| George Zimmerman not guilty | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 14 2013, 03:28 AM (1,104 Views) | |
| some | Jul 15 2013, 04:57 PM Post #21 |
|
Yeah, in total agreement with Noir here but he said what I was thinking almost perfectly. Zimmerman went looking for trouble (Noir explains perfectly the sense of bravado he felt - carrying a gun, protected by a car against a guy travelling on foot), and bit of more than he could chew. When it came down to it, he intentionally, against orders from authority figures took matters into his own hands which made him need to 'defend' himself. |
![]() |
|
| Zach | Jul 15 2013, 06:44 PM Post #22 |
![]()
|
Holy shit Noir. Anyway, just to comment on the right to bear arms in America; it's a founding principle. The reason democracy stands strong in the United States is because it was built from the bottom up, not the top down. There have been different countries that have tried to give the power to the people by their government deciding that it is the right thing. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. However, the US was built from the bottom up, and a strong pillar of that foundation is that the citizens have the right to own weapons. Of course, there are different arguments about the types of weapons and level of understanding of guns needed in order to own one (as shown in the thread), but America is distinctly different than around the world. I haven't read through everything, but I don't think the argument has been made about guns being used as protection against the American government itself. I think that's a strong argument to consider as well. Edited by Zach, Jul 15 2013, 06:46 PM.
|
| The clan will go down with that thread - Ryan | |
![]() |
|
| Noir | Jul 15 2013, 06:51 PM Post #23 |
|
Bitch, please!
|
just saw that post and id like to answer because youre pointing out something wrong/ maybe thats the way its done in USA but in Germany its different. during my 15 months "wehrdienst" (tweens with german nationality had to do either wehrdienst or sozialdienst) i had to fire several weapon types, one was the fullautomatic assault rifle HK417 or 16 dunno anymore. its the standart assault rifle of the bundeswehr. anyway we were taught to always aim for the head as long as the person is so close that you can see the contures of the face. same goes for sharp shooters. priority one target is the head. Kill with one shot was the phrase! if you have to immobilize an opponent from close distance: FIRST shot in the shin/ leg, second in the trigger arm. always the first one, squadleader, shots. second one secures scene. third one aims for opponent while fourth takes him hostage. squadleader secures the scene in the meantime. thats a standart operation protocol for close combat weapon usage. ergo military aims for head if they want to kill or they go for immobiliziation with the shot in the leg/ shin. a friend of mine is police officer in frankfurt am main and beside the fact that they have shooting training at least once a week, also if they must shoot have to shoot in the shin/ leg. they have to write a report for every single patron they use during their field operation. that report will be checked by tons of people and afterwards its said if the police officer was right to fire his gun or could have prevented that outcome. if second he probably loses his job. thats how training should be, shooting at a torso is super inconsequent. people could wear bulletproofed clothes! nobody who had a professional shooting training would shoot at something different than head (kill) or foots (immobilization) ... thats why trained people should use guns and other fire weapons. they are not simply able to fire them controlled but also know what responsability they have with a weapon they carry around. maaan zach: its ok if you americans think its important to you to be allowed to carry a gun, im just trying to say, if people would not. stuff like this could be prevented and thats why i also think that right to bear weapons is outdated. but im absolutly fine if you dont want to change it, we in germany dont want speed limitations on highways because its something that represents freedom for us like the guns do for you. on the other hand you have to agree that speed limitations on highways make them way saver, than highways you have to take care that nobody with 155 mph (thats the speedlimitation mercedes/bmw/audi and vw set to their cars which is definitly driven by some bigger cars, when im with my golf on my way to stuttgart my average speed is 120 mph (slow golf only goes for 142 mph) but the cla 43 is not that far away anymore :P) crashes into your car because he couldnt stop it in time.. i would beef with a speedlimitation but i would agree that it makes german speedways saver and is better for your money ^^ same goes for your right to bear weapons. Edited by Noir, Jul 15 2013, 07:08 PM.
|
![]() | |
![]() |
|
| NYKnicks | Jul 15 2013, 08:49 PM Post #24 |
|
i'm no fag
|
Okay, well we can just agree to disagree. It's not like your opinion is so preposterous. In fact I think it's the popular opinion. About the guns though, 'Merica! |
![]() | |
![]() |
|
| Zach | Jul 15 2013, 10:55 PM Post #25 |
![]()
|
Haha the only difference here is that a lot of Americans probably wish they could have a bundesautobahn (stolen from wikipedia). One of the major highways in Ohio just increased the speed limit from 65 mph to 70mph and that speed limit still isn't fast enough for some people. People are crazy. |
| The clan will go down with that thread - Ryan | |
![]() |
|
| Shinta | Jul 16 2013, 08:22 AM Post #26 |
|
Okay I will post something less racist, but not so fukcking long as Noir it was even hard to scroll down through his wall of text without getting tired. Yesterday I was drinking and my friend suddenly started talking about this situation. He said that he read about this situation somewhere and it was said that the nigger was a boyscout selling cookies there and when caught by the Zimmerman he broke the stay-your-ground (dat way?) rule and that's why he got shot. When I told him what Bryon posted in his first post and told him that it was supposedly official he was like wtf what I've read also was to be official. Edited by Shinta, Jul 16 2013, 12:18 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Noir | Jul 16 2013, 11:38 AM Post #27 |
|
Bitch, please!
|
brian i love how you asked for more opinions but not accepting different opinions =P but i want to apologized to you. i actually missunderstood your question. first i thought you are asking if we think Zimmerman is guilty or not but for any crime, but today i learned the US jurisdiction works a lot different to ours. We have a accusation and during the court case a professional judge (or more) decided whether that accusation can be judged or it cant. if it cant, they are looking for a realistic accusation. in the zimmerman case it would be like that. Accusation in florida was "murder with rasistic intention", those layjudges called jury in the usa decided that Zimmerman didnt murder with a rasistic intention so they called him not guilty. the court case is closed. New cases still can be made, like the afros want to do right now, but they cant go for a accusation Zimmerman already was called unguilty for... they still could go for stuff like injury of the personal rights of martin and so on. Our court case wouldnt be closed at that point, it would be altered! The judge would say Zimmerman isnt guilty for murder with rasistic intention BUT he is guilty for involuntary negligent homicide (and by that judged for a maximum of 4 years imprisonment (the minimum would be a suspended sentence for a maximum of half the time). I was judging the case Zimmerman from the point i learned to do so, accepting the accusation and altering it to a realistic one if there is a realistic one. Going with the american jurisdiction i would agree with you, Zimmerman is not guilty! A personal side note: im a bit disappointed in you that you didnt accept my pov and didnt even try to understand it, because from your postings it shows to me nothing but ignorance towards a different opinion of a realistic accusation. and if youre honestly towards yourself you only can agree with me saying zimmerman did actually kill the negro. he didnt do it on purpose but it still is a homicide of a person of the usa. oh and going by your laws id say a realistic punishment for zimmerman will be 1 year suspended sentence and giving up his job as neighborhood watchmen + a therapy |
![]() | |
![]() |
|
| NYKnicks | Jul 16 2013, 12:38 PM Post #28 |
|
i'm no fag
|
@Shinta nah, he wasn't a Boy Scout or anything like that. As for whatever else you said, idk what you said. Learn to English @Noir I do want opinions! I appreciate you offering it. We both stated ours and I respect your's and Some's opinions. I accept them, just don't agree. Yeah, there is absolutely no question in my mind that Zimmerman did indeed kill Trayvon. I think everyone agrees on that. And sorry if I came off as disrespectful to you. I do see it from your point of view. Zimmerman could have absolutely picked a fight with Martin and started the whole confrontation. Definitely could have. Personally, from my point of view, I can't see why he would have done that. And yeah it is very weird that he wasn't convicted of anything else. To get off not guilty of anything is very bizarre. Illuminati... |
![]() | |
![]() |
|
| some | Jul 16 2013, 01:34 PM Post #29 |
|
I think the fact that he followed him in a car while carrying a gun is enough cause for starting a fight, it's not a question of could, it's more to do with how far it escalated after he started it. The negro didn't know he had a gun, but to be deliberately creeping behind someone is a passive form of confrontation, or baiting him into one |
![]() |
|
| Noir | Jul 16 2013, 03:30 PM Post #30 |
|
Bitch, please!
|
id like to go a bit off topic about the jury the USA uses in court cases as desicion finder. they pick normal people with us american nationality as far as i know. does anyone know how they pick the jurymember? because i totally dont understand this naa...something afroamerican civil rights movement group. they are trying to force racistic reasonings behind anything atm. first a racistic murder then a racistic judgement pasted down by the jury (because they were all white). isnt it racistic itself saying because im black im discriminated? in the end those afro americans are racists towards themself right now. they are suspection people of a different skincolor to be racists just because they didnt came to the same conclusion? for me that sounds pretty racistic |
![]() | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Chat · Next Topic » |










8:50 AM Jul 11