It's nothing like that.
1. The BSA is a private organization, not the government.
1A. The BSA can't incarcerate anyone for violating the ban.
1B. The BSA ban isn't a law, it's a rule.
2. Why is it so important for gay men to get out into the woods with little boys?
That's precisely it.
A few years ago a friend used the term "retards" in reference to MD/MR people. I and another of our friend stopped him and started to explain why he shouldn't do that.
He got angry and started yelling "I'm not going to be all politically correct!" and I said to him "I'm not talking about being politically correct, I'm talking about not being an asshole."
Political correctness USED TO BE what we call common courtesy. There's a world of difference between the thought police and the pointless regulation of the minutiae of every day speech versus just plain not being an asshole.
So did I. I was thinking "No shit Sherlock" until I went back and re-read the title.
In what universe is someone unarmed when they are carrying a gun? It makes no difference when you believe the gun was drawn, George was undoubtedly armed
In the real world universe we live in, not the imaginary one where you try to twist my words. I said Zimmerman was "apparently unarmed", which means he wasn't obviously armed but rather he appeared unarmed. Zimmerman was armed, but didn't have a his weapon visible as he had a concealed carry permit and a concealed weapon. Martin had no way of knowing Zimmerman was armed.
We will never be able to determine for sure who attacked whom first, as one person is dead. We do know for sure that this happened only because George followed him, though. The confrontation was created by him.
That is a false statement. Perhaps you should review the witness testimony. A prosecution witness indicated that Martin approached and confronted Zimmerman. Zimmerman was following a person who behaving suspiciously and was breaking no laws. If Martin had continued on to his destination, there would have been no confrontation at all.
Only one person from the conflict was able to give a statement as to what happened, and they did not say anything under oath at the trial.
Zimmerman's wounds were consistent with his story. A witness stated he saw a light skinned man underneath a person who was either dark skinned or wearing a dark hood. You are ignoring evidence and testimony.
That has not been determined with certainty.
Are you suggesting we should assume Zimmerman is guilty and he should be required to prove his innocence?
If the other person has a gun, running from them isn't very useful as you certainly won't be able to outrun a bullet
I see you are failing at reading comprehension. According to Zimmerman, he didn't draw his gun until after Martin was on top of him. You also seem to be failing logic. If you saw a person with a gun, would you run up to him, hit him in the face, then get on top of him without disarming him? Would you even approach and/or attack him? Or, would you run away as soon as you saw the gun, especially if you thought the person was following you? If you were in a residential neighborhood, wouldn't you run to the nearest door, knock and ask them to call the police? If you were near home, wouldn't you run for home? If you had a phone, even if you were on it talking to someone, wouldn't you call the police?
If you actually believe that is how it happened, then how do you explain George being able to draw, aim, and fire his weapon? The story simply doesn't add up. Any normal person after having experienced such an event would not be able to do such a thing.
Aren't you going to address the claim and offer? No? I guess we can infer your answer from that. Zimmerman didn't have to aim. All he had to do was draw the weapon and put it in approximate contact with the person on top of him and pull the trigger. And, having been in the position Zimmerman claims to have been in and having experienced such a thing, yes such an event is possible. Granted I didn't have a gun, but I was able to grab something from the ground and hit my assailant dazing him and then buck him off me.
What matters is that it seems Zimmerman followed him, confronted him,
Except, that is not what the evidence and the testimony showed. The testimony showed that Zimmer followed Martin, and that Martin confronted Zimmerman
and was probably not realistically in fear of his life when he shot him.The whole "slamming on the pavement" thing has been contested. There really isn't hard evidence of what happened.
You seem unclear on the American legal system. Zimmerman is considered innocent until proven guilty. In fact, there was hard evidence Zimmerman's head had been slammed into the sidewalk. His wounds were consistent with that. But, that is actually irrelevant because there was no hard evidence that it didn't happen and that is what the prosecution had to provide. Zimmerman never had to prove his innocence, rather the prosecution had to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
As to the excluded evidence, it goes to the character of the victim and the claims of the prosecution. The prosecution's whole case revolved around the idea that Martin was an innocent victim who did nothing wrong, wouldn't attack anyone, and was unjustly targeted and murdered. They put forth Martin as a good kid who wouldn't commit a crime, wouldn't hurt anyone, and wouldn't be the aggressor. The excluded evidence cast doubt on that characterization. It showed that Martin could have been the aggressor and wasn't such a good kid after all.
Actually, whether or not Martin was a thug has bearing as it directly effects the prosecutions case. The prosecution case revolved around the idea that Martin would never have been and was not the aggressor, but that isn't the way thugs act. If Martin was a thug, then he might have attacked Zimmerman as Zimmerman claimed.
By the way, it was Martin on drugs, not Zimmerman.
Early on in your post, you state "I think they probably could make the case. Murder no way, but Manslaughter ", but then later you say "I don't care enough to go and review the evidence". You are making statements based on ignorance and it really sounds like you believe Zimmerman should have been treated as guilty until proven innocent.
Money isn't everything -- but it's a long way ahead of what comes next. -- Sir Edmond Stockdale