So the only differences are that SYG isn't available everywhere and the retreat thing Maxima mentioned. How does that invalidate my original point?
Because you were incorrectly trying to draw a distinction between Chicago, IL and Sanford, FL using two different legal defenses, even though the legal defense used applies and presumably would have worked in both places. Duh.
SYG's lack of duty to retreat before defending yourself with lethal force never even factored. The lack of duty to retreat in FL is not some difference in addition to SYG. It literally is SYG.
No I wasn't trying to draw that distinction.
Just keep saying it. Absolutely everyone can see you were trying to draw that distinction in the following quote:
wtf is the obsession with treyvon martin? 8 people were killed in chicago Aug 3 and 4 of this year. And nobody cares. But if the media tells you that it was a white guy (but wasn't he hispanic? Nah that doesn't sell as well) who killed a black kid, then some of you people just can't shut up about it 7 years later. It's baffling and comical.
Because if they catch the shooters in Chicago they don't go free because of some stand your ground law.
That invalid distinction was literally your only point yet now you have the nerve to balk at the people who answer you when you ask "How does that invalidate my original point?"
You opened yourself up to this and you aren't even man enough to admit your mistake. You were wrong. The media made a big deal about SYG and Trayvon/Zimmerman. Blame them if you must.
Railer brought up Chicago to make the point that nobody cares about those killings, they only care about TM, implying that the only reason people care about TM is because of political points that can be scored on racial issues. I was making the point that is false. People cared about TM because they believe GZ instigated an incident, the incident got out of hand, and then GZ used that as an excuse to kill someone and then walked. If someone from Chicago picked a fight and then killed someone because they feared for their life and then got off, people would care. It sets a dangerous precedent where armed people can just go around starting shit in order to murder people.
Don't mince your words. "Because if they catch the shooters in Chicago they don't go free because of some stand your ground law." implies that Zimmerman went free because of some SYG law, then you asked how the truth invalidated your point and I obliged.
I didn't enter this thread to argue about what did or did not happen between GZ and TM. I'm just explaining why that incident was such a big deal. People perceive it as GZ itching for an excuse to murder someone, whether or not that was the case.
Well, it sure doesn't look like you did much to avoid the mess Paladin3 saw coming. It looks like you deliberately asked for it, even challenging people to tell you why your point was invalid after refusing to clarify your messy/incorrect distinction.
I perceive it that way as well because as I see it, we have two choices:
GZ was trying to watch TM only to make sure TM didn't break any laws. GM was not being aggressive in any manner. TM spotted GZ and proceeded to kick the shit out of GZ for no reason.
or
GZ started following TM in an intimidating manner to the point it made TM uncomfortable enough to initiate contact. Maybe words were exchanged first, maybe not. Maybe TM asked GZ "wtf dude?" and maybe GZ said nothing or maybe GZ said some shit. Maybe GZ was the first to initiate contact or say something. We don't know because TM is dead and GZ can say whatever he wants, so not really worth speculating. GZ gets a pass because we can't prove anything.
So, I'm left with choosing to believe TM decided to beat the shit out of someone for pretty much no reason or that GZ started some shit. Given GZ's behavior since the incident, I lean toward the latter.
You mean his behavior where he tried to keep his distance and direct police to Trayvon, only exiting his vehicle when it became impossible to follow from the street? Do you mean his behavior where the 911 operator asked him not to follow and he agreed? Do you mean his behavior where he expressed concern with how long it was taking for the police to arrive and stopped short of giving his home address out of explicitly-stated concern that Trayvon may be near enough to overhear and ambush him there?
This whole Trayvon tangent started with HomerJS' notion that "gun nutters" get away with murder by counting on there being no witnesses "Similar to what happened to Trayvon Martin." Not only were there witnesses, but he was actively calling for police and fretting that they may not arrive in time. If he was cruisin' for a bruisin' because he wanted to murder someone and get away by claiming self defense he probably should have shot before calling the police... don't you think?
If you ask me, the conspiracy to commit and get away with murder is the one that sounds far less likely.