Zimmerman verdict: Not Guilty.

[Captain Colostomy]

What ever happened to the Guardian Angels? As I recall, they used flashy clothes and martial arts to do what one chubby guy with a gun couldn't.

Being ex-military, i can say without doubt a gun in inexperienced hands is a disaster waiting. Even with experience, for that matter. In my jaded opinion the psychological comfort a gun gives you is precisely the problem to begin with.

Guns scare me, as they rightly should. (And I own a few).

I think invader Zim took things too far. Lucky for him, the law disagrees.

[Tiberius]

Aaaaand... the loop is closed.

The loop would be closed if Zimmerman had used his gun on Treyvon because he was acting suspicious. There is no evidence to suggest that. Rather, Zimmerman used his gun on Treyvon because Treyvon was beating him up.

Again, there is nothing wrong with having a gun in your car, or on your person, and thinking someone is acting suspicious. Unless you think thought crime is a thing that should be legislated against? I don't know, maybe you do.

What is wrong is when you think someone is suspicious, and then decide to use your gun on them because of it. Simply being suspicious is not a good reason to shoot someone. Having someone attack you and beat you up is.

Yeah, but some idiot going around with a gun, ready to use said gun, thinking a kid is suspicous....leads to him taking the law into his own hands and using the gun!

What do you mean by "going around with a gun"? There is no evidence Zimmerman had it in his hand when he got out of the car. He had it on his person, sure, but evidence shows he almost always carried it around, so it wasn't like this was some special circumstance. Additionally, when the police dispatcher said they didn't need him to follow Treyvon, Zimmerman replied "OK" and says that he lost sight of Treyvon and tried to find a number for the police to meet him at. This is also backed up by the location of Zimmerman's car in relation to the shooting.

I just have trouble understanding that you think it's fine for someone armed with a firearm to stalk another person because this someone thinks this person "looks suspicious". The situation can't lead to anything good; it's only logical that that it leads to very bad things.

I don't think it's fine for someone to stalk another person...ever. However, Zimmerman wasn't stalking Treyvon by any definition of that word. Stalking is repetitive. Zimmerman allegedly followed Treyvon...once. He also lost sight of him, as revealed by the 911 call. The distances between Zimmerman's car and the site of the shooting back up Zimmerman's version of events, that he stopped trying to find Treyvon after the police said they didn't need him to, and that Treyvon doubled back to confront Zimmerman.

It is fine to follow someone if you think they are acting suspicious. You may be able to get a better look at them for the police. This was the leader of the neighborhood watch, and there had been burglaries in the neighborhood, with suspects being African American teens. Of course he is going to be suspicious of an unfamiliar African American teen walking around in the rain.

[Minimalist]

I'm sorry, but people make decisions like that automatically. You see someone doing something shady; you think they are suspicious. There isn't anything wrong with that. The fact that you may have a gun with you doesn't make it wrong either.

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.

Which is of course precisely what Zimmerman did. He provoked an incident knowing that he had the big equalizer in his pocket. There is a concept in law called "but for" But for Zimmerman's actions in stalking Martin there would have been no incident and no death.

But let's trot out yet another Southern Hero. This time in Louisiana.

As you read, remember that in no jurisdiction in the US is "burglary" considered a capital crime.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/te...-1.1410613

Merritt Landry, 33, allegedly shot an unarmed 14-year-old in the head, thinking he was going to rob the homeowner. Landry was charged with second-degree murder.

[Tiberius]

Which is of course precisely what Zimmerman did. He provoked an incident knowing that he had the big equalizer in his pocket.

There is no evidence to support that claim.

There is a concept in law called "but for" But for Zimmerman's actions in stalking Martin there would have been no incident and no death.

I can turn that around on you too. But for the beating that Treyvon was giving Zimmerman, there would have been no incident and no death.

[Minimalist]

There is no evidence to support that claim.

Because he KILLED THE GUY.

Really, I'm having trouble believing you are this naive.

---

I can turn that around on you too. But for the beating that Treyvon was giving Zimmerman, there would have been no incident and no death.

Poorly since until Zimmerman made a nuisance out of himself there is no indication that Martin knew he was there.

This decision - remember law runs by precedent - enables any asshole with a gun to hunt someone and then claim they felt "threatened."

[Tiberius]

Because he KILLED THE GUY.

Really, I'm having trouble believing you are this naive.

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."

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.

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?

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.

[Red Celt]

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.

You remain completely ignorant of the gap in time between that statement and the time of the fight. And the phone conversation that Zimmerman had and that Martin had. He didn't stop looking.

You said that you used to be a 9/11 Truther. Were you this blind to the facts back then, also? How long will it take for this conversation to run its course before you acknowledge what you're currently refusing to acknowledge?

[Tiberius]

You remain completely ignorant of the gap in time between that statement and the time of the fight. And the phone conversation that Zimmerman had and that Martin had. He didn't stop looking.

I'm not ignoring the gap in time. In fact, it's one of the pieces of evidence that supports Zimmerman's claim that Treyvon attacked him.

The fight took place close to Zimmerman's car (literally only about 20m away). Treyvon started running, and Zimmerman got out to pursue. Even if Zimmerman didn't stop the pursuit a short while later at the suggestion of the police dispatcher, you have to believe that Treyvon only covered 20m in the few minutes between the time when Zimmerman said he was running, and the time when the lady called 911 to report the fight. That doesn't seem likely, especially considering that Zimmerman had the fight area in view and yet claimed to have lost sight of Treyvon.

What seems more likely is that Treyvon covered a much further distance, and then decided to double back to confront Zimmerman, whilst Zimmerman was looking for a house number to give to the police.

[Red Celt]

What seems more likely is that Treyvon covered a much further distance, and then decided to double back to confront Zimmerman, whilst Zimmerman was looking for a house number to give to the police.

...and that in the falling of both towers, the small plumes coming from the lower floors was clear evidence of explosive charges being detonated.

Yeah.

I've linked this video before. It's very long, and I can understand why people wouldn't have bothered watching it. But. Skip to 41.25 and see how one speculation about the movements of TM and GZ tally with the facts. And how that matches with the false statements that you've made. e.g. it taking all that time for Zimmerman to find a house number. In a neighbourhood he knew. Holding a flashlight. With the words "I don't know where this kid is at".

[Tiberius]

Exactly, all you have is mindless speculation. Tallying something with the facts should result in you ignoring common sense. That re-enactment makes no sense for various reasons:

1) Why would Treyvon, knowing that he was on a path that leads directly to his father's house, stop to hide rather than get home to safety?

2) Why would Zimmerman, who saw Treyvon running (and according to this video, saw him running down the path), run past the path and go out onto the other road?

3) Why does the video favour the testimony of Treyvon's friend, who lied in court, over the testimony of Zimmerman to the police?

And how that matches with the false statements that you've made.

I'm not aware of any false statements I've made.

e.g. it taking all that time for Zimmerman to find a house number.

I never said it took all that time for Zimmerman to find a house number. It's entirely possible that Zimmerman found the house number, but stayed at the T section so he could see the police arriving (his car was in view) but also could keep a lookout if Treyvon came back. I'm speculating admittedly, but it makes far more sense than the version presented in that video, where both Treyvon and Zimmerman do things that go completely against any form of logic.

That video clearly had an agenda from the start, the same as most of the media: "Zimmerman is guilty; let's present the facts in a way which show that". I find that view abhorrent. It is not surprising that comments are disabled on the video itself. The reason given is "I have now disabled comments on this video because I am sick of deleting blatantly racist and/or uncivil posts, and blocking the authors thereof", and I have to wonder what he classes as "uncivil" posts; perhaps disagreement with his version of events?

At least here, we let people debate all sides of the argument without censorship.