Zimmermann at it again

donvito99

MadsL wrote: »

I'm familiar with it. Now leaving aside the gun legislation. Are are saying it is illegal in Ireland to defend yourself if attacked when walking in the same direction as someone in a public place?

I say again...

Are you saying it is legal to patrol an Irish street with a firearm?

Only in the popular mythology. Some Irish police are unarmed.

Let me be more specific so. Routine, uniformed members are unarmed.

There are no detectives or ERU men patrolling my road.

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

Case closed so.

Erm, yeah, well I did say legality aside twice.

Racial side doesn't interest me really. More that you can be an instigating factor in manufacturing a situation where you can legally kill someone. Where would the line be drawn I wonder?

MadsL

Ush1 wrote: »

Erm, yeah, well I did say legality aside twice.

Racial side doesn't interest me really. More that you can be an instigating factor in manufacturing a situation where you can legally kill someone. Where would the line be drawn I wonder?

You could paint Zimmerman as seeking a confrontation, equally you could say he was putting his life on the line to protect his neighbours, given that houses had been broken into and a home invasion had taken place. Sanford is not a good area.

Really depends what you are trying to prove...

MadsL

donvito99 wrote: »

I say again...

Are you saying it is legal to patrol an Irish street with a firearm?

Clearly not, where have I said that?

Leaving aside the gun legislation.

Is it legal in Ireland for a neighbourhood organiser to keep an eye on his neighbourhood, call the Gardai, then find the suspect character has disappeared down an alley, to go take a look where he has gone, then when attacked, to defend himself, even if that means the attacker susequently dies.

Is that legal or illegal in Ireland? No gun involved.

Let me be more specific so. Routine, uniformed members are unarmed.

There are no detectives or ERU men patrolling my road.

Patrolling, no? Existing, yes.

Crackle

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Zimmerman is brown bro.

Well to be fair the media did their best to portray him as a white man, or white-hispanic, throughout the trial.

I'd like to throw out a hypothetical situation for people labelling Zimmerman as a scumbag or scummer.

Let's just say everything plays out the same as it did up to the point where Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman punching him and banging his head off the ground, only this time Zimmerman either doesn't have a gun or doesn't get a chance to pull out his gun. In this hypothetical scenario Martin kills Zimmerman or even severely injures him. Would you feel the same way about him as you do now if that had happened? Do you think you would have even heard about this case if that had happened?

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

You could paint Zimmerman as seeking a confrontation, equally you could say he was putting his life on the line to protect his neighbours, given that houses had been broken into and a home invasion had taken place. Sanford is not a good area.

Really depends what you are trying to prove...

The two things you've said aren't mutually exclusive.

So either way the first one is true. So you see the point that he was an instigating factor of the situation that happened?

valknut

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2ULVECUrzc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

MadsL

Ush1 wrote: »

The two things you've said aren't mutually exclusive.

So either way the first one is true. So you see the point that he was an instigating factor of the situation that happened?

Instigating? Or victim of circumstance?

Two sides of the same coin, I don't think this gets us anywhere unless we abandon the idea of neighbourhood watch.

If GZ was a private security guard hired by the homeowners, would you consider that he instigated the incident?

MadsL

valknut wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2ULVECUrzc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I am so f.cking tired of hearing about this as a race issue.

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

Instigating? Or victim of circumstance?

Two sides of the same coin, I don't think this gets us anywhere unless we abandon the idea of neighbourhood watch.

If GZ was a private security guard hired by the homeowners, would you consider that he instigated the incident?

Most certainly instigating and yes to your question, absolutely.

Would TM have been okay to attack him if GZ had a hocket mask and a hatchet?

When security/bouncers/police want to diffuse a situation or possible situation, they tell people to go home. They don't suggest following an antagonist.

Do you think GZ is a hero? Do you think his neighbours all do?

donvito99

MadsL wrote: »

Clearly not, where have I said that?

I DIRECTLY asked you twice.

From the outset, I maintained

this type of behaviour - ILLEGAL in this State

i.e.

