Bill Cosby Weighs In – Martin / Zimmerman Case

Not sure if the interviewer asked Heathcliff Huxtable… or if he just offered his 2 cents up but here it is:

“We’ve got to get the gun out of the hands of people who are supposed to be on neighborhood watch,” Cosby said in his first public remarks about the case.

“Without a gun, I don’t see Mr. Zimmerman approaching Trayvon by himself,” he added. “The power-of-the-gun mentality had him unafraid to confront someone. Even police call for backup in similar situations.”

“When you carry a gun, you mean to harm somebody, kill somebody,” Cosby said.

Source – The Washington Times

A show of hands if you read the quotes in Bill Cosbys voice?  LOL I did.

I find the most interesting line being the one about carrying a gun means that you are out to harm or kill somebody.  If he would have specified “killing scumbags that try to harm you or your family” I would have agreed, but his vague statement even encompasses police officers. Surely Bill Cosby doesn’t have a problem with police officers carrying guns.  It’s just the rest of us that aren’t responsible enough. *eye roll*

Next time when a white person gets shot, i’m emailing all major news papers and begging them to get Pauly Shore’s opinion. Cause you know… finding out what celebrities think about a topic they know nothing about is important.


Hat tip: Heath, Jared



Tom B April 9, 2012 at 12:47 am

Im all for concealed carry, whatever you want.

In this case though I feel that Zimmerman instigated the situation and that the boy shot was the person that should have had that stand your ground on his side.

What I think mr Cosby was trying to say was something similar, however he focuses on the weapon not the intent. He believes the weapon made Zimmerman the aggressor and attempts to draw a parallel that an officer of the law in the same situation wouldn’t have charged in without asking for help. Zimmerman felt the weapon was his help and used it as such

You have to admit there Are plenty of irresponsible gun owners who imagine themselves as a bad ass when they are armed. YouTube is full of em. We will never know most likely what happened here but if I were the law Zimmerman would have been punished. He disobeyed a 911 dispatcher, approached an unarmed teenager while armed, and the kid is dead. Fists or no what was this kid supposed to think? To me, the kid stood his ground and because he was unarmed, he died. Rallying behind Zimmerman in the name of protecting our second amendment rights is misguided.

But that’s just my opinion.


bryce April 9, 2012 at 01:05 am

your as bad as the media how can you make a judgment when there almost no facts only speculation


Heath April 9, 2012 at 10:55 am



Harrence April 14, 2012 at 11:37 pm

The recordings of 911 and Trayvon and his girlfriend leaves little for speculation.


Jon Hutto April 9, 2012 at 09:29 pm

If what MSNBC says happened, happened, Tom is right.
If what CNN says happened, happened, Tom is right.
If what ABC says happened, happened, Tom is right.
If what the police, Zimmerman, and 2 black eye witnesses say happened, happened, then Tom is wrong.


Tom B April 9, 2012 at 10:42 pm

Last night when this posted it was a oh god not this again moment for me. You know some cable channel echo chamber thought call up Cosby see if we can get him to say something them other cable channel sound bite guys are played out so we can gab about him for another day or two.

Worked well in getting everyone here talking.

I said it was an opinion, not a judgement. There is a difference to me. One changes as the facts come out the other one is more final. I’m not passing a judgement, I’m just not convinced stand your ground should apply. There wasn’t an oh my god he’s coming right at me for the person with the gun. There was for the kid though.

Jon as for your comment I do not watch those news sources. I probabaly have read some amalgamation of all the cable news channels and how it’s been filtered from the various websites I read because everyone seems to be talking about it.

I did check Wikipedia ( And since it doesn’t tell me who the black witnesses are I’m not sure to what you are referring,the witness statements there look contradictory and there are more than two.

My Comment is more aimed at that there were not any reports of anyone being ripped out of the car so it just seemed a bit odd that he could claim self defense. He coulda driven off like he was told. Instead he gave chase and then at that point it isn’t clear what happened other than he got out of his car and someone ended up dead and was unarmed and legitimately there.

