May seem like it, but it's winding it's way upward. Started as a few "rogue" IRS agents, then it went to a Cincinnati IRS manager who got off the rails a bit, but now it's up to Obama's own appointee.

We'll have his name before long.

Winding its way downward. It seemed pretty bad when first reported, when it seemed like they were doing it to only the right, but that turned out to be false. The guy who initially reported that they were targetting the Tea Party turned out to have been told to find any bad treatment of the Tea Party, and failed to report that the list of keywords was across the board.

Who "it's up to" doesn't matter much if "it" isn't actually a scandal.

Conversely, if they "who it's up to" has already been decided, the "it" is merely a placeholder.

Adak, only one story got told because only one person walked away. Let's say that Trayvon turned and noticed that Zimmerman had drawn a gun. Even without Stand Your Ground, it's not possible to outrun a bullet. So he closes and attempts to disarm Zimmerman, which might include tackling him into the concrete. It was never clear how Zimmerman could have gotten to his gun lying on his back. Unless he already had his gun already drawn. After all, isn't that what real cops do when approaching a dangerous suspect? So wouldn't a wannabe follow the same procedure?

If Zimmerman drew his weapon before being attacked, then "Stand Your Ground" was with Trayvon. Not that it would have done him any good if he'd been the sole survivor.

@Adak, this is a statement I have not heard before,
and have not been able to find via my Google searches.

What I have found are sequences of events that speak to phone calls
between Martin and his girl friend, both before and at the time of the shooting.

Attachment 44856

What I have also found is the following statement in this link,
and that agrees with what I had heard reported over the course of these events...

These seem to me to be significant enough to affect people's opinions about the jury finding.

Adak, Will you please document or cite a link
to support your statement that Martin actually arrived at his girl friend's home,
and then went back to "fix that cracker".

I'll take a wild stab in the dark and say someone on Fox News said it?

Lamplighter, you should go outside, *now*, and check your hubcaps.

:D

Is that why rims are so popular? Much harder to steal?

It's entirely possible to avoid being shot if you don't give someone a reason to shoot at you by closing on them. Police draw down on suspects all the time without shooting them. Even Martin would have known that. He would also have known that if Zimmerman wanted to shoot him at that time, there was opportunity to do it before he could react.

If Zimmerman had been imitating police procedure by having his gun already drawn, he would have done so from a safe distance and shot at Martin when Martin closed on him before Martin reached him. That's what the police would do. I've not heard any claim that more than one shot was fired.

A plausible explanation would be a combat handgun technique called the rock back draw. It can be performed standing or as one is being taken down to the ground. The shooter uses one arm to push off from an assailant at point blank range, the shooter bending backwards at the waist, creating more distance for the other arm to draw and fire unimpeded from the waist. Zimmerman could have drawn his gun just before he hit the ground and then waited until he felt he couldn't recover before firing. Of course, this would've had to have happened without Martin realizing what Zimmerman was up to it since there doesn't seem to have been an ensuing struggle for the weapon between when it was drawn and when it was fired.

The more likely explanation is that Zimmerman was able to arch the small of his back or twist his body just enough to create a space to draw the gun. All it takes is a hand-on-gun thickness of space to free the gun and very little maneuvering to get it into firing position, especially when an assailant doesn't realize it's there. That Zimmerman was unable to better protect his head using both of his arms to block Martin's thrusts and blows indicates that Zimmerman may have been using one arm for retrieving the gun while he was on the ground and that Martin, concentrating on battering Zimmerman's head, simply didn't have a clue as to why he was having such an easy time of it until he was shot.

Hypothetically speaking of course.

... just don't wear a hoodie.

All the rest is hypothetical. Right ?

Left.

Unfortunately, no.

That was reported by the media, immediately after the incident. Of course, I was interested in the case, and began perusing several media sources - on the net, and several radio stations, including KNX 1070 (a CBS Affiliate), out of Los Angeles, and a local FOX radio station, among others.

Then everything started changing:

The DA found nothing to charge Zimmerman with, after several hours of questioning, after the shooting, but in the wake of pressure from the community, a new prosecutor miraculously found Zimmerman should be charged with murder!

Martin's dad changed his opinion of the voice screaming for help on the 911 calls (to the dispatcher), but nobody could agree, even the "experts" and the FBI.

