what NO ONE seems to have discussed about George Zimmerman.......

Is that he clearly had a cop fetish, a thing for cops to the point he thought in his head that he WAS one. This is a lot morebcomon than one may think. He had been turned down for employment by at least one department, we know that much. Then he goes out on one of his little "patrols" by himself, armed, NOT as part of or with any neighborhood watch organization or the members thereof.

The next thing you know, this untrained, self-appointed enforcer.....this wannabee cop....ends up farther in over his fucking deluded head than he could handle, and in the end, one kid who may have not needed to end up desd is dead, his life is over and officer Zimmerman's is essentially ruined. One thing about the cops is that they carry some very effective non-lethal weaponry these days, and they do not work alone. Zimmerman, because he's NOT a cop, had no option but to use his gun even if his life was legitemately in danger.....and i am not saying i know if it was or not, becsuse i wasn' there, and neither were you. My point is that this is what happened when some idiot left the house all but looking for someone to shoot.
And Mr. Martin, when spotted by Mr. Zimmerman, may have looked suspicious, but aside from maybe trespassing, he wasn't DOING anything illegal. So why didn't officer Zimmerman just do what he should have, which is call the cops and observe Mr. Martun at a safe distance in the mean time? I don't think he confronted that kid out of racist motivation, HE DID IT BECAUSE HE THOUGHT HE WAS A COP. Why does no one seem to consider that?

Umm...because it doesn't matter?

The law doesn't have a "he thought he was a cop clause" in it.

/thread.

One of the quickest jeff threads ever. Good job, folks (SP.)

I guess that means he didn't have a right to defend himselfI guess that means it's okay for somebody who was addicted to lean to Bash his head of the concrete. what zimmermen did was stupid & irresponsible by following Martin but it wasn't illegal this has nothing to do with stand your ground this has to do with the right to defend yourself. I guess you're the type to trust the police to always be there when you need them at the right time. another blood sucking liberal who thinks everything in the world is theirs for free

Actually, it did come up at trial and in the news. It was covered pretty in-depth.

The fact that the dude was a vigilante didn't escape anyone's notice. That he went looking for trouble also didn't escape anyone's notice. Members of the jury have stated they were very torn on this, because he was clearly looking for a confrontation and found one, but that there wasn't enough proof to show that he attacked Martin without Martin having done something that endangered Zimmerman first.

That's the standard for murder - that someone kills someone who is not a threat to one's one well-being.

Zimmerman was looking for trouble. Martin was also looking for trouble based on his reactions to Zimmerman. That's not murder. That's epic stupidity and "accelerated Darwinism," but it's not murder.

Quote:

Originally posted by robert98597

I guess that means he didn't have a right to defend himselfI guess that means it's okay for somebody who was addicted to lean to Bash his head of the concrete. what zimmermen did was stupid & irresponsible by following Martin but it wasn't illegal this has nothing to do with stand your ground this has to do with the right to defend yourself. I guess you're the type to trust the police to always be there when you need them at the right time. another blood sucking liberal who thinks everything in the world is theirs for free

Zimmerman wanted trouble. Zimmerman ignored direct instructions from his training as a member of the neighborhood watch to stay far away from suspicious people and let the police handle it. He also ignored training from his watch captain class that also instructed him to stay away from suspicious people and let the police handle it. He also ignored instructions from the police dispatcher on the phone to stay away from the suspicious person and let the police handle it.

He wasn't guilty of murder, but he probably will be found guilty of wrongful death in a civil suit, and rightly so.

Everyone has a right to defend themselves. No one has a right to go looking for a fight the way he did. He went very much out of his way - like put extraordinary effort - into finding and creating a circumstance under which he got a chance to use his weapon.

That's not self-defense. It's not "murder" per say, but it's also not some innocent guy just defending his family from a hostile intruder.

Anyone that claims Zimmerman was a perfectly innocent bystander who did absolutely nothing wrong is either an idiot, a liar, or both.

The childish and ignorant name calling present in your post tells me that any attempt to reason with you is lost, but I thought I'd give it a go anyway.

Regardless, the jury's decision tacitly approves of 'vigiantyism' in our society, a more troubling issue than any suggestion of racism in the incident.

Quote:

Originally posted by Otto69

Regardless, the jury's decision tacitly approves of 'vigiantyism' in our society, a more troubling issue than any suggestion of racism in the incident.

The jury decision does not support vigilantism, and the only reason the trial got any coverage at all is because racism was brought into it. There have been many cases of vigilantism over the years, most cases are taken to trial and closed without so much as a peep except for those involving high profile individuals or suspected racism. Vigilantism is not as damaging to society as this continuous breeding and bolstering of racism. Especially given the fact that it is only considered racism when there are whites being degrading or violent towards blacks and to a lesser extent other groups, but when blacks are violent or degrading towards whites it is either ignored or passed off as a result of racism against the blacks to begin with. Society, especially American society, has made it acceptable to allow blacks to be treated differently because of some perceived difference that was wrong when it started 400 years ago.

Threads like this are useful because I like when the racists make themselves easy to identify.

I also love the "OH MAN THE WHITE MAN IS BEING REPRESSED!" narrative. Always good for a chuckle.

Quote:

Originally posted by nemisis02

...
The jury decision does not support vigilantism, and the only reason the trial got any coverage at all is because racism was brought into it. There have been many cases of vigilantism over the years, most cases are taken to trial and closed without so much as a peep except for those involving high profile individuals or suspected racism. Vigilantism is not as damaging to society as this continuous breeding and bolstering of racism. Especially given the fact that it is only considered racism when there are whites being degrading or violent towards blacks and to a lesser extent other groups, but when blacks are violent or degrading towards whites it is either ignored or passed off as a result of racism against the blacks to begin with. Society, especially American society, has made it acceptable to allow blacks to be treated differently because of some perceived difference that was wrong when it started 400 years ago.

The only reason the trial got any coverage is because it was in the middle of the summer when news is considerably lighter and networks like CNN are dying for something to talk about.