That’s where I get hung up on it. Would this conversation be different if the kid pulled a licensed firearm and shot The driver? Someone followed another in an unmarked SUV and then jumped out and charged me after chasing me through a neighborhood in a pedestrian vs vehicle chase late at night. The kid had a stronger claim than the person in the car from my viewpoint. He tried to get away and the guy kept coming.

I’m more looking at it as a mental exercise. Pedestrian being chased by a car and then the driver gets out and chases you down when you cut between houses. You get cornered and fight back unarmed, you gain an upper hand and you get shot.

Why is that stand your ground for the guy in the car? The driver created the hostile situation by aggressive action in a vehicle and then foot chase. Only when he but off more than he could chew did he draw and shoot. That just seems out of whack to me.


dave w April 9, 2012 at 01:01 am

Yeah, i think he would have waited for police a little more if he wasn’t armed, then he got himself in the loosing end of a whoopin which he defended himself from. But there’s nothing wrong with going up to someone and saying ‘hey buddy, im doing the neighborhood watch tonight and don’t recognize ya. You visiting someone around here?’ or the such. I have had it happen to me before.
But if you wouldn’t go into a situation without your gun, then you shouldn’t with it. Operators operating in operations excepted.


bryce April 9, 2012 at 01:02 am

“next time a white person gets shot” it wont be in the NEWS, its not news worthy


Harrence April 14, 2012 at 11:41 pm

A black person shooting a white person is more than likely in the nature of a robbery. A white person

is likely to be robbed because they are likely to have things – not just because they’re white. The
Martin case is much different than and simplly can’t merit your feelings of being a victim just becuase
you are white.


dave w April 9, 2012 at 01:04 am

and what is ‘white hispanic’? do you get categorized by both your parents now? does that make me white white? im confused


Josh April 9, 2012 at 09:14 pm

and what is ‘white hispanic’? do you get categorized by both your parents now?

Ahhh, time to learn something. Saying that he is “white Hispanic” is liking saying Jerry Seinfeld is a “white Jew.” You see, Hispanic is not a race, it’s an ethnicity.

Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.


dave w April 9, 2012 at 09:26 pm

So i cant be called racist if i pick on hispanics?


Vhyrus April 9, 2012 at 09:27 pm

Ethnicist just doesn’t have the same punch, does it?


dave w April 9, 2012 at 09:33 pm

No it sure doesn’t. I have to go research this now to figure out who i can pick on and not be called racist.


Tom B April 9, 2012 at 09:37 pm

Favorite line from King of the Hill. I’m not racist. I hate everybody


dave w April 9, 2012 at 09:52 pm

that does sum me up fairly well. Im nothing if not fair.
According to wikipedia josh is likely correct, its not racist to rip on Italians for being greasy pizza throwing, mustache wearing plumbers in tight pants. Its ethnicist. At least for me, being of the race of Europe Arier apparently. Your results may vary.


Josh April 9, 2012 at 10:00 pm

…josh is likely correct

That’s always a pretty safe declaration!

In all seriousness though, haven’t you ever noticed on an application for a job, or school, etc. that in the voluntary demographic questionnaire section you can identify your gender, veteran status, age, and in the portion about race and ethnicity, one of the options is “white – not Hispanic.”


dave w April 9, 2012 at 10:19 pm

Well now you mention it, yes, i’ve never given it much thought before. All i knew was i am the one that doesn’t get anything for free as my life is all paved with gold apparently. :/


Harrence April 14, 2012 at 11:44 pm

The fact is there are hispanics that hate blacks or rather copy whites they want to
be so much like they use their preduces in like manner. Many feel they’re more
American if they act like racists whites. Not all white people are racists (thank God).


Harrence April 14, 2012 at 11:35 pm

The racial aspect was so in so much consideration, the “white hispanic” discription could not be


Vhyrus April 9, 2012 at 01:46 am

Rule #1 of civilian carry is “Never start a fight, always back down, never escalate a situation.” My belief is that Zimmerman broke that rule. He could have hung back and waited for the cavalry. He was in no immediate danger: not only was he in a car but he was armed. He placed himself in a compromised position and then shot his way out of it. That is not OK.