Some sources are saying Zimmerman changed his story as well. The witnesses changed theirs. Quite the mess.

I did find this, very interesting though:

Also this:
Other burglaries by young black males in the recent past, in the community, and Zimmerman got a pistol (rather than a pepper sprayer), because he was advised to do so by Animal Control, after a vicious pit bull cornered his wife.

In the actual call to the PD, Zimmerman says Martin is approaching him, while he's still in his truck. "With his hands in his waistband".

You can hear the entire call to the PD (not a dispatcher on this call), and read all the above quoted info, on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

Zimmerman doesn't sound like a racist, to me. Listen for yourself. There's a ton of other info on this - what evidence was allowed at the trial, and what evidence was not allowed, and why.

Zimmerman's description of Martin "he's just walking around, looking into houses..."

does strike me as suspicious, in light of Martin's previous possession of several pieces of women's jewelry, and a screwdriver.

I have never heard of a teenage guy walking around, carrying several pieces of womens' jewelry, and a screwdriver.

That is a burglar.

Was he "casing" homes when Zimmerman found him? I have no idea. But he definitely was a burglar when he was caught earlier with the womens' jewelry and screwdriver.

Ask any cop.

Martin didn't deserve to be shot over a burglary, but it shows why Zimmerman wanted to confront Martin.

Hmm, jewelry and a screwdriver... must have been looking for the white women. :rolleyes:

Yes, very likely it was Fox News I have a fox radio station very close to me, and listen to it a lot.

The gf testified Martin said:
in describing the man who was following him.

I can't find any reference to Martin using the term "fix", in that phrase.

I heard it on one of those wacko extremists talk radio shows. It may have been on broadcast on the shortwave bands. Don't remember. But I do remember what it was. Extremists telling their brainwashed brethren how to think and what to know.

I used to listen to early 1960s Radio Moscow. Fox News today is similar. So your guess is based in good statistical probability.

I lived the 60s. Adak claims and denials sound very much like closet racists of that era.

hoo .............. die?

Trayvon Martin is standing his ground, he's just doing it horizontally six feet under. The worms are standing their ground too, they think it's Thanksgiving because they got a turkey!

:lame:

Definitely lame :redcard:.

I won't pretend Trayvon was a saint. My son certainly wasn't at his age. But nothing he did earned him the death penalty.

He's dead because an armed cop wannabe ignored advice and stalked him. What actually happened after that is open to question because only person walked away. I'm sure some people now take away the lesson from this case if that it's just the two of you, instead of wounding, shoot to kill and bang your head on the sidewalk a few times until the cops get there.

If there's a turkey in the story it's the pudgy sad loser playing T.J. Hooker.

He's dead because he was too stupid to live. He could have lived to fight another day ... AND WON. He chose not to. Bet he won't make that mistake again! How easily you advocate that kid having unnecessarily thrown his life away. Makes people go - Hmmmm?


Better a live turkey than a dead poster child.

Right after the incident, it was a friend of Trayvon's, who was saying that Trayvon went to the store, and made it to her house, and was "sitting on the porch".

Here is the video of it, and the media that found it again, plays it slowly so you can catch it word for word.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVirVLp47oY

So Martin clearly made it to his friend's home, or the friend's explanation to Trayvon's father, is a lie.

And you can stuff your racist theories. I was raised for a couple years as a child, by a black woman, who was very kind to me. Didn't grow up with this "hate races other than your own", type of attitude.

The kid got shot. I probobly would have been shot too, being stalked by some guy through the neighborhood.

Pretty damn sure half the lads I know would have been shot. How many 17 year old lads wouldn't have a problem with being stalked and menaced?

Reverse the roles and everybody would be talking about how brave he was to confront his stalker, and how tragic that such bravery (or bravado - kid was 17 after all) cost him his life.

My job is not to die for my country; but, to give the enemy the maximum opportunity to die for his.

Superior tactical thinking is to apply that concept to any confrontation in conjunction with the concept in my reply to Dana below.

Discretion is the better part of valor.

It seems that half the lads you know had parents who failed to teach them not to be too stupid to live in that regard.

