Glock 23
14 rounds of 45 acp in a smaller package than a 1911. More concealable. I would also suggest a few extra mags and some tac-reloading practice.

The better question is where should he move? I'm thinking he gets a place next door to Snowden and Casey Anthony in Venezuala! The media has ruined his life.

The media didn't ruin his life. Hunting an innocent person and killing him did.

@erist proves that morons exist even here. The jury found him not guilty for a reason: he didn't hunt and kill anyone. He followed a person who he didn't recognize in a *gated* community that had a recent problem with break-ins and thefts. Said person attacked him and he defended himself.

Draug, I think most of us (at least the sensible ones) have come to terms with the fact that he's innocent under the law, or at least that there's not enough evidence to prove otherwise, but that doesn't mean that he wasn't in the wrong. He had a history of racism, he followed a black boy because he was wearing a hoodie, a scuffle happened because he followed him, and then he killed him. Even if it was self defense, he created the situation, and while it may not be wrong legally, it certainly is morally. He's going to live with the guilt for the rest of his life, and it saddens me to think that people are probably going to take violent action against him as even murderers (or manslaughterers, or idiots with bad intentions who get in over their heads) don't deserve that, but the fact remains that he did do something wrong.

More importantly, a man who may possibly be this site's biggest asshole, rising above and beyond the likes of hellalt, Draug, krellin, and many more, has made a thread in jest to highlight a serious political issue and all of you have taken his post seriously and shown yourselves to be worse than him. Bravo.

Ghug, no one takes the silly angry Canadian seriously. Not here, not anywhere.

ghug, there is no evidence that "he followed a black boy because he was wearing a hoodie." Just for the record.

Anyway, we can agree that GZ acted stupidly. I don't know that it's clear that his actions were immoral (except inasmuch as it's immoral to be stupid), though if your characterization of them were correct, they certainly would be.

Semck, you can even remove the racial argument, but he followed a teenager when it's pretty clear he shouldn't have, and that directly resulted in his death. I personally think that is wrong. How would you feel about yourself right now, were you in Zimmerman's shoes?

I would be extremely regretful, ghug. The specifics of how I would feel about myself beyond that would depend on exactly what story is true.

The reason I don't entirely know that morality comes into it strongly is because, while you're right that it directly resulted in the teenager's death, I'm not sure how clear it should have been when Zimmerman made the stupid decision that it would or was likely to do so. I'm open to argument on that. The very fact that I'm calling it a stupid thing to do, after all, raises the fact that there was some liklihood of this kind of outcome.

But take the following *hypothetical.* (I don't know if this was or wasn't the case here, so I won't say it's Zimmerman, since we don't need to in order to discuss the moral question). Suppose somebody followed somebody (ignore race -- say they're both the same race) who he thought, for some reason, was possibly the robber who had been bothering his neighborhood. Suppose he realized that the person might attack him, but reasoned, "I will under no circumstances be the aggressor here -- the only time I would ever draw my gun is if my life were in danger, which will only happen if he viciously attacks me and my life is in danger. So the only way he can get hurt is if he chooses to do something very wrong." Is that an immoral decision? Why or why not?

Once you're following someone whom you suspect for whatever non-factual reason, whether it be a hunch, or a profile, you're becoming more suspicious to that person than that person is to you. If that person looks young, or you think he might be on drugs, than you surely understand that he might act rashly, which is why you are following him in the first place. If you truly don't intend to be the aggressor under any circumstances, than your end goal must either be to provoke a fight and kill him or to let him go, as the police have already told you that they don't believe this person is worthy of your following, and once you have any evidence that a crime is in progress it will likely take the police longer to respond than the person your are following to commit said crime.

Trayvon, or our hypothetical suspicious person, may very well have been guilty of something relevant (i.e. not the robberies or drugs, but the attack of Zimmerman/hypothetical person), but this hypothetical person really has no reason to follow if not to kill.

Well, I think your reasoning falls apart right here:

"If you truly don't intend to be the aggressor under any circumstances, than your end goal must either be to provoke a fight and kill him or to let him go, as the police have already told you that they don't believe this person is worthy of your following, and once you have any evidence that a crime is in progress it will likely take the police longer to respond than the person your are following to commit said crime."

It's not true the police said he wasn't *worthy of* following. Rather, they just didn't encourage such following as a general rule. Indeed, they already said they had a squad car on the way to investigate Trayvon. Zimmerman was following him so that his location would not be lost by the time the car arrived.

Hence, neither of your stated motives was in fact the putative motive in this case.

Alright, I'll admit that I didn't know that, but the rest of my point still stands. This guy looks young and suspicious (to Zimmerman). Zimmerman obviously thinks that this guy may be a criminal. If he hypothetically chooses to follow with no intent to be the aggressor, but intent to react with deadly force to any aggression as you claim, and he suspects that this person he's following might be a criminal, at least a part of him expects to be attacked, and he's decided that he's comfortable risking that life to make sure that the police catch someone that he has deemed dangerous without tangible evidence. I personally think that that is morally wrong. If you disagree, so be it.

