George Zimmerman Verdict: NOT GUILTY

[InformedIgnorance]

How legal is it for people to just decide to start following people around over there (especially since the US constitution seems to have no qualms with such people being armed)? To an outsider it seems rather problematic in terms of precipitating needless conflicts. Had Martin been armed then maybe he would have shot Zimmerman, would that have been legal? Where is the point at which someone is allowed to walk down the damn street without some idiot following him with a gun (regardless of whether or not he intends to use it)?

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

It's legal pretty much anywhere to follow someone around, as long as you don't touch or threaten them. If Martin shot Zimmerman after Zimmerman beat his head into the ground or drew his weapon first, then yes it would have been legal. But if he shot Zimmerman for following him it wouldn't have. The best thing to do when you're not committing a crime and someone asks you what you're doing is to tell them what you're doing and go on doing it. Running will always rouse suspicion and punching a man with a gun is plain stupid.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Not even able to walk down the street? Wow... thank god its only in america.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Not even able to walk down the street? Wow... thank god its only in america.

Australia has a higher violent crime rate than the US... Just saying.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

And yet I can walk down the street without someone legally following me with a gun.

Also id like to see your comparison data given that the Australian Bureau of Statistics doesn't list violent crime independently.

edit:

In 2007, AUS stats: 840 per 100,000 - http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent crime.html
In 2009, US Stats: 16.9 per 1000 (of people over 12) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime

Now naturally that stipulation of being over 12 might alter things so the data is not exactly comparable and the stats themselves are reasonably vague one what constitutes being listed as a violent crime in each case; but at the moment it stands at 8.4 (Aus) compared to 16.9 (US) in a thousand

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I walk down the street just fine. The only people that really give me any problems are the police themselves.

 

[Poisonshady313]

We can do this all day and all night. did he continue yes or no? Who knows. What we DO KNOW for a FACT is he did pursue when he NEVER should have acting in the place of what a professional police officer should have been doing.

No. He did not act in the place of what a police officer should have been doing. He called the cops and followed their instructions.

Excuse Trvevon for enacting his rights to "Stand his ground", because someone who was not an authority looked "suspicious".

At what point after Trayvon started running away did Zimmerman become a threat? Can you answer that?

Maybe this weird guy was rapist? Well in Florida we do have this "Stand your ground" law". this man is following me I guess I have the right to "stand my ground"....NOPE guess not

Zimmerman followed Martin only as far as he could keep his eye on him. Zimmerman did not confront Martin. He did not pose a threat.

Even when Zimmerman thought Martin was acting suspicious, he didn't approach him... he didn't confront him... he didn't shoot him. He called the cops. (the shooting happened only after Martin attacked him)

If Martin thought Zimmerman was suspicious, why didn't he call the cops? Why didn't he refrain from confrontation?

Zimmerman was no more a rapist than Martin was a burgler... yet for some reason, you're willing to consider Trayvon's state of mind regarding Zimmerman but not Zimmerman's state of mind regarding Trayvon.

The verdict is not guilty. Are the jurors a bunch of racists? Do they hate hoodies and skittles and black kids?

Or are you willing to believe even for a moment that perhaps George Zimmerman wasn't some vigilante who maliciously chased and gunned down a black kid for no reason?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Do you suppose George Zimmerman will live long....
or have a peaceful life.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

And yet I can walk down the street without someone legally following me with a gun.

Also id like to see your comparison data given that the Australian Bureau of Statistics doesn't list violent crime independently.

edit:

In 2007, AUS stats: 840 per 100,000 - Australian Institute of Criminology - Violent crime
In 2009, US Stats: 16.9 per 1000 (of people over 12) Violent crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now naturally that stipulation of being over 12 might alter things so the data is not exactly comparable and the stats themselves are reasonably vague one what constitutes being listed as a violent crime in each case; but at the moment it stands at 8.4 (Aus) compared to 16.9 (US) in a thousand

One says 2007 and the other says 2009... This is a really shoddy comparison, and both countries define violent crime differently. The info I looked at was homicide, robbery, sexual assault, and assault combined.

