[Zambini]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

I hear ya man.

Up here a lot of your laws are completely baffling to us..... half of my Family is American too.
Things like concealed weapons, stand your ground laws, I just don't get it. I guess I've never felt so unsafe that I needed to arm myself to go out in public?

Crime is out of control in a lot of areas, people perceive the need to defend themselves.

Chicago, which has probably the strongest gun control laws in the nation, over the 5 day Fourth of July holiday, had 74 shooting victims and 12 deaths.

74 and 12 deaths

Doesn't count shootings that didn't hit anybody or robberies with guns.

Needless to say, none of these criminals involved paid the least bit of attention to any law whatsoever, and the police can't stop it.

Blame liberalism or whatever, but it's happening and people are scared.

Hence we have zimmermans and martins everywhere, we need to think about both, about how they got to be together in that moment in time that led to a killing.

Another note: If it was white people getting killed like that there would be a national uproar, but since its black on black criminals doing most shooting, nobody cares.

The only ones the media talks about is the white on black or black on white, that's what gets them paid.

[tootsieflowrslave]

Originally Posted by Zambini ↗

Another note: If it was white people getting killed like that there would be a national uproar, but since its black on black criminals doing most shooting, nobody cares.

I just wonder why more people don't question why these fake and pompous civil rights advocates are living a lavish lifestyle in a predominantly white upper class neighborhood while preaching their inflammatory bullshit to a poor black neighborhood, yet they make no effort to bring the issue of black on black crime into the public spectrum. If these reprobates cared so much about their community, why are they not making the same effort at demonizing the white community towards bringing attention to this and other major social issues that are preventing black people from deserving their rightful place in the sociopolitical spectrum as whites and Asians in America instead?

What absolutely fucking pisses me off is that people who try to foster an open dialogue between blacks and whites and/or address social issues within the black community such as Pastor David Manning or Bill Cosby, their voices are drowned out in such an enormous wave of bullshit by sensationalist media and stupidity that nothing ever gets done that would actually benefit the socioeconomic status of the black community. IMHO my friends, this is a much much greater injustice than whatever we may perceive of the final disposition of this case

[Zambini]

How come nobody gets on TV and says any of those 12 killed in Chicago had their civil rights violated?

I'm sure the dead and their families feel they were...

[FNAL]

Don't say it's all Zimmerman's fault and he could have easily prevented it if he stayed in his car. Martin could have easily prevented it too if he stayed away from Zimmerman. Hell, if the cashier at the store didn't have enough quarters to give Martin change and had to break open a new stack, that might have delayed the whole situation and the two would never have met. Maybe the cashier could have prevented it?

Let's go out on a long limb here and say Zimmerman did stay away, Martin then goes and robs a home and shoots an innocent person? Not saying Martin is that type of character but there an an infinite amount of possibilities that could have gone on that night if just one thing was different. The courts relies on evidence, testimonials, and many other investigative forms to reach a verdict, not just gut feelings and morals of each juror.

Although the court system certainly has its flaws, I have no doubt in my mind that the correct verdict was reach based on what evidence was laid out in front of them. I can't stand when people just "know" someone is guilty when they've taken absolutely no part in the investigation, witness interviews, or trials, or anything else involved in the case.

[ArtOfLife]

Originally Posted by FNAL ↗

Don't say it's all Zimmerman's fault and he could have easily prevented it if he stayed in his car.

Your whole post is moot because of one thing. First off, Martin was staying away from Zimmerman. He didn't track Zimmerman down and tell him to get out of the car or something. Zimmerman pursued him, actively. All the what if's are what if's, right. But one thing we know for SURE is that Zimmerman could have (and had multiple opportunities to) stop the whole thing from happening. He made the conscious choice to start the whole chain. That's just an end of it really. Nothing else matters. Who is to say Martin could have run? You're right, the cashier could have held him up. What if right? Even if Martin had just robbed a home and he saw it, he was STILL wrong to get out and pursue.

As for if he went on to rob a home and killed someone, again, we know for certain that wasn't the case. He was an innocent person by every account until the two met. In all likelihood it was he who was forced to stand HIS ground. So that what if is pointless as well, as we know it to be a falsehood at least as far as Martin going on to rob or harm someone. This is why CCW training/NBW training teaches you, and law enforcement operators are trained to instruct you to not get actively involved. It can end in only one way - BAD. And it's your duty to avoid that.

The only thing we know for sure is Zimmerman could have, and had the duty to stop it if you go by CCW training, NBW training, everything he learned in his legal studies, and advisement from non emergency. Now, the jury didn't agree with that, and that's fine. It has to be respected. Juries have been known to be wrong like a plague (both convicting innocent and cutting loose the guilty), but they still have to be respected, agreed on that.

[FNAL]

Yes but in this case, the outcome wasn't known. It's not like Zimmerman knew it was going to lead to a shooting so saying he could have prevented it means nothing. There was no way he could have known. In another example of infinite possibilities, the two could have met and Trayvon just told him where he was going and Zimmerman responded by saying he was investigating a suspicious person, then both parties walked away from each other.

But technically, you are right in saying if Zimmerman did walk away, it could have been prevented, but I wouldn't reprimand him for not predicting the future.

[ArtOfLife]

Originally Posted by FNAL ↗

Yes but in this case, the outcome wasn't known. It's not like Zimmerman knew it was going to lead to a shooting so saying he could have prevented it means nothing. There was no way he could have known. In another example of infinite possibilities, the two could have met and Trayvon just told him where he was going and Zimmerman responded by saying he was investigating a suspicious person, then both parties walked away from each other.

But technically, you are right in saying if Zimmerman did walk away, it could have been prevented, but I wouldn't reprimand him for not predicting the future.

Fair enough. I don't for one moment believe Zimmerman knew it was going to lead to a death. He was even visibly shaken when he learned the boy lost his life. All I am saying is, there's a reason for that lesson in CCW/NBW training. When you carry, you just never go into anything that could even possibly be foreseen to cause a conflict. It's your duty to take great lengths to avoid it. Zimmerman is his own person, fair enough. He may have not seen that it could have possibly had a negative outcome even in the face of all he was taught and advised. But that type of situation generally leads to a bad result, hence the reason for that advice and training. Assuming Martin WAS a bad person, a criminal, this lesson and advice is even more necessary.

I just think Zimmerman made a series of very gross errors in judgement that would have been justified being punished in some way. His actions led to a death because he went against all he would have been taught and advised. It was preventable. We can't know who started what, or how else it could have gone, only that he could have stopped it.

I feel bad for all involved really. He has to live with it forever, his family has to live with it forever. He will be financially ruined especially after the civil case, he will always have this hanging over him, his wife is even looking at time (or was, I haven't checked on that case) for their lies to the court and trying to financially cheat the system. It just seems tragic his choices could have prevented all of it.

[FNAL]

Originally Posted by ArtOfLife ↗

I feel bad for all involved really. He has to live with it forever, his family has to live with it forever. He will be financially ruined especially after the civil case, he will always have this hanging over him, his wife is even looking at time (or was, I haven't checked on that case) for their lies to the court and trying to financially cheat the system. It just seems tragic his choices could have prevented all of it.

I'll certainly agree with you here but not too sure if I understand where you are going with the below quote.

Originally Posted by ArtOfLife ↗

When you carry, you just never go into anything that could even possibly be foreseen to cause a conflict. It's your duty to take great lengths to avoid it.

What you are saying seems to translate into this:

There is a suspicious man walking around the neighborhood, but since I am carrying this pistol, I shouldn't try to contact the individual, just in case he gets rowdy, tries to attack me, then I have to use the weapon.

Let's reverse the scenario, let's say Zimmerman was unarmed and contacted Martin. Martin gets aggressive and attacks Zimmerman, killing him.

The point of the weapon IS for protection so Zimmerman could contact this individual without fear of being attacked while he was unarmed. Yes, it's a very shitty situation that happened but I just can't see pointing the finger at Zimmerman saying he could have prevented the entire thing.

[ArtOfLife]

Originally Posted by FNAL ↗

What you are saying seems to translate into this:

There is a suspicious man walking around the neighborhood, but since I am carrying this pistol, I shouldn't try to contact the individual, just in case he gets rowdy, tries to attack me, then I have to use the weapon.

Let's reverse the scenario, let's say Zimmerman was unarmed and contacted Martin. Martin gets aggressive and attacks Zimmerman, killing him.

The point of the weapon IS for protection so Zimmerman could contact this individual without fear of being attacked while he was unarmed. Yes, it's a very shitty situation that happened but I just can't see pointing the finger at Zimmerman saying he could have prevented the entire thing.

That's exactly what you are taught. Carrying gives you a false sense of authority or a "way out" if you get yourself into a situation you shouldn't be in or can't get out of. Since you are the one who has the option of immediate deadly force, you have a duty to avoid contact if at all possible. It's there for you in case you are contacted and need it, not so you can be careless and potentially get into a situation where you need it. It's 101 type stuff.

What he did, was what you are supposed to do when you carry, are on NBW, or are even just a regular joe with no weapon or knowledge at all. Call non emergency, or emergency if it's an emergency, and wait for the police. That was his one correct action that night. He had that option, he had the training and knowledge to tell him that was the correct act, and he went against it, and further against advisement (granted, not an order). Again, the only 100% known fact here, is he COULD have avoided it. I am not saying he's a murderer, racist, went looking for blood just because he could, anything like that. He just made a series of errors that go against every possible fact of common sense and training he is known to have had.

It's like if I killed someone because I was changing CD's in the car. Sure, they could have walked 1 foot over to the right and been fine. But more importantly, I could have used sense and what I was taught to obtain a license (much like courses for CCW) to not be reckless and take an action that ended a life. Did I murder them? No. Did I want them to die? Nope. Did I imagine I would have killed someone? No way. The only fact there we could say for sure, is I could have followed what I was taught and definitely not taken a life. Focusing on what the pedestrian could have done to avoid meeting me, is irrelevant.

Edit: He also in the call, informed authorities he WAS carrying. This is one of the biggest reasons they told him to stay in his car, and later, to stop following once they realized he was still following. Again, 101 type stuff.

[FNAL]

But it's not Zimmerman's fault he was attacked. That same scenario could have ended just fine and this thread wouldn't even exist if Martin didn't initiate an attack. Saying you should avoid contact because you have a weapon is silly.

Your car analogy doesn't quite fit well into this situation. You are aware of the risks and consequences of taking your eyes off the road when driving and you can guarantee you will hit or hurt something or someone. It's not as if every confrontation of a suspicious person is going to end up in a fight or shooting. Zimmerman was, I'm sure, aware of a potential escalation of some sort, and in an effort to protect himself from harm, shot his assailant. Why do you feel the need to scold the man for protecting his own life in an unfortunate mishap? Shouldn't the lesson in all of this be to not attack other people instead of hide from all suspicious contact because you have a concealed weapon?