Ultimately, that's why I'm so upset about this whole mess. Republicans and ALEC have essentially decided that not having any meaningful control on gun ownership wasn't good enough, they needed to give gun owners a license to kill too.

This is a very high-stakes version of the burden of proof fallacy. Why is it that Zimmerman got to shoot and kill someone based solely on his suspicions, but we can't arrest him for it unless we can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he knew Treyvon wasn't a threat?

Why does the unarmed boy not get the "innocent until proven guilty" treatment? Because Zimmerman has already executed him? How could that be right?

Why isn't everyone unanimous in saying that we have to get to the bottom of not only what happened, but how we can fix our laws and institutions to treat a situation like this in a just way?

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

You can, under Stand Your Ground, follow someone, initiate a fight, and kill them if you "fear for your life," which the prosecution must prove that you didn't, indeed, fear for your life (And that's some proving to do... especially when there is a gun involved, even the assialents gun, that could be 'taken away.')
In fact, a judge ruled that even if the person killed was retreating, it didn't matter. The defendant could murder him in cold blood and be fine...
Face it, there is no cover up, only a flawed law created by a bunch of scared white old people.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

A stereo thief hit a guy with a bag of like 6 pounds. He got stabbed to death. The stabber got off. The stabber had been the one to chase him down... SYoG...

Dunno how anyone can see stuff like that transpire and think it's a good idea to let someone go under that law who actively pursues and kills.

The Wiki on SYG has this blurb:

Stand your ground laws are frequently criticized and called "shoot first" laws by critics, including the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.[36] In Florida, the law has resulted in self-defense claims tripling, with all but one of those killed unarmed.[37][36] The law's critics argue that Florida's law makes it very difficult to prosecute cases against people who shoot others and then claim self-defense. The shooter can argue they felt threatened, and in most cases, the only witness who could have argued otherwise is the victim who was shot and killed. The Florida law has been used to excuse neighborhood brawls, bar fights, road rage, and even street gang violence.[36] Before passage of the law, Miami police chief John F. Timoney called the law unnecessary and dangerous in that "[w]hether it's trick-or-treaters or kids playing in the yard of someone who doesn't want them there or some drunk guy stumbling into the wrong house, you're encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn't be used." This is in reference to Sarah McKinley, a teen widow with her infant child, who shot an intruder who broke through the front door. The intruder was apparently drunk, screaming and at the wrong house


Self Defense claims tripling should be indicative that you got some problems on your hands. And I doubt they count these cases as "crimes", making their crime rate lower. Reinforcing the idea that the law is sound.


And I'll just note, I've never heard of your stabbing case prior to you mentioning it. Whether it's got no racial elements to exploit or no gun involved to exploit for news, I don't know. But people care a lot less if it's anything but a gun involved.

>> ^Shepppard:

>> ^silverpoint16:
I am still of two minds about whether I want to anything to do with this site any more. We have been harassed and our characters assaulted. Most of you appear to now believe we are who we say we are. Some of you do not. That's fine. You are entitled to your opinion; however, the harassment and personal character assaults need to stop.
Thank you to all of you who looked at the evidence and drew their own conclusions.

I've been pretty level headed about this entire thread until I read this. For some reason, the way you worded that just set something off in me.
Let me make something clear to you from the start:
You're going to take some flak.
Videosift is a fantastic place full of MANY different opinions on many different things. We come from all over the world and generally are considered a community rather than an outright forum. Since there's less people than youtube, we can basically actually talk TO one another. You'll see the same names leaving comments and upvoting on many different videos, joking around, etc. And as such, you're eventually going to do or say something someone doesn't like.
We have Winstonfield_pennypacker and Quantummushroom as die-hard republicans that on basically any political video you'll see them say something (at least I consider to be) stupid and that'll spark an argument, and then two videos later you'll see QM say something that'll actually make you laugh out loud.
On religious videos we have many heated debates, the sift as a whole is generally considered Atheist, and will argue til they're blue in the face about certain topics.
On police videos there's a few of us (myself included) that don't instantly hop on the "COP IS IN THE WRONG, FUCK DA PO PO" bandwagon, and will generally be caught in a debate or argument about it.
Essentially what i'm trying to say is.. We're not youtube. You're not going to be a blank face in the crowd, you have a personality, you have ideals, you have your own mindset, and here you'll get to express it amongst others. But be prepared to have others not always agree with them.
So, if you want to just blend in, say what you want, and make sure your feelings don't get hurt, go ahead and leave.
If you want to be a part of something that with the bad, also comes a world of good, then stay. Enjoy our little community. Just be prepared for what that entails if you do.


