RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN - 7/12/2013 2:44:35 PM

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

No where near the same as face to face with the prosecution...I am saying this not just for this trial but any trial... If innocent then defendants should testify and if they don't they should understand it could influence the jury...and should in my opinion.

Butch

I think it does influence the jury.... they just cant say so

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to kdsub)

RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN - 7/12/2013 2:45:30 PM

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

Nah, surprised that you are advocating that with your advanced shithouse lawyering degree. I think you would jump in there and see justice done.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to Powergamz1)

RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN - 7/12/2013 2:46:11 PM

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

quote:

Zimmerman wasn't "on duty" and he had a concealed carry permit.
He started carrying because of vicious dogs in the area and the police told him a taser wouldn't stop a big dog. All a matter of record.

He decided to carry a gun on "neighborhood watch" because of vicious dogs?
Are you telling me the police gave him permission to run after people playing a broke down rambo with a gun?

Thats they way they want to protray it.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Marini)

RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN - 7/12/2013 2:49:36 PM

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

I was about to post on Zimmerman III when I found out that it had been locked. I think that you have hit upon the solution here, and I hope the trial experiment goes well. (pardon the pun....)

Its unmoderated because people cant seem to stop with the personal attacks and I am sure the Admins are sick of having to play clean up when someone attacks someone else for stupid shit... like being a homophobe.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to cloudboy)

RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN - 7/12/2013 2:50:09 PM

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

quote:

Zimmerman wasn't "on duty" and he had a concealed carry permit.
He started carrying because of vicious dogs in the area and the police told him a taser wouldn't stop a big dog. All a matter of record.

He decided to carry a gun on "neighborhood watch" because of vicious dogs?
Are you telling me the police gave him permission to run after people playing a broke down rambo with a gun?

Thats they way they want to protray it.

How many vicious dogs did he cakk while killing Trayvon, and do we know if the milk spoiled or not?

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to tazzygirl)

RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN - 7/12/2013 2:51:00 PM

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

Had to be the bad milk... no reports of dead dogs can be found.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to mnottertail)

RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN - 7/12/2013 2:54:45 PM

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

Do we know how many of the 6 women on the jury are mothers?

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to tazzygirl)

RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN - 7/12/2013 2:56:58 PM

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

B29: She is a young woman of color who recently moved with her husband and children to Central Florida from Chicago. The juror, who has eight children and has been married for 10 years, once worked as a certified nursing assistant. She learned of the shooting in the news and first assumed Trayvon Martin was 12 or 13 based on pictures in the media just after the shooting. A lot of people in her family took "the child's side" but she said she didn't form an opinion. She said that when she lived in Chicago, there were reports of many shootings, so she didn't pay special attention to Martin's death. She likes watching Bravo, episodes of the Real Housewives series, and is still adjusting to a calmer life in Florida.

B76: The middle-aged white woman with short brown hair and glasses has lived in Seminole County since 1995. She has two children, one of which is an attorney. She's heard about the case only three or four times, she says. During questioning, she said she thought Zimmerman was a security guard. During questioning about her media exposure, she turned to Martin's mom, Sybrina Fulton, and said, "Is that his mom?" Prosecutors tried to get her dismissed for that moment, but Judge Nelson ruled that she could stay. B76 said it's natural to have sympathy for people, but she understands that in this case that shouldn't impact deliberations. A pet lover, she manages rental properties.

B37: The middle-aged white woman is the daughter of an Air Force captain and has been married to a space attorney for 20 years. She has two children, 24 and 27, and works in a management position. During questioning, she told lawyers she knew a "broad spectrum" of names, but she hasn't kept up with the case. "Newspapers are usually in the parrot's cage," she told lawyers. Thursday, she told O'Mara that she had an issue with what kinds of guns people can own, that someone obtaining a concealed weapons permit doesn't mean they will act responsibly and that more training is needed for concealed permit holders. She has three dogs, four cats and "a couple of lizards" and has been called to jury duty four times before this case.