"If he hypothetically chooses to follow with no intent to be the aggressor, but intent to react with deadly force to any aggression as you claim, and he suspects that this person he's following might be a criminal, at least a part of him expects to be attacked, and he's decided that he's comfortable risking that life to make sure that the police catch someone that he has deemed dangerous without tangible evidence."

I'm still not seeing where you get this: "at least part of him expects to be attacked." Just because Zimmerman/hypothetical knows what he would do if he were attacked, that does not mean that he expects to be attacked. I have a vague idea what I would do if I were attacked on campus, but I virtually never expect to be.

"and he's decided that he's comfortable risking that life to make sure that the police catch someone that he has deemed dangerous without tangible evidence. I personally think that that is morally wrong. If you disagree, so be it. "

Well, I'm still not sure. What precisely is the moral failure here? I mean, you described a very complex action. What part of it is immoral or, if it's the whole thing together, then what rule of morality does it violate? (Notice that I would substitute "investigate" and "suspicious" where you have "catch" and "dangerous," by the way).

I'll join semck83 here. Ghug, please do explain why following someone who you deem dangerous is morally wrong.

Would a short barreled Mossberg shotgun be effective in close quarters?

I reckon he should carry an M6 because #yolo

Best mapleleaf post I've seen. +1

ZERO EVIDENCE THAT:
1. ...He "hunted" TM -- he did not.
2. ...He was racially motivated -- he was not
3. ...He initiated physical contact with TM -- he did not

It is not against the law to follow someone in your own neighborhood. It **is** against the law to attack someone that follows you.

Shit, can you imagine walking through the mall with douchebag assclowns like ghug...it'd be a fucking riot!! "Why you following me man...<wham...>..." The fight's on...

Oh...and to the OP...come on, man? What ever happened to the Uzi? Small, compact, flings lead like it's goin' out of style. sure, it'll "walk" on you, but that crazy ass mob tryin' to hunt you down? They'll hit the dirt when that Uzi starts to burp, and at least give you a runnin' chance to get away.

You know....much like that dumbass Trayvon Martin shoulda dun...

I think the innocent unsuspecting angelic Mr Zimmerman was ambling around his local neighbourhood, probably dreaming of candy floss and puppy dogs, when he was viciously attacked by a crazed person of indiscriminate and inconsequential colour that set about killing Mr Z completely unprovoked (as these people of indiscriminate colour and afro hair are inclined to do, a bit like Zulu savages).
Luckily Mr Z had a gun with him and just before he was ruthlessly murdered by the 17 year old boy who was 2 stone lighter than but fought with the strength of a wild animal (he would wouldn't he because they do don't they) or hero Mr Z got lucky and shot the kid dead. What.... the kid was black, didn't even notice M'lud, couldn't see past his thick rubber lips, working class clothes and poor ethnic attitude.
You white trash will talk any old shit to justify this murder ....

Please elaborate on "1911 family".

Nigee...please don't *ever* let the facts get in the way of your race-bating, politically-motivating opinions!

The world might explode if you started functioning with your actual human capacity for intellectual thought, as opposed to the brutish, animal emotions that clearly drive your every utterance and action. It must be a wonderful world you live in seeing the world with the intellect and emotions of a dog.

+ 1 Nigee.

Facts are nothing but what we interpret them to be. There is no meaning, not even factual, that is determined in a purely objective fashion, with a view from nowhere, so to speak. To think otherwise is to be blind to what we do with language, with words. And to be blind, is a sad state indeed. But worst is the state of those who find comfort in their blindness, and there the means to profit from darkness in their relentless assaults on whatever seems other, on whatever questions their comforts.

That kid, who of course been of any colour, was asking for it if you ask me, FFS he was wearing a hoodie, what does he expect to happen to him in nice gated communities ....... get shot, that's what.
Let this be a warning to other kids going to nice areas with and not looking posh, watch out, you might get shot

But seriously

Insisting that something "isn't about race" is the whitest activity ever devised and carried out on the blue ball Earth.

Zimmerman isn't white.

Actually, Nigee, let this be a warning to stupid thug children that like to get in to fights - don't jump on and attack people that you don't know.

Getting in to fights in the school yard with your known peers is one thing.

Being a fucktard moron and attacking an adult was just stupid.

Well... let's be clear here at least:

The lesson to young thu... I mean, kids, is: when followed by an insistent person you don't know who questions your perfectly legal activities without any authority to do so, get on your knees, put your hands on your head, and say "Yes Master!"

@ mapleleaf

Yeah. Any derivative of the old M1911. 1911s are the best handguns in the world, hands down. Fuck Glock. Glocks are plastic pieces of shit. Let's see how many Glocks are still in service when they're over 100 years old.