Trayvon Martin

[WildGunsTomcat]

Trayvon Martin. He's a pretty polarizing topic in the news right now.

A black sixteen year old kid, shot by a Hispanic male who says that Trayvon was "snooping around windows in his neighborhood."

The shooter, George Zimmerman, says that he followed the boy for several blocks, asked him what he was doing, and then the boy attacked him and ran. So Zimmerman shot him once in the chest.

Zimmerman then cited the 'castle doctrine' as his defense.

For those that don't know, castle doctrine or the 'stand your ground law' is a law in Florida that states that it is legal for you to shoot an intruder on your property if your life is reasonably threatened by said intruder.

The problem with that defense is, this kid was no where near Zimmerman's house. They were 2 blocks down when the kid was shot.

Zimmerman also says that he was a part of neighborhood watch, and that the castle doctrine applies since his castle was technically the whole neighborhood.

I don't know guys, part of me says that this was an avoidable and senseless killing...and part of me would like to know what exactly the kid was doing.

Two other neighbors came forward and said they've seen this kid snooping in windows before.

What strikes me about this, is the NAACP and the black community are comparing this kid to Emmet Till.

There is no comparison to Emmet Till to be had here. None.

What I do see, is that people are going to use this to take away Castle Doctrine, and further curtail our second amendment rights.

I need more information on this kid though to make a determination of who was right here.

Thoughts?

[Quovatis]

It's a tough call. I don't know the specifics of the circumstances in this case, but if you have a reasonable risk of impending serious injury or death, I think you should absolutely be allowed to defend yourself by any means necessary.

What doesn't make sense are "hate crimes". I don't get why we are making a crime based on thoughts instead of actions. Punishment should be based on actions and the harm done to the victim, not what the state of mind of the perpetrator was. I mean killing someone because you hate people who eat turkey sandwiches is the same crime in my mind as killing someone because they are gay or black.

[WildGunsTomcat]

It's a tough call. I don't know the specifics of the circumstances in this case, but if you have a reasonable risk of impending serious injury or death, I think you should absolutely be allowed to defend yourself by any means necessary.

What doesn't make sense are "hate crimes". I don't get why we are making a crime based on thoughts instead of actions. Punishment should be based on actions and the harm done to the victim, not what the state of mind of the perpetrator was. I mean killing someone because you hate people who eat turkey sandwiches is the same crime in my mind as killing someone because they are gay or black.

Exactly. I do not understand at all why this is being labelled as a hate crime.

I mean, the shooter was hispanic. So the black community is shouting that this reminds them of the Civil Rights era? Huh?

My brain: literally full of fuck.

Also Sauce: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trayvon-martins-killing-galvanizes-florida-community-civil-rights-groups/2012/03/21/gIQAbQslSS_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop

[Quovatis]

Yeah, they're calling him a "White Hispanic" whatever that means. Who cares.

[WildGunsTomcat]

Yeah, they're calling him a "White Hispanic" whatever that means. Who cares.

So if a "White" black guy shoots another black kid, is that a hate crime too?

Or how about, if a black guy HATES the other black guy he's shooting...is that a hate crime?

Nah...I think it's only when White folks shoot Black folks is it a hate crime/travesty/racist/civil rights issue.

The point of fact, the kid was probably looking into windows and snooping around...because he's a kid. This guy over-reacted and shot him in the chest plate...and he should do some time for it.

But let's not make this a race thing. Seriously.

[Warborn]

An unarmed person was shot and killed by an armed person. The armed person actually pursued the unarmed person out onto the street to confront him. There is no "tough call" to it. It's cold blooded murder. A kid was murdered over nothing and the killer is walking free. It's a travesty.

[WildGunsTomcat]

An unarmed person was shot and killed by an armed person. The armed person actually pursued the unarmed person out onto the street to confront him. There is no "tough call" to it. It's cold blooded murder. A kid was murdered over nothing and the killer is walking free. It's a travesty.

See though Warborn, you're British...so you don't understand all the different rules that come with living in American society.

I agree with you, someone was shot. But what lead up to the shooting? I keep hearing that this kid was killed and it was a travesty, but two other neighbors said this kid was doing shit he shouldn't be doing...and that he hit this guy and ran away.

And now it's becoming a hate crime issue.

I agree the shooter should do some time...but how is this a hate crime in any way?

[WildGunsTomcat]

I've got a friend getting me the 911 tape, I'll link it when I get it.

I haven't heard this part, so maybe my opinion will change with more information.

[Quovatis]

The article I read said the victim "attacked" the shooter, then ran away. But yeah, the facts I've read do not support a "self-defense" plea.

[WildGunsTomcat]

The article I read said the victim "attacked" the shooter, then ran away. But yeah, the facts I've read do not support a "self-defense" plea.

Not at all. It wasn't self defense. I would have let him hit me, and called the cops to go scoop him up.

I would definitely not have shot him. That's not the issue here, it was a cold blooded killing.

My problem is calling it a hate crime. That's all.

[Warborn]

I'm Canadian. I understand "castle doctrine" as everyone has heard about how Americans murder each other if they catch intruders on their property in certain states.

The kid was in the gated community visiting his father's fiance's house. He was out on the street because he was walking back to her home after having purchased a snack at the store. At the time he was attacked, he was talking on his phone to his girlfriend. So what are the neighbors saying? Was Martin attacking someone? Was he endangering someone's life? "Doing things he shouldn't be doing" is awfully vague. Bottom line, though, is that Zimmerman pursued Martin. It is not self-defense if you are actively pursuing the individual. Maybe if Zimmerman stayed in his home and waited for the police to arrive, but he even said during the 911 call that he was pursuing the kid.

If the kid was confronted by this Zimmerman person who was brandishing a firearm, and the kid hit him and ran away, guess what? Not a crime. If the kid felt his life was in danger, he was perfectly within his right to attempt to escape. That's what good self-defense is. And further, what does this say? That Zimmerman shot a kid in the back while he was fleeing?

I cannot believe this is something anyone with a brain is on the fence on. At the very least, Zimmerman should be locked up pending trial. An unarmed kid was pursued by an armed man out onto the street and killed. That isn't something the police should shrug their shoulders at.

[WildGunsTomcat]

I'm Canadian. I understand "castle doctrine" as everyone has heard about how Americans murder each other if they catch intruders on their property in certain states.

The kid was in the gated community visiting his father's fiance's house. He was out on the street because he was walking back to her home after having purchased a snack at the store. At the time he was attacked, he was talking on his phone to his girlfriend. So what are the neighbors saying? Was Martin attacking someone? Was he endangering someone's life? "Doing things he shouldn't be doing" is awfully vague. Bottom line, though, is that Zimmerman pursued Martin. It is not self-defense if you are actively pursuing the individual. Maybe if Zimmerman stayed in his home and waited for the police to arrive, but he even said during the 911 call that he was pursuing the kid.

If the kid was confronted by this Zimmerman person who was brandishing a firearm, and the kid hit him and ran away, guess what? Not a crime. If the kid felt his life was in danger, he was perfectly within his right to attempt to escape. That's what good self-defense is. And further, what does this say? That Zimmerman shot a kid in the back while he was fleeing?

I cannot believe this is something anyone with a brain is on the fence on. At the very least, Zimmerman should be locked up pending trial. An unarmed kid was pursued by an armed man out onto the street and killed. That isn't something the police should shrug their shoulders at.

Oh even worse, you're a Canadian.

"I've heard how Americans murder each other"

Dude seriously? You should write a book on how to be biased against Americans.

The long and short of it, many neighbors are now coming forward saying this kid did some funny shit around their houses.

I never said that it was okay for the guy to shoot this kid, so remove that from your head this instant.

My main question was "IS THIS A HATE CRIME" not "IS THE GUY WRONG FOR KILLING THE KID"

[Warborn]

When you put quotation marks around words it usually means you're quoting someone. As that wasn't why I said, I'm not sure why you seem to be quoting me on it. But that's cool, I just found out that I am biased against Americans, so I guess I'll just let you write that book for me as you seem to know what I'm all about for some reason.

[Hamma]

As someone who lives in a Castle state, owns many Firearms and understands the laws of said state.. I believe this dude was totally out of line and is giving those of us responsible a bad name. He followed this guy when told not to and was quite obviously looking to pick a fight.

There's no way for any of us to know exactly what transpired with the altercation but judging by the evidence I have seen thus far this guy is an idiot and should do serious time. Whether or not he is/was a racist is irrelevant.

So to answer the post, No it is not a hate crime and should not be categorized as such and based on the evidence I do in fact believe he was wrong.

This is now an excuse for people to tear apart stand your ground laws, castle doctrines and all other similar legislation just because one moron shot someone. Try and punish everyone for the fail of one.

[Quovatis]

It's just stupid they couldn't arrest him. The law needs to be amended.

[Baneblade]

It's just stupid they couldn't arrest him. The law needs to be amended.

Why couldnt they arrest him?

[Vecha]

While the kid may have been a punk..maybe even a petty theft, that doesn't mean he should have been shot.

He was unarmed.

I too don't think this should take away 2nd amendment rights(I'm not a gun owner, but I respect those who are), but this guy should have been taken in at least.

I also think the NAACP response is a bit silly...but I can understand the Mother's anger, frustration, etc.

The kid didn't deserve to get shot. Even if the kid was yelling at the man...you don't shoot someone for yelling at you...or even "attacking"(whatever that means).

I guess there's a chance I may change my mind once I hear more evidence...but as of right now...I think he should have been taken in.

[Warborn]

So here's the 911 call of someone by where the shooting took place. The person yelling for help is Martin:
Trayvon Martin Shooting 911 Call - YouTube

And here's the 911 call of Zimmerman where he says the teen is "suspicious" and "looking at houses", complaining that "these assholes always get away", and confirms he got out of his vehicle to pursue and confront Martin:
George Zimmerman Trayvon Martin 911 Call - YouTube


Zimmerman also may have said "fucking coons" on the 911 call under his breath, although it's hard to make out. Obviously this hasn't gone to trial yet, but the self-defense claim seems like baloney. Zimmerman was far larger than Martin, was armed, and it's unlikely that Martin would have been screaming for help if he were in the process of endangering Zimmerman's life.

Looking at it as a hate crime at this point doesn't seem so strange. The shooter can be heard saying what sounds like a racial epithet directed toward Martin during the 911 call. If it turns out that the much smaller, unarmed Martin was not in fact a danger to Zimmerman's life, then the motive for the homicide perpetrated could fairly easily be demonstrated to be racial. Zimmerman, they'd say, is a self-empowered community watch person, tired of "those assholes" who always get away, and "fucking coons" walking around looking at houses suspiciously. So, he decided to take matters into his own hands. That's hardly a story that would shock people.

[BuzzCutPsycho]

This entire incident is a perfect illustration on why there is so much violence in America and it actually has very little to do with firearms.

[Firefly]

I agree with you, someone was shot. But what lead up to the shooting? I keep hearing that this kid was killed and it was a travesty, but two other neighbors said this kid was doing shit he shouldn't be doing...and that he hit this guy and ran away.
You should probably do some research before, you know, posting opinions. A quick five-second Google Search led me to about thirty different run-downs of the incident, and all of them pretty much crucify the shooter.

Fact: guy follows the kid in his car.
Fact: kid runs away because someone is following him
Fact: guy gets out of the car. With a gun.
Fact: kid is unarmed.
Fact: guy is on the phone with 911, who tells the guy not to follow the kid.
Fact: guy confronts kid. Guy shoots unarmed kid. Kid dies.
Fact: guy straddles kid's corpse and is crying "Oh God what have I done?"

As near as I can tell, nobody reported the kid for looking into windows. The kid was walking through a gated community that he had every right to be in.

Personally, I think he probably got trigger-happy and had an accidental discharge. Because he's a stupid fucking REMF wanna-be and he had his goddamned finger in the trigger well like he was teasing an easy lay. I don't think it's a race-related issue. I think non-whites are painting it as such specifically because a black kid was shot by a guy that looks white, and wasn't arrested.

This isn't an excuse to erode the Second Amendment. You really need to calm down on the rhetoric. It's an excuse to reexamine and adjust the Florida law, as well as a public outcry over the cold-blooded murder of a child by a know-nothing idiot. Like Hamma said - he gives responsible gun owners a bad name.

[Vecha]

So here's the 911 call of someone by where the shooting took place. The person yelling for help is Martin:
Trayvon Martin Shooting 911 Call - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmnqKotpSD0)

And here's the 911 call of Zimmerman where he says the teen is "suspicious" and "looking at houses", complaining that "these assholes always get away", and confirms he got out of his vehicle to pursue and confront Martin:
George Zimmerman Trayvon Martin 911 Call - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aVwPqXc-bk)


Zimmerman also may have said "fucking coons" on the 911 call under his breath, although it's hard to make out. Obviously this hasn't gone to trial yet, but the self-defense claim seems like baloney. Zimmerman was far larger than Martin, was armed, and it's unlikely that Martin would have been screaming for help if he were in the process of endangering Zimmerman's life.

Looking at it as a hate crime at this point doesn't seem so strange. The shooter can be heard saying what sounds like a racial epithet directed toward Martin during the 911 call. If it turns out that the much smaller, unarmed Martin was not in fact a danger to Zimmerman's life, then the motive for the homicide perpetrated could fairly easily be demonstrated to be racial. Zimmerman, they'd say, is a self-empowered community watch person, tired of "those assholes" who always get away, and "fucking coons" walking around looking at houses suspiciously. So, he decided to take matters into his own hands. That's hardly a story that would shock people.

Thanks for posting this Warborn. Really puts a new perspective on things.

[TheSHiFT]

It can still be a hate crime if it is Hispanic vs. Black.

Florida's laws are terrible, I legally could find Zimmerman, pick a fight with him (literally hitting him first) and when he fights back I can shot him and claim self-defense.

[TheSHiFT]

I should note the Florida statute:
"776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013."

There is no way a Jury would believe that Zimmerman reasonably believes Martin was a deadly threat while screaming for help. And that is ignoring everything else against Zimmerman in this case. What a shitty law.

[Hamma]

Yea sadly nobody actually SAW what happened.

But based on the 911 calls imo this guy could easily be convicted I don't believe the law even applies here. Why the police have not arrested him is beyond me I believe they have the cause to.

[Firefly]

Chief of Police has "temporarily" stepped down. US President has entered the fray, as well. Considering the hundreds of thousands of people who are actively protesting (and not this Facebook slacktivist bullshit), and the million-plus signatures on a petition, plus the fall-out within the police department, you can expect that Zimmerman will face charges and possibly arrest.

There were multiple 911 calls, not just Zimmerman's call. The victim was also on the phone with his girlfriend through much of the ordeal, up until the scuffle started. This guy was in his car, a grown-ass man in a vehicle... up against a skinny unarmed teenager on foot. The picture has been drawn - this neighborhood watch guy had no reason, no justification, and no official permission from the police, to draw his weapon or engage Martin. From all appearances Zimmerman was the aggressor.

I believe in innocence until proven guilty. The amount of evidence is compelling. What I also believe in is justice. And I think if Zimmerman is innocent he should do the right thing and turn himself in. The parents of this murdered child deserve to have their case heard in a court of law.

[ArcIyte]

Just goes to show the double standard that arises when race is thrown into the mix. It is much easier to claim "hate crime" when the person in question is White. Zimmerman is clearly Latino/Mestizo/Native/whatever you want to call it. If he is white, then so is Barack Obama. If the drive-by media can't get that right (or refuse to), then how can anyone trust the important information?

The people here claiming Martin was a "skinny teenager attacked by a full grown man": Martin was 6 foot 3, Zimmerman was 5 foot 9. Completely opposite of what some of you are claiming.

Anyone who is actually interested in justice (read: not social "justice") is only concerned with one question: We know Zimmerman was beaten. Did Martin attack Zimmerman, as he claims, or did Zimmerman attack Martin, who then turned the tables on Zimmerman and beat him to the point where Zimmerman shot Martin.

In those recordings people presume the screaming in the background is Martin. Early in the investigation it was assumed that it was Zimmerman, as Zimmerman told the police that he was screaming for help (which he never got, hence the firearm) during the fight.

Both Zimmerman and Martin were in public places where they legaly could be. Neither one committed any crime until the attack occurred. The question is, who started it? With the amount of useless racial and anti-gun propaganda, I doubt that question will even be center stage, let alone answered.

[Warborn]

Just goes to show the double standard that arises when race is thrown into the mix. It is much easier to claim "hate crime" when the person in question is White. Zimmerman is clearly Latino/Mestizo/Native/whatever you want to call it. If he is white, then so is Barack Obama. If the drive-by media can't get that right (or refuse to), then how can anyone trust the important information?

Zimmerman's ethnicity isn't important. He clearly isn't black, and he said "fucking coons" while chasing Martin down. If they wanted to charge this as a hate crime, they'd certainly have a case for it. Either way though, the problem is a 17 year old doing nothing more than drinking iced tea and eating candy was pursued, shot, and killed by someone else and the police did nothing about it. That's the outrage.

The people here claiming Martin was a "skinny teenager attacked by a full grown man": Martin was 6 foot 3, Zimmerman was 5 foot 9. Completely opposite of what some of you are claiming.

Zimmerman weighed 80 lbs more than Martin. Martin may have been taller, but he was clearly much skinnier. And he was unarmed, unless candy and a drink constitutes a weapon. They were Skittles though so, I dunno, those are pretty potent.

Anyone who is actually interested in justice (read: not social "justice") is only concerned with one question: We know Zimmerman was beaten. Did Martin attack Zimmerman, as he claims, or did Zimmerman attack Martin, who then turned the tables on Zimmerman and beat him to the point where Zimmerman shot Martin.

The police claimed witnesses gave testimony corroborating Zimmerman's story which the witnesses themselves say is false. The 911 call also contradicts the statement Zimmerman made, that he got out of his car to check the street sign and was jumped from behind by Martin. In this case, neither the police nor Zimmerman's testimony can be considered reliable.

In those recordings people presume the screaming in the background is Martin. Early in the investigation it was assumed that it was Zimmerman, as Zimmerman told the police that he was screaming for help (which he never got, hence the firearm) during the fight.

That was apparently part of the witness tampering. (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/anderson-cooper-interviews-witnesses-to-trayvon-martin-shooting/)

Both Zimmerman and Martin were in public places where they legaly could be. Neither one committed any crime until the attack occurred. The question is, who started it? With the amount of useless racial and anti-gun propaganda, I doubt that question will even be center stage, let alone answered.

There doesn't seem to be any real question to it. Martin was committing no crime and Zimmerman ran after him, armed, to confront him. An altercation occurred and Martin, who was unarmed, was shot and killed. Zimmerman started the altercation by pursuing Martin without any reason, and Zimmerman fired the shot. I'm not sure where the ambiguity is here.

[ArcIyte]

There doesn't seem to be any real question to it

Tell me what crime Zimmerman committed before the fight started.

Saying "An altercation occurred and Martin was shot, Zimmerman is guilty" is oversimplifying it. The ambiguity lies in who started the physical fight.

[Warborn]

That would be oversimplifying it, which is probably why I didn't say it. In fact, I didn't even use the word guilty, did I? Fancy that.

The justification for Zimmerman shooting Martin is that Martin was threatening his life, right? That it was self defense? Well, apparently, he was such a threat to Zimmerman that Zimmerman had to get out of his vehicle and actually run Martin down before he fired his weapon at him. Sounds pretty perilous, huh? So Zimmerman chased him down while muttering racial epithets, and then for some reason an unarmed kid is shot in the chest and killed. And then Zimmerman lies to the police about what happened, claiming he was jumped by Martin from behind as he was getting out of his car to check street signs, despite the 911 call which completely contradicts that.

And yet you think the issue here is whether Martin threw a punch first or something? Seriously?

[Malorn]

Meh.

[ArcIyte]

You claimed earlier that you couldn't make it out, but it "sounded like fucking coons", and now you're using it as fact? Which is it?

You didn't answer my question. What crime did he commit before the supposed fight started? Walking up to someone and asking them what they're doing in the neighborhood isn't a crime. So yes, whoever started the physical altercation is largely at fault.

He's definitely gonna go through the legal system a few times. The cops told him to stop following the guy. He also muttered "they always get away". Very stupid on his part, assuming he's telling the truth.

[Figment]

Regardless of he shouts that, you can definitely make a case for hate crime based on:

"They always get away with it".

How can one boy be a "they"? Something about the boy triggered a stereotype for him that says criminal. Doesn't have to be based on just skin, could well be "gangster youth" appearance, for instance. Whatever it was, something triggered a characterization of the kid that made him want to see "justice" done.

Sounds to me though, this is a culmination of events over a very long time in which he created such a stereotype.

[Crator]

He was a self proclaimed neighborhood watch man. "They" could just mean anyone who's done something wrong in the neighborhood.

Not certain he had a right to shoot the kid though. I could see if the kid had a gun, or even threatened that he had a gun even if he didn't.

[BuzzCutPsycho]

This case would be getting very minimal attention had it been a white guy killing a white guy.

[Vash02]

This case would be getting very minimal attention had it been a white guy killing a white guy.

It would of still been the first killing under the "because they made me feel icky" law.

[BuzzCutPsycho]

It would of still been the first killing under the "because they made me feel icky" law.

And you'd of never heard about it.

[Warborn]

This case would be getting very minimal attention had it been a white guy killing a white guy.

Not so sure about that. An armed guy pursuing and shooting an unarmed guy to death for looking "suspicious" and then walking away is pretty fucked up. There wouldn't have been any kind of big marches in the streets or whatever, but it would have made national news I'd think.

Amazing how so many people know so little about what happened but are so quick to judge exactly how it went down.

All I'm claiming is that a guy running down and shooting an unarmed guy who posed no threat to him, and then being allowed to walk away after the police get there, is bullshit.

[BuzzCutPsycho]

Not so sure about that. An armed guy pursuing and shooting an unarmed guy to death for looking "suspicious" and then walking away is pretty fucked up. There wouldn't have been any kind of big marches in the streets or whatever, but it would have made national news I'd think.

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=8590150

You'd think but in our fucked up country it doesn't. This happened on the 21st by the way.

[Figment]

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=8590150

You'd think but in our fucked up country it doesn't. This happened on the 21st by the way.

Uhm, regardless of how screwed up that is and typical of (youth) gang behaviour, how is that anywhere near the same kind of thing? What you show is a robbery, where a bunch of criminals physically assault someone and get away with it because they have not been identified or caught.

You said:

"This case would be getting very minimal attention had it been a white guy killing a white guy."

What you need to show if you want to back up your statement, is an extremely local news thing where a known white person shoots another white person on the street, but is let go based on self-defense without any evidence for self-defense.

That would be an illustration of a case that would be similar to this one.

What exactly is your point with the link you provided?

[NivexQ]

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/151849/the-free-eric-cartman-now-committee

Pretty much sums up my stance on that.

[Effective]

An unarmed person was shot and killed by an armed person. The armed person actually pursued the unarmed person out onto the street to confront him. There is no "tough call" to it. It's cold blooded murder. A kid was murdered over nothing and the killer is walking free. It's a travesty.

This. Shooting someone unarmed isn't self-defense 2 blocks away from your home.

[Baneblade]

The distance from his home has nothing to do with whether it was self defense or not... or are you insinuating that nobody should be able to defend themselves where ever they go?

[Figment]

The distance from his home has nothing to do with whether it was self defense or not... or are you insinuating that nobody should be able to defend themselves where ever they go?

Probably the distance was a reference to that "castle" law thingy.


PS: Can't you actually not just build a castle instead? Would you need a permit to build a castle so you can defend yourself with burning hot oil instead of guns? Hmmm questions questions.

[Traak]

Trayvon Martin. He's a pretty polarizing topic in the news right now.

A black sixteen year old kid, shot by a Hispanic male who says that Trayvon was "snooping around windows in his neighborhood."

The shooter, George Zimmerman, says that he followed the boy for several blocks, asked him what he was doing, and then the boy attacked him and ran. So Zimmerman shot him once in the chest.

Zimmerman then cited the 'castle doctrine' as his defense.

For those that don't know, castle doctrine or the 'stand your ground law' is a law in Florida that states that it is legal for you to shoot an intruder on your property if your life is reasonably threatened by said intruder.

The problem with that defense is, this kid was no where near Zimmerman's house. They were 2 blocks down when the kid was shot.