Are you saying it is legal to patrol an Irish street with a firearm?

You equated Florida

You are saying it is illegal in Ireland to defend yourself if attacked when walking in the same direction as someone in a public place?

With Ireland. Then you asked me,

Now leaving aside the gun legislation. Are are saying it is illegal in Ireland to defend yourself if attacked when walking in the same direction as someone in a public place?

...when, again, I had earlier stipulated patrolling streets with a gun. How you imagined that I thought it was illegal to defend oneself in this - admittedly nanny- state is laughable.

Is that legal or illegal in Ireland? No gun involved.

See above:pac:

MadsL

Ush1 wrote: »

Most certainly instigating and yes to your question, absolutely.

Would TM have been okay to attack him if GZ had a hocket mask and a hatchet?

When security/bouncers/police want to diffuse a situation or possible situation, they tell people to go home. They don't suggest following an antagonist.

Do you think GZ is a hero? Do you think his neighbours all do?

Bouncers have the advantage of a static spot/door to protect.

Here's a viewpoint of two from his neighbourhood, not exactly negative

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2013/06/18/george-zimmerman-trial-frank-taaffe-walk-through

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00iM7-w0EL8

TheChizler

I find it interesting that paradoxically, they could have both been acting in self defense (not sure of the legal definition). TM notices somebody following him and possibly gaining on him, gets spooked, and possibly thinks he's about to be attacked, and possibly decides to preemptively surprise attack Zimmerman and run to safely once he's been temporarily incapacitated. He could have noticed the gun once it was too late and feared for his life, thus the magnitude of the violence.

Does someone have to attack you before you can act in self defense? From TM's point of view, and if the outcome had been different, his attack would have been entirely justified.

MadsL

donvito99 wrote: »

How you imagined that I thought it was illegal to defend oneself in this - admittedly nanny- state is laughable.

So it is not illegal to defend yourself in Ireland on the street.

Is it illegal to defend yourself with a legally held gun in Ireland. Say, your car is hijacked and you shoot someone.

Finally, if two men attack you in your home with an illegally held firearm, can you still defend yourself with it if you are in fear of your life.

Finally, was GZ's gun illegally used in any way during the encounter?

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

Bouncers have the advantage of a static spot/door to protect.

Here's a viewpoint of two from his neighbourhood, not exactly negative

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2013/06/18/george-zimmerman-trial-frank-taaffe-walk-through

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00iM7-w0EL8

Not the point about bouncers, it's about initiating a confrontation.

There not exactly saying he's a hero and I'm talking from the facts of this case, would he be considered a hero? I'd argue he wouldn't, and the concept of neighbourhood watch such not change that.

Had he not pursued him, TM most likely would be still alive and GZ wouldn't be so hated.

Maybe he set out to kill him and maybe he didn't, again, just seems a problem with the law that you can manipulate a situation to legally kill someone.

If TM killed GZ, would he have got off as his life was threatened at a certain point of the fight? In a fight, either person can be killed.

MadsL

Ush1 wrote: »

Not the point about bouncers, it's about initiating a confrontation.

How did he initiate it?

There not exactly saying he's a hero and I'm talking from the facts of this case, would he be considered a hero? I'd argue he wouldn't, and the concept of neighbourhood watch such not change that.

Would he be considered a hero if he was a cop?

You'll have to ask his neighbours their view I can't speak for them.

Had he not pursued him, TM most likely would be still alive and GZ wouldn't be so hated.

Pure speculation. TM could have come back to confront him. Again speculation.

Maybe he set out to kill him and maybe he didn't, again, just seems a problem with the law that you can manipulate a situation to legally kill someone.

You'd be an idiot to deliberately kill someone and then use self-defence as your out.

If TM killed GZ, would he have got off as his life was threatened at a certain point of the fight? In a fight, either person can be killed.

He would have to argue that in court. And presented evidence. GZ did argue it and presented evidence. The jury acquitted.

I'm not holding up this incident as a golden moment in the history of the US, but I do maintain GZ acted lawfully.