Right. Because 17 year olds are well known for their life experience and ability to foresee the consequences of their actions. And young lads are of course also well-known for having no bravado or pride.

He wasn't a soldier. He wasn't trained to fight another day. He was a kid who got followed and harassed by a grown man as he was innocently walking back from the shop with his sweets.


You seriously believe that this child brought his death upon himself? That the blame lies with him? That he was 'too stupid to live'?


I am disgusted by this attitude.


Discretion may be the better part of valor, but that's a lesson to be learned in life. You are an adult and therefore understand that lesson.

An attitude that extremists promote to encourage their supporters. Same extremists also said we want America to fail so that Obama will not be reelected. That 'blame the victim' attitude, inspired by Limbaugh and other extremists, was obvious and predictable. 'Blame the victim' accusations are posted by the usual suspects.

One even posts lies that Martin was in his girlfriend's house when he said he was going to get that guy. Extremist such as Limbaugh remain popular and rich because they preach such lies to inspire hate. Hate inspires their disciples. Their attitude and resulting 'blame Martin' posts were predictable.

Everybody on both sides has a narrative that they start with and MUST follow

- Most people decided on the correct narrative without having many facts. They put the story into their picture of the world so that it confirms their views. Their views on race, Florida's "stand your ground" gun laws, how cops behave, gated communities, how black teenagers behave, how juries work, etc. The story must fit into everyone's notions of these things. Even though it didn't happen in a gated community, "stand your ground" was not really relevant to the case, standard black teen behavior has nothing to do with anything at all here, etc.

- When the facts are not consistent with someone's narrative, those facts are ignored, or even changed. People actually rewrite the information so that it fits, and use colorful, emotional language that has nothing to do with the case.

- At some point, almost everyone's information about the case is basically wrong, because everyone they listen to has rewritten the facts to fit.

- For example, in the first 3 days following the event, we heard that "A black man was killed by a white man and the cops just let him go for no reason." This narrative was pushed early and often, and it should give people pause that this opening story was factually wrong and oversimplified. Already the facts are mangled in order to maximize outrage. Many people made up their mind at that point, and everything they've heard since then has been run through their narrative filtering, their opinion left unchanged.

Shhhh... Reason has no place in the politics of race, guns, or news cycles.

My take: We'll never know how it really went down, so I'll place my hopes in the trial by jury. A young man (not biologically a child, minor would be a less loaded term) is dead, that is a tragedy. A wrongful conviction would also be a tragedy. Sometimes people go free who shouldn't. Too few guilty imprisoned is a far better outcome than too many wrongfully convicted.

I completely agree with this.

I don't necessarily think that the guy should have been convicted of murder. Had the prosecution gone for a manslaughter charge they may have got a conviction, and that would probably have better reflected what actually happened.

What I find appalling is the notion, expressed by several people in this thread, that this kid brought about his own death. That he was 'too stupid to live'.

Manslaughter was in fact one of the charges. The jury seemed to consider it closely, but still found him innocent.

What bothers me most about Zimmerman is that he's not a cop or authority of any kind. He was told by the cops twice (once when he signed up for the watch group, and once when on the phone that night) not to confront suspicious people.

Because he got himself into a situation when he had no training or business someone ended up dead. In my mind, that's negligence. It would be like if I wired the electricity for my neighborhood pool and winded up electrocuting a bunch of swimmers because I'm not an electrician. Zimmerman deliberately went into that situation against the wishes of the police. He fucked up and killed an unarmed guy who wasn't doing anything wrong before Zimmerman got involved.

I don't think it was murder. He was probably defending himself from a guy who thought he was defending himself. But is was gross incompetence on Zimmerman's part that resulted in a death.

I think it would be just and reasonable to find him guilty of manslaughter or negligent homicide.

Oh, and you can't trust a damn word Zimmerman says. Don't forget that he lied under oath to the judge about his assets during the bail proceedings.

Ahh, I hadnt realised that.

One thing that puzzles me is that it was a jury of 6 people. Is that normal?

Seems like those on the right defend Zimmerman and the verdict and those on the left feel it was a sham of justice. I'm fairly independent in my political beliefs so while I don't like the jury's decision I realize it was based on their belief in what both sides legal teams told them and what the judge allowed them to consider, only what they heard at the trial and the law and how it pertains to the charges against Mr. Zimmerman.