Picture this for me, all you wonderfully situationally aware folk: you are walking down the street in the early evening through a residential area, when suddenly a car starts following you. It is obviously not an emergency vehicle, and the driver is on the phone talking to someone while following you. How many of you would be more than a little concerned? What if the car stopped and the guy decided to get out and approach you aggressively? I’m willing to bet at least 60% of you would probably have drawn on the guy before he even attempted to get out of the car. I know I would have at the very least considered it.

The details of the incident are sketchy at best, but there was at least 1 partial witness who saw them arguing verbally for several minutes before the shots rang out. Why didn’t Zimmerman get back in his car and wait for the police? Like I pointed out before, he was in no danger in the car and still had the option of retreating safely, yet he chose to remain and get into a fight on the street with this kid. Does that sound like the responsible and mature thing to do? It doesn’t to me.

You can turn this around and say that Martin was immature as well. He also could have left, shrugged it off, called the cops (assuming he had a phone), etc. While that is true, it really doesn’t do him many favors in light of the facts. For one, Martin was 17. TEENAGERS MAKE BAD DECISIONS. I bet if some fat older guy started fucking with you in the street when you were 17 you’d have thrown a punch too. That’s what 17 year olds do: they act impulsively and aggressively. Even if Trayvon had wanted to leave, the fact is that his aggressor (lets be honest now Zimmerman started the confrontation that makes him the aggressor) had access to a car and was obviously following him. I wouldn’t feel safe turning my back on that situation either. For all we know, Zimmerman cut Martin off from his route when he confronted him.

As people who deeply respect the right to self defense and take pride in common sense overcoming blind faith, none of us should be commending Zimmerman’s action. He needlessly put himself in a bad position which resulted in the death of a (possibly innocent) human. Does that make him a murderer? Probably not, but it certainly doesn’t make him a champion of concealed carry or gun rights.

My opinion is that race probably had little to nothing to do with the situation, despite what the media jackals might make you think. They saw an angle that would sell and they ran with it, simple as that. That’s show business, people. As far as Bill’s misguided remarks go, he has pissed off the black community quite a bit in recent years, and I believe these comments are his attempt to make it up to them, nothing more.


Frank April 9, 2012 at 08:03 am

Vhyrus you’d be surprised at the amount of people who carry daily and they are not in the “back down mentality”. I don’t mean they’re looking for fights, but certainly there are a great number of people whose pride more or less gets the best of them. And you’d probably be surprised to know that some of those people that carry tend forget to think they’re carriers of a weapon that uses LETHAL force.

I think Zimmerman would have pursued Martin, because Zimmerman was already in that mentality of entitlement “to do” something or have something done. Whether or not that involves lethal force I don’t know.

Zimmerman lived in a neighborhood, which allegedly had been burglarized by black males in the past. So of course, to me, it seems reasonable to believe Zimmerman would feel entitled to confront or at least engage Martin in conversation for his own emotional security. Ever say “Hello!” to a neighbor, and they just stare at you? I can’t imagine Zimmerman as the kind of guy who would just shrug that off, without dismissing the situation with a few curse/cuss words either under his breath or well above it.

Whether or not Zimmerman did the right thing legally, I don’t know, but I believe Zimmerman would have carried a knife or something else (flashlight, etc) and confronted Martin anyhow. There are a lot of angry people in the word, with or without guns. I can’t imagine Zimmerman confronted Martin because he felt he just wanted to swing by and say, “Howdy neighbor.” Listen to whatever is available with the 911 tapes. Clearly Zimmerman was not happy about Martin and was not going to wait for the police. Zimmerman was unhappy and wanted something done, but I don’t think he expected to use lethal force out of this situation.


Heath April 9, 2012 at 08:29 am

Check the FBI stats, if it seems to me that the rate of whites/hispanics killing blacks is something like 8 percent. If the stats for whites and hispanics weren’t combined into the same category it would be even lower. Blacks killed by other blacks is far more prevalent. The rates of whites killed by blacks is up around the 15 to 18 percent mark.

Vhyrus, the only FACT I’d concede to is that we do not have the facts. Let’s see the entire story before we sentence the guy.