Zimmerman also says that he was a part of neighborhood watch, and that the castle doctrine applies since his castle was technically the whole neighborhood.

I don't know guys, part of me says that this was an avoidable and senseless killing...and part of me would like to know what exactly the kid was doing.

Two other neighbors came forward and said they've seen this kid snooping in windows before.

What strikes me about this, is the NAACP and the black community are comparing this kid to Emmet Till.

There is no comparison to Emmet Till to be had here. None.

What I do see, is that people are going to use this to take away Castle Doctrine, and further curtail our second amendment rights.

I need more information on this kid though to make a determination of who was right here.

Thoughts?

Actually, I think the law he was standing on was the "You don't have to run away in fear gibbering and shrieking every time someone attacks you, no matter where you are, as long as you are legally allowed to be there."

So if you run up on someone when they are on a public sidewalk, or anywhere else they are legally allowed to be, then you can get a chest full of lead like homeboy G-dogg got. I guess when he tried to ac' the foo' he wound up dead.

Laws used to read, and still do in some freedom-hating jurisdictions, that if someone attacks you in a public place, you have to run away screaming like a little girl, and can't stand your ground and defend yourself.

This is not the case in Florida, so thugged-out gangstas actually get shot instead of being able to swagger down the street saying "boo" to people who then, by law, have to run away.

There is a cure for getting shot in self-defense. Quit snooping around houses in the neighborhood and don't attack someone who confronts you for doing it.

Yo.

It's typical National Association Against Cracker People tactics, though, to turn someone from a thief and an assailant into a glowing halo-polishing saint of righteousness that would make Jesus himself look dirty in comparison.

Yeah, he was a good kid, sure. So was Rodney King, and every Tom, Javier, and Jamal that has ever walked the face of the Earth. However, good kids get shot just as dead for attacking someone as evil horrible persons.

[Traak]

While the kid may have been a punk..maybe even a petty theft, that doesn't mean he should have been shot.

He was unarmed.

So, if, for example, a 300-pound martial artist attacks your sixteen-year-old daughter, she shouldn't shoot him.

He's unarmed.

The cure for being shot in self-defense is to NOT GO AROUND ATTACKING PEOPLE.

[Traak]

Chasing was a bit much

Why is chasing someone "a bit much"?

If you saw someone snooping around houses in your neighborhood, and he ran off, and you were a neighborhood watch person, or a citizen, would you think it was inappropriate to chase him?

[Traak]

Regardless of he shouts that, you can definitely make a case for hate crime based on:

"They always get away with it".

So "They" universally means the same thing in every single circumstance, everywhere, all the time?

Nope, "They" doesn't make this a hate crime.

[Vash02]

Why is chasing someone "a bit much"?

If you saw someone snooping around houses in your neighborhood, and he ran off, and you were a neighborhood watch person, or a citizen, would you think it was inappropriate to chase him? yup, snooping isnt a crime nor is "looking suspicious".

[Figment]

So "They" universally means the same thing in every single circumstance, everywhere, all the time?

Nope, "They" doesn't make this a hate crime.

No. "They" in this case means a prejudice against some sort of criminal group with particular appearances exists within the man's mind.

Not very hard to derive: he is talking about an individual he does not know as being part of a group he labeled criminal. This is called stereotyping.

[TheSHiFT]

So, if, for example, a 300-pound martial artist attacks your sixteen-year-old daughter, she shouldn't shoot him.

He's unarmed.

The cure for being shot in self-defense is to NOT GO AROUND ATTACKING PEOPLE.

What if the 300lb martial artist was stalking my unarmed daughter. She tried to get away but couldnt. Under duress she attacks him as a likely threat in self-defense. He then shoots her dead. What then?

[Figment]

So, if, for example, a 300-pound martial artist attacks your sixteen-year-old daughter, she shouldn't shoot him.

He's unarmed.

The cure for being shot in self-defense is to NOT GO AROUND ATTACKING PEOPLE.

Or randomly threatening them with guns creating an act of self defense the gun slinger uses as a case for self defense?

[ArcIyte]

No. "They" in this case means a prejudice against some sort of criminal group with particular appearances exists within the man's mind.

Not very hard to derive: he is talking about an individual he does not know as being part of a group he labeled criminal. This is called stereotyping.

No, "They" in this case is a PRONOUN.

[Figment]

No, "They" in this case is a PRONOUN.

So individuals are a multiple now?

"THEY always get away with it", who are "they"? Clearly not this one guy? Then he'd say "he", THEN it'd be a mere substitute. Instead, he refers to a group. So who are "they" if not "people who break the law" ie. criminals? Because in this context, "they" are people who are getting away with things. Note that at this point, the boy had not been up to anything yet, he had not "attacked" (or "defended", depending on perspective) anyone, nor stole anything or broke any other law.

So. At the very least this guy was paranoid, but something must have triggered that paranoia. As he had nothing to go on but appearance at first glance (he had not confronted him, nothing of the sort yet)... I'd say that smells of stereotype. In his mind, the boy must have been up to no good (clearly), regardless if he had done anything at that point merely based on appearance. That is prejudice.

If prejudice is at least part of the motive, it can be considered a "hate crime", though I wouldn't go as far to say it's a racist crime. More like hate against (perhaps fear of, or at the very least an unhealthy weariness of) a particular sub-culture.

[Warborn]

I'm a racist piece of shit.

I'm sure we're all very surprised.

An armed man ran after an unarmed guy, shot him dead, and claimed self-defense. If this is legal in Florida, then Florida is just as fucked up as all the jokes suggest it is. People should not be legally entitled to murder strangers who pose no threat to them.

[ArcIyte]

So Warborn, are you done swallowing that shit-flavored media pill?

If so, go ahead and see the other side of the story:

http://patdollard.com/2012/03/was-trayvon-martin-a-drug-dealing-gangbanger/

Excerpted from MiamiHerald – SANFORD — Miami Gardens teenager Trayvon Martin was suspended from school in October in an incident in which he was found in possession of women’s jewelry and a screwdriver that a schools security staffer described as a “burglary tool,” The Miami Herald has learned.

Trayvon, who claimed that an unnamed friend had given him the jewelry, was not disciplined because of the discovery, but was instead suspended for graffiti, according to a Miami-Dade Schools Police report obtained by The Miami Herald.

A lawyer for the dead teen’s family acknowledged Trayvon had been suspended for graffiti, but said the family knew nothing about the jewelry and the screwdriver, calling the information in the report an attempt to “demonize” the youth.

According to the report, on Oct. 21 staffers monitoring a security camera at Dr. Michael M. Krop Senior High School spotted Trayvon and two other students writing “W.T.F.,” an acronym for “What the f—,” on a hallway locker, according to schools police. The security employee, who knew Trayvon, confronted the teen and looked through his bag for the graffiti marker.

Trayvon’s backpack contained 12 pieces of jewelry, in addition to a watch and a large flathead screwdriver, according to the report, which described the screwdriver as a burglary tool.

Trayvon was asked if the jewelry, which was mostly women’s rings and earrings, belonged to his family or a girlfriend.

“Martin replied it’s not mine. A friend gave it to me,” according to the report. Trayvon declined to name the friend.

School police impounded the jewelry and sent photos of the items to detectives at Miami-Dade police for further investigation.

“Martin was suspended, warned and dismissed for the graffiti,” according to the report prepared by Miami-Dade Schools Police.

That suspension was followed four months later by another one, in February, in which Trayvon was caught with an empty plastic bag with traces of marijuana in it, the boy’s family’s attorney has confirmed. A schools police report obtained by The Miami Herald specifies two items: a bag with marijuana residue and a “marijuana pipe.”

http://patdollard.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Ax26X-500x375.jpg

Nice gold teeth there bro. You're definitely a model citizen. This is the kid Obama wishes his son would look like? LOL

Excerpted from WAGIST

The media narrative being sold is quite clear, Trayvon Martin is the innocent victim here and George Zimmerman is a horrible bigot who attacked the young man for doing nothing more than buying skittles while being black. Even Barack Obama seems to accept the fresh-faced innocence of Trayvon, stating, “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon.” More on that later.

It’s becoming more and more clear however that the innocent appearance the mainstream media is so desperate to apply to Trayvon isn’t at all accurate. The picture we’re used to seeing to represent Trayvon Martin appears to be a far cry from how he actually looked once he was a few years older. Extended School Suspension

There has been a lot of analysis about the character of George Zimmerman in the media, and surprisingly little about Trayvon Martin.

For instance, a few days before he was killed, Trayvon was suspended from school for ten days.

Still, Trayvon had nonviolent behavioral issues in school, and on the day he was killed, he had been suspended for 10 days from Dr. Michael M. Krop Senior High School in North Miami-Dade. “He was not suspended for something dealing with violence or anything like that. It wasn’t a crime he committed, but he was in an unauthorized area [on school property],” Martin said, declining to offer more details. Before that, Trayvon attended Miami Carol City High School near his mother’s home in Miami Gardens.

There has been very little follow-up in investigating exactly why Trayvon was suspended for such a long period of time for what seems to be the relatively minor offense of “being in an unauthorized area.” In most schools, something like that would be a detention, or one-day, in school suspension at most. Not ten days.

Of course, this is why Trayvon was staying as his Father’s house, so far away from school. And it also explains why George Zimmerman, who by all accounts seemed to stay on top of everything that happened in his neighborhood, didn’t recognize him that evening, Trayvon didn’t really live there, and was only in town because of the suspension.

It seems we may not find out more anytime soon, as a lawyer representing Trayvon’s family has sealed his school records.

Multiple Tattoos

To learn more about Trayvon’s character, we have to look to his friends and family to offer clues. Unfortunately, it seems as if most people who knew him are intent on cleaning up his image, rather than discussing what Trayvon was really like.

Even though Trayvon was only 17, he already was sporting gold teeth, and several large tattoos. This one was on his wrist, apparently of his girlfriend’s mother’s name.

Trayvon Martin Wrist Tattoo

This photo, taken from Tray’s MySpace page, shows another large tattoo that took up most of his upper arm.

http://patdollard.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/sR6cM-436x500.png

http://patdollard.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/KgQfc-375x500.jpg

It seems that Tray was also on Twitter, but his account seems to have been recently deleted by his family or friends.

His screen name was “@N0_LIMIT_*****, as you can see from the twitpic account screenshot above. He was also a member of a twitter hash group #team4dat.

At first, I was skeptical that anyone would maintain an account with that sort of derogatory slur in the title, but after doing some research, it’s apparent that it was Trayvon’s account.

The account was in existence long before the shooting occurred a few weeks ago, and was deleted only recently, there are still dozens of references to @N0_LIMIT_***** in google’s cache.

The associated twitpic account matches the account name and is still online at the time of publication. Most of the pics were uploaded months ago, so this account was associated with Trayvon long before the shooting took place.

Several of Tray’s friends have been very open about referring to Trayvon using that account as well. His cousin, who is quite active on Twitter, refers to Trayvon more than a dozen times using the @N0_LIMIT_***** nickname.



There seem to be several allusions to violence on Tray’s Twitter account.

His friends posted supportive messages using it as well, about how happy they were that Trayvon whooped Zimmerman’s ass before he died.

@N0_LIMIT_***** IMA MISS YU TILL I DIE DOG I KNOW YU WHOOPED HIS ASS DOE.. CUZ I PRAY GOD HELP ME AND WATCH YU LOVE YOU CUZZ REST ETERNALLY.

http://patdollard.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/uaa4E-500x290.jpg

Another post makes reference to Trayvon having “swung on a bus driver” a few days before he died.

http://patdollard.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/iTmrv-500x290.jpg

On Trayvon’s MySpace page, at least one of his top friends, Romario305, is featured making a gang sign towards the camera in his default profile picture.

http://patdollard.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/tS4BS.jpg

Almost all of this is in stark contrast to the media’s central narrative that Trayvon was a normal, happy, well-adjusted teenager.

Instead of that, we are seeing long suspensions from school, tattoos, racially-charged epitaphs, and violence.

Drug Culture

Several of his friends have posted pictures of rolled blunts to twitter in memorial to Trayvon.

http://patdollard.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/6UVfE-432x500.png

There is also fairly direct evidence that Trayvon may have been a small-time drug-dealer.

On Facebook on February 5th, his friend posts on his wall asking to talk business. Trayvon says he doesn’t have a phone available and his friend says, “Damn were u at a ***** needa plant.”

http://patdollard.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/OXAjN-500x219.png

[Movac]

What a fucking piece of shit, good thing he's dead now.

[Vash02]

Yes, becuase a person had a few trivial crimes under his belt we should shrug and walk away when someone shoots that person. Judge, jury and executioner. All while not knowing a single thing about that person.

I hope you dont have any speeding tickets, your murderer will get to walk free then.

[Figment]

So Warborn, are you done swallowing that shit-flavored media pill?

If so, go ahead and see the other side of the story:

[irrelevant stuff]


None of those things are related to THIS shooting.

[ArcIyte]

Do you know what character is? We were given an image, by the media, of a kid who couldn't possible attack Zimmerman and force him to defend himself. Every single piece of media is painting this guy as a good kid. Shamelessly using this guys picture from when he was 12 years old, stating that he isn't the violent type and would never start a fight.

Now we figure out he punched his busdriver, sells drugs, was taken out of school for possessing stolen jewelry, and is a typical "gangsta thug".

Seems to me the whole "little angel" image has been shattered. If you don't believe a history of violence and theft is relevant you are deliberately biased and should be ignored.

[Vash02]

Do you know what character is? We were given an image, by the media, of a kid who couldn't possible attack Zimmerman and force him to defend himself. Every single piece of media is painting this guy as a good kid. Shamelessly using this guys picture from when he was 12 years old, stating that he isn't the violent type and would never start a fight.

Now we figure out he punched his busdriver, sells drugs, was taken out of school for possessing stolen jewelry, and is a typical "gangsta thug".

Seems to me the whole "little angel" image has been shattered. If you don't believe a history of violence and theft is relevant you are deliberately biased and should be ignored.

How is it in anyway relevant to this case? Zimmerman didnt know a single thing about this kid. Yet he pursued and shot him.

You cannot gun down anyone who you think looks suspicous in the street. Civilised society does not work like that.

[Hamma]

I think it proves this kid is less than perfect like the media trys to lead us all to believe. Additionally new news has been coming out about some kind of altercation between the two prior to the shooting.

He probably should not have been following him of course but it sounds like he didn't just shoot him just because.

Lots of empty spaces in what we know.

[TheSHiFT]

Do you know what character is? We were given an image, by the media, of a kid who couldn't possible attack Zimmerman and force him to defend himself. Every single piece of media is painting this guy as a good kid. Shamelessly using this guys picture from when he was 12 years old, stating that he isn't the violent type and would never start a fight.

Now we figure out he punched his busdriver, sells drugs, was taken out of school for possessing stolen jewelry, and is a typical "gangsta thug".

Seems to me the whole "little angel" image has been shattered. If you don't believe a history of violence and theft is relevant you are deliberately biased and should be ignored.

This would be relevant if we were weighing Martin's words vs. Zimmerman's. We aren't doing that, because Martin is dead.

Facts are:
Zimmerman has a history of violence and paranoia.
Zimmerman was advised by PD dispatch not to follow Martin, he did. (Showing intent to be aggressive)
Martin tried to avoid the initial confrontation.
The Stanford PD did a shitty job investigating: Zimmerman wasn't drug tested, they made no effort to ID Martin (despite his cell phone being nearby), they 'corrected' witnesses, they didn't confiscate Zimmerman's weapon and they have changed the story 3 times now.

The current story is implausible, stating that Zimmerman had just gotten out of his car to check a street sign when Martin jumped him: 1) Zimmerman is head of his faux-neighborhood watch and regularly ran patrols, how did he not know the name of one of 4 streets in his community? 2) Martin was shot near a sidewalk in the BACKYARD of house, half a block from any street sign and well away from Zimmerman's truck.

Zimmerman admits to killing Martin, claiming self-defense. Self-defense is an affirmative defense (HE has to prove it). Could Zimmerman have simply asked Martin what he was doing, then turn and get jumped by Martin and be in such duress he legitimately feared for his life? Yes. But there are many doubts. The outrage here is because Zimmerman is still free, when he should be awaiting at least a bail hearing.

[RodenyC]

What a fucking piece of shit, good thing he's dead now.

Wow.Really? Uncalled for.
Yup Travyon wasn't a saint.I'm honestly not surprised that he was the "gangsta" type of guy.What should be discussed is why Zimmerman shot him.

[TheSHiFT]

I think it proves this kid is less than perfect like the media trys to lead us all to believe. Additionally new news has been coming out about some kind of altercation between the two prior to the shooting.

He probably should not have been following him of course but it sounds like he didn't just shoot him just because.

Lots of empty spaces in what we know.

IANAL, but given what we currently know, it sounds like Zimmerman was being tough-guy wannabe cop. He likely accosted Martin and one of the two threw the first punch. If Zimmerman did, he was the aggressor all along, and it's likely murder.

If Martin did, it maybe within his right (under the same statute Zimmerman is currently using) as it could be reasonably believe Martin feared for his safety and used non-lethal force. In that case it's probably negligent homicide.

If Martin later jumped Zimmerman (or jumped him initially), Zimmerman can claim self-defense if he feared for his life.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[TheSHiFT]

http://media.photobucket.com/image/recent/RexTalionis/Map.jpg

A: Where Zimmerman made the initial call.

B: Where Police were called too.

C: Where Martin was shot.

[TheSHiFT]

To put events into context, Zimmerman's neighborhood had multiple burglaries lately, and he was out there to help stop it. He saw a suspicious guy and called the police. Then it sounds like he was upset that the kid was going to get away before the cops got there (which is why he said "they always get away"), so it is reasonable conjecture that he went after him to keep tabs until the police arrived so they can see if he was holding stolen belongings or if there was another burglary or to at least get his name. That all seems like reasonable things to do if you've had your home or several neighbors homes recently broken into.

But the fact that he chased him could have cornered him, leading him to attack Zimmerman, who then shot him in self defense.

Certainly suspcious that the kid approaches Zimmerman, and then flees. I would think a normal citizen on his way home would keep on walking home and not stop to poke around cars. Thus, he was suspicious and Zimmerman called it in.



