(August 2, 2013 at 8:54 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Because he KILLED THE GUY.I said "Now, if you decide to take the law into your own hands and use your gun against them because they were being suspicious, that is where it becomes wrong."
Really, I'm having trouble believing you are this naive.
You said that is "precisely what Zimmerman did". There is no evidence to support that claim, that specifically, he decided to use his gun against Treyvon because he was suspicious. No, the evidence suggests he used his gun against Treyvon because Treyvon was beating him up.
"Because he killed the guy" is not a valid argument for your position. People kill other people for many different reasons; they aren't all clumped together into the "I killed him because the other guy looked suspicious" category.
Quote:Poorly since until Zimmerman made a nuisance out of himself there is no indication that Martin knew he was there.So...you're saying that if you make a nuisance out of yourself, I can legally beat you up? Who is being naive now?
Quote:This decision - remember law runs by precedent - enables any asshole with a gun to hunt someone and then claim they felt "threatened."Again. BULLSHIT. Zimmerman used his gun when Treyvon was beating him up; there isn't even any evidence that he had his gun out of its holster when he got out of the car, and there is more evidence that you even want to admit that Zimmerman stopped looking for Treyvon when the police told him he didn't need to.
This doesn't change the precedent on anything. Before Zimmerman, you were allowed to defend yourself with a gun if you believed your life to be in danger. After Zimmerman, it's the same.