I was disturbed as the PSA insinuated (IMHO), that GZ planned to confront and shoot TM even after the operator told him to stop following TM. You see him reach behind him and put his hand on the gun just before the shooting.
You can pass all the gun laws you want to pass but it will not take guns out of the criminals hands.
The video doesn't seem to cover Treyvon circling back, confronting and assaulting Zimmerman after being followed.
At the end of the day what does this PSA message accomplish? Incite more hatred towards Mr. Zimmerman who was aquitted by a jury of his peers. Re-kindle racial tensions. Distort the facts in order to try and make a point. The push for firearm legislation continues to focus on the guns and not the real issue. Criminals and illegal gun sales and tranfers account for the majority of gun violence. The Colorado, New Jersey, and other incidents are not the crux of the issue. Legitimite firearms owners have no issue with background checks. Furthermore the mental health portion should be part of the process as long as it is clearly defined. An example being just because someone may have been seen for depression does not mean they are a danger to themselves or society. Its the ones that do not seek help that you have to worry about. The fear is the definition of mental disqualifcation will be too loosely interpreted. There is no easy answer however; posting a PSA that in no way projects a positive collective message for the need for change is not the solution.
"Incite more hatred towards Mr. Zimmerman who was aquitted by a jury of his peers"
6 women? Five White, one Hispanic?
That is a contradiction in terms.
Not sure where you are going with this one Sporty? Are you saying the jury should have consisted of all hispanics, males, women, blacks, or asians?
In theory, a "jury of peers" has been interpreted by the courts to mean that AVAILABLE jurors include a broad spectrum of the population. It does not mean that the actual jury MUST BE comprised of individuals across that spectrum. Per the Free Dictionary:
"Jury selection may include no process which excludes those of a particular race or intentionally narrows the spectrum of possible jurors. It does not mean that women are to be tried by women, Asians by Asians, or African Americans by African Americans."
So as long as the jury POOL available at the outset of jury selection contained that diverse spectrum of possible jurors, Zimmerman's actual jury did consist of his "peers" within the meaning of the law. Before challenges, there may well have been a broader spectrum (i.e., males, African-Americans, etc.), but after counsel from both sides whittled away, they were left with the composition Sporty cited.
I concur but do not agree with the "contridiction in terms" that Sp3 was alluding to. Not trying to call you out Sp3, just trying to understand your point of view.
Speaking of chilling and thought-provoking, this story hasn't been getting much publicity - at least not as much as the "hate crime" against Martin did:
And how about THIS story?
What would happen if a white guy admitted that he shot a black man "for the fun of it?" You got it: Jesse and Al and the NAACP would descend on the location like the 82d Airborne and be screaming "hate crime" at the top of their lungs. And the media would be all over them - and the story. But when a black man shoots a white man "for the fun of it," the story gets buried and nobody cares.