Is Zimmerman guilty? Should he be convicted of something?

[Tero]

The too teens were alone in the apt. It might be appropriate to resolve the stalker issue outside..no adults were there to call cops.

[Coito ergo sum]

Maybe. But there is no evidence of when the gun entered the picture. Maybe just a bulge under the clothing.

So? What is the import of that? Why do you bring it up? Is it a salient thing? Does it mean something? Does it require or allow an important conclusion?

We have a whole thread on this. An armed stranger is stalking you. You finally come face to face. What do you do? Ask to see their gun before you punch them out?

Yes, absolutely.

1. The Zimmerman situation does not involve "stalking" allegations.

2. I come in contact with armed strangers from time to time and I've never punched them out. If I became in fear that I would be killed or suffer bodily harm from a person, armed or not, I would feel entitled to take action to defend myself. Hopefully, when it's all done, the actions I take would be deemed reasonable.

If, however, someone asked me "what are you doing here?" I would either tell him what I was doing there, such as "walking to my dad's house down the street, why do you ask?" Or, maybe I would say "none of your business." What I would not do is attack the person for having the temerity of addressing me in an impertinent manner.

[Coito ergo sum]

who cares - he was not in the community to commit any crime

Neither was Zimmerman, as far as we know.

And, it's no crime to ask a person what they're doing in a neighborhood or be suspicious of them.

[Seth]

The law is very strict about where and how you point or show your gun. If you shoot the person, however, no questions or witnesses, they are dead. "The cell phone looked like a gun, I had to shoot."

And you think that this bald assertion is sufficient to stop a police investigation and/or trial? Nonsense.

On top of that, it is difficult to take a gun away from an unbalanced person who was previously sane enough to have all the permits, concealed etc.

No it's not. All it takes is for a licensed physician to declare to the police that the individual is a present danger to himself or others by reason of a mental defect, or for the person to be involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric facility.

I want every single gun registered, every owner licensed.

Tough shit, you can't have it.

[Seth]

There just aren't enough evil doers out there to justify you stalking and interrogating every hooded (or the comical pants sown to the hips) teen out there.

Sadly, in many metropolitan areas, there are.

When the gun comes out, the communicating stops. Either he attacks you or you shoot him. It's cave man days again.

Which is a complete red herring strawman, since Zimmerman's gun didn't come out till he was on his back having his skull smashed on the sidewalk.

And when my gun comes out, communication has already stopped and I perceive a dangerous threat. If you're talking instead of shooting, you shouldn't be, because you can't talk and shoot effectively at the same time. If you need, and have legal authority to shoot, then shut up and shoot.

And it's "either he attacks me AND I shoot him" or "he sees my gun and runs away, terminating the threat with no shots fired."

[tattuchu]

Well if we allow guns to be used in self-defense, and we do, then he's not guilty. Although I do think the death was unnecessary. Zimmerman could have achieved the same results (stopping the attack) with a can of pepper spray. There are non-lethal ways to handle confrontational situations after all.

[Seabass]

So basically Zimmerman harassed a black kid until the black kid snapped, then Zimmerman shot him. Now Zimmerman gets off scot-free. How fucked up is that.

[Seth]

Maybe. But there is no evidence of when the gun entered the picture. Maybe just a bulge under the clothing.

So? What is the import of that? Why do you bring it up? Is it a salient thing? Does it mean something? Does it require or allow an important conclusion?

We have a whole thread on this. An armed stranger is stalking you. You finally come face to face. What do you do? Ask to see their gun before you punch them out?

If you're even a little smart, and unarmed, then the instant you break contact with him (which Martin did) you beat cheeks for a place of safety and you call the police. You do NOT sneak into the bushes and then jump the "stalker" from behind, because even if he IS a "stalker" and has no legitimate purpose in following you, by jumping him from behind and then trying to kill him by bashing his head on the sidewalk you give him legal justification to shoot you dead. You see, while "stalking" may under certain circumstances be a crime, in and of itself it does not create a reasonable belief that one's life is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm that would justify circling back, sneaking through the bushes and attacking the supposed "stalker."

It's the circling back, sneaking through the bushes and attacking without warning combined with a clear attempt at serious bodily harm and/or death that provided Zimmerman's legal justification for using deadly force AND NOTHING ELSE MATTERS

Not even if Zimmerman was a skinheaded Nazi white supremacist with swastikas tattooed on his face and he was wearing an SS uniform.

That's what you don't seem to understand. Zimmerman's following or questioning of Martin DID NOT provide Martin with a legal justification to use physical force, particularly not through a stealthy attack. None at all. What Zimmerman was thinking is utterly irrelevant to the case, so long as he was not the initial aggressor in the fight that ended with Martin dead. What happened before is irrelevant in the extreme and became irrelevant the instant that Martin broke contact with Zimmerman.

The SECOND confrontation of Martin attacking Zimmerman from behind is the ONLY thing that the jury should consider or be told about because nothing that happened prior to that instant has any bearing on whether or not Zimmerman became authorized to use deadly force.

[Seth]

So basically Zimmerman harassed a black kid until the black kid snapped, then Zimmerman shot him. Now Zimmerman gets off scot-free. How fucked up is that.

Not at all fucked up. Martin always had the options of a) leaving the confrontation, which he did; b) calling the police instead of his girlfriend; and c) not returning to Zimmerman's location and attacking him.

"Harrassment," even if true, does NOT authorize an individual to sneak back around and jump the harasser from behind and then try to kill him.

Martin initiated the use of force, and that initiation eventually authorized Zimmerman to shoot him in self defense, and it would have authorized the most blatant KKK Grand Dragon exactly the same way.

[Jason]

One thing is undeniable fact: Guns are used in 100% of all gun violence. So.. If guns are used in gun violence, to reduce gun violence we must reduce the number of guns. If we reduce the number of guns to zero, then gun violence must, logically, also be reduced to zero. No more guns means no more gun violence.

This is fact and irrefutable logic.

[Seth]

One thing is undeniable fact: Guns are used in 100% of all gun violence. So.. If guns are used in gun violence, to reduce gun violence we must reduce the number of guns. If we reduce the number of guns to zero, then gun violence must, logically, also be reduced to zero. No more guns means no more gun violence.

This is fact and irrefutable logic.

No, it's easily refutable illogic. It fails on the premise "no more guns."

It is impossible to eliminate guns. And I mean impossible. Pandora's box was opened hundreds of years ago when firearms were invented and you can't stuff that knowledge back in the box. Criminals who can't find marketed guns will simply make them. A firearm is not difficult at all to make, and even gunpowder can be made from widely available materials.

So, even if all the nations on earth agreed to ban all guns, including military weapons, and collect them all and melt them down it wouldn't eliminate guns from society because people would just make them by hand.

The Afghans are masters at hand-crafting copies of modern arms, including the Kalishnikov rifle, by hand, using hammers, punches, files and other primitive hand tools.

So your "logic" fails on a false premise I'm afraid.

[Jason]

One thing is undeniable fact: Guns are used in 100% of all gun violence. So.. If guns are used in gun violence, to reduce gun violence we must reduce the number of guns. If we reduce the number of guns to zero, then gun violence must, logically, also be reduced to zero. No more guns means no more gun violence.

This is fact and irrefutable logic.

No, it's easily refutable illogic. It fails on the premise "no more guns."

It is impossible to eliminate guns. And I mean impossible.

Hah. That's not a logical refutation. That's your opinion shored up.

No guns = no gun violence. Irrefutable.

[Seth]

One thing is undeniable fact: Guns are used in 100% of all gun violence. So.. If guns are used in gun violence, to reduce gun violence we must reduce the number of guns. If we reduce the number of guns to zero, then gun violence must, logically, also be reduced to zero. No more guns means no more gun violence.

This is fact and irrefutable logic.

No, it's easily refutable illogic. It fails on the premise "no more guns."

It is impossible to eliminate guns. And I mean impossible.

Hah. That's not a logical refutation. That's your opinion shored up.

No guns = no gun violence. Irrefutable.

Only as a theoretical philosophical argument. It's like saying that you can prevent sunburn by turning the sun off. It's "irrefutable logic" but it's a vacuous non sequitur since you can't turn the sun off.

Same thing with guns.

[Tero]

Tough shit, you can't have it.

If them senators go invading inside a woman's vagina looking for fetuses, then the Gubment can also know who has the guns. I think we'll fingerprint all of you as well. The constitution does not prohibit registering guns. I want to see how organized your militia is, if I need to use it.

[Jason]

One thing is undeniable fact: Guns are used in 100% of all gun violence. So.. If guns are used in gun violence, to reduce gun violence we must reduce the number of guns. If we reduce the number of guns to zero, then gun violence must, logically, also be reduced to zero. No more guns means no more gun violence.

This is fact and irrefutable logic.

No, it's easily refutable illogic. It fails on the premise "no more guns."

It is impossible to eliminate guns. And I mean impossible.

Hah. That's not a logical refutation. That's your opinion shored up.

No guns = no gun violence. Irrefutable.

Only as a theoretical philosophical argument. It's like saying that you can prevent sunburn by turning the sun off. It's "irrefutable logic" but it's a vacuous non sequitur since you can't turn the sun off.

Same thing with guns.

Of course it is theoretical. Anything suggested is theoretical, even after it is accepted, until it is applied.

As for the sun analogy, that's a great exaggeration. Eliminating all firearms on the planet is eminently more achievable than stopping the sun at the present time.