Replies

Out of curiosity were you one of those people here on FR that was calling for Zimmerman's head before all the facts were in?

Most certainly not.

you are drawing a conclusion that does not logically follow from events at hand. "It doesn't matter to me why he did it; but that he did it, and that texting is not a reasonable excuse for shooting someone..."

What could possibly give you offense that I want to draw a distinction between the possible motive and the act of shooting someone? Many posters here simply could not let go of their point of view that texting in public is so annoying that they would take to a thread about a man shot dead to complain about texting in a movie, as if it were a justification for shooting.

It remains to be seen if a court will convict this man. If he gets off, it could just as well be a "blue line" defense, or a mental health defense, or any number of things.

Neither of us can possibly know the real truth of this or any other events anywhere -- that is God's prerogative. You say tomato, and I say tomahto. Remains to be seen how it all turns out.

I'm not offended, I'm just pointing out a fallacy of your logic. Unless you are a mind reader you will never know the motivation of the accused, however it is a fact that the accused was not so irate that he pulled out his pistol at the first sight of texting and shot the man dead. It does not reasonably follow that the person was shot for texting.

"Many posters here simply could not let go of their point of view that texting in public is so annoying that they would take to a thread about a man shot dead to complain about texting in a movie..."

The texting in and of itself isn't really that important. The person who was shot could just as easily been talking on the phone, kicking the seat in front of him, or smoking a cigarette.

Your entire basis for this line of argument is irrational based on a faulty chain of logic.

If he gets off, it could just as well be a "blue line" defense, or a mental health defense, or any number of things.

The most logical defense in this case is self defense.

"Neither of us can possibly know the real truth..."
I agree but we do know some truths.
1. The media is biased and will always portray a public self defense situation in the worst possible manner.
2. There is a well documented campaign by this administration to curtail the right of American citizens to own, carry, and use firearms.

3. People have the presumption of innocence by law.

I have never said this person is innocent. I don't have enough facts to determine this either for or against, however the media finding and reporting about witnesses that support their narrative (and only witnesses to support their narrative) and the prosecution trying their case in the press simply doesn't not rise to any standard of proof that I will believe. I don't know how anyone could, I would have thought people would have learned their lesson already on this. Maybe it's just a happy coincidence that the press can actually drive their narrative of evil gun owners by accurately reporting the facts without their normal bias, but I wouldn't bet money on it.