Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Analogy for Zimmerman Case

ChickenTender
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 6:38:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Assume for the moment that Zimmerman isn't lying when he says the young man struck the first blow and never gave him any quarter. Now consider this (contrived) situation:

You are white and do not like black people. You see a black man playing Russian roulette (assume he was planning to play a certain number of time, not until he killed himself). You ask to examine the pistol, and manage to slip an extra bullet into it without him noticing. He resumes playing Russian roulette and kills himself. Are you guilty of murder? Are you guilty of some crime?

If your temper can cause you to attack someone, with intent to do serious injury to them, that's like playing Russian roulette. Except you're putting multiple lives, not just your own life at risk. But Zimmerman increased the chances of this happening by stalking and harassing the guy. The fact that Zimmerman carried a gun is good evidence he knew his behavior was provocative. So it seems a proper analogy.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 6:39:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
That a horrible analogy, just saying.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 6:40:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
First, with your example, the guy was trying to intentionally get the other guy killed. And in yours, the guy is racist. We do not know if either is true with Zimmerman.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 6:41:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Horrible analogy.

However, despite provocation, an individual has a legal right to defend himself from bodily harm from attackers.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 7:00:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 6:38:08 PM, ChickenTender wrote:
Assume for the moment that Zimmerman isn't lying when he says the young man struck the first blow and never gave him any quarter. Now consider this (contrived) situation:

You are white and do not like black people. You see a black man playing Russian roulette (assume he was planning to play a certain number of time, not until he killed himself). You ask to examine the pistol, and manage to slip an extra bullet into it without him noticing. He resumes playing Russian roulette and kills himself. Are you guilty of murder? Are you guilty of some crime?

No, you are not guilty of a crime; if you load a gun, and place it on a desk, than someone picks it up and blows their brains out, than you committed no crime. It thus follows, that your theoretical scenario is not criminal.

If your temper can cause you to attack someone, with intent to do serious injury to them, that's like playing Russian roulette. Except you're putting multiple lives, not just your own life at risk. But Zimmerman increased the chances of this happening by stalking and harassing the guy. The fact that Zimmerman carried a gun is good evidence he knew his behavior was provocative. So it seems a proper analogy.

It's a horrible analogy.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
TheOrator
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 7:09:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 6:38:08 PM, ChickenTender wrote:
Assume for the moment that Zimmerman isn't lying when he says the young man struck the first blow and never gave him any quarter. Now consider this (contrived) situation:

You are white and do not like black people. You see a black man playing Russian roulette (assume he was planning to play a certain number of time, not until he killed himself). You ask to examine the pistol, and manage to slip an extra bullet into it without him noticing. He resumes playing Russian roulette and kills himself. Are you guilty of murder? Are you guilty of some crime?

It's a mildly interesting scenario. I guess it's like the crime of sabotauge. If you know the guy you hate sits in a certain chair in a certain time, and you loosen the support on a wall ornament above the chair just before he sits in that chair, so when he falls into it the impact causes the ornament to fall and crack his skull. So, like the russian roulette, you knew the action you intentionally took would kill him and did it anyway. I'm not sure if that would specifically be murder (it would if I were the judge) but hey, you had the intent and performed the action.

If your temper can cause you to attack someone, with intent to do serious injury to them, that's like playing Russian roulette. Except you're putting multiple lives, not just your own life at risk. But Zimmerman increased the chances of this happening by stalking and harassing the guy. The fact that Zimmerman carried a gun is good evidence he knew his behavior was provocative. So it seems a proper analogy.

innacurate analogy. You assume he's racist, he's white (which he isn't), and that he stalked him purely to provoke an attack, and that the only reason a man can carry a gun is with the intent to kill. This is all unproven and currently can't be linked to the Zimmerman case.
My legend begins in the 12th century
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 7:20:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://zipmeme.com...
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 7:28:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 7:09:55 PM, TheOrator wrote:
At 6/18/2012 6:38:08 PM, ChickenTender wrote:
Assume for the moment that Zimmerman isn't lying when he says the young man struck the first blow and never gave him any quarter. Now consider this (contrived) situation:

You are white and do not like black people. You see a black man playing Russian roulette (assume he was planning to play a certain number of time, not until he killed himself). You ask to examine the pistol, and manage to slip an extra bullet into it without him noticing. He resumes playing Russian roulette and kills himself. Are you guilty of murder? Are you guilty of some crime?

It's a mildly interesting scenario. I guess it's like the crime of sabotauge. If you know the guy you hate sits in a certain chair in a certain time, and you loosen the support on a wall ornament above the chair just before he sits in that chair, so when he falls into it the impact causes the ornament to fall and crack his skull. So, like the russian roulette, you knew the action you intentionally took would kill him and did it anyway. I'm not sure if that would specifically be murder (it would if I were the judge) but hey, you had the intent and performed the action.

I'm wondering how someone could prove that though.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
ChickenTender
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 8:17:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 6:40:54 PM, OberHerr wrote:
First, with your example, the guy was trying to intentionally get the other guy killed. And in yours, the guy is racist. We do not know if either is true with Zimmerman.

The fact that Zimmerman was armed with a gun shows that he knew he was acting in a way that would likely provoke a potentially fatal confrontation. Perhaps there is some distinction between purposely creating a higher risk of death, and being indifferent to the fact that you are creating a higher risk of death, but it's not a big one.

The 911 tapes show that Zimmerman concluded Martin was a thug because of his appearance. You can split hairs and say that's not necessarily racism, but it's minimally analogous to racism. But really the reason why Zimmerman did not care that he was increasing the risk of someone dying is peripheral.
TheOrator
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 8:17:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 7:28:34 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 6/18/2012 7:09:55 PM, TheOrator wrote:
At 6/18/2012 6:38:08 PM, ChickenTender wrote:
Assume for the moment that Zimmerman isn't lying when he says the young man struck the first blow and never gave him any quarter. Now consider this (contrived) situation:

You are white and do not like black people. You see a black man playing Russian roulette (assume he was planning to play a certain number of time, not until he killed himself). You ask to examine the pistol, and manage to slip an extra bullet into it without him noticing. He resumes playing Russian roulette and kills himself. Are you guilty of murder? Are you guilty of some crime?

It's a mildly interesting scenario. I guess it's like the crime of sabotauge. If you know the guy you hate sits in a certain chair in a certain time, and you loosen the support on a wall ornament above the chair just before he sits in that chair, so when he falls into it the impact causes the ornament to fall and crack his skull. So, like the russian roulette, you knew the action you intentionally took would kill him and did it anyway. I'm not sure if that would specifically be murder (it would if I were the judge) but hey, you had the intent and performed the action.

I'm wondering how someone could prove that though.

True, you'd need evidence he was there in the first place. Assuming you had all the evidence, I think it would be convicted of murder as the action was intentional, directly lead to his death, and the murderer knew the action would lead to his death (the roulette, not Zimmerman)
My legend begins in the 12th century
ChickenTender
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 8:18:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 6:41:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Horrible analogy.

However, despite provocation, an individual has a legal right to defend himself from bodily harm from attackers.

I agree, but the provocation is clearly criminal and should be punished.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 8:23:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 8:17:02 PM, ChickenTender wrote:
At 6/18/2012 6:40:54 PM, OberHerr wrote:
First, with your example, the guy was trying to intentionally get the other guy killed. And in yours, the guy is racist. We do not know if either is true with Zimmerman.

The fact that Zimmerman was armed with a gun shows that he knew he was acting in a way that would likely provoke a potentially fatal confrontation. Perhaps there is some distinction between purposely creating a higher risk of death, and being indifferent to the fact that you are creating a higher risk of death, but it's not a big one.


Or *gasp* maybe he was carrying it to protect himself from a possible attack, or to maybe help in stopping Martin from doing causing trouble.

But, no the only reason people carry guns is to provoke people to attack them so they can kill them. That's the most logical conclusion.

The 911 tapes show that Zimmerman concluded Martin was a thug because of his appearance. You can split hairs and say that's not necessarily racism, but it's minimally analogous to racism. But really the reason why Zimmerman did not care that he was increasing the risk of someone dying is peripheral.

Here is your line of reasoning

1. Zimmerman says he looks like a thug

2. He also says he is black

C. Zimmerman is implying that because he is black, he looks like a thug.

-.-

Yeah, that makes sense.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 8:24:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 8:18:39 PM, ChickenTender wrote:
At 6/18/2012 6:41:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Horrible analogy.

However, despite provocation, an individual has a legal right to defend himself from bodily harm from attackers.

I agree, but the provocation is clearly criminal and should be punished.

