17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?

I said I want him ARRESTED.
The odds that Zimmerman is convicted by a jury of his peers in FLA, ( i.e., predominantly WHITE) are low.

It's unreal that ANYONE could blow a hole through an unarmed teenager's chest whom YOU were following in the first place, and you the shooter admit to police you murdered him and still NOT BE ARRESTED.

If Zimmerman wasn't racially profiling Trayvon, why the fuck was that asshole following him?? Why was he threatening?? What was so 'menacing' about a teenager walking back home on a candy run from the convenience store??

OMK, this is a murder case, not some black kid arrested under sketchy circumstances.

What this case is about and the reason why people are pissed off is the constant, un-ending racial profiling against minorities, in most cases unjustified, institutional racism, since no BLACK MAN could murder a 'suspicious' looking white teen and claim self-defense and not be arrested on the spot, and the most idiotic law in the country courtesy of the NRA, the SYG law.

The reason I don't care too much that NBC doctored a portion of ZImmerman's 911 call is because it was replayed UNEDITED on CBS/ABC/CNN/MSNBC.
If NBC Network News fucked it up, it doesn't change the facts of that tape. Besides there are other recordings of Zimmerman calling 911 prior where he volunteers the race of the person he's watching.
Zimmerman said it looked like Trayvon was on drugs and implied he had a weapon tucked in his waistband. WTF??

The dude should be locked up for being a delusional psychopath.

THe only people who think the pro Trayvon activists want Zimmerman to be CONVICTED are the talking heads on FAUX News.
At every rally and protest, the only demand has been for justice and Zimmerman's arrest.


Why is it that conservatives have latched on to the murder of an innocent Black teen and tried to make it something political??

That's sick.

As reports come through of another college campus massacre in California, isn't it about time that gun possession laws should be reviewed if only to try and prevent casual access to firearms by people who, sadly with hindsight, should never be allowed near them?

pfft, no wonder why trannies and pornstars are treated as the degenerates of society, no fucking brain whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

I said I want him ARRESTED.
The odds that Zimmerman is convicted by a jury of his peers in FLA, ( i.e., predominantly WHITE) are low.

It's unreal that ANYONE could blow a hole through an unarmed teenager's chest whom YOU were following in the first place, and you the shooter admit to police you murdered him and still NOT BE ARRESTED.

If Zimmerman wasn't racially profiling Trayvon, why the fuck was that asshole following him?? Why was he threatening?? What was so 'menacing' about a teenager walking back home on a candy run from the convenience store??

OMK, this is a murder case, not some black kid arrested under sketchy circumstances.

What this case is about and the reason why people are pissed off is the constant, un-ending racial profiling against minorities, in most cases unjustified, institutional racism, since no BLACK MAN could murder a 'suspicious' looking white teen and claim self-defense and not be arrested on the spot, and the most idiotic law in the country courtesy of the NRA, the SYG law.

The reason I don't care too much that NBC doctored a portion of ZImmerman's 911 call is because it was replayed UNEDITED on CBS/ABC/CNN/MSNBC.
If NBC Network News fucked it up, it doesn't change the facts of that tape. Besides there are other recordings of Zimmerman calling 911 prior where he volunteers the race of the person he's watching.
Zimmerman said it looked like Trayvon was on drugs and implied he had a weapon tucked in his waistband. WTF??

The dude should be locked up for being a delusional psychopath.

THe only people who think the pro Trayvon activists want Zimmerman to be CONVICTED are the talking heads on FAUX News.
At every rally and protest, the only demand has been for justice and Zimmerman's arrest.


Why is it that conservatives have latched on to the murder of an innocent Black teen and tried to make it something political??

That's sick.

---

You're not gonna change the opinion of that jackass who likes to see himself as the voice of reason - Captain Conservative who likes to trumpet his street cred vis a vis his visits to his boy pals in the big house but at the same time representing the 1%....... he'd like us to think he represents the 1-percenters but in reality he's advocating for the other 1% club that he can't get into because he isn't worth enough.

A kid was killed. The facts seem to be that Zimmerman rolled up on him, got his ass handed to him by a 17yr old and resorted to using his gun. How any MAN could advocate for a such a bitch as Zimmerman is beyond me and likely anyone else who's a true 1-percenter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

As reports come through of another college campus massacre in California, isn't it about time that gun possession laws should be reviewed if only to try and prevent casual access to firearms by people who, sadly with hindsight, should never be allowed near them?

---

One thing has nothing to do with another - if not for the guns the Yanks wouldn't have thrown you despotic lot out in 1776. The problem isn't with guns per se or with restricting people's access to weapons and has more to do with cultural and social issues.

GUN CONTROL IS A RED HERRING

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by runningdownthatdream

One thing has nothing to do with another - if not for the guns the Yanks wouldn't have thrown you despotic lot out in 1776. The problem isn't with guns per se or with restricting people's access to weapons and has more to do with cultural and social issues.

GUN CONTROL IS A RED HERRING

---

That was, as you say, 1776. Most societies have moved on and become more enlightened in the last 236 years, the UK certainly has.

I don't disagree at all with your central premise, but if not tighter regulation around access to firearms, which is what I'm advocating - not overall gun control - what's the alternative? Simply shrug and let the slaughter continue?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

I said I want him ARRESTED.
The odds that Zimmerman is convicted by a jury of his peers in FLA, ( i.e., predominantly WHITE) are low.

It's unreal that ANYONE could blow a hole through an unarmed teenager's chest whom YOU were following in the first place, and you the shooter admit to police you murdered him and still NOT BE ARRESTED.

If Zimmerman wasn't racially profiling Trayvon, why the fuck was that asshole following him?? Why was he threatening?? What was so 'menacing' about a teenager walking back home on a candy run from the convenience store??

OMK, this is a murder case, not some black kid arrested under sketchy circumstances.

What this case is about and the reason why people are pissed off is the constant, un-ending racial profiling against minorities, in most cases unjustified, institutional racism, since no BLACK MAN could murder a 'suspicious' looking white teen and claim self-defense and not be arrested on the spot, and the most idiotic law in the country courtesy of the NRA, the SYG law.

The reason I don't care too much that NBC doctored a portion of ZImmerman's 911 call is because it was replayed UNEDITED on CBS/ABC/CNN/MSNBC.
If NBC Network News fucked it up, it doesn't change the facts of that tape. Besides there are other recordings of Zimmerman calling 911 prior where he volunteers the race of the person he's watching.
Zimmerman said it looked like Trayvon was on drugs and implied he had a weapon tucked in his waistband. WTF??

The dude should be locked up for being a delusional psychopath.

THe only people who think the pro Trayvon activists want Zimmerman to be CONVICTED are the talking heads on FAUX News.
At every rally and protest, the only demand has been for justice and Zimmerman's arrest.


Why is it that conservatives have latched on to the murder of an innocent Black teen and tried to make it something political??

That's sick.

---

I would answer that by asking why liberals are way over the top on this...giving out wrong addresses and endangering old folks, calling for bounties, blaming everybody from Jeb Bush to Mitt Romeny, editing 911 tapes, making outrageous statements in Congress....If you think your side is free from bad behavior in this, you're really even less objective than you sound here. Shame on you dude. Nobody's defending Zimmerman....not that I see. That shit's not flying.....I've been nothing but respectful to the family and the deceased....you're the one making wild accusations and substituting your experiences for what happened in this case, playing some sort of CSI cop....Now it's my turn for a question....how many black males were murdered in the US last year? How many times did you take to HA to lament about any of them? Don't dump this off as some political agenda...that's fucked up. Zimmerman was a registered Democrat and half Hispanic...what's the big bounty for conservatives in all that? Use your head. That's the shit your side pulls every day all day, and it's tired. Lose it. You're jaded. Get right .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

That was, as you say, 1776. Most societies have moved on and become more enlightened in the last 236 years, the UK certainly has.

I don't disagree at all with your central premise, but if not tighter regulation around access to firearms, which is what I'm advocating - not overall gun control - what's the alternative? Simply shrug and let the slaughter continue?

---

How're knife crimes coming along in the UK? What about good old-fashioned beatings at the pub? Are those on the decline? Based on the last time I looked at UK crime, it didn't seem that way. Controlling guns may lessen the number of fatalities but where there's a will there's a way.

Although I have to admit it's probably better that Arnie666 has use of a flashlight only and not a gun!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by runningdownthatdream

How're knife crimes coming along in the UK? What about good old-fashioned beatings at the pub? Are those on the decline? Based on the last time I looked at UK crime, it didn't seem that way. Controlling guns may lessen the number of fatalities but where there's a will there's a way.

Although I have to admit it's probably better that Arnie666 has use of a flashlight only and not a gun!

---

OK, the UK is far from perfect - and don't get me started on the old Etonians and their appalling government - and street crime IS a problem. That said, and in spite of tabloid doom-mongering, both long and short-term trends indicate that the overall levels of crime are falling. Add easier access to guns and that whole environment becomes exponentially more (pun alert) combustible.

And your argument is specious at best. I'm not holding up the UK as a paragon - THAT'S the red herring.

I'll ask again - what would you do? In the US there's little "will", at least in the sense of political effort to impact it, so should everyone just sit back and concede the moral ground to the NRA? And what's the Canadian perspective on it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

OK, the UK is far from perfect - and don't get me started on the old Etonians and their appalling government - and street crime IS a problem. That said, and in spite of tabloid doom-mongering, both long and short-term trends indicate that the overall levels of crime are falling. Add easier access to guns and that whole environment becomes exponentially more (pun alert) combustible.

And your argument is specious at best. I'm not holding up the UK as a paragon - THAT'S the red herring.

I'll ask again - what would you do? In the US there's little "will", at least in the sense of political effort to impact it, so should everyone just sit back and concede the moral ground to the NRA? And what's the Canadian perspective on it?

---

The US was founded by the gun. US foreign policy is conducted from behind the gun (you may recall the term gunboat diplomacy was created to describe the US approach to Japan in the late 19th century and based on an actual incident). Americans are accustomed to leading with the gun. Rather than mandate against guns I'd be inclined to force every American to carry a gun - eventually they'll figure it out. Remember the Spartans? How long did their martial society last?

I'm not sure what the Canadian stance is - likely one closer to English or should I say Scottish sensibilities. We have a conservative government who at one point had a racist (Stockwell Day) as Minister of Public Safety. The majority in this country will suffer any kind of injustice as long as the social order remains in tact.....isn't that the Scottish thing!?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

I said I want him ARRESTED.
The odds that Zimmerman is convicted by a jury of his peers in FLA, ( i.e., predominantly WHITE) are low.

It's unreal that ANYONE could blow a hole through an unarmed teenager's chest whom YOU were following in the first place, and you the shooter admit to police you murdered him and still NOT BE ARRESTED.

If Zimmerman wasn't racially profiling Trayvon, why the fuck was that asshole following him?? Why was he threatening?? What was so 'menacing' about a teenager walking back home on a candy run from the convenience store??

OMK, this is a murder case, not some black kid arrested under sketchy circumstances.

What this case is about and the reason why people are pissed off is the constant, un-ending racial profiling against minorities, in most cases unjustified, institutional racism, since no BLACK MAN could murder a 'suspicious' looking white teen and claim self-defense and not be arrested on the spot, and the most idiotic law in the country courtesy of the NRA, the SYG law.

The reason I don't care too much that NBC doctored a portion of ZImmerman's 911 call is because it was replayed UNEDITED on CBS/ABC/CNN/MSNBC.
If NBC Network News fucked it up, it doesn't change the facts of that tape. Besides there are other recordings of Zimmerman calling 911 prior where he volunteers the race of the person he's watching.
Zimmerman said it looked like Trayvon was on drugs and implied he had a weapon tucked in his waistband. WTF??

The dude should be locked up for being a delusional psychopath.

THe only people who think the pro Trayvon activists want Zimmerman to be CONVICTED are the talking heads on FAUX News.
At every rally and protest, the only demand has been for justice and Zimmerman's arrest.


Why is it that conservatives have latched on to the murder of an innocent Black teen and tried to make it something political??

That's sick.

---

i have been with you since your first post, I agree 100 %

You stating he is a psychopath has been an argument by many, saying because he suffered post traumatic stress disorder he created this delusional world Where he is suppose to be this mighty protector and treyvon was this suspicious thug.

Zimmerman's defenses sucks, he said he thought treyvon was suspicious because he says this loon with a hood looks suspicious?

Bu then didn't he say it was raining? and cold? So why is it bad for a kid to be walking with a sweater to keep himself warm and a hood to keep him dry?

You can't look at someone with a hood, and a person of race and just assume they're bad, that's wrong!

On my knees, zimmerman never saw treyvon do anything bad, He pursued and created the situation because he is a bit mentally unstable, Treyvon never hit him, never even for self defense. This to me seems like he easily went to treyvon since there is no evidence of treyvon fighting or hitting Zimmerman.

I am a minority too, however so is Zimmerman, he's not white. I don't think he's a white man being racist, i think he was a latino who was mentally unstable who racially profiled a 17 year old minority.

Everyone is going to have a view on this differently, But you have to look at it in the view of the minority involved int his case, and it's understandable to all degrees, No one wants that uncertain feeling of walking down a steet getting shot and having no justice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by runningdownthatdream

The US was founded by the gun. US foreign policy is conducted from behind the gun (you may recall the term gunboat diplomacy was created to describe the US approach to Japan in the late 19th century and based on an actual incident). Americans are accustomed to leading with the gun. Rather than mandate against guns I'd be inclined to force every American to carry a gun - eventually they'll figure it out. Remember the Spartans? How long did their martial society last?

I'm not sure what the Canadian stance is - likely one closer to English or should I say Scottish sensibilities. We have a conservative government who at one point had a racist (Stockwell Day) as Minister of Public Safety. The majority in this country will suffer any kind of injustice as long as the social order remains in tact.....isn't that the Scottish thing!?

---

It will be interesting to read what happens when our US friends re-enter this debate! :)

You're absolutely spot on in your analysis, although forcing people to caary a gun would be interesting..... as long as you could watch from a safe distance. Spartan society imploded because of their hideous treatment of their slave class, the healots, and their overwhelming emphasis of maleness to the exclusion of all else. Despite all the admiration for their undoubted courage and military prowess their society operated pretty much in a proto-fascist way - check Mussolini's inspirations.

As to the English/Scottish thing, we should probably take that off-line. I suspect that what you describe as that instinct for preservation of the social order is largely true, but the reassertion of a distinctive Scottish political sensibility in the wake of the Thatcher years indicates that Scots' adherence to that aim is fiercer and can indeed only be achieved by ultimate separation from England. The union of the parliaments and the resultant formation of the United Kingdom in the early 18th century was very much a matter of economic necessity for Scotland, brought about by highly protective, not to say vindictive, English economic policy. It all sounds horribly familiar!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by runningdownthatdream

The US was founded by the gun. US foreign policy is conducted from behind the gun (you may recall the term gunboat diplomacy was created to describe the US approach to Japan in the late 19th century and based on an actual incident). Americans are accustomed to leading with the gun. Rather than mandate against guns I'd be inclined to force every American to carry a gun - eventually they'll figure it out. Remember the Spartans? How long did their martial society last?

I'm not sure what the Canadian stance is - likely one closer to English or should I say Scottish sensibilities. We have a conservative government who at one point had a racist (Stockwell Day) as Minister of Public Safety. The majority in this country will suffer any kind of injustice as long as the social order remains in tact.....isn't that the Scottish thing!?

---

I would rather face a man with a knife, or a fight a person physically than to face a lunatic with a gun to my head.... Just saying.

Core US practices aren't far removed from what the Spartans. The specifics may be different but on a macro level it's a similar mentality. And if you've read the stats about the US accounting for 25% of the worlds prison population I think you'll understand they are not far removed from being a fascist society. Law after law created to restrict the liberties of people and resulting in more and more people imprisoned. Of course some like the resident 1%er here supports that approach.

I understand the Scots....I think. They are practical people and will do what needs to be done at all costs even at suppressing others. I come from a former British colony....the mark of the Scots were everywhere. They built the roads and the docks and the buildings that housed the colonizers. Once they accepted their role within the UK they did a damn good job of enforcing English rule around the world!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EvonRose

I would rather face a man with a knife, or a fight a person physically than to face a lunatic with a gun to my head.... Just saying.

---

That's why you should get your own gun...........

I see you point to a certain extent but I believe that we must deal with the root cause of violence not with semantics such as what weapon is used to commit the violence. I know - I've been accused of being violent :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by runningdownthatdream

That's why you should get your own gun...........

I see you point to a certain extent but I believe that we must deal with the root cause of violence not with semantics such as what weapon is used to commit the violence. I know - I've been accused of being violent :)

---

Okay What if one day I go crazy and start shooting in a school or a mall and one or several of this people happen to be either one or several people in your family unarmed? What then? I go to jail but how is that bringing anyone to life?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by runningdownthatdream

Core US practices aren't far removed from what the Spartans. The specifics may be different but on a macro level it's a similar mentality. And if you've read the stats about the US accounting for 25% of the worlds prison population I think you'll understand they are not far removed from being a fascist society. Law after law created to restrict the liberties of people and resulting in more and more people imprisoned. Of course some like the resident 1%er here supports that approach.

I understand the Scots....I think. They are practical people and will do what needs to be done at all costs even at suppressing others. I come from a former British colony....the mark of the Scots were everywhere. They built the roads and the docks and the buildings that housed the colonizers. Once they accepted their role within the UK they did a damn good job of enforcing English rule around the world!

---

Stand by for incoming from the usual suspect(s) lol!

Canada is (I stand to be corrected) largely the product of two exploring and colonising people, the French and the Scots, with a significant sprinkling of empire loyalists after the American revolution. The French arrived first and created a pragmatic trading empire, until they were ethnically cleansed by the British after the Seven Years War. The Scots came largely by default, Highlanders expelled by rapacious landlords during the Clearances in the wake of Culloden, but between them they created a unique society with a unique set of values which continue to make Canada one of the most admired countries in the world.

However, many Scots, myself among them, recognise Scotland as very much England's last colony. Their rule has been largely benign, but we don't want to risk another tidal wave of unnecessary and inappropriate Thatcherism, hence the renewed drive towards independence. As Renton memorably said in Trainspotting, we were colonised by wankers, so what does that make us?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EvonRose

Okay What if one day I go crazy and start shooting in a school or a mall and one or several of this people happen to be either one or several people in your family unarmed? What then? I go to jail but how is that bringing anyone to life?

---

Shit happens. If I got my hands on you after you did that then you'd never do it again.

You could also just as likely run around the mall with a butcher knife stabbing people to death. You could be the Chinese guy on the Greyhound bus in Alberta who stabbed a man to death and ate parts of him while the cowards fled and watched from outside. You could be the guy in Toronto who pulled a knife on a streetcar and started several people or the other one who pushed a girl onto the subway tracks. We can't protect us from ourselves by restricting access to weapons. There are deviants everywhere and they will always find a way to realize their deviant behaviour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by runningdownthatdream

Shit happens. If I got my hands on you after you did that then you'd never do it again.

You could also just as likely run around the mall with a butcher knife stabbing people to death. You could be the Chinese guy on the Greyhound bus in Alberta who stabbed a man to death and ate parts of him while the cowards fled and watched from outside. You could be the guy in Toronto who pulled a knife on a streetcar and started several people or the other one who pushed a girl onto the subway tracks. We can't protect us from ourselves by restricting access to weapons. There are deviants everywhere and they will always find a way to realize their deviant behaviour.

---

Don't disagree, but surely adding relatively easy access to firearms just makes the situation worse? What you said below in terms of the macro realities of the situation in the US is true, but at a practical and personal level, something needs to be done to curtail the circumstances which allow this kind of thing to happen all too often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

Stand by for incoming from the usual suspect(s) lol!

Canada is (I stand to be corrected) largely the product of two exploring and colonising people, the French and the Scots, with a significant sprinkling of empire loyalists after the American revolution. The French arrived first and created a pragmatic trading empire, until they were ethnically cleansed by the British after the Seven Years War. The Scots came largely by default, Highlanders expelled by rapacious landlords during the Clearances in the wake of Culloden, but between them they created a unique society with a unique set of values which continue to make Canada one of the most admired countries in the world.

However, many Scots, myself among them, recognise Scotland as very much England's last colony. Their rule has been largely benign, but we don't want to risk another tidal wave of unnecessary and inappropriate Thatcherism, hence the renewed drive towards independence. As Renton memorably said in Trainspotting, we were colonised by wankers, so what does that make us?

---

I see you've drunk the Koolaid on Canada...incidentally I came from the country that is responsible for that phrase 'drinking the Koolaid' although it was an American that was responsible for that crime.

Canada was founded mainly by the French who were content to exploit their relations with the native people in what is generally called Eastern Canada (Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and some might include eastern Manitoba too) to supply the European rage for beaver fur. The French monarchy took a mostly laissez faire attitude to the region until the Napoleonic Wars. The Scots came after the fall of New France (you must go to Quebec some day and stand on the Plains of Abraham as that battle was arguably the one with the most profound long term impact on North America) and helped define and build Canada. The first PM was a Scotsman!

I wouldn't say the French experienced ethnic cleansing here - that's a lie that's been repeated for too long. In fact the English allowed far far greater freedoms to the French here than they did to other conquered lands - compare to what happened to Africa or India or even later the Boers - and you'll see. The French were allowed to continue practicing most of their way of life including language, religion, etc. Anyways we've hijacked the thread so I'll quit now!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by runningdownthatdream

I see you've drunk the Koolaid on Canada...incidentally I came from the country that is responsible for that phrase 'drinking the Koolaid' although it was an American that was responsible for that crime.

Canada was founded mainly by the French who were content to exploit their relations with the native people in what is generally called Eastern Canada (Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and some might include eastern Manitoba too) to supply the European rage for beaver fur. The French monarchy took a mostly laissez faire attitude to the region until the Napoleonic Wars. The Scots came after the fall of New France (you must go to Quebec some day and stand on the Plains of Abraham as that battle was arguably the one with the most profound long term impact on North America) and helped define and build Canada. The first PM was a Scotsman!

I wouldn't say the French experienced ethnic cleansing here - that's a lie that's been repeated for too long. In fact the English allowed far far greater freedoms to the French here than they did to other conquered lands - compare to what happened to Africa or India or even later the Boers - and you'll see. The French were allowed to continue practicing most of their way of life including language, religion, etc. Anyways we've hijacked the thread so I'll quit now!

---

Yep, but at least we won't get shot lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by runningdownthatdream

How're knife crimes coming along in the UK? What about good old-fashioned beatings at the pub? Are those on the decline? Based on the last time I looked at UK crime, it didn't seem that way. Controlling guns may lessen the number of fatalities but where there's a will there's a way.

Although I have to admit it's probably better that Arnie666 has use of a flashlight only and not a gun!

---

You didnt look very closely then as our gun crime is still increasing and has been even since the amnesty law thingy.. I think the main benefit of our controls is statisitically that we have a lot less "crazed gun man massacres". I think our last one was in Cumbria.... forgot his name.. but I do remmeber he had a gun licence anyway so yea that puts a small boot up the ass of that theory, like you say where there is a will.... Also on the boot up the ass point our population is a lot smaller, our society is a lot different (i think you have a lot more race, religion and isssues in general over there - no offense meant and ive never been to U.S so i could be wrong).

Anyway this gun control thing its an awfully difficult thing to pass judgement on - plus your laws are state to state and bla bla, itd be a lot different over there anyway. I dont think the UK and what we do is comparable to US.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2008/...-in-world.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hippifried

You think this is similar? Maybe if Zimmerman had been the one who got shot.

One more time. Zimmerman was attacking Martin when he got out of his car & chased him down the walkways of the commons. When you chase someone down, especially when you have no authority to do so, you should expect them to fight when you catch them. Even that cute little bunny rabbit will fight to the death when cornered by a predator. Zimmerman was the assailant, & that negates all claims of self defense.

Cervini was attacking Scott. Stepping out your front door to yell at a couple of punks who are breaking into your neighbor's car isn't an assault by any stretch of the imagination. You can't even make the claim that he initiated the confrontation. Charging toward someone in a threatening manner is an assault. That's the literal definition of the word. Scott defended himself against an assailant, who he already knew was a criminal because he'd just caught him in the act. Again: That's the definition of fthe term "self defense". Another thing that's not similar at all is that Scott was arrested & charged with manslaughter. You say the jury acquitted him? Well of course they did. Cervini died of stupidity. His partner who ran away should have been charged with felony murder because the death happened during & because of them committing a crime.

---

Zimmerman attacked Martin now? That must be realllllyyyy brand new news. And, I just thought he was only following him. By the way, Scott pulled out a gun and told them to freeze. He went out of his way to engage would-be thieves even though he knew that his girlfriend called the police about a group of teens breaking into a neighbor's car. He left his house to be a police officer. Sounds familiar..no?

The state of New York wanted to charge Scott with murder; however, a grand jury recommended him to be charged with manslaughter. A jury acquitted him. If Scott can get off, so can Zimmerman if he even goes to trial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by runningdownthatdream

Shit happens. If I got my hands on you after you did that then you'd never do it again.

You could also just as likely run around the mall with a butcher knife stabbing people to death. You could be the Chinese guy on the Greyhound bus in Alberta who stabbed a man to death and ate parts of him while the cowards fled and watched from outside. You could be the guy in Toronto who pulled a knife on a streetcar and started several people or the other one who pushed a girl onto the subway tracks. We can't protect us from ourselves by restricting access to weapons. There are deviants everywhere and they will always find a way to realize their deviant behaviour.

---

People are more likely to tackle me down, example men who are over 150 pounds, since i weigh about 120, I could kill a man as big as a hippo it takes one shot in the head with a gun. i could kill more people in less time as to the effort of a knife, i would burn out fighting off people. You are also more likely to survive a knife attack. We can't protect ourselves but the point is lessening the violence and in no doubt in my mind if we control the gun situation it would decrease. You talk about england and the US lets take statistic in account to what country has more fatality in a violent act, or how many of those crimes are gun related.

People are more likely to convict me as well. Since it take close body contact s oppose to gun shooting from a distance and claiming self defense!

how do we expect everyone to defend themselves against these types of people? People under 18 are helpless, Like treyvon was. So how can we protect them from people like Zimmerman who are trigger happy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

As reports come through of another college campus massacre in California, isn't it about time that gun possession laws should be reviewed if only to try and prevent casual access to firearms by people who, sadly with hindsight, should never be allowed near them?

---

*bump*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SammiValentine

You didnt look very closely then as our gun crime is still increasing and has been even since the amnesty law thingy.. I think the main benefit of our controls is statisitically that we have a lot less "crazed gun man massacres". I think our last one was in Cumbria.... forgot his name.. but I do remmeber he had a gun licence anyway so yea that puts a small boot up the ass of that theory, like you say where there is a will.... Also on the boot up the ass point our population is a lot smaller, our society is a lot different (i think you have a lot more race, religion and isssues in general over there - no offense meant and ive never been to U.S so i could be wrong).

Anyway this gun control thing its an awfully difficult thing to pass judgement on - plus your laws are state to state and bla bla, itd be a lot different over there anyway. I dont think the UK and what we do is comparable to US.

---

Interesting points, Sammi. It's also worth adding that the tightening of our gun laws here in the UK followed the lone gunman atrocities in Hungerford and Dunblane. In both of those cases, and the one in Cumbria (Derek Bird), the gunman was licensed to carry firearms and was a member of a gun club. So action was taken in that context, and on the assumption that it was placing tighter restrictions on people who already had legal access to guns.

What it failed to address, of course, was the trade in illegal firearms and their increasingly casual use in inner-city crime, usually gang or drug-related. That's less about control and more about vigilance and prevention by the police and wider authorities. And in such cases guns are being carried and even used by minors - I particularly recall that terrible shooting of the kiddy in Liverpool by a juvenile on a bike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by runningdownthatdream

Shit happens. If I got my hands on you after you did that then you'd never do it again.

You could also just as likely run around the mall with a butcher knife stabbing people to death. You could be the Chinese guy on the Greyhound bus in Alberta who stabbed a man to death and ate parts of him while the cowards fled and watched from outside. You could be the guy in Toronto who pulled a knife on a streetcar and started several people or the other one who pushed a girl onto the subway tracks. We can't protect us from ourselves by restricting access to weapons. There are deviants everywhere and they will always find a way to realize their deviant behaviour.

---

Funny thing about other weapons: you never hear of anyone being killed by a stray knife or baseball bat. On the other hand... IMHO if anyone wants to be serious about this issue, it would make more sense to license gun owners, just as we do with automobiles. But of course that would be an infringement of freedoms, right?:geek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SammiValentine

You didnt look very closely then as our gun crime is still increasing and has been even since the amnesty law thingy.. I think the main benefit of our controls is statisitically that we have a lot less "crazed gun man massacres". I think our last one was in Cumbria.... forgot his name.. but I do remmeber he had a gun licence anyway so yea that puts a small boot up the ass of that theory, like you say where there is a will.... Also on the boot up the ass point our population is a lot smaller, our society is a lot different (i think you have a lot more race, religion and isssues in general over there - no offense meant and ive never been to U.S so i could be wrong).

Anyway this gun control thing its an awfully difficult thing to pass judgement on - plus your laws are state to state and bla bla, itd be a lot different over there anyway. I dont think the UK and what we do is comparable to US.

---

Not sure what point you're making. My point was that in the UK it's not as easy to get a gun as it is in the US, generally speaking and, while you may have lower incidences of gun crimes, you have very high incidences of violent crime.

Your gun crimes may be on the rise because handguns are more widely available?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by runningdownthatdream

Not sure what point you're making. My point was that in the UK it's not as easy to get a gun as it is in the US, generally speaking and, while you may have lower incidences of gun crimes, you have very high incidences of violent crime.

Your gun crimes may be on the rise because handguns are more widely available?

---

My point was our gun crime does continue to rise regardless of laws and licences, it was in response to "where there is a will..." (its all gang related) . Correct its more difficult, we (regualr folks) cant just walk in a shop and buy a gun, but if you do really want a gun you only need to speak to the right person who knows a person and you can get a gun - they are not that hard to get hold if you want to get one.

Why do we have high violent crime and less gun stuff? Different society as others have said, we are both very fucked up places in our own special way :)

oh yea, after reding what I put (long night lol), my point was the last few words. I dont think the UK and US are comparable like thism with crime stats, chalk and cheese... apples and oranges as you guys say,..

I think the point about guns and the specifics of this crime, are the law in Florida and how it can appear to work in favour of the person shooting someone dead. When the facts in this case are finally settled -and I still don't know exactly what happened- the issues that will be -or should be on the agenda, are the way in which the police responded to the incident, and the 'Stand your ground' law, whose precise meaning has been contested here by at least one Florida BM. Guns have always been available in the UK, from the notorious case of Derek Bentley who was executed for the shooting of a policeman in greater London (Croydon) in 1953 to Mark Duggan in Tottenham last year; some have come out of the armed forces, others from eastern Europe -as Sammi says if you really want a gun it doesn't take too much effort to get one. If there is a slightly similar case in the UK as far as the police response is concerned, it is actually the murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence, where the police were given vital information on the attackers within 24 hours of the event, but did nothing for two weeks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I think the point about guns and the specifics of this crime, are the law in Florida and how it can appear to work in favour of the person shooting someone dead. When the facts in this case are finally settled -and I still don't know exactly what happened- the issues that will be -or should be on the agenda, are the way in which the police responded to the incident, and the 'Stand your ground' law, whose precise meaning has been contested here by at least one Florida BM. Guns have always been available in the UK, from the notorious case of Derek Bentley who was executed for the shooting of a policeman in greater London (Croydon) in 1953 to Mark Duggan in Tottenham last year; some have come out of the armed forces, others from eastern Europe -as Sammi says if you really want a gun it doesn't take too much effort to get one. If there is a slightly similar case in the UK as far as the police response is concerned, it is actually the murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence, where the police were given vital information on the attackers within 24 hours of the event, but did nothing for two weeks.

---

Didnt that case finally get resolved recently (they went down, racist twats).. how many years later?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by notdrunk

Zimmerman attacked Martin now? That must be realllllyyyy brand new news. And, I just thought he was only following him. By the way, Scott pulled out a gun and told them to freeze. He went out of his way to engage would-be thieves even though he knew that his girlfriend called the police about a group of teens breaking into a neighbor's car. He left his house to be a police officer. Sounds familiar..no?

The state of New York wanted to charge Scott with murder; however, a grand jury recommended him to be charged with manslaughter. A jury acquitted him. If Scott can get off, so can Zimmerman if he even goes to trial.

---

They are so far from being the same.
The difference is Trayvon Martin was committing NO CRIME. He was walking back to his father's condo, a capital offense for a colored boy, apparently.
The love this asshole gets from randoms is unbelievable.

is this going to be like the oj case where people align themselves by race ? scary we have not progressed much. hypothethical here if zimmerman was following trayvon but trayvon decided to attack zimmerman I still believe zimmerman might be the aggressor,he had the gun trayvonn was unarmed if they fought and trayvon was kicking his ass zimmerman does not have the right to shoot after basically starting the altercation imho.:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chromeheart44m

hypothethical here if zimmerman was following trayvon but trayvon decided to attack zimmerman I still believe zimmerman might be the aggressor

---

At the same time; if Zimmerman stopped following Trayvon and was on his way back to his vehicle, and Trayvon attacked him. Is Zimmerman still the aggressor?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loren

At the same time; if Zimmerman stopped following Trayvon and was on his way back to his vehicle, and Trayvon attacked him. Is Zimmerman still the aggressor?

---

Your scenario falls under the possible but unlikely scenario.

I find it hard to believe that Zimmerman told this kid to 'chill out, I'm not gonna hurt you. I'm a part of the neighborhood watch and I wanted to talk to you because I've never seen you around here before,' and suddenly after the situation was defused, crazy nigger Trayvon attacked him.

That's why murdering the only other witness is so convenient.

Common sense is your best friend in cases like this.

i was just on fb and there is a bunch of support 4 zimmerman im shocked all we want is him 2 go 2 trial but the conservatives really hate this kid why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loren

At the same time; if Zimmerman stopped following Trayvon and was on his way back to his vehicle, and Trayvon attacked him. Is Zimmerman still the aggressor?

---

good quetion ? seems odd trayvon would attack unless he was drunk or on drugs and toxiccology would show that words may have been exchanged names called we may never know the truth:mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SammiValentine

Didnt that case finally get resolved recently (they went down, racist twats).. how many years later?

---

Lawrence was murdered in 1993; two of the gang members have been sent down, but the police insist that the others will also face the music at some point although the evidence by now is slipping away. The argument is that at the time the lead detective in the investigation was in cahoots with the father of one of the gang members (Norris) accused who was also a local crime lord, and that is why the investigation went nowhere for two weeks. The parents were known to Michael Howard who around that time became leader of the Conservative Party, Neville Lawrence had done some work for him; they just wouldn't let go and Doreen I believe will not rest until the rest of the gang are put on trial -again in the case of the Acourt brothers. Whether any of this actually happens I cannot say.

The suspicion is that there are times when the police do not investigate crimes against black people with the same urgency as they do white people, which is where the Lawrence case may have congruence with the Florida case.