B51: She is an older white woman with short brown hair who has lived in Seminole County for nine years. She retired from a job in real estate five years ago, has no children and often visits her elderly parents and siblings in north Florida. Last week, she told lawyers she thought Zimmerman may have done something wrong because he was arrested. She brought up that she heard the police investigation may not have been carried out properly. "The end result was somebody thought it was mishandled," she said.

E6: The middle-aged white woman with blond hair is married and has two kids, ages 11 and 13. After the shooting, she talked about "appearance" and "safety" with her kids. She got emotional when talking about being a victim of domestic violence. One of the most talkative people during the group questioning, she often spoke up when lawyers questioned potential jurors, asking how jurors would deal with "paranoid" and "anxious" people who claim self-defense. Prosecutors tried at least two times to get her stricken from the jury for recognizing four names on the potential witness list. Judge Nelson let her stay. E6 is a churchgoer who used to volunteer at a school and likes gardening and babysitting.

E40: The middle-aged white woman moved to Seminole County in November from Iowa and worked around the country as a safety officer. She is married to a chemical engineer, has a 28-year-old son and does not have a Facebook account. She remembered little about the shooting, summing up her knowledge for lawyers as "I recall the phrase 'gated community, teenager.' ... That's about it." She likes to travel, read and watch sports — especially football.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to mnottertail)

RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN - 7/12/2013 2:58:53 PM

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

Seems all but one

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to tazzygirl)

RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN - 7/12/2013 2:59:55 PM

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

Well, first off thats news, I thought they were all white women. But I don't see a woman taking kindly to folks shooting someones babies, unless all their kids are teenagers too.

know whadda mean vern?

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to tazzygirl)

RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN - 7/12/2013 3:01:18 PM

Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

I did my paper route at 12 years old, decades before any leash law.

I 'moved up' to the morning route, where the dogs were more vicious.

Never had a gun, either way.

I can understand some having a gun. But, against dogs?

(in reply to Marini)

RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN - 7/12/2013 3:01:54 PM

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

That was my first thought as well... a 17 year old kid, shot by a 29 year old "man"...Then again, they tried to stack the OJ jury with black women thinking they would be more sympathetic...

From the commentaries I have heard, the jury was split, if you go by expressions. We could have a hung jury.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to mnottertail)

RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN - 7/12/2013 3:03:34 PM

Posts: 3842
Joined: 3/21/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

I was about to post on Zimmerman III when I found out that it had been locked. I think that you have hit upon the solution here, and I hope the trial experiment goes well. (pardon the pun....)

------------

"That conversation (issues emanating from the Zimmerman trial) is about the particulars and vagaries of laws. It is about a law that allows an “aggressor” to legally use deadly force against a defender if the two become engaged in an altercation where the aggressor begins to “believe” he or she is in imminent danger of being seriously hurt or killed. Do we want our laws to be written in such a way? Should the “aggressor” pay no legal penalty for setting deadly events in motion? Should the idea of self-defense bounce back and forth between two people like a Ping-Pong ball?"

Do we really want handguns operating as the final arbiter of what might otherwise be: 1st, 2nd or 3rd Degree Assaults or Stalkings / bar-room - neighborhood squabbles?

Does the "fear of imminent harm - use of deadly force doctrine" open up ispo-facto defenses for every homicide committed in the course of a struggle or disagreement?

What factors would you require to justify the use of deadly force in a self defense claim?

I carry regularly, so perhaps I should step up to the plate on this one. Z was within his rights to carry that evening and to report M as he did. He did compromise his position by following him, but I believe he was doing what he said to the dispatcher and was returning to his vehicle when the confrontation occurred.

M was a typical 17 year old male who wanted to make his rep as a badass, as revealed during the trial. He turned up the hormones and decided to teach the chubby white boy following him some respect. Even though technically Z was the instigator, M was the escalator (you know what I mean), and ended up getting shot to death.

Z is, as everyone had pointed out, a chubby white guy who doesn't possess much in the strength and street smarts department. M was a fit and healthy young black male, who may or may not have had a little chemical courage in his veins. He quickly demonstrated to chubby white guy who knew what in a knock-down fight. Z got scared, and who wouldn't be when you start getting your head bashed into the sidewalk. I know what that feels like myself, and if I'd have had a gun on me then I'd have used it too.

