George Zimmerman's Trial/acquittal/DOJ charges

[With Teeth]

I think the part I'm having trouble with is why George Zimmerman was allowed to have a gun in the first place. I mean, he had "assaulting a police officer" on his record, not to mention having a restraining order taken out against him for domestic abuse. I'm not clear on why society is better off if people with that kind of record can own guns.

Because the police officer was undercover and got into something with a friend of his, so from his perspective, it looked like someone was attacking his friend. Even the judge on that case said (long before the shooting) that it did not show Zimmerman was a danger to society.

[Xsyne]

He was walking in between houses, in the rain, in a residential area which had recently had a break-in. Trayvon could have stopped and said "no sir I am just trying to get home".

Yep.
Furthermore, I find it interesting that Trayvon was from the neighbourhood ye t supposedly had no idea who the neighbourhood watch captain is at the point when he spoke to him.

What neighborhood watch captain? Zimmerman was not part of the neighborhood watch at all, much less the captain of it.

[Bottle]

I think the part I'm having trouble with is why George Zimmerman was allowed to have a gun in the first place. I mean, he had "assaulting a police officer" on his record, not to mention having a restraining order taken out against him for domestic abuse. I'm not clear on why society is better off if people with that kind of record can own guns.

Because the police officer was undercover and got into something with a friend of his, so from his perspective, it looked like someone was attacking his friend. Even the judge on that case said (long before the shooting) that it did not show Zimmerman was a danger to society.

The fact that he, you know, beat his wife and later killed an unarmed teenager kind of undermines that idea...

[With Teeth]

Because the police officer was undercover and got into something with a friend of his, so from his perspective, it looked like someone was attacking his friend. Even the judge on that case said (long before the shooting) that it did not show Zimmerman was a danger to society.

The fact that he, you know, beat his wife and later killed an unarmed teenager kind of undermines that idea...

The shooting is irrelevant, because you're asking why he had a gun in the first place.

[Blasted Craigs]

Another thing I am seeing is a large number of people blaming Martin for the crime of "being a thug"...
So let me see if I get this reasoning right, because you assume someone is a thug, it's ok to shoot them. I assume this is because thugs break the law.

So if someone is walking around in an expensive suite, and I assume that person to be a wall street exec, because wall street execs often break the law its ok to shoot them, right? Wrong. Even if someone is a thug, it is not ok to shoot them!
I don't care if the kid was wearing a shirt that said I am a thug for life, and was throwing around gang signs. It is not a reason to kill him. If a kid is acting like a cowboy, is it ok to shoot them? If kids are playing cops and robbers, is it ok to kill them? Of course not, and it is bull crap to say otherwise.

Florida let a murderer walk free, and many are ready to reward him...
Sad.

[Bottle]

The fact that he, you know, beat his wife and later killed an unarmed teenager kind of undermines that idea...

The shooting is irrelevant, because you're asking why he had a gun in the first place.

I'm asking because it seems to me that his record pretty clearly indicates that letting him own a gun would not be safe for the public. The fact that we now have definitive, unquestionable proof that letting him own a gun was not safe for the public tends to support my feeling that "has a history of physical assault" might be a good reason to deny someone a gun permit.

[With Teeth]

The shooting is irrelevant, because you're asking why he had a gun in the first place.

I'm asking because it seems to me that his record pretty clearly indicates that letting him own a gun would not be safe for the public. The fact that we now have definitive, unquestionable proof that letting him own a gun was not safe for the public tends to support my feeling that "has a history of physical assault" might be a good reason to deny someone a gun permit.

It doesn't clear indicate anything. For your first example, the judge himself denied the prosecutions assertions that the assault showed Zimmerman was a threat to society, so there goes that. Even if he didn't rule that, Zimmerman attacked the police officer because he thought he was fighting his friend, and wanted to defend him. It was an undercover cop. It was not a man in uniform. You couldn't tell if it was a cop or not until after the fact. For the second example, the best you have is a protective injunction against Zimmerman because someone accused him of something, not an actual conviction or anything.

There doesn't seem to be anything on his record before the shooting that would justify taking away his gun permit.

[Apocentre]

Bullshit. George Zimmerman had a long history of reporting "suspicious" black people - and only black people by specific description - to the police. When you make 46 calls reporting suspicious people to the cops, and the only people you specifically describe in any of the calls are black, that's evidence that in your (Zimmerman's) mind, black = suspicious.

Only people you specifically describe in any of the calls are black.......... I see white male twice and hispanic male once, so close

Black male seven? times one of which was just to report an unsupervised child on a busy road apparently.

6 out of 9 descriptions = 6/9 = 2/3 != 1 or all or only

46 calls reporting suspicious people......... I'm not gonna count but I see animals, alarms, many open garage doors, maintanence/patrol requests, I'm guessing a third? might be reporting people. 46? not even close but ty.

[Grave_n_idle]

Actually, killings in self defense are rather rare.

Agreed, but nobody's focused on the fact that he did it in self defense. They're focused on the fact the kid was black.

Actually, this case probably wouldn't have hit the mainstream unless it was about the idiosyncrasies of the 'Stand Your Ground' law, and the question of whether you can chase someone down and STILL claim self-defence.

It has racial overtones as well, but there's all kinds of violence across all kinds of racial borders everyday, so it's not predominantly about colour.

Which is a fact that some people like to ignore, so they can pretend this is all about oversensitivity to race.

[Apocentre]

Or he rejects free will.

Not seeing how that's different from the second choice...

Please start a thread and give me evidence for free will

[Grave_n_idle]

you know they'd make that legal if the federal gov't would let 'em.

