Trayvon Martin - Gun, Drugs, Fighting

[Jack T. Cross]

Guys, come the fuck on.  

PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND:  The argument is NOT whether he had the gun out and in his hand, or if he had his hand on the grip, or if he had his thumb on the snap, or if he had anything in between.  The argument is that he would use the advantage of being armed to accomplish what was a very important objective.  He had the means, so what would stop him?  I want someone to dream up some reason why he would NOT use every single advantage.

If you can't come up with a reason, just say so.

[Archer77]

No it's not up to him. It's up to the prosecution. If someone on a forum wants to consider Zimmerman guilty, he is entitled to do just that and he doesn't need to justify himself to you or provide any evidence in support of his position.

And we are entitled to critique his argument.  Jack was asking Tony for an answer to a question but chose not to answer a question himself.

[Jack T. Cross]

As I've said before, the fact that Zimmerman involved the police indicates he intended to hand the situation over to the authorities.

For the love of God, Archer.  YES HE WANTED THE AUTHORITIES TO BE THERE.  That's the point.

  

He also didn't draw his weapon at any point before the scuffle which shows he didn't feel a threat or planned on using his weapon as a form of intimidation.  If he had, he would have drawn his weapon before he did.  

Archer, what would be the consequences of holding someone at gunpoint without good reason?

[Archer77]

Guys, come the fuck on.  

PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND:  The argument is NOT whether he had the gun out and in his hand, or if he had his hand on the grip, or if he had his thumb on the snap, or if he had anything in between.  The argument is that he would use the advantage of being armed to accomplish what was a very important objective.  He had the means, so what would stop him?  I want someone to dream up some reason why he would NOT use every single advantage.

If you can't come up with a reason, just say so.

Again, he did not use the advantage because he didn't think he had to.  He did not perceive the threat level to be sufficient enough to draw his weapon.

[Jack T. Cross]

Archer, what would be the consequences of holding someone at gunpoint without good reason?

[Jack T. Cross]

lol..I love you guys, but damn!

[tu_holmes]

Archer, what would be the consequences of holding someone at gunpoint without good reason?

How can you say that is what was going to happen?

Lots of people carry guns all day and don't draw them while conducting their private citizen duties... Security Guards (Armed Guards) are not polie and can carry a gun. They can not "hold someone at gun point" and they talk to people ALL day long.

You can't say he was going to hold him at gun point because unfortunately Mr. Martin did not ever stop to talk to Mr. Zimmerman.

[Jack T. Cross]

How can you say that is what was going to happen?

Lots of people carry guns all day and don't draw them while conducting their private citizen duties... Security Guards (Armed Guards) are not polie and can carry a gun. They can not "hold someone at gun point" and they talk to people ALL day long.

You can't say he was going to hold him at gun point because unfortunately Mr. Martin did not ever stop to talk to Mr. Zimmerman.

Tu, go back and read.  You're out in left field.

[tonymctones]

Tu, go back and read.  You're out in left field.

he is right on the head of the nail there brainchild

[Archer77]

Archer, what would be the consequences of holding someone at gunpoint without good reason?

Irrelevant. What matters is that Zimmerman did not feel the situation warranted drawing his weapon. Zimmerman did not feel the threat level justify it.  He demonstrated restraint. Its as simple as that.

[Jack T. Cross]

I should know better than to argue this on a Saturday night, when everyone but me is smashed drunk.

[Jack T. Cross]

Fellas, Zimmerman would NOT hold Martin at gunpoint, because without an extremely good reason, he would have lost his permit and he would have suffered other consequences.  That's the point.

[Archer77]

I should know better than to argue this on a Saturday night, when everyone but me is smashed drunk.

Youre not getting the answer you want.   Youre trying to set up a scenario to support your argument.  Anything else is unacceptable.

[Shockwave]

I should know better than to argue this on a Saturday night, when everyone but me is smashed drunk.

Lol. God everyone is stupid but me!" Usually that's a good indicator that's its time to look in the mirror.

But you already know that, don't you troll? I feel serious 240 trolling vibes... And 240 has been absent for a bit.... Hmmm..:

[Archer77]

Fellas, Zimmerman would NOT hold Martin at gunpoint, because without an extremely good reason, he would have lost his permit and he would have suffered other consequences.  That's the point.

And why did he think his permit might be lost?  Because in his mind the situation didn't warrant drawing his weapon and that was my  point.

[Jack T. Cross]

Irrelevant. What matters is that Zimmerman did not feel the situation warranted drawing his weapon. Zimmerman did not feel the threat level justify it.  He demonstrated restraint. Its as simple as that.

Archer, he would have lost his permit and he would have suffered other consequences including a potential lawsuit by Martin.

[Jack T. Cross]

So we have a situation where he wants to have Martin questioned, but he knows he will pay dearly if he tries to hold Martin at safe gunpoint.

Who will say otherwise?

[tonymctones]

LOL goodness youre an idiot

[Archer77]

Archer, he would have lost his permit and he would have suffered other consequences including a potential lawsuit by Martin.

You actually think he was considering a potential lawsuit?  The simpler answer is that he didn't want to deal with the police questioning him on why he drew his weapon without cause.

[Jack T. Cross]

You actually think he was considering a potential lawsuit?  The simpler answer is that he didn't want to deal with the police questioning him on why he drew his weapon without cause.

He would have ended up kissing the ground until the situation was secured, and he would have suffered many negative consequences from doing it, including the loss of his permit.  Absolutely.  That's the point.

[Jack T. Cross]

Hahah..Tony, you crack me up.  For a guy that accuses others of being "emotionally wrapped up" in this, you sure melt a lot.

[tonymctones]

He would have ended up kissing the ground until the situation was secured, and he would have suffered many negative consequences from doing it, including the loss of his permit.  Absolutely.  That's the point.

so you think b/c of that he shot trayvon to justify his self defense statement?

[tonymctones]

Hahah..Tony, you crack me up.  For a guy that accuses others of being "emotionally wrapped up" in this, you sure melt a lot.

hahah Ive said multiple times that if their is other evidence then to present it, I dont think calling someone who is indeed a moron a moron is melting...

[Jack T. Cross]

so you think b/c of that he shot trayvon to justify his self defense statement?

Not sure if I follow.

[tu_holmes]

So we have a situation where he wants to have Martin questioned, but he knows he will pay dearly if he tries to hold Martin at safe gunpoint.

Who will say otherwise?

So what the hell is your point then?

That's EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON EARTH who has a CCW.