George Zimmerman shot

johnny karate said:
The one big difference between this incident and the Dunn case is that there actually was a gun in Zimmerman's car.

Had the kids that Dunn shot at actually had the gun that he fabricated, I doubt he would have been convicted.
Click to expand...
I don't think there is any doubt about that whatsoever.
 
theprestige said:
I'm glad that you accept my answer.
Click to expand...
What part of "thanks" means that I rejected your answer?

RandFan said:
Thanks.

Why do you suppose loved ones would have had such a beef with Zimmerman that they would call the police? I know you know better than to think you would allege a conspiracy, right? If it were simply strangers I would think you might have a point worth considering.

George Zimmerman Won't Be Charged in Second domestic abuse case

Do you honestly believe that the dropped charges had no basis in fact? Are you suggesting that domestic abuse cases where the charges are dropped are always due to lying on the part of the alleged victim?

What do you think is going on?
Click to expand...
Perhaps I'm missing something. Where exactly did I reject (as opposed to accept) your answer?
 
Ziggurat said:
Uh, no. It's been documented that Apperson claimed Zimmerman previously waved a gun and threatened to kill him. It has not been documented that he actually did so.

And you either misunderstand or misrepresent self defense law. It doesn't matter if an attack is anticipated, it must be imminent. If I said, "I will kill you next week", you do not have the legal right to use deadly force against me right now.
Click to expand...

And conversely, threatening someone with a gun and then rolling up your window does not eliminate the threat of deadly force.

A lot of hay has been made about the implausibility of someone rolling up their window after making a threat with a gun, but the person in question here is George Zimmerman whose erratic behavior has been a hot topic in the media since his acquittal.

Why would someone barricade himself inside his girlfriend's home against the police after a domestic dispute?

Why would someone "volunteer" to guard a store without knowledge or consent of the owner?

Why would someone try to set up a boxing match in which he challenges all comers after so recently being a acquitted of murder with a defense that determined he has very little capacity to fight or defend himself?

Not a whole lot of what Zimmerman has done post-acquittal comports with logic or common sense. And that behavior is public knowledge, and most likely known by Apperson.

Coupled with the fact that Apperson and Zimmerman have a history of previous confrontations, if we assume what Apperson claims is true and look at it from his perspective, I don't blame him for being in fear for his life.

But again, we don't know if what Apperson claims is true, so we will have to wait for an investigation to sort things out.
 
RandFan said:
What part of "thanks" means that I rejected your answer?

Perhaps I'm missing something. Where exactly did I reject (as opposed to accept) your answer?
Click to expand...

The way I read it, "thanks" is a reasonably polite way to acknowledge receipt of an idea without committing to any agreement on the idea received.

To understand what you really think of the idea, I looked beyond the "thanks" to the stuff you actually said in response to the idea:

RandFan said:
Thanks.

Why do you suppose loved ones would have had such a beef with Zimmerman that they would call the police? I know you know better than to think you would allege a conspiracy, right? If it were simply strangers I would think you might have a point worth considering.

George Zimmerman Won't Be Charged in Second domestic abuse case

Do you honestly believe that the dropped charges had no basis in fact? Are you suggesting that domestic abuse cases where the charges are dropped are always due to lying on the part of the alleged victim?

What do you think is going on?
Click to expand...
To me, this all clearly indicates that you don't accept my answer and wish to dispute the reasoning behind it. But this is probably just a minor semantic difference between us, about what we each mean by "accept", and need not be pursued.
 
theprestige said:
To me, this all clearly indicates that you don't accept my answer and wish to dispute the reasoning behind it.
Click to expand...
No. It means I want to understand your reasons. It means I might want to discuss and perhaps even debate those reasons. I might even want to persuade you to change your mind, but none of that means I don't accept your answer.
 
casebro said:
Many are quick to convict GZ on his history, but is there any data on Apperson's record? Seems to be a hot head, is this his first complaint?
Click to expand...
They both appear to be jerks. I don't think anyone here sees Apperson as a victim, more likey they both are at fault.
 
casebro said:
Many are quick to convict GZ on his history, but is there any data on Apperson's record? Seems to be a hot head, is this his first complaint?

Skeptic Ginger said:
They both appear to be jerks. I don't think anyone here sees Apperson as a victim, more likey they both are at fault.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I couldn't have said it better. Road rage is usually a case of ever escalating actions. Someone cuts one person off. The favor is returned but with a finger gesture and some yelling. Having been in road rage incidents I can admit that it takes two idiots for things to go so wrong (yes, that is a self indictment).
 
KatieG said:
George Zimmerman was not, and will never be, a victim. Nothing he has done in the last 10 years makes him a victim.
Click to expand...

That, I must disagree with.

