Your abortionist profiting post is actually a good one (handshake).
Like I said, this may make me change my stance on abortion. I definitely wouldn't want to support anyone making a profit off the deaths of unborn kids.
I'll have to see if there are any doctors that practice abortion and do it at cost.
0
Slim,
Your abortionist profiting post is actually a good one (handshake).
Like I said, this may make me change my stance on abortion. I definitely wouldn't want to support anyone making a profit off the deaths of unborn kids.
I'll have to see if there are any doctors that practice abortion and do it at cost.
Ktrain most large corporations buy life insurance against low level employees. Doesn't matter if they are employed at the time of their death they get the money and don't have to tell anyone. They root for these people to die because it's a numbers game that has shown profit, all legal. You must be against corporations. I could give you a hundred examples of people or business profiting off of deaths. If you protest against all you would end up in a cave.
0
Ktrain most large corporations buy life insurance against low level employees. Doesn't matter if they are employed at the time of their death they get the money and don't have to tell anyone. They root for these people to die because it's a numbers game that has shown profit, all legal. You must be against corporations. I could give you a hundred examples of people or business profiting off of deaths. If you protest against all you would end up in a cave.
Ktrain most large corporations buy life insurance against low level employees. Doesn't matter if they are employed at the time of their death they get the money and don't have to tell anyone. They root for these people to die because it's a numbers game that has shown profit, all legal. You must be against corporations. I could give you a hundred examples of people or business profiting off of deaths. If you protest against all you would end up in a cave.
Yeah but do the corporations have a direct influence on the deaths of these people?
My big issue with Zimmerman trying to profit off of the death of Martin is that he pulled the trigger himself. The law deemed it justifiable, but he still pulled the trigger. He had a direct impact on Martin dying.
I understand that corporations might be actively cheering for people to die, but they aren't "pulling the trigger". And if they were, I think they would be subject to criminal prosecution. I might be wrong, but I don't think they would have a Stand Your Ground statue to cover them on that.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 165yds:
Ktrain most large corporations buy life insurance against low level employees. Doesn't matter if they are employed at the time of their death they get the money and don't have to tell anyone. They root for these people to die because it's a numbers game that has shown profit, all legal. You must be against corporations. I could give you a hundred examples of people or business profiting off of deaths. If you protest against all you would end up in a cave.
Yeah but do the corporations have a direct influence on the deaths of these people?
My big issue with Zimmerman trying to profit off of the death of Martin is that he pulled the trigger himself. The law deemed it justifiable, but he still pulled the trigger. He had a direct impact on Martin dying.
I understand that corporations might be actively cheering for people to die, but they aren't "pulling the trigger". And if they were, I think they would be subject to criminal prosecution. I might be wrong, but I don't think they would have a Stand Your Ground statue to cover them on that.
I'm pro choice. Not pro abortion. I believe abortion should be avoided as much as possible. But there are instances, such as the mothers health, were I can see why an abortion would be necessary. I also don't think women who are victims of rape, and be one prego oats a result of that rape, should be forced to carry the child to term. It should be at the mothers discretion. Back to the thread though.
I thought I just asked you if you condoned the Nazi's profiting off the deaths of the Jewish people? Did I actually say that you did? If so, I apologize for the accusation. I sincerely do. I thought I just asked.
I bring it up because the Germans were using justifiable homicide at the time. Same as Zimmerman.
I don't think Zimmerman's homicide was justifiable but the law in Florida does. I don't think the Nazi's homicides were justifiable either, but the law in Germany at the time did.
I'm just want to know why you're ok with one profiting and not the other? Both were justifiable homicides under the law at the time the acts were committed. Yet you defend the actions of one and not the other.
The crux of your argument is based on your flawed belief that Z got away with murder. Common sense and the best eyewitness testimony disputes that narrative.
Most people that get acquitted of murder don't have a huge cloud over their head like he does. Nobody questions that his career choices are limited.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:
Bowl,
I'm pro choice. Not pro abortion. I believe abortion should be avoided as much as possible. But there are instances, such as the mothers health, were I can see why an abortion would be necessary. I also don't think women who are victims of rape, and be one prego oats a result of that rape, should be forced to carry the child to term. It should be at the mothers discretion. Back to the thread though.
I thought I just asked you if you condoned the Nazi's profiting off the deaths of the Jewish people? Did I actually say that you did? If so, I apologize for the accusation. I sincerely do. I thought I just asked.
I bring it up because the Germans were using justifiable homicide at the time. Same as Zimmerman.
I don't think Zimmerman's homicide was justifiable but the law in Florida does. I don't think the Nazi's homicides were justifiable either, but the law in Germany at the time did.
I'm just want to know why you're ok with one profiting and not the other? Both were justifiable homicides under the law at the time the acts were committed. Yet you defend the actions of one and not the other.
The crux of your argument is based on your flawed belief that Z got away with murder. Common sense and the best eyewitness testimony disputes that narrative.
Most people that get acquitted of murder don't have a huge cloud over their head like he does. Nobody questions that his career choices are limited.
The crux of your argument is based on your flawed belief that Z got away with murder. Common sense and the best eyewitness testimony disputes that narrative.
Most people that get acquitted of murder don't have a huge cloud over their head like he does. Nobody questions that his career choices are limited.
Yes and your crux is that you believe the Nazi's committed murder (as do I to be honest). However, they were operating legally under their government at the time, as Zimmerman was deemed to be as well.
Just because you think and I think that the Nazi's committed murder, doesn't mean it wasn't justifiable homicide for them at the time. Our opinions don't change what the laws dictate at the time these travesties occurred.
I gave you an example of where Zimmerman was successful, his art regarding the judicial system, and didn't have to glorify the death of a person he had a direct result in.
Have you seen Zimm's now defunct twitter account? I hope it wasn't really him, but I haven't been able to find anything saying that wasn't him running that account. I get the sense he is almost proud of what he has done. Not just the Martin incident either. Both his domestic violence incidents and his road rage incident which involved him getting shot at. Even after all of that, he decides to advertise the weapon in the manner he did.
I really find it disturbing and sad that you and other posters bend over backwards to try and excuse what this guy has done over the years, especially this weapon auction. Even if you find him to be at no fault in the death of Martin (obviously your stance), I still can't believe you're ok with Zimmerman profiting off the death of the sale of that very weapon. It's sad and disgraceful.
0
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
The crux of your argument is based on your flawed belief that Z got away with murder. Common sense and the best eyewitness testimony disputes that narrative.
Most people that get acquitted of murder don't have a huge cloud over their head like he does. Nobody questions that his career choices are limited.
Yes and your crux is that you believe the Nazi's committed murder (as do I to be honest). However, they were operating legally under their government at the time, as Zimmerman was deemed to be as well.
Just because you think and I think that the Nazi's committed murder, doesn't mean it wasn't justifiable homicide for them at the time. Our opinions don't change what the laws dictate at the time these travesties occurred.
I gave you an example of where Zimmerman was successful, his art regarding the judicial system, and didn't have to glorify the death of a person he had a direct result in.
Have you seen Zimm's now defunct twitter account? I hope it wasn't really him, but I haven't been able to find anything saying that wasn't him running that account. I get the sense he is almost proud of what he has done. Not just the Martin incident either. Both his domestic violence incidents and his road rage incident which involved him getting shot at. Even after all of that, he decides to advertise the weapon in the manner he did.
I really find it disturbing and sad that you and other posters bend over backwards to try and excuse what this guy has done over the years, especially this weapon auction. Even if you find him to be at no fault in the death of Martin (obviously your stance), I still can't believe you're ok with Zimmerman profiting off the death of the sale of that very weapon. It's sad and disgraceful.
Yes and your crux is that you believe the Nazi's committed murder (as do I to be honest). However, they were operating legally under their government at the time, as Zimmerman was deemed to be as well.
Just because you think and I think that the Nazi's committed murder, doesn't mean it wasn't justifiable homicide for them at the time. Our opinions don't change what the laws dictate at the time these travesties occurred.
I gave you an example of where Zimmerman was successful, his art regarding the judicial system, and didn't have to glorify the death of a person he had a direct result in.
Have you seen Zimm's now defunct twitter account? I hope it wasn't really him, but I haven't been able to find anything saying that wasn't him running that account. I get the sense he is almost proud of what he has done. Not just the Martin incident either. Both his domestic violence incidents and his road rage incident which involved him getting shot at. Even after all of that, he decides to advertise the weapon in the manner he did.
I really find it disturbing and sad that you and other posters bend over backwards to try and excuse what this guy has done over the years, especially this weapon auction. Even if you find him to be at no fault in the death of Martin (obviously your stance), I still can't believe you're ok with Zimmerman profiting off the death of the sale of that very weapon. It's sad and disgraceful.
Because of your bias you can't see this objectively. You say I'm bending over backwards, I say I'm merely giving him some wiggle room.
What would you feel about Darren Wilson writing a book and making money from it?
0
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:
Yes and your crux is that you believe the Nazi's committed murder (as do I to be honest). However, they were operating legally under their government at the time, as Zimmerman was deemed to be as well.
Just because you think and I think that the Nazi's committed murder, doesn't mean it wasn't justifiable homicide for them at the time. Our opinions don't change what the laws dictate at the time these travesties occurred.
I gave you an example of where Zimmerman was successful, his art regarding the judicial system, and didn't have to glorify the death of a person he had a direct result in.
Have you seen Zimm's now defunct twitter account? I hope it wasn't really him, but I haven't been able to find anything saying that wasn't him running that account. I get the sense he is almost proud of what he has done. Not just the Martin incident either. Both his domestic violence incidents and his road rage incident which involved him getting shot at. Even after all of that, he decides to advertise the weapon in the manner he did.
I really find it disturbing and sad that you and other posters bend over backwards to try and excuse what this guy has done over the years, especially this weapon auction. Even if you find him to be at no fault in the death of Martin (obviously your stance), I still can't believe you're ok with Zimmerman profiting off the death of the sale of that very weapon. It's sad and disgraceful.
Because of your bias you can't see this objectively. You say I'm bending over backwards, I say I'm merely giving him some wiggle room.
What would you feel about Darren Wilson writing a book and making money from it?
If Wilson wrote a book glorifying the death of Michael Brown for the purpose of increasing his personal net worth, I would have a problem with it.
How am I not being objective here? You're the one that's ok with one party profiting off of a tragedy but yet not the other. While both committed justifiable homicides under the law they were operating under.
You're the one that's being subjective here. Not me.
Do you have a problem with OJ writing a book, for personal gain, on the deaths of Ron and Nicole?
0
Bowl,
If Wilson wrote a book glorifying the death of Michael Brown for the purpose of increasing his personal net worth, I would have a problem with it.
How am I not being objective here? You're the one that's ok with one party profiting off of a tragedy but yet not the other. While both committed justifiable homicides under the law they were operating under.
You're the one that's being subjective here. Not me.
Do you have a problem with OJ writing a book, for personal gain, on the deaths of Ron and Nicole?
If Wilson wrote a book glorifying the death of Michael Brown for the purpose of increasing his personal net worth, I would have a problem with it.
How am I not being objective here? You're the one that's ok with one party profiting off of a tragedy but yet not the other. While both committed justifiable homicides under the law they were operating under.
You're the one that's being subjective here. Not me.
Do you have a problem with OJ writing a book, for personal gain, on the deaths of Ron and Nicole?
Now you're just being stupid. By insisting on using the Nazi's as an example when it really is not a good one. The only people that believed the killings to be justified were they themselves. Do you need me to repeat it a 3rd time? No other legit group of people believed it to be justified.
Why do I feel like I'm arguing with a twelve-year-old? You bring up OJ when Ive already told you I have a problem with profiting off murder.
WTF?
0
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:
Bowl,
If Wilson wrote a book glorifying the death of Michael Brown for the purpose of increasing his personal net worth, I would have a problem with it.
How am I not being objective here? You're the one that's ok with one party profiting off of a tragedy but yet not the other. While both committed justifiable homicides under the law they were operating under.
You're the one that's being subjective here. Not me.
Do you have a problem with OJ writing a book, for personal gain, on the deaths of Ron and Nicole?
Now you're just being stupid. By insisting on using the Nazi's as an example when it really is not a good one. The only people that believed the killings to be justified were they themselves. Do you need me to repeat it a 3rd time? No other legit group of people believed it to be justified.
Why do I feel like I'm arguing with a twelve-year-old? You bring up OJ when Ive already told you I have a problem with profiting off murder.
OJ wasn't convicted of murder though. He was found to be not guilty in a court of law. Same as Zimmerman.
The Nazi's are a comparable example. They used justifiable homicide and profited off of it. You might not agree with it, like I don't agree with Zimmerman's using SYG, but that's the law.
I'd be careful with the comments on being stupid and arguing with a 12 year old. You know how sensitive Slim gets with the ageism and name calling. Plus he might call you a liberal if you do decide to resort to name calling. He seems to like throwing that term around at anyone and everyone, regardless of their actual beliefs.
0
OJ wasn't convicted of murder though. He was found to be not guilty in a court of law. Same as Zimmerman.
The Nazi's are a comparable example. They used justifiable homicide and profited off of it. You might not agree with it, like I don't agree with Zimmerman's using SYG, but that's the law.
I'd be careful with the comments on being stupid and arguing with a 12 year old. You know how sensitive Slim gets with the ageism and name calling. Plus he might call you a liberal if you do decide to resort to name calling. He seems to like throwing that term around at anyone and everyone, regardless of their actual beliefs.
OJ wasn't convicted of murder though. He was found to be not guilty in a court of law. Same as Zimmerman.
The Nazi's are a comparable example. They used justifiable homicide and profited off of it. You might not agree with it, like I don't agree with Zimmerman's using SYG, but that's the law.
I'd be careful with the comments on being stupid and arguing with a 12 year old. You know how sensitive Slim gets with the ageism and name calling. Plus he might call you a liberal if you do decide to resort to name calling. He seems to like throwing that term around at anyone and everyone, regardless of their actual beliefs.
So if none of the Nazi's broke any laws then what were the Nuremberg trials all about?
Oh, we can play that game since you think OJ was innocent and GZ was guilty.
Do you really want to be wrong on both accounts?
0
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:
OJ wasn't convicted of murder though. He was found to be not guilty in a court of law. Same as Zimmerman.
The Nazi's are a comparable example. They used justifiable homicide and profited off of it. You might not agree with it, like I don't agree with Zimmerman's using SYG, but that's the law.
I'd be careful with the comments on being stupid and arguing with a 12 year old. You know how sensitive Slim gets with the ageism and name calling. Plus he might call you a liberal if you do decide to resort to name calling. He seems to like throwing that term around at anyone and everyone, regardless of their actual beliefs.
So if none of the Nazi's broke any laws then what were the Nuremberg trials all about?
Oh, we can play that game since you think OJ was innocent and GZ was guilty.
So if none of the Nazi's broke any laws then what were the Nuremberg trials all about?
Oh, we can play that game since you think OJ was innocent and GZ was guilty.
Do you really want to be wrong on both accounts?
Your analogy might have merit if a state that doesn't institute Stand Your Ground decide to go to war with Florida and won that war. Then decided to prosecute Zimmerman for murder.
We're dealing with the laws that these parties were operating under at the time. I don't agree with all forms of the Stand Your Ground law, but my opinion is irrelevant on this. Just like your opinions on the laws of Nazi Germany are irrelevant. They're are just our opinions.
Also, I never said I thought OJ was innocent (I don't) however, the court system did.
You're the one that said being convicted of murder was the criteria for not being able to profit off of the death of someone. Well, to be more specific, you said if YOU think they have committed murder....which would make it very subjective at that point.
You're the one that's created a subjective stance on this subject that you refuse to move off of. I've actually shown an ability to think and move my stance on this subject (Slim's abortionist post).
The fact that you think there is a winner and a loser in this is humorous too. Do you get some sort of prize for defending Zimmerman?
All I'm pointing out is your hypocrisy on the topic. It's ok for one party to profit from justifiable homicide but not another. Don't get mad at me because you maintain a subjective stance on the topic.
0
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
So if none of the Nazi's broke any laws then what were the Nuremberg trials all about?
Oh, we can play that game since you think OJ was innocent and GZ was guilty.
Do you really want to be wrong on both accounts?
Your analogy might have merit if a state that doesn't institute Stand Your Ground decide to go to war with Florida and won that war. Then decided to prosecute Zimmerman for murder.
We're dealing with the laws that these parties were operating under at the time. I don't agree with all forms of the Stand Your Ground law, but my opinion is irrelevant on this. Just like your opinions on the laws of Nazi Germany are irrelevant. They're are just our opinions.
Also, I never said I thought OJ was innocent (I don't) however, the court system did.
You're the one that said being convicted of murder was the criteria for not being able to profit off of the death of someone. Well, to be more specific, you said if YOU think they have committed murder....which would make it very subjective at that point.
You're the one that's created a subjective stance on this subject that you refuse to move off of. I've actually shown an ability to think and move my stance on this subject (Slim's abortionist post).
The fact that you think there is a winner and a loser in this is humorous too. Do you get some sort of prize for defending Zimmerman?
All I'm pointing out is your hypocrisy on the topic. It's ok for one party to profit from justifiable homicide but not another. Don't get mad at me because you maintain a subjective stance on the topic.
If you're ok with admitting you have a hypocritically subjective stance on this topic, then I'm ok with it too.
At this point though I have to ask, what's wrong with me thinking it's not ok with Zimmerman profiting off the death of Martin? I believe Zimmerman committed manslaughter. I believe he should be in prison for it. What's wrong with me thinking that?
What's wrong with it, is that the law disagrees with my opinion. See how that works?
What would be your view on if Darren Wilson tried to profit from killing Michael Brown?
Judging by your stance earlier, I would think you would be ok with it.
So let's see, you're ok with the people who caused the deaths of Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin profiting off their murders. You're not ok with OJ printing off the deaths of Ron and Nicole and the Nazi's profiting off the deaths of the Jewish people.
I'm starting to see a pattern here.
0
Bowl,
If you're ok with admitting you have a hypocritically subjective stance on this topic, then I'm ok with it too.
At this point though I have to ask, what's wrong with me thinking it's not ok with Zimmerman profiting off the death of Martin? I believe Zimmerman committed manslaughter. I believe he should be in prison for it. What's wrong with me thinking that?
What's wrong with it, is that the law disagrees with my opinion. See how that works?
What would be your view on if Darren Wilson tried to profit from killing Michael Brown?
Judging by your stance earlier, I would think you would be ok with it.
So let's see, you're ok with the people who caused the deaths of Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin profiting off their murders. You're not ok with OJ printing off the deaths of Ron and Nicole and the Nazi's profiting off the deaths of the Jewish people.
I got a business idea for you. This one could be a real money maker for you. I'm sure you could get George Zimmerman to put up some cash to help with production.
The "Tamir Rice Toy Gun" set.
BOOM!!!!!! You and George never have to worry about money again.
You can even make an accompanying Kel Tec toy model to go with it.
Once you get production and marketing going, you'll be all set.
You're welcome (hand shake).
0
Bowl,
I got a business idea for you. This one could be a real money maker for you. I'm sure you could get George Zimmerman to put up some cash to help with production.
The "Tamir Rice Toy Gun" set.
BOOM!!!!!! You and George never have to worry about money again.
You can even make an accompanying Kel Tec toy model to go with it.
Once you get production and marketing going, you'll be all set.
If you're ok with admitting you have a hypocritically subjective stance on this topic, then I'm ok with it too.
At this point though I have to ask, what's wrong with me thinking it's not ok with Zimmerman profiting off the death of Martin? I believe Zimmerman committed manslaughter. I believe he should be in prison for it. What's wrong with me thinking that?
What's wrong with it, is that the law disagrees with my opinion. See how that works?
What would be your view on if Darren Wilson tried to profit from killing Michael Brown?
Judging by your stance earlier, I would think you would be ok with it.
So let's see, you're ok with the people who caused the deaths of Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin profiting off their murders. You're not ok with OJ printing off the deaths of Ron and Nicole and the Nazi's profiting off the deaths of the Jewish people.
I'm starting to see a pattern here.
Please show me where I said its not ok for you to feel one way or the other about any of the cases mentioned. YOU are the one who is passing down judgment.
All I did was give you my take on the issue with how I feel about profiting off of murder or whatever.
Also keep in mind that the only reason the state of Florida went forward with the prosecution was because of the huge public backlash based on emotion. Florida was forced into prosecution and perhaps would not have....if not for the public outcry.
Also, OJ SET OUT to murder his victims. Same as the Nazis. Zimmerman, could not be proven to have even wanted to so much as physically assault TM. I'm pretty sure that if someone was trying to split your melon open on the sidewalk you may have done the same thing he did. So would I.
Don't give me that crap about he should've stayed in his truck either...that is irrelevant. Hindsight is 20/20.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:
Bowl,
If you're ok with admitting you have a hypocritically subjective stance on this topic, then I'm ok with it too.
At this point though I have to ask, what's wrong with me thinking it's not ok with Zimmerman profiting off the death of Martin? I believe Zimmerman committed manslaughter. I believe he should be in prison for it. What's wrong with me thinking that?
What's wrong with it, is that the law disagrees with my opinion. See how that works?
What would be your view on if Darren Wilson tried to profit from killing Michael Brown?
Judging by your stance earlier, I would think you would be ok with it.
So let's see, you're ok with the people who caused the deaths of Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin profiting off their murders. You're not ok with OJ printing off the deaths of Ron and Nicole and the Nazi's profiting off the deaths of the Jewish people.
I'm starting to see a pattern here.
Please show me where I said its not ok for you to feel one way or the other about any of the cases mentioned. YOU are the one who is passing down judgment.
All I did was give you my take on the issue with how I feel about profiting off of murder or whatever.
Also keep in mind that the only reason the state of Florida went forward with the prosecution was because of the huge public backlash based on emotion. Florida was forced into prosecution and perhaps would not have....if not for the public outcry.
Also, OJ SET OUT to murder his victims. Same as the Nazis. Zimmerman, could not be proven to have even wanted to so much as physically assault TM. I'm pretty sure that if someone was trying to split your melon open on the sidewalk you may have done the same thing he did. So would I.
Don't give me that crap about he should've stayed in his truck either...that is irrelevant. Hindsight is 20/20.
I never would have put myself in the position that Zimmerman did. When I call police, I actually listen to the dispatcher, especially if they tell me to stop following someone and let the police do their job.
Once again, and this can't be stated enough apparently, that part is irrelevant to the argument over whether or not Zimmerman should be allowed to profit off this death. Legally he can. Morally he shouldn't. It's a terrible idea and he is a scum bag for many reasons, not just this one. Just read up on his activities since this incident. I get he pulled people from a burning car (very good deed) but he also has been charged multiple times with domestic violence and a road rage incident to boot. I'm just shocked and disappointed that you choose to stand up for someone like this, on the specific topic of him profiting from the sale of the weapon.
I just want to point out your hypocritical stance on this topic. Like I said, I'm cool with you taking that stance of you want. I'm not judging you so much as pointing out the hypocrisy. I'm fine with it. Just excludes you from being critical of someone else's hypocrisy. But hey, do you Bowl.
