So walking while black in Florida is equivalent to stealing a car?
So walking while black in Florida is equivalent to stealing a car?And this silly fuck pulled a gun on someone he believed was a criminal and got fucking shot, then killed the guy and injured his innocent girlfriend. Tell me the difference?
They both had a death wish and they were both dumb as a sack of rocks. My only point has been the absurdity of this pile of otherwise well meaning liberal-minded intelligent apes happily clapping over a tragedy that could have been easily avoided with even a modicum of thought.It's not that simple. Using a gun as a threat to get your vehicle back, still leaves the option of not using it, which seems the intended goal since the owner didn't shoot the thief right away which is always the move to make if you intend to shoot an armed person, rather than waiting to see if they will draw and fire.
Possibly the couple were going in the mall, or possibly leaving, or possibly snorting lines of cocaine. All we know for certain is this owner saw an opportunity to try to get his vehicle back, to keep the thief there until police arrived.
The thief should have complied with that, accepted the consequences for his actions. Instead he shot the owner to try to get out of a felony charge, created the kill or be killed scenario after the owner had established that if he had wanted to shoot the thief, he already could have.
It's not that I like the outcome, do agree with others that I'd pursue other means of getting the vehicle back like calling police and telling them I'm following them, IF I had a vehicle to do so which we still don't know. Maybe he had already called police and they told him, "sorry too busy, go pound sand".
Who is really the one who values a pile of plastic and metal over a life? The thief, because he valued it enough to steal it, then USED a deadly weapon trying to get away with that. Shooting at the owner of a vehicle you stole, when that owner is armed? Thief had a death wish, dead or alive you're not taking me in.
You're just making up this fantasy explanation that doesn't have a shred of even suggestion much less proof that it was the case.It's really pointless for us to continue arguing with him.. he's already admitted that the details are not clear, yet he has already made the deamination that he guy was guilty and deserved it.
Both assumed the target was a criminal, both attempted a citizen's arrest, both ended up killing the target. Do bear in mind that there was no due process for this accused thief.So walking while black in Florida is equivalent to stealing a car?
Proof that he was innocent? Is that how it works?You're just making up this fantasy explanation that doesn't have a shred of even suggestion much less proof that it was the case.
No you still don't understand. It's more than a million times more likely to get hit by lightning that same day, than all those things mating up.You might as well try to argue that nobody can get hit by lightening because of the odds... Just because it's unlikely doesn't mean it can't happened.. The Subaru my friend had, was a 2010... so please, don't tell me it can't happen, my car that it came close to happening to was a 2005, the key wouldn't turn in the ignition, so we don't know if the micro chip would have prevented it or not.
“But I can tell you are the kind that wants me to suffer for a time knowing you will kill me when your gluttony for my suffering is satisfied. All I need to justify killing you is imminent threat and that is your gun being drawn. That’s what shit that values trucks over life are like, right, just worthless worthy of death scum? You are worse than a thief.”Yeah no, that's ridiculous unless you think I'm saying the owner of the truck should have walked up and just started shooting immediately.
The car thief was in the stolen truck. Trayvon Martin had a pack of Skittles and a tea. Same shit.Both assumed the target was a criminal, both attempted a citizen's arrest, both ended up killing the target. Do bear in mind that there was no due process for this accused thief.
A man and a woman was sitting in a truck an aggrieved party claimed was stolen, that's all we know because the aggrieved party fucking killed the guy before he had a trial.The car thief was in the stolen truck. Trayvon Martin had a pack of Skittles and a tea. Same shit.
So now we're debating whether it was actually the man's truck?A man and a woman was sitting in a truck an aggrieved party claimed was stolen, that's all we know because the aggrieved party fucking killed the guy before he had a trial.
So, basically in a nut shell, you are saying that anytime someone points a gun at you, you should always comply with their instructions... Doesn't matter if they are angry, yelling, threatening.. or what ever huh? Now I don't know what the owner of the truck said to the couple in the truck, as he had them at gun point, nobody knows. But if the owner of the truck had even an inkling of the passion for his truck, that some of you have demonstrated here has, I am confident that he wasn't being nice and calm as he pointed that gun at them. You believe he shot at the owner because of the truck, and for some reason, you can't fathom that it was because he had a gun pointed at them, and had nothing to do with the truck at that point.. it was self preservation of life.It's not that simple. Using a gun as a threat to get your vehicle back, still leaves the option of not using it, which seems the intended goal since the owner didn't shoot the thief right away which is always the move to make if you intend to shoot an armed person, rather than waiting to see if they will draw and fire.
Possibly the couple were going in the mall, or possibly leaving, or possibly snorting lines of cocaine. All we know for certain is this owner saw an opportunity to try to get his vehicle back, to keep the thief there until police arrived.
The thief should have complied with that, accepted the consequences for his actions. Instead he shot the owner to try to get out of a felony charge, created the kill or be killed scenario after the owner had established that if he had wanted to shoot the thief, he already could have.
It's not that I like the outcome, do agree with others that I'd pursue other means of getting the vehicle back like calling police and telling them I'm following them, IF I had a vehicle to do so which we still don't know. Maybe he had already called police and they told him, "sorry too busy, go pound sand".
Who is really the one who values a pile of plastic and metal over a life? The thief, because he valued it enough to steal it, then USED a deadly weapon trying to get away with that. Shooting at the owner of a vehicle you stole, when that owner is armed? Thief had a death wish, dead or alive you're not taking me in.
All should bear in mind Treyvon Martin and Zimmerman wrt this. It's close enough to treat the situations identically.
And this silly fuck pulled a gun on someone he believed was a criminal and got fucking shot, then killed the guy and injured his innocent girlfriend. Tell me the difference?
Oh man he wasn't nice to the guy who stole his truck? Probably even called him a motherfucker.So, basically in a nut shell, you are saying that anytime someone points a gun at you, you should always comply with their instructions... Doesn't matter if they are angry, yelling, threatening.. or what ever huh? Now I don't know what the owner of the truck said to the couple in the truck, as he had them at gun point, nobody knows. But if the owner of the truck had even an inkling of the passion for his truck, that some of you have demonstrated here has, I am confident that he wasn't being nice and calm as he pointed that gun at them. You believe he shot at the owner because of the truck, and for some reason, you can't fathom that it was because he had a gun pointed at them, and had nothing to do with the truck at that point.. it was self preservation of life.
You don't debate things in a trial, you get to the truth. My point is, Zimmerman also claimed his target was doing something wrong/illegal when he attempted to arrest his target. I don't fucking care what some rando on the street thinks someone is doing because he's probably wrong, and I sure as fuck don't want said rando shooting people.So now we're debating whether it was actually the man's truck?
You must have missed where I explained that it happened to a friend of mine with his Subaru huh? You can't argue that something isn't impossible when it is possible no matter the odds.No you still don't understand. It's more than a million times more likely to get hit by lightning that same day, than all those things mating up.
You don't know if the micro chip would have prevented it, suddenly turns into ignoring that additional multiplier against the astronomical odds already at play? I take it that math is not your forte.
Yeah that would be what I'm saying. They got themselves into a situation they murdered themselves out of, and for some fucking reason people see them as different.I guess you could say that Zimmerman and the truck owner both got themselves into situations that were potentially (very) dangerous but other than that, there is no parallel.
Is it possible he threatened to kill them, as he had them at gun point, you know, cuz he was angry?Oh man he wasn't nice to the guy who stole his truck? Probably even called him a motherfucker.
Getting your truck back vs stalking scary negro are the same shit?Yeah that would be what I'm saying. They got themselves into a situation they murdered themselves out of, and for some fucking reason people see them as different.
No, we're debating whether the alleged thief owned nearly the same truck and got confused and was unlucky that his key unlocked and started up a stranger's truck. Doubly unlucky that he was a worse shot than the other guy.So now we're debating whether it was actually the man's truck?
Also that his brother wouldn't have bothered to bring up that the alleged thief owned nearly the same truck and was just honestly mistaken when complaining that his brother didn't deserve to get shot for shooting a guy reclaiming his property.No, we're debating whether the alleged thief owned nearly the same truck and got confused and was unlucky that his key unlocked and started up a stranger's truck. Doubly unlucky that he was a worse shot than the other guy.
He put himself in that situation when he didn't have to, then killed a guy. He even brought a fucking gun which means he thought he might have to use it. Why are you defending him?Getting your truck back vs stalking scary negro are the same shit?
He has a right to take his property back and losing a car isn't something most people can easily swallow.He put himself in that situation when he didn't have to, then killed a guy. He even brought a fucking gun which means he thought he might have to use it. Why are you defending him?
His rights to his property stopped the second he pulled a deadly weapon on a human he didn't know from Jesus Christ himself. For all he fucking knew that guy bought the car from the thief for a tenner, he still pulled a gun on him.He has a right to take his property back and losing a car isn't something most people can easily swallow.
I liked it better when for all he knew the thief had the same truck in the same color with a working key and then drove the truck to another parking lot to wait for the guy to come out and say "ooops honest mistake!"His rights to his property stopped the second he pulled a deadly weapon on a human he didn't know from Jesus Christ himself. For all he fucking knew that guy bought the car from the thief for a tenner, he still pulled a gun on him.
/Shrug, that wasn't my suggestion. Regardless, without a trial it's irrelevant. Innocent until proven guilty, remember?I liked it better when for all he knew the thief had the same truck in the same color with a working key and then drove the truck to another parking lot to wait for the guy to come out and say "ooops honest mistake!"