# All you Zimmerman-lovers in the Great Debates thread are... **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 8, 2012, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-you-zimmerman-lovers-in-the-great-debates-thread-are/624470 "2012-06-08T04:05:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-you-zimmerman-lovers-in-the-great-debates-thread-are/624470/101 "2012-06-09T18:07:05Z")
No, but I have reason to believe you are either a) ill informed or b) relying on edited evidence. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-you-zimmerman-lovers-in-the-great-debates-thread-are/624470/102 "2012-06-09T18:15:57Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I’m on the side of people being allowed to defend themselves against vicious, unprovoked attacks without being effectively tried and convicted by the media, and also on the side of people being allowed to call the police on people fitting the profile of suspected criminals without being criticised for it. > > While we’re at it, I’m on the side of people being judged on the actual evidence, not on vague feelings people have about “what must have happened”, and applying the actual laws whether you agree with them or not. > > On the latter two situations, that puts me firmly on Zimmerman’s side, and I think anyone who disagrees is far more dangerous than any individual murderer, as they put everyone at risk by ignoring the process of law. As for the first, it will depend if his story holds up. Well said. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-you-zimmerman-lovers-in-the-great-debates-thread-are/624470/103 "2012-06-09T19:21:04Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > It’s not even quite that, as he’s come down pretty hard on the Stand Your Ground law. And he believes the prosecutor must have some strong evidence against Zimmerman, or else they would have dropped charges. So he’s actually slightly on the anti-Zimmerman side. > > And he pretty much convinced me to be there, too, though I came from the opposite direction. > > The one person I think might have needed to be pitted for his pro-Zimmerman stance was **magiver** (sp?), and, even then, it’s only because he acts like he’s being neutral while clearly taking the Zimmerman side, using a few disclaimers to try to appear neutral. I honestly don’t have a problem with his side. This is a really encouraging post, and I thank you for making it. For what it’s worth, I traveled a bit of ground myself on the issue: when the discussion first started, I was making points about generic SYG laws. As it continued, I researched the specific Florida version and got appalled quickly. ---
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-you-zimmerman-lovers-in-the-great-debates-thread-are/624470/104 "2012-06-09T20:09:05Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I’m not the one bending anything, I’m not the one inventing racism out of nothing, and cherry picking facts. Wait, I’m not quite clear. So do you still maintain that your “most important fact” is that Zimmerman was an “anti-racism activist?” And was he on a “campaign to create awareness of racism in his local police force” or was he inciting already inflamed tensions in a community all too familiar with the problems, and attempting to misdirect their anger onto a convenient scapegoat who was already set to retire in a month? ---
**Author:** ![al27052](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/41988e/32.png) [@al27052](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/al27052)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2012, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-you-zimmerman-lovers-in-the-great-debates-thread-are/624470/105 "2012-06-10T03:23:52Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Um, yes? You just got through admitting that minorities can be racist. That’s the only way calling **Bricker** racist makes sense, seeing as he’s (El) Salvadoran. The black people you are talking about are disparaging Hispanic people as a race. No they’re not, dude. They are _observing_ conflicts and tensions between the two communities. They weren’t disparaging anyone…in fact, I’ve never seen anyone talk as much trash about black people _as a group_ as my black co-workers/friends, in some cases. They’re brutal and accurate. They pull no punches. Many middle-class blacks have _serious_ disregard for their less affluent/hardworking/fortunate brothers and sisters. OTOH, they often have a lot of RESPECT for how hard most Hispanic immigrants work. They mention it as a very positive tendency, at the same time they make jokes about how they live 40 to a house, etc.. The hilarious part is, I probably know more actual black people (and know them well, I work with them every day, and grew up around them) than every white person in this forum _in toto_ does. Hilarously, yet and still, you want to argue. ---
**Author:** ![al27052](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/41988e/32.png) [@al27052](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/al27052)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2012, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-you-zimmerman-lovers-in-the-great-debates-thread-are/624470/106 "2012-06-10T03:29:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This is a really encouraging post, and I thank you for making it. > > For what it’s worth, I traveled a bit of ground myself on the issue: when the discussion first started, I was making points about generic SYG laws. As it continued, I researched the specific Florida version and got appalled quickly. There is one point on which you and I will never agree, I fear. I say, when safety and common sense are at odds with the law, FUCK the law. I say this particularly when it comes to handgun laws, badly-written SYG laws, etc.. You love the law. You’d marry the law, if you could. ROFL And let’s be clear, I do think that a _well-written_ SYG law can be a…well, not wonderful, but _useful_. I think the British laws that prevent you from killing home invaders is ridiculous. If you invade my home, and make me think you might hurt someone, I’m going to either kill you, or sell you to some trucker to keep as his gimp in a box in the back of his truck cab. ---
**Author:** ![al27052](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/41988e/32.png) [@al27052](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/al27052)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2012, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-you-zimmerman-lovers-in-the-great-debates-thread-are/624470/107 "2012-06-10T03:40:58Z")
To me, it makes no difference if George Zimmerman is the most well-intentioned citizen in his town. He and handguns _do not mix well_, and, as such, he needs to be kept away from them. Since that’s not possible if he goes free, he needs to be locked up, for his and the community’s safety. Who on this thread wants to live next to Zimmerman? Who wants him driving around, armed, at night, in your neighborhood? Those are not happy thoughts, to the sane. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2012, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-you-zimmerman-lovers-in-the-great-debates-thread-are/624470/108 "2012-06-10T06:07:10Z")
I feel like I’m totally stating the obvious here, but this issue, even more than most, is not one that ought to be viewed as having only two sides. For instance, without having followed the case particularly closely, if I had to make fairly uninformed judgments, I would guess that the following statements are all simultaneously true: (1) George Zimmerman is a somewhat racist jerk, and his actions more than anything else fairly directly led to the tragic death of Treyvon Martin. Morally and ethically, he holds a high degree of responsibility for that tragedy. (2) Treyvon Martin would be alive today if he had acted somewhat more calmly (3) George Zimmerman’s actions may not have violated the law (4) But that may be because it’s a stupid law (5) The police/DA likely don’t have sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed murder, and thus Zimmerman should not go to jail (6) The police/DA may well have done a poor job of investigating what happened initially (7) Which may be due to some racism on their part, or may not Note that I will not debate any of those statements because, as I said, I’ve only peripherally been paying attention to his case. My point is that in this case, even more than in many public issues, it’s crazy to think of there being “two sides”, or assuming that someone who makes one statement about one aspect of the situation that is perceived as “pro-Zimmerman” or “pro-Treyvon” therefore subscribes to any of a laundry list of other positions on “the same side”. Oh, and one other side note concerning my pet SDMB debate topic, which is how partisan these boards are. I note that in this thread, Bricker (who I strongly believe is not a bigot) was accused of bigotry… and then a whole lot of people, many of whom disagree with his politics, defended him against that charge. So on the one hand, at some point in the future it would be entirely truthful for someone to say that in this thread, Bricker was called a bigot, presumably by a liberal… and it’s pretty clear what that implies about the level of partisanness on the SDMB. But, while technically true, that statement would be incredibly misleading. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2012, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-you-zimmerman-lovers-in-the-great-debates-thread-are/624470/109 "2012-06-10T07:21:43Z")
> [@al27052](#): > > To me, it makes no difference if George Zimmerman is the most well-intentioned citizen in his town. He and handguns _do not mix well_, and, as such, he needs to be kept away from them. Since that’s not possible if he goes free, he needs to be locked up, for his and the community’s safety. > > Who on this thread wants to live next to Zimmerman? Who wants him driving around, armed, at night, in your neighborhood? > > Those are not happy thoughts, to the sane. You want to lock him up because you don’t like the thought of him in your neighbourhood? It’s astonishing that people are posting stuff like this, and yet I’m being accused of bigotry… If his story turns out to be true, I’d say him and his handgun worked perfectly together, by successfully defending him from an attack. That’s presumably the reason he owned it in the first place. But then, in your post to **Bricker** , you make it clear that you have no respect for the protection the law gives all of us, and don’t understand that ignoring a bad law to lock up someone _because you dislike them_ is dangerous to everyone, as you have no way of knowing you won’t be the next person disliked. It’s not the SYG law that matters here - if Zimmerman’s story is true, he’d have been justified in shooting Martin anywhere he was allowed to carry a gun. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2012, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-you-zimmerman-lovers-in-the-great-debates-thread-are/624470/110 "2012-06-10T07:26:20Z")
> [@al27052](#): > > I think the British laws that prevent you from killing home invaders is ridiculous. Cite please. In the UK you are allowed to use “reasonable force” to protect yourself or your property. That goes all the way up to lethal force, if you (reasonably) felt your life was at risk. There’s substantial amounts of precedent establishing that. The most well known case that led to controversy was Tony Martin, who was convicted of manslaughter after he shot two burglars, killing one of them. This is purely because the two youths were trying to flee, and both were shot in the back, leading the jury to believe that Martin used excessive force. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2012, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-you-zimmerman-lovers-in-the-great-debates-thread-are/624470/111 "2012-06-10T13:21:50Z")
> [@Ambivalid](#): > > If you gave some examples of some of these “cowboy types” or _anything_ in particular that is stoking your outrage so, I might be inclined to jump on the bangwagon, grab a pitchfork and kick some bigot-ass with ya. Unfortunately you’ve given me nothing. ☹ My 2 year old daughter’s day care has a “Guns are not allowed on this premises”, on what fucking planet does it make sense for a preschool to be legally obligated to ban firearms with a sign. ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2012, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-you-zimmerman-lovers-in-the-great-debates-thread-are/624470/112 "2012-06-10T14:35:21Z")
> [@Gary\_Kumquat](#): > > Cite please. > > In the UK you are allowed to use “reasonable force” to protect yourself or your property. That goes all the way up to lethal force, if you (reasonably) felt your life was at risk. But if you own a weapon, or keep something that could be repurposed as a weapon near your person, or you actually attempt to invoke this law, or you’re in a political period where burglary is considered a legitimate occupation, then no dice on any of this, de facto. (As you can tell, I strongly support gun ownership rights and self-defense and look down on countries where it is, effectively, illegal; I also strongly oppose hunting down and killing racial minorities for sport and then claiming “self-defense” after you do so. Perhaps this makes me part of a small crossover on this topic.) ---
**Author:** ![PlainJain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5daacb/32.png) [@PlainJain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlainJain)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2012, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-you-zimmerman-lovers-in-the-great-debates-thread-are/624470/113 "2012-06-10T15:08:13Z")
I haven’t posted on this topic yet because I am pretty neutral on this until the facts come out completely. But I am curious about this sentiment: > [@Steophan](#): > > If his story turns out to be true, I’d say him and his handgun worked perfectly together, by successfully defending him from an atack. I don’t understand the definition of attack here. If I were in a SYG state with a CCP and walked up to some bikers and antagonized them until someone attacked me, then shot and killed my attacker would that also be a case of me and my handgun working perfectly together? ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2012, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-you-zimmerman-lovers-in-the-great-debates-thread-are/624470/114 "2012-06-10T16:26:47Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > But if you own a weapon, or keep something that could be repurposed as a weapon near your person, or you actually attempt to invoke this law, or you’re in a political period where burglary is considered a legitimate occupation, then no dice on any of this, de facto. You are allowed to defend yourself with whatever you have to hand, as long as it is within reason and not viewed as an excessive reaction. If I lay out a burgler with a cricket bat in my house, then there’s a good reason for me to have one. If I defend myself with a cricket bat on the way to/from a game, then again that is not a problem. If I happen to be walking around at night with a baseball bat, then questions may well be raised about just why I happened to have such an implement on me at the time of getting into a fight, and I will almost certainly face a charge. A metal shafted golf umbrella, on the other hand…no problem. I’m also curious as to just which political party in the UK is anything but publicly supportive of victims defending themselves against criminals? As a form of electoral suicide, it’d be a very effective tactic. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2012, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-you-zimmerman-lovers-in-the-great-debates-thread-are/624470/115 "2012-06-10T16:32:11Z")
As an example: [Father who killed burglar with meat cleaver was 'justified' coroner rules | Daily Mail Online](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2121041/Father-killed-burglar-meat-cleaver-justified-coroner-rules.html) > [@](#): > > A terrified father who killed a burglar by hitting him in the head with a meat cleaver was justified in his actions, a coroner ruled yesterday. > Xiaopeng Wang had been bludgeoned with a wheel brace and his wife punched in the face as she cradled their two-year-old daughter after Steven Shaw and his brother Craig raided their home on a notorious estate in the middle of the night. > A court heard the brothers subjected taxi driver Mr Wang and his family to a ‘harrowing and brutal attack’ lasting 15 minutes. > The violence stopped only when Mr Wang, now 33, found a meat cleaver and hit Steven Shaw with it, causing a ‘sharp force trauma’ to his head. The burglar, 32, was pronounced dead after being taken to hospital. > Police initially launched a murder inquiry and arrested four people, including Mr and Mrs Wang, now 32, and the victim’s brother. But no charges were ever brought against the couple after it was accepted Mr Wang had acted in self-defence ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2012, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-you-zimmerman-lovers-in-the-great-debates-thread-are/624470/116 "2012-06-10T16:36:29Z")
> [@PlainJain](#): > > I don’t understand the definition of attack here. If I were in a SYG state with a CCP and walked up to some bikers and antagonized them until someone attacked me, then shot and killed my attacker would that also be a case of me and my handgun working perfectly together? Yes. One does not have the right to attack someone because of something they say. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2012, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-you-zimmerman-lovers-in-the-great-debates-thread-are/624470/117 "2012-06-10T16:38:20Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Actually, no, no I don’t know what is meant, short of walking about peering into windows, is that what he was doing? No? Trying the doors, see if they were locked? But he was looking at them! Ah! Was he squinting at them, then, is that what is “suspicious”? Within the first two months of moving into my current residence I had a 5 gallon gas can and an air compressor stolen in addition to having someone smash the window of my truck and rifle through it for valuables. In addition, on occasion we experience rashes of burglaries (one of which resulted in the death of a 17 year old who was shot by a resident). I bring this up because it has changed how I interpret people walking up and down my street. The vast majority of pedestrians are young black males (teens mostly) and almost none of them look suspicious to me. On occasion I will see someone walking through the neighborhood slowly and starting intently at houses, car ports and peeking in the windows of every car they pass. While I’ve never called 911 it is the kind of behavior I find suspicious. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2012, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-you-zimmerman-lovers-in-the-great-debates-thread-are/624470/118 "2012-06-10T16:38:51Z")
I missed this gem: > [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > (As you can tell, I strongly support gun ownership rights and self-defense and look down on countries where it is, effectively, illegal As a Brit who legally owns guns, may I ask what the fuck you’re talking about? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2012, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-you-zimmerman-lovers-in-the-great-debates-thread-are/624470/119 "2012-06-10T16:40:54Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Yes. One does not have the right to attack someone because of something they say. OK. So the gun owner kills the biker, and another biker, fearing for his life, pulls his gun and kills the gun owner. Is he justified by SYG laws? ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2012, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-you-zimmerman-lovers-in-the-great-debates-thread-are/624470/120 "2012-06-10T16:52:03Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > OK. So the gun owner kills the biker, and another biker, fearing for his life, pulls his gun and kills the gun owner. Is he justified by SYG laws? Quite possibly, yes. It would depend on the first shooter’s actions after the shooting. The only way I can see that it wouldn’t be covered under SYG is if the second biker was involved in the assault on the first gun owner. I think I know where you’re going with this, and I suspect it’s along the lines of the idea that SYG laws will permit massive OK Corral style shootouts. My opinion is that, whilst it may technically allow them, it’s not going to do anything to encourage them, as people likely to act like that would do so anyway. There are certainly negative consequences to SYG laws, but I’m not convinced that this is one. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-you-zimmerman-lovers-in-the-great-debates-thread-are/624470.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-you-zimmerman-lovers-in-the-great-debates-thread-are/624470.md?page=7)