0
Bowl,
I never would have put myself in the position that Zimmerman did. When I call police, I actually listen to the dispatcher, especially if they tell me to stop following someone and let the police do their job.
Once again, and this can't be stated enough apparently, that part is irrelevant to the argument over whether or not Zimmerman should be allowed to profit off this death. Legally he can. Morally he shouldn't. It's a terrible idea and he is a scum bag for many reasons, not just this one. Just read up on his activities since this incident. I get he pulled people from a burning car (very good deed) but he also has been charged multiple times with domestic violence and a road rage incident to boot. I'm just shocked and disappointed that you choose to stand up for someone like this, on the specific topic of him profiting from the sale of the weapon.
I just want to point out your hypocritical stance on this topic. Like I said, I'm cool with you taking that stance of you want. I'm not judging you so much as pointing out the hypocrisy. I'm fine with it. Just excludes you from being critical of someone else's hypocrisy. But hey, do you Bowl.
I never would have put myself in the position that Zimmerman did. When I call police, I actually listen to the dispatcher, especially if they tell me to stop following someone and let the police do their job.
Once again, and this can't be stated enough apparently, that part is irrelevant to the argument over whether or not Zimmerman should be allowed to profit off this death. Legally he can. Morally he shouldn't. It's a terrible idea and he is a scum bag for many reasons, not just this one. Just read up on his activities since this incident. I get he pulled people from a burning car (very good deed) but he also has been charged multiple times with domestic violence and a road rage incident to boot. I'm just shocked and disappointed that you choose to stand up for someone like this, on the specific topic of him profiting from the sale of the weapon.
I just want to point out your hypocritical stance on this topic. Like I said, I'm cool with you taking that stance of you want. I'm not judging you so much as pointing out the hypocrisy. I'm fine with it. Just excludes you from being critical of someone else's hypocrisy. But hey, do you Bowl.
Why do you continue to put words in my mouth?
I am not standing up for him or his actions. I am merely giving him wiggle room.
Even if he disobeyed a direct order by dispatch to stay away? (which he didn't) a person doesn't have any idea the path the flow chart will ultimately take.
TM has responsibility too. That dude was at his house or very close to it. He didn't have to decide to confront the dude that was following him. And on top of that he didn't have to sucker punch the guy without even asking what his intentions were.
The only hypocrisy here is with you giving Z responsibilities but allowing TM the freedom to sucker punch and break his head open.
Are you really that ignorant?
0
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:
Bowl,
I never would have put myself in the position that Zimmerman did. When I call police, I actually listen to the dispatcher, especially if they tell me to stop following someone and let the police do their job.
Once again, and this can't be stated enough apparently, that part is irrelevant to the argument over whether or not Zimmerman should be allowed to profit off this death. Legally he can. Morally he shouldn't. It's a terrible idea and he is a scum bag for many reasons, not just this one. Just read up on his activities since this incident. I get he pulled people from a burning car (very good deed) but he also has been charged multiple times with domestic violence and a road rage incident to boot. I'm just shocked and disappointed that you choose to stand up for someone like this, on the specific topic of him profiting from the sale of the weapon.
I just want to point out your hypocritical stance on this topic. Like I said, I'm cool with you taking that stance of you want. I'm not judging you so much as pointing out the hypocrisy. I'm fine with it. Just excludes you from being critical of someone else's hypocrisy. But hey, do you Bowl.
Why do you continue to put words in my mouth?
I am not standing up for him or his actions. I am merely giving him wiggle room.
Even if he disobeyed a direct order by dispatch to stay away? (which he didn't) a person doesn't have any idea the path the flow chart will ultimately take.
TM has responsibility too. That dude was at his house or very close to it. He didn't have to decide to confront the dude that was following him. And on top of that he didn't have to sucker punch the guy without even asking what his intentions were.
The only hypocrisy here is with you giving Z responsibilities but allowing TM the freedom to sucker punch and break his head open.
