|
George Zimmerman ; Combined Threads
|
|
Topic Started: Apr 11 2012, 01:36 PM (8,486 Views)
|
|
Mr Gray
|
Nov 29 2013, 09:17 PM
Post #1276
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- dreachon
- Nov 29 2013, 04:36 PM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 29 2013, 04:26 PM
- dreachon
- Nov 29 2013, 03:41 PM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 29 2013, 08:07 AM
- dreachon
- Nov 27 2013, 02:28 PM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 27 2013, 10:03 AM
- dreachon
- Nov 27 2013, 09:10 AM
is there something wrong with owning that?
Only if you're illegally pointing them at people. I just wonder if Zimmerman's seemingly erratic and aggressive behavior since the trial has anyone who was on his side rethinking whether his story about merely being an innocent by-standard was truthful.
So is that why you pointed out the items that he legally owns? We don't know if he illegally pointed anything. He might be unstable, but it may also be that he is now an easy target
Yes, that's why I'm pointing it out. Along with the run-ins with the law. And of course while we don't know whether these recent charges are legit, we also don't know all those weapons are legally owned, do we?
Legally owned? What are you even talking about? All of those weapons are legal to own.
Obtained through illegal means. I dont really care to argue whether his weapons are legal or not. Its a footnote to my actual question, which you still haven't answered. Wasn't this your question? "we also don't know all those weapons are legally owned, do we?" Are you claiming that he may have stolen them dreach? They are legal guns and he's a legal gun owner, so I'm not sure what else you could be speculating on.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
sirbrianwilson
|
Nov 30 2013, 02:02 AM
Post #1277
|
Stemlerite
- Posts:
- 22,404
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- February 4, 2008
|
- dreachon
- Nov 29 2013, 03:44 PM
- HoosierLars
- Nov 29 2013, 03:35 PM
- dreachon
- Nov 27 2013, 02:28 PM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 27 2013, 10:03 AM
- dreachon
- Nov 27 2013, 09:10 AM
is there something wrong with owning that?
Only if you're illegally pointing them at people. I just wonder if Zimmerman's seemingly erratic and aggressive behavior since the trial has anyone who was on his side rethinking whether his story about merely being an innocent by-standard was truthful.
The main facts of the case remain unchanged. GZ's injuries and the eye witness account is consistent with GZ's story. TM was on top, pummeling GZ "MMA style" and GZ shot him. I haven't seen anyone discuss the fact that TM and his girlfriend thought GZ was a gay stalker, who was coming after TM.
There's no eye witness that saw how the fight started. Hence why you have to believe GZ. I'm not sure what your second statement has to do with anything. I don't wish to go back and rehash the specifics of the trial. Some people believed GZ, others didn't. My question is whether GZ's actions since the trial have shaken people's faith in GZ. bump
|

|
| |
|
dreachon
|
Nov 30 2013, 08:34 AM
Post #1278
|
Creative Title Here
- Posts:
- 24,068
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #148
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- Nov 29 2013, 09:17 PM
- dreachon
- Nov 29 2013, 04:36 PM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 29 2013, 04:26 PM
- dreachon
- Nov 29 2013, 03:41 PM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 29 2013, 08:07 AM
- dreachon
- Nov 27 2013, 02:28 PM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 27 2013, 10:03 AM
- dreachon
- Nov 27 2013, 09:10 AM
is there something wrong with owning that?
Only if you're illegally pointing them at people. I just wonder if Zimmerman's seemingly erratic and aggressive behavior since the trial has anyone who was on his side rethinking whether his story about merely being an innocent by-standard was truthful.
So is that why you pointed out the items that he legally owns? We don't know if he illegally pointed anything. He might be unstable, but it may also be that he is now an easy target
Yes, that's why I'm pointing it out. Along with the run-ins with the law. And of course while we don't know whether these recent charges are legit, we also don't know all those weapons are legally owned, do we?
Legally owned? What are you even talking about? All of those weapons are legal to own.
Obtained through illegal means. I dont really care to argue whether his weapons are legal or not. Its a footnote to my actual question, which you still haven't answered.
Wasn't this your question? "we also don't know all those weapons are legally owned, do we?" Are you claiming that he may have stolen them dreach? They are legal guns and he's a legal gun owner, so I'm not sure what else you could be speculating on. Fail. That certainly is not my main question, which bri has conveniently bumped twice now. I really dont care how he got the guns. I just find it interesting he has so many now.
|
|
| |
|
HoosierLars
|
Nov 30 2013, 02:34 PM
Post #1279
|
3 in a row
- Posts:
- 22,916
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- HoosierLars
- Nov 29 2013, 04:04 PM
- dreachon
- Nov 29 2013, 03:44 PM
- HoosierLars
- Nov 29 2013, 03:35 PM
- dreachon
- Nov 27 2013, 02:28 PM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 27 2013, 10:03 AM
- dreachon
- Nov 27 2013, 09:10 AM
is there something wrong with owning that?
Only if you're illegally pointing them at people. I just wonder if Zimmerman's seemingly erratic and aggressive behavior since the trial has anyone who was on his side rethinking whether his story about merely being an innocent by-standard was truthful.
The main facts of the case remain unchanged. GZ's injuries and the eye witness account is consistent with GZ's story. TM was on top, pummeling GZ "MMA style" and GZ shot him. I haven't seen anyone discuss the fact that TM and his girlfriend thought GZ was a gay stalker, who was coming after TM.
There's no eye witness that saw how the fight started. Hence why you have to believe GZ. I'm not sure what your second statement has to do with anything. I don't wish to go back and rehash the specifics of the trial. Some people believed GZ, others didn't. My question is whether GZ's actions since the trial have shaken people's faith in GZ.
Nobody will ever know who started the fight. For me personally, this provides a "reasonable doubt" whether GZ was the aggressor. Recent events really don't have much of an effect on that doubt. The Piers Morgan interview provides another plausible reason why TM would have attacked GZ. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ass+crackerhttp://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1307/15/pmt.01.htmlMORGAN: Did Trayvon have that in him? JEANTEL: No, no. Trayvon was too quiet. And why -- why Trayvon going to run if he wanted to confront him, beat him? Why would he run? And people need to understand, he didn't want that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend's house to go get -- mind you, his little brother was there. You know -- now, mind you, I told you -- I told Trayvon it might have been a rapist. Parents need to stop acting dumb. If you're going to tell your child, oh, a stranger, oh, you tell your child one thing -- run away, trying to find somebody, that's not what Trayvon was doing? So why -- so why the jury -- they're all parents -- well, some of them are parents. And they've been telling their -- their child that. Now, you're going to tell me you're going to tell your child to stand there (ph)? No. From the Piers Morgan interview, it appears that TM wanted to give GZ (a gay "ass-cracker") some whoopass. This provides more evidence that TM instigated the fight. However, we will never know for sure, and therefore GZ's injuries and the eye-witness account of TM on top "MMA-style" at least provides a reasonable doubt, which is all the defense needed.
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Nov 30 2013, 03:26 PM
Post #1280
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- dreachon
- Nov 30 2013, 08:34 AM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 29 2013, 09:17 PM
- dreachon
- Nov 29 2013, 04:36 PM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 29 2013, 04:26 PM
- dreachon
- Nov 29 2013, 03:41 PM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 29 2013, 08:07 AM
- dreachon
- Nov 27 2013, 02:28 PM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 27 2013, 10:03 AM
- dreachon
- Nov 27 2013, 09:10 AM
is there something wrong with owning that?
Only if you're illegally pointing them at people. I just wonder if Zimmerman's seemingly erratic and aggressive behavior since the trial has anyone who was on his side rethinking whether his story about merely being an innocent by-standard was truthful.
So is that why you pointed out the items that he legally owns? We don't know if he illegally pointed anything. He might be unstable, but it may also be that he is now an easy target
Yes, that's why I'm pointing it out. Along with the run-ins with the law. And of course while we don't know whether these recent charges are legit, we also don't know all those weapons are legally owned, do we?
Legally owned? What are you even talking about? All of those weapons are legal to own.
Obtained through illegal means. I dont really care to argue whether his weapons are legal or not. Its a footnote to my actual question, which you still haven't answered.
Wasn't this your question? "we also don't know all those weapons are legally owned, do we?" Are you claiming that he may have stolen them dreach? They are legal guns and he's a legal gun owner, so I'm not sure what else you could be speculating on.
Fail. That certainly is not my main question, which bri has conveniently bumped twice now. I really dont care how he got the guns. I just find it interesting he has so many now. Lol. Way to walk backwards from your comment. Truth is, you have no idea what you even meant by "legally own" do you? FYI, 5 guns isn't very many. The average is 7.9 amongst gun owners, and you HAVE NO IDEA how many guns he owned before the TM deal do you?
Regarding your original question, he hasn't been convicted of doing anything wrong yet, so I won't let media hype and emotion influence my judgement of him. I didn't really have a high opinion of him prior anyways.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
dreachon
|
Nov 30 2013, 04:55 PM
Post #1281
|
Creative Title Here
- Posts:
- 24,068
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #148
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- Nov 30 2013, 03:26 PM
- dreachon
- Nov 30 2013, 08:34 AM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 29 2013, 09:17 PM
- dreachon
- Nov 29 2013, 04:36 PM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 29 2013, 04:26 PM
- dreachon
- Nov 29 2013, 03:41 PM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 29 2013, 08:07 AM
- dreachon
- Nov 27 2013, 02:28 PM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 27 2013, 10:03 AM
- dreachon
- Nov 27 2013, 09:10 AM
is there something wrong with owning that?
Only if you're illegally pointing them at people. I just wonder if Zimmerman's seemingly erratic and aggressive behavior since the trial has anyone who was on his side rethinking whether his story about merely being an innocent by-standard was truthful.
So is that why you pointed out the items that he legally owns? We don't know if he illegally pointed anything. He might be unstable, but it may also be that he is now an easy target
Yes, that's why I'm pointing it out. Along with the run-ins with the law. And of course while we don't know whether these recent charges are legit, we also don't know all those weapons are legally owned, do we?
Legally owned? What are you even talking about? All of those weapons are legal to own.
Obtained through illegal means. I dont really care to argue whether his weapons are legal or not. Its a footnote to my actual question, which you still haven't answered.
Wasn't this your question? "we also don't know all those weapons are legally owned, do we?" Are you claiming that he may have stolen them dreach? They are legal guns and he's a legal gun owner, so I'm not sure what else you could be speculating on.
Fail. That certainly is not my main question, which bri has conveniently bumped twice now. I really dont care how he got the guns. I just find it interesting he has so many now.
Lol. Way to walk backwards from your comment. Truth is, you have no idea what you even meant by "legally own" do you? FYI, 5 guns isn't very many. The average is 7.9 amongst gun owners, and you HAVE NO IDEA how many guns he owned before the TM deal do you? Regarding your original question, he hasn't been convicted of doing anything wrong yet, so I won't let media hype and emotion influence my judgement of him. I didn't really have a high opinion of him prior anyways. Walking backwards from what? At no point did I ever make any claim that owning those weapons signifies anything. I, personally, find it interesting. We didn't hear about his stockpile at all during the trial so, admittedly, I'm assuming he has acquired more weapons since the trial. Maybe he feels he is a target now, as you said. Certainly possible. Maybe he feels he's invincible now, as his ex-wife said. Whatever the reason, I wonder if his acquisition of weapons is at all related with his recent run-ins with the law.
As far as whether he "legally owns" his weapons. I have at no point ever in the history of this board made a claim to know the process one has to go through to buy a gun. I've never done it. Seems sometimes there are background checks, sometimes not. What I do know is that there are illegal guns out there and I imagine it's not crazy to think he could own one. I mean, from what I understand of our previous discussions, all it would take to make the guns illegal is filing the serial number off. So, no, I don't think it's necessarily true that all of the guns Zimmerman owns are legal. Of course if we don't hear that they are illegal, then I would assume the are all legal.
Edited by dreachon, Nov 30 2013, 04:56 PM.
|
|
| |
|
HoosierLars
|
Nov 30 2013, 06:16 PM
Post #1282
|
3 in a row
- Posts:
- 22,916
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- HoosierLars
- Nov 30 2013, 02:34 PM
- HoosierLars
- Nov 29 2013, 04:04 PM
- dreachon
- Nov 29 2013, 03:44 PM
- HoosierLars
- Nov 29 2013, 03:35 PM
- dreachon
- Nov 27 2013, 02:28 PM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 27 2013, 10:03 AM
- dreachon
- Nov 27 2013, 09:10 AM
is there something wrong with owning that?
Only if you're illegally pointing them at people. I just wonder if Zimmerman's seemingly erratic and aggressive behavior since the trial has anyone who was on his side rethinking whether his story about merely being an innocent by-standard was truthful.
The main facts of the case remain unchanged. GZ's injuries and the eye witness account is consistent with GZ's story. TM was on top, pummeling GZ "MMA style" and GZ shot him. I haven't seen anyone discuss the fact that TM and his girlfriend thought GZ was a gay stalker, who was coming after TM.
There's no eye witness that saw how the fight started. Hence why you have to believe GZ. I'm not sure what your second statement has to do with anything. I don't wish to go back and rehash the specifics of the trial. Some people believed GZ, others didn't. My question is whether GZ's actions since the trial have shaken people's faith in GZ.
Nobody will ever know who started the fight. For me personally, this provides a "reasonable doubt" whether GZ was the aggressor. Recent events really don't have much of an effect on that doubt. The Piers Morgan interview provides another plausible reason why TM would have attacked GZ. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ass+crackerhttp://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1307/15/pmt.01.htmlMORGAN: Did Trayvon have that in him? JEANTEL: No, no. Trayvon was too quiet. And why -- why Trayvon going to run if he wanted to confront him, beat him? Why would he run? And people need to understand, he didn't want that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend's house to go get -- mind you, his little brother was there. You know -- now, mind you, I told you -- I told Trayvon it might have been a rapist. Parents need to stop acting dumb. If you're going to tell your child, oh, a stranger, oh, you tell your child one thing -- run away, trying to find somebody, that's not what Trayvon was doing? So why -- so why the jury -- they're all parents -- well, some of them are parents. And they've been telling their -- their child that. Now, you're going to tell me you're going to tell your child to stand there (ph)? No.
From the Piers Morgan interview, it appears that TM wanted to give GZ (a gay "ass-cracker") some whoopass. This provides more evidence that TM instigated the fight. However, we will never know for sure, and therefore GZ's injuries and the eye-witness account of TM on top "MMA-style" at least provides a reasonable doubt, which is all the defense needed. I found it interesting that "ass-cracker" likely referred to GZ being a gay stalker, and TM and his girlfriend were concerned that TM or his younger brother could be the target victims. Maybe nobody has picked up on this angle, because it doesn't fit the narrative of a racist, "white-Hispanic" stalking and killing a young black man.
|
|
| |
|
sirbrianwilson
|
Nov 30 2013, 07:48 PM
Post #1283
|
Stemlerite
- Posts:
- 22,404
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- February 4, 2008
|
This dude is unstable. His guns need to go. If not mandated, then volunteered.
br
|

|
| |
|
BigBlueRampage
|
Dec 1 2013, 01:32 AM
Post #1284
|
Senior
- Posts:
- 707
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #74
- Joined:
- February 6, 2008
|
- HoosierLars
- Nov 30 2013, 06:16 PM
- HoosierLars
- Nov 30 2013, 02:34 PM
- HoosierLars
- Nov 29 2013, 04:04 PM
- dreachon
- Nov 29 2013, 03:44 PM
- HoosierLars
- Nov 29 2013, 03:35 PM
- dreachon
- Nov 27 2013, 02:28 PM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 27 2013, 10:03 AM
- dreachon
- Nov 27 2013, 09:10 AM
is there something wrong with owning that?
Only if you're illegally pointing them at people. I just wonder if Zimmerman's seemingly erratic and aggressive behavior since the trial has anyone who was on his side rethinking whether his story about merely being an innocent by-standard was truthful.
The main facts of the case remain unchanged. GZ's injuries and the eye witness account is consistent with GZ's story. TM was on top, pummeling GZ "MMA style" and GZ shot him. I haven't seen anyone discuss the fact that TM and his girlfriend thought GZ was a gay stalker, who was coming after TM.
There's no eye witness that saw how the fight started. Hence why you have to believe GZ. I'm not sure what your second statement has to do with anything. I don't wish to go back and rehash the specifics of the trial. Some people believed GZ, others didn't. My question is whether GZ's actions since the trial have shaken people's faith in GZ.
Nobody will ever know who started the fight. For me personally, this provides a "reasonable doubt" whether GZ was the aggressor. Recent events really don't have much of an effect on that doubt. The Piers Morgan interview provides another plausible reason why TM would have attacked GZ. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ass+crackerhttp://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1307/15/pmt.01.htmlMORGAN: Did Trayvon have that in him? JEANTEL: No, no. Trayvon was too quiet. And why -- why Trayvon going to run if he wanted to confront him, beat him? Why would he run? And people need to understand, he didn't want that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend's house to go get -- mind you, his little brother was there. You know -- now, mind you, I told you -- I told Trayvon it might have been a rapist. Parents need to stop acting dumb. If you're going to tell your child, oh, a stranger, oh, you tell your child one thing -- run away, trying to find somebody, that's not what Trayvon was doing? So why -- so why the jury -- they're all parents -- well, some of them are parents. And they've been telling their -- their child that. Now, you're going to tell me you're going to tell your child to stand there (ph)? No.
From the Piers Morgan interview, it appears that TM wanted to give GZ (a gay "ass-cracker") some whoopass. This provides more evidence that TM instigated the fight. However, we will never know for sure, and therefore GZ's injuries and the eye-witness account of TM on top "MMA-style" at least provides a reasonable doubt, which is all the defense needed.
I found it interesting that "ass-cracker" likely referred to GZ being a gay stalker, and TM and his girlfriend were concerned that TM or his younger brother could be the target victims. Maybe nobody has picked up on this angle, because it doesn't fit the narrative of a racist, "white-Hispanic" stalking and killing a young black man. If i remember correctly some of us said we believed given the circumstances that the stand your ground law should have been given to TM. I don't want to go back into this thread to find the specifics but I'm pretty sure I wasn't the only one who brought it up, but the "ass-cracker" line of thinking could show why he felt he needed to start the altercation(which as someone who is regularly out late at night, I feel started when Zimmerman followed without informing he was neighborhood watch and then proceeded to chase with a loaded weapon).
Once again coming from a gun owning family and as someone who has been and is currently in a neighborhood watch program Zimmerman broke the known rules of the program when he brought a weapon on his watch and actively pursued a suspect. Both rules put into place to stop a situation just like this one from happening.
Just to make my position clear I do not believe Zimmerman should have been found guilty of something like 1st degree murder because it wasnt premeditated but I believe his actions and his disregard for the rules of the NW program put him and only him responsible in the death of a teen.
|
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Dec 1 2013, 08:27 AM
Post #1285
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- dreachon
- Nov 30 2013, 04:55 PM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 30 2013, 03:26 PM
- dreachon
- Nov 30 2013, 08:34 AM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 29 2013, 09:17 PM
- dreachon
- Nov 29 2013, 04:36 PM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 29 2013, 04:26 PM
- dreachon
- Nov 29 2013, 03:41 PM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 29 2013, 08:07 AM
- dreachon
- Nov 27 2013, 02:28 PM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 27 2013, 10:03 AM
Only if you're illegally pointing them at people. I just wonder if Zimmerman's seemingly erratic and aggressive behavior since the trial has anyone who was on his side rethinking whether his story about merely being an innocent by-standard was truthful.
So is that why you pointed out the items that he legally owns? We don't know if he illegally pointed anything. He might be unstable, but it may also be that he is now an easy target
Yes, that's why I'm pointing it out. Along with the run-ins with the law. And of course while we don't know whether these recent charges are legit, we also don't know all those weapons are legally owned, do we?
Legally owned? What are you even talking about? All of those weapons are legal to own.
Obtained through illegal means. I dont really care to argue whether his weapons are legal or not. Its a footnote to my actual question, which you still haven't answered.
Wasn't this your question? "we also don't know all those weapons are legally owned, do we?" Are you claiming that he may have stolen them dreach? They are legal guns and he's a legal gun owner, so I'm not sure what else you could be speculating on.
Fail. That certainly is not my main question, which bri has conveniently bumped twice now. I really dont care how he got the guns. I just find it interesting he has so many now.
Lol. Way to walk backwards from your comment. Truth is, you have no idea what you even meant by "legally own" do you? FYI, 5 guns isn't very many. The average is 7.9 amongst gun owners, and you HAVE NO IDEA how many guns he owned before the TM deal do you? Regarding your original question, he hasn't been convicted of doing anything wrong yet, so I won't let media hype and emotion influence my judgement of him. I didn't really have a high opinion of him prior anyways.
Walking backwards from what? At no point did I ever make any claim that owning those weapons signifies anything. I, personally, find it interesting. We didn't hear about his stockpile at all during the trial so, admittedly, I'm assuming he has acquired more weapons since the trial. Maybe he feels he is a target now, as you said. Certainly possible. Maybe he feels he's invincible now, as his ex-wife said. Whatever the reason, I wonder if his acquisition of weapons is at all related with his recent run-ins with the law. As far as whether he "legally owns" his weapons. I have at no point ever in the history of this board made a claim to know the process one has to go through to buy a gun. I've never done it. Seems sometimes there are background checks, sometimes not. What I do know is that there are illegal guns out there and I imagine it's not crazy to think he could own one. I mean, from what I understand of our previous discussions, all it would take to make the guns illegal is filing the serial number off. So, no, I don't think it's necessarily true that all of the guns Zimmerman owns are legal. Of course if we don't hear that they are illegal, then I would assume the are all legal. Dreach, GZ is a legal gun owner, so there is absolutely no reason for him to purchase guns with no serial numbers. He can walk into any gun shop and buy any gun he wants today. I think it's absurd and irresponsible of you to assert the illegal possibility given the facts combined with your flawed and extremely limited knowledge of the subject.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Dec 1 2013, 09:19 AM
Post #1286
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- sirbrianwilson
- Nov 30 2013, 07:48 PM
This dude is unstable. His guns need to go. If not mandated, then volunteered.
br Brian, shouldn't we wait for proof of such?
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Dec 1 2013, 09:23 AM
Post #1287
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- BigBlueRampage
- Dec 1 2013, 01:32 AM
- HoosierLars
- Nov 30 2013, 06:16 PM
- HoosierLars
- Nov 30 2013, 02:34 PM
- HoosierLars
- Nov 29 2013, 04:04 PM
- dreachon
- Nov 29 2013, 03:44 PM
- HoosierLars
- Nov 29 2013, 03:35 PM
- dreachon
- Nov 27 2013, 02:28 PM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 27 2013, 10:03 AM
- dreachon
- Nov 27 2013, 09:10 AM
is there something wrong with owning that?
Only if you're illegally pointing them at people. I just wonder if Zimmerman's seemingly erratic and aggressive behavior since the trial has anyone who was on his side rethinking whether his story about merely being an innocent by-standard was truthful.
The main facts of the case remain unchanged. GZ's injuries and the eye witness account is consistent with GZ's story. TM was on top, pummeling GZ "MMA style" and GZ shot him. I haven't seen anyone discuss the fact that TM and his girlfriend thought GZ was a gay stalker, who was coming after TM.
There's no eye witness that saw how the fight started. Hence why you have to believe GZ. I'm not sure what your second statement has to do with anything. I don't wish to go back and rehash the specifics of the trial. Some people believed GZ, others didn't. My question is whether GZ's actions since the trial have shaken people's faith in GZ.
Nobody will ever know who started the fight. For me personally, this provides a "reasonable doubt" whether GZ was the aggressor. Recent events really don't have much of an effect on that doubt. The Piers Morgan interview provides another plausible reason why TM would have attacked GZ. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ass+crackerhttp://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1307/15/pmt.01.htmlMORGAN: Did Trayvon have that in him? JEANTEL: No, no. Trayvon was too quiet. And why -- why Trayvon going to run if he wanted to confront him, beat him? Why would he run? And people need to understand, he didn't want that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend's house to go get -- mind you, his little brother was there. You know -- now, mind you, I told you -- I told Trayvon it might have been a rapist. Parents need to stop acting dumb. If you're going to tell your child, oh, a stranger, oh, you tell your child one thing -- run away, trying to find somebody, that's not what Trayvon was doing? So why -- so why the jury -- they're all parents -- well, some of them are parents. And they've been telling their -- their child that. Now, you're going to tell me you're going to tell your child to stand there (ph)? No.
From the Piers Morgan interview, it appears that TM wanted to give GZ (a gay "ass-cracker") some whoopass. This provides more evidence that TM instigated the fight. However, we will never know for sure, and therefore GZ's injuries and the eye-witness account of TM on top "MMA-style" at least provides a reasonable doubt, which is all the defense needed.
I found it interesting that "ass-cracker" likely referred to GZ being a gay stalker, and TM and his girlfriend were concerned that TM or his younger brother could be the target victims. Maybe nobody has picked up on this angle, because it doesn't fit the narrative of a racist, "white-Hispanic" stalking and killing a young black man.
If i remember correctly some of us said we believed given the circumstances that the stand your ground law should have been given to TM. I don't want to go back into this thread to find the specifics but I'm pretty sure I wasn't the only one who brought it up, but the "ass-cracker" line of thinking could show why he felt he needed to start the altercation(which as someone who is regularly out late at night, I feel started when Zimmerman followed without informing he was neighborhood watch and then proceeded to chase with a loaded weapon). Once again coming from a gun owning family and as someone who has been and is currently in a neighborhood watch program Zimmerman broke the known rules of the program when he brought a weapon on his watch and actively pursued a suspect. Both rules put into place to stop a situation just like this one from happening. Just to make my position clear I do not believe Zimmerman should have been found guilty of something like 1st degree murder because it wasnt premeditated but I believe his actions and his disregard for the rules of the NW program put him and only him responsible in the death of a teen. Hey blue, that's definitely the best and most well thought out case against GZ that has been posted here. I wasn't aware of the neighborhood watch rules about firearms, but the pursuit one makes a lot of sense. Where income from, my guns and dog are the neighborhood watch program.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
HoosierLars
|
Dec 1 2013, 11:24 AM
Post #1288
|
3 in a row
- Posts:
- 22,916
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- BigBlueRampage
- Dec 1 2013, 01:32 AM
- HoosierLars
- Nov 30 2013, 06:16 PM
- HoosierLars
- Nov 30 2013, 02:34 PM
- HoosierLars
- Nov 29 2013, 04:04 PM
- dreachon
- Nov 29 2013, 03:44 PM
- HoosierLars
- Nov 29 2013, 03:35 PM
- dreachon
- Nov 27 2013, 02:28 PM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 27 2013, 10:03 AM
- dreachon
- Nov 27 2013, 09:10 AM
is there something wrong with owning that?
Only if you're illegally pointing them at people. I just wonder if Zimmerman's seemingly erratic and aggressive behavior since the trial has anyone who was on his side rethinking whether his story about merely being an innocent by-standard was truthful.
The main facts of the case remain unchanged. GZ's injuries and the eye witness account is consistent with GZ's story. TM was on top, pummeling GZ "MMA style" and GZ shot him. I haven't seen anyone discuss the fact that TM and his girlfriend thought GZ was a gay stalker, who was coming after TM.
There's no eye witness that saw how the fight started. Hence why you have to believe GZ. I'm not sure what your second statement has to do with anything. I don't wish to go back and rehash the specifics of the trial. Some people believed GZ, others didn't. My question is whether GZ's actions since the trial have shaken people's faith in GZ.
Nobody will ever know who started the fight. For me personally, this provides a "reasonable doubt" whether GZ was the aggressor. Recent events really don't have much of an effect on that doubt. The Piers Morgan interview provides another plausible reason why TM would have attacked GZ. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ass+crackerhttp://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1307/15/pmt.01.htmlMORGAN: Did Trayvon have that in him? JEANTEL: No, no. Trayvon was too quiet. And why -- why Trayvon going to run if he wanted to confront him, beat him? Why would he run? And people need to understand, he didn't want that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend's house to go get -- mind you, his little brother was there. You know -- now, mind you, I told you -- I told Trayvon it might have been a rapist. Parents need to stop acting dumb. If you're going to tell your child, oh, a stranger, oh, you tell your child one thing -- run away, trying to find somebody, that's not what Trayvon was doing? So why -- so why the jury -- they're all parents -- well, some of them are parents. And they've been telling their -- their child that. Now, you're going to tell me you're going to tell your child to stand there (ph)? No.
From the Piers Morgan interview, it appears that TM wanted to give GZ (a gay "ass-cracker") some whoopass. This provides more evidence that TM instigated the fight. However, we will never know for sure, and therefore GZ's injuries and the eye-witness account of TM on top "MMA-style" at least provides a reasonable doubt, which is all the defense needed.
I found it interesting that "ass-cracker" likely referred to GZ being a gay stalker, and TM and his girlfriend were concerned that TM or his younger brother could be the target victims. Maybe nobody has picked up on this angle, because it doesn't fit the narrative of a racist, "white-Hispanic" stalking and killing a young black man.
If i remember correctly some of us said we believed given the circumstances that the stand your ground law should have been given to TM. I don't want to go back into this thread to find the specifics but I'm pretty sure I wasn't the only one who brought it up, but the "ass-cracker" line of thinking could show why he felt he needed to start the altercation(which as someone who is regularly out late at night, I feel started when Zimmerman followed without informing he was neighborhood watch and then proceeded to chase with a loaded weapon). Once again coming from a gun owning family and as someone who has been and is currently in a neighborhood watch program Zimmerman broke the known rules of the program when he brought a weapon on his watch and actively pursued a suspect. Both rules put into place to stop a situation just like this one from happening. Just to make my position clear I do not believe Zimmerman should have been found guilty of something like 1st degree murder because it wasnt premeditated but I believe his actions and his disregard for the rules of the NW program put him and only him responsible in the death of a teen. Well put, and I think the place where we disagree is whether TM deserves any responsibility for his decision to fight.
|
|
| |
|
dreachon
|
Dec 1 2013, 11:54 AM
Post #1289
|
Creative Title Here
- Posts:
- 24,068
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #148
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- Dec 1 2013, 08:27 AM
- dreachon
- Nov 30 2013, 04:55 PM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 30 2013, 03:26 PM
- dreachon
- Nov 30 2013, 08:34 AM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 29 2013, 09:17 PM
- dreachon
- Nov 29 2013, 04:36 PM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 29 2013, 04:26 PM
- dreachon
- Nov 29 2013, 03:41 PM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 29 2013, 08:07 AM
- dreachon
- Nov 27 2013, 02:28 PM
So is that why you pointed out the items that he legally owns? We don't know if he illegally pointed anything. He might be unstable, but it may also be that he is now an easy target
Yes, that's why I'm pointing it out. Along with the run-ins with the law. And of course while we don't know whether these recent charges are legit, we also don't know all those weapons are legally owned, do we?
Legally owned? What are you even talking about? All of those weapons are legal to own.
Obtained through illegal means. I dont really care to argue whether his weapons are legal or not. Its a footnote to my actual question, which you still haven't answered.
Wasn't this your question? "we also don't know all those weapons are legally owned, do we?" Are you claiming that he may have stolen them dreach? They are legal guns and he's a legal gun owner, so I'm not sure what else you could be speculating on.
Fail. That certainly is not my main question, which bri has conveniently bumped twice now. I really dont care how he got the guns. I just find it interesting he has so many now.
Lol. Way to walk backwards from your comment. Truth is, you have no idea what you even meant by "legally own" do you? FYI, 5 guns isn't very many. The average is 7.9 amongst gun owners, and you HAVE NO IDEA how many guns he owned before the TM deal do you? Regarding your original question, he hasn't been convicted of doing anything wrong yet, so I won't let media hype and emotion influence my judgement of him. I didn't really have a high opinion of him prior anyways.
Walking backwards from what? At no point did I ever make any claim that owning those weapons signifies anything. I, personally, find it interesting. We didn't hear about his stockpile at all during the trial so, admittedly, I'm assuming he has acquired more weapons since the trial. Maybe he feels he is a target now, as you said. Certainly possible. Maybe he feels he's invincible now, as his ex-wife said. Whatever the reason, I wonder if his acquisition of weapons is at all related with his recent run-ins with the law. As far as whether he "legally owns" his weapons. I have at no point ever in the history of this board made a claim to know the process one has to go through to buy a gun. I've never done it. Seems sometimes there are background checks, sometimes not. What I do know is that there are illegal guns out there and I imagine it's not crazy to think he could own one. I mean, from what I understand of our previous discussions, all it would take to make the guns illegal is filing the serial number off. So, no, I don't think it's necessarily true that all of the guns Zimmerman owns are legal. Of course if we don't hear that they are illegal, then I would assume the are all legal.
Dreach, GZ is a legal gun owner, so there is absolutely no reason for him to purchase guns with no serial numbers. He can walk into any gun shop and buy any gun he wants today. I think it's absurd and irresponsible of you to assert the illegal possibility given the facts combined with your flawed and extremely limited knowledge of the subject. It's irresponsible of me to assert a possibility? I'm not even sure it's possible to assert a possibility.
|
|
| |
|
IUCOLTFAN
|
Dec 1 2013, 04:54 PM
Post #1290
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 10,098
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #131
- Joined:
- February 9, 2008
|
- dreachon
- Dec 1 2013, 11:54 AM
- Mr Gray
- Dec 1 2013, 08:27 AM
- dreachon
- Nov 30 2013, 04:55 PM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 30 2013, 03:26 PM
- dreachon
- Nov 30 2013, 08:34 AM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 29 2013, 09:17 PM
- dreachon
- Nov 29 2013, 04:36 PM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 29 2013, 04:26 PM
- dreachon
- Nov 29 2013, 03:41 PM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 29 2013, 08:07 AM
Yes, that's why I'm pointing it out. Along with the run-ins with the law. And of course while we don't know whether these recent charges are legit, we also don't know all those weapons are legally owned, do we?
Legally owned? What are you even talking about? All of those weapons are legal to own.
Obtained through illegal means. I dont really care to argue whether his weapons are legal or not. Its a footnote to my actual question, which you still haven't answered.
Wasn't this your question? "we also don't know all those weapons are legally owned, do we?" Are you claiming that he may have stolen them dreach? They are legal guns and he's a legal gun owner, so I'm not sure what else you could be speculating on.
Fail. That certainly is not my main question, which bri has conveniently bumped twice now. I really dont care how he got the guns. I just find it interesting he has so many now.
Lol. Way to walk backwards from your comment. Truth is, you have no idea what you even meant by "legally own" do you? FYI, 5 guns isn't very many. The average is 7.9 amongst gun owners, and you HAVE NO IDEA how many guns he owned before the TM deal do you? Regarding your original question, he hasn't been convicted of doing anything wrong yet, so I won't let media hype and emotion influence my judgement of him. I didn't really have a high opinion of him prior anyways.
Walking backwards from what? At no point did I ever make any claim that owning those weapons signifies anything. I, personally, find it interesting. We didn't hear about his stockpile at all during the trial so, admittedly, I'm assuming he has acquired more weapons since the trial. Maybe he feels he is a target now, as you said. Certainly possible. Maybe he feels he's invincible now, as his ex-wife said. Whatever the reason, I wonder if his acquisition of weapons is at all related with his recent run-ins with the law. As far as whether he "legally owns" his weapons. I have at no point ever in the history of this board made a claim to know the process one has to go through to buy a gun. I've never done it. Seems sometimes there are background checks, sometimes not. What I do know is that there are illegal guns out there and I imagine it's not crazy to think he could own one. I mean, from what I understand of our previous discussions, all it would take to make the guns illegal is filing the serial number off. So, no, I don't think it's necessarily true that all of the guns Zimmerman owns are legal. Of course if we don't hear that they are illegal, then I would assume the are all legal.
Dreach, GZ is a legal gun owner, so there is absolutely no reason for him to purchase guns with no serial numbers. He can walk into any gun shop and buy any gun he wants today. I think it's absurd and irresponsible of you to assert the illegal possibility given the facts combined with your flawed and extremely limited knowledge of the subject.
It's irresponsible of me to assert a possibility? I'm not even sure it's possible to assert a possibility. Considering the circumstances and his "fame", I highly doubt that he'd be walking the streets if he owned or received any of his guns illegally. If that weren't known by now then our police in this country are really poorly trained.
|

|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|