Ush1

Again, I'm pointing out potential issues with the law.

He initiated by following someone he was suspicious of with a loaded gun and lets not be silly or disengenious shall we? TM didn't attack for simply no reason, he attacked him(unlawfully) because he was being followed(an instigating action by GZ).

MadsL

Ush1 wrote: »

Again, I'm pointing out potential issues with the law.

He initiated by following someone he was suspicious of with a loaded gun and lets not be silly or disengenious shall we? TM didn't attack for simply no reason, he attacked him(unlawfully) because he was being followed(an instigating action by GZ).

I have no idea if TM attacked GZ because he was being followed - given that his father's girlfriend's house was nearby would it not have made more sense to, call 911, or do anything other than hide and attack GZ? That strikes me as the instigating violent behaviour. Following someone isn't an act of violence.

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

I have no idea if TM attacked GZ because he was being followed - given that his father's girlfriend's house was nearby would it not have made more sense to, call 911, or do anything other than hide and attack GZ? That strikes me as the instigating violent behaviour. Following someone isn't an act of violence.

Using common sense, why do you think he attacked him? It ain't CSI stuff from the recorded call.

Following someone isn't violent no but it can precipitate a confrontation. Using common sense, not the law, you can see how a confrontation was brewing nicely no?

donvito99

MadsL wrote: »

So it is not illegal to defend yourself in Ireland on the street.

Well now you're putting words in my mouth. Poor show. You're still amiss of my point I see.

Is it illegal to defend yourself with a legally held gun in Ireland.

No.

Say, your car is hijacked and you shoot someone.

That would seem to be disproportionate and illegal. Point me to a law contrary to this.

Finally, if two men attack you in your home with an illegally held firearm, can you still defend yourself with it if you are in fear of your life.

Wait, you or the intruders? Let's take you, under the Act of 2011, I see no provision for this being illegal. Hypothetically, let's say you were brought to trial, you would be cleared of manslaughter, say, but then I see no reason why you would not then be charged with the illegal possession of a firearm.

Finally, was GZ's gun illegally used in any way during the encounter?

No. But , Mad, this was not/never a point of contention with me.

Once again,

donvito99 wrote:

I have been challenging the permissibility of this type of behaviour ...in certain parts of the United States, while also noting this man's unflappability so soon after a divisive trial.

MadsL

Ush1 wrote: »

Using common sense, why do you think he attacked him? It ain't CSI stuff from the recorded call.

Following someone isn't violent no but it can precipitate a confrontation. Using common sense, not the law, you can see how a confrontation was brewing nicely no?

I have been in a very frightening situation where I was basically hijacked. Long story but an outraged person and his son blocked my car and then tried to confront me and drag me from my car. We both had phones and both called the Gardai. Eventually I negotiated that we pull off the road and into a garage to wait for the Gardai - I figured the garage had CCTV.

Now had I attacked that person physically, who had initiated the confrontation, where would I be legally? - and wouldn't they have been in the position to claim self-defence.

Approaching someone is not illegal. A violent response to the approach is illegal.

Dondilinger

I'd say they want more publicity and are just trying to get the worlds attention once more and it was Fox News so lol

MadsL

donvito99 wrote: »

Well now you're putting words in my mouth. Poor show. You're still amiss of my point I see.

Maybe I am simply missing your point. In all the examples I gave there is a case for self-defence, if the hijackers are armed is not disproportionate, also if I can reasonably show I was in fear of my life - it is not disproportionate.

All of these show how actions similar to GZ's actions could muster a self-defence claim in Ireland.

Now as to the permissibility - argue all you want to change the law, but don't call a man a scumbag for acting within the law.

And the unflappability; I guess we should be arresting GZ for not being ashamed of acting legally.

MadsL

Dondilinger wrote: »

I'd say they want more publicity and are just trying to get the worlds attention once more and it was Fox News so lol

Who is 'they'?

donvito99

MadsL wrote: »

Maybe I am simply missing your point.

Yes. Yes you have.

In all the examples I gave there is a case for self-defence, if the hijackers are armed is not disproportionate, also if I can reasonably show I was in fear of my life - it is not disproportionate.

I don't think that's the case, why did we have all the hullaballoo over self-defense within the dwelling then, never mind in a public place?

All of these show how actions similar to GZ's actions could muster a self-defence claim in Ireland.

Yes, of course. Excepting the fact Zimmerman had a gun. I don't need to explain to you the discrepancy, again, between the actions of Zimmerman in Florida and the actions of O'Zimmerman in Ireland.

Now as to the permissibility - argue all you want to change the law, but don't call a man a scumbag for acting within the law.

I labelled him as a scummer for his actions after this act.

And the unflappability; I guess we should be arresting GZ for not being ashamed of acting legally.

No. We call him a scumbag instead.

Dondilinger

MadsL wrote: »

Who is 'they'?

Zimmermans' family, I might be wrong but there is no such thing as bad publicity

donvito99

Dondilinger wrote: »

Zimmermans' family, I might be wrong but there is no such thing as bad publicity

There'll be a book deal, surely. This man isn't afraid of bad publicity.

MadsL

donvito99 wrote: »

Yes. Yes you have.

Clearly.

I don't think that's the case, why did we have all the hullaballoo over self-defense within the dwelling then, never mind in a public place?

But, self-defence has always been on statute, the new law didn't invent it just clarified it. In the same way my home State has no Castle Doctrine law explicitly in State law; largely because it is a Territory state and that's just basic frontier law which everyone knows.

Yes, of course. Excepting the fact Zimmerman had a gun. I don't need to explain to you the discrepancy, again, between the actions of Zimmerman in Florida and the actions of O'Zimmerman in Ireland.

The tool used to kill TM is the only discrepancy. Had O'Zimmerman picked up a rock and killed O'Martin the defence would be the same.

I labelled him as a scummer for his actions after this act.

Which actions? And why?

No. We call him a scumbag instead.

Lovely. What do you think he should be doing and why?

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

I have been in a very frightening situation where I was basically hijacked. Long story but an outraged person and his son blocked my car and then tried to confront me and drag me from my car. We both had phones and both called the Gardai. Eventually I negotiated that we pull off the road and into a garage to wait for the Gardai - I figured the garage had CCTV.

Now had I attacked that person physically, who had initiated the confrontation, where would I be legally? - and wouldn't they have been in the position to claim self-defence.

Approaching someone is not illegal. A violent response to the approach is illegal.

The situation is not apt simile though. GZ followed him with a gun.

At the end of the day it's not as cut and dry as heroes and villans. Both acted in the wrong and both could have stopped the situation leading to a death in the street.

Reasonable fear of your life is a slippery notion.

end of the road

MadsL wrote: »

He was told by a dispatcher (not the police) that "we don't need you to do that" - no instruction, and not legally binding in any way. The dispatcher cannot see the situation.

look, if a dispatcher says to somebody "we don't need you to do that" you don't do it, they know what their talking about, they know best, they know how everything works unlike a trashy piece of racist vermin like zimmerman

MadsL wrote: »

No. He hid, then attacked GZ.

maybe gz had previous with him, maybe gz followed him or members of his family before and martin just had enough of this trashy piece of racist vermin

MadsL wrote: »

Then, unfortunately, GZ defended himself.

no, he murdered him because of the colour of his skin

MadsL

Ush1 wrote: »

The situation is not apt simile though. GZ followed him with a gun.

It was a very large SUV - very capable of doing me harm.

At the end of the day it's not as cut and dry as heroes and villans. Both acted in the wrong and both could have stopped the situation leading to a death in the street.

Reasonable fear of your life is a slippery notion.

Yes, which is why it was right he stood trial. You don't just necessarily walk away from killing someone.

MadsL

end of the road wrote: »

look, if a dispatcher says to somebody "we don't need you to do that" you don't do it, they know what their talking about, they know best, they know how everything works unlike a trashy piece of racist vermin like zimmerman

A dispatcher cannot see the situation. A dispatcher does not know the layout of a place. A dispatcher cannot possibly understand all the nuances of a situation.

[/QUOTE]

maybe gz had previous with him,

Evidence?

maybe gz followed him or members of his family before

Evidence?

and martin just had enough of this trashy piece of racist vermin

He was a racist was he? How do you know that?

no, he murdered him because of the colour of his skin

Wow, you have really analysed the evidence. What utter nonsense.

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

It was a very large SUV - very capable of doing me harm.



Yes, which is why it was right he stood trial. You don't just necessarily walk away from killing someone.

Yes but you have a recording of the guy following saying hes suspicious of a guy. So he went following with a gun, he was the instigator. You said he tried to drag you from the car and block you in so I would have thought he most definitely was the instigator, from the piece of the story youve told me.

It's also why some people feel justice wasn't nesacerily done and why to me it seems something possibly open to abuse.

donvito99

MadsL wrote: »

But, self-defence has always been on statute, the new law didn't invent it just clarified it. In the same way my home State has no Castle Doctrine law explicitly in State law; largely because it is a Territory state and that's just basic frontier law which everyone knows.

As far as I am aware, there is a duty to retreat in a public place - where the castle doctrine is inapplicable - in this country. Also, it is clear that firearms are not intended for personal protection in this State, interestingly enough, as it constitutes grounds for withholding the awarding of a license. There are no licences - and I'm very open to correction on this - permitting open carry for want of better terminology in the state. So self defense with a deadly weapon, like a gun, is surely illegal, notwithstanding the fact that the relevant legislation is entitled the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act.

I'd be interested to know what the peeps over in Legal Discussion have to say.

The tool used to kill TM is the only discrepancy.

And a big one at that.

Had O'Zimmerman picked up a rock and killed O'Martin the defence would be the same.

Dealt with above.

Which actions? And why?

Gun factory.
Alleged domestics.
I'm tired of repeating myself.

Lovely. What do you think he should be doing and why?

Once again. Lay low, like any decent person.

MadsL

donvito99 wrote: »

As far as I am aware, there is a duty to retreat in a public place - where the castle doctrine is inapplicable - in this country. Also, it is clear that firearms are not intended for personal protection in this State, interestingly enough, as it constitutes grounds for withholding the awarding of a license. There are no licences - and I'm very open to correction on this - permitting open carry for want of better terminology in the state. So self defense with a deadly weapon, like a gun, is surely illegal, notwithstanding the fact that the relevant legislation is entitled the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act.

I'd be interested to know what the peeps over in Legal Discussion have to say.

Start a thread. I'll contribute, but would be willing to bet that self-defence with an illegal firearm could still be a defence to murder.

And a big one at that.

Huh? Would you have a different opinion had GZ stabbed him?

Gun factory.

Quite natural he is grateful to the gun manufacturer, doubtless he feel he owes his life to the gun manufacturer. What's 'scummy' about that?

Alleged domestics.

I'll just bold that.

I'm tired of repeating myself.

Produce some evidence then rather than allegations and insults.

Once again. Lay low, like any decent person.

I have a friend who shot a rapist (well attempted rapist) in her own home. Should she lay low, and be a 'decent person'?

MadsL

Ush1 wrote: »

Yes but you have a recording of the guy following saying hes suspicious of a guy. So he went following with a gun, he was the instigator. You said he tried to drag you from the car and block you in so I would have thought he most definitely was the instigator, from the piece of the story youve told me.

The door was locked - so I have no idea what he would have done. I could not have justified attacking him just in case however.

It's also why some people feel justice wasn't nesacerily done and why to me it seems something possibly open to abuse.

Do you feel justice wasn't done, I thought you agreed with outcome given the evidence?

end of the road

MadsL wrote: »

A dispatcher cannot see the situation. A dispatcher does not know the layout of a place. A dispatcher cannot possibly understand all the nuances of a situation.

doesn't matter, if they tell you they don't need you they don't need you, end of story, you do what the dispatcher tells you

donvito99

MadsL wrote: »

Huh? Would you have a different opinion had GZ stabbed him?

No.

Quite natural he is grateful to the gun manufacturer, doubtless he feel he owes his life to the gun manufacturer. What's 'scummy' about that?

So write them a letter. Surely you have sympathy for Martin's family?

Produce some evidence then rather than allegations and insults.

What allegations. Insults? He can handle it. Rather be insulted than dead.

Should she lay low, and be a 'decent person'?

Was your friend at the centre of a trial that polarized and nation, that granered presidential involvement and sparked widespread protest?

I think not sir, good night.

MadsL

end of the road wrote: »

doesn't matter, if they tell you they don't need you they don't need you, end of story, you do what the dispatcher tells you

There is nothing legally binding in what a dispatcher says. They are not cops, nor is there any legal power in their advice.

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

The door was locked - so I have no idea what he would have done. I could not have justified attacking him just in case however.



Do you feel justice wasn't done, I thought you agreed with outcome given the evidence?

If you were in court and attacked him, I would certainly see his actions as mitigating circumstances.

To the letter of the law he legally defended himself, but I think it's somewhat of a grey area that you can instigate a situation by (lawfully) following someone with gun and have some likely ill intent(judging by recording) and get off altogether.

MadsL

donvito99 wrote: »

No.

So the gun thing is a red herring really, we are talking abou self-defence.

So write them a letter. Surely you have sympathy for Martin's family?

Is he supposed to consult them for the rest of his life before eating skittles or drinking ice tea. Move on ffs.

What allegations. Insults? He can handle it. Rather be insulted than dead.

Huh? You brought up allegations - what do you infer by them?

Was your friend at the centre of a trial that polarized and nation, that granered presidential involvement and sparked widespread protest? I think not sir, good night

Well given that the pistol she used wasn't hers she easily could have been. I don't recall the ethnicity of the guy she shot. I didn't ask, she didn't say. And this was in the South. Will I order her up some sackcloth and ashes?

MadsL

Ush1 wrote: »

If you were in court and attacked him, I would certainly see his actions as mitigating circumstances.

To the letter of the law he legally defended himself, but I think it's somewhat of a grey area that you can instigate a situation by (lawfully) following someone with gun and have some likely ill intent(judging by recording) and get off altogether.

GZ having a gun in this situation is no different to me being in a car. Both legally possessed.

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

GZ having a gun in this situation is no different to me being in a car. Both legally possessed.

Legally yes. Common sense should indicate the difference in both situations but as I said, if you attacked him I wouldn't consider the other guy blameless.

donvito99

MadsL wrote: »

Is he supposed to consult them for the rest of his life before eating skittles or drinking ice tea. Move on ffs.

Wow. That's nice. That gives us a great insight into your take on this whole case prima facie.

Huh? You brought up allegations - what do you infer by them?

I infer from 2 independent allegations of domestic abuse that this guy isn't the upstanding American you would have him be.

Well given that the pistol she used wasn't hers she easily could have been. I don't recall the ethnicity of the guy she shot. I didn't ask, she didn't say. And this was in the South. Will I order her up some sackcloth and ashes?

So no then.

MadsL

Ush1 wrote: »

Legally yes. Common sense should indicate the difference in both situations but as I said, if you attacked him I wouldn't consider the other guy blameless.

That might mitigate my sentence, but not prevent me from being charged and found guilty.

Confrontation is not an excuse for violence is it now?

MadsL

donvito99 wrote: »

Wow. That's nice. That gives us a great insight into your take on this whole case prima facie.

Bit rich from someone flinging the word scumbag around. Are you serious, GZ should not be seen in public eating skittles for fear of being offensive. He should not go to a gun factory, nor drink iced tea. Or have conversations with black people, or walk anywhere.

How much disassociation do you expect from him?

I infer from 2 independent allegations of domestic abuse that this guy isn't the upstanding American you would have him be.

What was he charged with?

So no then.

Well, I'm hardly likely to know someone in the exact same situation. But say she was, and cleared of all charges. Would it be inappropriate of her to visit a gun factory if she were invited? If so, why?

FTA69

MadsL wrote: »

Racial Profiling? Any evidence for that? In 47 calls to police back to 2004; GZ mentions "black" 5 times.

He saw a teenage boy walking erroneously down the road eating a packet of sweets and decided that he was some sort of criminal and that it was up to him to follow Martin. Would he have had the same reaction had the youngfella in question been white and dressed a certain way? Would he b*llocks. Many black men in the USA are well used to being stereotyped and profiled immediately by cops and wannabe cops such as Zimmerman; hence the outrage in that community. In his mind he had already judged Martin, hence referring to him as a "f*cking punk" and why he rang the cops in the first place.

Not illegal to follow someone. Even if told "we don't need you to do that"
by a dispatcher.

That's not the point. It's not explicitly illegal for a security guard to follow a black kid around a supermarket either but it's still wrong, and the person in question has a right to feel aggrieved. Whatever about a uniform or a cop doing it, some arsehole jumping out of a car and following me around for no reason would engender an aggressive response as well. I live in a mixed race estate and if I followed some Jamaican fella around for no reason other than I saw him walking down the road I'd almost be guaranteed a slap. And I'd probably deserve it.

And what evidence is there that TM know that GZ walking towards him was because he was black

Perhaps because he had seen a black kid and decided to follow him around for probably that reason alone? Because America is littered with a long, deep-seated racism that often manifests itself in racial profiling like the above?

And boy? A 17 year old is hardly just a 'boy'.

A boy. A schoolboy at that. A child with no major crime history bar a few scraps and an incident involving cannabis. Reminds me of myself only I was younger again. Luckily I didn't get shot in the chest after confronting a racist busybody.

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

That might mitigate my sentence, but not prevent me from being charged and found guilty.

Confrontation is not an excuse for violence is it now?

Nope, but sometimes both parties might know what they are getting into despite one breaking the law first.

As you said you'd be mad to purposely kill someone and claim self defense, but logically you might be mad to pursue someone with a gun and expect it to end well.

crockholm

FTA69 wrote: »

MadsL wrote: »

He saw a teenage boy walking erroneously down the road eating a packet of sweets and decided that he was some sort of criminal and that it was up to him to follow Martin. Would he have had the same reaction had the youngfella in question been white and dressed a certain way? Would he b*llocks. Many black men in the USA are well used to being stereotyped and profiled immediately by cops and wannabe cops such as Zimmerman; hence the outrage in that community. In his mind he had already judged Martin, hence referring to him as a "f*cking punk" and why he rang the cops in the first place.



That's not the point. It's not explicitly illegal for a security guard to follow a black kid around a supermarket either but it's still wrong, and the person in question has a right to feel aggrieved. Whatever about a uniform or a cop doing it, some arsehole jumping out of a car and following me around for no reason would engender an aggressive response as well. I live in a mixed race estate and if I followed some Jamaican fella around for no reason other than I saw him walking down the road I'd almost be guaranteed a slap. And I'd probably deserve it.



Perhaps because he had seen a black kid and decided to follow him around for probably that reason alone? Because America is littered with a long, deep-seated racism that often manifests itself in racial profiling like the above?



A boy. A schoolboy at that. A child with no major crime history bar a few scraps and an incident involving cannabis. Reminds me of myself only I was younger again. Luckily I didn't get shot in the chest after confronting a racist busybody.

How's operation Trident working out in your neck of the woods?

donvito99

MadsL wrote: »

How much disassociation do you expect from him?

I would expect no disassociation, just a little respect for a bereaved family. So far, he has not been. I'm sure you understand.

What was he charged with?

As I said initially, my coarse - to you - labelling of him is based on his actions after the killing. It's tied in with above.

Well, I'm hardly likely to know someone in the exact same situation.

So why bring it up?