Hope it goes viral.

in Wayne's World.

right now. It sucks but that is the way it is. I hope someday this will no longer be true.

it really answers itself.

wouldn't it?

Zimmerman isn't the only person in this incident entitled to the SYG defense. If a strange man follows you and then approaches you while you're innocently walking home and that man is not a law enforcement officer and that man confronts you, don't you have the right to defend yourself based on the SYG law? Seems to me Martin had every right to defend himself by fighting with Zimmerman. Even if, by some chance, Martin initiated the fight he's still justified by SYG standards. A strange man followed him - we know this because of 911 transcripts - and then approached him. It's reasonable to believe Martin feared for his life. So attacking Zimmerman would have been justified.

"Stood his ground" not Zimmerman. But, clearly, they are not in the majority and this is the problem.

Martin had the right to defend himself against a stranger who accosted him or challenged him and had followed him. Of course, we don't yet know whether Zimmerman's account of events is at all plausible.

..."Stood his ground" (when forced to, mind you, as he was wisely running from Zimmerman) and defended himself. But many here believe that those in favor of the "Stand your ground" law that Zimmerman used to excuse his shooting Martin would NEVER apply that law to Martin. They are accusing all those who supported this pro-gun law (defend yourself with a gun) as being hypocritical, assuming that none of them see Martin as the one who "stood his ground" or that Martin would not have been similarly excused if he'd had a gun and used it on Zimmerman.

I'm afraid this is a false accusation of hypocrisy...somewhat. Though the majority of those favoring "stand your ground" are on Zimmerman's side and have little to say about Martin, there have been plenty that DO say Martin was the one standing his ground and that if he'd had a gun he would have been in the right to have shot Zimmerman before Zimmerman shot him.

So, we really can't say everyone on that side of the fence is a hypocrite, ready to excuse the guy who shot a black man, but not the black man if he'd shot back. There really have been those on that side saying "stand your ground" applied to Martin not Zimmerman.

...but one can just see the result, can't one? The black kid going to jail for shooting the other guy even though the other guy tried to shoot him. There really is no winning in this rigged game.

Wearing a hoody. What did you think I was going to say?

with Skittles.

Very dangerous.

Very, very dangerous.

Pre-determines the bad guys

to that effect? I'm thinking not.

The interesting this, and off the subject obviously, is how people are divided on even this issue. The clearest proof of the racism and hypocricy of the anti-Trayvon faction is most evident when Trayvon's right to self-defense and to stand his ground comes up. But that's another topic for a different thread.

that very argument. I would love to have that stupid law overturned as well as having Zimmerman convicted of murder.

I have followed this case very closely, and paid more attention to it than is probably healthy, so I am invested in this. The more I have learned the guiltier Zimmerman looks to me. I want to see him convicted.

Zimmerman will walk free. Trial is only being held to stem the anger, it will be a farce.

it's in the list of links in the column on the left hand side of the page, as you scroll down.

But in the meantime:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/

Answer: They are fucking hypocrites.

And those talking points don't apply to anything except the specific thing they are referring to and not to be expanded beyond their chest puffing victory at hand.

Trayvon Martin wasn't old enough to qualify for a permit to carry a loaded firearm.

Without a gun, this tragedy would not have occurred because Georgie would never have gotten out of his vehicle. Another coward emboldened by his "equalizer."

Optimal
Understanding of
Circumstances and
Honesty.

In other words, bullseye.

a reasonable fear of imminent, grave bodily injury or death. If someone is charging you with a knife or bat, you may resort to deadly force. If you're minding your own business and get jumped and are being beaten, you may use deadly force.

I daresay that many people in SYG jurisdictions do not understand their responsibilities. You cannot start a fight with someone and shoot them if you're losing, like Zimmerman did.

In my opinion, neither party had the right to use deadly force in this case.

fear of imminent, grave bodily injury or death. The only reason that Zimmerman can claim imminent, grave bodily injury or death is because he survived whatever happened.

How could the entire situation have been prevented?

If Zimmerman had not been carrying a gun and genuinely been that scared, he would have stayed in his car. The police would have stopped Martin, talked to him, and think of it, Zimmerman would not be in jail. Zimmerman would not have to face a trial or a plea bargain. Martin would still be alive. We would never have heard of them.

I think we can safely say that in the Zimmerman/Martin case, regardless of who started it (and I think that the tape that Zimmerman made shows that he followed Martin with a questionable intent, an intent to "find out where he was going" and that his following Martin resulted in a confrontation and was the cause of the confrontation), it would not happened but for the fact that Zimmerman was carrying a gun.

The Zimmerman case is a very clear example of a harmless situation made worse, possibly criminal, by a gun, by the carrying of a gun.

A gun is a powerful object. A gun changes the personality of the individual carrying it.

Zimmerman may have a problem arguing simultaneously that he had a reasonable fear of imminent, grave bodily injury or death but that he followed Martin anyway. Behind that question there is only one answer. I think the stronger argument is that Zimmerman was afraid but that his knowledge that he carried a gun made him bold and fearless enough to follow Martin. His gun made him confident in his ability to "defend" himself. In his mind, he may have used his gun to defend himself, but I think there is a good chance although not a certainty that a jury may find that in fact either he was not afraid (because he had the gun) or that, since he had a gun and knew it, his claimed fear was not reasonable.

We shall see. Zimmerman is likely to have a jury that is favorable toward him in my opinion. He should plea bargain if he has any common sense however.

Ridiculous. An analogy - while armed, I follow a man in a car because I think he has stolen my son's bicycle. The man notices that I am following him, stops his car and gets out. I get out and accuse him, and a heated argument ensues. We begin to fight, and he knocks me down and appears ready to jump on me and beat me, so I draw my weapon and shoot him.

This is clearly not a valid case of SYG because had I not been following the man, there would have been no confrontation.

As I mentioned earlier, SYG does not give me the right to undertake actions that precipitate a physical confrontation, then draw and fire my weapon because I may be losing.

People who choose to arm themselves have an especially compelling obligation to avoid any and all confrontations, solely because there is a higher probability of death or serious injury.

Years ago a friend and I were in a public place where alcohol was being served, although I did not drink any. A local bully was drunkenly trying to pick a fight with me because he thought we were a gay couple. He was insulting and obnoxious, asking us who was the batter and who was the catcher. We were both legally carrying concealed 9mm pistols, having gone to the gun range that day and stopping for dinner on the way home. I left money for the tab, got up and walked out without finishing my burger. The bully did not follow. If he had followed and began beating me, I would have had a valid case for self-defense. But we took extraordinary measures to retreat and avoid further confrontation, as Zimmerman should have done.

If Zimmerman gets off, it will be a grave miscarriage of justice, and not just because Martin was black, or a kid, but because it will give the nod to people who have a mind to behave like idiots and chase down or otherwise confront anyone who looks suspicious to them.

When Zimmerman exited his vehicle, he sealed his own (and unfortunately, Martin's) fate.

When Zimmerman exited his vehicle, he sealed his own (and unfortunately, Martin's) fate.

And that is why I think Zimmerman would be smart to plead to manslaughter if he could do it. Or even to 2nd degree if he can get an agreement on a sentence. He is in a bad pickle in my view.

But then it does not take much to get a hung jury, and that is probably what he is hoping for.

Remember, in the OJ case, the defense won because the prosecutors' theory about the time of the events did not make sense to the jury. The prosecution has already made errors in this case -- not pressing the charges early enough is one -- and who knows how strongly they believe in their case? So, I couldn't predict the outcome here. It would take only one racist on the jury, only one person unwilling to be objective . . . .

A lot will depend on how the court interprets the change from the duty to retreat law to the stand your ground law. But I do agree that the person who follows another person for whatever reason should not be able to rely on the stand your ground defense. It is the person who is followed and reasonably feels he is in imminent danger . . . who has the right to stand his ground. That is not so different from the traditional self-defense. In particular, in the Martin case, Trayvon Martin was a minor, walking to the house where he was staying (for him home) and felt himself to be endangered by someone who was following him and acting suspicious. Without knowing all the evidence, that is what I understand took place. It is more believable to me that Martin had a reasonable fear that justified self-defense. He knew he did not have a weapon. Whereas Zimmerman knew he had a weapon and had even taken a bit of training in police methodology and criminal work. It may be that Zimmerman had, on some level not totally conscious, fantasized that he was a police officer or had some legal right to apprehend someone he considered in his fantasy to be a "suspect." It's a fascinating case to me.

That Zimmerman is trying to delay his trial is a bad sign for him.

I wonder whether the defense is trying to wait until the girl who was on the phone with Martin when the killing occurred looks older and less innocent and trustworthy. The trial needs to be held asap if justice is to be done.

"I wonder whether the defense is trying to wait until the girl who was on the phone with Martin when the killing occurred looks older and less innocent and trustworthy. The trial needs to be held asap if justice is to be done."

It would certainly work to Zimmerman's advantage.

that's when California passed gun limits. Under Reagan if I recall correctly.

Some black guy walks into a JC Penny store with an assault weapon over his shoulder and the crazies would want to limit guns. Of course, he'd probably be killed.

1. He is killed by someone who was afraid. The killing will not only be justified but will be used as more evidence that more guns in public places are necessary to keep us safe.

2. He causes hysteria, but no one around was crazy enough to engage him in a gun battle. Then, we get more gun control.

Only under certain circumstances are they allowed to possess them even at 18, but no concealed carry permits, and no open carry in most or all states.

YEAH! Why didn't anyone stand up for Trayvon's RTBA? We all know why, but still. VERY good tweet.

Not only nailed, but screwed, doweled, glued and pinned.

All the talk about standing up to a government going to far is BULL-fucking-SHIT.

What's being prepared for is an uprising amongst blacks.

I won't be holding my breath for the spate of replies.

to go?" Something like that.

Support the right for underage children to bear arms?

eom

eom

eom

Or state?

Or town?

It's ok to slam an entire people based on the actions of a relative few?

I had a dog bite me not long ago. All dogs are evil.

See the stupidity and bigotry in that logic?

eom

eom

Although you've made my point far more effectively than I have.

eom

....an everyday expression anywhere in the South, or any other region of the US for that matter.

Try again.

eom

....one that I see you didn't....or couldn't....refute.

And now you want to hide behind the "I'm just a messenger defense"? Really?? Please.

eom

...when conversing with a real Southerner.

eom

eom

...the only people I've heard use the expression "quite right" were actually tourists from England.

....and can prove that I have ancestors from that state going back to the early 1600s. I currently live in the state of Alabama and have done so since 1990. So yes, I'll claim being a Southerner any day of the week.

Oh, by the way, you're very much mistaken about my previous posts because I wasn't correcting anyone's grammar. Grammar is defined as the set of structural rules that governs the composition of clauses, phrases, and words in any given natural language. Grammar has very little to do with how certain words or phrases are used on a local or regional basis, and that was my point. But, to make it perfectly clear, I claimed that I had never heard the phrase "quite right" used anywhere in the South, and had never heard it used anywhere else in the continental US.

Your turn. Do you have anything substantial to add to the conversation?

So butter my butt and call me a biscuit. Oh wait, I forgot. I guess I missed that rule that said people can't use any turn of a phrase that has an origin other than the region in which they grew up under pain of your disapproval. Certainly, I don't have your awesome pedigree...do you compete in shows?

know to be peaceful.

I too had very bad experiences living in the south. I don't slam the entire people, but I am wary of them.

After all, people kill people, not guns

Excellent. Wish I had clicked sooner.

therefore Trayvon Martin should NOT have been armed. Trying to follow your "logic" here.

Would love to hear the excuses.

This is almost as silly as the OP a little while ago that was using Raygun, like I give a fuck what Reagan has to say other than a near sure-fire litmus test of being right when holding an opposing position to his evil nonsense.