Trayvon Martin - Gun, Drugs, Fighting

[Archer77]

So you believe this, without being able to conceive of the reason he would do so?

I dont believe this, the facts show this to be true. 

[Jack T. Cross]

so in your mind he is guilty until proven innocent?

Is Martin, to you?

[Jack T. Cross]

I dont believe this, the facts show this to be true. 

Please explain (or rephrase).  Not sure what you mean.

[tonymctones]

Is Martin, to you?

absolutely not, seeing as he is not on trial your question makes not sense but thats par for the course for you..

so in your mind zimmerman is guilty until proven innocent?

[Archer77]

I explained myself.  Youre not getting the response you want.

[tonymctones]

Please explain (or rephrase).  Not sure what you mean.

lets see the fact that there is no proof what so ever to support your ignorant ASSumption...

the fact the one eye witness didnt see a gun present, while he saw trayvon on top making downward motions at zimmerman...

[Jack T. Cross]

I explained myself.  Youre not getting the response you want.

You say the facts "show to be true" that Zimmerman didn't use the advantage of being armed.  Please explain.

[tonymctones]

You say the facts "show to be true" that Zimmerman didn't use the advantage of being armed.  Please explain.

lets see the fact that there is no proof what so ever to support your ignorant ASSumption...

the fact the one eye witness didnt see a gun present, while he saw trayvon on top making downward motions at zimmerman...

[Jack T. Cross]

lets see the fact that there is no proof what so ever to support your ignorant ASSumption...

the fact the one eye witness didnt see a gun present, while he saw trayvon on top making downward motions at zimmerman...

Where do you suppose a gun may be, if there was a close-contact fight over it?

[Shockwave]

You say the facts "show to be true" that Zimmerman didn't use the advantage of being armed.  Please explain.

I cant tell if you're the dumbest motherf*cker on this board, or if you're just a troll.

Either way, your arguments are moronic at best and not worth the time it takes to actually write a coherent response.

[Jack T. Cross]

I cant tell if you're the dumbest motherf*cker on this board, or if you're just a troll.

Either way, your arguments are moronic at best and not worth the time it takes to actually write a coherent response.

Ahhh..so that's why you won't argue.  Thanks for letting me know.

[tonymctones]

Where do you suppose a gun may be, if there was a close-contact fight over it?

well if by your logic zimmerman was using it prior to the physical contact in his hand

[Jack T. Cross]

Come on, bros.  Put your anger aside, and state your case.

[Jack T. Cross]

well if by your logic zimmerman was using it prior to the physical contact in his hand

Why would this necessarily be true, Tony?

[tonymctones]

Come on, bros.  Put your anger aside, and state your case.

the case is zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty, its up to your dumb ass to provide evidence as to his guilt

[tonymctones]

Why would this necessarily be true, Tony?

where else would it be if he was using it to hold trayvon in place?

[Archer77]

You say the facts "show to be true" that Zimmerman didn't use the advantage of being armed.  Please explain.

You're drifting away from your original statement/question/  You were asking what was stopping Zimmerman from using his weapon to question Martin.  You're argument was that since Zimmerman wanted Martin questioned so badly that he would have done it himself using his weapon.

[Jack T. Cross]

where else would it be if he was using it to hold trayvon in place?

We don't know specifically how he would have chosen to use it to his advantage, do we?

[Archer77]

Why would this necessarily be true, Tony?

You were arguing this and youre back tracking on it.

[tonymctones]

We don't know specifically how he would have chosen to use it to his advantage, do we?

so youre arguing that he used his gun by not using his gun?

[Archer77]

We don't know specifically how he would have chosen to use it to his advantage, do we?

What we can say is that he didn't use it to his advantage.  As Ive said before, what he would have done if the situation were different is irrelevant.  You were arguing that because he wanted to question Martin, what was stopping him from using his gun to do it.

[Jack T. Cross]

You're drifting away from your original statement/question/  You were asking what was stopping Zimmerman from using his weapon to question Martin.  You're argument was that since Zimmerman wanted Martin questioned so badly that he would have done it himself using his weapon.

Archer, you're a good guy, and you don't melt, so let me carefully explain this to you.

No.  The idea is not that Zimmerman "wanted Martin questioned so badly that he would have done it himself using his weapon."  Again: No.  The argument is that Zimmerman would have used his advantage of being armed in order to cause Martin to stick around for the arrival of the police.  

So...

We know Zimmerman had been taking steps toward accomplishing what is a VERY, VERY, VERY IMPORTANT objective in his mind .  The question is WHY would he choose NOT to use every advantage to fulfill the objective.  Can you conceive of ANYTHING that would fit this, Archer?

[avxo]

the case is zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty, its up to your dumb ass to provide evidence as to his guilt

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.

[tonymctones]

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.

thank you getbig police

thats fine as long as he realizes that his opinion isnt based on facts and is using big ASSumptions.

[Archer77]

Archer, you're a good guy, and you don't melt, so let me carefully explain this to you.

No.  The idea is not that Zimmerman "wanted Martin questioned so badly that he would have done it himself using his weapon."  Again: No.  The argument is that Zimmerman would have used his advantage of being armed in order to cause Martin to stick around for the arrival of the police.  

So...

We know Zimmerman had been taking steps toward accomplishing what is a VERY, VERY, VERY IMPORTANT objective in his mind .  The question is WHY would he choose NOT to use every advantage to fulfill the objective.  Can you conceive of ANYTHING that would fit this, Archer?

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