What is your evidence that "these assholes" refers to a racial group, gav?

http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_23535125/zimmerman-prosecutors-want-admit-his-five-prior-911

http://www.motherjones.com/documents/327330-george-zimmerrman-911-call-history

> Zimmerman had a right to shoot Martin in order to stop Martin's vicious attack and save his own life.

No he didn't. Martin never attacked him.

Also lol at parroting the Fox News point of view and then accusing someone of being brainwashed by the MSM.

So he'd called 911 about black males before. So? Some of them had actually been arrested for actual robberies in his neighborhood, too. He'd also been very active in protesting mistreatment of a black male by the local police department. Very thin, gav, very thin.

"No he didn't. Martin never attacked him."

That's unclear to say the least. None of us were there, of course, but there is at least a decent amount of evidence to the contrary -- more than enough to create reasonable doubt (as the jury, obviously, found).

In any case, Gunfighter was discussing legal rights, so it's reasonable to interpret his words as meaning that the right existed if he were, in fact, attacked.

> So he'd called 911 about black males before. So?

So that's who he's talking about when he says "these assholes." That's what made him decide that Trayvon was a criminal, who Zimmerman should stalk and harass - because he was black.

> He'd also been very active in protesting mistreatment of a black male by the local police department.

Bullshit.

> In any case, Gunfighter was discussing legal rights, so it's reasonable to interpret his words as meaning that the right existed if he were, in fact, attacked.

No, I've already been through one of these threads with Dickfighter. He is asserting that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

By the way,

> I guess the truth was even obvious to the uppity

That's the end of anyone still pretending krellin isn't a racist, right?

'Is life so cheap in England that you can't defend yourself if somebody is trying to kill you?' - You can indeed defend yourself, but the use of deadly force is not allowed unless you can prove it is necessary; we don't have stand your ground laws, or encourage the carrying of firearms (wild west laws) for self defence.

It is rarely considered reasonable to kill someone with some exceptions such as "R v Rose, a young son shot dead his father to protect his mother from a serious assault, believing that this was the only practical way of defending her given his small physical size."

And can i just +1 this "The laws enforce and perpetuate acts of extreme violence, the fact that the public are not shocked by laws that support 'justifiable use of deadly force' gives an indication of the uncivilized society you guys live in."

It is good to see protests against this, the jury is correct, the law is wrong, and the protesters are exercising their democratic responsibility to try and change things; to reject this uncivilised, unfair (only those who can afford to carry guns get to defend themselves?) system. It gives me some hope.

"Humans are violent and greedy." - Humans are kind and generous, it all depends on what situation you put them in, and the point of a 'society' is that it decides (to some limited ability) what situation we find ourselves in.

These humans out protesting can see what is unfair on an intuitive level. It is instinctive. But in a society which worships violence, and glorifies warriors - be they soldiers, football players, or community 'defence' officers - along with calling greed a virtue, yeah, sure they will be greed and violence in your society!

semck & GunF
"Does they're come a time ever when you question the basic philosophy that underpins your life?"
I realise that you don't think anything is wrong because if you did you would change but the truth is you are bad people inside, you support and perpetuate bad things and then spend way too much time trying to defend yourself and other bad things.
I hope for the sake of society in general your children turn out differently because it would be nice to think there is hope for the future.
Hate and bigotry and murder is not the way forward for any civilized person or society, a truism I feel wasted on you, you can lipstick on a thug, even teach them to read and write, but at the end of the day they're still a thug.

The Zimmerman phenomenom
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge7i60GuNRg

It's only the black guy stealing the bike ..... brilliant

First off, a photo of Zimmerman's face.

http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Journalism/2013/07/13/zimmerman_scene_photo.jpg

If that dude wasn't in a fight and getting his face shoved into concrete, how did his nose get that fucked up?

The 911 call transcript:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

From what I see - there was no racial profiling. He followed a suspicious looking guy and there had been break-ins recently. He should have listened to police, but he didn't. He was incompetent and got into a fist fight and killed the guy. I would think manslaughter charges would have at least stuck, but murder? No, not by a long shot.

Nigee, I don't know what the connotations of the word 'thug' are in Britain, but please leave it out of discussions of race in America.
http://web.archive.org/web/20110515124744/http://www.ajc.com/living/content/living/stories/2007/01/24/0125LVthug.html

> If that dude wasn't in a fight and getting his face shoved into concrete, how did his nose get that fucked up?

He started the fight. Martin didn't attack him.

> From what I see - there was no racial profiling.

It's established by his pattern of calls, and the fact that he decided Martin was suspicious-looking. Martin wasn't suspicious-looking.

@gavrilop - I wasn't making claims as to who started the fight, just proving that there was a fight. Some news outlets had been claiming otherwise. Honestly, we will never know who started it all.

And from the sound of the transcript, Martin was loitering outside in the rain by the gated community. And to me, people in baggy hoodies loitering are suspicious. Why? Because the gang members and delinquents in my high school loitered in baggy hoodies. Call it profiling - yes it is - but is it bad to profile if it's a correct profile? People don't break into houses wearing Lacoste shirts and a pair of Sperrys

People moan about trolls but surely the worst kind of troll is a well-meaning ignoramus, wouldn't you say GunF

The saying innocent until proven guilty is BULLSHIT! And not in the sense that I disagree with the mentality - but Zimmerman has NOT been found INNOCENT. It's been found that there is not enough evidence to convict this piece of CRAP. Totally different, especially when the legal system is supposed to find more guilty people not guilty, than innocent people guilty.

> Honestly, we will never know who started it all.

Sure we do. Zimmerman lied about the bushes. That's good evidence that he started it, because he made up a false story about it later.

> And from the sound of the transcript, Martin was loitering outside in the rain by the gated community.

Bullshit. Even Zimmerman says he was walking.

> And to me, people in baggy hoodies loitering are suspicious.

To George Zimmerman, black men are suspicious.

> Call it profiling - yes it is - but is it bad to profile if it's a correct profile?

It's not a correct profile if it makes you target someone who isn't committing a crime.

@obi - no disrespect intended, but it's posts like yours that are part of the problem. Obviously not everything that happens to a black person is because they're black - but you can't use that fact to just push race out of the picture! In the end of the day the murder definitely had a racial element to it, and a jury that was disproportionately short of blacks found the guy that killed Trayvon (and did so at least partly because Trayvon was black) not guilty. Maybe if you'd lived your life as someone who gets different treatment because they're black you'd understand the problems here.

"And to me, people in baggy hoodies loitering are suspicious. Why? Because the gang members and delinquents in my high school loitered in baggy hoodies."

The gang members and delinquents in my school carried guns

In fairness to the jury (except Juror B-37 who is a racist), they were chosen because they were ignorant. And the prosecution did a sub-par job, missing a lot of opportunities to present the state's narrative.

And if I ever murder somebody while I'm vacationing in Florida, I'm totally hiring Mark O'Mara.

" but is it bad to profile if it's a correct profile? People don't break into houses wearing Lacoste shirts and a pair of Sperrys"

George Zimmerman the Second, ladies and gentleman

Jesus

Hey Jesus, my teeth are getting yellow. Can you work a miracle and hook me up with some Donnie Osmonds over here?

That spic sure is lucky he's got a Jew name.

WTF mapleleaf. Shut the fuck up.

@gav,

"So that's who he's talking about when he says "these assholes." That's what made him decide that Trayvon was a criminal, who Zimmerman should stalk and harass - because he was black. "

That doesn't prove that at all. He could just have meant "these criminals who target our neighborhood." It so happened that the prior robbers arrested in the neighborhood was black, but that's hardly proof that Mr. Zimmerman was singling out that aspect.

"> He'd also been very active in protesting mistreatment of a black male by the local police department.

Bullshit."

This is documented. Do you actually deny it?

"No, I've already been through one of these threads with Dickfighter. He is asserting that Martin attacked Zimmerman. "

And the jury obviously considered that there was at least a reasonable possibility that he did. The fact is, we can't know for sure, your confident assertions notwithstanding.

@orathaic,

"You can indeed defend yourself, but the use of deadly force is not allowed unless you can prove it is necessary; we don't have stand your ground laws,"

Your former statement is true in the US as well, with or without stand your ground laws. Also, while they have been much discussed and frequently misunderstood, stand your ground laws did not actually have relevance in this case. Mr. Zimmerman claimed that he was pinned to the sidewalk and could not escape, so even without a SYGL, there would have been (on his story) no question of his retreating.

"It is good to see protests against this, the jury is correct, the law is wrong, and the protesters are exercising their democratic responsibility to try and change things; to reject this uncivilised, unfair (only those who can afford to carry guns get to defend themselves?) system."

I confess I have no idea what you are talking about. The alternative to allowing force in self defense is that *nobody* can defend himself. Is it your claim that that is preferable?

@Nigee,

"I realise that you don't think anything is wrong because if you did you would change but the truth is you are bad people inside, you support and perpetuate bad things and then spend way too much time trying to defend yourself and other bad things."

Quite an accusation there, for people you don't know based on their political beliefs. I might even hazard that it is such anger, bitterness, and willingness to pigeonhole those we disagree with that is really a much bigger problem than any of those you pretend to point out. In any case -- yes, of course you think my ideas are bad, as I think your are bad. I refrain from saying that it makes you a bad person, though I think that (whether through bad intent or merely, as more likely, poor reasoning) the positions you support would lead and do lead to great evil in the world.

> That doesn't prove that at all. He could just have meant "these criminals who target our neighborhood."

That makes him a racist, for looking at Trayvon and assuming he was a criminal.

> but that's hardly proof that Mr. Zimmerman was singling out that aspect.

The 911 calls are proof that he was obsessing about black men.

> This is documented. Do you actually deny it?

Yes, I deny it, because the documentation is shit. The only people claiming that Zimmerman made any protest about Ware *are Zimmerman's family.* Show me somebody outside of his family who backs up the assertion.

But if it's true, so what? A racist can recognize a blatant injustice which is enough to trigger sympathy for one particular victim. Lots of racists thought Bull Connor went too far, for instance. Zimmerman can be biased against black men generally but sympathize with Ware as a specific individual. "One of the good ones."

> And the jury obviously considered that there was at least a reasonable possibility that he did.

You objected to my pointing out that Dickfighter was making a specific assertion of culpability for one party. Now you're changing it up: it's fine for you that he makes such assertions, but you want to object to me saying otherwise. Don't act like you're not biased as fuck.

> The fact is, we can't know for sure

Yes we can. He straight up lied about the bushes. There were no bushes there. That shows he was making up a story as he went along.

> I might even hazard that it is such anger, bitterness, and willingness to pigeonhole those we disagree with

Then at least put up a pretense of fairness, and object to Dickfighter's insults about "brainwashing." Don't you recognize how biased you are? Don't complain about pigeonholing when you won't police your own side.

What the cute about the part of the racist angle is,that trayvon is the only one to use a real racial slur. Maybe he attacked gz cuz he thought he was white?