Zimmerman Found Not Guilty

[Cheshire Cat]

I'm sorry, but Stephen the liberal doesn't see calling someone an "autistic fugue" as an insult. You now owe him an apology.

hmm. if you think im going to react to this angle, you are sadly mistaken.  In fact, if you are implying that I think you sound like the worst, most insulting kind of way to call someone a retard, I certainly wouldnt mind if you repeated that.

So I dont know where that leaves you Jameson.

Now do you still need some time to sum up what it is that you are debating, because Im sure I don't know (and it sounds like you might not either)

If you cant, then I think we can go back to assuming this is about your need to blame Trayvon for his own murder.

You think I'm trying to get a reaction out of you? Hardly. I'm simply pointing out that you choose to use a term so loosely to insult someone on a message board that so many find offensive - especially those with mentally handicapped children, friends, etc. I find it offensive. It's disgusting.

But at the same time, I'm not at all surprised. Throughout years of discussion and debating liberals, I've found that in the end, they seem to always resort to name-calling and insults.

As for what I'm debating, I'm still waiting for you to answer the questions I asked on page 37:

Would stricter gun laws have stopped Herman Pickens from killing Robert Sutton at Mojo No.4 a couple of weeks ago? He was a convicted felon who has been arrested every year of his adult life who used a stolen gun.

Or to give me an example of how stricter gun laws would stop all of the murders in Chicago:

Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country yet 54 people were shot dead during the Zimmerman trial. The majority of their murders are gang, robbery, or drug related. You think that gang members go through background checks to obtain their weapons?

Again, the fact that will ignore the illegal gun exploits of people like Herman Pickens and Chicago gang members while at the same time trying to lump people like Adam Lanza, James Holmes, GZ, and Joe Anybody who happens to be a law-abiding citizen with a concealed weapons permit who is a gun enthusiast who only uses his guns at the range or to go hunting and has never been accused or convicted of any crime - much less one involving a gun - together into the same category to fit your "gun nut" argument is not only ridiculous, but stereotypical.

You have said your peace.  Everyone has heard both views.  Time for all parties to stand down.

[Cheshire Cat]

I am not offering advice Stephen, just commentary.  I hope that is okay.   

[Cheshire Cat]

I am not offering advice Stephen, just commentary.  I hope that is okay. 

yes of course!  also I finished my post, it posted before I could (blame a small teacup chuhuahua, im taking my mother her lunch while she is ill).

Would you be interested?

Yes that would be lovely, but it would have to be when these bones of mine allow me to. I am in the middle of an illness relapse right now which is difficult but not new to me. lol However I would be more than pleased to when I feel stronger. When were you thinking time wise?

[NotNow]

It would be helpful if the Tampa piece had just let the commentary go and given just the facts of the cases.  I won't put too much into that bit of journalism until I see unbiased case briefs. 

[Cheshire Cat]

Why thank you Stephen.  What topic do you have in mind?  Perhaps I can be thinking about it.  You may want to take a poll on how fascinating I might be on video though.  lmao

[Cheshire Cat]

Well politics is always an interesting topic for me.    I have a love/hate thing going on with them.

[Cheshire Cat]

Speaking of politics, what do others think the politics surrounding and within this case are?  Do you think there are any and if so how have the influenced this trial and public opinion?

[Jameson]

There is value in everyone's opinion in my view Stephen. I value yours.  You don't have to agree with the view being pro offered but the views of each individual play a part in the overall picture of why this trial has been received the way it has and why it seems to be so difficult to discuss issues like race.  I learned a long time ago that what may seem preposterous for me because of my values, experience and thought process may not seem that way to another perfectly reasonable human being because their values, experience and thought process is different than mine.  That is what is at the core of much dispute in a variety of issues.  We can only share our view and hope others may see the value in it.  Lambasting their view really doesn't make them more likely to listen to ones own.  At least that has been my experience. 

Well, knowing Jameson in real life, I suspect he could probably not give a flying rats ass about race.  He's mostly a disgruntled libertarian politically, and he prefers more latitude in people's sense of personal liberties, even to be offensive if they want. (a belief that we share, although we differ on respecting social rules in different settings, I suspect)

I also suspect that he is having the race discussion because he believes in gun rights, isn't really educated on the history of the ALEC sponsored 'stand your ground' laws, and thinks that any infringement on guns is an infringement on the second amendment.

No matter how recent or egregious those laws might be.

Many people think that an anti gun agenda is being furthered by a racial discourse, not realizing that they are two separate issues that are being combined into one issue with this case.

Finally I would predict that Jameson didnt bother to read our early commentary on these exact subjects in the beginning of the thread, jumped in at a trigger word, and finds himself in the position of arguing issues that he would rather not be pigeonholed on.

Not being able to find a graceful exit, hes attempting to man his way out of the conversation with a few gruff words.

Diane, you are very wise and I applaud you for seeing that we are all entitled to our own opinions and that we should try to refrain from lambasting others.

Stephen, you are correct - I could care less about race. That is why I find it so frustrating that so many people have looked at the Zimmerman case racially instead of logically.

I believe in gun rights. I am a gun owner. I also think that in order for people to possess a certain type of firearm (AR-15, for example) that they should have to pass a psychological exam.

I don't see the gun issue as being fueled by racial discourse.

I did read the earlier commentary and jumped in where I saw fit. I'll debate any issue, not just the Zimmerman case, gun laws, etc.

Really, any type of debate ended when you resorted to insults. It should have stopped there and I should have discontinued posting.

Lastly, yes, I am a Libertarian but no, I am not disgruntled. I do not want people to think like me. I want people to simply think. Our individuality is what makes us unique as a whole.

[johnnyman]

There is value in everyone's opinion in my view Stephen. I value yours.  You don't have to agree with the view being pro offered but the views of each individual play a part in the overall picture of why this trial has been received the way it has and why it seems to be so difficult to discuss issues like race.  I learned a long time ago that what may seem preposterous for me because of my values, experience and thought process may not seem that way to another perfectly reasonable human being because their values, experience and thought process is different than mine.  That is what is at the core of much dispute in a variety of issues.  We can only share our view and hope others may see the value in it.  Lambasting their view really doesn't make them more likely to listen to ones own.  At least that has been my experience. 

Well, knowing Jameson in real life, I suspect he could probably not give a flying rats ass about race.  He's mostly a disgruntled libertarian politically, and he prefers more latitude in people's sense of personal liberties, even to be offensive if they want. (a belief that we share, although we differ on respecting social rules in different settings, I suspect)

I also suspect that he is having the race discussion because he believes in gun rights, isn't really educated on the history of the ALEC sponsored 'stand your ground' laws, and thinks that any infringement on guns is an infringement on the second amendment.

No matter how recent or egregious those laws might be.

Many people think that an anti gun agenda is being furthered by a racial discourse, not realizing that they are two separate issues that are being combined into one issue with this case.

Finally I would predict that Jameson didnt bother to read our early commentary on these exact subjects in the beginning of the thread, jumped in at a trigger word, and finds himself in the position of arguing issues that he would rather not be pigeonholed on.

Not being able to find a graceful exit, hes attempting to man his way out of the conversation with a few gruff words.

Diane, you are very wise and I applaud you for seeing that we are all entitled to our own opinions and that we should try to refrain from lambasting others.

Stephen, you are correct - I could care less about race. That is why I find it so frustrating that so many people have looked at the Zimmerman case racially instead of logically.

I believe in gun rights. I am a gun owner. I also think that in order for people to possess a certain type of firearm (AR-15, for example) that they should have to pass a psychological exam.

I don't see the gun issue as being fueled by racial discourse.

I did read the earlier commentary and jumped in where I saw fit. I'll debate any issue, not just the Zimmerman case, gun laws, etc.

Really, any type of debate ended when you resorted to insults. It should have stopped there and I should have discontinued posting.

Lastly, yes, I am a Libertarian but no, I am not disgruntled. I do not want people to think like me. I want people to simply think. Our individuality is what makes us unique as a whole.

+1

[Cheshire Cat]

Speaking to politics and political fallout.  I wonder if Scott bargained for all the attention his office would be getting when he stepped into this case?

From The Daily Record:  http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=540017

[NotNow]

Which law is the "outrage" about?  The one that doesn't apply to this case?  The jury didn't see Zimmerman as the aggressor. 

Any other "outrage" is simply an outside agenda.

[Cheshire Cat]

Not Now, what is the legal age for gun ownership in Florida or for concealed weapon permitting?  I know kids can own rifles, is that the same for handguns?

[Cheshire Cat]

Stephen, the juror on CNN with Anderson Cooper said that the initial vote of the jury was three for not guilty, two for manslaughter and one for murder two.  What is the source for five jurors wanting convictions initially?  I count three initially for a conviction of some type and in the end one holdout who finally went not guilty.

[NotNow]

Which law is the "outrage" about?  The one that doesn't apply to this case?  The jury didn't see Zimmerman as the aggressor. 

Any other "outrage" is simply an outside agenda.

actually.  you are saying that either the jurors who have spoken up are lying or you simply don't know what you are talking about.

five of the six looked for convictions.

And the legal system which allows you to take up for your buddy who shot kiko battles to death in front of his grandmother is what I'm referring to.

Now if you would like to re discuss the long history of precedents pushed forward by cops killing people on this basis that came before the stand your ground measures that were part of the jury instructions, then I will be glad to oblige you by linking to Chrisw's 900 different articles about cops killing young men.

But hopefully ive been able to clearly define what i am alluding to without having to retread the old conversations.

I know exactly what I am talking about.  The jury found Mr. Zimmerman "not guilty".  Your speculation on the case means absolutely nothing.

I will not respond to your goading about Officer involved shootings other than to say the accuracy of your facts remains consistently poor.  It has nothing to do with the conversation on this thread.

I will repeat myself, at the risk of engaging in foolishness with you...which law, specifically, are you "outraged" about?

[NotNow]

Not Now, what is the legal age for gun ownership in Florida or for concealed weapon permitting?  I know kids can own rifles, is that the same for handguns?

18 for rifles, 21 for handguns I believe.