Trayvon Martin tape made me sick

@Kevin_Cogneto said:

@FengShuiGod said:

@Kevin_Cogneto said:

@FengShuiGod said:

This whole issue is irrelevant to the NRA, Republicans, or the stand your ground laws. Don't polarize the incident of a crazy guy wrongfully shooting a kid.

George Zimmerman himself has invoked the stand your ground law by claiming self-defense. That argument wouldn't fly at all if not for that law, because in most other states he would've been expected to prove that he first attempted to flee from danger before being able to claim that he had the right to use deadly force in self-defense. The stand your ground law is the very crux of this case, and the sole reason why Zimmerman has yet to be charged with anything. To claim that the law is irrelevant is frankly ludicrous.

No. He could easily claim that he ran from danger by saying "I ran from danger." No one else was there, so the law only has what he said to go on which does not provide enough evidence to convict him of anything. If there was no stand your ground, the only way this would have played out differently is that he would have had to appear at a hearing where he would have been released because there is not enough evidence to prove he was not acting in self defense.

But the burden of proof would be on him to prove he tried to escape from danger. With this law, that burden is no longer there, making it easier for guys like him to get away with this shit. Given the facts of this case, I don't think in a million years he'd be able to convince a prosecutor that he sincerely tried to escape (from a confrontation he instigated, I might add). But he doesn't have to prove it now, thanks to this law.

He wouldn't have to convince a prosecutor. He'd have to convince a jury, and past cases prove that a shooters testimony is enough to establish self defense.

@TheJohn said:

Black kid wearing a hoodie = criminal

White guy with a shotgun = patriot

Ignorance and prejudice is fucked up

The guys family actually say hes hispanic.

@Kevin_Cogneto said:

@FengShuiGod said:

@CL60 said:

@FengShuiGod said:

@Kevin_Cogneto said:

@FengShuiGod said:

This whole issue is irrelevant to the NRA, Republicans, or the stand your ground laws. Don't polarize the incident of a crazy guy wrongfully shooting a kid.

George Zimmerman himself has invoked the stand your ground law by claiming self-defense. That argument wouldn't fly at all if not for that law, because in most other states he would've been expected to prove that he first attempted to flee from danger before being able to claim that he had the right to use deadly force in self-defense. The stand your ground law is the very crux of this case, and the sole reason why Zimmerman has yet to be charged with anything. To claim that the law is irrelevant is frankly ludicrous.

No. He could easily claim that he ran from danger by saying "I ran from danger." No one else was there, so the law only has what he said to go on which does not provide enough evidence to convict him of anything. If there was no stand your ground, the only way this would have played out differently is that he would have had to appear at a hearing where he would have been released because there is not enough evidence to prove he was not acting in self defense.

Not enough proof? There's audio of the kid crying out for help, and Zimmerman himself saying he's the one following the kid, even after the police told him not to. Also the fact that I have a hard time believing a adult with a gun was acting in self defense against a teenager with a bag of skittles.

All of this is irrelevant. All that matters is what happened in the seconds before the shooting, which only two people saw, one of whom is now dead. The shooter can claim the kid threatened him and approached him in a way that justified his use of deadly force, which he has.

You're only proving the other side's point. The only reason he can claim that it was justified because of the stand your ground law! Without that law, this line of logic would not be enough to legally justify deadly force!

You are making assumptions about what he would claim if there was no stand your ground law. Implicit in the statement, "in a way that justified his use of deadly force," is the action of Zimmerman retreating, because without doing so deadly force would not be justified pre-stand your ground law.

@FengShuiGod said:

@Kevin_Cogneto said:

@FengShuiGod said:

@Kevin_Cogneto said:

@FengShuiGod said:

This whole issue is irrelevant to the NRA, Republicans, or the stand your ground laws. Don't polarize the incident of a crazy guy wrongfully shooting a kid.

George Zimmerman himself has invoked the stand your ground law by claiming self-defense. That argument wouldn't fly at all if not for that law, because in most other states he would've been expected to prove that he first attempted to flee from danger before being able to claim that he had the right to use deadly force in self-defense. The stand your ground law is the very crux of this case, and the sole reason why Zimmerman has yet to be charged with anything. To claim that the law is irrelevant is frankly ludicrous.

No. He could easily claim that he ran from danger by saying "I ran from danger." No one else was there, so the law only has what he said to go on which does not provide enough evidence to convict him of anything. If there was no stand your ground, the only way this would have played out differently is that he would have had to appear at a hearing where he would have been released because there is not enough evidence to prove he was not acting in self defense.

But the burden of proof would be on him to prove he tried to escape from danger. With this law, that burden is no longer there, making it easier for guys like him to get away with this shit. Given the facts of this case, I don't think in a million years he'd be able to convince a prosecutor that he sincerely tried to escape (from a confrontation he instigated, I might add). But he doesn't have to prove it now, thanks to this law.

He wouldn't have to convince a prosecutor. He'd have to convince a jury, and past cases prove that a shooters testimony is enough to establish self defense.

You're a madman. I mean that in the literal sense. "If you can get away with it, then there's nothing wrong with it." That is the actual literal definition of a sociopath.

Who?

That "Stand your ground" law is complete bullshit.

@Kevin_Cogneto said:

@FengShuiGod said:

@Kevin_Cogneto said:

@FengShuiGod said:

@Kevin_Cogneto said:

@FengShuiGod said:

This whole issue is irrelevant to the NRA, Republicans, or the stand your ground laws. Don't polarize the incident of a crazy guy wrongfully shooting a kid.

George Zimmerman himself has invoked the stand your ground law by claiming self-defense. That argument wouldn't fly at all if not for that law, because in most other states he would've been expected to prove that he first attempted to flee from danger before being able to claim that he had the right to use deadly force in self-defense. The stand your ground law is the very crux of this case, and the sole reason why Zimmerman has yet to be charged with anything. To claim that the law is irrelevant is frankly ludicrous.

No. He could easily claim that he ran from danger by saying "I ran from danger." No one else was there, so the law only has what he said to go on which does not provide enough evidence to convict him of anything. If there was no stand your ground, the only way this would have played out differently is that he would have had to appear at a hearing where he would have been released because there is not enough evidence to prove he was not acting in self defense.

But the burden of proof would be on him to prove he tried to escape from danger. With this law, that burden is no longer there, making it easier for guys like him to get away with this shit. Given the facts of this case, I don't think in a million years he'd be able to convince a prosecutor that he sincerely tried to escape (from a confrontation he instigated, I might add). But he doesn't have to prove it now, thanks to this law.

He wouldn't have to convince a prosecutor. He'd have to convince a jury, and past cases prove that a shooters testimony is enough to establish self defense.

You're a madman. I mean that in the literal sense. "If you can get away with it, then there's nothing wrong with it." That is the actual literal definition of a sociopath.

Why do you think I think there is nothing wrong with it? I called the Zimmerman an idiot, I concurred with another poster that the situation is fucked up, what more do you want? Stating why he is legally able to get away with it =/= belief that the law is correct. Your failure to read and empathize with my POV coupled with your eagerness to put words in my mouth makes me think you are the sociopath here.

