(September 9, 2020 at 8:58 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:Likewise, a gun has only one use value -- to kill people.

Nonsense.  A gun can be used to procure food, to target shoot, for trophy hunting, as a threat, etc.

With a bit of ingenuity, there is nothing that has only one use value. This why I sometimes use books to prop up a table, or a handy shoe to bang in a nail.

I do agree about the fetishism, thought.  There are plenty of people who own objects out of some sort of emotional or status value beyond that object's utility.

Boru

Guns were invented for war hunting was a later development . Handguns and Assault Rifle were designed with human targets in mind . That is simply a fact .

(September 9, 2020 at 9:45 am)SUNGULA Wrote:

(September 9, 2020 at 8:58 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Nonsense.  A gun can be used to procure food, to target shoot, for trophy hunting, as a threat, etc.

With a bit of ingenuity, there is nothing that has only one use value. This why I sometimes use books to prop up a table, or a handy shoe to bang in a nail.

I do agree about the fetishism, thought.  There are plenty of people who own objects out of some sort of emotional or status value beyond that object's utility.

Boru

Guns were invented for war hunting was a later development . Handguns and Assault Rifle were designed with human targets in mind . That is simply a fact .

Okay. Now make an argument from that fact without running afoul of the genetic fallacy. I'm not even sure that what you say is true.

(September 6, 2020 at 10:35 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote:

(September 1, 2020 at 1:27 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: One of the major bits of the clusterfuck that is Kenosha...

This kid is claiming self defense -after killing a couple people and oddly enough President Trump seems to be going along with that.

...
My thoughts -

I have carried a concealed pistol - almost every day - for going on 20 years. I have not had an incident to date.

A big part of that is because I avoid areas where trouble might be likely to happen.

Like riots.

The kid is lucky I won't be on his jury - because I would likely go along with the prosecutor on this one. He could have stayed home and not been part of the problem. And - he should not have dragged a loaded gun into a riot situation. Trained professionals only do that as a last resort.

Were I the prosecutor - I would also go after whoever got him his rifle - because a 17 year old cannot legally purchase one.

He brought the fight to the crowd.

If the crowd had brought the fight to him - it would be a different story.

I don't know. I kind of see it like the Trayvon Martin case. Zimmerman seems to be a terrible person, and he shouldn't have been following Martin, but he broke no laws in doing so and was rightly found not guilty because it seems to have been a justifiable killing in self defense.

He broke no laws? He murdered an innocent, unarmed teen who was doing nothing to threaten him. And he did it in cold blood and in a premeditated fashion.

Just because the state of Florida has declared itself without law doesn't mean Zimmerman's not a law breaker.

---

(September 7, 2020 at 1:17 am)Rev. Rye Wrote: And, honestly, looking at the case, the most charitable interpretation of Zimmerman’s actions I think is plausible is that he might have just been that paranoid and an innocent black teen died because of it. And that’s just be being extremely charitable towards him.

And if Zimmerman is really that paranoid, then there's no way he should ever be left out of a secure mental institution, except for to be buried.

---

(September 8, 2020 at 9:39 am)paulpablo Wrote: If the one guy he killed was a child molester then that's cool.

If the other guy who he killed was attacking him first I hope he gets away with all this.

Go fuck yourself and stop spreading far right slander.

(September 9, 2020 at 11:33 am)Nomad Wrote:

---

(September 7, 2020 at 1:17 am)Rev. Rye Wrote: And, honestly, looking at the case, the most charitable interpretation of Zimmerman’s actions I think is plausible is that he might have just been that paranoid and an innocent black teen died because of it. And that’s just be being extremely charitable towards him.

And if Zimmerman is really that paranoid, then there's no way he should ever be left out of a secure mental institution, except for to be buried.

And that's probably the case.

(September 9, 2020 at 12:09 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote:

(September 9, 2020 at 11:33 am)Nomad Wrote:

---

And if Zimmerman is really that paranoid, then there's no way he should ever be left out of a secure mental institution, except for to be buried.

