Imma. gonna say it just to be a troll: George Zimmerman
don't look all that " white" to me.

I know. What a racist.

His family claims he is Latino.

This whole thing is so fucked up.

We shouldn't be trying this guy in the press. The police should have done a better investigation. One they can stand behind, and if charges were filed against him, he should have been judged by a jury of his peers. This is not the way to do it.

The shooting is suspect, but the backlash is worse. The public scrutiny should be on the police, the DA, and the law, not on Zimmerman. This is just as bad as a lynching.

Most people who were lynched probably weren't running around shooting people.

So you think it's OK to ruin this guy's future without giving him a trial?

Remember Richard Jewell, the Atlanta Olympics bomber?

edit: How about Steven Hatfill, the anthrax poisoner?
How about that white van the DC sniper was driving around in?

Oh, I was really just addressing the lynching comment. It's not quite the same thing.

No, he needs a trial. And if they can prove he did it without justification good for them: one less nut running around.

If they can prove he was justified then case closed.

Not quite the same, but very similar. Both are groups of people taking justice into their own hands with no regard for the law. Nobody has strung Zimmerman up in a tree yet, but I bet he doesn't feel very safe. I don't see him going out in public.

No, you're right about that.

My really real feeling sounds very bad, and I don't want to voice them.

One word: Sharpton. :headshake

"without giving him a trial" is what the protests are about.

OK Stormie, you may consider me an anti-gun fanatic,
but first please consider one of my previous postings.

I really don't intend my question to be rhetorical.
If it helps, use your words above to address the real question:
How do you propose shootings might be brought to zero ?

Otherwise, such are only debating tactics to divert from my issue of people being killed by guns.
.

If he'd asked to be shot, the other guy wouldn't have shot him? Like reverse psychology or something? What are you on about?

What's the point of a trial when under Floriduh law he's going to be found not guilty? It would be a show trial and the verdict would probably cause even more anger and possible riots.

Federal law may come into the picture... to determine if killing Trayvon Martin violated his civil rights.
That may sound strange, I know, but it's possible with the FBI being involved.

If he's found not guilty because of "stand your ground", rather than some technicality or exculpatory information yet to be mentioned, it may be useful for altering the "stand your ground" law for the better.

sexobon: ... instead of enabling armed citizens to kill in the name of security, you enable doctors to kill in the name of convenience!

Happy Monkey: ... Trayvon Martin didn't ask to be "secured".

I used the concept of security referring to the person who did the shooting. You turned "secured" into a euphemism for being shot, apparently just to make a flippant connection to euthanasia. I was comparing Lamplighter to Zimmerman both of whom are relevant to the discussion. You went off on a tangent contrasting Trayvon Martin to unknown euthanasia participants.

sexobon: ... Perhaps if he had, he'd still be alive just like the person who claims to have secured himself from him. Duh.

Here, I returned to using the concept of security in my original relevant context suggesting that if Trayvon Martin had asked Zimmerman (a neighborhood watch member) to protect [secure] him when they met, Trayvon Martin couldn't have been characterized as a threat and might still be alive today.

Thank you for your question.
[bold mine]
You still can't bring yourself to say something like "people killing others with guns." You repeatedly use language that portrays people as victims and guns as perpetrators. That's diagnostic for an antigun fanatic and why I've written you off for meaningful exchange on this subject. Thanks for the entertainment.