Btw, offering something for free does not explain how you are qualified to do it. This thread is not an autobiography about me. That’s why it qualifies as an offense. Like the free offering you’ve had on some other people that you warned about.
You don’t know how Trayvon Martin was acting that night. We do know how Hitler was acting. Terrible analogy. Just because Trayvon Martin acts tough in public does not mean that he always acts like that. LogisticEarth made a great point earlier in the thread when he pointed out that the evidence neither convicts nor vindicates Zimmerman. The only reason Trayvon Martin’s character is relevant is because it helps the defense. It does not prove that Zimmerman is innocent and Martin guilty. It just helps to provide reasonable doubt.
What you do is just assume Trayvon Martin deserves to die because he acts tough sometimes. I stand by my statement that you are an angry person who calls for the death of others, not because of some actual transgression towards others, but because they have irritated you.
Many people say things about people on this forum. I have been warned once, and I dropped the issue in that particular thread. That you have been banned tells me that you have been particularly vicious towards others on this forum.
Again, calling for the death of someone who has not demonstrated that he deserves it strikes me as an angry statement. Perhaps that’s just par for the course for you though.
Lmao. Because people need to be psychologists to recognize the emotion known as “anger”?
What my case does is help to realize how real people prioritize when faced with real dilemmas.
If there is any advantage I can see in what you are trying to state / what you are stating, it is showing that you are trying harder not to divorce yourself from “abstracting”, “idealizing”, etc (for lack of better words) cases from actual factual reality. If that is what your main thrust is, I would agree with it. I disdain “armchair speculation” on things like this and find them worse than worthless
However, I still don’t see you as seperating yourself from the rest of the people on this thread - by using meaningful context. When you compare your life situations with the case going on, or pass judgment on how you would be a juror over the parents / child you still don’t cross the bridge to any statement that can go anywhere other than maybe “aesthetics” or “psychologisms” - which is usually a dead end topic. You are still divorced from any meaningful context to make anything other than appeals, which is just like everybody else on this thread.
Furthermore, by not being able to cross the bridge, and making harsher judgments, more personal experiences, and still dwelling within the realm of the “abstract”, “psychological”, or “aesthetic” (once again for lack of better terms") - you are drawing attention to a different subject - yourself.
Could you clarify this please? With respect to Caley, I don’t see how everyone else in this thread is in the same boat as him.
More silly mind games, I see. It tells you that you did the same thing I did. You can keep skating or knock it off.
Obviously, not that being a psychologist guarantees a good result. A better question: was there a good reason to bring it up? Do you want this thread to be about me or what? I certainly don’t
It seems like a terrible analogy if you compare apples and oranges. We don’t know how Hitler acted every night. We only know the value system he expressed publicly, as in Trayvon’s case. Even if you don’t like that analogy I’m sure you can think of one that suits you and captures my point. I can see a “No Limit _____” trespassing and bashing someone’s head in more than I can see a concerned member of the community shooting to kill with no chance of covering it up. That is what the case is about. Zimmerman’s image versus Trayvon’s image. It’s just a bunch of judgemental assholes sitting on a bench. If you look at surveys asking what basis people use for voting, you can see easily enough that social image is the primary piece of personal information in judgements.
I don’t see myself “calling for the death of someone who has not demonstrated that he deserves it”. I definitely wouldn’t want anything done to Zimmerman based on this event given what is known so far in this case. But that seems sort of irrelevant given that my supposedly angry post was only pertaining to the Darwin Award comment, which I still stand by 100% knowing that my position is fairly common. I would surely give more fair judgement than the typical bonehead juror (voter) despite my guess that the verdict of this trial is a foregone conclusion in Zimmerman’s favour.
I’m not trying to elevate my position on what should be done with someone like Trayvon. If people want Trayvons around them, fine by me. I’ll sit by and laugh. But I’m not going to let a pro-active stance on safety be slandered as some sort of knee-jerk nutter position. Btw, I knew someone that thought police should just be able to kill people without bothering with trials.
But I’m not going to let a pro-active stance on safety be slandered as some sort of knee-jerk nutter position. Btw, I knew someone that thought police should just be able to kill people without bothering with trials.
This stuff can’t really be discussed unless it relevant to practice
When you say “I wan to kill X” (not that you said this, but just go with this as at least somewhat of a relevant example) in the void of the internet - I am saying it gets lost in translation - there isn’t enough “real” context. Especially on the internet, where everything is automatically abstract (kudos for using your real name). I mean, would you take life changing financial advice from some forum internet avatar?
Provide me with some evidence, please.
Wow. Obviously people need to be psychologists in order to recognize the emotion “anger”? Are you trolling me?
Bring up what? That you are an angry person? My reason was I could not see a better response to what you wrote to me. No, I’d prefer this thread to be about Trayvon Martin, but you keep bringing up these anecdotal stories from your life that have nothing to do with Trayvon Martin.
No, it’s a terrible analogy because it does not matter how Hitler acted every night. We know what crimes Hitler committed, and how he acted on any particular night is irrelevant to the fact of whether or not he is guilty of the crimes he committed. How Trayvon Martin acted the night in question is entirely relevant because that is the “crime” that is in question. How he acted on other nights does speak to his character, which in turn can help provide reasonable doubt. But the analogy between Trayvon Martin and Adolf Hitler is crap. Are you trolling me with this? Seriously, I can’t tell.
You know full well that I am not accusing you of calling for the death of Zimmerman.
You stand by this statement?
And you try to say that you aren’t calling for the deaths of people. I’d love to see what you write when you are calling for the deaths of people.
No, you most definitely would not, considering that you said you stand by the idea that anyone who pretends to be a thug ought to die, I cannot imagine how you could ever give a fair judgement in this case. But I thought this wasn’t supposed to be about you…so why did you bring it up?
George Zimmerman Tells Trayvon Martin’s Parents ‘I Am Sorry’# From the article:
DERSHOWITZ BLASTS ZIMMERMAN PROSECUTION: ‘NOT ONLY IMMORAL, BUT STUPID’
At the end of the article, Dershowitz not so subtly acuses Florida of having dishonest prosecutors for some time now.
The thing is, if Zimmerman’s head injuries were so severe, why wasn’t he treated for them?
What do you mean by “treated for them”? Do you mean at a hospital? Because I believe from the article that he was treated on site by paramedics.
Besides, does it matter if he was treated for them? From the picture, it’s obvious that his head was bashed at least once. Just once is probably enough to demonstrate that he feared for his life. Should he have let his head be bashed twice? More?
How did the fight go to the ground in the first place? Did Zimmerman try to tackle Trayvon and then lose position? Did Trayvon drop Zimmerman and then follow him to the ground? Was Trayvon bashing Zimmerman’s head while standing over him or while in mount?
I wonder if Zimmerman shot Trayvon while he was getting his head bashed against the ground?
I just don’t quite understand how the fight unfolded yet.
I read that he wasn’t admitted to a hospital or given any stitches for his head wounds. I thought I had read that paramedics didn’t treat him either, but I could be wrong.
That’s not what I’m saying - please don’t put words in my mouth (if that’s what you’re doing).
From what I understand, wounds can appear more serious than they really are. Superficial wounds can produce a lot of bleeding.
I reread the article, and this one in particle does not mention paramedics treating him. However, there were some articles earlier in the thread that mentioned paramedics treating him (I know for certain that one of them was in one of That Old Guy’s posts).
Oopsies . I assumed you were insinuating that if his injuries were not severe enough that he was not acting in self-defense. My mistake. ?
I don’t think any of us ever will.
To use a parallel, if someone robbed me of only $1.00 instead of $500.00, are you saying that I should resist less in one scenario than the other due to the severity of the assault? My point is that degree doesn’t matter in situations of principle.
That’s not what I’m saying at all. What I’m saying is that, if Zimmerman’s injuries were superficial, it would cast doubt on the validity of his justification for shooting Martin, i.e. in self-defense.
My mind is not made up about whether Zimmerman justifiably shot and killed Martin. I’m inclined for the time being to think that it wasn’t justified. Regarding acting in self-defense, if you punch me in the nose and I then shoot you in the head, killing you almost instantly, I’d say that I was not in any way acting in justifiable self-defense.
The first question that has to be answered is whether or not Zimmerman initiated the physical conflict.
From John James’ article:
“Even if George Zimmerman was injured in his fight,” said Abrams, “it doesn’t change the fact that the prosecutors clearly believe that Zimmerman was the aggressor. And if Zimmerman was the aggressor and they got into a fight, that doesn’t allow him to use deadly force. It simply — you can’t be losing a fight and then decide to use your gun to protect yourself.”