Perhaps Martin should have told the DA that... Oh wait, he couldn't because the guy he stood his ground against killed him.
I am amazed that you continue to miss the point: Martin's actions were unwise, but legal under self defense laws of the state. If it were not for SYG, it could be argued that he was legally responsible for not going home instead of confronting Zimmerman; but because of SYG, he had no obligation to do so.
So your position is that the law encourages unwise actions, but this doesn't make it bad legislation? Your appeal to popularity fallacy illustrates the weakness of your argument.
So what you are saying is that once the fight goes to the ground, then the attacker is longer dangerous?? You've never heard of the Gracie's School of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu have you? Once you go down to the ground, you are done for. TM was free to shoot GZ at any time, just as anyone of us can shoot anyone at anytime. The difficulty will be in explaining your actions to both Law Enforcement and a Grand Jury, where your freedom will hang in the balance of a trial. Pretending not to know that makes you look dishonest.
You appear to be dodging the question: Do you believe a teenager being followed home at night by a stranger has reason to be concerned for their safety?
See? There is is again, why do you make the distinction between white and black when it should be about right and wrong. What are you up to?
I miss nothing....you did, which is the real amazing fact here. No one is arguing he didn't have a right to not go home because of SYG. It has all been about Zimmerman using SELF DEFENSE LAWS when Martin attacked him and that the SYG laws did not justify any use of force of any kind. SYG has nothing to do with Martin getting killed, hence SYG is a quite reasonable and refreshing addition to laws which already give criminals and antigun nuts an advantage. Martin had no obligation to go home, he did have an obligation to not attack another citizen without a reasonable belief he was in some kind of danger. - - - Updated - - - LOL I'll play along...yes he had a reason to be concerned...he did not have a reason to attack Zimmerman...was there some reason you thought he did under SELF DEFENSE LAWS?
I'm telling you the race baiter went nuts on this one...reminds me of another situation in Missouri and again it comes down to...right verses wrong. Good Call
That's an amusing story, I got a chuckle out of it. "ZeldaNooooo" However, it has nothing to do with whether there is any legal requirement to avoid conflict with your pursuer. I agree that avoiding the conflict where possible (unless it's within your own home) is the wisest course of action (this is why I believe SYG is poor legislation), and I have repeatedly said it's what Martin should have done if he were smart... but I never claimed Martin was smart, or that what he did was wise. I just pointed out that what he did wasn't strictly illegal, even if it should be to discourage people from being idiots. That's a good question. It may have to do with the number of folks on here who demonstrate their support for the 2A by saying their strictly an issue of minorities, in an attempt to marginalize gun deaths... It may have something to do with the fact that guns are rarely marketed toward the black population, regardless of the NRA's insistance that cities are violent places and guns are for self defense....It could be the horror exhibited when a group like the black panters chooses to "open carry" in the same way white folks were once praised for. Take your pick.
No, that's the opposite of what I'm saying. I was saying that getting someone on the ground doesn't mean they're no longer a threat. You can take that one up with the person I was responding to, and try thinking about what you're reading before leaping to attack the wrong poster. You mean as opposed to receiving the death penalty without a trial, then have a bunch of people who weren't there and never knew you talk about what a "thug" you were forever?
I've addressed this question. Why did you skip the first half of my post and only comment on the second part? - - - Updated - - - Really? A teenager being followed home by a stranger at night shouldn't be concerned enough about that stranger's intent to take any action in defending themselves? When should they be concerned enough? After they are assaulted?
Given that a teenager being followed home at night by a stranger does have reason to believe they are facing a threat - especially after they ask their pursuer what their problem is and receive no answer or explanation - Martin was also acting within the bounds of self defense legislation. umm.... yeah. If he had a reason to fear for his safety, "SELF DEFENSE LAWS" do not stipulate that he has to wait to be attacked before using force (even lethal force) against the threat. Not sure what you don't get about that.
It certainly is pertinent in regards to your assumption that all you have to do is "feel threatened" in order to shoot someone. Did I feel threatened? Yes. Did I shoot? No. Had I shot I would be in jail for a long time. They aren't marginalizing anything, they are pointing out the ridiculous attempt to make it harder for law abiding Americans to participate actively in their 2A rights because of the criminal element, who are the ones doing the killing/robbing, by passing restrictive measures designed to inhibit gun ownership, by law abiding citizens. The only way this would make any kind of sense is if one were to assume that every single gun in America is destined to be stolen, so anything to hinder ownership by citizens must lend itself to reducing firearms owned by criminals. Which is absolutely stupid. Marketed to black people? Nearly every gun ad I see has no people in it period, so how in the world does that work in your head? I may not be from Missouri but you're gonna have to "Show Me". And I not a member of the NRA myself, and certainly don't need them to tell me Chicago is Dangerous, with a capital D. And Detroit. Not considering any of the demographics of the areas in question, those places are Dangerous. Every one of my buddies don't mind the Black Panthers carrying guns not one bit, hell they did it before but hid it. Now they got their 10/22's out in the open stomping around trying to goosestep in unison and ended up looking like a bunch of Iraqi Regulars. They are laughable, and would feel some sort of pity for them but for the fact they called for killing white babies just because they are white. Disgusting.
Well I have been on the right side of many issues and still continue to be. - - - Updated - - - Prolly the biggest lesson learned from this case is it is very important to teach young people not to attack strangers. You never know what they may be carrying for self defense.
Any attack you perceived in my post is imagined. Settle down. So you are pretending that there is absolutely no evidence as to TM's character because he isn't alive to tell you about them? We know who attacked who, why don't you know? Do you think that TM might be an Astronaut by now if he weren't killed?
I asked the question two times before you answered. Settle down. Welcome to my world. Therein lies the crux, knowing when to shoot and when not to shoot.
you never did answer the question. If you witnessed all of these things, why weren't you at the trial?
all of this is well above your pay grade............. - - - Updated - - - there are some that still live in Whoville............... or the neighboring town of Whatifville
You keep using the word "followed". The facts show that is really not the case. GZ spotted TM while driving. GZ called non emergency 911 to report suspicious behavior while sitting in truck stopped. TM sees GZ watching him and slips between two buildings and disappears (did not use sidewalk so that adds to suspicion) GZ gets out of truck while still talking to 911 and SEARCHES for TM who at this point has about a 90 second head start. TM tells girlfriend on phone that he is about home. 60 seconds is about the time it takes for anyone to get from where TM was first spotted to TM's home. GZ, still looking for TM and talking to 911, is told that looking for TM is not necessary. Unsuccessful at finding TM, GZ heads back toward truck. TM leaves the safety of his home and doubles back toward GZ (this is why your SYG theory falls apart) TM, confronts GZ about half way back to the truck. ( this spot is about 30 seconds from the truck) TM gets the best of GZ and gets on top of him raining down punches, then bashes his head into sidewalk. Legitimately fearing for his life now, GZ pulls gun and shoots TM. So you can see, there was no following, there was searching while reporting to 911. These facts are why GZ was acquitted. The local DA saw these facts and declined to prosecute. The black community ignores the facts, and wrongly see this as a civil rights violation ( fed investigation proved they were wrong) However, to appease the black community, the governor appoints a special prosecutor to persue this case. With weak evidence, the prosecution had no chance of winning the case. When people hear the word "followed" they picture in their head that GZ was walking behind TM. The court case proved that this is not what happened.
Appeal to popularity? Where did I state that most posters believe X is must be true? Or did I simple state that the point has already been addressed? Learn your fallacies.
Zimmerman Trial And Lessons Learned When the police tell you to stay away from a possible perp, do it. If you feel the need to carry to simply watch the area for possible crime you might not be cut out for the program. Cuts can grow larger and more serious hours after the actual event.
Are you suggesting that anyone who isn't destined to be an astronaut should be unable to stand their ground against a perceived threat?
Whether you actually chose to defend yourself against a percevied threat has nothing to do with whether the legislation is written in such a way that you could have. Please demonstrate that passing a background check prior to purchasing a firearm is such a "restrictive measure" that it prevents people from purchasing from licensed dealers. The vast majority of firearm advertising occurs is print advertising in magazines. Gun magazines are filled with images of people with firearms. I don't believe you'll find a single image, however, of a black person with a firearm in those publications - unless they are depicting the "bad guy". As Heston said: "Heaven help the God-fearing, law-abiding, Caucasian, middle class, Protestant, oreven worse admitted heterosexual, gun-owning oreven worseNRA-card-carrying, average working stiff, oreven worsemale working stiff, because not only don't you count, you're a downright obstacle to social progress." I would suggest there are demographics that are relevant to this situation, but those relate to poverty and education rather than race. I don't disagree that the tactics of that particular group are disgusting, but it's interesting how much more disgust is leveled at them than the "open carry" supporters who engage in many of the same tactics.
Your post has nothing to do with reality. Please see the transcript of GZ's call to the police. http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html "Dispatcher: Are you following him? Zimmerman: Yeah."
