George Zimmerman

[bighead384]

Zimmerman was charged with something...2nd degree murder. He was found not guilty and fully acquitted. You, like others with no solid reason why, simply want Zimmerman convicted of soooooomething...for whatever reason. That is stupid.

Also, you act like TM was an innocent little boy simply out for a Sunday stroll with his friggin dog. He wasn't. He was the aggressor. He lost.

I meant that he should have been convicted of something. Or really, that I feel like his actions should warrant some kind of punishment.

Zimmerman acted stupidly and even disobeyed police orders to stay in his car. I also have trouble believing that TM would fight an adult unless Zimmerman did something to provoke the situation (beyond simply questioning him). And the fact that he brought his gun with him says something about his intent to me. Not only are these actions ill-advised, but they resulted in the loss of a human life. If he can't be convicted of anything, I actually see it a shame. You seem happy about it, which is strange to me.

There ought to be a punishment for disobeying cops where the end result is the loss of life.

[MOTO13]

Do you even know why Zimmerman had a gun or what he was actually doing? He was on watch and the area he lives in had been having problems with crime. Zimmerman was doing ZERO wrong. I am dumbfounded as to what part of this people don't get. Zimmerman was, by all acounts, the victim who defended himself.

[Static_Martyr]

Legal =/= ethical.

What the verdict decided was that what Zimmerman did was legal, not that it was ethical. As for whether it's legal, Stand Your Ground is law in Florida, and that's that. It's a stupid law, but it's there, and anyone who's been following politics in Florida for any length of time would've seen it coming. However, it's also on record that Zimmerman was told not to follow Trayvon, and yet he did. In any other state, he would be at least partially responsible for the ensuing struggle, based on that much alone.

I think that to just get mad about the verdict itself, as if the verdict is the only problem, would be missing the point. The ruling was a symptom of the bigger problem, which is RIDICULOUS crime legislation. Self-defense is already legal; there's no need for something like a Stand Your Ground law, because all it does is encourage someone to use lethal force when it's not necessary.

Anyone who followed this case from the start can see that Zimmerman was taking advantage of that law, and there have even been other cases where the shooter is clearly invoking the Stand Your Ground law as a set-up for performing an unnecessary killing; in the first case, a man pulls a gun on his neighbor without ever being threatened with violence, and then uses the fact that they are threatening him for pulling a gun on them as a justification for his ensuing act of "self-defense;" fortunately, in his case he was found guilty of murder, but it's not always as clean-cut, and not everyone is as shitty at setting up their defense.

The real enemy here, IMO, is the SYG law, which makes cases like these not only possible, but decidedly commonplace in terms of statistical occurrence (in Florida, over 60% of SYG shooters walk away with no legal repercussions, simply because SYG shuts down any serious analysis of the defense beyond "did the person reasonably feel that his/her life was in danger?" even if it actually wasn't).

[XYlophonetreeZ]

Zimmerman's wounds from the "head-bashing" were extremely minor. He did not need to shoot the guy. He also didn't need to be suspicious of a teenager carrying a bag of Skittles and follow him with a gun after being instructed not to by the police.

Fuck the race thing. The fact that he was overheard saying racist things on the phone call makes him look bad, but it carries no legal weight. You don't need it to make a compelling case against Zimmerman.

Dude was a self-proclaimed "neighborhood watch" guy. Might as well have been Dwight Schrute acting like being a "volunteer sheriff's deputy" was an actual title.