Z was faced with the possibility of not only getting his ass kicked thoroughly by this kid, but also having his firearm taken by him and perhaps being used against him or someone else. In this instance, yes, the presence of his weapon was a determining factor in the outcome of the confrontation. In simple terms, he had to use it or lose it. And losing it could have meant serious repercussions for not only him, but someone else down the line if the weapon made it into the street market afterward.

The factors that would cause me to use my weapon in self-defense would be similar. Given my physical condition at the moment (bad back and other severe musculo-skeletal issues), facing down a well-built young man like that in a manner that didn't permit me to use my superior skills to full advantage would cause me to rely on my weapon.

It was dark, there were no police units in the vicinity, and no one was helping despite the screams (irregardless of who was doing it). When you're all alone in a situation like that, you're REALLY all alone. He was losing the fight (from the descriptions I've read, he never really had a chance in the first place). He had no other reasonable option. Give up? Lose his weapon and hope for mercy? No. You can't ever take that chance, not with some of the animals our society has birthed, and he had no way of knowing what an all-around swell guy M was.

Now I'm an experienced fighter, I know how to deliver and take a punch or other blow. I'm also keenly aware of my own limitations, and do not put myself into situations where I may need to draw and fire. Oh yes, when my piece clears the holster, it will be fired. I do not brandish idly, I do not make speeches, and I do not think of it as a replacement for my own common sense and abilities. Merely an adjunct.

While I do not compare myself with Z, I can relate to an extent. He got himself in over his head. All M had to do was to remain out of sight, and not confronted him. In that respect, both are guilty of stupidity, Z for getting out of his vehicle, and M for ramping it up for whatever reason he had in his head. He could have pulled a disappearing act with no problem. He chose not to. I say Z is not guilty of 2nd degree. Maybe guilty of negligent manslaughter, I'll allow that, but not murder. There was no premeditation.

_____________________________

Age and treachery will always overcome youth and ambition.

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. ~ Sun Tzu

Goddess Wrangler

(in reply to cloudboy)

RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN - 7/12/2013 3:06:31 PM

Posts: 1927
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline

That is an interesting re-arrangement of the components of self defense.

It isn't quite as useful as presenting them in the right order.

Once human beings quit being chattel/property they gain the presumption of having the right to act to preserve their own life or safety instead of defaulting that to their owner (Kings or slave masters).

"Self defense is Nature's eldest law" Dryden

This didn't sit well with everyone, including some who think that slavery is part of their Natural Order, and in some societies, 'anti-self-defense' initiatives resulted in laws where the party under attack had to retreat to the wall, or more, or resist with force that didn't harm the attacker. The darker the party, the more duty they had to retreat, not use deadly weapons, etc.
This allowed former slave owners to beat people of color pretty much with near impunity.

As we progressed into a more enlightened era, the luxury of violence and weapons fell prey to a host of egalitarian measures... Castle doctrine gained preeminence over Jim Crow, presumptive use of deadly force was extended to poorer people (even non-landowners), the issuance of weapons permits was taken away from the arbitrary discretion of local politicians, and the removal of the requirement to run away while being beaten, stabbed, or shot was created... earning the media hype of SYG.

The heat and light surrounding the Zimmerman/Martin case is that for some folks, they both had a plausible right to use some level of force in perceived reasonable belief of defending themselves. And like many rights and freedoms, competing self interests create dilemmas.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

I was about to post on Zimmerman III when I found out that it had been locked. I think that you have hit upon the solution here, and I hope the trial experiment goes well. (pardon the pun....)

------------

"That conversation (issues emanating from the Zimmerman trial) is about the particulars and vagaries of laws. It is about a law that allows an “aggressor” to legally use deadly force against a defender if the two become engaged in an altercation where the aggressor begins to “believe” he or she is in imminent danger of being seriously hurt or killed. Do we want our laws to be written in such a way? Should the “aggressor” pay no legal penalty for setting deadly events in motion? Should the idea of self-defense bounce back and forth between two people like a Ping-Pong ball?"