I find it tragic that Mr. Martin got killed for the reasons he did, despite what idiots like Ted Nugent claim and justify his death that he was a kid who was a criminal dope smoking racist gangster punk! While his actions in defending himself may have led to his being killed, he was not in the act of a crime when he was initially stalked, just walking home from the store.

And I agree that not enough is being done to address inner city crime, black on black homicides in places like Chicago. But the causes of the high rate of homicides there is caused by different reasons. The inner city parts of Chicago have a high rate of gang participation among teens and young adults. High unemployment rate among the same group. A poorly run educational system combined with a lack of desire among students (and parents) for kids to complete high school (50% drop out rate). High rate of single parent families combined with too few youth programs allowing youth to wander without adult supervision. They also have one other key factor, it is very easy to obtain guns and plenty of them. Ofcourse the NRA would not see this as a problem but a solution and more guns would somehow make better!

I'm going to unsubscribe from this thread, in my opinion it is getting a bit to partisan, kind of like a trolling. I respect the views of other Cellar dwellers, that is why I have been a member here long before other social networks got popular. But when I read a post on how Congressman Darrell Issa is some kind of hero and Eric Holder is liar and that all of these scandals have so much more to them when the facts show that Mr. Issa is more of an Inquisitor searching for crimes that don't exist. Next I'll be reading that the President is not really a US citizen!

Have fun folks and see you elsewhere! :Flush:

This is the most sweeping generalization I've ever seen you post. Your use of absolutes and imperatives make it practically unreadable. Everybody has... MUST follow ?!?! Really? You speak for Everybody now? Do you include yourself among that number? Are you helplessly following *your* narrative? If that's the case, then we're all predestined to just talk past each other, right? And if it's not, I'd love to hear how you managed to rise above all of this and see all these different sides from outside the frame of reference we all use down here.

It seems your definition of "facts" is different than the one I use. How can facts be changed, say, in the example where they're not consistent with my narrative?

I think the conflict and arguing surrounding this case is much less about facts, and much more about judgements, decisions, feelings, opinions, and attitudes. Facts are objectively knowable. The fuel for the arguments is far more subjective, and when lit with a spark of right or wrong, burns with a righteous fire. THAT'S what's generating the heat here.

I also take issue with your implication that there are only two sides, that there are only two narratives. I do like your use of the term "narrative", I think is very appropriate. There are as many narratives as there are observers, and those narratives can include or exclude all kinds of facts, important and unimportant. Discussion about these narratives, defending them, attacking others, changing them (I do believe a person's narrative/opinion can change) is important, is imperative for our community and our society as a whole. Striving for a "correct" narrative is important for most people, though "correct" can be defined in different ways. Factually correct? That's a standard that our judicial system strives toward, and one that many people have an interest in. Emotionally correct, or to use your image, a set of circumstances and descriptions that conform to the conclusion I've already settled on? I think far more people give this kind of correctness the highest priority. Perhaps this is a point we agree on. But I don't agree that everyone picks their conclusion first never changes it, then finds "facts" that support the conclusion, disregarding all the others. There are people who try to let the facts lead to the conclusion.

I don't think that the facts were mangled to maximize outrage, I'm not that much of a cynic. I agree that the facts in cases like this, or Benghazi ffs, are often mangled, especially at the outset and especially when the shape of the story is highly emotional or dramatic. These are the kinds of situations that much media newscasting makes their bank on, "Flashy, breathless, jumpcut! Stay tuned for more after this message!!!11" Ok, consider the source. There can be facts embedded in the dross of commercial news/opinion/media. It takes effort and discernment to suss them out, but it's possible. I can't be on the scene(s), so I depend on reporting to help me gather the information, then I try to assess which parts are actually factually correct, which are not, which are opinion, useful or not, which are hyperbole, which are salesmanship to get me to pay (attention) for something the speaker's selling. It *is* work, but it's the only way I know how to get at what really happened.

show me where I implied that please

To me, "both" implies just two.

Interesting little piece in the guardian about an interview given by one of the jurors:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...ot-away-murder

My thoughts when I read this, were that a) the jury system worked: they didn't go with what their gut told them, they went with what was or was not proven, and b) having reached that decision they need to stfu about him being guilty and 'getting away with murder'.

