Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5815

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Trials and due process leads to more deaths?
Yes, because only idiots would follow such rules. Stuff like the UNs shoot second mandate makes them a toothless joke.
They are called U.N. peacekeepers for a reason...
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5489|foggy bottom
if memory serves me correctly, there three categories of UN military operations.  One of them doesnt follow a shoot second doctrine.
Tu Stultus Es
krazed
Admiral of the Bathtub
+619|7009|Great Brown North

Macbeth wrote:

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Trials and due process leads to more deaths?
Yes, because only idiots would follow such rules. Stuff like the UNs shoot second mandate makes them a toothless joke.
They are called U.N. peacekeepers for a reason...
yeah, they get to watch and clean up after a massacre
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|5931|College Park, MD
*~* 1 million strong for George *~*
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6946

eleven bravo wrote:

if memory serves me correctly, there three categories of UN military operations.  One of them doesnt follow a shoot second doctrine.
UNSC can call upon NATO or a specific military to do peacekeeping ops and they got their own ROE. Official UN peacekeepers shoot second, which is a bit dumb when watching a masscre go by. pretty much no point having them in the first place when African warlords figured UN won't do jack as long as you don't shoot them
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Little BaBy JESUS
m8
+394|6378|'straya
Although the UN learnt some lessons from the 90's. Those forces were under peacekeeping charters, and were thus pretty much unable to do anything. Despite the media still calling it "peace keeping", most UN deployments are now used under the peace enforcement charter. This gives those forces the right to conduct combat operations in order to maintain peace, protect themselves, or protect civilians. So, in the cases such as those in Africa in the 90's, UN forces would actually be able to engage those attempting massacres etc, as long as it falls within the ROE of the coalition force/country.
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5489|foggy bottom

Cybargs wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

if memory serves me correctly, there three categories of UN military operations.  One of them doesnt follow a shoot second doctrine.
UNSC can call upon NATO or a specific military to do peacekeeping ops and they got their own ROE. Official UN peacekeepers shoot second, which is a bit dumb when watching a masscre go by. pretty much no point having them in the first place when African warlords figured UN won't do jack as long as you don't shoot them
not what im talking bout
Tu Stultus Es
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,814|6335|eXtreme to the maX
This situationdoesn't equate with peacekeepers on a UN mission, or even soldiers in a war zone (which doesn't include a country invaded illegally).
Although in none of those situations can civilians who look out of place be summarily killed.
Fuck Israel
ROGUEDD
BF2s. A Liberal Gang of Faggots.
+452|5618|Fuck this.

Dilbert_X wrote:

This situationdoesn't equate with peacekeepers on a UN mission, or even soldiers in a war zone (which doesn't include a country invaded illegally).
Although in none of those situations can civilians who look out of place be summarily killed.
I like how you're still assuming that Zimmerman just walked up and put a bullet in Martin because he didn't like the way this kid looked. Were you there Dil? No? Then shut the fuck up and take your seat.
Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,814|6335|eXtreme to the maX
You weren't there either.

So far we know an unarmed kid was shot dead.
Zimmerman claims he was attacked but most of what he has claimed has been shown to be doubtful at best.
Zimmerman was cruising the streets with a weapon, Martin wasn't.
Fuck Israel
ROGUEDD
BF2s. A Liberal Gang of Faggots.
+452|5618|Fuck this.

Dilbert_X wrote:

You weren't there either.

So far we know an unarmed kid was shot dead.
Zimmerman claims he was attacked but most of what he has claimed has been shown to be doubtful at best.
Zimmerman was cruising the streets with a weapon, Martin wasn't.
Exactly. So why do you assume Zimmerman is guilty? Zimmerman may have been attacked, or maybe he wasn't. Why don't we stop speculating and letting the media stir up our shit, and just leave it to the courts? Besides, your "trial by mob" mentality is also held by the "New Black Panthers" and others, so Zimmerman will probably be killed before he ever gets near a court room.
Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6382|what

ROGUEDD wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

You weren't there either.

