StarGateWars Forums

Pretty much every race and creed has been a slave or suffered some form of persecution at 1 time or another. that crap don't fly any more.

Personally, enough with the racism already, the media and Obama have allot to answer for.

"Trayvon looks like my son", GIVE ME A FRIGGING BREAK FROM YOUR CRAP!

[KMA]Avenger wrote:Pretty much every race and creed has been a slave or suffered some form of persecution at 1 time or another. that crap don't fly any more.

Personally, enough with the racism already, the media and Obama have allot to answer for.

"Trayvon looks like my son", GIVE ME A FRIGGING BREAK FROM YOUR CRAP!

I wondered when that would come up. Obama admitting he has an extramarital son.

Juliette wrote:

[KMA]Avenger wrote:Pretty much every race and creed has been a slave or suffered some form of persecution at 1 time or another. that crap don't fly any more.

Personally, enough with the racism already, the media and Obama have allot to answer for.

"Trayvon looks like my son", GIVE ME A FRIGGING BREAK FROM YOUR CRAP!

I wondered when that would come up. Obama admitting he has an extramarital son.

I am usually insanely critical of Obama but throughout this entire ordeal he seems to have surprisingly played the least amount of fiddle possible to appease his base. I'll give him a tiny bit of props for that. We must never forget Jessie Jackson getting caught on tape at a caucus convention saying "I'm going to cut his balls off" when O was seeking the party nomination.

Remember these 'black leaders' declared him 'not black enough' before they realized he actually had a decent shot at candidacy. They didn't want a half black half caucasian black president they wanted a black one. He is currently in no hurry to be their lap dog.

Sniperwax wrote:

Juliette wrote:

[KMA]Avenger wrote:Pretty much every race and creed has been a slave or suffered some form of persecution at 1 time or another. that crap don't fly any more.

Personally, enough with the racism already, the media and Obama have allot to answer for.

"Trayvon looks like my son", GIVE ME A FRIGGING BREAK FROM YOUR CRAP!

I wondered when that would come up. Obama admitting he has an extramarital son.

I am usually insanely critical of Obama but throughout this entire ordeal he seems to have surprisingly played the least amount of fiddle possible to appease his base. I'll give him a tiny bit of props for that. We must never forget Jessie Jackson getting caught on tape at a caucus convention saying "I'm going to cut his balls off" when O was seeking the party nomination.

Remember these 'black leaders' declared him 'not black enough' before they realized he actually had a decent shot at candidacy. They didn't want a half black half caucasian black president they wanted a black one. He is currently in no hurry to be their lap dog.

Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtuQlByCRp0


I know it's Alex Jones infowars, but AJ does not even make an appearance, let alone say a single word.

Sniperwax wrote:

Loki™ wrote:

Sniperwax wrote:

Loki™ wrote:How likely is it that if the kid had been threatening Zimmerman would not have threatened with his gun and how likely is it that the kid would not have backed down after that? And even if he had a non-lethal shot to stop him would have been easy at such close range.

Only a suicidal person brings fists to a gun fight when they clearly could have evaded. You ever seen how fast a 17 year old can run versus an overweight sack of middle aged man. It is only logical to assume that the gun was tucked away in a holster when the physical confrontation started.

If this element of the defendant's story is logically assumed to be true then what else might he be telling the truth about? What are the chances his claims are 100% truthful? 99% truthful? Only 20% truthful?

Even the opinions of the most talented statistical nerds in the world would be irrelevant in this particular case. Condemning people on speculation is actually very common around the world but not everywhere luckily. If you convinced me there was a 98.72101827364% chance Zimmerman was lying about Statement A and a 41.01928374% chance he was truthful about Statement B and etc I would say DO NOT press charges until you have facts to argue.

People cry alligator tears 'What if that was your child!?'. I would have been overjoyed had there not been charges filed if this was my child. It would make it a thousand*infinity times easier to snuff him out myself.

Still why lethal? I think he should be convicted of involuntary manslaughter at the least.

That all comes down to Z's story about that moment in the conflict. There are really only a few possibilities here and they cannot be proven or disproven based on the evidence, eye witness accounts, etc. The possibilities are fairly obvious he either had to shoot to kill, didn't have to but chose to, or my favorite guesstimate didn't mean to but did.

A warning shot would have been nice but if it means tilting your barrel and getting disarmed, oh hell no, shoot the bugger. I like all the morons that are like "T's DNA wasn't found on the gun! Obviously Z lied!".

