Ted Nugent's spin on Zimmerman's self defense

[blueboss]

http://rare.us/story/nugent-zimmerman-verdict-vindicates-citizen-patrols-self-defense/

[jazyd]

I think Ted did a good job of desiring it

[BigBlueBrock]

I care about what Ted Nugent has to say about as much as I care about the opinion of pro athletes. That is to say that I care not at all.

[suncat05]

"Terrible Ted" nailed it.

[blueboss]

I care about what Ted Nugent has to say about as much as I care about the opinion of pro athletes. That is to say that I care not at all.

It's kind of a pro athlete rebuttal, ironically, just another opinion.

[Doc]

I like Ted. I find some of his views a bit extreme but still like that he has the cajones to stay what he does. Of course I don't put any more value on it than I do the ramblings of Matt Damon, Tim Robbin, Barbara Striesand, or any other celebrity. However I do read the link in the same manner that I would a blame the victim in a rape case. I don't expect there to much agreement on that but that's fine.

[BigBlueBrock]

However I do read the link in the same manner that I would a blame the victim in a rape case. I don't expect there to much agreement on that but that's fine.

I'm sorry, but what? Did you word this poorly?

[Doc]

I'm sorry, but what? Did you word this poorly?


Yes, poorly worded. I read it as if Ted was blaming the victim. Often the defense tactic to a rape is to blame the victim and I read Ted's statement as that, blame the victim. Bottom line is that Travon Martin is dead and Ted puts the blame totally on Martin. Again, I don't expect it to be a popular stance here but I believe BOTH were responsible and that had Zimmerman taken adult actions and sat in the car as he was asked to do, Martin would not be dead.

[BigBlueBrock]

Yes, poorly worded. I read it as if Ted was blaming the victim. Often the defense tactic to a rape is to blame the victim and I read Ted's statement as that, blame the victim. Bottom line is that Travon Martin is dead and Ted puts the blame totally on Martin. Again, I don't expect it to be a popular stance here but I believe BOTH were responsible and that had Zimmerman taken adult actions and sat in the car as he was asked to do, Martin would not be dead.

Agree with all of this.

[Doc]

Agree with all of this.


Sometimes I forget to type words or phrases. Sometimes that changes the whole meaning of a post. I say its because my brain works faster than my fingers but perhaps its that my fingers work slower than my brain!

[CitizenBBN]

Ted isnt blaming the victim hes saying martin isnt the victim, Zimmerman is, and there is a case to be made for that view. A good one in that it was martin who initiated the violence and forced a man to defend himself. Thats what the jury accepted, and if martin is the one who turned it from a confrontation to violent conflict then hes no victim.

This is nothing like a rape case, not even close unless in the rape case the woman beat on the mans skull until to get her to stop he finally had to have intercourse with her against her will. The rape in that situation would be analogous to zimmerman firing his gun, otherwise the only analogy to a rape case is if we ignore the verdict and insist Zimmerman initiated the physical fight.

What ted did was talk about the real trayvon martin, the kid with multiple school suspensions who was himself a racist with racist friends. The kid who showed the same wannabe thug attitude with pics of guns and drugs as zimmerman did his wannabe cop stuff.

Neither was just some innocent angel going about his day. Had zimmerman walked up and just shot him then martins a victim but not if martin initiated the use of physical force. thats where the law draws the line between victim and assailant and its the right place to draw it.

Maybe zimmerman set it up, pulled off a racial slaying, but the evidence and the jury say Zimmerman wrongly suspected martin of threatening his neighbirhood, either began to or did confront him about it, martin got mad at him doing that and srarted a fight which zimmerman finished in self defense.

Blaming martin for the fight itself isnt blaming the rape victim bc per the jury martin started the fight. If you start raping someone and somewhere in the middle the other person decides they like it and oblige you dont become a rape victim.

Sent using Forum Runner

[Doc]

As I said, most won't agree, but I have a hard time seeing the live guy as the victim. And I'm not interest in rehashing that.

[CitizenBBN]

FWIW I think it was a bad decision for Zimmerman to follow or otherwise confront Martin, but that's easy to say in hindsight.

A great way to test something is to vary the outcome and see if it is hindsight influencing our view.

In this case say the following happened: Zimmerman patrolling neighborhood, sees Martin, calls 911 thinking he's acting suspicious. But now he HEEDS 9/11 advice and stays in vehicle. Police don't respond for an hour and we find that martin has broken into a home and killed a 6 year old girl when he thought the home was empty and it wasnt'.

Do we then say it was OK for Zimmerman to stay in the vehicle? Wouldn't that girl's parents be outraged that he "did nothing!!!???" ? When we find out he was armed and was part of the watch do we wonder if he was a coward?

Maybe we say he did the right thing, but maybe by getting out of his truck this alternative Martin, the really bad guy, would have been scared off.

the point is you can't use hindsight to say if the decision was right or wrong. The decision has to be right or wrong as the decision is being made. Holding someone to a standard of info they don't have is unfair.

Zimmerman knew there had been a rash of break ins by young black men in dark clothing. he saw a young black man in dark clothing who didn't seem to live in the neighborhood and who was walking around close to the houses, not on the sidewalk as one normally would. Was his decision to "check it out" really deserving of a 30 year sentence if it turns out like it did? He didn't get out to kill Martin or shoot him or arrest him, just to protect his neighborhood and make SURE this wasn't a criminal engaging in criminal activity.

So sit in that truck a while and think about what you'd say to your neighbor if you sat there and did nothing and their home was robbed or someone in their family hurt by that person when you could have by just checking out the situation maybe have deterred him. It's easy to say he should have done X or Y, a lot harder when you're there, at night, with 1/100th the information we have, trying to decide the right thing to do.

Zimmerman isn't perfect, but I see no malice in him and despite a special prosecutor and massive political pressure to find some in a months long trial they didn't uncover anything that shows he's racist or irresponsible or cavalier towards public safety or the rights of others. He's in so many ways Joe Any Man. That average guy had to make a decision, and I don't think it was to get out and shoot anyone. It was to protect his neighborhood, watch out for his friends and do a job he said he'd do as he thought it should be done.

A mistake? Maybe, but not a 30 years in hell ruined life mistake, regardless of how it played into a chain of events where TWO people made multiple decisions to lead to a death.

[CitizenBBN]

As I said, most won't agree, but I have a hard time seeing the live guy as the victim. And I'm not interest in rehashing that.

that's fine, and I don't either, but I am curious if that ever changes, like if a guy goes in armed to rob a liquor store and the clerk shoots him dead. Not trying to be facetious, I really am curious when the dead guy can be the victim in your view, if ever.

I suspect you're basing your view on the lack of evidence here to know for sure who initiated what, etc., and I don't take issue with that approach, just curious if that's it or not.

[jazyd]

You did a good job of explaining how it could have the other way. Go one step further, what if that 6 yr old was your child and you knew Zimmerman sat in his truck with a pistol, had volunteered to watch the neighborhood but then didnt truly watch. The parent of that child would be highly pissed at Zimmerman as would every neighbor.

Martin is dead, a tragedy, but it is more his fault by initiating violence and telling the girl about the cracker asss, being a reg drug user....oh how some here want to still claim using drugs doesn't cause any problems...was kicked out of school, thought of himself as a badass. He was trouble and based on testimony by his friend caused everything to blow up in his face and get killed for it.

Zimmerman in hind site made mistakes but it is so easy to say after the fact. But based on past history of that neighborhood he did the right thing. And since we know for a fact that black males had committed crimes there, we will never know if Martin himself had committed any of them. His history suggests it was very possible




QUOTE=CitizenBBN;98235]FWIW I think it was a bad decision for Zimmermancke to follow or otherwise confront Martin, but that's easy to say in hindsight.

A great way to test something is to vary the outcome and see if it is hindsight influencing our view.

In this case say the following happened: Zimmerman patrolling neighborhood, sees Martin, calls 911 thinking he's acting suspicious. But now he HEEDS 9/11 advice and stays in vehicle. Police don't respond for an hour and we find that martin has broken into a home and killed a 6 year old girl when he thought the home was empty and it wasnt'.

Do we then say it was OK for Zimmerman to stay in the vehicle? Wouldn't that girl's parents be outraged that he "did nothing!!!???" ? When we find out he was armed and was part of the watch do we wonder if he was a coward?

Maybe we say he did the right thing, but maybe by getting out of his truck this alternative Martin, the really bad guy, would have been scared off.

the point is you can't use hindsight to say if the decision was right or wrong. The decision has to be right or wrong as the decision is being made. Holding someone to a standard of info they don't have is unfair.

Zimmerman knew there had been a rash of break ins by young black men in dark clothing. he saw a young black man in dark clothing who didn't seem to live in the neighborhood and who was walking around close to the houses, not on the sidewalk as one normally would. Was his decision to "check it out" really deserving of a 30 year sentence if it turns out like it did? He didn't get out to kill Martin or shoot him or arrest him, just to protect his neighborhood and make SURE this wasn't a criminal engaging in criminal activity.

So sit in that truck a while and think about what you'd say to your neighbor if you sat there and did nothing and their home was robbed or someone in their family hurt by that person when you could have by just checking out the situation maybe have deterred him. It's easy to say he should have done X or Y, a lot harder when you're there, at night, with 1/100th the information we have, trying to decide the right thing to do.

Zimmerman isn't perfect, but I see no malice in him and despite a special prosecutor and massive political pressure to find some in a months long trial they didn't uncover anything that shows he's racist or irresponsible or cavalier towards public safety or the rights of others. He's in so many ways Joe Any Man. That average guy had to make a decision, and I don't think it was to get out and shoot anyone. It was to protect his neighborhood, watch out for his friends and do a job he said he'd do as he thought it should be done.

A mistake? Maybe, but not a 30 years in hell ruined life mistake, regardless of how it played into a chain of events where TWO people made multiple decisions to lead to a death.[/QUOTE]

[Doc]

that's fine, and I don't either, but I am curious if that ever changes, like if a guy goes in armed to rob a liquor store and the clerk shoots him dead. Not trying to be facetious, I really am curious when the dead guy can be the victim in your view, if ever.

I suspect you're basing your view on the lack of evidence here to know for sure who initiated what, etc., and I don't take issue with that approach, just curious if that's it or not.


The guy who walked into the liquor store instigated the conflict and committed a crime hence would not be a victim. Clearly he committed a crime. So of course it changes.

Trayvon Martin was not convicted or charged with any crime. Much ado was made when Zimmerman was found not guilty. Recall this post?


In America, we are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. George Zimmerman has not been proven guilty.

A until B.
No "B"
Therefore "A".

This holds true unless you are Trayvon Martin. Second amendment advocates seem to believe GZ was just walking along and TM decided to jump him, cold cock him and beat the hell out of him. To your credit, you have admitted that some of Zimmerman's decisions were poor ones, decisions that helped bring about this confrontation. Ted's comments fail to acknowledge that and he places all the blame on Martin (a person who was charged and convicted of nothing) and acts like GZ is the All American guy who was simply doing his American duty (play Star Spangled banner here with a backdrop of an American flag waiving in the background while Zimmerman stands in the foreground with his hand on his heart). Others will/have claimed that Martin was the aggressor but that is based on comments made by Zimmerman and are self serving because there is nobody there to refute them. See the truth of what happens isn't known. Only two people were there and the only eyewitness testimony or statements that exist come from Zimmerman. I don't know who threw the first punch but won't assume it was Martin simply because Zimmerman was getting beaten up at the end. Zimmerman claims he didn't start the physical altercation and there is nobody to refute that which makes "reasonable doubt". But I don't hold Zimmerman free of guilt because IMO he instigated the conflict in part when he got out of the car and decided to follow Martin (this we know) and I suspect he attempted to stop Martin possibly by letting him know he had a gun. I suspect Martins actions were reactions to Zimmermans actions. So my belief is that Ted Nugent's point of view is one attacking the victim.

To expand you your analogy (which I don't find particularly relevant) .... masked man walks into a store carrying a gun. Store keeper fearing he is about to be robbed, punches masked man and masked man shoots store keeper. I'm not going to blame the store keeper and see the masked man as a victim.

[BigBlueBrock]

It's strange how much I can agree with Doc on this issue, yet disagree with him vehemently in regards to other things. Very well said, sir.

[Doc]

It's strange how much I can agree with Doc on this issue, yet disagree with him vehemently in regards to other things. Very well said, sir.

Thats because I'm "anti-gun". Also "pro-abortion" and "pro-gay". :050:That or I don't simple drink the stew that is the GOP platform. Most issue I look at and decide for myself. Most business and taxation issues I'm conservative as they come. As for social issues, I'm mostly for stay out of my life. However I do strongly believe in personal responsibility in all cases as well as living with the consequences of your decisions.

[bigsky]

I'm pro gun rights, pro gay rights, pro women's rights, pro men's rights, pro taxpayer rights.

Right on!