Talk:Trayvon Martin/Archive1
Stand Your Ground[edit]
"In many states, Zimmerman would not have been able to claim self-defense, since at common law, for the use of deadly force in self-defense to be justified a person is required to attempt to retreat before using it. This is not the case in Florida, which has a "stand your ground" law enacted with the help of the NRA." First of all, this is an overly simplistic attempt at summarizing the "stand your ground" law. Secondly, the assertion that Zimmerman would not be able to claim self-defense it just plain absurd. He can claim anything he wants. The only effect Stand Your Ground has is on jury instructions.Fdof (talk) 00:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Snopes debunks "real Trayvon" photos[edit]
Worth mentioning? Balaam (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Ahhh, Darwin's discovery.[edit]
It is nice that there is a full and accurate fossil record.
"I demand of you, and of the whole world, that you show me a generic character ... by which to distinguish between Man and Ape. I myself most assuredly know of none. I wish somebody would indicate one to me. But, if I had called man an ape, or vice versa, I would have fallen under the ban of the ecclesiastics. It may be that as a naturalist I ought to have done so." - I quoting Carl Sagan (whom an Astronomy teaching classmate once called Pagan) quoting Darwin
Darwin and evolutionary development is but the start. Unlike "clean" physical sciences, objectivity and subjectivity is very intertwined for our lot and how we operate; as for your guess on whether that is all there is, your bet (guess or faith) is each our own. BTW, I see Horizontal Genetic Transfer to be quite indicative of my dislike of very vertically segregated phylogenic trees. — Unsigned, by: 75.195.113.40 / talk / contribs 2013-08-26T03:17:01
- What does this have to do with Trayvon Martin?
Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 03:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Some non-minority (per his member photo -- creed, skin-tone, ancestry, etc.) young (probably anti-authority as in police) weaseloid deleted my edit; he did this with only a critique and no calm request for improvement. My edit sought to portray fairly (and to some extent defend) the Sanford police department's actions immediately before and 24 hours after the Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman non-dialoguing incident. Do you understand? — Unsigned, by: 75.206.107.230 / talk / contribs 2013-08-26T16:58:00
- First off, is it of any particular importance whether or not Weaseloid is a non-minority or young? Second, your edit was dumped right in the middle of a sentence in a way that decreased the readability of the article. Given that the contribution was all of one sentence, I don't think a revert with a critique was a bad idea, given that it would take you all of a minute or two to find a better way to fit it into the article (assuming you can find a reliable source that backs up the assertion). - GrantC (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Stick it in a footnote if you want, but it seems kindof trivial. Whether Martin registered his phone or not or whether the police could trace his identity from this has no bearing on the big controversies thrown up by this incident. ωεαşεζøίɗ
Methinks it is a Weasel 18:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Stick it in a footnote if you want, but it seems kindof trivial. Whether Martin registered his phone or not or whether the police could trace his identity from this has no bearing on the big controversies thrown up by this incident. ωεαşεζøίɗ
