You're basically saying there are no such things as idiots with guns.

And I don't know what you're talking about for the rest of the post.

Very true, I think it was due to the fact that he was either drunk or high, but I don't think Trayvon should have been shot.

What? You don't think they checked for that on day one? He wasn't intoxicated by anything.

I'm thoroughly confused as to what this thread is arguing anymore. Is it whether the shooting was race-motivated, or is it whether Zimmerman is right in shooting Trayvon, or what? I swear people have been arguing like 5 different things all in the same thread. Mention of the SYG law, transitioned into media bias, then followed up by questioning the mental soundness of Zimmerman makes this topic seem like it has no established goal in mind.


That being said, let's contribute a little bit more into this mess shall we?

If it's about whether the shooting was race-motivated, to some degree, probably yes. Whether it was malicious race-motivation is another question. To that one, I'd say no. Zimmerman was putting two and two together, several burglaries with young black males as suspects, and an unknown young black male, which raised suspicion.

Was Zimmerman right in shooting Trayvon? My answer to that will always be no. If you followed him, therefore exposing yourself to your own perceived threat willingly, you have no right to defend yourself with lethal force. This also touches a bit of face on my beliefs with the SYG law, but I'll touch on that later. To keep it simple, Zimmerman went looking for danger, then shot it when he supposedly found it. That, in my eyes, is never right.

The SYG law should probably be repealed or revised. Why? Because it's such a broad law that has so few guidelines to it that it's more dangerous than useful. It's a solution looking for the problem. The law states that it's not lethal force is authorized in response to a threat, it's lethal force is authorized in responce to perception of a threat. No threat to the "victim" has to occur for this law to cover it. If I feel threatened by the person walking down the street towards me, according to the law's rhetoric, I'm in the right if I shoot him. He could be completely harmless in all ways, but if I perceive him as a threat, shooting him is justifiable with the SYG law. That's why it needs to be either repealed, or revised, before an event happens that sparks public outcry over the law. It may have already happened because of this case.

Media bias is always prevalent because a boring story doesn't sell, and a story that doesn't sell doesn't make profit. Skewing a story to make it sound more racy or interesting is extremely common in today's media. Unfortunately, that prevents Zimmerman from having a fair trial, as it will be pretty much impossible to find a jury that has no bias against Zimmerman because of the media's portrayal of him as a racist.

I have no information over the mental soundness of Zimmerman. Based on my opinion, and of his actions, I severally doubt he is mentally sound, but I await official information on that.


But ye, can there please be a defined argument over this... it takes too much effort to separate all the different arguments.

There are about 3 different discussion breaking off from the topic. This often happens when people don't read the comments and only read the topic statement.

I can agree with you as I have the same views as you.

(I'm Acesonnall btw)

I disagree with one main point Oracle, and that is

Firstly, just so everybody is clear, the Stand Your Ground law is not related to this case, rather something somebody (or the media) threw in somewhere to try and get people against gun laws (like always). Stand Your Ground applies to one main factor, and that is that you Stand Your Ground, which Zimmerman did not do. That being said, it's worth noting that if Zimmerman can prove, through a witness, that he was in fear of his life then he will walk free, guaranteed. (He'll still be a marked man, but that's unrelated). Stand Your Ground applies almost exclusively to home-defense. Zimmerman has every damn right to walk around his neighborhood to keep tabs on a suspicious juvenile AND protect himself if he is attacked. He did not know Martin, and had no way of knowing he was just visiting his step-dad (as I have read other places). You can't blame the driver of a car if he's T-boned while driving through an intersection with a green light, even if he only made the assumption that the other car was going to stop. That the other car was going to be harmless. Here's how I think it happened, as posted somewhere else,


Now, regarding how this case turns out, it's going to be entirely dependent on the evidence both sides submits, especially witnesses. If Martin struck first, and they can not disprove that his life was in danger, Zimmerman is a free man.

There is nothing wrong with Stand Your Ground.

I do think it's a race thing... There's a lot of racist people out there. Still stuff like this shouldn't happen.

woah.....
Deadmau5's real name is
Joel Thomas Zimmerman

Regardless of evidence, if Trayvon stops hitting Zimmerman and basically surrenders by calling for help, shooting him was entirely unnecessary. Self-defense =/= a right to murder. Self-defense is the nullification of the threat, through lethal or non-lethal means. When the threat surrenders or is fleeing, it is no longer a threat. Shooting at it at this point, is no longer self-defense.

However, that's not how most Americans perceive self-defense. That's why I have a problem with SYG. Most Americans, from what I've gathered through personal surveys, so geographical bias might exist, believe shooting a robber after he's taken your money and is running away is ethically right. That's not self-defense according to my definition, that's closer to retribution. SYG protects such retribution, because the average jury will sympathize with a person who claims self-defense in such a case, based of said survey.

In addition, the law is basically legalizing vigilantism. Vigilantes take the law into their hands by issuing judgement and punishment themselves. By giving individuals the explicit right to shoot somebody in self-defense, this is basically making the individual a vigilante. If they perceive a threat, they have now issued judgement on them being guilty of the crime of "being a threat." According to this law, they are in the right to punish such a crime with death. In my mind, if you've already drawn the gun, the average criminal does not want to die. Calling out to the person to surrender will more than likely succeed. Shooting him is not necessary unless the threat is showing no signs of surrender. And even then, shooting him in the leg or the arm should be enough to incapacitate the perpetrator. Killing is completely unnecessary except in the most extreme situations. And in those cases, a self-defense law doesn't need to protect the victim. Checks and balances on the judicial system protect people from being prosecuted for self-defense.

The only thing this law does is actively show support for individuals to go out and shoot criminals. There's nothing in it that isn't already covered by rules within the judicial system.

Spartan, he used that law to justify what he did in the first place. That's why nothing was done in the beginning of the case. (I live in Florida, it was talked about briefly as local news, but it was past up because it just seem as if the guy was standing his ground, which we found out later, he didn't)

The man also has a history of lying in this case as well which decreases his credibility.
He even went as far as to create a website asking for support and "donations". Donations for what? He's not the one who lost a family member.