Black teen shot and killed by neighborhood watch in Orlando gated community

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by valo403

Conversely, if he approaches a stranger in a private gated community, or in public, in a manner that causes that stranger to reasonably fear immediate harm they have not broken a single law in responding to that threat with physical force.

You are making things up, seriously. You have made post after post with complete nonsense. In Canada and the United States, you have assorted freedoms including approaching pretty much anyone you want. There has been no evidence (NOTHING) to state Zimmerman did anything but walk back to his car and clear evidence Martin turned around and went back to 'meet' Zimmerman. As a result of that meeting, Zimmerman was beat up. Once the police put it all together, including several lie detectors, they decided not to press charges. The recreation of the events by the defense helped prove that and the fact the prosecution could not tie anything together helps prove your points wrong.

You can invent all the stories you want, but they are just silly. Claims Zimmerman is a wanna be cop is fine, because in my opinion someone that is a wanna be cop is a better person than someone who does not want to be a cop. There has been NO evidence to suggest Zimmerman was doing anything wrong.

Originally Posted by valo403

My position is that if you're going to be approaching people while armed, and then use that weapon in claimed self defense the onus showed fall upon you to prove the need to use deadly force, not upon the prosecution.

It is nice you have a position, but from what I understand that is not the law. Zimmerman also did provide proof: damage to his head and a broken nose with a guy on top continuing to provide more punishment, how much clearer can that get? Unfortunately, Martin picked the wrong fight that night. This was not about race, this was not even about Zimmerman, this was simply the wrong fight to pick.

As the prosecution's star witness stated on network TV last night, fights happen and you take your licks. That comment alone may be more telling than anything the Zimmerman defense provided. Why is it so far outside the realm of possibility that Martin simply wanted to kick Zimmerman's ass for following him? Isn't that what all the proof points to?

Countless fights happen, occasionally they end in death. This was a brutal example that Martin paid for with his life, but to throw race into it only adds to the problems, not helps. Rather than people looking at gun laws or using this as an example to not resort to violence, people like you are misdirecting people to race. I find that pathetic.

And if you read the posts in this thread, several people have made posts that border on insanity in defense of Martin, including claims that to say otherwise makes you racist as well. Again pathetic.

Martins color never entered into the equation and Zimmerman's friends have supported Zimmerman the entire time. If you think color was a factor, than you got sucked in just like so many other people. I am sure there are issues of racism etc in the states (just like Canada), but this was simply a story of a guy getting beat up that pulled a gun and killed someone. Tragic for sure.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Could not agree more. If one looks at the situation from far away it's a scenario that's played out a million times before: Two young guys with chips on their shoulders and previous histories of violence engage each other. The pretenses under which doesn't really matter, especially since the only witnes was Z and he can pretty much say whatever the hell he wants because the other witness got shot in the heart. The only factor that propels this from a schoolyard scrap is the handgun that Americans love so much. Two guys fight, one ends up shot dead with a widely available, easily concealable death machine. It happens every day in the USA.

great post and this is how I feel too. Americans' love affair with guns is bizarre. They kill things and people cruise around with them strapped to their hips. It's truly utterly bizarre.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

great post and this is how I feel too. Americans' love affair with guns is bizarre. They kill things and people cruise around with them strapped to their hips. It's truly utterly bizarre.

That country's love/need of guns is honestly one of the more bizarre things I've seen as well. I so want to believe that Americans are just like us, and down to earth normal people. Then you discuss guns with them and it feels like they're from some messed up, developing nation overseas.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by flameswin

That country's love/need of guns is honestly one of the more bizarre things I've seen as well. I so want to believe that Americans are just like us, and down to earth normal people. Then you discuss guns with them and it feels like they're from some messed up, developing nation overseas.

dont worry there are plenty of gun hating liberals here that would have tea with you guys

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by PIMking

dont worry there are plenty of gun hating liberals here that would have tea with you guys

That's awesome! Especially since if we ended up disagreeing about anything my life wouldn't be at risk.

edit: and don't get so defensive, there's a ton of weird crap about Canada too. I actually do really love the US in many ways. The gun thing is idiotic though. Are you sure those "liberal leaning" guys aren't just "life preservation" leaning guys?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

According to a member of the jury, you're absolutely wrong:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/1...ur-ground.html

From the article:

"Still, the degree to which Stand Your Ground led to the not-guilty verdict is unclear and in dispute. Cooper never asked B37."

The only reason it's being questioned at all right now is because a juror mentioned it, and if it turns out the juror who did is the one looking for a book deal this might as well have been a buzz word. I suppose to say that Stand your Ground wasn't part of the case at all is a bit misleading, as it's embedded into self-defense so any self-defense case in Florida is now tied to Stand your Ground laws, it's obviously important that jurors are instructed about the law. I suppose the question should be, did it matter? As Zimmerman's defense argued he was assaulted which led to Martin on top of him (removing his ability to flee) it didn't, especially telling they never brought it up. Stand your Ground laws or not, this verdict very likely ends the same. That's not to say Stand your Ground laws shouldn't be readdressed, but using this as a case against them is only for people who didn't pay attention to the trial.

Edit: And just to be clear, I'm not a fan of Stand your Ground laws one bit. If you're going to take someones life because your pride wont let you walk away, you deserve to go to jail. If Holder wants to keep up the charade and pretend that Stand your Ground laws are the reason Zimmerman isn't in jail today (despite the defense not bringing it up...) and appease the people by asking for the states to reconsider it and eventually leads to those type of laws being readdressed, I'd be fine with that outcome. Still terrible that they had to make this case such a political and media circus instead of a real investigation and trial.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by PIMking

dont worry there are plenty of gun hating liberals here that would have tea with you guys

Hey! Us gun hating liberals still like beer!

In seriousness, and this has come up in a lot of the gun debates, I don't even think most 'liberals' here see guns as an evil that needs to be gotten away with. There's tons of guns in Canada. Some of us 'liberals' have even gone hunting, or shot handguns at ranges.

It's just we are very amazed and often baffled at the over the top love affair that many in the States have with their guns. That they equate it with freedom when it really has nothing to do with freedom. That they see it as making them safer when all the statistics and studies prove otherwise. That they value their right of not only owning, but carrying nearly anywhere, a tool designed to kill, more than the collective rights of a community.

But a bit of it goes back to the US in general. Personal rights are held to a much higher value than societal rights. You see it in the banking industry, you see in with universal medicine (or the lackof) and the social programs.

It's just the rest of the western world, has more of a balance between personal and social rights (or social responsibility) than the US does. Especially when it comes to gun laws.

In theory this is not a bad thing, but I think in practice, it has shown to be a bad way to run a society.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

That's awesome! Especially since if we ended up disagreeing about anything my life wouldn't be at risk.

edit: and don't get so defensive, there's a ton of weird crap about Canada too. I actually do really love the US in many ways. The gun thing is idiotic though. Are you sure those "liberal leaning" guys aren't just "life preservation" leaning guys?

No need to be defensive, you have ideas and I have my own. We don't need to agree on everything and just because I carry 99% of the time doesn't mean that I'm just going to blow up and start shooting (like 99% of those with CCL)

It's cool, we can agree to disagree and no one has to be hurt, I'm not a violent person but the world is getting more and more violent everyday.

I do carry, I hope to whatever god/spirit or whatever it is that I never have to use it in defense but I'd rather not need it and have it and not have it and need it.

I will say this though, if I knew that no one person would ever be harmed by guns again I would turn everyone of mine in.

I'm pretty strict about my weapons, all of them are locked up in a safe, the ammo is in a different safe. the guns are in the basement with it anchored 6" into the concrete ground.

I wish more were like me with the safety aspect but wish in one hand....

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Not to derail the debate, but I hope everyone here appreciates that in Canada, the result would have been at least manslaughter, and could have been 2nd degree murder. Canadian law does not have the equivalent so called "stand your ground" law, nor does it have gun rights in the constitution.

Sounds civilized

[DuffMan]

Just so I have this straight...
Z took MMA training, but witnesses say TM was on top of Z grounding and pounding him MMA style?
And can someone tell me briefly which events this eyewitness witnesses?

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Just so I have this straight...
Z took MMA training, but witnesses say TM was on top of Z grounding and pounding him MMA style?
And can someone tell me briefly which events this eyewitness witnesses?

His MMA instructor said the class was mostly cardio based. His instructor also explained that when Zimmerman began the course, he rated his fighting ability as a 0.5 out of 10, and when he left the course, he felt he was a 1.0 out of 10 and that he did not think it would be wise for him to get in the ring with someone. Do you pay attention at all?

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Just so I have this straight...
Z took MMA training, but witnesses say TM was on top of Z grounding and pounding him MMA style?
And can someone tell me briefly which events this eyewitness witnesses?

You like to ask questions and then never respond to any questions towards you. Seems more like trolling than engaging.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by blankall

Zimmerman had a broken nose and injuries to the back of his head, witnesses stated they saw Martin on top "MMA" style beating Zimmerman, and forensic reports showed that Martin was on top.

The blows were hard enough to break a nose and break skin on the back of the head.

At that point, both in the USA and Canada, you are entitled to respond with lethal force. When you're talking about a blow to the back of the head, any blow can be the lethal shot. If blood is being drawn, your life is in danger. Zimmerman would not have been expected to stop and analyze just how bad the blows were either. It also has nothing to do with who was armed with what. The only relevant issue is the reasaonble belief that your life is threatened.

In Canada, the only major difference would have been that Zimmerman would have had no gun to reach for.

You are talking in absolutes about something that is very far from an absolute. Blood being drawn does not automatically entitle you to use lethal force, nor does a blow to the back of the head. The jury here determined that the totality of the circumstances made Zimmerman's belief that his life was in danger and use of lethal force in that situation reasonable, but it's far from a conclusion that any one of those circumstances gives rise to that in any other case. Believing as such sets a danger precedent, and communicates to people that the standard for responding with lethal force is much much much lower than it actually is.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Ark2

His MMA instructor said the class was mostly cardio based. His instructor also explained that when Zimmerman began the course, he rated his fighting ability as a 0.5 out of 10, and when he left the course, he felt he was a 1.0 out of 10 and that he did not think it would be wise for him to get in the ring with someone. Do you pay attention at all?

So TM would be a 2+/10 I would guess then.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

You are making things up, seriously. You have made post after post with complete nonsense. In Canada and the United States, you have assorted freedoms including approaching pretty much anyone you want. There has been no evidence (NOTHING) to state Zimmerman did anything but walk back to his car and clear evidence Martin turned around and went back to 'meet' Zimmerman. As a result of that meeting, Zimmerman was beat up. Once the police put it all together, including several lie detectors, they decided not to press charges. The recreation of the events by the defense helped prove that and the fact the prosecution could not tie anything together helps prove your points wrong.

You can invent all the stories you want, but they are just silly. Claims Zimmerman is a wanna be cop is fine, because in my opinion someone that is a wanna be cop is a better person than someone who does not want to be a cop. There has been NO evidence to suggest Zimmerman was doing anything wrong.




It is nice you have a position, but from what I understand that is not the law. Zimmerman also did provide proof: damage to his head and a broken nose with a guy on top continuing to provide more punishment, how much clearer can that get? Unfortunately, Martin picked the wrong fight that night. This was not about race, this was not even about Zimmerman, this was simply the wrong fight to pick.

As the prosecution's star witness stated on network TV last night, fights happen and you take your licks. That comment alone may be more telling than anything the Zimmerman defense provided. Why is it so far outside the realm of possibility that Martin simply wanted to kick Zimmerman's ass for following him? Isn't that what all the proof points to?

Countless fights happen, occasionally they end in death. This was a brutal example that Martin paid for with his life, but to throw race into it only adds to the problems, not helps. Rather than people looking at gun laws or using this as an example to not resort to violence, people like you are misdirecting people to race. I find that pathetic.

And if you read the posts in this thread, several people have made posts that border on insanity in defense of Martin, including claims that to say otherwise makes you racist as well. Again pathetic.

Martins color never entered into the equation and Zimmerman's friends have supported Zimmerman the entire time. If you think color was a factor, than you got sucked in just like so many other people. I am sure there are issues of racism etc in the states (just like Canada), but this was simply a story of a guy getting beat up that pulled a gun and killed someone. Tragic for sure.

Actually I'm not, but I assume you're highly educated on the law and give me a run down of it? If you have a reasonable fear of immediate harm you can respond with physical force. There is no requirement to wait to be attacked. If you have any actual legal basis to counter that please bring it forward, otherwise stop making things up.

As for my position, I'm quite aware that is not the law. I am arguing that it should be. This is not hard to grasp.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by PIMking

No need to be defensive, you have ideas and I have my own. We don't need to agree on everything and just because I carry 99% of the time doesn't mean that I'm just going to blow up and start shooting (like 99% of those with CCL)

It's cool, we can agree to disagree and no one has to be hurt, I'm not a violent person but the world is getting more and more violent everyday.

I do carry, I hope to whatever god/spirit or whatever it is that I never have to use it in defense but I'd rather not need it and have it and not have it and need it.

I will say this though, if I knew that no one person would ever be harmed by guns again I would turn everyone of mine in.

And no, your guns are not locked up in a safe, at least one of them is on you, loaded, and ready to end a life.

I'm pretty strict about my weapons, all of them are locked up in a safe, the ammo is in a different safe. the guns are in the basement with it anchored 6" into the concrete ground.

I wish more were like me with the safety aspect but wish in one hand....

Actually it's not, but paranoia like that is a great justification for carrying a lethal weapon with you while you go buy milk.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

You like to ask questions and then never respond to any questions towards you. Seems more like trolling than engaging.

What was your questions? Why I made 2 completely different points and ah, why was the investigation shoddy?

I think i already said why I thought that

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by PIMking

I'm pretty strict about my weapons, all of them are locked up in a safe, the ammo is in a different safe. the guns are in the basement with it anchored 6" into the concrete ground.

I wish more were like me with the safety aspect but wish in one hand....

So question, when you are home, do you lock away all your weapons, even the one you carry on a daily basis. In short, are all your weapons/ammo stored as you describe above everytime you are at home?

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by PIMking

No need to be defensive, you have ideas and I have my own. We don't need to agree on everything and just because I carry 99% of the time doesn't mean that I'm just going to blow up and start shooting (like 99% of those with CCL)

It's cool, we can agree to disagree and no one has to be hurt, I'm not a violent person but the world is getting more and more violent everyday.

I do carry, I hope to whatever god/spirit or whatever it is that I never have to use it in defense but I'd rather not need it and have it and not have it and need it.

I will say this though, if I knew that no one person would ever be harmed by guns again I would turn everyone of mine in.

I'm pretty strict about my weapons, all of them are locked up in a safe, the ammo is in a different safe. the guns are in the basement with it anchored 6" into the concrete ground.

I wish more were like me with the safety aspect but wish in one hand....

Whatever. Most gun owners/carriers would say the same thing. Zimmerman probably said the same thing at some point.

Fact is if you are carrying and you get into an altercation of some sort, your gut reaction might be to reach for that weapon. And not every conflict needs to be resolved with a bullet.

Again, your post just represents the general unhealthy level of paranoia that seems to exist in the US. You shouldnt feel the need to have a gun strapped to you at all times. What kind of society is it where average citizens feel the need to be armed in order to go out and live life?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Whatever. Most gun owners/carriers would say the same thing. Zimmerman probably said the same thing at some point.

Fact is if you are carrying and you get into an altercation of some sort, your gut reaction might be to reach for that weapon. And not every conflict needs to be resolved with a bullet.

Again, your post just represents the general unhealthy level of paranoia that seems to exist in the US. You shouldnt feel the need to have a gun strapped to you at all times. What kind of society is it where average citizens feel the need to be armed in order to go out and live life?

A broken society....? (and for the record I like the US and have friends/family down there). But I do think that there are serious issues with society in America, it is sad.