I like much of what you posted here. If I read correctly, you and I seem to have many things in common: Not a Republican? [check] Atheist? [check] Maligning Cops? [my Mom was the very first female police radio dispatcher in this major metropolitan area and my Dad was the booking sergeant in the city jail ... let's just say I agree that *they* aren't all bad and leave it at that] Couldn't wait to move out of the house when I turned 18? [check] though your mileage may vary, I just had to toss that in there.

Regarding your generalized description of YouTube I can only relay to you MY experience with it. I joined in July 2006. It was the only social network I belonged to up until this past year. In January 2011 I submitted two videos for a contest and to my delight, one was selected for the project. It was then that I discovered how much I enjoyed the experience of making videos so started from scratch with a little Kodak PlaySport camera. I eventually bought some software and began to teach myself editing. I may not be one of the big players on the tube, but I did find out that there are some truly wonderful, REAL people there. I was steadily attracting viewers and subscribers worldwide and that morphed into an actual online community for me. I've experienced many gratifying interactions through collaborations, comments and banter and have found a good number of folks that I've come to admire and respect. Some have become very good friends. I never once felt like a blank face in the crowd and found great joy in supporting and encouraging those that impressed me. My goal was and is to tailor my comments to relate to the subject matter at hand and, more often than not, attempt to infuse a bit of humor as well. Rarely will you see anything generic from me [unless I'm really, really tired]. That being said, I certainly would never expect ANYONE to BE like me ... I fully appreciate and embrace diversity. However, I don't engage in bullying, deliberate rudeness or intimidation because, like most folks, I have a lot of stress in my life and the time I get to spend away from it on the interwebs is my coveted escape.

All of the above came crashing down for me personally when Google took over YT and changed everything to the dreaded NewTube. Seemingly overnight my progression of new subscribers simply ceased. Views diminished and everything has basically ground to a halt. I still have and treasure most of my core supporters but much of the community aspect has diminished to the point where Ive found myself searching for something more rewarding on the side. VS was recommended to me and in the first couple of days after signing up I was duly impressed. It is by far the best community site I've experienced yet.

Is it a double standard for me to support the friends who have also joined and are currently the only people I know here? I sure hope not. My goal was and is to earn the respect of others already established in this community through my participation and conduct. Not a one of us intended to take over what you have here ... at first blush it appeared to be an exceptional place to be. Time will tell. I have hope.

>> ^silverpoint16:

I am still of two minds about whether I want to anything to do with this site any more. We have been harassed and our characters assaulted. Most of you appear to now believe we are who we say we are. Some of you do not. That's fine. You are entitled to your opinion; however, the harassment and personal character assaults need to stop.
Thank you to all of you who looked at the evidence and drew their own conclusions.


I've been pretty level headed about this entire thread until I read this. For some reason, the way you worded that just set something off in me.

Let me make something clear to you from the start:

You're going to take some flak.

Videosift is a fantastic place full of MANY different opinions on many different things. We come from all over the world and generally are considered a community rather than an outright forum. Since there's less people than youtube, we can basically actually talk TO one another. You'll see the same names leaving comments and upvoting on many different videos, joking around, etc. And as such, you're eventually going to do or say something someone doesn't like.

We have Winstonfield_pennypacker and Quantummushroom as die-hard republicans that on basically any political video you'll see them say something (at least I consider to be) stupid and that'll spark an argument, and then two videos later you'll see QM say something that'll actually make you laugh out loud.

On religious videos we have many heated debates, the sift as a whole is generally considered Atheist, and will argue til they're blue in the face about certain topics.

On police videos there's a few of us (myself included) that don't instantly hop on the "COP IS IN THE WRONG, FUCK DA PO PO" bandwagon, and will generally be caught in a debate or argument about it.

Essentially what i'm trying to say is.. We're not youtube. You're not going to be a blank face in the crowd, you have a personality, you have ideals, you have your own mindset, and here you'll get to express it amongst others. But be prepared to have others not always agree with them.

