Apologies for the late response. Should've included in the post you responded to "never said the argument was compelling." I was posing a realistic alternative as opposed to defining what occurred. Please give at least one example of non-white defendants who were acquitted in FL under SYG. Because, if you can't produce at least several good examples, then you're obviously just talking out of your anus. For example, this study disagrees with your assertion, as does this specific example. Somehow racial credibility has been ignored in this thread; I don't quite understand how any thoughtful person doesn't see the obvious connection between the deceased's credibility and race as concluded by juries. The issue here about the law is that, despite the favoritism that SYG laws should show equally to defendants regardless of race, that hasn't been the case for whatever reason. Although I agree with this statement I'm befuddled by your refusal to acknowledge that Zimmerman should not have followed Martin. 1. If you legitimately believe that Zimmerman would've followed a scrawny, white kid who looks like he plays video games just because he was wearing a hoodie and walking slowly in the rain then I don't understand your perspective. He can't say "I decided that he looked suspicious because black people are more likely to commit crimes in this area" but we all know he was clearly thinking it. 2. Must I differentiate between "illegal" and "stupid"? It's not illegal for me to bite an electric cord that's plugged into a wall but that doesn't make my actions any less stupid, nor does it mean I shouldn't have been doing what I was doing because it was legal. When I do something stupid, I should be willing to at least partially accept the consequences of my actions. The argument to be had is how much in consequence, but to actually assert that Zimmerman is "innocent" in the truest sense is absurd. 3. I'm simply trying to explain to you that, just because a fight occurred, that doesn't necessarily mean that at least one person involve must've approached the situation saying to themselves "I'm going to beat the shit out of this guy". Sometimes conflict is much more organic than you're arguing here. As for the "it doesn't matter what happened prior to that", should I actually respond by explaining to you how that would justify a burglar shooting a homeowner for punching them in the face after the burglar broke into the victim's house, or does it really not matter what happened prior to the shooting?
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/race-plays-complex-role-in-floridas-stand-your-ground-law/1233152 As for Zimmerman following Martin, he was not breaking the law, he felt he was doing the right thing for his neighborhood. What at all was wrong with him following Martin?
Hence I said "for whatever reason" as opposed to "because of RACISM!". Just because I feel as though I'm doing something right doesn't make me any more correct or any less of an idiot. 2. No responsible gun owner would do what Zimmerman did. Zimmerman was way in over his head. That's why he shouldn't have followed Martin. Regardless of whether you think Zimmerman is innocent or guilty, 100% of intelligent Americans believe that he had no business being a Neighborhood Watchman. You're failing to acknowledge that, hypothetically, following an innocent person in the manner in which Zimmerman did could often result in said innocent person feeling threatened and/or acting in self-defense.
Which is what escalted the entire situation, I'm not disputing that Zimmerman will be found not guilty because I think he isn't going to get convicted. However what crime had Martin committed other than being black and having his hood up? If Martin was white do we think Zimmerman would have followed him? If Zimmerman didn't have a gun we can almost be certain that Zimmerman would never have followed him but he felt tough because he had the gun. You're right; none of these are illegal but the issue is Zimmerman may not have thrown the first punch but he certainly was the instigator in an event that left a 17 year old dead. I don't like the law because it essentially means I could walk up to 275 lb guy and yell fuck you in his face for no reason and when he starts to kick my ass I pull out a gun and shoot him and claim self defense. I don't even think it is clear in that if I throw the first punch if I feel my life is in danger I can shoot him. What kind of fucked up law is that? Castile Domain laws make much more sense and prevent more crimes than this "stand your ground" nonsense. It's a good thing that not everyone in Florida acts like George Zimmerman, a perfect example being ths news with Aaron Hernandez punching that bouncer and busting his eardrum, based on the law in Florida the bouncer could have shot and killed Hernandez dead in his tracks because he could have claimed "his life was in danger". Sorry but I come from the school of thought that you don't instigate shit if you can't defend yourself. That doesn't make what Zimmerman did illegal but it obviously makes it very hard to respect the law and the state of Florida for having a joke like this as a law. You know what, if you are walking on Church Street and some fucker walks up to you with a knife or pulls a gun on you by all means send that fucker to his maker but when you instigate a fight whether your actions are illegal or not it's hard for me to buy "self defense" as a viable means of innocence.
Trayvon didn't have to be committing a crime to be suspicious. beyond that, this case isn't about whether Zimmerman's suspicion was justified, that is simply an emotional plea to detract from the actual case and appeal to the emotionally unstable so they won't look at the evidence critically. irrelevant. and if Trayvon knew Zimmerman had a gun he probably wouldn have ran straight home when he had the chance, and not doubled back to confront him because he thought he was tough and could take him. this kind of irrelevant nonsense, though, doesn't address what actually did happen and, again, only serves to attempt to distract from the facts with emotional pleas. that simply isn't true. he instigated a pursuit. he didn't instigate a confrontation. whoever escalated it to the physical confrontation is the one that instigated it. yelling at somebody does not justify escalating it to a physical confrontation. if someone isn't emotionally stable enough to take a fuck you and walk away, and is compelled to try to actually hurt you, rather than simply hurt your feelings, than they automatically take responsibility for however you defend yourself from a physical battery. the fact that you think a verbal assault and physical battery are equal is laughable bothlogically and legally.
I guess the real question is: in Florida is it safe to be a male black teenager walking alone in your own gated community? Whether or not Zimmerman is convicted that question will still be with us. I have the suspicion that if Zimmerman had been attacked by a 17 year old white male with parents who had some pull in the community that we'd be looking at a completely different situation right now. Which leads back to the first question above.
your request is inherently a hypothetical because it is based on a concept. I can be doing something completely legal and yet someone could still think what I was doing was suspicious. if you want to dispute that concept, you can show how that it is impossible by showing that in no event n the history of human civilization has a completely legal act ever aroused suspicion, and thus my assertion has no merit.
It's not unreasonable for me to ask you to elaborate upon and contextualize your absurd statement. What you wrote takes more effort than giving one simple realistic example, which, at this point, I must assume you cannot provide merely one example. Also, are you seriously arguing that the burden of proof is on me? Laughable.
your example completely negated your question. your example is that Zimmerman was attacked, and thus justified to fire in self defense. thus for that to be relevant to this case, you are claiming the identical situation -- that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and thus Zimmerman was justified in shooting him. but your initial question does not address that, and thus your example does not lead back to your first question. what it leads back isn't whether is it safe to be a black teenager in Florida walking alone in Florida in a gated community, it is whether a black teenager walking alone in a gated community can attack someone because he doesn't like that the person is suspicious of him. but you conveniently left that out, and make a completely different argument entirely. that if a white teenager attacked Zimmerman, either Zimmerman would be found guilty or Zimmerman would not have been suspicious. neither of which have anything to do with the safety of black teenagers in gated communities in Florida.
it doesn't require an actual scenario to validate a concept. I proved my point, the burden of proof is on you to dispute it if that is what you are attempting to do. but I will give you an actual scenario. when I was 10 years old my brother (11) and I were followed through Toys R Us even though we were doing nothing illegal. I can only guess that they assumed it was unusual for two young children to be walking through the store alone and that we may be attempting to shoplift, but we were doing nothing wrong and aroused suspicion. did you really need that spelled out for you to grasp the concept. what exactly are you attempting to dispute about that concept? are you trying to assert that only illegal acts arouse suspicion? that could be your only point, of which the burden of proof would be on you to prove that? that is laughable.
You can't shift the burden of proof like that and expect to not be rightfully ridiculed for it. I am the reincarnation of Jesus Christ, the burden of proof is on you. If I call you a pedophile, is the burden of proof on you to prove that you aren't one? If that's the case, then please elaborate (EDIT: as to why you aren't one, I don't care to hear about your disgusting conquests) I merely asked you to elaborate and then you got defensive, I have no idea what you're talking about.
not even a relevant counterpoint. I didn't raise a hypothetcial that could be proved or not proved, a presented a concept that could be understood simply by logic - that being whether someone's behavior could arouse suspicion even if that behavior isn't an illegal act. that doesn't need an actual scenario to prove, because the concept can be proven true or false with a hypothetical. you created an unrealistic demand as part of your question because you knew the question had no merit, or worse, actually think it did, which doesn't bode well for you.
no, you didn't merely ask me to elaborate, you though you had me trapped, hence the witty cartoon to go with your question, when in reality you were asking a meaningless question with no logical merit that does not have to be answered by that criteria.
Let's talk about burden of proof for a second here: you can't say/write my thoughts because you're not a mindreader and you have no proof. I read what you wrote, thought you mistyped or didn't actually mean what you wrote, and I assumed that without a graphic or anything more than the short message I wrote that you wouldn't respond. Being the lazy person I am, I decided to post a picture instead of continuing. As for the relevancy of my question, the burden of proof is on you. I completely agree, and that's why I have no idea why you wrote what you did as opposed to just elaborating and moving on. EDIT, Clarification: I re-read what you wrote, and realized that you writing "Trayvon" and not "someone" is specifically why I asked you to elaborate. Before you argue that's not a good reason to elaborate or defend yourself, I don't care, I'm just trying to help you see the light here.
then I apologize if I over-reacted. Trayvon was not committing a crime, we all know that. but that didn't mean Zimmerman could not be suspicious of him, and being suspicious of him doesn't mean Trayvon's race was a crime (which is simply more emotional language to hopefully elicit an emotional response instead of a logical response). that certainly doesn't mean Zimmerman's suspicion was correct (nor does it mean the fact that it wasn't correct that the suspicion had no reasonable basis to have occurred) just that he could be suspicious without a crime being committed, hence why I stated afterwards that it doesn't matter whether Zimmerman's suspicion was justified.
Which is negated by the evidence. Zimmerman lost sight of Martin, when he reaced the Main Stret outside the complez Zimmermans call, (these assholes always get away) allegedly rook place when he was on the street on the far side of the complex, PAST the courtyard path down the middle of the complex, where Martin had actually gone. If Martin had merely continued down the path, he would still be alive.
The weaponry gap is much smaller there. The Taliban doesn't have unmanned drones, tanks, or a huge number of fighter jets and bombers. Besides that, those who oppose those governments are being given weapons (directly or indirectly) by outside governments that make for a fairly level playing field. A rebellion here wouldn't have that support. Comparing the situations is foolish. They are completely different.
Why are you so sure a rebellion here wouldn't have outside support? I imagine things would have to become drastically worse before any sort of rebellion occurred and that may garner outside support. I also imagine that for any sort of rebellion to be successful it would initially have to include coordinated synchronized efforts to sabotage and loot military grade weapons depots. That initial effort would rely heavily on normal weapons, cleverness and the element of surprise. Rebellion leaders would need to communicate with military grade encryption in order to maintain the element of surprise. If the rebellion were to make it's moves in short but effective burts and then disburse back into their homes and schools and churches it could be very difficult for any large scale military response to be effective. I doubt the feds would start dropping bombs onto residential areas and if they did it would further increase the potential of outside support.
