Lost Localhost

Ugh. Can't believe I'm poking this dead, ugly horse

OOoooook. So I'll do this once publicly, then I'm done. There's only so much dead horse beating I can partake in before I'm contributing to the very thing I hate - over hype.

A guy who got his butt beat shot another guy. Somehow that was questioned if it was truly self defense, so there was a public outcry to arrest the guy. Despite no evidence, the state assigned a corrupt prosecutor, and they got him arrested and he got his day in court. Then the jury said he didn't break any law. Now the same people who said they wanted him to have a fair trial, don't want that anymore. They didn't get the result they wanted, so shit is hitting the fan.

...and I can't understand why.

Q1. Why was he carrying a gun?! I can't believe someone can carry a weapon in public.

A1. He was carrying a gun for self defense. In the case that someone does something potentially life threatening, like start a fight or straddle you and bang your head against a sidewalk, it's used to defend yourself. If Trayvon had a gun and Zimmerman was the one to start the fight, TM may have been justified in shooting him, for instance.

Wouldn't you want to be able to defend yourself if someone jumped you or your family?

Q2. It's the law - this "stand your ground" law. We should get rid of it!
A2. Wrong. Stand your ground had nothing to do with this self defense claim. Stand your ground means any situation where you are in a public place and are legally able to be, a threat can not force you to leave said place and you are allowed to remain there even when defending yourself. In this particular case, Zimmerman had no option to retreat, so even if there were no Stand your ground law, it would still be justifiable defense given the fact that he was being restrained. In the same token, Martin had no legal requirement to leave the area either - he could have stayed right where he was. According to the evidence, the first law that was broke was an assault by Martin.

Q3. Isn't Zimmerman guilty of getting out of his car? He was following TM. That's a violation!
A3. No, it isn't. There is no law against being in a public space after someone else was. Additionally, while it may not always be the smartest thing to trail someone you think is up to no good (because maybe they'll beat you up) it is not illegal. Especially when asked by police dispatch to let them know if the suspicious person does anything.

Wouldn't you want to be in a neighborhood that called the police when they saw someone acting strange around your house?

Q4. He was a wanna-be cop, obviously this means he was trying to BE a cop, right?
A4. Since when has wanting to do justice a bad thing? He did everything correct - he called the police and observed. Many of the people making this argument are the ones who support taking matters into thier own hands and harming Zimmerman, his family, those who support him, or even people who look like him.

Isn't living next to a neighborhood watch member, police officer, or someone pursuing becoming law enforcement a deterrent to crime in your area?

Q5. He was obviously racist! Shouldn't this be investigated as a hate crime?

A5. There is evidence that race may have played an issue. The terms "cracka" and "Nigga" were mentioned. The odd thing, though, is that only Trayvon Martin used these racial slurs. There is zero evidence that race played a role in Zimmermans decisions. In fact, Zimmerman has a history of supporting minorities.
Also, he is a minority himself; Hispanic.

Is anyone who is arguing Zimmerman was racist going to address the racial slurs by Martin? Anyone? There is MORE evidence Martin was racist than Zimmerman - so someone PLEASE explain that one to me.
According to the evidence, Martin committed a hate crime assaulting the "creepy ass cracka". I wonder if that will come out in the DOJ's investigation of this case. (yeah right)

Q6. Martin was just an innocent kid!

A6. All evidence shows he assaulted someone. Also, there's evidence he used drugs and was racist. 17 years old is not a child. 17 year olds can do evil things, and hurt others. 17 year olds kill, use drugs, fight, and rob pretty commonly in (sweet home) Chi-town.
Bottom line: It wouldn't matter if he WAS a perfect kid before that night, if he assaulted someone, that person had the right to defend themselves. Just like if Zimmerman hit Martin, Martin would have been justified in shooting him instead...

If a 15 year old threatened my family's or my life, and I felt the only opportunity to end that threat was with a gun, I'd do it.
He wasn't a kid.

The situation sucks. But of all the murders everyday, why does this one set the fire under so many people's asses? He's later been an idiot in what he says, but that doesn't change the facts of the incident...