So far we know an unarmed kid was shot dead.
Zimmerman claims he was attacked but most of what he has claimed has been shown to be doubtful at best.
Zimmerman was cruising the streets with a weapon, Martin wasn't.
Exactly. So why do you assume Zimmerman is guilty? Zimmerman may have been attacked, or maybe he wasn't. Why don't we stop speculating and letting the media stir up our shit, and just leave it to the courts? Besides, your "trial by mob" mentality is also held by the "New Black Panthers" and others, so Zimmerman will probably be killed before he ever gets near a court room.
He left his vehicle after instruction not to.

He had a history of over zealous calls to police of black people.

He killed an unarmed teenager.

Even if he was attacked the above still holds true.

That is not speculation. Speculation is was Zim attacked first? Was the use of force appropriate? Was Zim defending himself within the law?

If Zim is found not guilty than good for him, but I do have an issue with the stand your ground laws regardless.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5815

The fact that he started the confrontation that led to Martin's death is enough to convict him of something. The rest is unimportant really.
ROGUEDD
BF2s. A Liberal Gang of Faggots.
+452|5618|Fuck this.

AussieReaper wrote:

ROGUEDD wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

You weren't there either.

So far we know an unarmed kid was shot dead.
Zimmerman claims he was attacked but most of what he has claimed has been shown to be doubtful at best.
Zimmerman was cruising the streets with a weapon, Martin wasn't.
Exactly. So why do you assume Zimmerman is guilty? Zimmerman may have been attacked, or maybe he wasn't. Why don't we stop speculating and letting the media stir up our shit, and just leave it to the courts? Besides, your "trial by mob" mentality is also held by the "New Black Panthers" and others, so Zimmerman will probably be killed before he ever gets near a court room.
He left his vehicle after instruction not to.

He had a history of over zealous calls to police of black people.

He killed an unarmed teenager.

Even if he was attacked the above still holds true.

That is not speculation. Speculation is was Zim attacked first? Was the use of force appropriate? Was Zim defending himself within the law?

If Zim is found not guilty than good for him, but I do have an issue with the stand your ground laws regardless.
Well fine, I respect your opinion on my state's laws. That said, I fully disagree. However,
I do agree that he should have simply made the 911 call and left it at that, but that doesn't make him guilty of murder.

Macbeth wrote:

The fact that he started the confrontation that led to Martin's death is enough to convict him of something. The rest is unimportant really.
Oh, so you saw him attack Martin did you? So you are an eye witness that can testify in court that George Zimmerman attacked Trayvon Martin?

Last edited by ROGUEDD (2012-04-10 07:21:42)

Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5815

Pulling over your car, getting out with a gun, and confronting the person you end up killing nullifies your claim of self defense. He doesn't have to attack him with a hammer in order for his actions to be considered hostile. We know he didn't just go up to Martin with a milk and cookies. According to the recording of Zimmerman we know he thought Martin was a criminal. It's not rocket surgery.
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5815

It's sad that the people who are defending Zimmerman are internalizing the call for the arrest of Zimmerman as an attack on them and their identity. It's just like the people who defended the Penn State coach took criticism of his actions as an attack on them and their school.

Last edited by Macbeth (2012-04-10 07:32:29)

eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5489|foggy bottom
I am the real George Zimmerman,
     On Sunday February 26th, I was involved in a life altering event which led me to become the subject of intense media coverage. As a result of the incident and subsequent media coverage, I have been forced to leave my home, my school, my employer, my family and ultimately, my entire life. This website's sole purpose is to ensure my supporters they are receiving my full attention without any intermediaries.

    It has come to my attention that some persons and/or entities have been collecting funds, thinly veiled as my
Tu Stultus Es
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5489|foggy bottom
I am the real George Zimmerman,
     On Sunday February 26th, I was involved in a life altering event which led me to become the subject of intense media coverage. As a result of the incident and subsequent media coverage, I have been forced to leave my home, my school, my employer, my family and ultimately, my entire life. This website's sole purpose is to ensure my supporters they are receiving my full attention without any intermediaries.
    It has come to my attention that some persons and/or entities have been collecting funds, thinly veiled as my Defense Fund or Legal Fund. I cannot attest to the validity of these other websites as I have not received any funds collected, intended to support my family and I through this trying, tragic time.
    I have created a Paypal account solely linked on this website as I would like to provide an avenue to thank my supporters personally and ensure that any funds provided are used only for living expenses and legal defense, in lieu of my forced inability to maintain employment. I will also personally, maintain accountability of all funds received. I reassure you, every donation is appreciated.

