Unfortunately, the law kind of errs on the side of caution for cops and everyone else when a gun is involved (Except the poor, the law never sides with them.) A gun immediately raises the stakes, period. The courts have unanimously ruled that they are to be taken differently. For example, you can shoot someone in the back if they don't drop the gun. Sounds harsh, but lets be real, they can turn in 2 second and shot. They can shoot others etc. This situation in the video is arguably different. Obviously the cops had a hard-on for making themselves look good. They deserve a trial that bankrupts them. But, as the law applies to everyone, they really can't be found guilty. George Zimmerman was found innocent and dumb motherfuckers on the Sift were amazed...but I told them the law was on his side from the start and they ridiculed me. Jokes on them--it was...and sadly it is on these cops' sides here...

Amazing how many fools are protesting today on stuff that was not related to the George Zimmerman trial at all. American ignorance was on perfect display today. Thanks Obama!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'racist, uncle ruckus, trayvon martin, george zimmerman, naacp' to 'racist, uncle ruckus, trayvon martin, george zimmerman, naacp, 5723Michael' - edited by xxovercastxx

I find it terribly funny how everybody gets upset at this. Did you really expect your justice system to be fair? America is the world leader in jailing its own population and yet even the most obvious criminal behaviour (yes, I'm looking at you, Wall Street) isn't even investigated.
It doesn't matter who's at fault here. It's doesn't matter if hoodies are lethal weapons or listening to the police is a bad idea. The fact is that laws that allow these killings to happen in the first place are wrong, that's what matters. Like in many other cases we discuss the people involved in a problem, not the problem itself. I don't give a shit about George Zimmerman, he has blood on his hands one way or another. I don't care where Ed Snowden is hanging out right now either. I care about laws that give others easy excuses to murder me, I care about the invasion of my privacy. I care about the issues not the people bringing them to our attention.
If I gave a shit about Zimmerman, I'd tail him until he notices and confronts me and then I'd blow his brains out. "I was scared, I thought he was armed and would shoot me, so I shot first. Stand your ground."
But he's just a diversion.

The Z is free! Congratulations to George Zimmerman, this is twice he's had to defend his life. I hope we never see another show trial driven by race baiting politicians and pundits again. Now he should go sue the heck out of NBC.

Jimmims, there are generally four types of knowledge that exist in the world. Specialized, whereas only a few people highly interested in the subject would know. The burden of proof lies with the claimant to prove claims he/she makes. (E.g. What are each and every vitamin and mineral found in a GNC multivitamin?)

Then there is uncommon knowledge. Again the burden is with the claimant. (E.g. What are the names of twenty-five out of fifty-one Presidents, not including the last five Presidents. When did America go to the Gold standard—year and month.)

Then there is accessible knowledge. Not everyone knows, but many do and all can with a little research. The burden lies fifty-fifty, sometimes with the claimant, sometimes not, just depends on the situation. (E.g. Rain water is not pure water and contains parasites. Fermentation is a process that produces energy, not just alcohol.)

Then there is knowledge everyone should know—common knowledge. (E.g., Humans need calcium.)

Between the last two is where Stand Your Ground falls. The burden of this knowledge should fall on the reader to know. In no way should a claimant be responsible for providing it. Stand your ground is common knowledge or accessible at the least. It is in the newspapers, on the internet, court records, etc. When someone states, "He is going away for a long time," then it is on them to prove this claim, since SYG has commonly been known to acquit these types of cases. I find it strange, especially in light of this, that you do not ask other people to prove their claims.

I think the acquittal of Zimmerman proves that this was common knowledge in the first place. But wait, here is a link to the acquittal, in case you did not see the not guilty verdict, since I must prove even common knowledge. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/protests-george-zimmerman-verdict-gallery-1.1398497)

Second, and last, I was snarky with no one personally—I even stated that I was being broad with my comments and did not apply them to the poster. And yet you were snarky directly with me, personally. That is why I thought you were mad. In all reality you made it seem like I was ignorant. That is why I asked you to calm down.

funny how the mixed race thing works for conservatives. When they're accused of being racist towards Obama, suddenly Obama is half-white.

But when defending George Zimmerman, he's not white, he's half-Hispanic.

Such gymnastics!

I am confused about this case. Which part of Zimmerman is white? Isn't he Latino? And if there are no witnesses (according to the court case), how do we know if he is guilty or innocent? Why don't we get upset about this instead or as well? http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/florida-mom-marissa-alexander-serve-20-years-firing-warning-shot-while-george-zimmerman It feels as though we are getting swept along here in some sort of hysteria rather than a measured appropriate response to these events.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'george zimmerman, jon stewart, the daily show with jon stewart' to 'george zimmerman, john oliver, the daily show with jon stewart' - edited by xxovercastxx

Ok, I read more comments. He turned himself in. Scary dude.

As to this evolving into a gun discussion, as far as I'm concerned, no one was hurt or killed in this incident, so it's a good thing guns weren't involved. It's easy to rationalize using deadly force after the fact (and no witnesses; Trayvon Martin), but the point at which a person crosses that line, when threatened, and actually chooses to kill another human appears to run a gamut from "I'm being really inconvenienced/disrespected right now" to "I'm going to die right now". I don't think George Zimmerman was about to die, or even get his ass kicked. I would rather kick someone's ass, if necessary, than they kick mine, but I'd rather take an ass-kicking than sentence someone to death. That's probably not going to be a popular opinion.

As far as gun control possibly keeping the badguy in this video from having a gun... then "yay" for gun control. That's exactly its purpose, and not so you can't defend against the gov'ment when they come to break down your door.

Hell, I hope some sort of car control is used in this situation and this guy isn't allowed to drive for a long time (after he gets out of jail). He had a car, he used it as a weapon. If he had a gun... ?

EDIT: Admittedly, some seeming contradictions to a prior rant, but I'm sure I wasn't the only one jolted into a somewhat clearer reality by what happened at Sandy Hook.

Yup. It was a reaction to his being surprised at the arrest. Cheap jab.>> ^PostalBlowfish:

>> ^mtadd:
Messenger, please explain yourself if you would. It sounds like you're saying that he's not just a racist, but a racist psychopath...and that's to his credit.

I took it to mean maybe he is a psychopath, but the police in Florida have given him reason to think they wouldn't care if someone shot a black person. ie. A jab at the Sanford police and George Zimmerman.

George Zimmerman is on trial currently for 2nd degree murder. Sure, the Sanford cops were slow on the investigation, but there was sufficient blowback to cause the police chief to step down. We'll just see if the 'stand your ground' law is applicable in Zimmerman's defense. From the information in the video, there wasn't any provocation or attack mentioned to warrant any self-defense to bring 'stand your ground' into play. I think the guy in this video is just what he seems to be.

>> ^mtadd:

Messenger, please explain yourself if you would. It sounds like you're saying that he's not just a racist, but a racist psychopath...and that's to his credit.


I took it to mean maybe he is a psychopath, but the police in Florida have given him reason to think they wouldn't care if someone shot a black person. ie. A jab at the Sanford police and George Zimmerman.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'zimmerman, hannity, trayvon martin' to 'george zimmerman, sean hannity, trayvon martin, fox news' - edited by xxovercastxx

Filling out paperwork and paying a fee.. does not make you any more sane or rational.

George Zimmerman had a concealed carry permit. Then he murdered a kid.

Owning a gun, increases the likelihood of violence.
Whether the violent act you commit is deemed legal or illegal/a crime is something for a bureaucracy to determine after someone is already dead.

Btw, if your hobby is simply target practice.. why do you need a deadly weapon to enjoy it.

Airsoft, paintball and pellets guns could all fulfill that need to shoot shit.

In reply to this comment by Buck:
Hi, I was wondering if you would indulge me in some conversation about you downvoting this comment:

If you have a licence, owning a gun does not make you more likely to commit a crime.



Do you disagree that someone who goes through the invasive (in Canada) process to get a legal licence for firearms and follows the law will somehow be turned evil by a firearm?

I work with people with Autism for a living, I love my family, friends, country etc. I also love going to the range to shoot paper targets.

Do you think I should not be allowed the freedom to pursue my legal (and fun) hobby?

Thanks for any response