@FengShuiGod said:

@Kevin_Cogneto said:

@FengShuiGod said:

@CL60 said:

@FengShuiGod said:

@Kevin_Cogneto said:

@FengShuiGod said:

This whole issue is irrelevant to the NRA, Republicans, or the stand your ground laws. Don't polarize the incident of a crazy guy wrongfully shooting a kid.

George Zimmerman himself has invoked the stand your ground law by claiming self-defense. That argument wouldn't fly at all if not for that law, because in most other states he would've been expected to prove that he first attempted to flee from danger before being able to claim that he had the right to use deadly force in self-defense. The stand your ground law is the very crux of this case, and the sole reason why Zimmerman has yet to be charged with anything. To claim that the law is irrelevant is frankly ludicrous.

No. He could easily claim that he ran from danger by saying "I ran from danger." No one else was there, so the law only has what he said to go on which does not provide enough evidence to convict him of anything. If there was no stand your ground, the only way this would have played out differently is that he would have had to appear at a hearing where he would have been released because there is not enough evidence to prove he was not acting in self defense.

Not enough proof? There's audio of the kid crying out for help, and Zimmerman himself saying he's the one following the kid, even after the police told him not to. Also the fact that I have a hard time believing a adult with a gun was acting in self defense against a teenager with a bag of skittles.

All of this is irrelevant. All that matters is what happened in the seconds before the shooting, which only two people saw, one of whom is now dead. The shooter can claim the kid threatened him and approached him in a way that justified his use of deadly force, which he has.

You're only proving the other side's point. The only reason he can claim that it was justified because of the stand your ground law! Without that law, this line of logic would not be enough to legally justify deadly force!

You are making assumptions about what he would claim if there was no stand your ground law. Implicit in the statement, "in a way that justified the use of deadly force," is the action of Zimmerman retreating, because without doing so deadly force would not be justified pre-stand your ground law.

so... just to clarify, under this law, as long as no one else is around to see, and if I were authorized to carry a firearm, I could roll around at night and shoot any random person I chose, especially if they were black or hispanic and wearing a hoodie, and get away with it?

@FengShuiGod said:

@Kevin_Cogneto said:

@FengShuiGod said:

@Kevin_Cogneto said:

@FengShuiGod said:

@Kevin_Cogneto said:

@FengShuiGod said:

This whole issue is irrelevant to the NRA, Republicans, or the stand your ground laws. Don't polarize the incident of a crazy guy wrongfully shooting a kid.

George Zimmerman himself has invoked the stand your ground law by claiming self-defense. That argument wouldn't fly at all if not for that law, because in most other states he would've been expected to prove that he first attempted to flee from danger before being able to claim that he had the right to use deadly force in self-defense. The stand your ground law is the very crux of this case, and the sole reason why Zimmerman has yet to be charged with anything. To claim that the law is irrelevant is frankly ludicrous.

No. He could easily claim that he ran from danger by saying "I ran from danger." No one else was there, so the law only has what he said to go on which does not provide enough evidence to convict him of anything. If there was no stand your ground, the only way this would have played out differently is that he would have had to appear at a hearing where he would have been released because there is not enough evidence to prove he was not acting in self defense.

But the burden of proof would be on him to prove he tried to escape from danger. With this law, that burden is no longer there, making it easier for guys like him to get away with this shit. Given the facts of this case, I don't think in a million years he'd be able to convince a prosecutor that he sincerely tried to escape (from a confrontation he instigated, I might add). But he doesn't have to prove it now, thanks to this law.

He wouldn't have to convince a prosecutor. He'd have to convince a jury, and past cases prove that a shooters testimony is enough to establish self defense.

You're a madman. I mean that in the literal sense. "If you can get away with it, then there's nothing wrong with it." That is the actual literal definition of a sociopath.

Why do you think I think there is nothing wrong with it? I called the guy an idiot, I concurred with another poster that the situation is fucked up, what more do you want? Stating why he is legally able to get away with it =/= belief that the law is correct. Your failure to read and empathize with my POV coupled with your eagerness to put words in my mouth makes me think you are the sociopath here.

You've spent this entire thread defending the very law that is allowing him to get away with it! How the fuck can you possibly claim I'm putting words in your mouth?

Yep i live in florida and this shit makes me sick. The police where I live at least are so corrupt it makes me sick, I feel sorry for the good cops here. The bad cops that live here need to die, they cause more problems then its worth and are basically human pieces of shit. I'm sorry if I look childish or am overreacting but this bullshit needs to end, it makes me hate America even though I know thats childish.

@FengShuiGod said:

@Kevin_Cogneto said:

@FengShuiGod said:

@Kevin_Cogneto said:

@FengShuiGod said:

This whole issue is irrelevant to the NRA, Republicans, or the stand your ground laws. Don't polarize the incident of a crazy guy wrongfully shooting a kid.

George Zimmerman himself has invoked the stand your ground law by claiming self-defense. That argument wouldn't fly at all if not for that law, because in most other states he would've been expected to prove that he first attempted to flee from danger before being able to claim that he had the right to use deadly force in self-defense. The stand your ground law is the very crux of this case, and the sole reason why Zimmerman has yet to be charged with anything. To claim that the law is irrelevant is frankly ludicrous.

No. He could easily claim that he ran from danger by saying "I ran from danger." No one else was there, so the law only has what he said to go on which does not provide enough evidence to convict him of anything. If there was no stand your ground, the only way this would have played out differently is that he would have had to appear at a hearing where he would have been released because there is not enough evidence to prove he was not acting in self defense.

But the burden of proof would be on him to prove he tried to escape from danger. With this law, that burden is no longer there, making it easier for guys like him to get away with this shit. Given the facts of this case, I don't think in a million years he'd be able to convince a prosecutor that he sincerely tried to escape (from a confrontation he instigated, I might add). But he doesn't have to prove it now, thanks to this law.

He wouldn't have to convince a prosecutor. He'd have to convince a jury, and past cases prove that a shooters testimony is enough to establish self defense.

Audio of Martin screaming for help before being silenced by a gunshot would likely put a serious dent in a jury being swayed by just about anything Zimmerman could testify.

@FengShuiGod said:

@CL60 said:

@FengShuiGod said:

@Kevin_Cogneto said:

@FengShuiGod said:

This whole issue is irrelevant to the NRA, Republicans, or the stand your ground laws. Don't polarize the incident of a crazy guy wrongfully shooting a kid.

George Zimmerman himself has invoked the stand your ground law by claiming self-defense. That argument wouldn't fly at all if not for that law, because in most other states he would've been expected to prove that he first attempted to flee from danger before being able to claim that he had the right to use deadly force in self-defense. The stand your ground law is the very crux of this case, and the sole reason why Zimmerman has yet to be charged with anything. To claim that the law is irrelevant is frankly ludicrous.

No. He could easily claim that he ran from danger by saying "I ran from danger." No one else was there, so the law only has what he said to go on which does not provide enough evidence to convict him of anything. If there was no stand your ground, the only way this would have played out differently is that he would have had to appear at a hearing where he would have been released because there is not enough evidence to prove he was not acting in self defense.

