Were any of the ancestors of those offended white people ever owned by a black person?
The trial of George Zimmerman
- Thread starter BC1
- Start date
Were any of the ancestors of those offended white people ever owned by a black person?
CapGun
Active member
...and the price of tea in China is?????? Which of those "African Americans" using the innocuous term "cracker" were actually owned by said "crackers"? Which "crazy ass crackers" living now can you point to today own or are responsible for slavery? BTW just as stupid as your excuse is I will point out that back in the day, right here in this land there were blacks that owned black slaves.
Does that justify or excuse the institution of slavery? Certainly not! Neither does your comment excuse ongoing racist remarks by racists, even black ones!!!!!!!!
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Is that a legal question, counselor?
CapGun
Active member
As far as the focus of the trial, like everyone else there I have many questions. I would like more focus on one, what I believe, one simple point that this case should boil down to.
Before I get to that and just to confuse that issue like what is happening in the trial. Many focus on how GZ followed TM against "orders". A term used, not mine and there were no hardcore "orders",
GZ was so zealous he did not follow protocol which was to "observe and report". There are many nuances to this but when I hear this (not going to debate this) and just smile to myself and wonder how you observe when you lose sight of someone.
Back on track here>>>>>>>> I want to know at what point and what action justifies Trayvon Martin or anyone else for punching out another individual, knocking them to the ground and continue pummeling them with impunity?
A couple of other thoughts. TM, while riding GZ could have grabbed GZ's clothes by his chest area and picked him up and drove his head back into the cement without actually grabbing his head,or his back of head injuries could have happened from the original knock down.
Final thought>>>> You "trained" individuals know you can do a lot of damage with open hand strikes and not bruise your hands. When riding someone who is on their back, forearm smashes and
elbow strikes work nicely, so I have been told.
So, again, what is the exact tipping point when someone is justified for giving George Zimmerman what he........ deserved??:nono:
Before I get to that and just to confuse that issue like what is happening in the trial. Many focus on how GZ followed TM against "orders". A term used, not mine and there were no hardcore "orders",
GZ was so zealous he did not follow protocol which was to "observe and report". There are many nuances to this but when I hear this (not going to debate this) and just smile to myself and wonder how you observe when you lose sight of someone.
Back on track here>>>>>>>> I want to know at what point and what action justifies Trayvon Martin or anyone else for punching out another individual, knocking them to the ground and continue pummeling them with impunity?
A couple of other thoughts. TM, while riding GZ could have grabbed GZ's clothes by his chest area and picked him up and drove his head back into the cement without actually grabbing his head,or his back of head injuries could have happened from the original knock down.
Final thought>>>> You "trained" individuals know you can do a lot of damage with open hand strikes and not bruise your hands. When riding someone who is on their back, forearm smashes and
elbow strikes work nicely, so I have been told.
So, again, what is the exact tipping point when someone is justified for giving George Zimmerman what he........ deserved??:nono:
gejoslin
Illegitimi non carborundu
I liked your post. I'm thinking that "disparity of force" is a part of Florida self defence law. This isn't just to you Cap. But doesn't this apply in this case? Along with GZ disengaging from the altercation?
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
Unfortunately, the media has people thinking Zimmerman shot a 13 year old little child...they still are putting up child pictures of Martin on the news. Let's see how much influence the media has on the courts.
CapGun
Active member
I don't think disparity of force enters here at all. If it did I would have to say that Trayvon had more ability in a physical confrontation then Zimmerman. If you saw the pics of the dead Martin presented at the trial the 17 year old is 5'11 and 160 not skinny but in shape and looked hard ( what a waste) not like George Zimmerman, who the owner of the gym he went to described him as "soft". Don't cloud my simple question!
When or at what point is anyone justified for punching out another individual??? Oh, and if someone thinks your wife is hot, just smile and say you know! Not grounds for punching him out! lol:lol:
When or at what point is anyone justified for punching out another individual??? Oh, and if someone thinks your wife is hot, just smile and say you know! Not grounds for punching him out! lol:lol:
gejoslin
Illegitimi non carborundu
~
That's what happens when MSM tries to influence the public about their agenda. With MSM it's not about truth or justice!
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
IMO Striking the head or face is justified at the same time it would be justified to use a firearm. It is in my opinion, deadly force to strike those locations, so the same criteria applies to its use.
That being said, so far what has been released, Martin had no justification to use deadly force if he was just being followed, while Zimmerman did have justification to defend himself with equal force back.
CapGun
Active member
If I can't get my question answered here I doubt it will be answered by the trial tough it should be.
Chen, you tied your answer to the use of deadly force used by Zimmerman. I understand and I agree but you didn't answer my question.
You use the term "striking" which is an act in progress. The question that has to be answered in this case and that is..... What action or situation justifies getting to the act of "striking" or punching someone out??? A very simple question. Stick with it.
Chen, you tied your answer to the use of deadly force used by Zimmerman. I understand and I agree but you didn't answer my question.
You use the term "striking" which is an act in progress. The question that has to be answered in this case and that is..... What action or situation justifies getting to the act of "striking" or punching someone out??? A very simple question. Stick with it.
gejoslin
Illegitimi non carborundu
Disparity of force comes into the fight as TM was on top pounding GZ's head with the ground under GZ's head. That doubles if not triples TM's blows and could very easily deliver great bodily injury if not death to GZ. Which gives GZ the ability to use death force to end the attack. Weather he was the aggressor or not.
Google Massad Ayood on Disparity of Force. He has testified in court on this many times.
CapGun
Active member
Sorry but you are a bit off. First an aggressor loses his right to self defense unless he stops his attack and then is attacked by his former victim. If the aggressor does not stop his deadly attack the victim is meeting that force with like force. No gun necessary. Disparity of force can justify the use of deadly force alone; but not for the aggressor if he doesn't break off his attack.
He regains that right if the former victim re engages and comes after him.
gejoslin
Illegitimi non carborundu
I believe you'll find that the weaker person has a right to NOT get beaten to death by the stronger person in a position of disparity. Especially after calling for help and trying to disengage.
If I'm wrong, please enlighten me.
gejoslin
Illegitimi non carborundu
~
Sorry was talking about the thread here, the trial of George Zimmerman. Didn't realize your scenario was about someone else.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
The words contained within the FL code section(s) covering use of force are extremely clear. I don't think the words "disparity of force" are contained in those sections, but the meme is addressed as clear as it can be from where I sit. I believe the bolded text above is perfectly consistent with memes contained in the code, though I'm not sure I see where CapGun is arguing against that premise. Where I think CapGun might be going a bit into the realm of conjecture is assuming that any aggression was displayed by George Zimmerman that night. I mean that in a legal, statutory sense of the word, not whether or not some of us might consider it "aggressive" for him to have gotten out of his vehicle. The only evidence about what happened to start the fight is Martin's female friend who is still destroying his case on the stand as I type this, who said that the last thing she heard before she perceived the fight starting was Zimmerman saying, "What are you doing around here?" or something to that effect. She also said that Martin was the first one to speak between them, when he said, "What are you following me for?" or something to that effect. There is zero evidence to show, or even logically suggest, who threw the first blow, who advanced towards whom or what happened after the connection was lost within seconds of her perception that the fight was on.
And by the way, in case anyone has forgotten (or never knew), the only eye-witness to any part of the fight will come during the defense's case, and unless he's had a 180° change-of-heart from what he said here, Zimmerman was being "beaten up" by Martin, who he clearly puts on top.
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
In case you missed it.
if you don't know what action or situation justifies the use of your firearm (aka deadly force aka punching someone in the head), I advise you to get some more training.
tricolordad
Banned
Ive listened to the tape and it seems that Zimmerman was obeying the dispatchers request to not follow Martin. I believe that Martin did indeed attack him for no reason other than he knew Zimmerman had called the police. The fact that Zimmerman pulled his gun after being bludgeoned repeatedly will probably convince the jurors of his innocence.
Yesterday the trial turned a bit in favor of the prosecution. A second witness testified that the man on top before the gun shot was the same man that got up and walked around after the gun shot. That suggest that although Zimmerman was having his head pounded against the ground at some point he got on top of Martin, "kneeling on top of him" as the witness testified, then pulled out his weapon an shot Martin. That's two witness with consistent stories about who was on top of the fight.
O'Mara also made a mistake asking the witness about Zimmer's reputation for being paceful, because it looks like the prosecution will now be able to ask her about the domestic violence restraining order and the arrest for assaulting and LEO, which they could not have done if O'Mara had not open the subject on cross examination.
O'Mara also made a mistake asking the witness about Zimmer's reputation for being paceful, because it looks like the prosecution will now be able to ask her about the domestic violence restraining order and the arrest for assaulting and LEO, which they could not have done if O'Mara had not open the subject on cross examination.
Sir Diealotz
New member
I didn't see that in the summary that I read this morning. Link?
From what I saw on the news and read about the prosecutions star witness...
Omfg!!!! She must have been a plant for the defense or just a bumbling idiot. I vote the bumbling idiot LOL
