Your not from the southern region of the US are you? once he was acquited they couldn't keep the gun. even if he a freaking sociopath with extreme violent tendencies.strange--- i would have assumed that the gun would be kept by the law enforcement as evidence.
No, I don't. And I said I didn't, for all non-trolls and non-stupid people to read and comprehend.retribution said:So basically, while you acknowledge he was not in violation of any particular law regarding Martin,
Incarcerate the ones who start fights without securing their firearms - or at least suspend their right to carry them. That's pretty basic.retribution said:"initiating insecure confrontation in public while armed"
Incarcerate all them insecure mofos?
I was reading somewhere the other day that he accepted a $250k offer after accepting the $140k bid.The auction is over, and the gun is reported to have sold for nearly $140,000. http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/18/us/george-zimmerman-gun-auction/
Oooh, now. Angry boy with no sense of humour.No, I don't. And I said I didn't, for all non-trolls and non-stupid people to read and comprehend.
Right. So that means he either didn't flout any specific law, or couldn't be charged with one with a reasonable chance of conviction.Not even Florida can be completely bereft of laws regarding negligence, creation of hazard, attractive nuisance (making his gun available to teenage strangers), stalking, assault (impeding passage and harassment on the public sidewalk is a form of misdemeanor assault, in most States) and so forth. No attempt was made to charge Zimmerman with anything other than the killing itself.
Incarcerate the ones who start fights without securing their firearms - or at least suspend their right to carry them. That's pretty basic.
That whole post was tongue in cheek, son. If you'd actually read it, you might have seen a few things in there that would indicate that I have as much distaste for Zimmerman as most do.Incarcerate the ones who start fights without securing their firearms - or at least suspend their right to carry them. That's pretty basic. The big Z claims to have received 250k for the gun, btw. Nice payday for shooting somebody's kid.
It's incredibly disgusting that he should be able to profit from his misdeed, and it is even more disgusting that someone would buy it as a trophy weapon.I was reading somewhere the other day that he accepted a $250k offer after accepting the $140k bid.
Money changes everything, but George Zimmerman is still his same prickly self even after successfully selling the gun that killed Trayvon Martin for $250,000.
The former Florida neighborhood watchman bragged to KTNV between puffs of a cigar and said that he has given the weapon to the anonymous winner of an online auction
Zimmerman, who was acquitted for shooting the unarmed 17-year-old in a 2013 trial, said that he was preparing to transport the 9mm to a buyer in Daytona before unexpectedly receiving a higher bid.
That's not anger (at trollish dumbness around here? c'mon). It's experience. I know pretty much who I'm dealing with - somebody who takes the premises of his jokes for granted, thinks objecting to them is not getting the joke, and therefore won't get anyone else's. KIS when dealing with S.retribution said:Oooh, now. Angry boy with no sense of humour.
One of my points, above, which somebody is now lecturing me about. Explaining to me. And about here we discover that I do have a sense of humor.Point is, given that Zimmerman was not found guilty of anything, then you have absolutely no right to be telling him he can't sell his gun - -
- -
Little bit boring to have to explain that.
He did follow Martin for some distance, at night in the rain, alone, in plain clothes and an unmarked pickup truck, even on foot. He did accost Martin on the public street without securing his firearm, and without support. This is negligence at a minimum, and it resulted in a death.retribution said:But an insecure firearm? Stalking?
Please.
No, it doesn't. It means nothing of the kind. That's the larger point. That's the main and central matter at hand.retribution said:Right. So that means he either didn't flout any specific law, or couldn't be charged with one with a reasonable chance of conviction.
1) I was just pointing out that he probably could have been, even in Florida, and lost his gun or at least the right to profit from selling it.retribution said:You want him to be charged with something.
You are, as always, confused about other people and what they are like. Especially "the public". And so you post mistaken muddles.retribution said:The prosecution would have been influenced by the fact that the public wanted him done on second degree murder. It was people like you who profiled it as a race hate crime from the very beginning, and people like you who wanted to "see justice done".
Exactly my original response to the scene, way back when, reading the newspaper.retribution said:This is only a theory on my part, but if the prosecution had come up with something like manslaughter in the first place with an imperfect self defence argument, which I believe is applicable in California (?) then that would have seen it done.
Well, there you go.That's not anger (at trollish dumbness around here? c'mon). It's experience. I know pretty much who I'm dealing with...
In that first paragraph, those couple sentences, I profiled your posting identity based on what you'd written. Accurately, it appears so far (post 32 contains nothing in response to the several paragraphs of actual thread content in post 31, say).retribution said:So you profiled me and responded based on what you thought I was, rather than what I'd written.
That you are what you write, here.retribution said:Point made, I think
But not in the same way, or with the same consequences. Everyone lies, too - nevertheless swindlers and con artists exist as an identifiable group, different from ( however overlapping with ) dentists and Dairy Queen franchise owners.retribution said:In case it has become obscured, though, the message was that everyone profiles. Everyone.
No. You erred in your presumptions, flagrantly.retribution said:You did do exactly what I'd accused you of.
These "sides" of yours are confusing you.retribution said:The truly annoying thing about that is not that it exists - although that is annoying in itself - but that it is one side which is more susceptible to co-opting the argument and used it as a platform.
Wow. You did profile, you said flat out you profiled, and now you're back tracking.No. You erred in your presumptions, flagrantly.
The third consecutive post from you with no relevant thread content, and instead attempted disparagement of something you haven't followed based on what I suppose we are supposed to assume is not deliberate troll-"failure" of reading comprehension, but is instead sincere - if bias crippled - failure to keep up with a fairly simple exchange.Wow. You did profile, you said flat out you profiled, and now you're back tracking.
Whatever ground you gained, you just lost. Fucking arguing for the sake of arguing,.. go away, peon.
On that oblivious wrongfooting of yourself pivots much of your stagger into goofyville. Fix that, and a lot of the rest falls into better order.retribution said:Right. So that means he either didn't flout any specific law, or couldn't be charged with one with a reasonable chance of conviction.
Already did address the morals of it.Or better yet, drop the entire approach, and start over by considering the moral and ethical aspects of Zimmerman's profiteering here - in the forum subsection devoted to ethics, morality, and justice.
So that's what you meant by addressing the moral and ethical aspect of Zimmerman's profiteering, the justice of it.retribution said:I mean like I said, Nobody seems to mind celebrities selling their bodies to sell more media and therefore dumbing down the entire population, yet if someone sells a gun you get your panties in a twist. Does it affect you if it's sold? Anyone else?
Is the transaction in your face? Is anyone even going to remember it even happened next week?
Nope. Wrong again. You haven't. And if you had, there would remain the matter of correcting your approach - so as to acquire relevance, join the discussion, etc.retribution said:You're still banging on about some error I've already apologised for