We have clearly been watching way too many crime dramas if we think that DNA can be collected easily from every surface especially in the rain. The only thing T's DNA not being located on the gun proves with certainly is that T's DNA was not located on the gun.

The only people that call 911 before they commit a homicide are the completely disturbed usually post-partum moms that kill their kids, etc. Z's sanity was never in question only his decision making.

I'd have shot both his legs. It still might have killed him ofc if I'd hit an artery but at least I'd have tried (and even if I had hit an artery, a torniquet withing 5 mins would have saved him). But shooting at someone's torso sounds like lethal intent to me. At least he had the grace to shoot him in the chest and not commit him to a horrible death by a gut wound.

Loki™ wrote:I'd have shot both his legs. It still might have killed him ofc if I'd hit an artery but at least I'd have tried (and even if I had hit an artery, a torniquet withing 5 mins would have saved him). But shooting at someone's torso sounds like lethal intent to me. At least he had the grace to shoot him in the chest and not commit him to a horrible death by a gut wound.

The classic independent film Reservoir Dogs comes to mind.

Sniperwax wrote:

Loki™ wrote:I'd have shot both his legs. It still might have killed him ofc if I'd hit an artery but at least I'd have tried (and even if I had hit an artery, a torniquet withing 5 mins would have saved him). But shooting at someone's torso sounds like lethal intent to me. At least he had the grace to shoot him in the chest and not commit him to a horrible death by a gut wound.

The classic independent film Reservoir Dogs comes to mind.

None of what I said is hard to do. People who have never trained with a gun just don't realize how easy they are to use.

Loki™ wrote:

Sniperwax wrote:

Loki™ wrote:I'd have shot both his legs. It still might have killed him ofc if I'd hit an artery but at least I'd have tried (and even if I had hit an artery, a torniquet withing 5 mins would have saved him). But shooting at someone's torso sounds like lethal intent to me. At least he had the grace to shoot him in the chest and not commit him to a horrible death by a gut wound.

The classic independent film Reservoir Dogs comes to mind.

None of what I said is hard to do. People who have never trained with a gun just don't realize how easy they are to use.

I would probably pop someone in the chest if they were wrestling my gun away from me. It just makes a lot of hypothetical sense. How are cops or military trained to deal with this exactly? Just curious.

Sniperwax wrote:I would probably pop someone in the chest if they were wrestling my gun away from me. It just makes a lot of hypothetical sense. How are cops or military trained to deal with this exactly? Just curious.

Really depends on what you are trying to do.

Sniperwax wrote:

Loki™ wrote:

Sniperwax wrote:

Loki™ wrote:I'd have shot both his legs. It still might have killed him ofc if I'd hit an artery but at least I'd have tried (and even if I had hit an artery, a torniquet withing 5 mins would have saved him). But shooting at someone's torso sounds like lethal intent to me. At least he had the grace to shoot him in the chest and not commit him to a horrible death by a gut wound.

The classic independent film Reservoir Dogs comes to mind.

None of what I said is hard to do. People who have never trained with a gun just don't realize how easy they are to use.

I would probably pop someone in the chest if they were wrestling my gun away from me. It just makes a lot of hypothetical sense. How are cops or military trained to deal with this exactly? Just curious.

Just basic self defense moves. It's usually easier to wrestle the gun aiming downwards on your opponents legs than chest. And if you pop a piece of metal into someone's quadricep they are very likely to stop struggling. Allthough I don't understand why he'd let someone to such a close range.
I'd say that police handle it differently from us since in the army the point is to kill the other guy and we usually wen't for the legs in close combat training just 'cause it's usually easier.
I'm no specialist in the field however as my training was mostly medical.

Back to Zimmerman though. I get that he probably panicked, was under extreme pressure etc. etc.
But I will not accept that he had a right to take a human life no matter the circumstances.
To me it seems that while it was no cold blooded murder Zimmerman did not have the respect for the life another person and also thought that killing Martin was justified on some level.

Loki™ wrote:

Sniperwax wrote:

Loki™ wrote:

Sniperwax wrote:

Loki™ wrote:I'd have shot both his legs. It still might have killed him ofc if I'd hit an artery but at least I'd have tried (and even if I had hit an artery, a torniquet withing 5 mins would have saved him). But shooting at someone's torso sounds like lethal intent to me. At least he had the grace to shoot him in the chest and not commit him to a horrible death by a gut wound.

The classic independent film Reservoir Dogs comes to mind.

None of what I said is hard to do. People who have never trained with a gun just don't realize how easy they are to use.