So, if you want to just blend in, say what you want, and make sure your feelings don't get hurt, go ahead and leave.

If you want to be a part of something that with the bad, also comes a world of good, then stay. Enjoy our little community. Just be prepared for what that entails if you do.

A stereo thief hit a guy with a bag of like 6 pounds. He got stabbed to death. The stabber got off. The stabber had been the one to chase him down... SYoG...

>> ^Porksandwich:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
No, this video is not damning evidence... Stand Your Ground is obviously not understood by most members on the Sift.
Many individuals have gotten off scott-free because of this law. It has nothing to do with the police or their actions, or even competence of the prosecutors. Judges strike down Zimmerman-like cases all the time in Florida. What people want here is an exception.
You can, under Stand Your Ground, follow someone, initiate a fight, and kill them if you "fear for your life," which the prosecution must prove that you didn't, indeed, fear for your life (And that's some proving to do... especially when there is a gun involved, even the assialents gun, that could be 'taken away.')
In fact, a judge ruled that even if the person killed was retreating, it didn't matter. The defendant could murder him in cold blood and be fine...
Face it, there is no cover up, only a flawed law created by a bunch of scared white old people.
Got a whole bunch of people who are defending Zimmerman not because they feel he's innocent, but because he used a gun. If it had been a knife or anything else, I don't think there would be so many supporters for Zimmerman under the SYG law.
But there is this constant fear that someone's coming to take their guns, that any law that makes it easier to keep and use their guns is sacrosanct. There is no actual "question" about it being reasonable or in the realm of sanity that someone could provoke a fight then kill the person. But it's become huge, because people see that the primary thing being used in these encounters are guns. And in fact they are being used against unarmed people most often.
In fact, there's news that gun enthusiasts are donating to Zimmerman's defense...simply because he used a gun. Not that they think he's actually not guilty gun or not....if it had been a baseball bat or kitchen knife...people wouldn't care nearly as much.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

No, this video is not damning evidence... Stand Your Ground is obviously not understood by most members on the Sift.
Many individuals have gotten off scott-free because of this law. It has nothing to do with the police or their actions, or even competence of the prosecutors. Judges strike down Zimmerman-like cases all the time in Florida. What people want here is an exception.
You can, under Stand Your Ground, follow someone, initiate a fight, and kill them if you "fear for your life," which the prosecution must prove that you didn't, indeed, fear for your life (And that's some proving to do... especially when there is a gun involved, even the assialents gun, that could be 'taken away.')
In fact, a judge ruled that even if the person killed was retreating, it didn't matter. The defendant could murder him in cold blood and be fine...
Face it, there is no cover up, only a flawed law created by a bunch of scared white old people.

Got a whole bunch of people who are defending Zimmerman not because they feel he's innocent, but because he used a gun. If it had been a knife or anything else, I don't think there would be so many supporters for Zimmerman under the SYG law.

But there is this constant fear that someone's coming to take their guns, that any law that makes it easier to keep and use their guns is sacrosanct. There is no actual "question" about it being reasonable or in the realm of sanity that someone could provoke a fight then kill the person. But it's become huge, because people see that the primary thing being used in these encounters are guns. And in fact they are being used against unarmed people most often.

In fact, there's news that gun enthusiasts are donating to Zimmerman's defense...simply because he used a gun. Not that they think he's actually not guilty gun or not....if it had been a baseball bat or kitchen knife...people wouldn't care nearly as much.

No, this video is not damning evidence... Stand Your Ground is obviously not understood by most members on the Sift.

Many individuals have gotten off scott-free because of this law. It has nothing to do with the police or their actions, or even competence of the prosecutors. Judges strike down Zimmerman-like cases all the time in Florida. What people want here is an exception.

You can, under Stand Your Ground, follow someone, initiate a fight, and kill them if you "fear for your life," which the prosecution must prove that you didn't, indeed, fear for your life (And that's some proving to do... especially when there is a gun involved, even the assialents gun, that could be 'taken away.')

In fact, a judge ruled that even if the person killed was retreating, it didn't matter. The defendant could murder him in cold blood and be fine...

Face it, there is no cover up, only a flawed law created by a bunch of scared white old people.

>> ^Darkhand:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^longde:
Reading about this case a little more, I now see that Zimmerman's pop is a (retired) judge. Things are starting to make a little more sense. It appears the race factors is overshadowed by a cronyism factor in this case, and his slap on the wrist for assaulting cops in the past.

Was his dad a former judge in Florida? Cause I really don't understand if he isn't...it just seems completely stupid not to arrest him, even if you're GREAT BUDDIES with his dad. Surely you'd have to know that this is a really stupid career risk (not mentioning how fucking wrong it is).

These are my thoughts exactly and what leads me to be skeptical about what's going on. I could understand (but don't condone obviously) why they would try to cover this up. But the SECOND it hit national media if I was in there shoes I would instantly said "after further review of the evidence we are now placing Zimmerman under arrest and will hold him until trial". Then prayed nobody tried to sue me or something.
Then again I guess the pressure on them is so intense to not mess it up they don't want to hold zimmerman for too long and then have his (zimmerman's) attorney sue or try to get the case dropped because of "due process"
This video is very damning evidence against Zimmerman. The family is now saying "wait for the hospital records" but my understanding is if you have a broken nose the area around your face would be bruised right? His brother is saying "His (George's) nose is swollen". I'm not a doctor so maybe someone else wants to chime in here?

>> ^NetRunner:

Uhh, so acknowledging that the argument is dividing along right/left lines, while decrying the fact that it has done so...is perpetuating it?

I think you went beyond acknowledging when you made a statement on behalf of The Left™. I think there are a lot of people trying to make this partisan politics because they get an automatic support base if they succeed, but I also think the people who are doing that are a loud minority at this point. Most people, even the self-appointed judge/jury/executioners I mentioned before, have not allowed politics to shape their opinions IMO.

>> ^NetRunner:

Here's the rub, what are those investigations aimed at achieving? An investigation of the local police, and whether they conducted their side of things properly, or an investigation that might result in charges against Zimmerman? From what I've heard it's the former, not the latter.

I'm not sure it's plausible to get a new local investigation without showing some sort of negligence or wrong-doing in the first one. I also can't help but wonder if, even after all the investigations are complete, the case will be tossed out because SYG does protect Zimmerman here. Whether the law is right or wrong is a separate trial. It may be that this case is the first domino that starts the repeal of SYG, but it also may be that Zimmerman goes free because it was the law at the time. I'm not saying I'd be happy about that; just that it seems like a possibility.

>> ^NetRunner:

That's the most generous of my theories, but I don't really think it's that. The things they're pushing back against aren't the handful of people saying calmly "this is why the Stand Your Ground law is bad policy", they're pushing back hardest against the people who're suggesting this was some sort of racially motivated murder. They've apparently lost all sense of reason and proportion when it comes to defending white guys who get accused of being racist.

There are absolutely some weird reactions in all this which are based on race. I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference whether Zimmerman is a racist or not. I guess it could make the difference between murder and a lesser charge, as it could be used to establish motive, but here and now it's a minor issue for me. Whether or not he is a racist will not effect this stage in the process. That won't come into play until a trial begins.

>> ^NetRunner:

I agree, there's a real danger of the "Zimmerman needs to be charged" camp making it impossible for Zimmerman to be tried in an impartial manner. Most of the stuff I see though is people collecting evidence of one type or another that suggests the shooting wasn't in self-defense, as a way to demonstrate the need for a trial. Case in point, the video up top showing Zimmerman looking uninjured and unmolested some 20-30 minutes after the altercation with Martin.

It seems to me like that's what you need to do if you want to convince people that there needs to be an investigation and a trial -- you cast doubt on the story that Zimmerman told the police, which was the reason they released him without further investigation.

Truth is, I think it's going to be hard to build a solid case against Zimmerman at this point, mostly because the opportunity to collect the evidence that could've convicted or conclusively exonerated him is gone now. That's why the police's refusal to conduct an investigation in the immediate aftermath of the shooting feels so criminal to a lot of people.

I've not heard anything about evidence collected from Martin's body though. Perhaps there's something there that would be able to definitively establish what happened.

I worry that the "public investigation" ruins the eventual trial if it goes too far. This video seems like extremely weak evidence. The poor quality could easily be hiding cuts and bruises. I'd put more weight in police documentation and hospital records (or the lack thereof) than this video to establish whether Zimmerman had injuries.

I agree that a lot of evidence has been lost to time now. Examination of the gunshot wound can probably still tell us a lot about the altercation, fortunately. Showing who was on top of who at the time of the shooting will probably go a long way toward telling the real story by itself.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

Because you were the one who said, "The left's position isn't 'off with Zimmerman's head!' it's 'we demand a real criminal investigation!'" and "Why is the right fighting that...at all? Why has this turned into another partisan political spat?", apparently unaware of the irony of complaining about how it's become a partisan political spat even as you perpetuate it.

Uhh, so acknowledging that the argument is dividing along right/left lines, while decrying the fact that it has done so...is perpetuating it?

This is like these mystifying conversations I have where I say racism exists and is bad, and in return get flack from some wingnut who claims I'm making racial problems worse by saying racism exists and is bad.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
Last I knew there were two investigations underway: Federal and State of Florida.

Here's the rub, what are those investigations aimed at achieving? An investigation of the local police, and whether they conducted their side of things properly, or an investigation that might result in charges against Zimmerman? From what I've heard it's the former, not the latter.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
If I had to guess why some of the Right is touchy about this, I'd say it's because they fear its potential affects on gun rights (of which "Stand Your Ground" is a derivative, IMO).

That's the most generous of my theories, but I don't really think it's that. The things they're pushing back against aren't the handful of people saying calmly "this is why the Stand Your Ground law is bad policy", they're pushing back hardest against the people who're suggesting this was some sort of racially motivated murder. They've apparently lost all sense of reason and proportion when it comes to defending white guys who get accused of being racist.

And BTW, that's what me perpetuating the partisan fight looks like.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
What bothers me, personally, about the whole situation is all these self-appointed jurors who have already reached a verdict. They come in both pro-Trayvon and pro-Zimmerman flavors and they're all a bit light in the skull. There hasn't been a complete investigation yet, let alone a trial where all the evidence is presented, and we've already got millions of judge/jury/executioner types spouting off.
When it comes time for this to go to trial for real, where will we even find impartial jurors? It's getting hard to imagine any result but declaration of mistrial, Zimmerman free to go.


I agree, there's a real danger of the "Zimmerman needs to be charged" camp making it impossible for Zimmerman to be tried in an impartial manner. Most of the stuff I see though is people collecting evidence of one type or another that suggests the shooting wasn't in self-defense, as a way to demonstrate the need for a trial. Case in point, the video up top showing Zimmerman looking uninjured and unmolested some 20-30 minutes after the altercation with Martin.

It seems to me like that's what you need to do if you want to convince people that there needs to be an investigation and a trial -- you cast doubt on the story that Zimmerman told the police, which was the reason they released him without further investigation.

Truth is, I think it's going to be hard to build a solid case against Zimmerman at this point, mostly because the opportunity to collect the evidence that could've convicted or conclusively exonerated him is gone now. That's why the police's refusal to conduct an investigation in the immediate aftermath of the shooting feels so criminal to a lot of people.

I've not heard anything about evidence collected from Martin's body though. Perhaps there's something there that would be able to definitively establish what happened.

>> ^NetRunner:

That's my position too. Why you're putting that at the head of a reply to me, I don't know.

Because you were the one who said, "The left's position isn't 'off with Zimmerman's head!' it's 'we demand a real criminal investigation!'" and "Why is the right fighting that...at all? Why has this turned into another partisan political spat?", apparently unaware of the irony of complaining about how it's become a partisan political spat even as you perpetuate it.

But, to be clear, my comment was not aimed squarely at you even though I quoted you. Your statement was just a good example for me to cite.

>> ^NetRunner:
Except there isn't an investigation under way. That's what people are mad about. That's why I don't get how this spilled into a right vs. left thing.
I have a theory, but rather than jumping to conclusions, I would like to hear someone make their case for why they're mad at people who are demanding Treyvon Martin's death be investigated by police.
So far it seems to be that the people pushing back are misinformed, either about whether the police are investigating (they aren't) or about what the people making noise about this are actually saying (apparently when people say "we want an arrest and investigation" these people hear "we want our pound of flesh").
As you said in the middle of your comment, there are people on "both sides" whose behavior has been reprehensible, but focusing on that kind of stuff is always a form of ad hominem. If Spike Lee does something bad because he's mad about this, it doesn't mean he was wrong to be mad in the first place.
I want to focus on the central dispute over the case, rather than try to litigate which "side's" advocates have acted most shamefully.

Last I knew there were two investigations underway: Federal and State of Florida. If you're trying to say there needs to be a new local investigation (technically there was one at the time of the incident, it just sucked ass), then I agree and I'm not mad at anyone for demanding one.

If I had to guess why some of the Right is touchy about this, I'd say it's because they fear its potential affects on gun rights (of which "Stand Your Ground" is a derivative, IMO).

What bothers me, personally, about the whole situation is all these self-appointed jurors who have already reached a verdict. They come in both pro-Trayvon and pro-Zimmerman flavors and they're all a bit light in the skull. There hasn't been a complete investigation yet, let alone a trial where all the evidence is presented, and we've already got millions of judge/jury/executioner types spouting off.

When it comes time for this to go to trial for real, where will we even find impartial jurors? It's getting hard to imagine any result but declaration of mistrial, Zimmerman free to go.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I think it's embarrassing that there is a "left" and "right" in a potential murder trial and it reinforces my feeling that, in the 21st century, people still can't break away from their primitive tribal mindset.

That's my position too. Why you're putting that at the head of a reply to me, I don't know.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
The investigation is under way. Everyone needs to shut up and wait for the outcome. There will be riots no matter which way it goes if the public outrage machine keeps going like this.


Except there isn't an investigation under way. That's what people are mad about. That's why I don't get how this spilled into a right vs. left thing.

I have a theory, but rather than jumping to conclusions, I would like to hear someone make their case for why they're mad at people who are demanding Treyvon Martin's death be investigated by police.

So far it seems to be that the people pushing back are misinformed, either about whether the police are investigating (they aren't) or about what the people making noise about this are actually saying (apparently when people say "we want an arrest and investigation" these people hear "we want our pound of flesh").

As you said in the middle of your comment, there are people on "both sides" whose behavior has been reprehensible, but focusing on that kind of stuff is always a form of ad hominem. If Spike Lee does something bad because he's mad about this, it doesn't mean he was wrong to be mad in the first place.

I want to focus on the central dispute over the case, rather than try to litigate which "side's" advocates have acted most shamefully.

I have nothing to gain by defending Zimmerman, with the exception of pointing out the usual media bias as they crucify him.

I offered up a flawed scenario of what might have happened, minus the full range of facts (which no one has at this time). Why did I suggest 'Evil Zimmerman' is a radical leftist theory? Because they're the ones that insist America is (still) an evil place inhabited by nothing but racists, and since Zimmerman is not Black--the only race that according to the left can "never" be considered racist--Zimmerman is therefore an evil racist.

The lower-than-whaleshit non-FOX media have turned this into a media frenzy, and don't think His Earness isn't grateful for the chaos, it takes attention off the shitconomy and soaring gas prices.

The question is NOT, "Did a kid deserve to end his life over this?" and if it is, you'd better be prepared for the answer to POSSIBLY be Yes. The non-Fox media have been very careful to only show the pics of 12-year-old Trayvon, not the 17-year old posing as a thug, tweeting about hassling Whitey, who physically is more than capable of killing someone.


Zimmerman could end up being as twisted as Dexter, otherwise I don't see a motive for his actions. It's one thing to pretend one is a bigshot, a whole other game to actually (needlessly) put oneself in a life-or-death situ where control is literally guaranteed to be lost in an instant.


>> ^VoodooV:

QM and Pennypacker resort to strawmans as usual. flinging terms like "radical left" without consequence. The sift needs some serious moderation around here.
No one has convicted Zimmerman...end of story, get that bullshit out of your heads. It really is quite irrelevant who the attacker is. The real question is:
Did a kid deserve to have his life ended over this? And the answer is most assuredly...
NO!!
It truly is despicable that this has turned into a left v right issue. This is the sort of thing that should be uniting us, not dividing us. EVERYONE, left and right should be ashamed.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^longde:
Curious; can you outline your friend's argument?

Well, first off, you have to imagine that he is very charismatic, and I was drunk and halfway through a game of Eclipse. Anyway, the argument (and this has already been said before) was just that the "stand your ground law" is flawed. All Zimmerman really would need to do, is prove that he felt his life was in danger. Any circumstances before that might not even be taken into account depending on how the judge feels the law applies. And Zimmerman is the one with an eye witness to back him up.
It sounds pretty flimsy, I know, but I would prepare myself for the possibility that Zimmerman will walk. There's no reason it can't end that way.


This is how many people feel. I have argued with someone about it repeatedly in the past week. I find the split on this issue comes to down to gun owners who carry and on the other side you have gun owners who don't carry or non-gun owners.

I keep saying that the law should not be whose alive to claim whatever. The law should be applied in order of events. Because Zimmerman survived the encounter does not mean he didn't start it, and the first evidence of this is him chasing Trayvon on foot.

I can't imagine a person in the world that feels getting chased by a complete stranger for no reason thinks that guy has your best intentions at heart. So, you could make a reasonable claim that Trayvon Martin felt he needed to defend himself.

And the evidence backs it up. Hell the recounting of events is something like this: Zimmerman follows in the vehicle, then gets out and chases on foot, 911 tells him not to, and he loses Trayvon. While returning to his vehicle (which could be the way Trayvon had to go to get home) Trayvon confronts him and asks if he has a problem, Zimmerman says no and (here's the important part) *reaches for his phone*, that's when he claims Trayvon says "yeah you do" and hits him.

Hell if I had someone chase me down the street and then reach for their pocket after they got me close, I'd assume ill intent in the form of a weapon or something.

So, in a non-insane law environment. The law would first apply to Trayvon. He would be covered under SYG and Zimmerman would be the aggressor and have to follow the parts of the SYG law covering that on how to disengage. If he didn't follow those or admit to following those, then he's fucked.

If he did follow those, then he still isn't covered under SYG because his stupid ass started it. Perhaps he felt in danger of his life, but it doesn't say aggressors under SYG also covered under SYG.

But a law without language telling you to not retreat or de-escalate is a stupid fucking law. You just find a place that has no cameras and no witnesses, then kill everyone. Create the confrontation if you need to, just make sure the other guy is dead at the end. And you are immune, no one can sue you for anything regarding those events once you've been cleared under SYG.

@Darkhand, I have empathy for Zimmermam:

-I understand the feeling of righteous indignation when you feel someone is getting away with something.

-I understand the feeling of apprehensiveness that someone strange is in my neighborhood looking or acting suspicious.

-I understand his ambitions to want a career in a particular field, and performing any viable substitute to prove his worth.

What I don't have sympathy or patience for:

-profiling black people

-Stigmatizing someone without any objective proof

-Carrying a loaded gun in a neighborhood filled with kids, and looking for trouble

and last but not least

-stalking, confronting, and killing an unarmed, teenage boy for NOTHING>> ^Darkhand:

In my opinion If you had empathy for him you'd be standing in the middle like me.
>> ^longde:
Don't put words in my mouth: I never said I hate Zimmerman. I have empathy for even that wretch. I just don't have sympathy for him.
And, you are in effect defending Zimmerman when you reach for explanations that would exonerate him.>> ^Darkhand:
>> ^longde:
I have empathy for all things too; yet I don't find myself defending child killers too often.>> ^Darkhand:
When I said no-one is talking about Zimmermans side I meant the people on this site not the police.
I have empathy for all living things regardless of race or species.


Which brings me back to my original point and Winston's point as well. Everyone thinks that because I offered an alternate version of the story I'm DEFENDING Zimmerman.
You can't have Empathy for all living things and hate Zimmerman those statements are mutually exclusive.

Yeah, sometimes I'm surprised he hasn't been given a medal of valor.>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^longde:
Curious; can you outline your friend's argument?

Well, first off, you have to imagine that he is very charismatic, and I was drunk and halfway through a game of Eclipse. Anyway, the argument (and this has already been said before) was just that the "stand your ground law" is flawed. All Zimmerman really would need to do, is prove that he felt his life was in danger. Any circumstances before that might not even be taken into account depending on how the judge feels the law applies. And Zimmerman is the one with an eye witness to back him up.
It sounds pretty flimsy, I know, but I would prepare myself for the possibility that Zimmerman will walk. There's no reason it can't end that way.