This data is only through 2004, but violent crime has only decreased since then (I'm assuming in both countries, but I know for a fact in the US). The question becomes whether or not Australia's decrease was big enough to put rates below the US.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Do you suppose George Zimmerman will live long....
or have a peaceful life.

He can if he's smart. He'll have to move and assume a new identity, witness protection style (without the witness protection). I think it's sad that the media demonized this man so much that people will be gunning for him because he defended himself. But hey, maybe he can live in an airport like Snowden...

 

[InformedIgnorance]

One says 2007 and the other says 2009... This is a really shoddy comparison, and both countries define violent crime differently. The info I looked at was homicide, robbery, sexual assault, and assault combined.
*snip*
This data is only through 2004, but violent crime has only decreased since then (I'm assuming in both countries, but I know for a fact in the US). The question becomes whether or not Australia's decrease was big enough to put rates below the US.

I did say outright that I felt them difficult to compare given the data I had. Though if they are both falling than the earlier stat (Australias) would seem to be the one that is inflated (by comparison) suggesting it would have fallen more in the given period by your assertions.

Urg colour coloded? Seriously? I hate those.

I would love to see where these stats are from, I find them highly suspect given it suggests the UK had a more than four fold increase in violent crime in just six years; I would need to see just how those classifications of crime had altered during the period as it seems to indicate a large discrepancy.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I would love to see where these stats are from, I find them highly suspect given it suggests the UK had a more than four fold increase in violent crime in just six years; I would need to see just how those classifications of crime had altered during the period as it seems to indicate a large discrepancy.

7 Gun Control Facts That Are Actually Myths

There's where I originally found this graph. The stats on the UK are actually true though, as crazy as they look on the graph. Violent crime skyrocketed after the ban on firearms in 1997. I couldn't believe it myself and did further research.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Britain's shows a higher violent crime rate than South Africa
But what is violent crime? in the UK affray is violent crime, when no one at all is hurt.
In south Africa there are over 20,000 murders, in the UK it is under 1000 per year.

So what happened in 1998 to change the UK crime figures.
It was the way rime figures were collected and classified.
Carrying any thing that could be used as an offencive weapon became classified as a violent crime. An argument in a pub became a violent crime, even when no one was struck.
even harassment and antisocial or loutish behaviour were added as a violent crimes.

There was no actual increase in crime at all.... But every crime is now reported even from the smallest community.

(I get an email from the local police reporting every single offence in my locality by street and type every month) and daily emails if crimes are in my immediate area)

We have gone statistics mad. But is gives a very false impression about UK safety.

The Firearms amendment act of 1997 changed very little, it put a total ban on hand guns over .22 ( which were added later) In reality very very few Firearm licences had been granted for such weapons. Most were held by target club members and guns kept in club safes. It was almost impossible to buy hand guns from gun shops.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Britain's shows a higher violent crime rate than South Africa
But what is violent crime? in the UK affray is violent crime, when no one at all is hurt.
In south Africa there are over 20,000 murders, in the UK it is under 1000 per year.

So what happened in 1998 to change the UK crime figures.
It was the way rime figures were collected and classified.
Carrying any thing that could be used as an offencive weapon became classified as a violent crime. An argument in a pub became a violent crime, even when no one was struck.
even harassment and antisocial or loutish behaviour were added as a violent crimes.

There was no actual increase in crime at all.... But every crime is now reported even from the smallest community.

(I get an email from the local police reporting every single offence in my locality by street and type every month) and daily emails if crimes are in my immediate area)

We have gone statistics mad. But is gives a very false impression about UK safety.

Possession of weapons and harassment were not included in the data collected for this graph. It clearly states at the bottom that only homicide, robbery, assault, and sexual assault were included. South Africa also has a much larger population than the UK, so that would explain why they could have more violent crimes committed but a lower rate. I agree that increased surveillance and reporting in the UK would be a factor; you can't deny a crime happened if it's been caught on a public camera (which I find extremely creepy and invasive, by the way).

