George Zimmerman is a MURDEROUS DOUCHE BAG

[UglyPug]

Anywhere besides certain states in the US the consequences would have been swift and sure.
But because NRA gun fanatics have hijacked the law in certain areas you have these tragedies.
While I believe you should be able to own a firearm and protect yourself.
I think it's common sense that if you leave the safety of your home, or vehicle to initiate a confrontation you can't claim self defense.
It's just that simple and should be obvious.

I agree. . . The problem is the way the self defense law is written (common law, as well as the Florida statute), is that EVEN if you are the "aggressor", you can still claim self defense if you ultimately find yourself in a position where either: 1.) You actually are in danger of loss of life or limb; OR (this is where it gets REALLY TRICKY - 2.) You ACTUALLY BELIEVE that you are in danger of loss of life or limb. *This is based on a subjective standard applied to an objective standard - "What would a REASONABLY PRUDENT person have believed in the SAME OR SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES as the defendant?*

So, for example: Zimmerman confronts Trayvon. . . Trayvon says "f off, why you following me, leave me alone *******", then Zimmerman says "I'm holding you until the police come", and puts his hands on Trayvon in an attempt to "detain him". . Trayvon then resists. . A scuffle ensues. . Zimmerman then ends up on the ground, while Trayvon is standing over him reinging down BOOTS and ELBOWS full power ove and over again. . Or, he's on top of Zimmerman (think ground and pound in MMA), and reigning down brutal hammerfists and elbows. . THEN, technically, Zimerman would be able to claim (2.) in regards to the self defense law.

[Boxingtech718v2]

I agree. . . The problem is the way the self defense law is written (common law, as well as the Florida statute), is that EVEN if you are the "aggressor", you can still claim self defense if you ultimately find yourself in a position where either: 1.) You actually are in danger of loss of life or limb; OR (this is where it gets REALLY TRICKY - 2.) You ACTUALLY BELIEVE that you are in danger of loss of life or limb. *This is based on a subjective standard applied to an objective standard - "What would a REASONABLY PRUDENT person have believed in the SAME OR SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES?*

So, for example: Zimmerman confronts Trayvon. . . Trayvon says "f off, why you following me, leave me alone *******", then Zimmerman says "I'm holding you until the police come", and puts his hands on Trayvon in an attempt to "detain him". . Trayvon then resists. . A scuffle ensues. . Zimmerman then ends up on the ground, while Trayvon is standing over him reinging down BOOTS and ELBOWS full power ove and over again. . Or, he's on top of Zimmerman (think ground and pound in MMA), and reigning down brutal hammerfists and elbows. . THEN, technically, Zimerman would be able to claim (2.) in regards to the self defense law.

Dumb scenario, Zimmeran stalked and hunted Trayvon down putting him in the wrong no matter what.
Following a person for no reason can be seen as a form of harrassment.
Detaining somebody without authority can be false imprisonment or kidnapping.
If Trayvon a minor strikes Zimmerman it is because he was the threat. The only person in this scenario that has a right to force is the minor that was being followed by an unknown individual who for all purposes acted like a pedophile or murderer.
The harasser does not has the right to defend himself from the person who was defending themselves from his harassment.
I expect if Zimmerman gets away with this that the number of copy cat shootings in Florida to skyrocket.

[Golden]

Also that neighbourhood watchmen walk around armed targeting people that they don't like the look of for a citizens arest is a recepie for something like this to happen. In the UK neigbourhood watch generally means monotoring personal cctv set ups and having quick contact to the police etc. Not patroling the streets vigilante style with a loaded gun.

I have been to the US a few times as I have a relative there,and I love your country. But things like this going down in certain states, I don't agree with.

[UglyPug]

You and I both know this is nothing new. It's 2012 and we are still seeing hate crimes like it was 1950 in rural Mississippi. Look at the case where the 4 teenagers got life in prison for running over and killing that black man outside a motel.

**** like this happens all the time in the U.S and people think racism is gone because Obama is half black....hahaha

The Sanford police dept is corrupt as fuk. Zimmerman is going to get life or hopefully the death penalty for this. He clearly murdered this kid and the more evidence that comes out, the worse it's getting for him and the Sanford police dept.

Cuauh, you a hella smart dude, but you are definitely a victim of the media with this statement. Yes, of course racism still exists (whites on blacks, blacks on whites, latinos on blacks, blacks on latinos, whites on latinos, latinos on whites). . However, by pin pointing out these rare incidents of white (or in the case of Trayvon, latino) on black violent crime, you're drawing the conclusion that "racism is rampant", and "hate crimes committed by whites on minorities are as high as ever"

There is SIGNIFICANTLY less violent crime today, committed against minorities by white people. . In fact, there is plenty of empirical evidence to suggest the opposite: There is a higher chance of a violent crime being committed against a white by a minority, than vice versa. Although statistics can be construed many ways. . .

A victim is a victim - color of skin should have nothing to do with how people view these crimes. . . I HATE how the media always tries to make everything about race!

[Golden]

Cuauh, you a hella smart dude, but you are definitely a victim of the media with this statement. Yes, of course racism still exists (whites on blacks, blacks on whites, latinos on blacks, blacks on latinos, whites on latinos, latinos on whites). . However, by pin pointing out these rare incidents of white (or in the case of Trayvon, latino) on black violent crime, you're drawing the conclusion that "racism is rampant", and "hate crimes committed by whites on minorities are as high as ever"

There is SIGNIFICANTLY less violent crime today, committed against minorities by white people. . In fact, there is plenty of empirical evidence to suggest the opposite: There is a higher chance of a violent crime being committed against a white by a minority, than vice versa. Although statistics can be construed many ways. . .

A victim is a victim - color of skin should have nothing to do with how people view these crimes. . . I HATE how the media always tries to make everything about race!

Classism pulls the strings of society more than racism in modern times.

[UglyPug]

Dumb scenario, Zimmeran stalked and hunted Trayvon down putting him in the wrong no matter what.
Following a person for no reason can be seen as a form of harrassment.
Detaining somebody without authority can be false imprisonment or kidnapping.
If Trayvon a minor strikes Zimmerman it is because he was the threat. The only person in this scenario that has a right to force is the minor that was being followed by an unknown individual who for all purposes acted like a pedophile or murderer.
The harasser does not has the right to defend himself from the person who was defending themselves from his harassment.
I expect if Zimmerman gets away with this that the number of copy cat shootings in Florida to skyrocket.

AND I AGREE! I'm just breaking down the possible scenarios in regards to legal standards. . . I agree that the way the self defense law can be applied is RIDICULOUS.

ANd yes, the way the self defense laws are written, the "harasser" can claim self defense if he ultimately finds himself in a position of being in serious danger of dying, or suffering serious injury. . . You can only "defend" yourself to a certain point until you eventually become "the attacker" (once again, NOT SAYING I AGREE, but simply under the nebulous boundaries of hte self defense law). .

Lol and I AM NOT SAYING that is how it happened. . I was just pointing out taht is the most important aspect to this case in regards to whether Zimmerman can claim self defense (NOT THAT I AGREE, but simply under the ambiguous laws).

[UglyPug]

Classism pulls the strings of society more than racism in modern times.

Correct. . It also takes away from the victim by trying to generalize the situation into a "race thing". . .

[Golden]

Correct. . It also takes away from the victim by trying to generalize the situation into a "race thing". . .

The more you can simplify cases, the less the ramifications for the deeper lying issues in society and law. Especially concerning fire arm and self defense laws as in this case. To simply label it as a racially motivated murder detracts from serious questions that need to be asked.

[Boxingtech718v2]

AND I AGREE! I'm just breaking down the possible scenarios in regards to legal standards. . . I agree that the way the self defense law can be applied is RIDICULOUS.

ANd yes, the way the self defense laws are written, the "harasser" can claim self defense if he ultimately finds himself in a position of being in serious danger of dying, or suffering serious injury. . . You can only "defend" yourself to a certain point until you eventually become "the attacker" (once again, NOT SAYING I AGREE, but simply under the nebulous boundaries of hte self defense law). .

Lol and I AM NOT SAYING that is how it happened. . I was just pointing out taht is the most important aspect to this case in regards to whether Zimmerman can claim self defense (NOT THAT I AGREE, but simply under the ambiguous laws).

To me that is ******ed if you try to rob a bank and get shot and killed. Then you got what you deserved.
Here Zimmerman stalked and probably attacked a minor. When he probably got the but whipping he deserved he drew and shot the victim.
He doesn't deserve protection under the law. He deserves to be in a jail cell getting ready to sleep next to Bubba for the next 20-30 years.
Also from the start I hated the fact that people made it a race thing.
Without the "race" factor Zimmerman still shot and killed an unarmed minor for no reason. Adding the racial element just makes the case that much more murky to prosecute. His defense team will claim that George can't get a free trial due to publicity.
Many of the witnesses probably will be considered bias because they spoke to the press.
The stand your ground law even as presently written only says you can defend yourself if you have a "reasonable" fear of being attacked.

Stand your ground not chase and take ground.

[Boxingtech718v2]

Stand your ground" governs U.S. federal case law in which self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court ruled in Beard v. U.S. (1895) that a man who was "on his premises" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."[2][3]

Reasonable grounds is not following, pursuing, and initiating a conflict.