Man follows black teen who seems "suspicious" and kills him.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You didn't get that propaganda right. Let me help you:

"what we know is a WHITE armed man maliciously chased down a child and murdered him for hatred and bigotry reasons."

Now that is more in line with the stupid propaganda.

you don't even really need the racial aspect, nor was I suggesting it as the motive

my point is, in any nation that doesn't contain the NRA, Zimmerman's actions alone, that are confirmed by the 9-11 call and not argued by anyone, would be enough to establish intent, or at the very least, something akin to gross criminal negligence.

Like, the racial thing is interesting, if largely unimportant, in the grander scheme. Its like, even by discussing it, we are sort of framing the issue as: Its only wrong if Zimmerman is a racist, when it is abundantly clear Zimmerman was in the wrong anyways. If Treyvon had been white, Zimmerman would be equally guilty.

Originally posted by juggerman
no proof Trayvon knew he had a gun before the attack began or that he felt threatened.

unimportant in establishing Zimmerman's intent

Originally posted by inimalist
you don't even really need the racial aspect, nor was I suggesting it as the motive

my point is, in any nation that doesn't contain the NRA, Zimmerman's actions alone, that are confirmed by the 9-11 call and not argued by anyone, would be enough to establish intent, or at the very least, something akin to gross criminal negligence.

Like, the racial thing is interesting, if largely unimportant, in the grander scheme. Its like, even by discussing it, we are sort of framing the issue as: Its only wrong if Zimmerman is a racist, when it is abundantly clear Zimmerman was in the wrong anyways. If Treyvon had been white, Zimmerman would be equally guilty.

Laws against gun are like 3' high fences. They only keep law abiding people in line.

which, in this case, Zimmerman is a part of

EDIT: and though it isn't the topic, that isn't the truest statement

Originally posted by inimalist
which, in this case, Zimmerman is a part of

EDIT: and though it isn't the topic, that isn't the truest statement

You are talking about a cultural thing. You have to change the culture, and I don't think laws will do that. Take pot smoking as an example: it is illegal in most states, but most people I know smoke pot (However, it is almost legal here in Oregon).

Originally posted by inimalist
unimportant in establishing Zimmerman's intent

It is important in determining the outcome of the case. If Trayvon did not know Zimmerman had a gun and he came out swinging, Zimmerman is much more justified in reacting with deadly force: his reaction becomes a reaction against a "crazy person" and is much more sell-able to a jury than the alternative which is...

If Trayvon reacted to Zimmerman flashing the gun, Zimmerman is not as innocent as he claims as he incited the attack with threatening gestures.

Remember, you're the one that brought up the study on a "gun present in the room" causing people to have violent thoughts. Zimmerman would come off as a thug and it is harder to sell his innocence to a jury if he comes out in his physical approach, flashing the gun.

However, none of the above can be proven. There is no evidence, other than catching Zimmerman in a lie, about him flashing or not flashing the gun.

I do think both of their backgrounds will come out and be an important factor on the issue of: "who acted violently first". IIRC, Zimmerman has a record of violence, Martin doesn't. Right?

martin had traces of marijuana in his system though :0

Originally posted by inimalist
martin had traces of marijuana in his system though :0

That explains everything.

Martin most likely had Reefer Madness.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are talking about a cultural thing. You have to change the culture, and I don't think laws will do that. Take pot smoking as an example: it is illegal in most states, but most people I know smoke pot (However, it is almost legal here in Oregon).

well, sure, but you don't think having major institutions like the NRA shapes that culture?

Originally posted by dadudemon
It is important in determining the outcome of the case. If Trayvon did not know Zimmerman had a gun and he came out swinging, Zimmerman is much more justified in reacting with deadly force: his reaction becomes a reaction against a "crazy person" and is much more sell-able to a jury than the alternative which is...

If Trayvon reacted to Zimmerman flashing the gun, Zimmerman is not as innocent as he claims as he incited the attack with threatening gestures.

Remember, you're the one that brought up the study on a "gun present in the room" causing people to have violent thoughts. Zimmerman would come off as a thug and it is harder to sell his innocence to a jury if he comes out in his physical approach, flashing the gun.

However, none of the above can be proven. There is no evidence, other than catching Zimmerman in a lie, about him flashing or not flashing the gun.

I think it changes things, sure, but you have to think of this from where I would come at it from versus where an American might. The simple fact of pursuing someone, while armed, and then them getting shot, by you... there seems no justification for that. Sure, maybe it will turn out that Martin was, legitimately killing Zimmerman with his bare hands, but this is unlikely, especially given the standard something like this would legally need in Canada.

I suppose he might be innocent by Florida laws, I don't think that makes it right at all.

Originally posted by inimalist
martin had traces of marijuana in his system though :0

Clearly he was a drug-dealer up to no good.

I heard his Iced Tea was laced with Meth and LSD.

Originally posted by inimalist
[B]I think it changes things, sure, but you have to think of this from where I would come at it from versus where an American might.

The simple fact of pursuing someone, while armed, and then them getting shot, by you... there seems no justification for that.

Uh. What? If that were the case, then why do all police forces have guns? That's insane. Take it from someone who has done armed security. Guns are not a deterrent, especially concealed ones.

And seriously. If, in Canada, simply having a gun on you means that you're automatically the instigator in any confrontation... that's stupid as hell. It's a good thing Canada's population is nowhere near as high-strung as ours, otherwise your laws would get a lot of police and security officers killed.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Not really, because we're not Canadian. You've already stated multiple times within the last few pages that to non-Americans our gun laws are silly. How is repeating yourself contributing to the topic's progression? No one here has contested the fact that non-Americans dislike American gun laws.

ok, fair enough... If not being American means my opinion on the matter is moot, done.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Uh. What? If that were the case, then why do all police forces have guns? That's insane. Take it from someone who has done armed security. Guns are not a deterrent, especially concealed ones.

the police force has guns because society has given them the monopoly on violence?

my point was about random citizens taking the law into their own hands, not the people we, as a society, have deemed responsible to make those types of decisions in split seconds where their lives might be in danger.

this isn't a situation of a cop shooting a kid, this is a random guy who shot someone, because he thought [or knew, whatever] it was his right to carry around a gun and enforce the law in his neighbourhood.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
And seriously. If, in Canada, simply having a gun on you means that you're automatically the instigator in any confrontation... that's stupid as hell. It's a good thing Canada's population is nowhere near as high-strung as ours, otherwise your laws would get a lot of police and security officers killed.

actually, simply having a gun is an offense. You may be able to get away with defending yourself on a murder charge for shooting a mugger, but unless you have some specialized security position that gets you a licence, you can't just carry around a gun or any other weapon.

otherwise, a) its not that you should be assumed the instigator, but if you want to carry a gun around in public, you should at the very least be held to a higher standard of behaviour that someone who is unarmed. At minimum, someone who is armed should bare more legal liability in the death of another person than should someone who is unarmed.

b) There is no debate in this specific case as to who the aggressor was. Zimmerman chased after Martin, who was breaking no laws, because he thought he was up to no good, after being told by police not to. That is intent. Maybe not intent to kill, but certainly to initiate an altercation.

You probably already know this, but not all US Gun laws are as retarded as in Florida.

I can't carry a concealed gun in California unless I have a very specific license to do so and iirc, it's very difficult to get. You basically have to justify why 'you' as a private citizen need to carry a concealed gun when you're about your daily business. IIRC, walking into a Post Office with a gun (even if you have a license to own it) is an offense here.

Originally posted by inimalist
I think it changes things, sure, but you have to think of this from where I would come at it from versus where an American might. The simple fact of pursuing someone, while armed, and then them getting shot, by you... there seems no justification for that. Sure, maybe it will turn out that Martin was, legitimately killing Zimmerman with his bare hands, but this is unlikely, especially given the standard something like this would legally need in Canada.

I don't know...

I think it has been established already that Zimmerman got his ass-kicked and his story was adding up in some regards (that his head was getting bashed against the sidewalk).

The reason we don't get to see his medical report is due to a smart defense lawyer keeping sh*t under wraps until it is presented in court. But they did leak the video footage that seems to corroborate his story of head smacks.

In that case, yes, he would be justified in using deadly force to save himself. He instigated the confrontation but it was non-physical, by his claims. Do you think it should be illegal to ask, "Hey, WTF are you doing in our neighborhood, loitering?"

Yours and my response would most likely be, "Woah. Dude, I don't want any trouble." Gun or no gun. Our response would certainly not be to kick the guy's ass. 😆

Originally posted by inimalist
I suppose he might be innocent by Florida laws, I don't think that makes it right at all.

In this sentence, please define "it". I am not breaking your balls, I am just a bit fuzzy on what you mean here.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, sure, but you don't think having major institutions like the NRA shapes that culture?...

I don't buy it! You are connecting dots that have no connection.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't know...

I think it has been established already that Zimmerman got his ass-kicked and his story was adding up in some regards (that his head was getting bashed against the sidewalk).

The reason we don't get to see his medical report is due to a smart defense lawyer keeping sh*t under wraps until it is presented in court. But they did leak the video footage that seems to corroborate his story of head smacks.

In that case, yes, he would be justified in using deadly force to save himself. He instigated the confrontation but it was non-physical, by his claims. Do you think it should be illegal to ask, "Hey, WTF are you doing in our neighborhood, loitering?"

Yours and my response would most likely be, "Woah. Dude, I don't want any trouble." Gun or no gun. Our response would certainly not be to kick the guy's ass. 😆

In this sentence, please define "it". I am not breaking your balls, I am just a bit fuzzy on what you mean here.

Originally posted by Mindset
Trayvon was standing his ground.

Unfortunately, he is not around to make that defense. 🙁

We only have the word of Zimmerman on how Zimmers approached and how each reacted.

Of all the stuff around...not much tells us about the crucial first 30 seconds that goes beyond witnesses and Zimmerman.

And, yes, I do see that you made a joke and it is not lost on me. 😄

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Laws against gun are like 3' high fences. They only keep law abiding people in line.

Look at how little gun violence you have in countries like New Zealand where they have strict gun control laws.