17 year old kid shot dead by Neighborhood Watch "Captain"

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    It hasn't been disproven. In this country you;re still innocent until proven guilty. There is no guilt proven here, therefore he is still innocent.

    Oh, wait.... that only counts if you're not already convicted in the court of public opinion. :rolleyes:

    And guess what? From a legal standpoint "innocent until proven guilty" rightfully is employed. But no such prohibition is verboten against private citizens. The can shun him all they want due to his stupidity.
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    Alright, I'll report the post. Apparently you are lacking in comprehension as well. When you say that the only way Z is NOT GUILTY is by staying in his truck, than you are saying exactly what Carmel posted. You are stating that he is defacto guilty for being on hte sidewalk and not in his truck.

    You, sir, are the liar and apparently refuse to stand by your own words. Even when you are shown to be a liar, you still continue the charade. Nice. And this from an officer of the law? No wonder Carmel high school is so ****ed up.

    Posts reported.

    Blah, blah, blah.... I glad you actually had the stones to report it.
     

    CarmelHP

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 14, 2008
    7,633
    48
    Carmel
    Ok, I'm going to start calling it what it is, when people start making stuff up. Lies. CarmelHP has posted an outright lie, making him a liar. I will fully retract my statement in which I am calling him a liar, if he quotes, fully, the post where I said that Zimmerman being on the side walk made him guilty.

    For even those I disagree with, I am not so bold as to make up lies in an attempt to strengthen my position.

    How is the assertion that the only way he would not be guilty is that he not have ever gotten out of his truck different? It's not, unless he's floating in air. Someone as free with the facts as you should not be calling anyone a liar.
     

    CarmelHP

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 14, 2008
    7,633
    48
    Carmel
    You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, eh? I suggest you not hold your breath if you expect an apology over CarmelHPs lie. If you are still having a hard time connecting the dots, I suggest you contact a moderator and report the post.

    (Kut finds Bobby to be lacking in comprehension again)

    You also shouldn't be questioning anyone's intelligence. Glass houses and all that.
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    How is the assertion that the only way he would not be guilty is that he not have ever gotten out of his truck different? It's not, unless he's floating in air. Someone as free with the facts as you should not be calling anyone a liar.

    If the shoe, pants, shirt, and socks fit....

    Edit: But here, we'll post the history of the instance of libel in question.

    You stated (and I'll post the full text of each post):

    Another strawman from the strawman factory of Zimmerman haters. Where did I say Martin being on the sidewalk made him guilty? Oh right, I didn't. However, you did say that Zimmerman being on the sidewalk made him guilty. How about we turn this around? How does Martin have an absolute right to be on the sidewalk, but Zimmerman absolutely barred from the sidewalk? The guy who actually lives there and is Neighbor Watch (which was what he was doing) has no right to be there, but a relative of a friend of a resident has a absolute right to be free from questions.

    Which was in reference to this exchange:

    Do you have ANY scenario in which Zimmerman is innocent? Any? No, didn't think so.

    You used the word "any," not "only." Any by it's definition, allows for multiple responses.

    Any (adj): Unmeasured or unlimited in amount, number or extent.
    Only (adj): Alone in class or category.

    I then respond with "a" scenario, given that the word "any" gives me a multitude of options:

    Yep, the one where he stayed in his car while waiting for police to arrive 2 minutes later, during which time Martin attacks him, and Zimmerman shoots him in self defense.

    Another poster chimes in with:
    So stepping out of your vehicle makes you guilty of manslaughter if someone later attacks you? Gotcha.

    My response:
    Yeah, that's exactly what's implied. I suggest you look up a few different definitions of fallacies.

    Just sayin'

    The root of the word "fallacies" is "fallacy" the definition is :
    Fallacy (adj): A false or mistaken idea.

    Not every one can be educated, but one would think that there would be a very basic understanding of reading comprehension.