I think having shootouts with muzzle loading weapons would be better.

I'm firmly in favor of legalizing gang warfare as long as both sides have to use smoothbores and wear brightly colored outfits with fancy hats.

I'd be in favour, to be honest - provided they had designated areas for their fighting, well away from 'civvies'.

*shrugs*

[Xsyne]

Agreed, but nobody's focused on the fact that he did it in self defense. They're focused on the fact the kid was black.

Actually, this case probably wouldn't have hit the mainstream unless it was about the idiosyncrasies of the 'Stand Your Ground' law, and the question of whether you can chase someone down and STILL claim self-defence.

Nah, that question was answered by Greyston Garcia's trial.

[Grave_n_idle]

Bullshit. George Zimmerman had a long history of reporting "suspicious" black people - and only black people by specific description - to the police.

Well, duh. If they weren't black, they wouldn't be suspicious.

[AiliailiA]

Not seeing how that's different from the second choice...

Not really the thread, but the concept of free will is scientifically unsupportable given current knowledge. And frankly, that's putting it extremely lightly.

Absolutely not the thread subject. When it is the thread subject, count me opposed to your view: I may agree that free will is an illusion, but if so I will hold it to be a very useful illusion. It may not be a measurable thing, but still be a necessary assumption for all kinds of moral thinking and thus for the sense of justice. A mental construct, not an observable process. But ... a necessary mental construct.

Absolutely essential to the finding of guilt or innocence, for manslaughter in this case.

[Grave_n_idle]

"I think George Zimmerman is a man whose heart was in the right place but just got displaced by the vandalism in the neighborhoods, and wanting to catch these people so badly that he went above and beyond what he really should have done," the juror said.

See, there's a problem. A juror shouldn't be saying that (even off the record) - since that was not the question in front of them. This juror appears to have voted based on facts not in evidence, and decided whether or not Zimmerman was 'guilty' based on that belief.

[Grave_n_idle]

Well, yes.

I mean, if you were just going along minding your own business, enjoying your Skittles, and some racist vigilante KKK wannabe decided to attack you because you were black and niggers don't belong in this part of town, I suspect you might try to disable your attacker so you could get away too.

I would hope you wouldn't (after all, even in self-defense violence is wrong), but I wouldn't hold it against you if you did.

Seriously, has it occurred to anyone that if anything, it was Mr. Martin who was the one acting in self-defense?

George Zimmerman is hispanic, so I'm pretty sure he won't be joining the KKK anytime soon.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

*nods*

[Grave_n_idle]

Actually, this case probably wouldn't have hit the mainstream unless it was about the idiosyncrasies of the 'Stand Your Ground' law, and the question of whether you can chase someone down and STILL claim self-defence.

Nah, that question was answered by Greyston Garcia's trial.

Eh, yes and no. You can apparently chase someone down and Stand Your Ground all over their ass if they commit a crime against you, and allegedly initiate the violence.

Zimmerman's trial set the precedent that 'being black near the ground' is enough of a crime to meet the requirement.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Absolutely! Those skittles are deadly weapons...much like sidewalks apparently. How dare a black boy wield not only skittles but also a sidewalk?

The law is perfectly clear that Walking While Black is a felony.
That Trayvon Martin kid tried to flee from the scene of the crime, and that Saint George Zimmerman stopped him before he could get away.

Won't be long until walking while being a non-white teen is a felony.

[Vettrera]

Why do you hate the second amendment?

Because my interpretation of "well regulated" does not include individuals who assault cops and their wives.

Yeah. I agree with this 100%

I think I'm a little more content now, knowing that the first split was 3-3.
I still think that Trayvon definitely feared for his life while he was being stalked.
But a switch occurred during the fight where Zimmerman became the one fearing for his life.
Zimmerman's actions led to Trayvon's death. And though I don't think he should get much time....he should have been in jail for several years.

[Vettrera]

The only men Zimmerman identified by color were always black. And on "The View" O'Mara even admitted that race played a part in how George Zimmerman reacted to seeing Trayvon.

[Choronzon]

I'm slowly starting to believe that O'Mara is a bigger racist than Zimmerman.

[Greed and Death]

So the next question, on the every growing list of concerns is should a federal civil rights case be attempted ?
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/20 ... al-charges

[Ponderosa]

Actually, Stefan Molyneux explains this in the video, at about 17 minutes in. Go watch.

No. Explain it to me in your own words or stop having opinions you can't defend.

If you won't listen to the arguments Molyneux puts forth, why would you listen to mine?

Sigh... fine....

The fact that the dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that" is wholly irrelevant. That is a standard line that dispatchers always use. If you call 911 if you see a person hanging on the edge of a cliff, and they they tell you that the nearest cruiser is ten minutes away, and you tell them that you're going to try to save the guy, they actually will tell you "We don't need you to do that." They can't give orders, or they could be found liable for any injury to the caller.

Anything else you want me to find for you?

[Grave_n_idle]

So the next question, on the every growing list of concerns is should a federal civil rights case be attempted ?
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/20 ... al-charges

I think, at this stage, it kinda looks inevitable.

There are a lot of questions that went unanswered in the trial, not least Zimmerman's inconsistency, and the behaviour of jurors - and even if justice was served, it wasn't really SEEN to be served - and that's a problem for a nation under the rule of law.

[Greed and Death]

Why do you hate the second amendment?

Because my interpretation of "well regulated" does not include individuals who assault cops and their wives.

I agree anyone convicted of of either of those should be denied their right to bear arms. But alas Zimmerman was not convicted of either. Hitting his wife charges were dropped, and resisting arrest charges were disposed of in a manner that did not result in conviction.