Sincerely,
     George Zimmerman




The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke
Tu Stultus Es
ROGUEDD
BF2s. A Liberal Gang of Faggots.
+452|5618|Fuck this.

Macbeth wrote:

Pulling over your car, getting out with a gun, and confronting the person you end up killing nullifies your claim of self defense. He doesn't have to attack him with a hammer in order for his actions to be considered hostile. We know he didn't just go up to Martin with a milk and cookies. According to the recording of Zimmerman we know he thought Martin was a criminal. It's not rocket surgery.
So if I have a CCW and get out of my car to talk to someone, I'm confronting them with a deadly weapon? What in the actual fuck. Unless you are assuming he got out of his vehicle, gun in hand (which would be a statement you couldn't possibly back up) you're saying that the mere possession of a gun indicates hostile intent.

The bottom line is that we don't know what happened between the 911 call and Martin's death. Zimmerman could have gotten out of his car, gun in hand, maybe he did confront and kill Martin. Or maybe Martin attacked Zimmerman when he was questioned. Or maybe not. But talking out our collective asses doesn't prove anything, except how easy it is to sway opinion when the media starts releasing false information and people like Dilbert call for trials by mob. Maybe you should be a bit more objective in your opinion forming.

Last edited by ROGUEDD (2012-04-10 08:46:46)

Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5489|foggy bottom
you would make a terrible lawyer
Tu Stultus Es
ROGUEDD
BF2s. A Liberal Gang of Faggots.
+452|5618|Fuck this.
Yep.
Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5815

ROGUEDD wrote:

So if I have a CCW and get out of my car to talk to someone, I'm confronting them with a deadly weapon?
What we know of Zimmerman's frame of mind, he more than likely didn't go over there to start a conversation. Even if Martin did attack Zimmerman, he must have done or said something to make him attack him. I've never been attacked by a black person for asking them directions..


But even if Martin did attack him- he disobeyed a police order that led to a death. Charge him with something.
ROGUEDD
BF2s. A Liberal Gang of Faggots.
+452|5618|Fuck this.

Macbeth wrote:

ROGUEDD wrote:

So if I have a CCW and get out of my car to talk to someone, I'm confronting them with a deadly weapon?
What we know of Zimmerman's frame of mind, he more than likely didn't go over there to start a conversation. Even if Martin did attack Zimmerman, he must have done or said something to make him attack him. I've never been attacked by a black person for asking them directions..


But even if Martin did attack him- he disobeyed a police order that led to a death. Charge him with something.
No, he disobeyed a dispatcher telling "We don't need you to do that." Go look up "Denver man killed following 911 instructions" and tell me everybody should do what the dispatchers say to do.

And last I checked, attacking someone is the crime, not asking questions/saying something that makes someone angry.

Last edited by ROGUEDD (2012-04-10 08:52:42)

Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5489|foggy bottom
he already showed his intent to creat a confrontation while he was armed.  doesnt matter if martin attacked first.  its that simple
Tu Stultus Es
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5815

ROGUEDD wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

ROGUEDD wrote:

So if I have a CCW and get out of my car to talk to someone, I'm confronting them with a deadly weapon?
What we know of Zimmerman's frame of mind, he more than likely didn't go over there to start a conversation. Even if Martin did attack Zimmerman, he must have done or said something to make him attack him. I've never been attacked by a black person for asking them directions..


But even if Martin did attack him- he disobeyed a police order that led to a death. Charge him with something.
No, he disobeyed a dispatcher telling "We don't need you to do that." Go look up "Denver man killed following 911 instructions" and tell me everybody should do what the dispatchers say to do.

And last I checked, attacking someone is the crime, not asking questions/saying something that makes someone angry.
If he had stayed in his car he wouldn't gotten killed like the Denver man. The Denver case is not even in the same ballpark as the Martin case.

It could be argued that the 911 dispatcher is an extension of the local governments law enforcement apparatus.

eleven bravo wrote:

he already showed his intent to creat a confrontation while he was armed.  doesnt matter if martin attacked first.  its that simple

Last edited by Macbeth (2012-04-10 08:56:16)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard