This is a MUSIC forum. Irrelevant or disrespectful posts/topics will be removed by Admin. Please report any forum spam or inappropriate posts HERE.

All users can post to this forum on general music topics.

Moderators: bandmixmod1, jimmy990, spikedace

#219104 by gtZip
Wed Jul 17, 2013 3:13 pm
Johnny, for a lot of people it isn't about the races of the two guys involved.
For me it's about a wanna-be cop and a teenager.

Yod, I was familiar with the original recording, not the NBC edit - and it's insulting to me that you would assume I was influenced by edited versions and was parroting what someone was brainwashing me to say.

I've read the last link before.
I'm still wading through the trial videos.

To be continued...

#219107 by Starfish Scott
Wed Jul 17, 2013 3:21 pm
I may be a lot of things, including jaded but all I see is a dead kid.

Yeah looks like Z was having extreme difficulties with him but any time a child dies, it's a tragedy.

I just can't get over the fact that Z didn't really need to be involved especially when the police told him to stand down.

Round here if you don't obey the commands of the police, your fate could be worse than you have any idea. If you wanna stay healthy, obey commands given by authorized law enforcement OR SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES of taking the law into your own hands.

There was no reason for Z to even get out of the car, unless he was thinking about using that piece or waiving it around for show.

If you pull a piece, you better use it or it probably will get used on you.

Z just got lucky they didn't convict him of man 3. Sure the kid was beating on him, but none of that would have happened if obeyed instructions from authorized personnel and didn't engage.

#219108 by Cajundaddy
Wed Jul 17, 2013 3:25 pm
gtZip wrote:Johnny, for a lot of people it isn't about the races of the two guys involved.
For me it's about a wanna-be cop and a teenager.


I too have an aversion to wannabe cops and civilian patrols. Can anyone prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman overstepped his authority, "violated direct police orders", forcefully detained or assaulted , or instigated violence against Trayvon? I don't think we can and so far it is not a crime in FL to be a wannabe cop. We will never really know what went down in that alley. That is the legal definition of reasonable doubt.

I think the point of going to trial is to separate the facts we know and the facts we don't know from innuendo and speculation.

Zimmerman doesn't deserve to be convicted because he is a sort-of lame wannabe cop with a checkered past. He did not violate direct police orders to stand down and wait for police to arrive so let's not make stuff up to convict him.

Trayvon did not deserve to die because he was black, wearing a hood, probably smoked pot and had a rather colorful twitter account. None of this matters.

The actual events that took place in that alley leading up to the fatal gunshot are unknown and leave a lot of doubt. Reasonable doubt about who grabbed who first, threw the first punch, assaulted who first, leading to the fatal gunshot. The rest is just idle speculation by those of us who weren't there and don't really know.
Last edited by Cajundaddy on Wed Jul 17, 2013 4:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

#219109 by Cajundaddy
Wed Jul 17, 2013 3:35 pm
Starfish Scott wrote:
I just can't get over the fact that Z didn't really need to be involved especially when the police told him to stand down.

Round here if you don't obey the commands of the police, your fate could be worse than you have any idea. If you wanna stay healthy, obey commands given by authorized law enforcement OR SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES of taking the law into your own hands.


Of course "We don't need you to do that." (from the call transcripts) is only a comment and should not be misinterpreted as a police command to stand down.

A police command would look more like: "Sir, I need you to stay in your car and wait for the officer to arrive." or "Return to your home at once and the officer will meet you there." But that is not what happened and is an important distinction if you believe Zimmerman overstepped police authority.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sp ... index.html

#219111 by Starfish Scott
Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:01 pm
Johnny you like to split hairs or you a wannabe cop as well?

If you are carrying a piece and you are dumb enough to attempt to use it in anything but defense of your own home/life, you deserve the fate you suffer.

That fat dick capped a kid and even though he got off, he still has to live with the memory of the fact he killed that kid. (can you say "therapy"?)

If that doesn't bother you, you are "low" to say the least.



Say I'm driving around with a piece, on a local neighborhood watch.
I see your kid acting oddly on the way home.

Would you be ok with you if I get out of my vehicle with a piece and accost your kid? Do you think that's wise, chuckles? I don't.

But don't worry, I'd plant your kid with one to the head quicker than you can say "redial".



Now doesn't the idea that the police handle it seem rather pertinent?
I mean you don't have to be a moron, but it certainly helps.

When YOUR family loses a child, then you can talk.
Otherwise you are blowing smoke out of your ass.

Shooting a child is never going to be the right thing to do, regardless.
Better to video it with your weak little smart phone and I'm quite you know how to do that, right ? Not too technical for all you folks, right?

"It's all good until it's YOUR KID, then we have a problem, right"?

I don't care who's kid it is. It never should have happened.
LET THE PROFESSIONALS HANDLE IT OR HAVE A SITUATION LIKE THIS.

I don't care if the kid just stole the Faberge egg, let the cops do their jobs.
I mean, this is what they are trained for.

That fat douchebag was not qualified, nor trained.
He was a 'shooting' waiting to happen. He quantifies the term, "loose cannon".

Do you remember what it's like to be a child? I'm guessing you do not.
They make bad decisions, such as burglary. Should we shoot them all?

If you carry a gun, in the back of your mind you are thinking about using it. If you draw that gun, it just went all the way to the front of the line.

Personally, I'd rather get the living sh*t beaten out of me than kill a child.
And I've taken some huge beatings, but I've dished out more than I've taken.

The difference is that you heal from the beating, you die from the gun.

"Think with the big head, that's what it's for". Kind of like the Police, that's their job. You think you wanna do that? THEN BECOME A COP, otherwise "know your role".

#219113 by t-Roy and The Smoking Section
Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:25 pm
Deadguitars wrote:Yod
I appreciate you not jumping down my throat - thanks
I do agree that GZ had every right to defend himself and it does no good for any " side " if he is wrongly convicted.
" There is no winner in this game ... "
- Tom




Amen, that is the really sad thing.


All of us know that sometimes things just go very wrongly, and it's not any one person's fault necessarily...just a combination of factors that meet at the wrong intersection. What happened here was tragic. I do sincerely understand that T was not deserving of death. I do understand that Z was an overzealous Paul Blart of a security guard.

But we've been told that he hunted down an innocent child and shot him in cold-blood...and that's a lie easily disproven. Yet that lie keeps being repeated and it seems intentionally so, since anyone can watch the trial and see it isn't true.


This case struck a raw nerve among black people who feel they are not given the same benefit of doubt that a white person (or in this case a latino) would get in the same situation. Personally I think it's more an economic discrimination from the law than a racial one. A poor man is going to get railroaded in a contest with a prosecutor who has unlimited resources.

But perception is reality and if black people still sincerely believe it's racial, then that issue should be addressesd honestly and forthrightly. But that perception has nothing to do with the facts in Sanford. One person is trying to protect a neighborhood and the other person is afraid. A tragic mistake was made.

It wouldn't have resulted in a death if T had not violently and physcially assaulted Z. For that reason, it would only be a further miscarriage of justice to convict someone for defending their life with responsive violence.







.
Last edited by t-Roy and The Smoking Section on Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.

#219114 by Cajundaddy
Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:26 pm
The purpose of a trial is to split hairs and discover the facts Scotty. Where is the evidence that Zimmerman "accosted" Trayvon? There isn't any so please don't make stuff up to convict him. It is un-American and lynch mob mentality.

This whole thing is a giant mess and I don't approve of the actions of either of them. Somebody accosted/assaulted/incited somebody and we really don't know who, ending in a fatal gunshot. Reasonable doubt according to the law. Now sadly one kid is dead and another's life is ruined forever. This is a tragedy that won't get fixed by making stuff up to convict.

Just the facts please Scotty.

P.S. Always appreciate the personal attacks. It is the mark of ones character. :wink:

#219115 by t-Roy and The Smoking Section
Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:32 pm
Thejohnny7band wrote:The actual events that took place in that alley leading up to the fatal gunshot are unknown and leave a lot of doubt. Reasonable doubt about who grabbed who first, threw the first punch, assaulted who first, leading to the fatal gunshot. The rest is just idle speculation by those of us who weren't there and don't really know.




This trial never seemed to be about the facts though. It was always presented as being about the motives of Zimmerman.


It was NBC who edited 911 tapes and created a FALSE narrative that T was shot simply because he was black...and that is a lie which only stirred up anger. The local police and an FBI investigation proved it was not racially motivated. Yet where is the correction? Instead we have other media picking up that false narrative and running with it. It's obvious to me that everyone who is upset is following that false narrative.

Then the DoJ further inflames this, instead of accepting the facts of an FBI investigation which proved it false.

That, imo, is the real problem. It seems that "someone" is intentionally trying to turn people into victims, who will become perpetrators of a bloody agenda.

Yet we're all watching the bouncing ball instead of who threw it.









.
Last edited by t-Roy and The Smoking Section on Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

#219116 by t-Roy and The Smoking Section
Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:41 pm
Starfish Scott wrote:Do you remember what it's like to be a child? I'm guessing you do not.
They make bad decisions, such as burglary. Should we shoot them all?.





I committed burglary of 2 houses when I was 15 and strung out on Valium. Had the owners come home while I was in their house, feared for their life and shot me, there would be no one to blame but myself.

If I had assaulted them, that would be enough reason for them to fear for their life. The defense has nothing else to prove.


You're upset about someone losing their life but you don't seem willing to assign responsibility to the person who initiated the violence.

Z broke no laws whatsoever. T did. How does that make Z guilty?

And have you ever been to Florida? There are a lot of crazies walking around. I can't go 20 steps in Miami without someone trying to scam me. It's a paranoid environment and that's why there are neighborhood watches. That doesn't justify hunting an intruder to kill them, but Z has had many opportunities to do that in the past and history shows he did not.

Again...it's just a tragedy of errors. We shouldn't compound it by more errors of judgement.

#219117 by Slacker G
Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:44 pm
If you carry a gun, in the back of your mind you are thinking about using it. If you draw that gun, it just went all the way to the front of the line.


If someone approaches you and threatens you with a knife or a gun, in Iowa, you may use your pistol. Otherwise you are in a lot of trouble. Sometimes I may carry to show someone my favorite pistol. I never have a round in the chamber, but I do have a full magazine.

I live in a MS 13 neighborhood. The dudes don't bother me. They carry unregistered pistols with large capacity magazines. They do not have a problem with shooting at the Laotian gang also neighborhood competition, in broad daylight. The cops are never around, and when you report a gunfight they hightail it to the other side of town. Whether you plan to use a pistol or not, you do feel more secure when you are packing.

When you speak to someone who carries all the time, they do NOT always think about using it. Most reasonable people NEVER think they will have to use it. But like the boy scouts, it is always good to be prepared in a world where nut cases abound.

I remain armed for home protection. If someone breaks into my house it is to cause me or my family bodily harm, as I like to advertise that I do not have anything worth dying for in my home. So if they break in, it is to do me harm.

By the way, when are they going to begin publishing the older less innocent pictures of Martin on these phony news reports? He is 13 in that hoodie pic. I'd like to see some of his blog picks aired. Like the one of him showing off his gun (Most likely unregistered), or an explanation of why he had pics of a pot plant on his blog, or blowing smoke rings at his web cam. He was not the innocent looking 13 year old that most likely sucker punched Z. You can still find these blog pics on the Internet if you look for them.

He was bragging about what he was going to do to his girlfriend on the phone at that very time. He said that he thought Zimmerman was a fag, according to his girlfriend during a TV interview. At that time he also told her he was going to beat Zimmerman.

A good many details about Trayvon were forbidden to be released at the trial. Perhaps it is all simply Darwin's theory on display. If you are stupid enough to punch out a stranger you may not be the fittest.

#219121 by Slacker G
Wed Jul 17, 2013 6:59 pm
I went on line to see how many people that were attacked had to use their guns. Not very many carry with the idea that they even need to use them. Just pulling out a gun thwarts most attacks. You can find the actual study at the Cato study. The link is about a page long so I just posted an article that reflects what was found in the study. If needed I will paste the link.

http://lightfromtheright.com/2012/02/27 ... f-defense/

This is just the sort of story that confirms that some gun-controllers have little or no interest in the proven effectiveness of citizens in defending themselves. For them such information is completely beside the point. Private ownership of guns is an obstacle towards the establishment of a dictatorship. This Cato study is not for intended for them.
Please share!

Thousands of Criminal Attacks Thwarted by Armed Citizens
Monday, 27 February 2012 16:24 Written by Bob Adelmann 11 Comments

English: Houston Gun show at the George R. Bro...

According to the authors of Cato Institute’s recently released study on how often guns are used by citizens to prevent crime, “tens of thousands of crimes are prevented each year by ordinary citizens with guns.” In a study of more than 5,000 news reports over an eight-year period, Clayton Cramer and David Burnett showed that the mere presence of an armed citizen thwarts many crimes, even beyond those that are reported by the police and subsequently printed in the newspaper.

Questions the study was designed to answer were, “When ordinary Americans use guns in self-defense, what is the nature of that use? How frequently do these events occur and what are the consequences?”

Of the 5,000 incidents reported between October 2003 and November 2011, 488 involved home burglaries along with another 1,227 incidents where intruders fled when confronted by armed inhabitants. Another 34 concerned pizza delivery drivers defending themselves, along with 172 animal attacks. Concerns about an attacker taking a gun away from an armed victim were proven invalid, with 227 incidents reported where the intended victim disarmed his attacker, while just 11 attackers disarmed his victim. Twenty-five rapes were avoided by armed victims. Two hundred and one attacks were neutralized by armed senior citizens (over age 65, according to the authors).

The study also put into perspective the number of accidental shootings that were reported to the papers in that eight-year period. Although the Centers for Disease Control reported 535 accidental shootings in 2006, the authors found only five in their database. The study also identified 36 cases where the defender lost his life during the incident but that compares to the 210 cases where the perpetrator was shot by his intended victim. Sixty-five carjackings were successfully ended by an armed citizen who used his weapon to defend himself.

Some objections to gun ownership include concerns that ordinary citizens aren’t capable of owning and handling a gun responsibly or that they will be likely to engage in “road rage” with potentially tragic consequences. Such objections hold little water. Cramer and Burnett wrote: “This paper finds that such cases represent an exceedingly small minority of gun uses by otherwise law-abiding citizens…. Those assumptions are false. The vast majority of gun owners are ethical and competent.”

The authors were quick to note deficiencies in the study, notably the underreporting of incidents where an armed citizen defended himself but never made the papers. They said:

Moreover, it is important to note that when a gun owner kills an attacker or is able to hold a rapist or a burglar until the police arrive, it is very likely that more than one crime has been prevented because if the culprit had not been stopped, he could have targeted other citizens as well.

Two cases from their study suffice to prove the point. From a news story printed in the Mooresville (N.C.) Tribune on January 7, 2010, a Charlotte woman was attacked by a rapist, but she managed to wrest his gun from him and hold him until the police arrived. It turns out that her attacker, one O.C. Billings, had an extensive criminal history going back 20 years, much of which involved sexual attacks on children. Her success ended what is likely to have been a continuing string of attacks on others by the perp.

The other concerned a private security officer who was able to end the killing spree of Matthew Murray at a church in Colorado Springs in December 2007. The authors noted that her actions “clearly prevented the murder of at least dozens of people.” As that officer wrote in her book God, the Gunman & Me:

When [the police] inspected Matthew’s car, they found an AK-47 assault rifle and another 1,000 rounds of ammunition in the trunk, plus maps to other locations where it appeared he had been planning to seek further revenge. At the time of the shooting at New Life [Church], Matthew had over 1,000 rounds on him and in the backpack he carried on his back. There was a map to the Denver meeting place [of another religious organization].

The authors of the study tell those legislators who insist on restricting the rights of citizens to own guns that if they “are truly interested in harm reduction, they should pause to consider how many crimes—murders, rapes, assaults, robberies—are thwarted each year by ordinary persons with guns.” Of course, legislators with other objectives in mind will not be persuaded by this study or any other, as logic and historical experience do not make totalitarian ideologues alter their intentions.

As persuasive as the Cato study is in showing that armed citizens are responsible and capable and have ended many thousands, perhaps millions, of criminal attacks, it greatly understates the impact those citizens have in ending, without fanfare or publicity, a potential criminal act. The study will no doubt encourage those who already carry and perhaps persuade others to do the same.

#219123 by Starfish Scott
Wed Jul 17, 2013 8:29 pm
Say what you will, there's always going to be a better way than to to kill a 17 year old kid. That fat asshole had no reason to leave his car other than to start trouble he wasn't supposed to be involved in.

I don't care what color he is just like I don't care what color you are.
(Johnny, do you love your kid? What if it was your child? Do you even have any kids ?)

You shoot my kid and you better move to Neptune, although you still wouldn't be safe there. I'd skin your ass and make you enjoy every minute of it, as I sliced you so thin that the au jus was overflowing.

I guess it's true the adage about teaching new tricks to old dogs.
Some value all life and some think they are above it all. (how's the air up there?)

You wanna cap a child? People are so brave, especially behind a gun.
Why do you need a gun to do a job you can do with your hands and feet?
What a "hero" you must be or is that "zero"?

Lemme ask you, you ever serve in any military capacity>?
I'm thinking no as then you'd know more about what it's like to kill.
It's not a game, you crusty f**k. That is until someone is coming to avenge a wrong. Then it's on like donkey kong.