1. No, I don't think it is, depends on the provocation

2. If it's not illegal, it shouldn't be punished.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
ChickenTender
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 8:25:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 7:09:55 PM, TheOrator wrote:
At 6/18/2012 6:38:08 PM, ChickenTender wrote:
Assume for the moment that Zimmerman isn't lying when he says the young man struck the first blow and never gave him any quarter. Now consider this (contrived) situation:

You are white and do not like black people. You see a black man playing Russian roulette (assume he was planning to play a certain number of time, not until he killed himself). You ask to examine the pistol, and manage to slip an extra bullet into it without him noticing. He resumes playing Russian roulette and kills himself. Are you guilty of murder? Are you guilty of some crime?

It's a mildly interesting scenario. I guess it's like the crime of sabotauge. If you know the guy you hate sits in a certain chair in a certain time, and you loosen the support on a wall ornament above the chair just before he sits in that chair, so when he falls into it the impact causes the ornament to fall and crack his skull. So, like the russian roulette, you knew the action you intentionally took would kill him and did it anyway. I'm not sure if that would specifically be murder (it would if I were the judge) but hey, you had the intent and performed the action.

If your temper can cause you to attack someone, with intent to do serious injury to them, that's like playing Russian roulette. Except you're putting multiple lives, not just your own life at risk. But Zimmerman increased the chances of this happening by stalking and harassing the guy. The fact that Zimmerman carried a gun is good evidence he knew his behavior was provocative. So it seems a proper analogy.

innacurate analogy. You assume he's racist, he's white (which he isn't), and that he stalked him purely to provoke an attack,

No I didn't.

and that the only reason a man can carry a gun is with the intent to kill. This is all unproven and currently can't be linked to the Zimmerman case.

If Zimmerman always felt the need to carry a gun when driving around in his own neighborhood, that may mean he should be committed to a mental hospital rather than tried. He doesn't live in Baghdad.
ChickenTender
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 8:29:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The nice thing about arguing with yourself is that you don't even need lube.

At 6/18/2012 8:23:32 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 6/18/2012 8:17:02 PM, ChickenTender wrote:
At 6/18/2012 6:40:54 PM, OberHerr wrote:
First, with your example, the guy was trying to intentionally get the other guy killed. And in yours, the guy is racist. We do not know if either is true with Zimmerman.

The fact that Zimmerman was armed with a gun shows that he knew he was acting in a way that would likely provoke a potentially fatal confrontation. Perhaps there is some distinction between purposely creating a higher risk of death, and being indifferent to the fact that you are creating a higher risk of death, but it's not a big one.


Or *gasp* maybe he was carrying it to protect himself from a possible attack, or to maybe help in stopping Martin from doing causing trouble.

But, no the only reason people carry guns is to provoke people to attack them so they can kill them. That's the most logical conclusion.

The 911 tapes show that Zimmerman concluded Martin was a thug because of his appearance. You can split hairs and say that's not necessarily racism, but it's minimally analogous to racism. But really the reason why Zimmerman did not care that he was increasing the risk of someone dying is peripheral.

Here is your line of reasoning

1. Zimmerman says he looks like a thug

2. He also says he is black

C. Zimmerman is implying that because he is black, he looks like a thug.

-.-

Yeah, that makes sense.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 8:31:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Bad analogy.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 8:31:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 8:25:57 PM, ChickenTender wrote:
At 6/18/2012 7:09:55 PM, TheOrator wrote:
At 6/18/2012 6:38:08 PM, ChickenTender wrote:
Assume for the moment that Zimmerman isn't lying when he says the young man struck the first blow and never gave him any quarter. Now consider this (contrived) situation:

You are white and do not like black people. You see a black man playing Russian roulette (assume he was planning to play a certain number of time, not until he killed himself). You ask to examine the pistol, and manage to slip an extra bullet into it without him noticing. He resumes playing Russian roulette and kills himself. Are you guilty of murder? Are you guilty of some crime?

It's a mildly interesting scenario. I guess it's like the crime of sabotauge. If you know the guy you hate sits in a certain chair in a certain time, and you loosen the support on a wall ornament above the chair just before he sits in that chair, so when he falls into it the impact causes the ornament to fall and crack his skull. So, like the russian roulette, you knew the action you intentionally took would kill him and did it anyway. I'm not sure if that would specifically be murder (it would if I were the judge) but hey, you had the intent and performed the action.

If your temper can cause you to attack someone, with intent to do serious injury to them, that's like playing Russian roulette. Except you're putting multiple lives, not just your own life at risk. But Zimmerman increased the chances of this happening by stalking and harassing the guy. The fact that Zimmerman carried a gun is good evidence he knew his behavior was provocative. So it seems a proper analogy.

innacurate analogy. You assume he's racist, he's white (which he isn't), and that he stalked him purely to provoke an attack,

No I didn't.


Yeah, you did. If you didn't, your analogy would have made no sense to you.

and that the only reason a man can carry a gun is with the intent to kill. This is all unproven and currently can't be linked to the Zimmerman case.

If Zimmerman always felt the need to carry a gun when driving around in his own neighborhood, that may mean he should be committed to a mental hospital rather than tried. He doesn't live in Baghdad.

Cause being prepared is always a bad idea. Yup.

I'm assuming he lives in a shadier, more of the ghetto area of town. Even if he doesn't, who are you to judge him based on him wanting to be safe.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 8:33:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 8:29:38 PM, ChickenTender wrote:
The nice thing about arguing with yourself is that you don't even need lube.

I love it when the maturity level of the person that clearly can't hold a real debate shines through.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 8:41:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 8:33:02 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 6/18/2012 8:29:38 PM, ChickenTender wrote:
The nice thing about arguing with yourself is that you don't even need lube.

I love it when the maturity level of the person that clearly can't hold a real debate shines through.

Lol, do you actually want to formally debate someone then?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 8:43:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 8:41:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/18/2012 8:33:02 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 6/18/2012 8:29:38 PM, ChickenTender wrote:
The nice thing about arguing with yourself is that you don't even need lube.

I love it when the maturity level of the person that clearly can't hold a real debate shines through.

Lol, do you actually want to formally debate someone then?

I have?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 8:44:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 8:43:32 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 6/18/2012 8:41:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/18/2012 8:33:02 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 6/18/2012 8:29:38 PM, ChickenTender wrote:
The nice thing about arguing with yourself is that you don't even need lube.

I love it when the maturity level of the person that clearly can't hold a real debate shines through.

Lol, do you actually want to formally debate someone then?

I have?

Oh, I see what your saying. Yes, would be nice.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 8:44:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 8:43:32 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 6/18/2012 8:41:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/18/2012 8:33:02 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 6/18/2012 8:29:38 PM, ChickenTender wrote:
The nice thing about arguing with yourself is that you don't even need lube.

I love it when the maturity level of the person that clearly can't hold a real debate shines through.

Lol, do you actually want to formally debate someone then?

I have?

talking to ChickenTender.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
ChickenTender
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 8:54:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 8:31:36 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 6/18/2012 8:25:57 PM, ChickenTender wrote:
At 6/18/2012 7:09:55 PM, TheOrator wrote:
At 6/18/2012 6:38:08 PM, ChickenTender wrote:
Assume for the moment that Zimmerman isn't lying when he says the young man struck the first blow and never gave him any quarter. Now consider this (contrived) situation:

You are white and do not like black people. You see a black man playing Russian roulette (assume he was planning to play a certain number of time, not until he killed himself). You ask to examine the pistol, and manage to slip an extra bullet into it without him noticing. He resumes playing Russian roulette and kills himself. Are you guilty of murder? Are you guilty of some crime?

It's a mildly interesting scenario. I guess it's like the crime of sabotauge. If you know the guy you hate sits in a certain chair in a certain time, and you loosen the support on a wall ornament above the chair just before he sits in that chair, so when he falls into it the impact causes the ornament to fall and crack his skull. So, like the russian roulette, you knew the action you intentionally took would kill him and did it anyway. I'm not sure if that would specifically be murder (it would if I were the judge) but hey, you had the intent and performed the action.

If your temper can cause you to attack someone, with intent to do serious injury to them, that's like playing Russian roulette. Except you're putting multiple lives, not just your own life at risk. But Zimmerman increased the chances of this happening by stalking and harassing the guy. The fact that Zimmerman carried a gun is good evidence he knew his behavior was provocative. So it seems a proper analogy.

innacurate analogy. You assume he's racist, he's white (which he isn't), and that he stalked him purely to provoke an attack,

No I didn't.


Yeah, you did. If you didn't, your analogy would have made no sense to you.

and that the only reason a man can carry a gun is with the intent to kill. This is all unproven and currently can't be linked to the Zimmerman case.

