George Zimmerman is a piece of crap

[michigancat]

Then he shot a kid.

I feel like there should be an autocorrect feature that adds that to all sentences about GZ, regardless of your opinion.

Good idea. Can we expand the feature so that in any sentence about TM, it adds "he decided that punching GZ in the face, then jumping on top and banging GZ's head into the sidewalk, was a reasonable, measured response to GZ asking 'what are you doing here?'"

Well, there's a little tiny difference between your idea and felix's. what felix mentioned was, you know, a fact.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/in-our-defense-these-were-some-pretty-fuckedup-law,33126/

I'm proud of the Onion. Even they understand that SYG wasn't relevant to this case.

Edit: Slate got it right, too! Reality seems to be puncturing the general media narrative.

Much debate about the jury’s decision Saturday to find George Zimmerman not guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin has focused on Florida’s Stand your Ground law, which allows a person to use deadly force in self-defense even if they can safely retreat. One juror even cited Stand Your Ground as the basis for his decision.

Having Stand Your Ground laws is a bad idea because the law can too easily turn into a license to kill when bad blood, not fear, motivates the killing. But the big problem for the prosecution in the Zimmerman case wasn’t really Stand Your Ground. It was about a broader problem with the law of self-defense—showcasing an aspect of the law that this case urgently shows should change.

The evidence suggested that Martin was straddling Zimmerman at the moment Zimmerman drew his gun, so Zimmerman could not retreat. That’s why the central aspect of Stand Your Ground didn’t come into play.

[MakeItRain]

I have an idea for a fun game.  If you believe the not guilty verdict was correct then try your hardest to convince everyone that it was.  If you believe it was not correct try your hardest to convince everyone of that.

Yes. I'm perplexed as to why we're still having legal conversations here, its over. I would like to know from the people who thought that Zimmerman should have been acquitted if they feel that he followed proper societal and moral rules.

Ok, no more legal conversations. That's just the fun nerdy stuff for me.

To your question, I'm not sure what you mean by "proper societal and moral rules." Let's assume that GZ wasn't just trying to keep an eye on Trayvon, but instead was actually trying to approach him. That was certainly a riskier choice than staying in his car, especially if you think he might be a burglar, but was it immoral?

Now let's assume GZ then blurted out "what are you doing here?" That's a little rude, if you ask me. Not as rude as a punch to the face (or deserving of it), but still rude. Would have been more polite to say something like "Hi, we've had some break-ins in the neighborhood recently and I don't recognize you. Would you mind telling me who you are?"

No would have sufficed.

[Cire]

I'm not even sure that GZ was trying to have an encounter TM so much as trying to keep an eye on him.

[p1k3]

I wish I could fast forward in time where everyone looks the same race in America since we are all inter-racial banging each other, then I'll never have to hear about a "race issue" trial again.

http://io9.com/5482465/what-will-americans-of-the-future-look-like

Would take if all our chicks looked remotely like her..

they're called goobacks man. Doesnt turn out well

[MakeItRain]

in college a dude broke into my apt, I came home at like 3AM and I saw his shadow on a wall. 


Boom 911.

Did he confront you?

I'm not even sure that GZ was trying to have an encounter TM so much as trying to keep an eye on him.

If you don't rough ridin' know what happened stop rough ridin' talking like Martin's actions caused his own death. You've spent the last 3 pages repeating the same stupid ass point despite the fact you have no clue what happened that night.

Jury- We don't know what happened that night so we can't send this guy to prison for 20-40 years.
Cire- The dumb [redacted] should have ran faster while calling 911, Zimmerman should have shot him sooner.

[Cire]

Seriously?

I've been on the record in this thread that GZ should be in jail.  But that is not the law in florida.

[Trim]

I would say I'm out walking for exercise or walking home or whatever.  If they kept up I'd call the police.  I definitely wouldn't run, hide, and then punch the guy.

I don't think I would call 911. I would be too embarrassed if it turned out the guy wasn't actually following me and I pulled a Zimmerman (minus shooting the kid, of course).

It might be embarrassing for cire if he called the cops about something that he's already declared isn't illegal.

[Cire]

When you go outside today, think if weirdo George Zimmerman was following you around asking what you were doing there.

Would you let him do it indefinitely,



pretty sure I already said I'd answer and if the dude persisted I'd call the cops.

[Cire]

When you go outside today, think if weirdo George Zimmerman was following you around asking what you were doing there.

Would you let him do it indefinitely, or would you expect that at some point, under the law, that the lunatic should have to get away from you? 


I would say I'm out walking for exercise or walking home or whatever.  If they kept up I'd call the police.  I definitely wouldn't run, hide, and then punch the guy.

[Trim]

Yeah, I read your answer like three times.  It was what I expected it to be and is funny in light of you saying that what Zimmerman did and what the hypothetical Zimmerman would be doing to you isn't illegal.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Seriously?

I've been on the record in this thread that GZ should be in jail.  But that is not the law in florida.

eff the law. If you are a juror and you believe GZ should be in jail, you should vote guilty. No consequences, other than the world being a better place.

[star seed 7]

Seriously?

I've been on the record in this thread that GZ should be in jail.  But that is not the law in florida.

eff the law. If you are a juror and you believe GZ should be in jail, you should vote guilty. No consequences, other than the world being a better place.

This is stupid.

[eastcat]

Seriously?

I've been on the record in this thread that GZ should be in jail.  But that is not the law in florida.

eff the law. If you are a juror and you believe GZ should be in jail, you should vote guilty. No consequences, other than the world being a better place.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Seriously?

I've been on the record in this thread that GZ should be in jail.  But that is not the law in florida.

eff the law. If you are a juror and you believe GZ should be in jail, you should vote guilty. No consequences, other than the world being a better place.

This is stupid.

Maybe. I'm just being honest, though. If I'm a juror, I'm not going to try to apply the letter of the law to the case. That is the job of the district attorney when they decide to bring a case to trial. I'm just going to listen to the facts, and if I think the defendant is guilty, I vote guilty. Ditto with innocent. In a case like this, where we already know the defendant killed an unarmed teenager, he had better be protecting himself or at least his property. Trying to put his MMA training to use against a kid who is much smaller than him on a rainy night and then shooting the kid when things don't go his way just isn't good enough for me.

Ask yourself this, seven. Is George Zimmerman a threat to society? He still has the right to carry his gun around chasing around scary people and shooting them, and he has already proven that he is a killer. The world is a better place if he has to stay behind bars until he gets low t.

[Cire]

just a guess but you wouldn't make it to the jury.

[Rage Against the McKee]

just a guess but you wouldn't make it to the jury.

Why would I want to?

[eastcat]

just a guess but you wouldn't make it to the jury.

Why would I want to?

Can you not answer that yourself or are you just typing to see your own text on the screen?

[sys]

i don't agree with nuts kicked on much in this thread, but i do agree with him on his last point.  a juror has a moral duty to offer justice to the parties dependent on his judgement.  if the laws relevant to the case in question clearly conflict with what is just, then the juror cannot escape his obligation to do what is just by hiding behind the letter of the law.

[Daddy Claxton]

Seriously?

I've been on the record in this thread that GZ should be in jail.  But that is not the law in florida.

eff the law. If you are a juror and you believe GZ should be in jail, you should vote guilty. No consequences, other than the world being a better place.

Do you think that crazy-gun-nut, fanatical-syg-supporter guy should also apply, exclusively, his own subjective determination of "justice" when determining guilt or innocence in a self-defense case?  Seems kind of dangerous to start down that road.

[Daddy Claxton]

i don't agree with nuts kicked on much in this thread, but i do agree with him on his last point.  a juror has a moral duty to offer justice to the parties dependent on his judgement.  if the laws relevant to the case in question clearly conflict with what is just, then the juror cannot escape his obligation to do what is just by hiding behind the letter of the law.

Who gets to determine what is "just" if it isn't determined by the law of the land?

[Rage Against the McKee]

i don't agree with nuts kicked on much in this thread, but i do agree with him on his last point.  a juror has a moral duty to offer justice to the parties dependent on his judgement.  if the laws relevant to the case in question clearly conflict with what is just, then the juror cannot escape his obligation to do what is just by hiding behind the letter of the law.

Who gets to determine what is "just" if it isn't determined by the law of the land?

A jury of your peers.

[EllRobersonisInnocent]

Seriously?

I've been on the record in this thread that GZ should be in jail.  But that is not the law in florida.

eff the law. If you are a juror and you believe GZ should be in jail, you should vote guilty. No consequences, other than the world being a better place.

^^^^ big time dumbass, folks

[Rage Against the McKee]

Seriously?

I've been on the record in this thread that GZ should be in jail.  But that is not the law in florida.

eff the law. If you are a juror and you believe GZ should be in jail, you should vote guilty. No consequences, other than the world being a better place.

Do you think that crazy-gun-nut, fanatical-syg-supporter guy should also apply, exclusively, his own subjective determination of "justice" when determining guilt or innocence in a self-defense case?  Seems kind of dangerous to start down that road.

Isn't that what happened? Let's look at a hypothetical situation that is actually less far fetched than the actual case. Say a man breaks into a house to steal a tv in the middle of the night. The home owner wakes up and proceeds to beat the crap out of the robber. The robber, fearing for his life, or at the very least great bodily harm, pulls out his gun and shoots the homeowner dead. Do you convict him of murder, and why? I don't, because I don't believe he entered the house with the intent to kill. I do reject self defense and convict of manslaughter, though. Sure, it would be impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that the robber was not in fear of great bodily harm. It would probably be easier to prove that he was. You have to look at the reason that fear existed, though. He put himself in that situation, just like George Zimmerman did.

I would like to think that just about everybody knows what is just and what is not. The law was written to line up on the side of what is just. When it doesn't line up, as a juror, you should use your own judgement.

[Rams]

i don't agree with nuts kicked on much in this thread, but i do agree with him on his last point.  a juror has a moral duty to offer justice to the parties dependent on his judgement.  if the laws relevant to the case in question clearly conflict with what is just, then the juror cannot escape his obligation to do what is just by hiding behind the letter of the law.

you and nuts kicked are exhibit A as to why the jury system scares the living eff out of me. essentially what you're lobbying for is no set laws. just if your "peers" think you did something wrong you could wind up in jail for 20 years. never mind that most of our "peers" are mouth breathing fucktards that couldn't find canada on a map of north america.

so you want to move from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "my gut tells me he's guilty of something.". what a great rough ridin' plan because we're just not throwing enough people in jail these days.

I may have been giving you too much credit. I could've sworn you were smarter than this.