Take a moment to put your mind back together. All better now?
Searching your memory, do you “know” that Trayvon Martin purchased ice tea and skittles that evening?
Tongue fucking Zimmerman’s asshole is what brought you to this board from storm front or wherever, if I recall correctly.
FYI, Fear Itself was being sarcastic.
I think you’re misreading what I’m saying. See the part where I say people of good will? I don’t think Zimmerman had the ability to kill Martin at any time and just waited until he had justification to do so.
The law created a permissive environment for someone like Zimmerman to confront the kid rather than jsut wait for the police to show up.
For example Virginia (not exactly a gun grabber state) does not have stand your ground or castle doctrine. Instead it has common laws that discourage you from starting trouble. If you provoke a conflict in any way, you have a duty to retreat. I am not a virginia lawyer.
That would be the *second *biggest tragedy of the Zimmerman affair.
Do you have any proof, indication, study, whatever - to show that because of lack of the “castle doctrine” or “stand your ground” laws, in Virginia there are fewer such confrontations?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/studies-stand-your-ground-laws
Now to be fair, a lot of these extra deaths may be innocent victims killing criminal assailants but we have more deaths. This might indicate a higher number of confrontations. I don’t think this is conclusive but you asked for “any” proof, indication, study or whatever.
Even worse than stand your ground (in Florida) is the fact that the budern of proof on self defense lies with the prosecution rather than the defendant.
In most jurisdictions, the prosecution proves a case for murder and then you can use self defense as an affirmative defense. YOu have the burden of proving that you were acting in self defense. However, in Florida, the prosecution doesn’t just have to prove you killed someone, they also have to prove that it wasn’t in self defense. This means that if there are no witnesses, the prosecution has a very hard time proving murder even though the defendant could not establish self defense.
I was shocked when i heard that the burden was bass ackwards in Florida.
Might. Or might not. Or the uptick that the researchers found has disappeared since. Or, in other states that passed SYG laws, it never happened. As in http://hotair.com/archives/2013/07/18/fact-check-stand-your-ground-laws-dont-increase-murder-manslaughter-rate/
But thank you for the cite. Even though it wasn’t really answering the question I asked.
By the way, you can check the homicide rate in states that passed SYG laws before and after yourself here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/07/17/196940/no-firm-ground-on-whether-stand.html#.UefZMGRAS7g
See any pattern? I looked and in most states the homicide rate either went down after SYG was passed, or went up and then went down, ending up below the rate in the year it was passed. Of course, who knows what it means - unlike the researchers you cited, I don’t draw conclusions from this, since there can be all kinds of reasons homicide rate goes up or down, and claiming SYG is responsible for either up or down-tick is jumping to conclusions.
So your saying that in states that legalized killing people in certain circumstances, the number of illegal killings went down? That’s your argument?
No. The number of “legalized killings” in SYG or non-SYG states is miniscule in comparison with the total and cannot account for the homicide rate going down (or up, for that matter).
I think it is sad that the incident of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin has been turned into a “my guy vs. your guy”, or “my viewpoint vs. your viewpoint situation”.
There are some incontrovertible facts in the Zimmerman/Martin debacle:
Martin is dead.
Zimmerman caused that death.
If Zimmerman would not have followed Martin, Martin would not be dead. AND NO, before you go apoplectic , I am NOT saying this is a valid argument for Zimmerman was wrong.
So, what are we left with, if we can accept these facts?
There has never been any evidence put forth that Trayvon Martin was the kind of menace to society that we are better off without. His death was unnecessary (take a breath people, i said unnecessary, NOT that Zimmerman was wrong).
Yet, he died, based on a series of events which resulted in someone dying because another felt threatened.
There are so many questions, so many points when a reasonable and thoughtful person would reflect on the tragedy. Yes, the tragedy. A young person dying when they had not done something worthy of death, and a young man taking a life and carrying that burden.
For the taking of life, even when you are threatened, is a burden. A large one, it is so large a burden that responsible people reflect on it. Young men and women return from war torn by it. Justified as they were, right in their actions, young men and women return from war and are tortured by their actions.
These young men and women sometimes get involved in drugs, or alcohol, or they become horribly depressed. They feel remorse, guilt, intense sadness. They reflect on their being.
After what happened, George Zimmerman decided to go into a parking lot and potentially wait for someone with the intent of putting himself in the same deadly position. Without lawful consent (peace officer) or owner request behind him.
He chose poorly, and I think it is not irrational, judgmental or otherwise incorrect to say this.
There has never been any evidence that Zimmerman was armed (except with a dog).
(post shortened)
Martin died because he attacked a man he didn’t know was armed and the man defended himself.
Zimmerman didn’t “potentially” wait for someone. He did wait. He sat in his vehicle in order to alert the police to a possible break-in, burglary, or theft. Zimmerman says he had permission from someone at the store and the store’s owner says GZ wasn’t employed by the store. Permission vs Employee. The author of the linked article in the OP should be able to differentiate between the two.
The police/SA’s office did not file charges against GZ.
I don’t necessarily disagree with the rest of your post, which in fact I think is pretty thoughtful and worthwhile. The issue I have is that there are other facts, some of which are pretty clearly established and some others that are less clear, that got left out.
So I won’t go apoplectic. In return, I hope you don’t if I add that it is at least as likely that Martin would not be dead if he did not attack a stranger in the street for asking him what he was doing. That was, IMO, a lot more wrong, and a lot more the cause, of Martin’s death.
Regards,
Shodan
I used some basic facts that were not in dispute. Regrettably, yours is one of the disputed facts. Maybe we could change it to “confront a person following him”. Unless I am mistaken, we never had any incontrovertible evidence about who prompted the physical altercation first. There was evidence Martin did engage in a physical altercation, but I thought it was only Zimmerman’s testimony we had to say that Trayvon started the physical altercation. This is why I used the word incontrovertible in an effort to avoid rehashing the case because it is inconsequential to the discussion point I was trying to make.
However, I would agree with you that from the evidence we had, it was incontrovertible that Martin chose to confront the person who was following him.
Who is also creepy, but in a totally different way.
Fair enough.
Regards,
Shodan
How many times did Z call the cops to alert them to the presence of a unidentified white teenager, walking around and looking at houses in a suspicious manner? Ever?
Wow, he never fucking learns, does he? Another incident with the cops: