media and any one else rather than admit this fact.

She may very well believe that Zimmerman was not a racist. That by itself is a lot less informative about his attitudes to race than his own statements and actions when he saw the kid on the sidewalk.