The core problem with this case is that Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law is fucked up. What constitutes legitimate self-defense is ill-defined. Furthermore, legal precedent with that law has already been established... but it went in the other direction: http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justic...ing/index.html

[nieh]

It's also incredibly frustrating because stand your ground only works if you actually kill the other person, whereas say, firing a warning shot instead of actually shooting them can land you 20 years in jail. http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/07/14/why-d...d-your-ground/

[MOTO13]

There you have it, we all agree that Zimmerman did nothing wrong. He was within the legal boundries of the law. He broke no law and committed no crime. This is a proven fact. These were the very same facts that were in play 16 months ago and everyone knew it. Yet an incredibly inept state attorney and prosecution team, who were about as unscrupulous a bunch of worhless fucks as they breed, decided to bet 2nd degree murder on race for a case that in no way met the criteria for such a charge. As for his injuries not warranting shooting someone...this is about as stupid and ill-conceived an argument that anyone could possibly make. When, pray tell, do you begin to defend your life? What injuries are needed to make your life worth defending? Realize it or not, at any time during an attack it may be your very last moment or chance to save your life. I'd shoot, save my life and ask for forgiveness later.

[XYlophonetreeZ]

There you have it, we all agree that Zimmerman did nothing wrong. He was within the legal boundries of the law. He broke no law and committed no crime. This is a proven fact. These were the very same facts that were in play 16 months ago and everyone knew it. Yet an incredibly inept state attorney and prosecution team, who were about as unscrupulous a bunch of worhless fucks as they breed, decided to bet 2nd degree murder on race for a case that in no way met the criteria for such a charge. As for his injuries not warranting shooting someone...this is about as stupid and ill-conceived an argument that anyone could possibly make. When, pray tell, do you begin to defend your life? What injuries are needed to make your life worth defending? Realize it or not, at any time during an attack it may be your very last moment or chance to save your life. I'd shoot, save my life and ask for forgiveness later.

Why point out the ineptitude of the prosecution if you're trying to argue that there was nothing to prosecute him for?

And yeah, at any point, Trayvon could have cracked him on the forehead with his plastic Arizona iced tea bottle. Good thing Zimmerman had that gun.

[MOTO13]

Why point out the ineptitude of the prosecution if you're trying to argue that there was nothing to prosecute him for?

And yeah, at any point, Trayvon could have cracked him on the forehead with his plastic Arizona iced tea bottle. Good thing Zimmerman had that gun.

1) You just answered your own question.

2) How does GZ know TM has no gun?

[Paint_It_Black]

When, pray tell, do you begin to defend your life? What injuries are needed to make your life worth defending? Realize it or not, at any time during an attack it may be your very last moment or chance to save your life. I'd shoot, save my life and ask for forgiveness later.

I feel that this is an excellent point, even if it was made by MOTO.

I have no intention of discussing the particular case that sparked this discussion but I find the concepts interesting. While it is obvious that SYG laws can allow people to easily get away with murder, which is terrible, I have to say that deep down the concept of SYG really resonates with me.

It is my understanding that self-defence laws often require you to attempt to flee before being allowed to actually defend yourself. Why should you have to do that? If someone is attacking you why should you have to waste precious time and concentration trying to run away? If you are a victim of an attack you should be able to defend yourself immediately.

Judging what level of defence is appropriate is tricky. If someone runs up to me and starts punching me why should I be limited to defending myself in a similar way? He has no right to be attacking me. Sure, I could try to fend him off with my own bare hands, but I have no idea what this violent attacker will do next. Is he going to pull a weapon? Will he curb-stomp my face into a pulp if I fall to the ground? Why should I have to risk finding out? Why should I have to wait? I am the victim here. He attacked me. Why shouldn't I just blow his head off and be on the safe side?

Most people seem to agree the result of the particular case that sparked this discussion was legally justifiable and that the law itself is the problem. This is why I don't wish to discuss that actual case. And I accept that SYG laws have problems. But I would really like someone to explain to me why the well-being of someone who is physically attacking me should ever be my concern or responsibility.

I'm genuinely interested in the discussion and am absolutely willing to change my opinion if presented with a really good argument.

[Static_Martyr]

There you have it, we all agree that Zimmerman did nothing wrong. He was within the legal boundries of the law.

No, actually we don't, because those two are entirely different things. Legality =/= morality. Or are you the type that says anything that, say, a government administration, does is necessarily ethical simply because it is legal?