If Zimmerman always felt the need to carry a gun when driving around in his own neighborhood, that may mean he should be committed to a mental hospital rather than tried. He doesn't live in Baghdad.

Cause being prepared is always a bad idea. Yup.

I'm assuming he lives in a shadier, more of the ghetto area of town. Even if he doesn't, who are you to judge him based on him wanting to be safe.

OK, so it seems likely to you that Zimmerman is such a hero that he patrols his neighborhood even though it's so dangerous he needs a gun? Did he try to enlist to go to Afghanistan, but was turned down?

I think only people who avoid confrontation are qualified for a permit to carry. The people who led the effort to pass permit to carry laws agree with me.

But you are right, a person who packs all the time is not necessarily seeking out confrontations. To me, that seems overly cautious, but there's no harm in it.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 8:59:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 8:54:19 PM, ChickenTender wrote:
OK, so it seems likely to you that Zimmerman is such a hero that he patrols his neighborhood even though it's so dangerous he needs a gun? Did he try to enlist to go to Afghanistan, but was turned down?


I don't think he is a hero, however he is part of the neighborhood watch group. So, it's very likely that he would have a gun to ensure he could watch over the neighborhood better.

I think only people who avoid confrontation are qualified for a permit to carry. The people who led the effort to pass permit to carry laws agree with me.


Ok, fine. Do I care what you or those other people think? No. Is it unlawful to not avoid confrontation? No.

But you are right, a person who packs all the time is not necessarily seeking out confrontations. To me, that seems overly cautious, but there's no harm in it.

Packs?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
ChickenTender
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 9:00:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 8:33:02 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 6/18/2012 8:29:38 PM, ChickenTender wrote:
The nice thing about arguing with yourself is that you don't even need lube.

I love it when the maturity level of the person that clearly can't hold a real debate shines through.

If you understand it, your mind is just as filthy as mine.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 9:02:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 9:00:15 PM, ChickenTender wrote:
At 6/18/2012 8:33:02 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 6/18/2012 8:29:38 PM, ChickenTender wrote:
The nice thing about arguing with yourself is that you don't even need lube.

I love it when the maturity level of the person that clearly can't hold a real debate shines through.

If you understand it, your mind is just as filthy as mine.

1. I made a sick, low blowed, and perverted statement.

2. You understood it.

C. Your just as sick and perverted as me.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
ChickenTender
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 9:21:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 8:59:30 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 6/18/2012 8:54:19 PM, ChickenTender wrote:
OK, so it seems likely to you that Zimmerman is such a hero that he patrols his neighborhood even though it's so dangerous he needs a gun? Did he try to enlist to go to Afghanistan, but was turned down?


I don't think he is a hero, however he is part of the neighborhood watch group. So, it's very likely that he would have a gun to ensure he could watch over the neighborhood better.

Most people who are neighborhood watch volunteers do no carry concealed weapons.


I think only people who avoid confrontation are qualified for a permit to carry. The people who led the effort to pass permit to carry laws agree with me.


Ok, fine. Do I care what you or those other people think? No. Is it unlawful to not avoid confrontation? No.

The law cannot force people to be decent. It can only limit the harm done to society by those who lack decency.


But you are right, a person who packs all the time is not necessarily seeking out confrontations. To me, that seems overly cautious, but there's no harm in it.

Packs?

Packs = carries a gun
TheOrator
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 9:29:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 8:25:57 PM, ChickenTender wrote:
At 6/18/2012 7:09:55 PM, TheOrator wrote:
At 6/18/2012 6:38:08 PM, ChickenTender wrote:
Assume for the moment that Zimmerman isn't lying when he says the young man struck the first blow and never gave him any quarter. Now consider this (contrived) situation:

You are white and do not like black people. You see a black man playing Russian roulette (assume he was planning to play a certain number of time, not until he killed himself). You ask to examine the pistol, and manage to slip an extra bullet into it without him noticing. He resumes playing Russian roulette and kills himself. Are you guilty of murder? Are you guilty of some crime?

It's a mildly interesting scenario. I guess it's like the crime of sabotauge. If you know the guy you hate sits in a certain chair in a certain time, and you loosen the support on a wall ornament above the chair just before he sits in that chair, so when he falls into it the impact causes the ornament to fall and crack his skull. So, like the russian roulette, you knew the action you intentionally took would kill him and did it anyway. I'm not sure if that would specifically be murder (it would if I were the judge) but hey, you had the intent and performed the action.

If your temper can cause you to attack someone, with intent to do serious injury to them, that's like playing Russian roulette. Except you're putting multiple lives, not just your own life at risk. But Zimmerman increased the chances of this happening by stalking and harassing the guy. The fact that Zimmerman carried a gun is good evidence he knew his behavior was provocative. So it seems a proper analogy.

innacurate analogy. You assume he's racist, he's white (which he isn't), and that he stalked him purely to provoke an attack,

No I didn't.
The analogy was of a man who intentionally wanted to kill the man. That means the person you're alluding to (Zimmerman) would have intentionally wanted to kill Martin, which cannot be proven.

and that the only reason a man can carry a gun is with the intent to kill. This is all unproven and currently can't be linked to the Zimmerman case.

If Zimmerman always felt the need to carry a gun when driving around in his own neighborhood, that may mean he should be committed to a mental hospital rather than tried. He doesn't live in Baghdad.

I carry a gun while walking around Montgomery (my state's capital) due to its criminal element. It's not exactly uncommon.
My legend begins in the 12th century
ChickenTender
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 9:30:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 9:02:08 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 6/18/2012 9:00:15 PM, ChickenTender wrote:
At 6/18/2012 8:33:02 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 6/18/2012 8:29:38 PM, ChickenTender wrote:
The nice thing about arguing with yourself is that you don't even need lube.

I love it when the maturity level of the person that clearly can't hold a real debate shines through.

If you understand it, your mind is just as filthy as mine.

1. I made a sick, low blowed, and perverted statement.

2. You understood it.

C. Your just as sick and perverted as me.

Does hair grow on your fingertips when you type this stuff?
ChickenTender
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 9:50:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 9:29:54 PM, TheOrator wrote:
At 6/18/2012 8:25:57 PM, ChickenTender wrote:
At 6/18/2012 7:09:55 PM, TheOrator wrote:
At 6/18/2012 6:38:08 PM, ChickenTender wrote:
Assume for the moment that Zimmerman isn't lying when he says the young man struck the first blow and never gave him any quarter. Now consider this (contrived) situation:

You are white and do not like black people. You see a black man playing Russian roulette (assume he was planning to play a certain number of time, not until he killed himself). You ask to examine the pistol, and manage to slip an extra bullet into it without him noticing. He resumes playing Russian roulette and kills himself. Are you guilty of murder? Are you guilty of some crime?

It's a mildly interesting scenario. I guess it's like the crime of sabotauge. If you know the guy you hate sits in a certain chair in a certain time, and you loosen the support on a wall ornament above the chair just before he sits in that chair, so when he falls into it the impact causes the ornament to fall and crack his skull. So, like the russian roulette, you knew the action you intentionally took would kill him and did it anyway. I'm not sure if that would specifically be murder (it would if I were the judge) but hey, you had the intent and performed the action.

If your temper can cause you to attack someone, with intent to do serious injury to them, that's like playing Russian roulette. Except you're putting multiple lives, not just your own life at risk. But Zimmerman increased the chances of this happening by stalking and harassing the guy. The fact that Zimmerman carried a gun is good evidence he knew his behavior was provocative. So it seems a proper analogy.

innacurate analogy. You assume he's racist, he's white (which he isn't), and that he stalked him purely to provoke an attack,

No I didn't.
The analogy was of a man who intentionally wanted to kill the man. That means the person you're alluding to (Zimmerman) would have intentionally wanted to kill Martin, which cannot be proven.

Well it's not a real-world scenario. The hypothetical guy could argue he would have tried to fully load the gun if he wanted to kill the other guy. The point is when someone causes harm, and you increased the probability that they would cause harm, what is you share of the responsibility for the harm. It's not a simple yes/no issue of whether Zimmerman committed first degree murder or any sort of murder.


and that the only reason a man can carry a gun is with the intent to kill. This is all unproven and currently can't be linked to the Zimmerman case.

If Zimmerman always felt the need to carry a gun when driving around in his own neighborhood, that may mean he should be committed to a mental hospital rather than tried. He doesn't live in Baghdad.

I carry a gun while walking around Montgomery (my state's capital) due to its criminal element. It's not exactly uncommon.

If your neighbor came over to your house for a barbeque, you wouldn't think it was weird or disturbing if they came strapped? Are things really that bad in the typical American neighborhood?