Time and time again you keep going back to the incident. It doesn't matter what our opinions are on that incident. The law already deemed it a justifiable homicide. This thread is about Zimm profiting off the death of Martin.
First you were ok with Zimmerman selling the gun to make money. Now you're "giving him wiggle room". So you should be ok with giving the Nazi's wiggle too on profiting since they were justifiable homicides under the law at the time. Don't get mad at me for pointing out your logic. You're the one who took this position. Feel free to change it if you want but I think you should at least try to remain objective on which ever stance you decide to take. Obviously you're not, but to each their own, I guess.
0
Bowl,
Time and time again you keep going back to the incident. It doesn't matter what our opinions are on that incident. The law already deemed it a justifiable homicide. This thread is about Zimm profiting off the death of Martin.
First you were ok with Zimmerman selling the gun to make money. Now you're "giving him wiggle room". So you should be ok with giving the Nazi's wiggle too on profiting since they were justifiable homicides under the law at the time. Don't get mad at me for pointing out your logic. You're the one who took this position. Feel free to change it if you want but I think you should at least try to remain objective on which ever stance you decide to take. Obviously you're not, but to each their own, I guess.
Can Zimmerman be in possession of said weapon with the domestic violence\abuse charges? Secondly it would be ironic if the the. Purchasor of this weapon was apart of the purple. Panthers organizations and shot him in the end with his own gun. Not clear but they offered a bounty on old Georgie.....
0
Can Zimmerman be in possession of said weapon with the domestic violence\abuse charges? Secondly it would be ironic if the the. Purchasor of this weapon was apart of the purple. Panthers organizations and shot him in the end with his own gun. Not clear but they offered a bounty on old Georgie.....
Time and time again you keep going back to the incident. It doesn't matter what our opinions are on that incident. The law already deemed it a justifiable homicide. This thread is about Zimm profiting off the death of Martin.
First you were ok with Zimmerman selling the gun to make money. Now you're "giving him wiggle room". So you should be ok with giving the Nazi's wiggle too on profiting since they were justifiable homicides under the law at the time. Don't get mad at me for pointing out your logic. You're the one who took this position. Feel free to change it if you want but I think you should at least try to remain objective on which ever stance you decide to take. Obviously you're not, but to each their own, I guess.
Horrible comparison. In order for it to be even remotely comparable is for Zimmermans family to be the ones that made the laws in Florida.
Everybody outside of the Nazi regime considered it to be murder or genocide.
If you continue to insist that this comparison is a good one then you are beyond help.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:
Bowl,
Time and time again you keep going back to the incident. It doesn't matter what our opinions are on that incident. The law already deemed it a justifiable homicide. This thread is about Zimm profiting off the death of Martin.
First you were ok with Zimmerman selling the gun to make money. Now you're "giving him wiggle room". So you should be ok with giving the Nazi's wiggle too on profiting since they were justifiable homicides under the law at the time. Don't get mad at me for pointing out your logic. You're the one who took this position. Feel free to change it if you want but I think you should at least try to remain objective on which ever stance you decide to take. Obviously you're not, but to each their own, I guess.
Horrible comparison. In order for it to be even remotely comparable is for Zimmermans family to be the ones that made the laws in Florida.
Everybody outside of the Nazi regime considered it to be murder or genocide.
If you continue to insist that this comparison is a good one then you are beyond help.
Bowl, my analogy is pretty accurate. It was the law, regardless of what others thought. Just like SYG is the law regardless of what I think.
What's beyond help is your logic on this topic. I'm sorry if you can't see your hypocrisy on this one but I've tried. Or maybe you have and you're just accepting of it. I don't know, don't really care anymore either.
0
Bowl, my analogy is pretty accurate. It was the law, regardless of what others thought. Just like SYG is the law regardless of what I think.
What's beyond help is your logic on this topic. I'm sorry if you can't see your hypocrisy on this one but I've tried. Or maybe you have and you're just accepting of it. I don't know, don't really care anymore either.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