PJ April 9, 2012 at 12:07 pm

If you’ve never checked it out I recommend looking at this site:
The gist of the site is that self defense is about 99% situational awareness and not being a jerk. Choosing not to deescalate is the opposite of self defense as it creates a potentially deadly situation where one may not have existed prior.
I 100% agree that those in gun community who are commending Zimmerman are making a major mistake. With what facts have come to light it seems that at best he defended himself from a situation he put himself in and that is not the kind of person we need to be representing gun owners to the general population. As far as the race issue I agree that it has been blown way out of proportion by the media. Bill is likely trying to mend some fences and as Alien426 pointed out this is an issue that strikes close to home for him.


Nate April 10, 2012 at 11:36 am

I agree with Vhyrus, Frank and PJ. Zimmerman put himself in a situation that he couldn’t properly handle. Both actors made terrible decisions and one died. It’s a lose/lose situation. I’m a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter and have my daily carry gun sitting in front of me on my desk as I type, but I really strongly disagree with proponents of Constitutional carry. In my opinion, George Zimmerman is the type of person that should, at the very least, have had some form of training associated with his CCW permit. Unfortunately, too many areas, my county included, do not have any kind of training available from the Sherriff’s Dept. People are expected to seek that on their own, if they so choose.


JM April 12, 2012 at 01:14 pm

I thought rule #1 was “the weapon is always loaded”…

There is no set of ethics to civilian carry that do not apply to unarmed citizens. Carrying a knife doesn’t constitute an inherent expectation to be less aggressive, and neither does carrying a gun. Escalation may not be a good idea in the event of a shooting and grand jury review, but avoiding escalation is not an obligation nor a legal requirement.

Come down off the high horses and sit here awhile. The teacher is in.


Harrence April 14, 2012 at 11:45 pm

Having a hisory of violence at 1 or 2 girlfiends was Zimmerman legally qualified to CCW?


Jeep April 9, 2012 at 03:08 am

I’d like to ask Mr. Cosby : when you put your seatbelt in your car, is it because you plan on having an accident?


Linoge April 9, 2012 at 05:45 am

I was about going to say, Cosby says, “harm somebody, kill somebody” like it is always a bad thing.

Yes, Bill, I do mean to harm someone, and possibly kill them, if they pose a real, valid, actionable threat against myself or my family and if that is what the situation warrants. And?

But, yeah, I have never understood celebrity-worship to begin with, so I sure as hell do not understand why people are so very interested in what these people have to say regarding topics they are largely ignorant about. Might as well ask my cats about it.


Andrew April 9, 2012 at 06:11 am

Aside from the “carrying a gun means you want to kill someone” remark I kind of agree with Mr. Cosby. The Neighborhood Watch rules in his neighborhood specifically said you couldn’t carry a gun while ‘on duty’. And I think he may have a point. If Zimmerman hadn’t been armed, would he have pursued Martin?

I carry everyday, but it doesn’t make me an off duty cop. I don’t go around looking for fights or problems to solve. If I see some that feels wrong, I call the police. My main option for personal security is a lifelong plan of avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation. The gun is for when those don’t work.


Alien426 April 9, 2012 at 07:00 am

> Next time when a white person gets shot, i’m emailing all major news papers and begging them to get Pauly Shore’s opinion. Cause you know… finding out what celebrities think about a topic they know nothing about is important.

“[Bill Cosby’s] son Ennis was shot dead while changing a flat tire on the side of Interstate 405 in Los Angeles on January 16, 1997.”, says Wikipedia.


Caleb April 9, 2012 at 12:33 pm

I went to school right there, and looked at his grave every day in the morning.


ENDO-Mike April 9, 2012 at 02:00 pm

I remember that happening, but losing a son should hardly make him an authority on the topic.


Caleb April 11, 2012 at 02:56 pm

Oh, I agree completely, it was just a piece of memory brought back to the surface. I really want to find out what Snooki’s opinion is of this whole topic. ENDO Exclusive Interview!!


Josh April 11, 2012 at 05:54 pm

…but losing a son should hardly make him an authority on the topic.

Everybody’s got a right to an opinion, right? How many people on here have advanced degrees in criminal justice or something similar that would qualify them as an “expert” on the subject of gun violence? I’d wager probably none. He lost a son to gun violence – would you tell a mother who lost a child as the result of drunken driving that her opinions on drunk driving laws or punishments weren’t relevant because she’s not a qualified “expert”? I would hope not.

While I’ll disagree with his statement, “When you carry a gun, you mean to harm somebody, kill somebody,” I think the rest of what he said was probably pretty accurate. Had Zimmerman not had a gun, he probably would have not approached him by himself. And let’s all be honest, there is a “power-of-the-gun” mentality that people get. Cops get it, soldiers get it, and undoubtedly overzealous neighborhood watch members get it. To say otherwise is just being disingenuous. Hell, it would seem that this is the type of guy who probably had a bit of a big head by being named “neighborhood watch captain,” and considered himself an extension of law enforcement in his own community. I’ll bet he volunteered, if not begged, to be hall monitor when he was in school too. I can picture it now – OK, what I’m really picturing is Eric Cartman as the hall monitor, dressed up like Dog the Bounty Hunter… Lemme see your hall pass brah… Beth, bear mace him! Classic.

Should people in a neighborhood watch be carrying firearms? Maybe, maybe not – but, I think, certainly not if it’s going to give them some sense of invincibility that causes them to go beyond neighborhood watching and on to neighborhood patrolling and confronting people. If he had stuck to the second word in “neighborhood watch,” he wouldn’t be hiding under a rock somewhere begging for donations on the internet. It may turn out that the shooting itself was justified, but it seems a bit like picking a fight with someone, and then shooting them in self-defense because you’re getting your ass kicked.


Josh April 11, 2012 at 06:24 pm

…he wouldn’t be hiding under a rock somewhere begging for donations on the internet.

I should have checked the latest news before typing that; I see he is now in police custody, charged with second-degree murder.


JM April 12, 2012 at 01:52 pm

You know for a fact – or even a likelihood – that Zimmerman made the approach because he was armed? That’s pretty astute.

Tell me this: what’s the likelihood that a 17-year-old thug with a history of social issues and a criminal record would attack someone without provocation? More or less likely than someone escalating a confrontation because they were armed?

Don’t play devil’s advocate. The only facts you know are that one person is dead, and one person has owned up to killing me. How and why may never be fully determined, and especially not by armchair detectives.


Nate April 12, 2012 at 02:02 pm

The likelyhood of a confrontation if Zimmerman would have followed directions from the dispatcher and stayed in his car would have been zero, whether he was a thug or not.


JM April 12, 2012 at 02:20 pm

Really? Please tell me the numbers for the next Powerball lotto.


Josh April 12, 2012 at 05:47 pm

Really? Please tell me the numbers for the next Powerball lotto.

Give him some numbers so we can get an answer to the age-old question, “Can you buy a lottery ticket with your head up your ass?”


Nate April 13, 2012 at 07:49 am

With my luck, I’d give this loser numbers and he’d win. Paul Blart here ain’t worth my time.


JM April 13, 2012 at 09:35 am

What a lovely crowd. You guys are better for gun control proponents than Zimmerman ever was.

Josh April 12, 2012 at 05:46 pm

You know for a fact – or even a likelihood – that Zimmerman made the approach because he was armed? That’s pretty astute.

If you were more astute, and possessed decent reading comprehension skills, you would have understood that I did not say outright, or imply, that I knew for a fact that he would not have approached him had he not been armed. I can’t say, for a fact, what I would do in the same situation, let alone what someone else would; there are way too many variables at play. What I implied was that carrying a gun gives people a sense of security and makes them likely to be a little more “brave” in some situations. If you don’t believe that to be true then you’ve successfully fooled yourself, but you can’t fool the rest of us. I think the effect is more pronounced in people that suffer from the, for lack of a better term, “mall cop” mindset. I would classify a neighborhood watch member who arms himself, patrols his neighborhood, and makes calls to the police so frequently that they refer to him by his first name as suffering from the “mall cop” syndrome.

…what’s the likelihood that a 17-year-old thug with a history of social issues and a criminal record would attack someone without provocation?

I can’t speak to that likelihood. But why would that be relevant? In all the talk about this case, I’ve not heard anything about a criminal record until. Judging by his trouble in school, etc., he was probably on his way to having an arrest record, but as far as I know, Zimmerman is the only one who had been on the receiving end of police handcuffs in the past (the mugshot that was so frequently shown was, I believe, from an arrest for battery on an officer and resisting arrest; I think he also was the subject of a domestic violence charge on a different date). Now, to the question about “attack[ing] someone without provocation.” He didn’t walk up to a random stranger on the street and attack him; he (allegedly) attacked a man who had been following him in a vehicle as he walked down the sidewalk. Zimmerman apparently followed him because he looked “suspicious.” If I were walking down the street and someone was following me in their vehicle, I’d say that they were pretty damn suspicious. I think we’ve heard from one or two in previous posts here that they would be ready to, or would have drawn their concealed weapon the moment Zimmerman stopped his vehicle and got out. I might too if I were carrying a pistol; again, I can’t say for sure, it all depends on the specific circumstances and what my spidey sense is telling me at the time.

The only facts you know are that one person is dead, and one person has owned up to killing me.

I never claimed to have any facts other than that. I don’t know who confessed to killing you, but apparently being dead negatively affects your cognitive abilities.


JM April 17, 2012 at 01:21 pm

“Had Zimmerman not had a gun, he probably would have not approached him by himself.”

You didn’t say this? You’re right – my reading comprehension must be lacking. Not only was I unable to understand what you meant, it doesn’t read like a proper sentence to me.

See, it looks to me like you improperly used a split infinitive and also failed to differentiate your subject and your patient noun. What I read was: “Had Zimmerman not had a gun, he probably would not have approached Martin without backup.” Is this not what you meant, Professor Josh?


SGB April 9, 2012 at 08:11 am

I don’t go to Bill Cosby for advice. Or anyone who has made a living out of acting. He’s a comedian, not someone who has the wisdom of Solomon. If he wants to offer advice on Jello, I might listen. Might.


Heath April 9, 2012 at 08:31 am



CEB April 9, 2012 at 08:32 am

I think BC’s heart is in the right place, but lets paint another scenario besides being the gun’s fault…
Obviously crime watch citizens are needed in some areas because of …..what oh yeah crime…..Zimmerman called 911 before he proceeded, does that sound like the mentality of someone out to shoot anyone? Supposedly he backed off and went back to his car, Martin approached him and asked why are you following me, now………how did they get into a scuffle? parametics confirm Zimmerman had sustained injuries, maybe we would have a dead Zimmerman today, maybe… its all maybe’s Self defense is your right…for either… The final details may never be known..


Logic April 9, 2012 at 11:19 am

It’s just the rust of us that aren’t responsible enough. *eye roll* Mike since when were we rust?


ENDO-Mike April 9, 2012 at 01:58 pm

Oops.. haha thanks. Spell check doesn’t catch those errors.


Dave S April 9, 2012 at 03:49 pm

My thoughts are, guess who is being reported as having a New York concealed carry permit? That’s right, Bill Cosby.


Nate April 10, 2012 at 11:44 am

I read that this morning and was just about to post the link. It was on and quite a few of the celebrity anti-gun crown are on it. Right Mr. DeNiro?


Ed April 9, 2012 at 06:17 pm

My problem with the whole case is that apparently it’s justified to accost a citizen in this country just because you don’t recognize him from the neighborhood. Did he not have his travel papers on him? Last time I checked you’re good to walk down any street you want in this country. The blame, in my eyes, rests on the public who is okay with this type of activity happening in a “gated community.” Just because some fascists think you have no business traveling freely in this country doesn’t make it so. That’s the heart of the issue for me.


Nate April 10, 2012 at 11:49 am

Ed, if young, white punker kids on skateboards had been burglurizing you and your neighbors, the next time you saw a young, white punker kid on a skateboard rolling through your neighborhood late at night, wouldn’t you take notice.


Ed April 10, 2012 at 05:50 pm

There is a difference between being alert and taking notice of someone, and actually approaching that individual to question their motives for being out in public.


paul kimble April 9, 2012 at 07:53 pm

im truly sickened so many of you have bought into the media lies, half truths and all around jack-assery surrounding this event.

you totally neglect the fact that this guy was cuffed, taken to the station and interviewed by the police on the night of the incident. result: the district attorney filed no charges.


Vhyrus April 9, 2012 at 09:25 pm

The only thing that means is that the DA does not think he/she can win a case with the facts presented in accordance with the state statutes. Many DAs are total chickenshits and will not push a case that might wreck their conviction rate or marketability, regardless of the actual facts. Theres a very good chance that this DA might be making a bid for public office soon and can’t afford to lose the hispanic/white/gun owner vote.


paul kimble April 9, 2012 at 09:47 pm

blah blah blah..


Vhyrus April 9, 2012 at 09:56 pm

What a well thought out and eloquent argument, sir! Your mastery of debate and the English language has simultaneously humbled me in a public fashion and caused me to abandon my prior argument entirely. You must be a master orator as well as a philosopher without equal.


paul kimble April 9, 2012 at 09:57 pm

“DA does not think he/she can win a case with the facts presented in accordance with the state statutes.” = no crime was committed

deal with it


Josh April 9, 2012 at 11:05 pm

“DA does not think he/she can win a case with the facts presented in accordance with the state statutes.” = no crime was committed

This sounds a lot like the fallacy that a person is “innocent until proven guilty.” A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, but the finding of a judge or jury doesn’t change whether or not the accused is actually guilty.

Let’s say someone comes into your house and steals something of yours. They then claim that it’s theirs, and you can’t prove that they took it from you, and you can’t prove ownership of it. Does that then mean that no crime has been committed? Of course not. Similarly, just because there may not be enough evidence to warrant prosecution does not necessarily mean that there was no crime.

I think the only thing that can be said with any certainty is that there is a lot we don’t know about this whole mess. Barring the discovery of some great piece of video evidence, or multiple, credible witnesses, I doubt we’ll ever get a true idea of exactly what happened.

It may very well turn out that they are unable to convict him of any wrongdoing because of the controversial “stand your ground” law. However, I think it’s extremely difficult to argue that Zimmerman wasn’t looking for some type of confrontation. If I saw someone that I thought was up to no good, I’d call police – they get paid for that, and have bulletproof vests. Then again, I’m not George Zimmerman – I don’t patrol my neighborhood looking for suspicious people, and if I were to call the police station or 911, the dispatchers wouldn’t know me on a first name basis from calling frequently.

It’s an unfortunate situation that certainly seems to have been initiated by the poor decision-making abilities of an overzealous “neighborhood watch captain.” I’m relatively certain that had he not been armed, he wouldn’t have attempted to confront this teenager. And if he had confronted him unarmed, well, he probably deserved to get his ass kicked for following him around like some creepy pervert. I’d be more than a little freaked out if I were just walking along the sidewalk and some guy was following me around in a car!


paul kimble April 9, 2012 at 11:12 pm

u mad?


Josh April 9, 2012 at 11:23 pm

? I have nothing to be mad about regarding this case. The bulk of my comment was just about this case in general. It was only the first part that was really directed at the dumbass notion that because a prosecutor doesn’t feel there is enough evidence to convict a person of a crime, then no crime exists. That’s not to say that I think a crime was or was not committed, it’s just to say that the part of the brain responsible for logical reasoning seems to be faulty in your case.


paul kimble April 9, 2012 at 11:43 pm

i think the lesson here is if you decide to “kick the ass” of that “creepy pervert” your logical reasoning deems to “freak you out” you might get shot. additionally if its in one of those 32 states with that “controversial stand your ground law” the “creepy pervert” most likely wont be prosecuted for doing so.

in retrospect if “no limit treyvon” hadn’t put his hands on “mr zimmerman” he’d still be chugging tea and eating skittles.


Jack April 9, 2012 at 11:32 pm

Consider this: It’s God’s job to take lives because he made us all, so he has the right. It’s the average human’s right to defend his own life as a last resort – period.


Jon Hutto April 9, 2012 at 09:26 pm

At least a hundred thousand Americans walk out of their home every day with a gun. They do that for the same reason you have security with you. We don’t want to be a victim. If I was a Billionaire i’d have a half dozen security 24/7 like Mr Bill.


ObsidianOne April 14, 2012 at 12:36 am

Bill Cosby has proven that he isn’t racially biased when it comes to situations like this.

Not sure about his gun knowledge though.



Older post:

Newer post: