Dear George Zimmerman

[Swim411]

Stand your ground law gives immunity in self defense shootings. So it is not murder as defined by the law.

Stand your ground doesn't give imminity to prosecution for murder. This should be rather obvious to you. Simply saying, "I was standing my ground" is not a magic phrase that makes murder legal.

But you do make a compelling case for why the stand your ground laws are to toxic and so racist.

 

[Swim411]

What is wrong with that? There is in fact a correlation. Anyone with an elementary understanding of statistics can see that. Of course it's racist if you bring up statistics about race and violence.

There is no correlation between violent crime and Trayvon Martin. So that is what is wrong with it. Innocent kids have the natural right to live their lives without people in society treating them as guilty for the crimes of others.

As a vanguard of natural rights, you ought to know this.

 

[GoodSpeed]

There is no correlation between violent crime and Trayvon Martin. So that is what is wrong with it. Innocent kids have the natural right to live their lives without people in society treating them as guilty for the crimes of others.

As a vanguard of natural rights, you ought to know this.

I'm not convinced.

 

[Swim411]

I'm not convinced.

You can't name one 17-year-old who was out for candy and talking with a friend, turn on a dime and intentionally murder a stranger.

Yet, you think it is actually rational to believe Trayvon did this.

So convincing you is immaterial.

 

[Swim411]

Teenage boys can be pretty volatile like Trayvon.

They aren't whimsically murderous.

 

[GoodSpeed]

You can't name one 17-year-old who was out for candy and talking with a friend, turn on a dime and intentionally murder a stranger.

Yet, you think it is actually rational to believe Trayvon did this.

So convincing you is immaterial.

Dude ... that happens all the time. What are you talking about?
So I don't know the names ... this happens every day.

 

[ReardenSteel]

Stand your ground doesn't give imminity to prosecution for murder. This should be rather obvious to you. Simply saying, "I was standing my ground" is not a magic phrase that makes murder legal.

But you do make a compelling case for why the stand your ground laws are to toxic and so racist.

Stand your ground law is an immunity, it is not an affirmative defense. It gives immunity from suit, charges, detention, and arrest. There are 31 states with some sort of stand your ground or castle doctrine law.

 

[wintermile]

What is wrong with that? There is in fact a correlation. Anyone with an elementary understanding of statistics can see that. Of course it's racist if you bring up statistics about race and violence.

If you want to withdraw from your own argument that is on you.

Some of the same objectives that center around neurofinance may work for neurobehavior, honing in on that exact financial rationality or potential threat.

Are you familiar with Wolseley's current thread: Four in five Americans face poverty, unemployment? A good portion of the article discusses how white individuals are the main group that lives in poverty. More, it claims white single mothers rank as the majority group for single household parenting.

Other CF members have addressed weapon and drug use statistics. Correlations can be verified.

 

[Swim411]

Stand your ground law is an immunity, it is not an affirmative defense. It gives immunity from suit, charges, detention, and arrest. There are 31 states with some sort of stand your ground or castle doctrine law.

It obviously would only apply to Trayvon in this case. Trayvon was effectively in his own backyard.

 

[ReardenSteel]

There is no correlation between violent crime and Trayvon Martin. So that is what is wrong with it. Innocent kids have the natural right to live their lives without people in society treating them as guilty for the crimes of others.

As a vanguard of natural rights, you ought to know this.

There is no evidence that Martin's rights were violated. Assaulting another person forfeited his right to life, and there is no evidence proving he did not assault Zimmerman. Like it or not that is the way our law works. Zimmerman has no obligation to prove his innocence or to prove it was self defense.

 

[Swim411]

There is no evidence that Martin's rights were violated.

Do you know what the word "evidence" means?

It seems that you don't. Trayvon is LITERALLY dead.

Ergo, ALL of his rights were violated.

 

[ReardenSteel]

If you want to withdraw from your own argument that is on you.

Some of the same objectives that center around neurofinance may work for neurobehavior, honing in on that exact financial rationality or potential threat.

Are you familiar with Wolseley's current thread: Four in five Americans face poverty, unemployment? A good portion of the article discusses how white individuals are the main group that lives in poverty. More, it claims white single mothers rank as the majority group for single household parenting.

Other CF members have addressed weapon and drug use statistics. Correlations can be verified.

I don't think I have seen that thread/article. I'm not sure with those statistics have to do with this case or violent crime though.

 

[ReardenSteel]

Do you know what the word "evidence" means?

It seems that you don't. Trayvon is LITERALLY dead.

Ergo, ALL of his rights were violated.

He forfeited his rights when he assaulted another person.

 

[MachZer0]

There is a bullet hole in a dead kid’s chest, and a smoking gun.

In the real world, that is called, "evidence."

So do you want to amend what you said? Or are you going to stick with "absence of any evidence"?

In this case, it's evidence of self defense

 

[MachZer0]

Nobody knows that Martin was trying to kill Zimmerman.

Zimmerman knows because Martin told him so

 

[Swim411]

He forfeited his rights when he assaulted another person.

You still don't know what evidence is. The bullet hole in Trayvon's chest implicates Zimmerman. It doesn't magically disappear as evidence because you CHOOSE to believe Trayvon's killer's absurd story.

You imagined he assaulted another person. And you imagine that the very stand your ground law you think protects Zimmerman could never protect the black kid who was closer to his castle than George was to his castle.

 

[ReardenSteel]

You still don't know what evidence is. The bullet hole in Trayvon's chest implicates Zimmerman. It doesn't magically disappear as evidence because you CHOOSE to believe Trayvon's killer's absurd story.

You imagined he assaulted another person. And you imagine that the very stand your ground law you think protects Zimmerman could never protect the black kid who was closer to his castle than George was to his castle.

You obviously don't understand how stand your ground laws work.

 

[Bedford]

Zimmerman knows because Martin told him so

According to the killer.


His word is not good for me, and I wonder when they will punish the wife for lying to the court?

 

[Daughter of His]

If someone was repeatedly slamming your head into the ground would you assume they were trying to hurt or kill you? Would you defend yourself or just wait and see if you lost consciousness?hmmmm

 

[GoodSpeed]

If someone was repeatedly slamming your head into the ground would you assume they were trying to hurt or kill you? Would you defend yourself or just wait and see if you lost consciousness?hmmmm

I think in one of the earlier pages Swim411 explains it this way:
Trazan had twinkies from the store with him, so when he returned to GZ he was going to share the twinkies with him. GZ should have graciously accepted the offering and thanked him, but instead asked if they were gluten free.
At that point Tarzan was justified in thumpin dat cracka real good.