Not enough proof? There's audio of the kid crying out for help, and Zimmerman himself saying he's the one following the kid, even after the police told him not to. Also the fact that I have a hard time believing a adult with a gun was acting in self defense against a teenager with a bag of skittles.

All of this is irrelevant. All that matters is what happened in the seconds before the shooting, which only two people saw, one of whom is now dead. The shooter can claim the kid threatened him and approached him in a way that justified his use of deadly force, which he has.

But wait, what justifies the use of deadly force?

If they guy had no weapon on him is shooting him EVER not at least manslaughter? Where I am self defence is judged as "proportionate response". Means if a guy comes at you with a stick and you blow his face off you still get charged. Just walking towards a guy menacingly certainly can't be classified as self defence when the other guy shoots you dead, can it? I mean, in a place where sanity, let alone the rule of law, is still vaguely in place.

Genuine question, by the way. I'm less outraged than baffled by all of this.

@Kevin_Cogneto said:

@FengShuiGod said:

@Kevin_Cogneto said:

He wouldn't have to convince a prosecutor. He'd have to convince a jury, and past cases prove that a shooters testimony is enough to establish self defense.

You're a madman. I mean that in the literal sense. "If you can get away with it, then there's nothing wrong with it." That is the actual literal definition of a sociopath.

Also but no offense Kevin, his testimony can be whatever he wants. That doesn't mean the jury will be convinced. Meanwhile it will be very hard to convince anyone he felt threatened when tapes prove the kid screamed for help not him, he had a gun the kid was unarmed, he admits to following the kid who was trying to avoid him, was told to not get out of his car which he did, and he probably had over 100 pounds on the kid physically meaning in a fight he would probably destroy him. No one but a completely retarded dumb shit would buy any argument he has. That said there are alot of completely retarded dumb shits out there.

@Kevin_Cogneto said:

@FengShuiGod said:

@Kevin_Cogneto said:

@FengShuiGod said:

@Kevin_Cogneto said:

@FengShuiGod said:

@Kevin_Cogneto said:

@FengShuiGod said:

This whole issue is irrelevant to the NRA, Republicans, or the stand your ground laws. Don't polarize the incident of a crazy guy wrongfully shooting a kid.

George Zimmerman himself has invoked the stand your ground law by claiming self-defense. That argument wouldn't fly at all if not for that law, because in most other states he would've been expected to prove that he first attempted to flee from danger before being able to claim that he had the right to use deadly force in self-defense. The stand your ground law is the very crux of this case, and the sole reason why Zimmerman has yet to be charged with anything. To claim that the law is irrelevant is frankly ludicrous.

No. He could easily claim that he ran from danger by saying "I ran from danger." No one else was there, so the law only has what he said to go on which does not provide enough evidence to convict him of anything. If there was no stand your ground, the only way this would have played out differently is that he would have had to appear at a hearing where he would have been released because there is not enough evidence to prove he was not acting in self defense.

But the burden of proof would be on him to prove he tried to escape from danger. With this law, that burden is no longer there, making it easier for guys like him to get away with this shit. Given the facts of this case, I don't think in a million years he'd be able to convince a prosecutor that he sincerely tried to escape (from a confrontation he instigated, I might add). But he doesn't have to prove it now, thanks to this law.

He wouldn't have to convince a prosecutor. He'd have to convince a jury, and past cases prove that a shooters testimony is enough to establish self defense.

You're a madman. I mean that in the literal sense. "If you can get away with it, then there's nothing wrong with it." That is the actual literal definition of a sociopath.

Why do you think I think there is nothing wrong with it? I called the guy an idiot, I concurred with another poster that the situation is fucked up, what more do you want? Stating why he is legally able to get away with it =/= belief that the law is correct. Your failure to read and empathize with my POV coupled with your eagerness to put words in my mouth makes me think you are the sociopath here.

You've spent this entire thread defending the very law that is allowing him to get away with it! How the fuck can you possibly claim I'm putting words in your mouth?

I am not defending the law. I am explaining it. Explaining why Zimmerman was able to do what he did is not a value judgement one way or the other, but like I have implied and stated several times, Zimmerman is the one at fault here.

@Karkarov said:

@Kevin_Cogneto said:

@FengShuiGod said:

@Kevin_Cogneto said:

He wouldn't have to convince a prosecutor. He'd have to convince a jury, and past cases prove that a shooters testimony is enough to establish self defense.

You're a madman. I mean that in the literal sense. "If you can get away with it, then there's nothing wrong with it." That is the actual literal definition of a sociopath.

Also but no offense Kevin, his testimony can be whatever he wants. That doesn't mean the jury will be convinced. Meanwhile it will be very hard to convince anyone he felt threatened when tapes prove the kid screamed for help not him, he had a gun the kid was unarmed, he admits to following the kid who was trying to avoid him, was told to not get out of his car which he did, and he probably had over 100 pounds on the kid physically meaning in a fight he would probably destroy him. No one but a completely retarded dumb shit would buy any argument he has. That said there are alot of completely retarded dumb shits out there.

but the kid wasn't WHITE. YOU KNOW HOW THOSE DARK SKINNED HOODIE WEARING KIDS ARE, MAN

/sarcasm

Fuck Geraldo Rivera for putting any blame what so ever on a clothing item for the murder of a young man. Next are you going to tell me that the clothes women wear are just to blame for them being raped?

@Karkarov said:

@Kevin_Cogneto said:

@FengShuiGod said:

@Kevin_Cogneto said:

He wouldn't have to convince a prosecutor. He'd have to convince a jury, and past cases prove that a shooters testimony is enough to establish self defense.

You're a madman. I mean that in the literal sense. "If you can get away with it, then there's nothing wrong with it." That is the actual literal definition of a sociopath.

Also but no offense Kevin, his testimony can be whatever he wants. That doesn't mean the jury will be convinced. Meanwhile it will be very hard to convince anyone he felt threatened when tapes prove the kid screamed for help not him, he had a gun the kid was unarmed, he admits to following the kid who was trying to avoid him, was told to not get out of his car which he did, and he probably had over 100 pounds on the kid physically meaning in a fight he would probably destroy him. No one but a completely retarded dumb shit would buy any argument he has. That said there are alot of completely retarded dumb shits out there.

I didn't say that, FengShuiGod did. Of course you're right, I think this guy has no case either way, I just think the stand your ground law makes his defense a little easier. Of course, the court of public opinion has already reached a verdict on this one, and that also has an effect on a jury...

@NoelVeiga said:

@FengShuiGod said:

@CL60 said:

@FengShuiGod said:

@Kevin_Cogneto said:

@FengShuiGod said:

This whole issue is irrelevant to the NRA, Republicans, or the stand your ground laws. Don't polarize the incident of a crazy guy wrongfully shooting a kid.

George Zimmerman himself has invoked the stand your ground law by claiming self-defense. That argument wouldn't fly at all if not for that law, because in most other states he would've been expected to prove that he first attempted to flee from danger before being able to claim that he had the right to use deadly force in self-defense. The stand your ground law is the very crux of this case, and the sole reason why Zimmerman has yet to be charged with anything. To claim that the law is irrelevant is frankly ludicrous.

No. He could easily claim that he ran from danger by saying "I ran from danger." No one else was there, so the law only has what he said to go on which does not provide enough evidence to convict him of anything. If there was no stand your ground, the only way this would have played out differently is that he would have had to appear at a hearing where he would have been released because there is not enough evidence to prove he was not acting in self defense.

Not enough proof? There's audio of the kid crying out for help, and Zimmerman himself saying he's the one following the kid, even after the police told him not to. Also the fact that I have a hard time believing a adult with a gun was acting in self defense against a teenager with a bag of skittles.

All of this is irrelevant. All that matters is what happened in the seconds before the shooting, which only two people saw, one of whom is now dead. The shooter can claim the kid threatened him and approached him in a way that justified his use of deadly force, which he has.

But wait, what justifies the use of deadly force?

If they guy had no weapon on him is shooting him EVER not at least manslaughter? Where I am self defence is judged as "proportionate response". Means if a guy comes at you with a stick and you blow his face off you still get charged. Just walking towards a guy menacingly certainly can't be classified as self defence when the other guy shoots you dead, can it? I mean, in a place where sanity, let alone the rule of law, is still vaguely in place.

Genuine question, by the way. I'm less outraged than baffled by all of this.

It depends what Zimmermans claims are. If what you thought was true, incidents of cops shooting people who point cellphones at them as if it were a pistol would be manslaughter, but they aren't (in general, this all depends on specifics of course). Zimmerman could claim all kinds of weird shit, like that the kid said he was pointing a pistol at Zimmerman underneath his hoodie and acted threateningly towards him, or something else just as ludicrous.

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Rawrnosaurous said:

Fuck Geraldo Rivera for putting any blame what so ever on a clothing item for the murder of a young man. Next are you going to tell me that the clothes women wear are just to blame for them being raped?

I like how while trying to sound so open-minded and liberal and tolerant you begin to forget the fact that criminals usually try to cover their heads and faces by putting the hoodie on, and that when a guy is looking at or is in close contact with a woman wearing tight revealing clothes that expose her curves and breasts and the crack of her ass causing his penis to erect, the chances of rape are much higher than if she was wearing decent clothes. To think that EVERY guy wearing a hoodie is a criminal and that every rape incident was caused because of the stimulation of revealing clothes, is absolutely absurd, but to be so denying and oblivious as to completely dis-acknowledge those elements as if they never meant or caused anything before is just laughable.

I don't see your point. there's no law against wearing revealing clothing, just like there's no law against wearing hoodies. No normal person, upon seeing a woman wearing revealing clothing, immediately gets the urge to rape her. and besides, plenty of women wearing "decent" clothes *rolls eyes* still get raped. Revealing clothing does not cause rape, rapists do.

hell, going by that particular victim-blaming argument that you apparently agree with, one could say that the rape of a slim, attractive women is her fault because she took good care of herself, and that turns men on.

@FengShuiGod said:

@NoelVeiga said:

@FengShuiGod said:

@CL60 said:

All of this is irrelevant. All that matters is what happened in the seconds before the shooting, which only two people saw, one of whom is now dead. The shooter can claim the kid threatened him and approached him in a way that justified his use of deadly force, which he has.

But wait, what justifies the use of deadly force?

If they guy had no weapon on him is shooting him EVER not at least manslaughter? Where I am self defence is judged as "proportionate response". Means if a guy comes at you with a stick and you blow his face off you still get charged. Just walking towards a guy menacingly certainly can't be classified as self defence when the other guy shoots you dead, can it? I mean, in a place where sanity, let alone the rule of law, is still vaguely in place.

Genuine question, by the way. I'm less outraged than baffled by all of this.

It depends what Zimmermans claims are. If what you thought was true, incidents of cops shooting people who point cellphones at them as if it were a pistol would be manslaughter, but they aren't (in general, this all depends on specifics of course). Zimmerman could claim all kinds of weird shit, like that the kid said he was pointing a pistol at Zimmerman underneath his hoodie and acted threateningly towards him, or something else just as ludicrous.

But that's a case of error in facts. Again, based on my local legislation, that's very common. You thought he had a gun, you've argued convincingly that you genuinely thought he had a gun, so now the question is "would it be reasonably expected for you to double check if he had a gun?". If you were (like, you were a cop, the "gun" wasn't aimed at you, you failed to give fair warning) you may get charged with reckless or negligent manslaughter. Otherwise, you may be cleared.

But if he had no gun. If it was obvious that he was unarmed and you were. Does really the same principle apply? Is really self defence only predicated on whether you subjectively felt threatened? That's really all it takes? Hell, forget the hoodie. If that's true this guy could just argue that he's a racist and feels threatened by all black people, so he shot him because he thought he was in danger.

Again, I find that baffling. There must be more to it.

@FengShuiGod: Fair enough, I apologize for misunderstanding you, it seemed to me like you were trying to justify Zimmerman's claims of self-defense when you were apparently just making an illustration. That's my mistake, in the interest of slate-wiping I'm dropping the quote boxes above. Let's restart this discussion fresh:

So I guess I just don't understand how you can claim that the "stand your ground" law is irrelevant to this case, and then go on to say "oh it's too bad he can just make up any lie he wants and use it to justify self-defense". Because it seems to me there's a cause and effect there. Without that law, the burden would be on him to justify why he didn't run from a situation he considered to be dangerous.

Of course, in this case it seems obvious (and will hopefully be obvious to a jury) that in truth Zimmerman was never in danger. But if the defense is able to inject any doubt there ("Mr. Zimmerman didn't know that Trayvon Martin was unarmed!"), the prosecution ought to have the ability to fall back on the fact that Zimmerman would not have the right to use lethal force so long as the option of fleeing was present. But the stand your ground law seems to say that any man who feels threatened, regardless if the evidence proves otherwise, has the right to defend himself with lethal force, and that's the part of the law I object to. And that's exactly what Zimmerman will use as his defense, and as you've already said, it's not out of the realm of possibility that he'll be successful.

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Rawrnosaurous said:

Fuck Geraldo Rivera for putting any blame what so ever on a clothing item for the murder of a young man. Next are you going to tell me that the clothes women wear are just to blame for them being raped?

I like how while trying to sound so open-minded and liberal and tolerant you begin to forget the fact that criminals usually try to cover their heads and faces by putting the hoodie on, and that when a guy is looking at or is in close contact with a woman wearing tight revealing clothes that expose her curves and breasts and the crack of her ass causing his penis to erect, the chances of rape are much higher than if she was wearing decent clothes. To think that EVERY guy wearing a hoodie is a criminal and that every rape incident was caused because of the stimulation of revealing clothes, is absolutely absurd, but to be so denying and oblivious as to completely dis-acknowledge those elements as if they never meant or caused anything before is just laughable.

I don't get what point you're trying to make unless you just really love victim blaming

@NoelVeiga said:

@FengShuiGod said:

@NoelVeiga said:

@FengShuiGod said:

@CL60 said:

All of this is irrelevant. All that matters is what happened in the seconds before the shooting, which only two people saw, one of whom is now dead. The shooter can claim the kid threatened him and approached him in a way that justified his use of deadly force, which he has.

But wait, what justifies the use of deadly force?

If they guy had no weapon on him is shooting him EVER not at least manslaughter? Where I am self defence is judged as "proportionate response". Means if a guy comes at you with a stick and you blow his face off you still get charged. Just walking towards a guy menacingly certainly can't be classified as self defence when the other guy shoots you dead, can it? I mean, in a place where sanity, let alone the rule of law, is still vaguely in place.

Genuine question, by the way. I'm less outraged than baffled by all of this.

It depends what Zimmermans claims are. If what you thought was true, incidents of cops shooting people who point cellphones at them as if it were a pistol would be manslaughter, but they aren't (in general, this all depends on specifics of course). Zimmerman could claim all kinds of weird shit, like that the kid said he was pointing a pistol at Zimmerman underneath his hoodie and acted threateningly towards him, or something else just as ludicrous.

But that's a case of error in facts. Again, based on my local legislation, that's very common. You thought he had a gun, you've argued convincingly that you genuinely thought he had a gun, so now the question is "would it be reasonably expected for you to double check if he had a gun?". If you were (like, you were a cop, the "gun" wasn't aimed at you, you failed to give fair warning) you may get charged with reckless or negligent manslaughter. Otherwise, you may be cleared.

But if he had no gun. If it was obvious that he was unarmed and you were. Does really the same principle apply? Is really self defence only predicated on whether you subjectively felt threatened? That's really all it takes? Hell, forget the hoodie. If that's true this guy could just argue that he's a racist and feels threatened by all black people, so he shot him because he thought he was in danger.

Again, I find that baffling. There must be more to it.

Zimmerman can claim it may not have been obvious that Trayvon wasn't armed. Self defense isn't based on whether or not you felt subjectively threatened. It is based on whether you are "assaulted", as determined by a third party. "Assaulted" changes from place to place, but it probably means, a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. Merely feeling threatened because someone is black is not enough to justify self defense.

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Rawrnosaurous said:

Fuck Geraldo Rivera for putting any blame what so ever on a clothing item for the murder of a young man. Next are you going to tell me that the clothes women wear are just to blame for them being raped?

I like how while trying to sound so open-minded and liberal and tolerant you begin to forget the fact that criminals usually try to cover their heads and faces by putting the hoodie on, and that when a guy is looking at or is in close contact with a woman wearing tight revealing clothes that expose her curves and breasts and the crack of her ass causing his penis to erect, the chances of rape are much higher than if she was wearing decent clothes. To think that EVERY guy wearing a hoodie is a criminal and that every rape incident was caused because of the stimulation of revealing clothes, is absolutely absurd, but to be so denying and oblivious as to completely dis-acknowledge those elements as if they never meant or caused anything before is just laughable.

I don't get what point you're trying to make unless you just really love victim blaming

@FengShuiGod said:

@NoelVeiga said:

@FengShuiGod said:

@NoelVeiga said:

@FengShuiGod said:

@CL60 said:

All of this is irrelevant. All that matters is what happened in the seconds before the shooting, which only two people saw, one of whom is now dead. The shooter can claim the kid threatened him and approached him in a way that justified his use of deadly force, which he has.

But wait, what justifies the use of deadly force?

If they guy had no weapon on him is shooting him EVER not at least manslaughter? Where I am self defence is judged as "proportionate response". Means if a guy comes at you with a stick and you blow his face off you still get charged. Just walking towards a guy menacingly certainly can't be classified as self defence when the other guy shoots you dead, can it? I mean, in a place where sanity, let alone the rule of law, is still vaguely in place.

Genuine question, by the way. I'm less outraged than baffled by all of this.

It depends what Zimmermans claims are. If what you thought was true, incidents of cops shooting people who point cellphones at them as if it were a pistol would be manslaughter, but they aren't (in general, this all depends on specifics of course). Zimmerman could claim all kinds of weird shit, like that the kid said he was pointing a pistol at Zimmerman underneath his hoodie and acted threateningly towards him, or something else just as ludicrous.

But that's a case of error in facts. Again, based on my local legislation, that's very common. You thought he had a gun, you've argued convincingly that you genuinely thought he had a gun, so now the question is "would it be reasonably expected for you to double check if he had a gun?". If you were (like, you were a cop, the "gun" wasn't aimed at you, you failed to give fair warning) you may get charged with reckless or negligent manslaughter. Otherwise, you may be cleared.

But if he had no gun. If it was obvious that he was unarmed and you were. Does really the same principle apply? Is really self defence only predicated on whether you subjectively felt threatened? That's really all it takes? Hell, forget the hoodie. If that's true this guy could just argue that he's a racist and feels threatened by all black people, so he shot him because he thought he was in danger.

Again, I find that baffling. There must be more to it.

Zimmerman can claim it may not have been obvious that Trayvon wasn't armed. Self defense isn't based on whether or not you felt subjectively threatened. It is based on whether you are "assaulted", as determined by a third party. "Assaulted" changes from place to place, but it probably means, a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. Merely feeling threatened because someone is black is not enough to justify self defense.

Exactly. That's my point. If you saw no weapon and there is no weapon and there are no injuries in your body then how can anybody possibly under any circumstances claim self defence? It'd be outright impossible here, I'm just trying to wrap my head around what kind of legal justification may be used in this case to take it that way.

Zimmerman was stalking him, with pre-conceived notions, armed and ignoring direct instructions from police.

Zimmerman is hiding behind a law that is meant to defend others from people like him. He found a stranger he didn't like, followed him and ended up shooting him. Escaping jail time would be a miracle, or a huge legal travesty.

It shouldn't even be feasible for a person like him to have a gun, it just makes it more justified for others to carry guns for actual self defence; and then everyone loses. If he didn't have the gun at least a life wouldn't have been lost.

Even if Trayvon somehow made Zimmerman expect violence, he was unarmed and presented with an armed stranger, older and bigger than him, who had been watching him from his car and had been following him. Prejudice leads to these sort of stupid incidents, add a gun to the equation and people die.

I watched In The Heat of The Night yesterday, and in one scene after a black man slapped a white man, (as a response to being slapped first) and it was said that the policeman could have shot the black man on the spot and claimed self defence. It's been 45 years since that film was released and this is only a few steps removed from that situation. The kid was racially profiled by a man with prejudices and a gun, and whatever happened in their communication it seems clear he should be arrested.

@NoelVeiga said:

@FengShuiGod said:

@NoelVeiga said:

@FengShuiGod said:

@NoelVeiga said:

@FengShuiGod said:

@CL60 said:

All of this is irrelevant. All that matters is what happened in the seconds before the shooting, which only two people saw, one of whom is now dead. The shooter can claim the kid threatened him and approached him in a way that justified his use of deadly force, which he has.

But wait, what justifies the use of deadly force?

If they guy had no weapon on him is shooting him EVER not at least manslaughter? Where I am self defence is judged as "proportionate response". Means if a guy comes at you with a stick and you blow his face off you still get charged. Just walking towards a guy menacingly certainly can't be classified as self defence when the other guy shoots you dead, can it? I mean, in a place where sanity, let alone the rule of law, is still vaguely in place.

Genuine question, by the way. I'm less outraged than baffled by all of this.

It depends what Zimmermans claims are. If what you thought was true, incidents of cops shooting people who point cellphones at them as if it were a pistol would be manslaughter, but they aren't (in general, this all depends on specifics of course). Zimmerman could claim all kinds of weird shit, like that the kid said he was pointing a pistol at Zimmerman underneath his hoodie and acted threateningly towards him, or something else just as ludicrous.

But that's a case of error in facts. Again, based on my local legislation, that's very common. You thought he had a gun, you've argued convincingly that you genuinely thought he had a gun, so now the question is "would it be reasonably expected for you to double check if he had a gun?". If you were (like, you were a cop, the "gun" wasn't aimed at you, you failed to give fair warning) you may get charged with reckless or negligent manslaughter. Otherwise, you may be cleared.

But if he had no gun. If it was obvious that he was unarmed and you were. Does really the same principle apply? Is really self defence only predicated on whether you subjectively felt threatened? That's really all it takes? Hell, forget the hoodie. If that's true this guy could just argue that he's a racist and feels threatened by all black people, so he shot him because he thought he was in danger.

Again, I find that baffling. There must be more to it.

Zimmerman can claim it may not have been obvious that Trayvon wasn't armed. Self defense isn't based on whether or not you felt subjectively threatened. It is based on whether you are "assaulted", as determined by a third party. "Assaulted" changes from place to place, but it probably means, a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. Merely feeling threatened because someone is black is not enough to justify self defense.

Exactly. That's my point. If you saw no weapon and there is no weapon and there are no injuries in your body then how can anybody possibly under any circumstances claim self defence? It'd be outright impossible here, I'm just trying to wrap my head around what kind of legal justification may be used in this case to take it that way.

Once again, Zimmerman can claim it was reasonable to think there was a weapon. Seeing no weapon =/= there is no weapon. There needn't be bodily injury either, only the threat of body harm coupled with ability to cause harm. Their are claims that can be made. Zimmerman can say Trayvon threatened to kill him and reached for what he though was a gun/knife. He can say Trayvon had what appeared to be a gun pointed at him underneath his hoodie. He can say all kinds of nonsense. That is how he can claim self defense, whether legally justifiable or morally correct there are ways he can do it.

Edit: From AP "The shooter, George Zimmerman, told police he acted in self-defense after Martin pursued and attacked him." There you go.

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

I find it crazy that a law as crazy as the "Stand Your Ground" is allowed to be past just through a state, it should be a nation wide thing.

Unfortunately, the stand your ground only applies to whites.

I'm not black, I'm just against this racist bullshit. I refuse to be part of that whole '' git yer guns, prepare for this race war'' movement that's going on in America.

@Kevin_Cogneto said:

So I guess I just don't understand how you can claim that the "stand your ground" law is irrelevant to this case, and then go on to say "oh it's too bad he can just make up any lie he wants and use it to justify self-defense". Because it seems to me there's a cause and effect there. Without that law, the burden would be on him to justify why he didn't run from a situation he considered to be dangerous.

And he could (probably) prove the burden. Look at all the self defense cases involving only two people, lethal force, no eyewitnesses. If Zimmerman is found to be mentally competent, the 911 call is determined to not be racist, and he is under oath, then his testimony is the only evidence, unfortunately.

Edit: There were actually witnesses. They say Zimmerman and Trayvon were fighting, which may only help Zimmerman's claims.

Of course, in this case it seems obvious (and will hopefully be obvious to a jury) that in truth Zimmerman was never in danger. But if the defense is able to inject any doubt there ("Mr. Zimmerman didn't know that Trayvon Martin was unarmed!"), the prosecution ought to have the ability to fall back on the fact that Zimmerman would not have the right to use lethal force so long as the option of fleeing was present. But the stand your ground law seems to say that any man who feels threatened, regardless if the evidence proves otherwise, has the right to defend himself with lethal force, and that's the part of the law I object to. And that's exactly what Zimmerman will use as his defense, and as you've already said, it's not out of the realm of possibility that he'll be successful.

At this point we don't know what additional evidence will be found. For all we know they will find journals of racist ranting which would have an impact on the case. But, at this juncture, Zimmerman claiming he could not flee, or claiming he tried to flee may be enough to get him off even without the stand your ground laws. The new self-defense laws do not give permission to shoot or refuse to retreat when one isn’t attacked to begin with, and you have to reasonably feel threatened, as determined by a jury. The only evidence as to that (so far) is what Zimmerman says, which is why the law hasn't touched him. Zimmerman says he was returning to his car when he was attacked. He told police he yelled for help, and tried to get away. He was bleeding from his nose and the back of his head.

It seems like this guy instigated the fight, but there is no proof for that. Ultimately, this case demonstrates a problem with self defense laws everywhere, not merely the stand your ground laws.

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Animasta said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Rawrnosaurous said:

Fuck Geraldo Rivera for putting any blame what so ever on a clothing item for the murder of a young man. Next are you going to tell me that the clothes women wear are just to blame for them being raped?

I like how while trying to sound so open-minded and liberal and tolerant you begin to forget the fact that criminals usually try to cover their heads and faces by putting the hoodie on, and that when a guy is looking at or is in close contact with a woman wearing tight revealing clothes that expose her curves and breasts and the crack of her ass causing his penis to erect, the chances of rape are much higher than if she was wearing decent clothes. To think that EVERY guy wearing a hoodie is a criminal and that every rape incident was caused because of the stimulation of revealing clothes, is absolutely absurd, but to be so denying and oblivious as to completely dis-acknowledge those elements as if they never meant or caused anything before is just laughable.

I don't get what point you're trying to make unless you just really love victim blaming

My point is that a lot of saboteurs, robbers and criminals wear hoodies to cover themselves up, which is why we can't deny that hoodies have, unfortunately, in a way become associated with bad guys in our society. I'm NOT saying that man had any right to chase the kid and kill him because of what he wore, I'm saying that I can see the logic in someone mistaking an innocent person for a bad guy because of a suspiciously-worn hoodie. For example, where I come from if you had the hoodie's headcap on while walking around, especially at night, it usually means you're trouble, simply because most of the sabotaging fight-causing assholes wear it. Which is why it's wise to take it off in front of people or when you're around someone's house as a signal saying "I don't have any evil intentions."

that still does not mean killing them because they were wearing a hoody okay, or even assuming shit about them and causing them harm when they were going to do nothing of the sort to you.

@Bwast said:

I don't even understand how this happened. How is it that neighborhood watch guys can be armed with guns?

because second amendment you stupid commie liberal YOU CANT TAKE MY GUNS

I don't mean to be an elitist dick, but America, your country has alot of growing up to do when it comes to ethics and criminal law. I would love to see you join the rest of the Western world here in the 21st century.

@Jerr said:

I don't mean to be an elitist dick, but America, your country has alot of growing up to do when it comes to ethics and criminal law. I would love to see you join the rest of the Western world here in the 21st century.

Let's not go and make what is obviously a tragedy that's being investigated by the FBI into stupid "my country is better than your country" bullshit.

 I'm NOT saying that man had any right to chase the kid and kill him because of what he wore, I'm saying that I can see the logic in someone mistaking an innocent person for a bad guy because of a suspiciously-worn hoodie. 

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Animasta:

@AhmadMetallic said:

I'm NOT saying that man had any right to chase the kid and kill him because of what he wore, I'm saying that I can see the logic in someone mistaking an innocent person for a bad guy because of a suspiciously-worn hoodie.

Again, I know I'm sounding like I'm defending the guy, but I'm not. My original point was that suspecting someone for wearing a hoodie is NOT entirely groundless.

he wasn't suspecting him for wearing a hoodie, not really, he was suspecting him for being not white, so this argument is somewhat pointless.

Also I would say it all depends on how someone carries themselves rather than any specific clothing.

@Animasta said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Animasta said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Rawrnosaurous said:

Fuck Geraldo Rivera for putting any blame what so ever on a clothing item for the murder of a young man. Next are you going to tell me that the clothes women wear are just to blame for them being raped?

I like how while trying to sound so open-minded and liberal and tolerant you begin to forget the fact that criminals usually try to cover their heads and faces by putting the hoodie on, and that when a guy is looking at or is in close contact with a woman wearing tight revealing clothes that expose her curves and breasts and the crack of her ass causing his penis to erect, the chances of rape are much higher than if she was wearing decent clothes. To think that EVERY guy wearing a hoodie is a criminal and that every rape incident was caused because of the stimulation of revealing clothes, is absolutely absurd, but to be so denying and oblivious as to completely dis-acknowledge those elements as if they never meant or caused anything before is just laughable.

I don't get what point you're trying to make unless you just really love victim blaming

My point is that a lot of saboteurs, robbers and criminals wear hoodies to cover themselves up, which is why we can't deny that hoodies have, unfortunately, in a way become associated with bad guys in our society. I'm NOT saying that man had any right to chase the kid and kill him because of what he wore, I'm saying that I can see the logic in someone mistaking an innocent person for a bad guy because of a suspiciously-worn hoodie. For example, where I come from if you had the hoodie's headcap on while walking around, especially at night, it usually means you're trouble, simply because most of the sabotaging fight-causing assholes wear it. Which is why it's wise to take it off in front of people or when you're around someone's house as a signal saying "I don't have any evil intentions."

that still does not mean killing them because they were wearing a hoody okay, or even assuming shit about them and causing them harm when they were going to do nothing of the sort to you.

Also it was raining. Covering yourself up when it rains is not "suspicious", it's the reasonable thing to do. Also Geraldo's own son think his dad is a moron: http://gawker.com/5895918/geraldo-riveras-son-ashamed-of-dads-idiocy and by his own standards, Geraldo deserves to be shot: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/03/some-other-people-who-geraldos-standards-are-asking-be-shot/50261/

@Animasta said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Animasta:

@AhmadMetallic said:

I'm NOT saying that man had any right to chase the kid and kill him because of what he wore, I'm saying that I can see the logic in someone mistaking an innocent person for a bad guy because of a suspiciously-worn hoodie.

Again, I know I'm sounding like I'm defending the guy, but I'm not. My original point was that suspecting someone for wearing a hoodie is NOT entirely groundless.

he wasn't suspecting him for wearing a hoodie, not really, he was suspecting him for being not white, so this argument is somewhat pointless.

Also I would say it all depends on how someone carries themselves rather than any specific clothing.

yeah i shot this dude because i was threatened by the way he "carried himself"?

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Animasta:

@AhmadMetallic said:

I'm NOT saying that man had any right to chase the kid and kill him because of what he wore, I'm saying that I can see the logic in someone mistaking an innocent person for a bad guy because of a suspiciously-worn hoodie.

Again, I know I'm sounding like I'm defending the guy, but I'm not. My original point was that suspecting someone for wearing a hoodie is NOT entirely groundless.

he wasn't suspecting him for wearing a hoodie, not really, he was suspecting him for being not white, so this argument is somewhat pointless.

From the information I've gathered this is what I see:

1- George Zimmerman calls the police to tell them about a suspicious kid

2- George is told NOT TO FOLLOW THE CHILD, the cops will take care of it

3- George spouts some racial slurs and follows the kid anyway

4- A 911 call from a distressed woman contains the screams (of someone outside) in the video:

5- Trayvon is shot in the chest; on his person is a box of skittles and an ice tea

6- George claims self defense. He is set free (or not arrested at all)

WTF is this for real? Self defense? You were told not to follow him, why did you follow him? And what form of agression from a 17 year old carrying candy and juice can possibly equal taking his life? From my POV all I see is a crooked or inept police department and a piece of shit hiding behind the law.

This kids girlfriend is speaking out. She was on the phone with him while it all went down and that must be tough on her...

Anyways, hopefully her testimony or something could be enough to get that fuck behind bars since the local police fucked up the entire investigation BY NOT PERFORMING A DRUG SCREEN OR SOME TOXICOLOGY TEST. He fucking shot someone who died! You would think you need to double check if the dude is under the influence.

@SomeDeliCook said:

@TheJohn said:

Black kid wearing a hoodie = criminal

White guy with a shotgun = patriot

Ignorance and prejudice is fucked up

The guys family actually say hes hispanic.

All depends what he put on his Census report.

But yeah, his mom is from Peru and his dad is white. Working for the Census you could only choose one ethnicity even if your bi-racial.

@LooseChange said:

This kids girlfriend is speaking out. She was on the phone with him while it all went down and that must be tough on her...

Anyways, hopefully her testimony or something could be enough to get that fuck behind bars since the local police fucked up the entire investigation BY NOT PERFORMING A DRUG SCREEN OR SOME TOXICOLOGY TEST. He fucking shot someone who died! You would think you need to double check if the dude is under the influence.

They did perform a toxicology test.

On Trayvon's body.

@benson said:

@LooseChange said:

This kids girlfriend is speaking out. She was on the phone with him while it all went down and that must be tough on her...

Anyways, hopefully her testimony or something could be enough to get that fuck behind bars since the local police fucked up the entire investigation BY NOT PERFORMING A DRUG SCREEN OR SOME TOXICOLOGY TEST. He fucking shot someone who died! You would think you need to double check if the dude is under the influence.

They did perform a toxicology test.

On Trayvon's body.

white people don't do drugs don't u know anythin

@Jerr said:

I don't mean to be an elitist dick, but America, your country has alot of growing up to do when it comes to ethics and criminal law. I would love to see you join the rest of the Western world here in the 21st century.

Let's not go and make what is obviously a tragedy that's being investigated by the FBI into stupid "my country is better than your country" bullshit.

@FengShuiGod said:

@NoelVeiga said:

@FengShuiGod said:

@NoelVeiga said:

@FengShuiGod said:

@NoelVeiga said:

@FengShuiGod said:

@CL60 said:

All of this is irrelevant. All that matters is what happened in the seconds before the shooting, which only two people saw, one of whom is now dead. The shooter can claim the kid threatened him and approached him in a way that justified his use of deadly force, which he has.

But wait, what justifies the use of deadly force?

If they guy had no weapon on him is shooting him EVER not at least manslaughter? Where I am self defence is judged as "proportionate response". Means if a guy comes at you with a stick and you blow his face off you still get charged. Just walking towards a guy menacingly certainly can't be classified as self defence when the other guy shoots you dead, can it? I mean, in a place where sanity, let alone the rule of law, is still vaguely in place.

Genuine question, by the way. I'm less outraged than baffled by all of this.

It depends what Zimmermans claims are. If what you thought was true, incidents of cops shooting people who point cellphones at them as if it were a pistol would be manslaughter, but they aren't (in general, this all depends on specifics of course). Zimmerman could claim all kinds of weird shit, like that the kid said he was pointing a pistol at Zimmerman underneath his hoodie and acted threateningly towards him, or something else just as ludicrous.

But that's a case of error in facts. Again, based on my local legislation, that's very common. You thought he had a gun, you've argued convincingly that you genuinely thought he had a gun, so now the question is "would it be reasonably expected for you to double check if he had a gun?". If you were (like, you were a cop, the "gun" wasn't aimed at you, you failed to give fair warning) you may get charged with reckless or negligent manslaughter. Otherwise, you may be cleared.

But if he had no gun. If it was obvious that he was unarmed and you were. Does really the same principle apply? Is really self defence only predicated on whether you subjectively felt threatened? That's really all it takes? Hell, forget the hoodie. If that's true this guy could just argue that he's a racist and feels threatened by all black people, so he shot him because he thought he was in danger.

Again, I find that baffling. There must be more to it.

Zimmerman can claim it may not have been obvious that Trayvon wasn't armed. Self defense isn't based on whether or not you felt subjectively threatened. It is based on whether you are "assaulted", as determined by a third party. "Assaulted" changes from place to place, but it probably means, a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. Merely feeling threatened because someone is black is not enough to justify self defense.

Exactly. That's my point. If you saw no weapon and there is no weapon and there are no injuries in your body then how can anybody possibly under any circumstances claim self defence? It'd be outright impossible here, I'm just trying to wrap my head around what kind of legal justification may be used in this case to take it that way.

Once again, Zimmerman can claim it was reasonable to think there was a weapon. Seeing no weapon =/= there is no weapon. There needn't be bodily injury either, only the threat of body harm coupled with ability to cause harm. Their are claims that can be made. Zimmerman can say Trayvon threatened to kill him and reached for what he though was a gun/knife. He can say Trayvon had what appeared to be a gun pointed at him underneath his hoodie. He can say all kinds of nonsense. That is how he can claim self defense, whether legally justifiable or morally correct there are ways he can do it.

Edit: From AP "The shooter, George Zimmerman, told police he acted in self-defense after Martin pursued and attacked him." There you go.

Yeah, ok, I see I'm asking the wrong question here.

He can claim self defence for any crazy reason and say a bunch of crazy stuff. The right question is: does it have even the slightest chance of holding up in court? That's what I was going for.

I mean, sorry to bring this back in any way to the Internet cesspool that is gun control debate, but I guess one of the reasons it's easier here is that... well, the assumption that the other guy has a gun on him is hard as hell to sell to a court around these parts. "Guy with hands on pockets" doesn't come even close to being accepted anywhere as a justification for "I freaked out and shot/stabbed him". Hell, I've been shown sentences where being in the actual process of receiving a punch to the face was not seen as valid grounds for self defence in stabbings, let alone shootings.

I guess my question is, given whatever the regulation and frequency of firearm use over there, if you go to a court claiming that some guy had his hands on his pockets and looked shifty to you and he said he'd harm you and you shot him, what are your chances of not being extremely conscious of the firmness of your grip on a bar of soap this time next week? And I don't mean this guy. This guy will probably get crucified, given the media outrage. I mean, as a matter of legal precedent, do you know how much of this is a desperation move and how much of it does actually work?

See, here there area bunch of things you need to be able to claim self defence: the attack must exist. It must be real. It must be actually happening at that point (revenge is not self-defence, threats are not enough grounds), your defence can't cause more harm than the attack to what you're defending (i.e. going for the kill when a guy was trying to just rough you up doesn't quite cut it, but that's not set in stone), you can't be in an open fight (if you're both attacking, nobody is defending) and you can't trick the other guy into attacking you first so you can hurt him in retaliation. That's a lot of requirements right there, and it's pretty far removed from "guy in hoodie looked at me sideways". I wasn't aware of there being such a HUGE gap in how this is regulated in the US, so I'm a bit confused about whether this thing is real. From the press I got that the issue here is that he's not in prison during the investigation, but that doesn't mean he's not going to end up in jail, right? Or does the claim he have just outright spell self-defence and pretty much guarantee he gets to walk?

Dude he was asking for it. He was wearing a Hooded Sweatshirt on a rainy night.

The leason from this "Perception is reality" *FACE FUCKING PALM*

@Vinny_Says said:

3- George spouts some racial slurs and follows the kid anyway

I thought they couldn't make out any racial slurs in any 911 tapes? I heard the tape and once some one tells you what to hear, it's hard to hear anything else. It's the same with the EVP ghost tapes. It's going to be hard for people to do their jobs right when there's a lynch mob running around firing or sending death threats to anyone who doesn't agree with them.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2012/03/22/ac-tuchman-trayvon-zimmerman.cnn#/video/us/2012/03/22/ac-tuchman-trayvon-zimmerman.cnn

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

Dude he was asking for it. He was wearing a Hooded Sweatshirt on a rainy night.

The leason from this "Perception is reality" *FACE FUCKING PALM*

Profiling. From a Latino man, talking about his 'dark skinned' child. Fuck me. Geraldo you fucking wannabe-WASP QUEEN, please PLEASE DIE IN A FIRE.

As I said, he won't die in a fire, he's going to get shot: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/03/some-other-people-who-geraldos-standards-are-asking-be-shot/50261/

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

Dude he was asking for it. He was wearing a Hooded Sweatshirt on a rainy night.

The leason from this "Perception is reality" *FACE FUCKING PALM*

Profiling. From a Latino man, talking about his 'dark skinned' child. Fuck me. Geraldo you fucking wannabe-WASP QUEEN, please PLEASE DIE IN A FIRE.

As I said, he won't die in a fire, he's going to get shot: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/03/some-other-people-who-geraldos-standards-are-asking-be-shot/50261/

I'm also wondering if Geraldo knows that moustaches are associated with pedophiles. Using his own logic, as a hoodie-wearing moustachioed man, is he asking to be killed twice?