What is it then? The kid was part of a Neighbourhood Watch scheme, carrying guns and shooting people who looked at them in a funny way. His whole defence is the argument that he was protecting his home.

Obviously you don't know the first thing about this case. Read up and you'll be even more shocked on just how fucked up this thing is.

It has everything to do with the mindset that people can shoot first and ask questions later, which is inextricably liked to the right to defend your own property.

If you say to human beings "you can do what you want", then in my experience they usually will.

Not true. It was a shooting outdoors in a gated community. Trayvon was not attempting to gain access to anyone's home without permission.

It has more to do with a stand your ground law they have in Florida which means the shoot-first notion you speak of has been transferred to the public domain. It is that which Zimmerman is citing as his defence. If this was a regular burglary gone wrong case no American would bat an eyelid. That they're up in arms shows how bad this is. A seventeen year old kid buying Skittles for his brother was shot for being black and on the basis of some fucked up misguided law Zimmerman has initially walked away despite being racist in a telephone call to the police!

I'm sure this incident would have been dealt with in exactly the same way by police if a young jewish lad had been shot dead by a black guy.

especially if the young black lad had said 'fucking kikes' and 'they're always trying to steal money'.

I hope you're not trying to muscle in on my sarcastic kingdom.

-- Sat Mar 24, 2012 7:58 am --



I repeat, it is all part of a prevailing mindset that you can shoot first and ask questions later if you are the "victim".

Give me a link or something. All I can see is that the young lad was walking home completely innocently, then the kid with the gun who was Captain of a Neighbourhood Watch scheme but with guns decided to accost him and eventually shot him. Are you saying they already had a beef with each other, or that the gunman had a history of violence? Other than that it sounds to me like the shooter is using the excuse that he was defending his home.

These cases have risen by 200% since the law was introduced in 2005. It is that which has changed the mindset to allow vigilantes to shoot in public, not protecting your home. Protecting your home is a million times more justifiable.

I have already explained it. Zimmerman was not in his home, neither was Trayvon. They were both inside a gated community and they both had a right to be there. Zimmerman was a Neighbourhood Watch guy for the community who thought himself a vigilante and treated Trayvon as suspicious because he was black. He followed him, against police advice. He was racist in the phone call uttering the words "fucking coons" and "they always get away". What happened next is still to be determined such is the fucked up handling of the case by the police but what we do know is that an armed twenty-eight year-old who weighed one hundred pounds more than a seventeen year-old armed only with Skittles (a packet of sweets) was shot and claimed that he feared for his life - after pursuing him of course, and then walked.