[MENTION=44992]JJ_Maxx[/MENTION]: A bit of low blow to assume that she'd feel the same way about a case of rape. Not to mention that this Zimmerman thing is far different from that. Is it not? The victim of the rape case was obvious. I mean the two cases can't really be compared. Rape is touche subject in general. Now as for Zimmerman being the victim........meh.......how can you be sure? I mean nobody can be sure of who the victim in this case. Martin shouldn't have pounded Zimmerman at all. He should of tried to resolve it peacefully and Zimmerman shouldn't have been following him in the first place. It doesn't exactly feel good to be tailed. It would put any 17 year old person on edge if someone was following them. Both men where in the wrong and happened to cause a chain of events which resulted in one ending up dead. You keep calling Zimmerman a heroic? I don't see it.
*Sigh* I understand that you have to set up these straw man arguments and build up hatred and hostility toward those who disagree. It's easier to just accuse me of liking rapists and then proclaim my whole philosophy disgusting. It's really the only way to maintain your entrenched viewpoint. It's obvious that the Steubenville rape case is not relevant to this case. If you need to believe that I support the rapists, go right ahead. It doesn't really matter to me what you believe about me at this point. Based on other views I've expressed, I think most people would believe my holding that viewpoint would be incongruous. It's naive to believe that race did not play a role in this case, even in the beginning with Zimmerman's initial following and profiling of Martin, and his phone call to the police. He's expressed racist views in the past, and committed domestic violence. He's far from the salt of the earth. You've built him up as a hero in your mind, and if that's who you find worthy of adulation, so be it. I'm not going to change your mind. You've never shown any respect for anything I've said in this forum, on just about any topic. I don't know whether you just disagree with me on everything or whether you have decided you just don't like me or for whatever reason view my opinions as suspect. It doesn't really matter. Most of the time I'll just let you vent. But if I see something that is just incorrect or for which I believe an opposite viewpoint is needed for those who may be following the discussion, I'm going to post. In response, I expect that you'll post that I love rapists or don't understand the "real" underlying facts of whatever situation is being discussed, or that anyone holding my viewpoint is stupid or un-American. That's your choice. I may or may not respond. In this case, I don't think there's much else to add.
Here, let me change your viewpoint to prove a point: But yeah, doesn't feel so good to blame the victim now, does it? But go ahead, tell me how it's different. Both people didn't deserve to get assaulted. Would you feel better if she had had a gun and shot the people trying to rape her? Maybe is she was Hispanic. Not sure how much you have to villify the victim in your own mind before you can blame them for their assault, so I'll leave that up to you to think about.
JJ_Maxx, please don't change a quote from another member and still leave it under that member's name. I understand the point you're trying to make, but making up a statement and attributing it to another member is out of bounds. I changed your post to attribute the quote to you. Once again, everyone, can we keep this thread civil and respectful?
If you seriously don't understand the difference, it's beyond my ability to help you. I can't compete with the tsunami of right wing propaganda.
What difference? It's an identical argument applied to two different situations. Is the argument valid, or isn't it? If it is valid for one but not the other, why? If you can't explain why, then it is either valid for both or valid for neither; else it is a paradox and your viewpoint is irrational.
One involves a rape victim, who was not on trial, was not accused of any crime, and for whom it would not have been appropriate to charge with any crime. The other is someone who intentionally followed someone, after the police told him he did not need to, created a situation where there was a confrontation, and then caused the death of the other person. How is the difference not evident? One person was raped. The other person killed someone. They are not at all equivalent.
All you did was reiterate my point. Same argument, different situation. Zimmeran wasn't doing anything illegal and neither was the girl. The girl got blackout drunk and Zimmerman lost track of Martin. The girl was raped, Martin attacked Zimmerman. This is what each situation boils down to and each situation has a corresponding point with the other. Let's make the base details equivalent. The girl wakes up in the middle of being raped and kills her rapist. The base details are the same, only the crimes are different. The way you argue it, both Zimmerman and the raped girl belong in jail. You have three options. a) Both belong in jail for putting themselves in situations that they shouldn't have and killing another as a result (blame the victim). b) Neither belong in jail because neither did anything wrong (blame the attacker). c) One belongs in jail and one doesn't, but there is no rational reason for why (meaning sexism, racism or some other irrational cause is clouding your judgement). There aren't any other options. You maintain option 'c'. You can choose option 'c' all you want, but you can't divorce it from irrationality.
If that's all you can say about it, the case is closed, you're wrong and you just don't want to admit it. I can change the situation. The girl walked down a back alley and was jumped and raped. The girl was angry at a guy she knew, followed him, he lured her somewhere isolated and he rapes her. I can go on. In each case, you will refuse to blame the rape victim because she did nothing wrong. But you instantly jump on Zimmerman when he also did nothing wrong. If the rape victim doesn't share blame, neither does Zimmerman. If Zimmerman shares blame, so does the rape victim. Any other conclusion is irrational.
@ jmhoffer Your analogy fails because rape is not a defense mechanism. Confronting a strange man following you home is. And neither you nor I know who struck first, so please stop pretending you do.
The evidence (it's this new thing that they use to piece together what happened when there are few witnesses) all strongly suggests that Martin attacked Zimmerman first. Zimmerman had defensive wounds, Martin did not. It is physically impossible to defend yourself and not have defensive wounds. Martin did not have to attack Zimmerman and being followed by one lone man is not a reason to attack. The situations are the same. The analogy is perfect. You can continue to deny it, but I know why you do and that personality failure is purely on you.
We know who struck first and the only one who did, which was Martin. Stop pretending you know the facts of the case. Martin didn't have a mark on him, the only person who struck anyone was Martin. I love the fact that we're going backward in the facts.
You are correct in that Martin did not have to attack Zimmerman so why do you and those who think like you assume he did? Why would a young man on his way home to watch a basketball game with his brother think, "screw my plans for th evening, I should make an unprovoked attack on this guy, whom I know absolutely nothing about?" it doesn't make sense. But, in your world, a few eye/earwitnesses who saw two guys scuffling on the ground is proof enough that the guy on top started it. I find it odd that people assume Trayvon Martin had no sense (attacks a person, unprovoked) but George Zimmerman is a paragon of self control (only draws his gun when absolutely necessary). Neither you nor I know who started it. The situations are not the same, for the reasons I stated @ JJ Maxx At no point did I "pretend to know the facts." I specifically stated that neither you nor I know the facts. We only know what was provided, which is sketchy, at best. Contrary to popular belief, that which is done in the dark does, sometimes, remain in the dark.
No, the guy that had no injuries but the bullet hole in his body is the one that started it. Oh, right, that's Martin. If Zimmerman had started it, Martin would have had, at a bare minimum, defensive wounds. He didn't. Martin has been in trouble with the law before and all - ALL - the physical evidence points to him being the attacker. All you have is assumptions and emotion, which is why Zimmerman is a free man.
That is an assumption. TM also had none of Zimmerman's DNA on him, despite having obviously wailed on the guy. If I pulled a gun on you and you proceeded to whup my ass, would you have defensive wounds? So has Zimmerman. Yup. And this proves he started it? Nope, it does not. On that last part, we can agree. The jury made the correct decision (which is exactly what I said in my first post, a few pages ago). There isn't enough evidence to prove otherwise, so Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty.
It's not an assumption, it's a conclusion based on the evidence. Your argument is irrelevant. Punching someone doesn't guarantee that you'll get DNA on you or that it will stay on you. In case you haven't noticed, human beings do something called 'sweating'. If you pulled a gun on me, you'd be dead and I'd have a free gun. But, let's substitute Martin for me and Zimmerman for you. 1) Why didn't you pull the trigger as I approached? 2)How did I have time to knock you to the ground and bash your head against the cement several times before you got a shot off? 3)Why didn't I go for the gun? I'll go ahead and answer these questions. 1) You didn't want to kill me. I'm still the attacker and the one that started this. 2) This wouldn't have happened if the gun was already out. Any time a gun is pulled before an attack starts, the attacker will go for the gun. 3) I would have gone for the gun, any sane person would have, meaning that either the gun wasn't out before I assaulted you or I'm insane and you're justified in your actions. But I'm Martin and Martin wasn't insane. The only point I'm giving you. But it's irrelevant to either side. Yes, it does. An attacker is by definition the person that started it. Martin was the attacker, he started the violent confrontation, he was the one that 'started it'.
'Thinking' it would imply that there is doubt. I've trained extensively in disarming an armed attacker. My instructor used to catch terrorists - alive - for a living.
I've disarmed a gun with blanks in it and didn't even receive powder burns. Considering a blank fired while the gun is pushed up against you can still kill you, I'd say it's close enough.
Ohhhh, I thought you meant you could disarm a gun if the attacker was, say, 8 feet away from you, and ready to go.
Yup, lots of sweating going on... in the rain... in February. But, seriously, it makes no difference to me whose DNA is on TM. We already know he pounded Zimmerman. I've never denied that. The part of your story I question is HOW DID IT BEGIN? You assert TM jumped the guy. I assert GZ must've done something to provoke the attack. Note that I'm not saying this makes the attack justified. I'm only saying I find the "vicious thug lying in wait" version just as laughable as the "wannabe cop who hunts negroes" version. They're both extremes, which hinge on demonizing one party or the other. Although I don't exactly "like" Zimmerman, even I don't think he'd shoot some random person just for approaching him. But would he accost them at gunpoint if such a person mouthed off to him the wrong way? I beleive so. "Why are you followin' me?" says TM in a theatening (to Zimmerman) tone. Zimmerman panics, draws weapon, and (attempts to) inquire what this young man is up to. I don't think GZ got out of his truck with the intent of aiming a loaded weapon at anyone, but his past has proven he's unstable and his own words have shown he doesn't want "these f'ing punks" to get away again. So, yes, I think it's very possible he started it. The big difference between you and I is that I don't treat my version of events as FACT. I have said, numerous times, that neither of us knows how the fight began. We can roleplay and pit story against story until the cows come home, and it won't change the unfortunate truth that neither of us KNOW. But, just for the hell of it, I'll roleplay a little longer: Knocking me to the ground was easy. According to my martial arts trainer, I'm only a 1 on a scale of 0-5, with five being Chuck Fucking Norris and zero being a pet rock with nunchucks... hence the reason I might draw a gun instead of trying to fistfight you. If I never had said gun, I probably would've stayed in my truck, like the nice dispatcher advised me to. Instead, I'm on the ground, getting my ass whupped, because I got in over my head. I lost my weapon and my footing with the first sucker punch, and, in the dark, wet, with the blows raining down on me and you pinning me, I couldn't find it, so I repeatedly called for help. My attempts at fighting back utterly failed, but I did, eventually, find the weapon. According to one of my many versions of the events of that night, you did. A lot of good that did you.
I didn't realise I needed to say that I can't disarm something that is outside of the reach of my arms. If someone has plans to shoot you, there's not much you can do about it. They'll pull the gun out and shoot you immediately. Chances are, they won't get close. I was using the scenario we're talking about for Martin/Zimmerman. If that's the case, I'd have a free gun.