And all the evasive behaviors in the world won't save you from what you deserve. Begging doesn't work at that point either. They just start cutting off your fingers, digit by digit or worse.

It's amazing the clarity that produces, but at that point it's too late.
All you get is a shallow grave to match the first one, albeit less festivities and pomp.

Did the fat asshole shoot him from inside the car? No? I'm guessing he left the car then. Kind of hard to fist fight inside a car, no? duh.

A fist fight is what it is. Plenty of time to stop, hopefully before the cops come or someone gets killed.

A gun fight is for all the cards and money. It doesn't end until someone is dead, usually the guy with no gun.

If I pull a gun on you, you think it's going to be a fair fight?
It wouldn't be. They never are unless both sides are armed with guns.

It would have been a tragedy if this guy was 71, let alone 17.
He was probably up to no good, but it wasn't worth dying over.

You can spew all the verbal excrement you like, that child will never get another chance to change into something extraordinary because he's dead.

Should we just kill everyone we don't get along with?
That'd be awfully convenient and yet not godly at all.

Then again a whole slew of people go to church on Sunday, but are sinning like mad Mon-Sat. They think that's what everyone does and being godly is for Sunday only.

I love armchair QB's, no brains and no interceptions, but no TD's either.

Don't be a idiot if you can help it, it's just weak and it makes you look like a racist and someone who doesn't give a flying sh*t about anyone but yourself.

Q: Imagine the story it would have been if Z had just put it in drive and left.
A: There would have been no story and no one would have had to die.

Dying is never an acceptable ending for anyone or anything, unless you are dealing with the govt or similar pile of moronic idiots that have problems stringing along a few sentences to try and communicate.

The military is a great example of this. They want every one to die (on the other side), except their personnel and sometimes even they are expendable.

Are we evolved or are we all still just f**k over cavemen that can't get it right?

(where's my deerskin loincloth? Sharpen spear, good.. uggggggg.)

#219126 by Cajundaddy
Wed Jul 17, 2013 9:51 pm
This is a very emotionally charged case and it's easy to get sucked down the rabbit hole. I have to stick stubbornly to the facts and only the facts because that is how we define rule of law in this country. I'll leave the wild speculation and innuendo about what might have happened to guys like Al Sharpton and the New Black Panthers. They favor innuendo over rule of law every time.

#219127 by MikeTalbot
Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:50 pm
Scott

If the police could have handled it - they wouldn't have needed a neighborhood watch. The police were very specifically not handling it - 14 burglaries in two months. To walk around as Zim had to, these days, without a gat - is called suicidally stupid.

St. Travyon fit the profile exactly for the people who'd been robbing that neighborhood. Yet when Zim was told to stand down - he stood down. He opened the door to his truck and was getting in when the little angel blindsided him, broke his nose and was banging his head into the concrete while yelling 'you're going to die tonight.'

I used to be in charge of the armed guards for a well known company in South Central LA. I thought most of them were idiots and shouldn't have been trusted with guns. They couldn't seem to grasp that the pistol is a last resort. But Zim? it was his last resort and if he hadn't capped the assailant, the assailant would have killed him.

That exactly fits the rules I was taught by my police instructors and the rules I taught my darlings.

"Imminent fear of death or great bodily injury." Despite what cops and other gangbangers do regularly - that is the only legal criteria for shooting people. Zim met that standard. Enough of the St. Trayon, that beautiful martyred child nonsense.

Talbot

#219132 by t-Roy and The Smoking Section
Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:54 am
Starfish Scott wrote:Q: Imagine the story it would have been if Z had just put it in drive and left.
A: There would have been no story and no one would have had to die.




T had the chance to leave even before Z did.


Q: Imagine if T would have kept walking....or if he hadn't assaulted anyone.
A: There would have been no story and no one would have had to die.

T could have said, "hey man, I'm just walking home" but chose assault instead. A jury heard all the evidence you haven't listened to and made the same conclusion the police and the FBI did.

Why do you keep blaming Z when he didn't start the violence? Anyone who assaults another person should not be surprised if things go badly for them. The facts of the case, according to eye witnesses, the Police, and the FBI all state that Zimmerman did not racially profile him, did not chase him, did not shoot him in cold blood.

He feared for his survival and defended his life. You would do the same thing if you were in his shoes, and Americans need to make sure that we have that right.

Otherwise, we're all victims of criminals or dead.



BUT WE'RE STILL FOLLOWING THE BOUNCING BALL (distraction) instead of looking at who threw it and wondering why.





.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest