Zimmerman Verdict In...

If you truly believe that there's no good argument to be allowed to carry, by all means, believe it.

I don't carry. I wish no one carried (criminally or legally), but since we don't live in that world you have to at least acknowledge the fact that people make good arguments in support of being allowed to own a gun, even if you don't agree, and that it's not as simple as "Let's go back to Wild West!" or "Banning guns would save the world!"

Neither side believes either of those things, so stop acting so naive -- there's a lot of gray in the world, and nothing's so black and white.

But really, go ahead, just pretend that everyone that disagrees with you is an idiot. You must be great at parties.

cases like this put the american parade of stupid on display. i'd say that's the biggest tragedy here.

Why do I see people still talking about Stand Your Ground laws?

Anyone that brings that up clearly did not even follow this case, lol.

because people are stupid. they got all their info from news headlines and opinion pieces. they scanned the headlines and formed an opinion before zimmerman even hired a competent attorney who first thing said, "we're not using the stand your ground law.".

Yeah, it wasn't about Stand Your Ground Laws, it was about a horribly obese and disfigured Aryan man with Nazi symbols tattooed all over his face pursued and mercilessly gunned down the President's son, who could've grown up to be a doctor for the first starship to Mars, all because he committed the horrible crime of being a black man taking a leisurely stroll through his neighborhood.

....

Seriously ....

seriously what?

this is severely inept logic...

this isn't about guns, stop trying to make it be.

If there's anything "this" is about, it's how the media and certain political figures can skew the system, luckily they didn't *** this guy over with jail, but they still *** him over via everyone knows his name/face, he won't be able to live a normal life.

edit: not to mention the part of your last line which is seriously disturbing that somebody would even type that...

it also taught us that russel simmons is not a reputable news source.

they probably are...

I wonder how a civil war between people who have guns and people who don't would play out though...

(if we're going to make south jokes, I'd honestly not want that war to give the bible thumpers more power, just sayin')

Don't forget this guy.

I guess it's true- racism really does ruin lives.

oh snap, now I almost feel bad for that joke...

it's ok. my great grand father was full blooded cherokee and i forgive you.

see, that's just *** up.

to be fair, I wouldn't call the history of America *** over the natives a "civil war" as they were their own people, not of the US.

but that's quibbling a bit imo.

neither would i, but it's the best example of people with guns fighting people with out them for most people here.


also... was a joke. let's n ot apply critical thinking to it. laugh and walk away bro. laugh, and walk away.

In that article, it clearly says:

It had nothing to do with Florida's controversial "Stand Your Ground" law, he said; from an investigative standpoint, it was purely a matter of self-defense.

opinion piece on huffington post. the link says, "NOT GUILTY – BUT NOT INNOCENT", and when you click it the story is titled, "
George Zimmerman Not Guilty: Jury Lets Trayvon Martin Killer Go".


this is the kind of ***that stirs up more ***. it's prodding into a wound just to get a bigger reaction. i wish news was about the facts and not what some *** trying to be insightful thinks.


*edit* and now al sharpton is gonna head to florida to be there for a civil trial. this is starting to remind me of the episode of boondocks where the teacher calls riley, ***.

lol


lol

I don't think this was a situation where deadly force was necessary. That's my essential problem with the situation. Martin wasn't trying to kill Zimmerman. It was a disproportionate response and it left a child dead. Zimmerman should have paid for that, it was manslaughter at the very least.


Being from the UK, you probably don't understand the sick gun obsession in America culture, as well as the deep-seated prejudice against African-Americans, particularly in areas like Florida that are below the Mason-Dixon line. I don't think we will EVER be divested of that, it's very pervasive. The thing is, black lives, especially male lives, are undervalued. It extends beyond this trial to stuff like inner-city violence and the war on drugs as well.

Thankfully you don't get to decide that. It was proved that that GZ had a reasonable fear for his life that lead to the use of justifiable homicide.

There is no such thing as "disproportionate response", using a knife, gun, rock or a big stick, there is no legal difference. GZ using a .50 cal machine gun or a pen to kill TM, both are the exact same legally (laws against the .50 not withstanding). Ultimately it rests on if there were grounds for justifiable homicide and a jury of six just said there was.

This is why I can't take liberals seriously. These kinds of mental gymnastics.

I keep reading contradicting sources -- what was the final verdict, did Trayvon reach for the gun or not?

Because, even if you started, when someone reaches for your gun it means your life is now in danger. It's not a rash assumption to say "welp, he's about to shoot me" and have to act.

I feel dirty that I keep having to reiterate that Zimmerman instigated this, and that the whole situation is disgusting and handled poorly, but I can't find any compelling argument that states that he was wrong. Just that he was a really shitty human being.

Don't you mean "creepy-*** cracker"?

Manslaughter

http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/782.07.html


In Florida "excusable homicide" is what they call "justifiable homicide".

Jury just ruled that it was excusable homicide in the act of self defense.

Florida 776, self defense

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html


Reasonable fear is the operative term.

And here is the "Stand Your Ground" section.


These are the actual laws, the things that due process works on. Not the bullsh!t stuffed between the heads of internet forum dwellers.

That's what the star witness said, right?

Jesus, how the actual hell do you say that in court with a straight face? :|

TM reaching for the gun is irrelevant. TM smacking GZ is all that's required. The operative term is "reasonable", not "100% certain of". GZ merely needed a reasonable fear that his life was in danger or that he was in danger of great bodily harm. Fear of life is not actually required.

GZ being a dumb a$$ is irrelevant. Being a dumb a$$ isn't illegal, following someone in your car isn't illegal, following someone on foot isn't illegal. Nothing GZ did was actually illegal, TM initiating physical contact with GZ is illegal.

The jury found reasonable doubt that GZ murdered TM. Note again the use of the operative term "reasonable" and not "100% certain". To convict someone, especially of murder 2, you need to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning you need to remove all reasonable doubt that this person committed this crime. This is why it only takes one person out of a 6/12 jury to have someone be acquitted. If all of them agree then you can get a not guilty, which is what we got.

Not a racial comment.

Hm?

Also, @Savael, I agree with that 100% -- I just thought that if it was determined the kid reached for the gun that there was no room for argument, hence why I asked.

They asked her if she thought "creepy-*** cracker" was a racial comment, she said no.