And that's probably the case.

Your interpretation ignores physical evidence (Zimmerman's injuries) in favor of your obvious bias against self defense with a firearm.

The jury didn't.

(September 9, 2020 at 2:08 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(September 9, 2020 at 12:09 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: And that's probably the case.

Your interpretation ignores physical evidence (Zimmerman's injuries) in favor of your obvious bias against self defense with a firearm.

The jury didn't.

And we’re sure That Zimmerman’s injuries couldn’t have been a result of Trayvon Martin defending himself from the guy who was stalking him (against the advice of the non-emergency line police operator that he originally called, incidentally) why, exactly?

(September 9, 2020 at 10:27 am)Angrboda Wrote:

(September 9, 2020 at 9:45 am)SUNGULA Wrote: Guns were invented for war hunting was a later development . Handguns and Assault Rifle were designed with human targets in mind . That is simply a fact .

Okay.  Now make an argument from that fact without running afoul of the genetic fallacy.  I'm not even sure that what you say is true.

It's generic fallacy to simply point out that the original intent of fire arms was military in nature . 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_firearm

---

(September 9, 2020 at 2:44 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote:

(September 9, 2020 at 2:08 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: Your interpretation ignores physical evidence (Zimmerman's injuries) in favor of your obvious bias against self defense with a firearm.

The jury didn't.

And we’re sure That Zimmerman’s injuries couldn’t have been a result of Trayvon Martin defending himself from the guy who was stalking him (against the advice of the non-emergency line police operator that he originally called, incidentally) why, exactly?

Indeed funny how Rittenhouse is an idiot for bringing a gun to a riot . But Zimmerman isn't an idiot for stalking someone with predictable results .

(September 9, 2020 at 2:44 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote:

(September 9, 2020 at 2:08 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: Your interpretation ignores physical evidence (Zimmerman's injuries) in favor of your obvious bias against self defense with a firearm.

The jury didn't.

And we’re sure That Zimmerman’s injuries couldn’t have been a result of Trayvon Martin defending himself from the guy who was stalking him (against the advice of the non-emergency line police operator that he originally called, incidentally) why, exactly?

You gonna jest BEElieve, huh?

.....

Martin did not have any marks on him except bullet holes.

Zimmerman had marks on him that were consistant with a physical struggle - and being struck.

Now I know you will ignore the obvious - the confrontation went from verbal, to physical, to deadly force being used.

Now. This is THIS case.

Not every other confrontation on the planet involving a black guy.


You figure it out.

In this case Mr. Martin escalated the confrontation from verbal to physical.

At that point by Florida law - the person being physically attacked can use any force necessary to stop the attack - including the use of firearms.

Don't like that?

Live somewhere where the laws are different.


Or bitch about it on the internet.

I doubt it will change Florida law.

Stalking is wrong period

(September 9, 2020 at 4:00 pm)SUNGULA Wrote: Stalking is wrong period

And, frankly, this is why I give Martin more benefit of the doubt.

Zimmerman seems to have assumed Trayvon Martin could have Only been in that place for nefarious purposes (in reality, his father’s fiancée lived there.) Given that Martin was unarmed, had no criminal record, is not known to have committed any violent crimes, and showed no sign of any plans to commit crimes of any sort that day, this was most likely a faulty assumption. One he escalated unnecessarily to the point of killing him.

Meanwhile, from Trayvon’s perspective, we have this strange intimidating white* man who seems to be stalking him for no good reason and went out of his way to confront him. It’s not hard to imagine that Trayvon might have been in the right in this situation. At least his paranoia was somewhat justified.





Can’t say I could prove my hypothesis in a court of law, and it makes sense that Zimmerman got off, since we only had his word for what happened, and the lawyers made it just plausible enough to get him a not guilty verdict.

*Yes, I am well aware that Zimmerman's mother was Peruvian, which makes him Hispanic. That said, there are parts in his interrogation where he explicitly identifies as white. I think that, for him, the two identities aren't quite as mutually exclusive as most people would think.