Where was the media with this?? Zimmerman history.

[garebear]

I didn't say who attacked who first, only that Zimm was attacked by Travyon. However, I'm willing to bet that Travyon threw the first punch. I wish I had access to view pics of his body when police arrived on the scene. No doubt they took pics of the dead body. I'm willing to bet he didn't have much, if any, signs of bodily harm (besides the gun wound) otherwise this would have made news. Instead, we have pics of Zimm's injuries. Travyon was most likely the aggressor and also the one who had the upper hand in the fight.

Oh yeah. All that he had was that little gunshot wound.

[rotaryfan]

Uh, did you miss the part where Trayvon was the aggressor and not Zimmerman? 

I have always had respect for your posts, you always seem to have educated reasonable opinions Mr. Adonis, but in this instance it is clear that you do not have a grasp for the criminal justice system. In every first world country, Zimmerman would be charged for manslaughter for having killed Martin, except in the USA where the justice system is so backward and archaic that they might as well still be hanging people from trees for stealing apples.
In most other countries it is immoral to shoot or maim someone for stealing televisions or bicycles or starting fights. These are viewed as tangible items that will be replaced by insurance and are not worth killing someone over, especially a youth. Carrying a gun with the intention of intervening in a breaking is unthinkable. Just call the cops and let someone who has the power of authority intervene in the situation.
Zimmerman likely did not have the communication skills to find out the answers that he wanted from Martin, and was likely to aggressive in his speech, which led to the fight.  No matter who started the fight, it is absurd that Zimmerman would pull a gun to "defend" himself. If he was in a fight with a minor, or with an adult for that matter, and was losing he should have taken a few punches and been done with it. He would have had a black eye and a bruised ego, but that would have been the end of it, and Martin would have been charged with aggravated assault and Zimmerman would have "won".  Instead he killed a kid to prevent himself from taking a few hits.  Zimmerman should not have stopped to question Martin to start with, he did not have the skills or authority to do so, but more than that he had no grounds to pull a gun during a fist fight with a minor.
This entire situation is a travesty. Zimmerman was trying to protect his neighbourhood, which is very admirable, but he went about it in the worst way possible, making multiple mistakes along the way. And now a teen is dead because of it.

[rotaryfan]

Also, can someone please explain to me what an "Associates Degree" is? We don't have those here.

[polychronopolous]

I have always had respect for your posts, you always seem to have educated reasonable opinions Mr. Adonis, but in this instance it is clear that you do not have a grasp for the criminal justice system. In every first world country, Zimmerman would be charged for manslaughter for having killed Martin, except in the USA where the justice system is so backward and archaic that they might as well still be hanging people from trees for stealing apples.
In most other countries it is immoral to shoot or maim someone for stealing televisions or bicycles or starting fights. These are viewed as tangible items that will be replaced by insurance and are not worth killing someone over, especially a youth. Carrying a gun with the intention of intervening in a breaking is unthinkable. Just call the cops and let someone who has the power of authority intervene in the situation.
Zimmerman likely did not have the communication skills to find out the answers that he wanted from Martin, and was likely to aggressive in his speech, which led to the fight.  No matter who started the fight, it is absurd that Zimmerman would pull a gun to "defend" himself. If he was in a fight with a minor, or with an adult for that matter, and was losing he should have taken a few punches and been done with it. He would have had a black eye and a bruised ego, but that would have been the end of it, and Martin would have been charged with aggravated assault and Zimmerman would have "won".  Instead he killed a kid to prevent himself from taking a few hits.  Zimmerman should not have stopped to question Martin to start with, he did not have the skills or authority to do so, but more than that he had no grounds to pull a gun during a fist fight with a minor.
This entire situation is a travesty. Zimmerman was trying to protect his neighbourhood, which is very admirable, but he went about it in the worst way possible, making multiple mistakes along the way. And now a teen is dead because of it.

Yeah you're right, he should have just stayed there getting his head bashed into the ground and hoped he didn't get beat to death. 

The man has a right to defend himself with deadly force if he feels his life is endangered. We can argue all day long if he was in the right or wrong in pursing Trayvon but he is at least afforded the right to defend his life.

[HTexan]

delusional bitch who thinks he can help a community. secretly wants to be/blow batman. murdered innocent black kid because he was getting his ass kicked after confronting him for no good reason.

Will lets hope batman spends some time in a "bat" cage.  

[240 is Back]

Also, can someone please explain to me what an "Associates Degree" is? We don't have those here.

2 years of college.   zimmerman's dream of being a cop was ended when he was arrested for FELONY ASSAULT on a POLICE OFFICER.  He pleaded down and got alcohol counseling from the state.  Then he had a domestic abuse charge.   Sounds like he had real anger issues.  But he loved that power of having a gun and stopping people on the street - in fact, he used to do "key checks" where he would stop people on the street and demand they show the key to prove they lived here.

how hard would you laugh if a fat man stopped you and demanded to see your housekey cause he didn't recognize you?  GTFO.

[Soul Crusher]

(CNN) -- The lawyer for the neighborhood watch leader who fatally shot unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, said Thursday that his client has received about $200,000 from supporters. Orlando lawyer Mark O'Mara told CNN's "AC360" that George Zimmerman told him Wednesday of the donations as they were trying to shut down his Internet presence to avoid concerns about possible impersonators.

"He asked me what to do with his PayPal accounts and I asked him what he was talking about," O'Mara told Anderson Cooper. "And he said those were the accounts that had the money from the website he had. And there was about 200, $204,000 that had come in to date."

(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...





Good.   FUBO!

[jparker]

I'm not a lawyer

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

The 2011 Florida Statutes


Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
View Entire Chapter
CHAPTER 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
776.031 Use of force in defense of others.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.
776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.
776.051 Use of force in resisting arrest or making an arrest or in the execution of a legal duty; prohibition.
776.06 Deadly force.
776.07 Use of force to prevent escape.
776.08 Forcible felony.
776.085 Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.

776.031 Use of force in defense of others.—A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1189, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 2005-27.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.—A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of any force:
(1) Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest;
(2) When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped; or
(3) When necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice. However, this subsection shall not constitute a defense in any civil action for damages brought for the wrongful use of deadly force unless the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by such flight and, when feasible, some warning had been given, and:
(a) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others; or
(b) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1, ch. 75-64; s. 1, ch. 87-147; s. 54, ch. 88-381; s. 1191, ch. 97-102.

776.051 Use of force in resisting arrest or making an arrest or in the execution of a legal duty; prohibition.—
(1) A person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer, or to resist a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the execution of a legal duty, if the law enforcement officer was acting in good faith and he or she is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer.
(2) A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, is not justified in the use of force if the arrest or execution of a legal duty is unlawful and known by him or her to be unlawful.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1192, ch. 97-102; s. 1, ch. 2008-67.

776.06 Deadly force.—
(1) The term “deadly force” means force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm and includes, but is not limited to:
(a) The firing of a firearm in the direction of the person to be arrested, even though no intent exists to kill or inflict great bodily harm; and
(b) The firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which the person to be arrested is riding.
(2)(a) The term “deadly force” does not include the discharge of a firearm by a law enforcement officer or correctional officer during and within the scope of his or her official duties which is loaded with a less-lethal munition. As used in this subsection, the term “less-lethal munition” means a projectile that is designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person without penetrating the person’s body.
(b) A law enforcement officer or a correctional officer is not liable in any civil or criminal action arising out of the use of any less-lethal munition in good faith during and within the scope of his or her official duties.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1, ch. 99-272.

776.07 Use of force to prevent escape.—
(1) A law enforcement officer or other person who has an arrested person in his or her custody is justified in the use of any force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody.
(2) A correctional officer or other law enforcement officer is justified in the use of force, including deadly force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape from a penal institution of a person whom the officer reasonably believes to be lawfully detained in such institution under sentence for an offense or awaiting trial or commitment for an offense.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 7, ch. 95-283; s. 1193, ch. 97-102.

776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 4, ch. 75-298; s. 289, ch. 79-400; s. 5, ch. 93-212; s. 10, ch. 95-195.

776.085 Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.—
(1) It shall be a defense to any action for damages for personal injury or wrongful death, or for injury to property, that such action arose from injury sustained by a participant during the commission or attempted commission of a forcible felony. The defense authorized by this section shall be established by evidence that the participant has been convicted of such forcible felony or attempted forcible felony, or by proof of the commission of such crime or attempted crime by a preponderance of the evidence.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the term “forcible felony” shall have the same meaning as in s. 776.08.
(3) Any civil action in which the defense recognized by this section is raised shall be stayed by the court on the motion of the civil defendant during the pendency of any criminal action which forms the basis for the defense, unless the court finds that a conviction in the criminal action would not form a valid defense under this section.
(4) In any civil action where a party prevails based on the defense created by this section:
(a) The losing party, if convicted of and incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime, shall, as determined by the court, lose any privileges provided by the correctional facility, including, but not limited to:
1. Canteen purchases;
2. Telephone access;
3. Outdoor exercise;
4. Use of the library; and
5. Visitation.
(b) The court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee to be paid to the prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party’s attorney; however, the losing party’s attorney is not personally responsible if he or she has acted in good faith, based on the representations of his or her client. If the losing party is incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime and has insufficient assets to cover payment of the costs of the action and the award of fees pursuant to this paragraph, the party shall, as determined by the court, be required to pay by deduction from any payments the prisoner receives while incarcerated.
(c) If the losing party is incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime, the court shall issue a written order containing its findings and ruling pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) and shall direct that a certified copy be forwarded to the appropriate correctional institution or facility.
History.—s. 1, ch. 87-187; s. 72, ch. 96-388.

[SLYY]

I have always had respect for your posts, you always seem to have educated reasonable opinions Mr. Adonis, but in this instance it is clear that you do not have a grasp for the criminal justice system. In every first world country, (1) Zimmerman would be charged for manslaughter for having killed Martin, except in the USA where the justice system is so backward and archaic that they might as well still be hanging people from trees for stealing apples.
(2) In most other countries it is immoral to shoot or maim someone for stealing televisions or bicycles or starting fights. These are viewed as tangible items that will be replaced by insurance and are not worth killing someone over, especially a youth. Carrying a gun with the intention of intervening in a breaking is unthinkable. Just call the cops and let someone who has the power of authority intervene in the situation.
Zimmerman likely did not have the communication skills to find out the answers that he wanted from Martin, and was likely to aggressive in his speech, which led to the fight.  No matter who started the fight, it is absurd that Zimmerman would pull a gun to "defend" himself. If he was in a fight with a minor, or with an adult for that matter, and was losing he should have taken a few punches and been done with it. He would have had a black eye and a bruised ego, but that would have been the end of it, and Martin would have been charged with aggravated assault and Zimmerman would have "won".  Instead he killed a kid to prevent himself from taking a few hits.  Zimmerman should not have stopped to question Martin to start with, he did not have the skills or authority to do so, but more than that he had no grounds to pull a gun during a fist fight with a minor.
This entire situation is a travesty. Zimmerman was trying to protect his neighbourhood, which is very admirable, but he went about it in the worst way possible, making multiple mistakes along the way. And now a teen is dead because of it.

(1) Really? Other countries charge people who intentionally kill others with manslaughter?

(2) I assume you saw Zimmerman's head.  Zimmerman's injuries came from his head repeatedly hitting the concrete.  FYI:  You can die from having your head hit repeatedly against the concrete.

[240 is Back]

zimmerman....  democrat/obama voter.  calls police on potholes.  challenges people to show their keys.  can't fight.  assaulted a cop and caught a domestic abuse charge.  college dropout.  fat fvck who gets skinnyfat for jail.

yes, he's a great dude, 333386.  a real role model.  

[Soul Crusher]

zimmerman....  democrat/obama voter.  calls police on potholes.  challenges people to show their keys.  can't fight.  assaulted a cop and caught a domestic abuse charge.  college dropout.  fat fvck who gets skinnyfat for jail.

yes, he's a great dude, 333386.  a real role model.  

Bernie Goetz , Zimm   Winning.

[rotaryfan]

Yeah you're right, he should have just stayed there getting his head bashed into the ground and hoped he didn't get beat to death. 

The man has a right to defend himself with deadly force if he feels his life is endangered. We can argue all day long if he was in the right or wrong in pursing Trayvon but he is at least afforded the right to defend his life.

I understand your point that he has the right to defend himself. Pulling a gun during a fist fight is not defending yourself. Ive seen many dozens of fights and rarely is anyone ever injured at all, sometimes a fat lip and a black eye, but to think that his life was in danger during a fist fight? Come on...  Would you consider your life in danger if a teenager punched you in the face a few times? I would be angry but i have trouble believing that my life would be in danger.

[polychronopolous]

(1) Really? Other countries charge people who intentionally kill others with manslaughter?

(2) I assume you saw Zimmerman's head.  Zimmerman's injuries came from his head repeatedly hitting the concrete.  FYI:  You can die from having your head hit repeatedly against the concrete.

In his ideal legal system you just lay there and pray the person bashing your skull is generous enough to lay off of you before death kicks in. Sure didn't help the thousands of people who were killed this way though, does it?

[rotaryfan]

(1) Really? Other countries charge people who intentionally kill others with manslaughter?

(2) I assume you saw Zimmerman's head.  Zimmerman's injuries came from his head repeatedly hitting the concrete.  FYI:  You can die from having your head hit repeatedly against the concrete.

1) yes. The charge of manslaughter is used when the killing is not for profit or premeditated but in the "heat of the moment" so to say. It does not carry a life sentence. Here, Zimmerman is being charged with second degree murder, which I believe does carry a life sentence. Its hard to keep us with every law in every state, maybe someone can verify that?

2) No, I haven't seen pictures of his injuries. I have not heard of his injuries being severe in any way.

[SLYY]

1) yes. The charge of manslaughter is used when the killing is not for profit or premeditated but in the "heat of the moment" so to say. It does not carry a life sentence. Here, Zimmerman is being charged with second degree murder, which I believe does carry a life sentence. Its hard to keep us with every law in every state, maybe someone can verify that?

2) No, I haven't seen pictures of his injuries. I have not heard of his injuries being severe in any way.

Understandable if you aren't from the states.  There are certain times when the "heat of the moment" applies under a majority of jurisdictions...usually not in a case such as this.  That said, I will gladly take the laws in the United States to the laws in other countries.

If you see his pics, it might change your perspective.

[rotaryfan]

In his ideal legal system you just lay there and pray the person bashing your skull is generous enough to lay off of you before death kicks in. Sure didn't help the thousands of people who were killed this way though, does it?

Where are these thousands? I would assume as a grown man you have been in a fight or two in your life, how many of those have been life threatening enough for you to fear for your life? Perhaps you are right and his life really was in danger, I (or any of us) have no way of knowing how intense the fight was. I just find it hard to rationalize that in a fist fight with a teenager you would be fearing for your life, but who am I to judge Zimmermans, or your level of fear.

I see a lot of violence at work, we even have a number of street level drug dealers who are occasionally clients. Even they have rules in regards to "street justice" If someone beats the shit out of your friend, you beat the shit out of that guy. If someone stabs you, you stab them.
What doesn't happen is someone gets beat up, and then the other person gets shot.

[polychronopolous]

Where are these thousands? I would assume as a grown man you have been in a fight or two in your life, how many of those have been life threatening enough for you to fear for your life? Perhaps you are right and his life really was in danger, I (or any of us) have no way of knowing how intense the fight was. I just find it hard to rationalize that in a fist fight with a teenager you would be fearing for your life, but who am I to judge Zimmermans, or your level of fear.

I see a lot of violence at work, we even have a number of street level drug dealers who are occasionally clients. Even they have rules in regards to "street justice" If someone beats the shit out of your friend, you beat the shit out of that guy. If someone stabs you, you stab them.
What doesn't happen is someone gets beat up, and then the other person gets shot.

People have been beat to death all over the world for centuries, don't be a smartass.

Where are all these thousands?

[rotaryfan]

Understandable if you aren't from the states.  There are certain times when the "heat of the moment" applies under a majority of jurisdictions...usually not in a case such as this.  That said, I will gladly take the laws in the United States to the laws in other countries.

If you see his pics, it might change your perspective.

Perhaps, I haven't seen the pictures, if he did suffer serious injury then I could understand his reason for pulling a gun.

The US justice system gives citizens many more rights for protecting property and themselves, compared to other areas, however the rate of incarceration in the US is appalling. You are paying thousands of dollars personally to house all of those inmates! many of them in jail for ridiculous drug crimes, or theft. I also don't live in a country where citizens are allowed to carry weapons. Here only cops and gang members carry guns so it is very very very rare that a shooting does not involve either of those two groups. People don't get beat to death here, maybe that is a real danger there. From my experience a kid getting shot by a neighbourhood watch captain is unfathomable.  Only a jury now will decide who was in the right.
Either way, both of these individuals could have went on to have productive and fulfilling lives.  Now neither of them will.  Very sad.

[rotaryfan]

People have been beat to death all over the world for centuries, don't be a smartass.

Where are all these thousands?

Really? I don't believe that thousands of people are being beat to death in one on one fist fights. You are the one being a smart ass. If you live in a first world country where thousands of people are being beat to death in fist fights I would expect that country to be in an all out riot or revolution. Also, if that is happening, you should move because you are in danger of being beat to death by a 17 year old high school student...

[SLYY]

Perhaps, I haven't seen the pictures, if he did suffer serious injury then I could understand his reason for pulling a gun.

The US justice system gives citizens many more rights for protecting property and themselves, compared to other areas, however the rate of incarceration in the US is appalling. You are paying thousands of dollars personally to house all of those inmates! many of them in jail for ridiculous drug crimes, or theft. I also don't live in a country where citizens are allowed to carry weapons. Here only cops and gang members carry guns so it is very very very rare that a shooting does not involve either of those two groups. People don't get beat to death here, maybe that is a real danger there. From my experience a kid getting shot by a neighbourhood watch captain is unfathomable.  Only a jury now will decide who was in the right.
Either way, both of these individuals could have went on to have productive and fulfilling lives.  Now neither of them will.  Very sad.

You don't have to suffer serious injury to protect yourself.  That wouldn't make any sense.  Beat the hell out of me...then right before I think I will die, I shoot you.  Stupid...don't you think?

There are too many people in jail for drugs, that is all I agree with you about.  Theft?  They need to be in jail for that.  

You are so against carrying guns and seem to live in a very safe area...although you stated:

"I see a lot of violence at work, we even have a number of street level drug dealers who are occasionally clients. Even they have rules in regards to "street justice" If someone beats the shit out of your friend, you beat the shit out of that guy. If someone stabs you, you stab them."

...I'll stick to the U.S. laws, you guys can stab each other all you want...

[rotaryfan]

I am also not trying to portrait Martin as innocent in this situation. The kid obviously was aggressive and violent. I just think that it is important to examine the entire situation, from start to finish, the way a judge or jury should do.

[Radical Plato]

SANFORD, Florida (Reuters) - A pit bull named Big Boi began menacing George and Shellie Zimmerman in the fall of 2009.
 

Zimmerman musn't have visited the Getbig Pitbull Threads, had he done that he would have realised that Pitbulls aren't dangerous and would only lick you to death.

[Soul Crusher]

Motivated By Media Lies About George Zimmerman, a Hate Crime Occurs In Chicago
Big Journalism ^ | April 26, 2012 | John Nolte
Posted on April 26, 2012 10:06:31 PM EDT by 2ndDivisionVet

We're learning today that in Obama's Chicago, 18 year-old Alton L. Hayes has just been charged by police with "attempted robbery and aggravated battery along with a hate crime" for attacking and robbing a 19 year-old man. Hayes is black, the victim is white, and Hayes told investigators "he was angry about the [Trayvon] Martin shooting and decided to attack the victim because of his race."

Now why would Hayes do this? For starters, Zimmerman is Hispanic, not Caucasian. Secondly, there's absolutely zero proof Zimmerman was racially motivated to shoot Martin. In fact, an overwhelming amount of evidence suggests race had nothing to do with it.

My guess is that if Hayes is telling the truth about his sinister motives, he's been watching too much CNN, MSNBC, NBC, and ABC. After all, those are the media outlets guilty, in some cases, of outright racial fabrication in their zeal to aid Barack Obama's re-election campaign by falsely attributing racism to Mr. Zimmerman's motives.

The bottom line is that if Hayes' professed motive for attacking another man is based on lies told over and over and over again by Obama's Media Palace Guards....

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

[polychronopolous]

You don't have to suffer serious injury to protect yourself.  That wouldn't make any sense.  Beat the hell out of me...then right before I think I will die, I shoot you.  Stupid...don't you think?

There are too many people in jail for drugs, that is all I agree with you about.  Theft?  They need to be in jail for that.  

You are so against carrying guns and seem to live in a very safe area...although you stated:

"I see a lot of violence at work, we even have a number of street level drug dealers who are occasionally clients. Even they have rules in regards to "street justice" If someone beats the shit out of your friend, you beat the shit out of that guy. If someone stabs you, you stab them."

...I'll stick to the U.S. laws, you guys can stab each other all you want...

Hahaha yeah we are supposed to revert back to the "street code of honor" and reach for the nearest sharp object if we are being brutally stabbed by an assailant!

[rotaryfan]

You don't have to suffer serious injury to protect yourself.  That wouldn't make any sense.  Beat the hell out of me...then right before I think I will die, I shoot you.  Stupid...don't you think?

There are too many people in jail for drugs, that is all I agree with you about.  Theft?  They need to be in jail for that.  

You are so against carrying guns and seem to live in a very safe area...although you stated:

"I see a lot of violence at work, we even have a number of street level drug dealers who are occasionally clients. Even they have rules in regards to "street justice" If someone beats the shit out of your friend, you beat the shit out of that guy. If someone stabs you, you stab them."

...I'll stick to the U.S. laws, you guys can stab each other all you want...

That is the way most laws are designed. Not if someone hits you once you get to shoot them. You can disagree with that, but that is how many laws are designed, with levels of progression in violence in mind.  Having seen the photos now though, I can understand the progression here, and the pictures do not jive with the tv news story at all.

I don't think people should face large periods of incarceration for theft, no.  If some 20 year old steals your TV, he should not spend 10 years locked up, with the general public paying for his care for a decade.  He should be given an appropriate sentence and should be able to do restorative justice, where he can pay back the person or company whose TV he stole.  Who wants to pay millions of dollars for some asshole who has stolen a 300 dollar tv??? it doesn't make sense.

I dont stab anyone, I see a lot of this sort of violence at work. And the goal is always to take people out of the system and make them productive tax paying citizens who contribute to society.

Im out, have to go eat before work. Good chat though, I like to hear opposing points of view, It is ignorant to think that my opinions are always right, and I respect your views, the ones that I agree with and the ones that I don't.