I would probably pop someone in the chest if they were wrestling my gun away from me. It just makes a lot of hypothetical sense. How are cops or military trained to deal with this exactly? Just curious.

Just basic self defense moves. It's usually easier to wrestle the gun aiming downwards on your opponents legs than chest. And if you pop a piece of metal into someone's quadricep they are very likely to stop struggling. Allthough I don't understand why he'd let someone to such a close range.
I'd say that police handle it differently from us since in the army the point is to kill the other guy and we usually wen't for the legs in close combat training just 'cause it's usually easier.
I'm no specialist in the field however as my training was mostly medical.

Back to Zimmerman though. I get that he probably panicked, was under extreme pressure etc. etc.
But I will not accept that he had a right to take a human life no matter the circumstances.
To me it seems that while it was no cold blooded murder Zimmerman did not have the respect for the life another person and also thought that killing Martin was justified on some level.

That is complete guess work and assumption. Z was on the floor and T was on top of him punching him...you think in a situation like that that anybody would have time to reason things out and justify any action a person decides to take in response to a beating?

Sorry, in a situation where you have a gun and can defend yourself you shoot first and sort it all out later.

He killed him when he didn't have to. There's no excuse. As I said he shouldn't sit for murder but a couple years on some other charge to remind him of the value of human life.

Juliette wrote:

Sniperwax wrote:I would probably pop someone in the chest if they were wrestling my gun away from me. It just makes a lot of hypothetical sense. How are cops or military trained to deal with this exactly? Just curious.

Really depends on what you are trying to do.

shoot to kill. dead cant kill you/harm you. do not take the chance to just injure someone.
to shoot to injure is a felony in the US. (even for cops) I doubt that if this was taken to court it would be upheld but that is what is in black and white. that is why the huge surge for tazers and less than deadly weapons for cops.

In close combat training they say keep the weapon low (out of easy grip) and yes you pull the trigger at anything that isn't yours. even if you miss the other person the shock might be enough to gain the upper hand. but they also say DO NOT PULL A GUN in close combat because it can just as easily be used against you. Anything within 21 feet it is a bad idea to pull a gun vs another weapon (knife) or just hand to hand. most of modern military hand to hand to to just hold the other person until your battle buddy can come to your aid. (hope its your battle not theirs)

Once in a fight (nomatter how it started) the love for life should get you to do anything to live, even if it means taking another life. that being said, take every EVERY chance you can before getting to that point. Zimmerman shouldn't have engaged in the first place.

Loki™ wrote:He killed him when he didn't have to. There's no excuse. As I said he shouldn't sit for murder but a couple years on some other charge to remind him of the value of human life.

You telling me in the middle of a situation you are going to have time to think "i don't need to kill him, be careful. take aim to injure". or do you think he thought "kill him" is that what you think went through his head?

If so you have no idea. it would all have been instinctual, he would have seen the gun and fired in defence. there is nothing to answer for.

Let me give you an example. i live in the UK and we have a gun ban (which is wrong), but if i had a gun and someone broke into my house, i will shoot to kill. period. people get shot all the time and they still manage to walk away (which is why having limits on magazine sizes is ridiculous). i'm not interest in wounding them, and have even less interest in their lives. they broke in to my home, i have no idea what their intentions are towards me, my kids or my wife. they are dead!

By the same token, if i had a gun and i'm getting beaten up, i will shoot, if they die they die, end of story.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:

Loki™ wrote:He killed him when he didn't have to. There's no excuse. As I said he shouldn't sit for murder but a couple years on some other charge to remind him of the value of human life.

You telling me in the middle of a situation you are going to have time to think "i don't need to kill him, be careful. take aim to injure". or do you think he thought "kill him" is that what you think went through his head?

If so you have no idea. it would all have been instinctual, he would have seen the gun and fired in defence. there is nothing to answer for.

Let me give you an example. i live in the UK and we have a gun ban (which is wrong), but if i had a gun and someone broke into my house, i will shoot to kill. period. people get shot all the time and they still manage to walk away (which is why having limits on magazine sizes is ridiculous). i'm not interest in wounding them, and have even less interest in their lives. they broke in to my home, i have no idea what their intentions are towards me, my kids or my wife. they are dead!

By the same token, if i had a gun and i'm getting beaten up, i will shoot, if they die they die, end of story.

Same here..its a shame there is a gun ban in the UK. The government has power over you they should not have. I too would shoot an intruder as protection of family and self come first.