    So, back the original post:
    Another strawman from the strawman factory of Zimmerman haters. Where did I say Martin being on the sidewalk made him guilty? Oh right, I didn't. However, you did say that Zimmerman being on the sidewalk made him guilty. How about we turn this around? How does Martin have an absolute right to be on the sidewalk, but Zimmerman absolutely barred from the sidewalk? The guy who actually lives there and is Neighbor Watch (which was what he was doing) has no right to be there, but a relative of a friend of a resident has a absolute right to be free from questions.

    Uh what? Where did I ever say "that Zimmerman being on the sidewalk made him guilty"? Heck, I never even mentioned "sidewalk" in the the posts above. I did give an instance where he could be innocent, but it is not implied anywhere that was the "only" way that he could be innocent. As matter of fact, I have not stated that Zimmerman was guilty. I have offered several scenarios in which he could be "guilty," but have never outright called him as being such.
    If you know what the word fallacy means, I clearly rebuke (with easily observed sarcasm) the poster that outright asks if by Zimmerman stepping out of his car indicated his guilt.
    One one kind have to be "dim" no to understand what's been posted; and I do not think CarmelHP is dim.

    At the very least CarmelHP is guilty of poor reading comprehension, at worst, he's a liar; and I tend to believe the latter.
     
    Last edited:

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    62,270
    113
    Gtown-ish
    As long as you're open to lessons, proper spelling often decreases the possibility of misunderstandings and makes you look less stupid.

    FYI, I read your whole statement and took the same meaning from it as CarmelHP and Griffin. I personally think you're being unreasonably stubborn in your apparent belief that Z. has to be at fault for this incident and that your stated arguments so far have been both faulty and illogical.

    Let's give the benefit of doubt. Using "right" as a verb can mean make right or, abstractly as "align", which, however unlikely the intent, would also fit the context.
     

    bobzilla

    Mod in training (in my own mind)
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Nov 1, 2010
    9,477
    113
    Brownswhitanon.
    And guess what? From a legal standpoint "innocent until proven guilty" rightfully is employed. But no such prohibition is verboten against private citizens. The can shun him all they want due to his stupidity.

    jUST LIke we can shun you for your stupidity and your own admission that you would NOT do your job. Do your superiors know that you refuse to respond to a suspicious persons call?
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    jUST LIke we can shun you for your stupidity and your own admission that you would NOT do your job. Do your superiors know that you refuse to respond to a suspicious persons call?

    Ignore list is your friend, if you can't take the heat... :dunno:
    And that other part? Is that a threat? Lol, OK... :laugh:
    (somebody's about to pop a blood vessel)
     

    Glock19

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Feb 17, 2012
    685
    18
    NE Indianapolis
    Did Zimmerman give Martin the presumption of innocence?
    Once again you looked into your crystal ball...PROVE THAT ZIMMERMAN DIDNT! YOU CAN LOOK UP THE CONSTITUTION ALSO! INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! ZIMMERMAN IS PRESUMED INNOCENT AND PRESUMINGLY DID EVERYTHING BY THE BOOK.UNTIL IT IS UP TO THE PROSECUTOR TO SHOW ME OTHERWISE. IF YOU NEED HELP RELOCATING TO ANOTHER COUNTY LET ME KNOW. ILL GET A WEBSITE UP TO HELP YOU WITH THE TICKET, BECAUSE IM A GOOD NEIGHBOR!
     

    hornadylnl

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 19, 2008
    21,505
    63
    Once again you looked into your crystal ball...PROVE THAT ZIMMERMAN DIDNT! YOU CAN LOOK UP THE CONSTITUTION ALSO! INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! ZIMMERMAN IS PRESUMED INNOCENT AND PRESUMINGLY DID EVERYTHING BY THE BOOK.UNTIL IT IS UP TO THE PROSECUTOR TO SHOW ME OTHERWISE. IF YOU NEED HELP RELOCATING TO ANOTHER COUNTY LET ME KNOW. ILL GET A WEBSITE UP TO HELP YOU WITH THE TICKET, BECAUSE IM A GOOD NEIGHBOR!

    :laugh:
     

    Ted

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 19, 2012
    5,081
    36
    Never seen one

    I'm surprised that Carmel doesn't have one or two.

    images
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Top Bottom