Whatever I think about the guy (and I made it clear in other posts - the Martin-Zimmerman incident was an ugly confluence of idiots imo and Zimmerman did get away with murder) nobody is immune from becoming a victim. If Zimmerman had been convicted and sentenced to prison he would still have a basic right as an inmate in custody not to be victimized by CO's or other inmates.

Even Jeffrey Dahmer was a victim in his in-custody murder.

Just because we say "Good Riddance!" when we hear about certain deaths doesn't mean the dead person wasn't a victim if their life was taken in a criminal or extra judicial act of violence.
 
Side by side they look like they could be related.

The CNN article said Zimmerman "rolled up his window" to leave. Could be an erroneous report but GZ might have had the window rolled down at some point.

"[Zimmerman] rolled his window up and he decided to get away, not to provoke it whatsoever," West said. "And the fellow followed him -- followed him around the U-turn and then pulled up to him
Click to expand...

Here's my speculated course of events:
Past complaint, Apperson thought GZ was stalking him after their initial encounter and called 911 to say GZ was near Apperson's workplace.

GZ moved out of the neighborhood and says he was back to visit his mother.

Apperson sees GZ and thinks GZ is stalking him again.
OR
They see each other and both get jerky toward the other.

The third alternative is Apperson sees GZ and decides to stalk and shoot him. It would be unlikely this happened without some interaction between the two when they saw each other. Of course if Apperson had some paranoid delusion seeing GW and thought GW was after Apperson there is a remote possibility Apperson was the only aggressor. I'm not buying this as a very likely scenario.
 
RandFan said:
No. It means I want to understand your reasons. It means I might want to discuss and perhaps even debate those reasons. I might even want to persuade you to change your mind, but none of that means I don't accept your answer.
Click to expand...

Yup, minor semantic difference. Glad we got it cleared up. I'm out, so if you reply you'll have the last word. Feel free to make the most of it!
 
Ziggurat said:
No. Your attempt to redefine the word to fit your agenda is not valid.
Click to expand...



Nope. You don't get to just pick the definition that you like. If he used fear and intimidation to reach a goal it is terrorism. As I said before, the gain does not have to be political, or even financial.


Ziggurat said:
Except that I'm not. Killing someone in direct defense of someone else is not vigilantism. Vigilantism is extra-judicial punishment. But shooting someone in direct defense of others is not punishment. It is merely defense.
Click to expand...


Ah OK. So when Ziggurat thinks the person is going to kill someone it is ok to be a vigilante. But when Ziggurat thinks that the person isn't going to kill someone it is bad. Gotcha.
 
Belz... said:
Why not call it communism while we're at it ?
Click to expand...


Because it does not fit with any definition of communism, obviously. Ziggurat claimed (see post 86 and post 88) it was OK to partake in vigilante justice against terrorists. I pointed out that Zimmerman partook in a terrorist activity.

Ziggurat apparently then discovered he was not aware that terrorism only requires the use of fear and intimidation to reach a goal. The goal does not have to be political, national, or financial, no matter how much he know wishes it did to fit in with his excuse to support vigilantism.

Of course, all he has to do now is move the goalposts to claim he only supports vigilantism for particular types of terrorists. The ones he doesn't like of course. I'm sure we can all guess what qualities they have to have to be "a true terrorist" in his eyes.
 
This is The End said:
Nope. You don't get to just pick the definition that you like. If he used fear and intimidation to reach a goal it is terrorism. As I said before, the gain does not have to be political, or even financial.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one redefining terrorism, you are. Your definition is absurdly broad.

Ah OK. So when Ziggurat thinks the person is going to kill someone it is ok to be a vigilante. But when Ziggurat thinks that the person isn't going to kill someone it is bad. Gotcha.
Click to expand...

Oh, and you're redefining vigilante too. But damned straight I think it's OK to use deadly force to stop an imminent or ongoing attack. Don't you?
 
This is The End said:
Of course, all he has to do now is move the goalposts to claim he only supports vigilantism for particular types of terrorists. The ones he doesn't like of course. I'm sure we can all guess what qualities they have to have to be "a true terrorist" in his eyes.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's just stupid. It isn't the type of terrorist that's the issue, it's whether you're using deadly force to stop an imminent or ongoing attack, or if you're trying to enact punishment after the fact. The former falls under the law of self defense, the latter is vigilantism, REGARDLESS of whether the attack is terrorism or ordinary crime. The law recognizes the difference, common use of the English language recognizes the difference, but you can't seem to figure it out, can you?
 
This is The End said:
Because it does not fit with any definition of communism, obviously.
Click to expand...

OTT, you were so close to getting my point, but you let it fly over your head. What you describe doesn't fit the definition of terrorism. Moreover, my comment was meant to illustrate the ever-broadening of the definition used by many people, to the point where the word means both nothing and everything, just like "communist" back in the McCarthy era.

Ziggurat apparently then discovered he was not aware that terrorism only requires the use of fear and intimidation to reach a goal.
Click to expand...

That's good because that's actually not true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom