I'm just going to leave this here...

http://youtu.be/shODnGQJ6FU

Doesn't make any difference to my main point. There's a huge difference mentally between a 17 year old and a 28 year old. A 28 year old man should know better than to do what he did, and he most likely would have done things differently if he didn't have a gun. The gun in his hand empowered him to be fluffy and provoke a confrontation.

fine. if you see someone following us with a gun in his hand, you confront him about it while i run for the hills.

So Treyvon didn't attack Zimmerman? I'm asking this because your statement, while full of reason and strong evidence, it's not in ALL CAPS so I'm not sure whether it is true or misleading.

You're right, sounds like something a dumb 17 year old would do, and a 28 year old man would likely try to avoid.

blame it on the US education system then. wouldn't have been walking around that stupid if they actually taught him something during the 10-11 years that they had him in their clutches. one more year and he could've joined the military without his parents permission. think you might be wrong about most 17 year olds being dumb stupid kids.

Or we listened to the trial and recognize that this is one of the few areas where the defense established facts to at least a preponderance of the evidence that Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman. Or we refuse to follow a preordained theory of what happened based upon the race of the people involved in the incident.

You know what's racism? Racism is deciding that because Trayvon Martin was black, this must be racism. Racism is continuing to blow anything that could even remotely be used into a racism issue.

If the African American community that's struggling wants begin lifting themselves up, then they need to take responsibility for themselves, for their children, and for their future. The Civil Rights movement has succeeded to a point that the future fights can only be fought as they're found. The future Civil Rights movements will be against barriers that are found as people begin to take personal responsibility. If you want to control your personal destiny, then take responsibility for your choices and your situation. Choose to be a victim and you will be a victim of yourself. Right now the best return on effort can be had at a very personal level and with a community committed to personalize its fight to raise itself to greater heights.

wasn't the gun concealed too, tella?

i have only been casually following the trial because the US depresses me, but it's pretty clear that Zimmerman was responsible for creating the situation that ended up with Trayvon being killed, despite being told not to engage in such activity by authorities.

Florida's laws are messed up such that it's OK to "stand ones ground" in a confrontation that person created for no reason, but if someone is innocently walking home from the store there is no expectation of a peaceful, unfettered walk where you aren't harassed by vigilantes? gtfo...

Angel1: your post goes too far and sounds racist :p

tbh I don't think it's a race thing, I think it's more of a thrill kill thing if anything. trayvon just happened to be black.

Blame the education system for a 17 year old getting aggressive after being followed by an unknown person in an otherwise familiar neighborhood, and then trying to stand up for himself?

The jury decided it correctly based on the law, but the law itself and the way in which Zimmerman provoked the conflict are incredibly stupid and wrong.

I agree with Pang.

the reason that town watches are formed is because that peaceful, unfettered walk doesn't exist anymore. what's the difference between vigilantes doing it, or armed 17 year old kids doing it?

Thank you, tella and Pang. It boggles the mind that so many people are incapable of recognizing the root cause of this whole event - which is the fact that Zimmerman never should have gotten out of his car. If he had listened to the dispatcher and not followed Trayvon any further once told that the police were on their way, we wouldn't be having this debate. He was wrong, and he should have paid a price for it. Regardless of what happened after - yes, I believe Trayvon laid hands on him, but I believe he did it because *HE* felt threatened by a 28-year-old man who had been stalking him in a vehicle. Doesn't matter. He would not have been able to attack Zimmerman if the guy had simply STAYED IN HIS DAMNED CAR and waited for police.

I believe he got out of the car because he was packing a gun, and it gave him the balls to confront Trayvon. I don't believe he would have ever gotten out of the car if he hadn't had the gun - and Trayvon Martin would still be alive.

It ain't rocket science.

What I find particularly insulting is that Zimmerman is stating that, if he found himself in an identical situation tomorrow, he wouldn't do anything differently. That's the great tragedy here, is that he didn't learn anything after taking a life. And I hope there's a special place in hell for him where he'll finally pay for the mistakes he made.

I can't be assed to read through my own thread, but has anyone mentioned this:

http://www.cnn.com/...ice/florida-teen-shooting

'(CNN) -- George Zimmerman gave a scathing review of the Sanford Police Department and accused its chief of engaging in a cover-up during a public meeting in January 2011.

Zimmerman's anger stemmed from the case of Sherman Ware, a black homeless man who was beaten by the son of a white police lieutenant.'

Pretty odd thing for someone who some think is a racist to do...

so many "stand your ground" comments when that portion of the pretrial was waved by the defense because they knew they couldn't succeed on that point.

Patience, so basically you're saying that you can't try to protect yourself or call for help unless your aggressor kills you first, right?

wasn't it waived so it could be used as a line of appeal if he was found guilty? I was under the impression it was a legal maneuver.

I caught a panel discussion on the CBC where they were talking about that aspect of the trial while deliberations were going. Someone claimed his legal team could have invoked it pre-trail or post-trial and it creates a special hearing or something to determine whether the stand your ground rule applies. It can only be done once, though, and based on the evidence they didn't feel they needed to invoke it.

or is that aspect something different?

Seems like it's pretty much speculation as to if it will be used in the future, but 776.032 pretty much says any civil suit will just let zimmerman's lawyers get bank.

Also of note, 776.041 appears to state that even if zimmerman was the aggressor he was still in the right with how the fight supposedly played out.

If you want to read the relevant statutes: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/...=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

still say they both fluffed up, but no actual crimes were committed by zimmerman from the evidence presented to the court.

wonder if Canadians can even look at the problem the same way as US citizens. you have 33 million people. Florida alone has 19 million. probably have to take 60% of everybody in Canada and squeeze them into a land area about the same size of Florida. leave some guns laying around and aee if they start shooting each other.

Such a tragedy all the way around.

Also why is this one tragedy such a hot topic? People get shot every day and you never hear their names...

Our media are instigators instead of reporters. They are calling him a "White Hispanic" wtf. I'm going to start referring to Obama as a "White African American"

elves: my point was that it wasn't used because they wanted to use it as an appeal if he lost the trial. he didn't lose... so it's moot :p it was their backup.

also I like when dibs shows his ignorance of Canada and acts like it's an argument for his points.... lol

Wikipedia got the population wrong? or your cities have higher population densities? wait, my ignorance of Canada comes from talking to Canadians on this forum.

See, that's the problem - you and I seem to have a VERY different view on who the aggressor was in this situation. I say it was Zimmerman, who was clearly stalking the victim (Trayvon) and who got out of his car and approached him. Aggressive.

I fail to see how you view Trayvon as the aggressor, when he was clearly defending himself against a KNOWN threat. He was no threat to Zimmerman until ZIMMERMAN made the aggressive move of getting out of his car.

That's the problem. I don't think anyone would argue that George Zimmerman acted the best way. It's pretty clear that he basically stalked after Trayvon. It's quite possible he said something to Trayvon that could be accusatory or threatening. He also pursued Martin against the command of the dispatcher. None of this is illegal though (at least in this particular context).

The thing that makes the big difference is whether Martin actually started the physical altercation or Zimmerman did.

The only person who can answer that question is Zimmerman, and he chose to not take the stand. Because of this, the prosecutor couldn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

I say all this believing both that Zimmerman probably actually IS guilty of murder, but also that the verdict, given the evidence, was the correct one.

if i remember correctly and nothing has changed, under NJ law, I'm supposed to flee from my home instead of confronting an intruder. glad that nobody breaks in. I'd have to sweep them under the carpet and say "What intruder?"

Dibs doesn't that give the burden on the victim of a crime? That don't seem right...

from what i remember, I'm only allowed to kill if i can't flee. dunno, it would probably have to go in front of a grand jury anyway. and they'd decide if i was going to be prosecuted.

So now the victim of a crime has to prove they couldn't flee before defending themselves?

What kind of liberal crack you smokn' up there in NJ.

it's probably so that they can reform the poor misunderstood miscreant. btw, i don't think i like the term victim. if you're a reporter interviewing me because i was the target of a crime, please don't use the word victim. pop ya in the nose and say "who's the victim now, beotch?"

Easy there big guy, go drink some more liberal juice.

yah, well, i think it's gotta be one of the stupidest things that you can say to someone. reinforced over and over by multiple people. well, if you weren't a victim before, you certainly are one now.

This florida woman just got 20 years for a warning shot at her supposedly abusive husband!

http://www.cbsnews.com/...for-firing-warning-shots/

A KNOWN threat? How was Zimmerman even a threat, let alone a "KNOWN" one. Actually you're making a strong case in Zimmerman's defense if you think that trying to kill a perceived threat is the normal and generally accepted course of events. Whereas Zimmerman was literally fighting for his life. There was no room for interpretations, Treyvon was smashing his head on concrete.

http://www.upworthy.com/...one-of-those-times?c=ufb1

Game. Set. Match.

That news about the woman getting 20 years is fluffing depressing...

not sure why it wants me to download the video instead of just streaming it like normal... i will stick with my paranoia and assume that it's trying to possess my phone. should probably find some holy water to soak it in.

That's funny cause its an interpretation.

You're right, my bad. Zimmerman was trying to damage public property with his head while Treyvon was probably trying to stop him. My mistake.

It is all based on speculation. That is how gz was found not guilty. your interpretation is is good as anybody else here. Zims head would have damaged private property not public, as they were in a gated community. The only facts in the case are gz killed tm , tm was armed with his fists.. A hood rat was talking to him on the phone at the time and the entire black community, president on down, relates this all to racism.

Heh, all this for so.ething that happens on the regular..pretty sad that black activists an leaders are making a mockery out of themselves here.

Facts are facts, heard it from countless witnesses that they saw tm on gz, i would have shot him too. Gz was doing his civil duty in his neighborhood, if that man really wasnt up to anygood he would he just kept on going.

Also he isnt a kid. 17 years old and you can be tried as an adult an be put in an adult prison..

It's not his civil duty to pursue people he considers suspects in his own untrained non law enforcement mind across private property. What a ridiculous statement.

Sure he is, neighborhood watch. Protecting his neughborhood, more ppl like him less crime would occur.

The criminal system is flooded with low levek offenders, i.e. ppl stealing from houses and cars. More vigilante ppl like him, less ppl who would steal from you and i

I'll be calling this thread "The Never Ending Story". people keep making stuff up and it keeps going on and on and on... probably why it stays in the news to begin with. not enough facts.

No he's really not. His own neighborhood watch training said to do the exact opposite of what he did. Moreover his HOA did not sponsor the neighborhood watch. It was spawned from his own private get together. There's no neighborhood watch anywhere that wants the watchmen to go onto people's private property.

Only ppl making stuff up are the ones who didnt watch it or read up on it. And we can tell whothose few are.

I watched the trial from start to end, the man did nothing wrong. Tm didnt have to pursue a fight. He could have kept walking but didnt. Only because the person who died is black is this even a topic for news o this board. Pretty sad actually.

The media fed the hype for ratings.

Been a while since I've read this thread, but I have to contradict you here, Pang. Nothing I said was in any way racist. Far too many people have risen up from the depths of poverty for anyone to tell me that it can't be done. Condoleezza Rice did not make excuses for herself and she face double prejudice in her rise, so excuse me if I'm tired of hearing excuses. What has the civil rights industry gained in the last twenty years? Not much! The out of wedlock birthrate is a fact and it's over 60% for African Americans. Economically, it is rare for a mother to be capable of supporting a child in a good economic life on her own. When a teenager becomes a single mom, it makes life more financially difficult at every step along the way. That's not racism, that's fact.

We can look at the statistics for a particular community to decide how we're going to attempt to improve their lot, but there is nothing we can do if individuals are not prepared to step up. We look at out of wedlock births because we know that children born out of wedlock (any race) are more likely to face poverty in their lives. We know that children born out of wedlock are more likely to lack the influence of one parent. We know that children are more likely to have discipline problems if they have the influence of only one parent. It follows from poor discipline to a poor education and from there to poor job prospects and from there (in some cases) to a life of crime. We know how this works for far too many people. Racism is refusing to deal with these facts. This progression applies to everyone and the statistics show that this is a very big problem for the African-American community. You can choose to ignore that fact, but it's not going away. You can choose to label that fact racist, but it's not going away. Or we can confront that fact and lead future generations to better lives. I find it highly racist that we write off any community. That's what people who refuse to confront these facts are doing; they are writing off an entire community from better lives and better futures.

People that want to control their own destinies must take responsibility for their own situations.

Now, I don't appreciate being called a racist because I don't toe the political correctness line. When political correctness stops us from making progress, then I daresay political correctness has become politically incorrect.

hehe. we're sorry, but a moderator of this forum has determined that you are a racist. you will henceforth be marked as a stated racist and waive all your rights to refute the labeling that said moderator has used against you. or you could sue them for libel, but the evidence probably went poof.

That's the fun thing about throwing around the racist title, if you try and deny it "you are a racist".

I am glad to be a racist I guess. I see race. The president is black, I am white, Pang is also a cracka, and Zimmerman is brown somehow.

Time to stop all this African-American crap.. If they didn't travel from Africa to America in their own lifetime.. They are black.

I am not a European-American. I am a white American.

the president ain't black. and probably doesn't have a clue about how black people live in the US. probably has to use an ebonics translator just to understand what they say. i might know more about being black than he does. even though I'm still trying to figure out if that person asked me for a dime or the time. didn't matter, i didn't have either for him.

I do want to point to this video that I saw about Trayvon Martin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebu6Yvzs4Ls

Bonus!

BTW this comment is smarter than anyone who has anything to say about this soap opera.

Also why do people keep talking about some kid being black. This is a trial about fat people. The court ruled that fat people are a protected class of people who due to their pathetic bodies, are allowed to shoot athletic people. Being black white yellow green red or blue doesn't impact this.

And look I figured this out in 40 seconds of NPR and 25 seconds of eye rolling when Obama said some stupid thing about how he was this kid.