BF2S Forums You be the judge! Trayvon Martin vs George Zimmerman

Uzique wrote:

also from what i can see on that article, the 'association' is correlation, more than causation. there is no etiology there. very little pharmacological explanation. all i'm seeing is a study that points out that the 1 in 5 people who are likely to smoke cannabis are also probably the 1 in 5 of people from a social class or environment where 'delinquent' behaviour is more common. correlation is not causation. though i cannot access the journal, the press/abstract does not give any concrete info.

Right, so you haven't read the article.

In the meantime

"According to the researchers, the more frequently cannabis was used, the stronger the link with aggressive behaviour."

Thats what the study says.

And what if you get attacked by an angry stoner?

You're just butthurt because you're barred from owning a gun.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-07-10 05:46:25)

We shouldn't be asking the question of whether George Zimmerman had the right to defend himself, we should be asking the opposite.  Did Trayvon Martin have the right in this situation to defend himself?  The answer is yes.  Stalking someone at night time does not give you the right to self-defense.  The fact that he ignored the police is just icing on the cake.  I cannot believe the level of stupidity being displayed here.

Dilbert_X wrote:

And what if you get attacked by an angry stoner?

You're just butthurt because you're barred from owning a gun.

Do what people in Europe, Japan, the northeast, and most major U.S. cities do. Fightback without shooting someone.

I can own a gun. The hassle of getting one just isn't worth going through for me.

The question that should be asked here is not one of someone who irregularly smokes pot may become aggressive on the odd occasion, it should be if someone is moderately stoned, at night, in a bad neighbourhood, is stalked and then approached by someone with a gun, would they react out of fear they might be killed?

the tacit acknowledgement of dilbert's argument is that anyone who takes drugs is morally bankrupt enough to not be granted ordinary human benefit-of-the-doubt. anyone who transgresses so grievously as to smoke weed cannot be considered an ordinary human being. if a reasonable person also would have tried to defend themselves when stalked by an angry man brandishing a gun, that is irrelevant. this person takes drugs. they are a corrupt member of society. you cannot treat them equally under law. in dilbert's world, the law applies more to some than others. this guy is black and possibly smokes weed, so he's twice removed from the white man's probity.

basically: moralizing over rationalizing. trying to apply moral rule in a court of law and order.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-07-10 06:17:58)

ah, the old 'defense' as 'euphemistic unilateral offense' synonym.

Spearhead wrote:

globefish23 wrote:

This whole debacle just reflects the attitude of the US.
A country that sends her army across the globe to defend the motherland...


Why shouldn't then people go to another neighborhood and defend themselves?

It reflects the attitudes of right-wingers, racists, and the justice system in the south.  Zimmerman would have never walked if he had done this same thing in any major city in Florida, it was the small town podunk police that dropped the ball before the state took over and took appropriate action.

Seems like you're still stuck in 1865.

I've tried to stay out of this thread because its one fuckin murder (there's many in the US every damn day), and it's only in the spotlight because of possible racism (again, tons of race-related issues, some resulting in death every fuckin day). Ultimately what I'm trying to say is this: who the FUCK cares. If you're gonna get all up-in-arms for a YEAR, you might as well do so about every-race related issue there is. Not saying murder is okay, nor is racism, but still...
That being said, sorry if this is a repost.

Here's what the defense is resting its case on:

George Zimmerman’s defense team rested its case Wednesday, after using its final day of testimony to paint the neighborhood watch volunteer as a wimp who was getting pummeled when he shot Trayvon Martin in self-defense

Like other defense witnesses, Pollock described Zimmerman as a soft weakling, likely unable to defend himself against Martin

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/10/zi … wednesday/

pirana6 wrote:

If you're gonna get all up-in-arms for a YEAR, you might as well do so about every-race related issue there is.

lol

And how do you know we are not?

Spearhead wrote:

pirana6 wrote:

If you're gonna get all up-in-arms for a YEAR, you might as well do so about every-race related issue there is.

lol

And how do you know we are not?

I didn't mean Florida specifically, I meant the US in general. Hell why not every first-world country?

And I know you're not because this is the first huge race-related issue to go country(world)-wide in recent memory. If you're saying that is because this is the first race-related murder in the history of florida ill be amazed.

Back on topic...........he's gonna waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalk.

Prosecution was desperate yesterday bringing in the dummy.  I laughed so hard when the D.A. examined the forensic pathologist and the self defense expert and they both said the exact opposite of what the D.A. wanted them too.

It's very satisfying to watch this trial and see the things I said would happen.....happen even after all you faggots told me I was a bigot and an idiot for have saying they would happen.  Also, fuck all you idiots that argued with me for pages about whose fault it was.  I fucking told you it would be irrelevant and it was, all they've been concerned with is the actual fight.

Riots are next people, bet your fucking ass.  Suck my balls,  O'Doyle rules.