Do we really want handguns operating as the final arbiter of what might otherwise be: 1st, 2nd or 3rd Degree Assaults or Stalkings / bar-room - neighborhood squabbles?

Does the "fear of imminent harm - use of deadly force doctrine" open up ispo-facto defenses for every homicide committed in the course of a struggle or disagreement?

What factors would you require to justify the use of deadly force in a self defense claim?

_____________________________

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment" Anthony McLeod Kennedy

" About damn time...wooot!!' Me

(in reply to cloudboy)

RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN - 7/12/2013 3:09:16 PM

Posts: 1927
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline

Well written. I'll bet you probably wouldn't 'shoot to warn' under those circumstances either...

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

I was about to post on Zimmerman III when I found out that it had been locked. I think that you have hit upon the solution here, and I hope the trial experiment goes well. (pardon the pun....)

------------

"That conversation (issues emanating from the Zimmerman trial) is about the particulars and vagaries of laws. It is about a law that allows an “aggressor” to legally use deadly force against a defender if the two become engaged in an altercation where the aggressor begins to “believe” he or she is in imminent danger of being seriously hurt or killed. Do we want our laws to be written in such a way? Should the “aggressor” pay no legal penalty for setting deadly events in motion? Should the idea of self-defense bounce back and forth between two people like a Ping-Pong ball?"

Do we really want handguns operating as the final arbiter of what might otherwise be: 1st, 2nd or 3rd Degree Assaults or Stalkings / bar-room - neighborhood squabbles?

Does the "fear of imminent harm - use of deadly force doctrine" open up ispo-facto defenses for every homicide committed in the course of a struggle or disagreement?

What factors would you require to justify the use of deadly force in a self defense claim?

I carry regularly, so perhaps I should step up to the plate on this one. Z was within his rights to carry that evening and to report M as he did. He did compromise his position by following him, but I believe he was doing what he said to the dispatcher and was returning to his vehicle when the confrontation occurred.

M was a typical 17 year old male who wanted to make his rep as a badass, as revealed during the trial. He turned up the hormones and decided to teach the chubby white boy following him some respect. Even though technically Z was the instigator, M was the escalator (you know what I mean), and ended up getting shot to death.

Z is, as everyone had pointed out, a chubby white guy who doesn't possess much in the strength and street smarts department. M was a fit and healthy young black male, who may or may not have had a little chemical courage in his veins. He quickly demonstrated to chubby white guy who knew what in a knock-down fight. Z got scared, and who wouldn't be when you start getting your head bashed into the sidewalk. I know what that feels like myself, and if I'd have had a gun on me then I'd have used it too.

Z was faced with the possibility of not only getting his ass kicked thoroughly by this kid, but also having his firearm taken by him and perhaps being used against him or someone else. In this instance, yes, the presence of his weapon was a determining factor in the outcome of the confrontation. In simple terms, he had to use it or lose it. And losing it could have meant serious repercussions for not only him, but someone else down the line if the weapon made it into the street market afterward.

The factors that would cause me to use my weapon in self-defense would be similar. Given my physical condition at the moment (bad back and other severe musculo-skeletal issues), facing down a well-built young man like that in a manner that didn't permit me to use my superior skills to full advantage would cause me to rely on my weapon.

It was dark, there were no police units in the vicinity, and no one was helping despite the screams (irregardless of who was doing it). When you're all alone in a situation like that, you're REALLY all alone. He was losing the fight (from the descriptions I've read, he never really had a chance in the first place). He had no other reasonable option. Give up? Lose his weapon and hope for mercy? No. You can't ever take that chance, not with some of the animals our society has birthed, and he had no way of knowing what an all-around swell guy M was.

Now I'm an experienced fighter, I know how to deliver and take a punch or other blow. I'm also keenly aware of my own limitations, and do not put myself into situations where I may need to draw and fire. Oh yes, when my piece clears the holster, it will be fired. I do not brandish idly, I do not make speeches, and I do not think of it as a replacement for my own common sense and abilities. Merely an adjunct.

While I do not compare myself with Z, I can relate to an extent. He got himself in over his head. All M had to do was to remain out of sight, and not confronted him. In that respect, both are guilty of stupidity, Z for getting out of his vehicle, and M for ramping it up for whatever reason he had in his head. He could have pulled a disappearing act with no problem. He chose not to. I say Z is not guilty of 2nd degree. Maybe guilty of negligent manslaughter, I'll allow that, but not murder. There was no premeditation.

_____________________________

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment" Anthony McLeod Kennedy

" About damn time...wooot!!' Me

(in reply to MasterCaneman)

RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN - 7/12/2013 3:09:16 PM

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

It was dark, there were no police units in the vicinity, and no one was helping despite the screams (irregardless of who was doing it). When you're all alone in a situation like that, you're REALLY all alone. He was losing the fight (from the descriptions I've read, he never really had a chance in the first place). He had no other reasonable option. Give up? Lose his weapon and hope for mercy? No. You can't ever take that chance, not with some of the animals our society has birthed, and he had no way of knowing what an all-around swell guy M was.

I keep coming back to the fact that, from where Z indicated he had his weapon, T never would have reached it.. especially with his knees in Z's armpits.....

It just isnt adding up.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to MasterCaneman)

RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN - 7/12/2013 3:10:34 PM

BamaD

Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

I was about to post on Zimmerman III when I found out that it had been locked. I think that you have hit upon the solution here, and I hope the trial experiment goes well. (pardon the pun....)

------------

"That conversation (issues emanating from the Zimmerman trial) is about the particulars and vagaries of laws. It is about a law that allows an “aggressor” to legally use deadly force against a defender if the two become engaged in an altercation where the aggressor begins to “believe” he or she is in imminent danger of being seriously hurt or killed. Do we want our laws to be written in such a way? Should the “aggressor” pay no legal penalty for setting deadly events in motion? Should the idea of self-defense bounce back and forth between two people like a Ping-Pong ball?"

Do we really want handguns operating as the final arbiter of what might otherwise be: 1st, 2nd or 3rd Degree Assaults or Stalkings / bar-room - neighborhood squabbles?

Does the "fear of imminent harm - use of deadly force doctrine" open up ispo-facto defenses for every homicide committed in the course of a struggle or disagreement?

What factors would you require to justify the use of deadly force in a self defense claim?

The aggressor as defined by law is the first person to resort to violence and the law does not protect them.
Virtually every state in the union prohibits carrying in a bar.
If fear of imminent harm isn't the standard do you have to wait till you are seriously injured or dead before you fight back.
Remember if someone pulls a gun on you there is only fear of harm till he actually shoots you.
Does this mean that you want to get rid of the self defense plea?
And wouldn't that mean that the streets belong to the thugs.
Before you jump on it at no point did I call Martin a thug.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to cloudboy)

RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN - 7/12/2013 3:11:11 PM

Posts: 1927
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline

Oh come now... surely you are aware of the post apocalyptic menace of marauding packs of mutated Pit Bullweilers and Weremastiffs?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

I did my paper route at 12 years old, decades before any leash law.

I 'moved up' to the morning route, where the dogs were more vicious.

Never had a gun, either way.

I can understand some having a gun. But, against dogs?

_____________________________

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment" Anthony McLeod Kennedy

" About damn time...wooot!!' Me

(in reply to Edwynn)

RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN - 7/12/2013 3:12:11 PM

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

~FR

If those 6 women are smart, they will find for a hung jury and go home

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Powergamz1)

RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN - 7/12/2013 3:15:16 PM

Posts: 3842
Joined: 3/21/2013
Status: offline

In a fight like that, you can't accurately describe what you're doing. You're not recording the situation-you're fighting. Things go on in your head that don't go on when you're sitting in front of a screen.

And in response to PowerGamz, no, warning shots are criminally negligent. I throw lead at least 2-3 times a month at my club from a number of positions. I rarely miss. Granted, it's hard to replicate the conditions Z faced, but we do try to use realistic scenarios for practice.

_____________________________

Age and treachery will always overcome youth and ambition.

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. ~ Sun Tzu

Goddess Wrangler

(in reply to tazzygirl)

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.074