 

[InformedIgnorance]

That site was quite horrendous; even it seems to avoid giving a source for its data....

Here is one that proclaims the UK worst in Europe it doesnt seem like it would be attempting to favour evither the US or Aus (as opposed to a site attempting to oppose anti-gun laws in the US) Britain, The Most Violent Country In Europe: Violence Rate Is 4.36 Times Worse Than in The U.S. just under the main graphic it includes the line: "The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609." I have seen others, particularly ones that deal with homicide or gun crimes in particular, but they seem rather inappropriate to use as a comparison under the circumstances and to be fair I have seen the Aus figures listed higher: OECD: Crime Statistic (I) | small-m I assume it was using a similar methodology that your site obtained its data.

It all depends on how they decide to frame what consitutes violent crime and whether they are focusing on crime reporting or court finalisation or convictions.

And how they decide to frame it seems very very specific to their desired results <_< such as supporting certain political arguments.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

7 Gun Control Facts That Are Actually Myths

There's where I originally found this graph. The stats on the UK are actually true though, as crazy as they look on the graph. Violent crime skyrocketed after the ban on firearms in 1997. I couldn't believe it myself and did further research.

That graph is from a Gun apologist organisation. and makes some very false conclusions.

Gun crime was and still is very rare in the UK, and is almost always connected to inter gang warfare. not against the normal citizen.
In modern times no one has ever been able to carry arms for personal defence or keep them loaded and unlocked at home. Criminals have never had a reason to fear being shot at by hand gun owners.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Possession of weapons and harassment were not included in the data collected for this graph. It clearly states at the bottom that only homicide, robbery, assault, and sexual assault were included. South Africa also has a much larger population than the UK, so that would explain why they could have more violent crimes committed but a lower rate. I agree that increased surveillance and reporting in the UK would be a factor; you can't deny a crime happened if it's been caught on a public camera (which I find extremely creepy and invasive, by the way).

I doubt that... the stats for violent crime include all those things in the UK as that is how they are classed... they do not publish them seperately.

Any one visiting the UK would notice how un violent the place is. I have never seen a violent crime in 78 years.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

That graph is from a Gun apologist organisation. and makes some very false conclusions.

Gun crime was and still is very rare in the UK, and is almost always connected to inter gang warfare. not against the normal citizen.
In modern times no one has ever been able to carry arms for personal defence or keep them loaded and unlocked at home. Criminals have never had a reason to fear being shot at by hand gun owners.

The article said nothing at all about gun crime in the UK. It only spoke on violent crime in general... Never once did they mention gun crime as a major problem. That's a conclusion you're drawing on your own.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

That site was quite horrendous; even it seems to avoid giving a source for its data....

Here is one that proclaims the UK worst in Europe it doesnt seem like it would be attempting to favour evither the US or Aus (as opposed to a site attempting to oppose anti-gun laws in the US) Britain, The Most Violent Country In Europe: Violence Rate Is 4.36 Times Worse Than in The U.S. just under the main graphic it includes the line: "The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609." I have seen others, particularly ones that deal with homicide or gun crimes in particular, but they seem rather inappropriate to use as a comparison under the circumstances and to be fair I have seen the Aus figures listed higher: OECD: Crime Statistic (I) | small-m I assume it was using a similar methodology that your site obtained its data.

It all depends on how they decide to frame what consitutes violent crime and whether they are focusing on crime reporting or court finalisation or convictions.

And how they decide to frame it seems very very specific to their desired results <_< such as supporting certain political arguments.

Thanks for the links. Very informative.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I doubt that... the stats for violent crime include all those things in the UK as that is how they are classed... they do not publish them seperately.

Any one visiting the UK would notice how un violent the place is. I have never seen a violent crime in 78 years.

You must live in a good neighborhood. Numbers don't lie...