Trayvon Martin.

Hey, I'm calling it. DOA. 23:15 hours, EST.

 

It's not a matter of whether or not GZ was a good or bad as anyone makes him out to be. He initiated a situation which resulted in the death of a person who was not seeking to do him any harm. He then cried self-defense when his own offensive actions resulted in retaliation. The true intent of the self defense and stand your ground laws were made a of mockery of by the media, the Florida court system and the jury.

 

Martin was a 17 year-old imperfect young teen. Zimmerman was the adult. Zimmerman had a gun. Zimmerman had training on when and how to use the gun. Zimmerman was a trained neighborhood watch captain. Zimmerman was familiar with the community. Zimmerman was trained on the law. Zimmerman knew the police were on the way to handle the matter. Zimmerman said he was in fear of a suspicious guy who circled his vehicle and appeared to reach into his waistband (perhaps for a weapon), yet still got out of his vehicle. Zimmerman was the one who followed (I say hunted), the teen. Zimmerman assumed the teen was up to no good, a punk. Zimmerman spent over a year in fight training. Zimmerman did not say to Martin that he was with neighborhood watch, that the police had been called, etc., but reached in his pocket in front of a person who was in fear and could have assumed Zimmerman was reaching for a gun (I would have made that assumption given the circumstances).

In addition I believe Zimmerman exaggerated his injuries and the fight. I do not understand how Martin saw or went for the gun nor how Zimmerman was able to un-holster the gun given the positioning. I do not understand how Martin was shot in the manner he was shot assuming superior strength unless he was retreating or ending the fight.

The survey referenced is biased, to lead to a certain conclusion. I could do the same, with a bias to lead to a different conclusion.

Zimmerman may be innocent of the charge of second degree murder - but he is the one responsible and should have been found guilty of something. In hindsight, the best outcome would have been a plea deal. This case would not be an issue now and Zimmerman could have served some kind of reduced sentence and gotten on with his life - and perhaps have the sentence reduced to some kind of non-felony offense on a quiet Friday afternoon in a month like November. Now this is going to be a case that will never be forgotten and Zimmerman will always be the guy who got away with killing a teenager and the case will serve as another example of the judicial system failing young black males.

 

I have to say. I agree. I don't think there is a way you can kill an unarmed teen that you were following without some amount of reasonable culpability. At least, that's the world I wish to live in.

 

What provokes my psyche is the lack of concern over the fact that civilians in the US are walking around armed and a little too 'curious.' about what their neighbors are up to.

The sort of curious they might not be if they were unarmed. The sort of curious that leads to people unnecessarily getting killed.

 

Sweeping generalizations about gun owners. I like where you're going with this.

Mmm, I don't suppose anybody ever gets curious in the disarmed kingdoms.

"The mere possession of a defensive weapon makes you a homicidal maniac."

"The inability to defend yourself is good because it keeps you out of trouble."

I've got my notebook out, Joniemack. Please keep the solid gold zen a'comin'.

 

I would suggest it is not a sweeping generalization about gun owners as much as it is a commentary on how far the Castle doctrine has been expanded from protecting one's home to the current SYG laws and broadly define legal claims of "self defense" that border on justifiable vigilantism well beyond protecting your home and family.

At least, that is my reaction but I get how you gun owners see conspiracies and attacks on your rights behind every commentary that questions these laws. (generalization )

 

I apologize. In my old age I suppose I'm less concerned with being PC these days.

Does it help if my statement reads thusly?

"What provokes my psyche is the lack of concern over the fact that civilians in the US are walking around armed and SOME OF THEM ARE a little too 'curious.' about what their neighbors are up to."

Will that stop you from broadly interpreting a very limited point?

Probably not.

 

It's page 38. The dead horse was gutted, turned into a canoe and we've been tasked with rowing it until it sinks.

Dance with me. I'm countering your vague, scatterfuck points with my own vague, scatterfuck points. Hit me!

 

Vigilantism is but a new born colt in terms of serious discussion here.

I'm curious to know if you think it's irrelevant. to the discussion or simply don't want to go there.

Maybe I should mosey on back and read. I could be wrong about something, for once.

 

Juror Says 'George Zimmerman Got Away With Murder' | TPM LiveWire

 

I support gun ownership, conceal carry and the right to self defense including "stand your ground". I also believe in holding people accountable for acting in a irresponsible manner. The Zimmerman case is not a test for the three issues mentioned. In my view the law should be flipped in terms of presumption, anytime a person fires a gun the presumption should be guilt and the burden of proof should be on the person who fired the gun.

 

Not like she had any power to force a retrial or anything.

"Lemme bitch about the system I was operating within."

...

Don't know much about defensive shootings, do you? Here's what happens: You shoot somebody in self defense. Let's say it's a robber with a knife after he cut your arm trying to get his point across about how much he wants your iPhone, you popped him in the chest and put him down with a sucking chest wound. While the robber gets a free ride to the hospital, you get cuffed and arrested, your weapon confiscated, your car towed. You get booked, your anus searched and spend the night in jail if it's a late night or weekend. After you bail yourself, you spend the next few weeks sweating your ass off and doing the gimme-your-life-savings dance with a defense attorney while the police try and figure out if you initiated the incident or not. By the end of it you're out a lot of time and money (or job) and have been dragged through system just like a criminal. Feel free to hit up any search engine for stories about what happens to the poor suckers that legitimately defend themselves from violent criminals.

The flip side of the Zimmerman story is how much the systems sucks when you did nothing wrong.

It's better than being dead, I guess.

 

Unfortunately, the burden of proof is never on the defendant - it's always the responsibility of the prosecution to prove guilt. It's the basis of our legal system. Attempting to change that basis would be like attempting to get an elephant to walk upright on two legs. The more logical solution is to design better laws which explicitly address the circumstances where deadly force can be deemed justifiable. The vagueness of the 'stand your ground' law (in Florida at least) leaves juries in a difficult position.When legal justification for shooting an unarmed person is as simple as claiming 'I felt threatened' at any moment, regardless of actions which may have led to or caused the event to occur, then there is no scenario in which deadly force cannot be used and legally forgiven by a jury (and is used and forgiven effectively, by all accounts.)

 

Heh. The American Criminal Justice system is hell on many who gets ensnared in it. Those who bandy about shifting the burden and presuming guilt (which the Media loves to do), ought to remember the Government is a 500lb gorilla staffed with Cops, Forensic Techs, Prosecutors, and all manner of personnel who are more than happy to put you away. Even if you are free on Bond, your freedom is likely curtailed during the pendency of the case.

 

A. I'll let women, the handicapped and the elderly know that size disparity is not an excuse and that they should resort to fisticuffs when attacked by 200 pound male. /straight trolling

B. Vagueness is something that is intentionally written into many laws because the Reasonable Person standard is used to keep said laws from becoming too rigid, too black and white.

While I agree that many laws appear to be written by drooling retards, the only thing worse than a law being too vague is it being too specific. Better a tarp as a blanket than a napkin.

 

You know. I hate to say it, but it's so clear to me when ignorance rears it's ugly head.

 

Quit talking about me like I'm not right here.

Fuggin' TROLL. Just drop the sideways talk.

You wanna scrap? We can take this outside.

 

As long as it's on the sidewalk. You bring the skittles n' I'll bring the iced tea.