By all means say the decision was based on insufficient evidence, or poor practice on the part of investigators or prosecutors. And the implication that had the quality of that investigation or prosecution been better, then there might have been a different outcome seems valid and fair. But to suggest that there would have been a different outcome, without knowing what different evidence could have been brought to bear is a very different matter.

If you've read my previous posts, then you know I've said Zimmerman was the adult responsible for controlling that situation and he failed to live up to his responsibility. That Zimmerman killed Martin doesn't change the fact that Martin was too naïve (I did use the word naïve in a previous post) to act with the discretion necessary to save his own life. It's not an either - or situation and that you are appalled by anyone saying, in the vernacular, that Martin was too stupid to live reflects your home bred ignorance of reality in a country that sanctions private firearms ownership and carry.

We have another deadly implement here. Perhaps you've heard of it, it's called the automobile. We have people who learn to drive at an early age (16 y.o.), pass a test, then they're out on the street. Some learners and even experienced drivers also take a Defensive Driving Course in which they learn how to go out of their way to avoid collisions EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY! The purpose of that mindset is to save lives and prevent egregious bodily injury, especially to the young ones who may fall victim to the failings of older more experienced drivers.

The times they are a changing. All 50 states in the USA now have concealed carry laws. Whether it's guns or knives, legal or illegal, if parents aren't teaching their children that discretion is the better part of valor then THEY'VE FAILED AS MISERABLY AS ZIMMERMAN TO CONTROL A POTENTIALLY LETHAL SITUATION THAT MINORS MAY FACE.

I'm not a particularly religious man; but, at times like this I thank God that people like you and tw don't have children. They'd be no better off than Trayvon Martin.

So I did. alrighty then

Your line of reasoning is good up to the point that if the neighborhood expected the police to satisfy their needs, they wouldn't have implemented a neighborhood watch in the first place. The police always advise others to let them handle it. The problem is that there's always a conflict of interest between them being the best qualified and them just saying others should let them handle it because it's their job security. The police know very well that they are reactive while the neighborhood watch is proactive. The neighborhood knows that too. Zimmerman was a product of that disparity. To his shame he became over zealous in his proactive role; but, to say he's not an authority of any kind is a bit over the top:

[Gomer Pyle]CITIZEN'S ARREST! CITIZEN'S ARREST![/Gomer Pyle]

If poor judgment was a crime, he'd be guilty.

Fuck you Sexobon, you arrogant piece of shit.


Done with this place.

K. Been for a walk with carrotchops and calmed down a bit. I'm not 'done with this place' at all. That was an overreaction. Take it as an indication of real hurt.

Attack ... insult ... intimidate
When all else fails, make reference to "sheep"

Merc used these tactics, too.
They seem to be common among the CCL folk.

sexobon, I think you're a smart man, you've lots of life experience. There are areas where our opinions are similar, other areas where they're farther apart, like most pairs of people. However, on this point, I'll say definitively that you are completely wrong to suggest that Travon Martin's parents are equally responsible for his death as George Zimmerman is.

I don't know why you'd suggest this, except that it's an extension of your argument that both sides share responsibility for what happened, but taken to the useless extreme of absurdity.

Your analogy of cars and drivers and training and the right of way doesn't justify your argument. If I drive through a green light and am hit from the side by someone running the red light, I bear *no* responsibility for the collision. That's what it means to have the right of way, that I have the right to be there, or move that way. Just as Martin had the right of way. It's a poor analogy providing no support for your point.

Martin's parents are entirely blameless in his death and suggesting otherwise is an uncharacteristically *stupid* statement by you.

You know, authority is a lot like the right of way--it can not be seized, it can only be yielded to. You can't take the right of way in an intersection, any more than I can. One of us can yield the right of way to the other, one of us is (probably) entitled to the right of way according to the rules of the road, but if neither of us yields, there will be conflict.

Authority is like that, unless it is recognized by both parties, there is no authority. In a situation where the rules for authority are clear, say with a policeman and a civilian and the policeman is acting within his authority by the rules, it is only the acceptance by the civilian of the authority of the policeman that makes the authority real. When that authority is challenged, there can be conflict, possibly fatal results. The policeman might have been due the authority, but he'd be (could be) dead right. That's not authority.

But Zimmerman's role doesn't even rise to this level, there's no formal set of rules granting any kind of authority to him, certainly no authority greater than what Martin was entitled to. Unless you cite the law of the jungle or might makes right. We live in a society that has explicitly rejected those frames of reference though. In our civil society, all appeals to that kind of justification are attempted are rejected.

The only basis for Zimmerman's "authority" came from his confidence that he could shoot his way out of any situation he might find himself in. If you have other evidence of some other authority granted to him, I'd like to hear it.

It's pretty much impossible to know this.

Thus, both Sexobon and you have now drawn conclusions that you couldn't actually draw, based on your faulty narratives of the events of that night.

Yeah, this may have confused some of you who haven't been following this trend. "White" is now officially defined as any race or culture that is one shade lighter than Samuel L. Jackson, that becomes successful. Asians, Hispanics, you name it, if they get jobs and educate their children, they can now achieve that wonderful dream of being called white.

By this rule, Puerto Ricans and domesticated Cubans are now white, but Mexicans remain Mexicans. Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans (South only please) are also now officially white, and the Vietnamese, Thais, and Filipinos have completed their applications and are awaiting the media's decision.

Hawaiians are also white, although they are angry at the decision and would prefer to remain Hawaiian.

Let's take a look at the two positions.

sexobon says the parents are equally responsible for Martin's death as Zimmerman is.

I say Martin's parents bear no responsibility for his death.

What can we agree on here? I say Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. Do you agree? What else, rather, who else had a part in his death? I say Martin also had a part, certainly he was there, he was a direct party to the interactions that led to his death. What else, no, who else was involved in his death? What was that involvement and how did it contribute to Martin's death?

You're telling me my narrative here is faulty, what are the faults you see and what is the correct narrative?

I'm saying that based on what we can't possibly know about the event, neither you nor sexobon can possibly say to what degree Trayvon's parents played a role in what decisions may or may not have led to his death.

Can we agree on that? You don't know what occurred between the points in time that hard evidence confirms facts. All you have is witness accounts and Zimmerman's own story, any of which may be faulty or incomplete.

And yet the two of you, with this lack of information, have developed narratives on the opposite extremes on the parents roles. Completely at fault or completely not at fault.

I am talking about what we do know. What we can know. What reasonable people can agree to.

What I'm not talking about is some unknown and unknowable "butterfly effect". Let's talk about what we do know now, and keep an open mind as to what we may learn in the future. That's not a stretch for you or me or sexobon or most anyone.

Another point I suggest we agree on is that making an affirmative assertion, such as sexobon has (granted he prefaced his all-caps statement with "if...then". Perhaps he'll try to hide behind that fig leaf), requires some evidence. But that a statement of the absence of something, like my position, doesn't, indeed can't be definitively proved. Importantly, it can be disproved.

There is the difference between our positions. I reject sexobon's statement that Martin's parents are equally responsible for his death, notwithstanding his caveat about teaching discretion and valor. Show me the evidence, I say. To you, who challenges my point that they're blameless, I ask you to show me what blame they DO have, to support your opposition.

Your assertion that "you are completely wrong to suggest that Travon Martin's parents are equally responsible for his death as George Zimmerman is." ...is not challenged by your unprovable counter "Martin's parents bear no responsibility for his death."

We can't show your statement to be true, and if we show your statement to be false, it doesn't mean that sexobon's statement is true or false. So you're not really challenging his point.

To really work this, the word "responsibility" has to be defined. What would constitute parental responsibility in this case?

Now guys, don't go putting words in my mouth. I said neither that the responsibility for Martin's death was 50/50 for Zimmerman vs. Martin; nor, Zimmerman vs. Martin's parents. I didn't assign any proportions at all.

I didn't. I was speaking of parents in general. For all I know, Martin's parents may have taught him that lesson and he chose to ignore it.

BigV doesn't speak for me, toadstool.

Tell that to the family of your passenger who was killed if the collision could have been avoided by you driving defensively.

That's part of the victim profile.

I'm so sorry. Stiff upper lip, babe.

My point, often overlooked here, is that a young man named Trayvon Martin could have saved his own life if he had used more discretion in his interaction with an errant George Zimmerman. That deficit, regardless of source or relative proportion, was the only aspect of his predicament that Martin had any control over. Many of you are not ready to accept that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure in life or death situations outside of healthcare. I hope that you and your loved ones never have to pay the price for such narrow-mindedness as Martin did.

Edited for accuracy, that should be written as...

Undertoad appears to be the only one who kinda, sorta, maybe gets it. My saying that parents can fail their children by not teaching them to go out of their way to avoid hostilities is not the same as saying that parents are responsible for the occurrence or outcome of hostilities. People have free will to become combatants and some hostilities cannot be avoided.

Both domestic and international law differentiate between combatant and noncombatant status whether civilian, police or military. Those who still want to hold Zimmerman accountable for murder in consideration of the totality of his actions, rather than just his actions as a combatant, are essentially ignoring those conventions. Ignoring them on a larger scale would allow police and military personnel to use any level of retaliation against anyone who tried to kill them, even after their opponents surrendered or are otherwise rendered noncombatant, by simply taking the totality of their opponents actions into consideration.

It has already been determined by law and the jury which applied the law that Zimmerman acted responsibly in killing Martin while both were in combatant status. Therefore, when I said "Whether it's guns or knives, legal or illegal, if parents aren't teaching their children that discretion is the better part of valor then THEY'VE FAILED AS MISERABLY AS ZIMMERMAN TO CONTROL A POTENTIALLY LETHAL SITUATION THAT MINORS MAY FACE." The key is "POTENTIALLY." I was not only referring to parents in general; but, limiting parental responsibility to pre-hostilities. After people become combatants, they're pretty much on their own barring intervention by anyone else willing to enter combatant status. The gist of the idea is to keep minors and others ill prepared for hostilities from entering combatant status in the first place. Your children can live; but, they don't have to live. You may be able to influence that outcome by having a conversation with them about discretion being the better part of valor.

[paraphrasing mine]

OK Lamp, I give up, you've convinced me that Trayvon Martin is worth more to you as a dead martyr than as a living human being. You should've asked that club to give you a membership card to present here so you wouldn't have had to do so much writing. :p:

Once you lose the gun-hatred, IM, you will no longer be genocide-friendly.

That's a good place to be, morally.

Sexobon, proceeding through the green light -- with a glance around to see if somebody else is driving like he's on crack and he stole the car -- is driving defensively. You're straining perhaps more than is called for, even with this crowd.

His point, which doesn't seem to register with you, was that not all tragedies are legally actionable. Some are just tragic.

True enough. But generally, if the tragedy involved the deliberate shooting dead of another person that's more than just a tragic accident :p

Long before preaching legal concepts, you should first learn basics. 'Not guilty' is not 'innocent'. Not guilty only says proof of his guilt was insufficient. We know Martin did nothing wrong. That is a fact. We also know Zimmerman did action after action that violated his responsibilities and the rules.

1) Neighborhood Watch means only observe. He did not do that. He got out of his vehicle.

2) The police told Zimmerman to not follow. An order from an authoritiy. He ignored the order.

3) Neighborhood Watch says to stay away from a suspect. So as to not create a confrontation. Instead Zimmerman got closer. He foolishly acted as if he had some authority. He clearly did not.

4) Neighborhood Watch says no guns. Zimmerman violated that gun rule. That alone says he could never be innocent.

Zimmerman was wrong for multiple reasons. Is that sufficient for a guilty verdict? Apparently not. Especially when law enforcement did no investigation for a full month. Does that prove he was innocent? Not by a long shot. You should have known that. Obviously you have no grasp of two completely different terms - "not guilty" and "innocent".

Requirements for being responsible increases significantly once one carries. The consequences of being irresponsible should also increase. Unfortunately, Florida's 'stand your ground law' does not encourage that always required increase responsibility. Florida legalized killing only because an adult acted like a child - was emotional.

We know Zimmerman was so irresponsible as to violate four rules - and more. He was not innocent. But the flawed investigation could not prove enough guilt for a prison sentence. He was far from innocent for four and more reasons. But extremist rhetoric, a binary world, only sees the world in black and white. Therefore assumes 'not guilty' is same as 'innocent'. It isn't.