Any reports show exactly how/where the kid was shot? All i saw was it said he was shot in the chest, which leads me to believe he was facing his shooter. I'd be interested in seeing the crime scene photos and the injuries were I investigating the situation. Was the kid against a wall/corner? (to where he couldn't flee) Was he in the open street facing the attacker (in which case he could have easily fled)?

Really the only evidence to convict one way or another is whether the guy

Unfortunately the president's careless and stupid public statement to try to turn this into a gun issue also made it impossible for Zimmerman to ever get a fair trial, so a conviction is highly unlikely at this point unless there's some really clear new evidence.

Why the president feels compelled to get involved and jump to conclusions in any issue involving race blows my mind. It's purely political. If he wanted justice he wouldn't have done anything to sabotage the case.

The whole thing reeks of political bias now which means no fair trial, no justice, and tons and tons of spin on the issue.

How did Obama make this a gun issue?

[Malorn]

Meh.

[TheSHiFT]

By personally raising the issue. It won't be long before they start attacking the "Stand your ground" laws that exist in some states that say you don't have to flee when attacked and you can lawfully shoot when your life is threatened.

Its why Zimmerman hasn't been arrested. Under Florida law, he has committed no crime.

So they claim outrage and "how could this have happened?" and then point fingers at the gun law and call for reform.

Case in point, stupid articles like this one:
http://www.newsdaytonabeach.com/Radio/WNDB/WNDB-Blogs/Treyvon-Martin%E2%80%99s-Death-Proves-Florida-Must-Revise-the-%E2%80%9CStand-Your-Ground%E2%80%9D-Loophole.html

Um, what? He brought attention to a shitty law (which isn't necessarily a gun law). Florida's stand your ground law is apparently unique in that it DOESNT have a provision against being the one to throw the first punch, so to speak.

For example, we could be down in Florida, I could, literally, walk up to you, hit you, and when you go to defend yourself, shoot you dead. As you say, under Florida law, I did not commit a crime. This, of course, doesnt take into account your side of what happened. I just murdered you and got away with it. It's a shitty law and what this case is about. There is reasonable doubt to Zimmerman's story.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[TheSHiFT]

Wow don't you think if it really worked like that we'd see more cases about it? Oh right, because it doesn't work that way.



Just being hit by someone isn't justification for use of deadly force.

Also that "reasonably believes" is legal language for "evidence"

Who starts it really isn't relevant. I could accidentally rear-end your car and you could then escalate it into an altercation. Is that my fault because it "started it"?

Proving who started something is nearly impossible and the definition could extend for a long distance. Are verbal words counted? What about body language?

What matters is the escalation of the situation, not who started it. Innumerable thing scan initiate a confrontation and many of them are perfectly legal.

Zimmerman's statement was that he was returning to his car after unsuccessfully attempting to chase the guy and then he was jumped by Martin. By that account Martin was the aggressor, and the initiator doesn't really matter. Maybe the words they exchanged was the initiation. It's a really gray area.

You're right, hitting isn't justifiable use for deadly force. But if one person is dead you have a hard time of figuring out who escalated it first, dont you? After all, I may have hit you, but then you hit me back, and now Im bleeding. I had to defend myself, I feared for my life. Because of this law many people who claim self-defense haven't even been prosecuted:

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

Here is one example of a guy who chased down someone stealing from his car, stabbed and killed him, denied it, found out it was caught on camera, then claimed self-defense. The victim was unarmed: http://jonathanturley.org/2012/03/23/florida-court-dismisses-stabbing-case-under-the-stand-your-ground-law/
Edit (non-bloggy source): http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/21/2706789/miami-judge-stabbing-in-the-back.html

It is a terrible law that has too much ambiguity and has the chance to let killers walk free. It needs to change to a better law.

Also, Zimmerman has yet to release a statement. The latest story(out of three) was that Zimmerman exited his vehicle to check a street sign. Martin was killed in a backyard. I made a post about this earlier.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[TheSHiFT]

I agree with the presumption of innocence. And I have not judged Zimmerman guilty. I believe that everyone has a right to defend themselves. I also believe that Florida's SYG law is a shitty law. None of these are in conflict with each other.

To be perfectly clear, I am NOT against self-defense laws, just Florida's remarkably bad one.

Zimmerman admits to killing Martin. He claims self-defense. Self-defense is an affirmative defense, that is, he has to prove it. But yet another shitty aspect of Florida's SYG law, makes it possible that he might not even be tried, therefore he doesnt have to prove it. And that is complete bullshit. Couple this with a shitty investigation by the local PD, and we have this problem.

The statement I was commenting on was from the Stanford PD.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Warborn]

Do you know what character is? We were given an image, by the media, of a kid who couldn't possible attack Zimmerman and force him to defend himself. Every single piece of media is painting this guy as a good kid. Shamelessly using this guys picture from when he was 12 years old, stating that he isn't the violent type and would never start a fight.

Now we figure out he punched his busdriver, sells drugs, was taken out of school for possessing stolen jewelry, and is a typical "gangsta thug".

Seems to me the whole "little angel" image has been shattered. If you don't believe a history of violence and theft is relevant you are deliberately biased and should be ignored.

I don't understand what your point is. Does whether Martin was a good person or not change the fact that he wasn't armed and was shot to death by a man who clearly lied in his statement to police about what happened? Last time I checked, being a shithead 17 year old wannabe-thug isn't a crime that warrants arbitrary execution on the streets for.

Also, it's probably worth mentioning that Zimmerman had criminal charges for domestic violence, resisting an officer without violence, and resisting an officer with violence. So the guy who did the shooting had a violent criminal history, while the guy who was killed had no criminal history at all.

[TheSHiFT]

Presumption of innocence means the investigators have to prove he acted unlawfully. If they have evidence of that, they can bring him to trial for it per 776.032 (2).

They have no such evidence, thus he has not been arrested.

There's nothing shady about that immunity law. If you look at it closely it protects people against being charged with civil action too. Remember the OJ Simpson case where he got off on the murder charge and then faced a civil court case and lost? That can't happen because of this law - it protects Zimmerman from the Martin family bringing civil wrongful death suit against him because the court will have already deemed it a lawful use of force.

That's a good thing. Civil cases like that are bullshit. That doesn't mean he can't ever be tried for the criminal case though. But like all things they must have evidence that the use of force was unnecessary. With the injuries sustained and a lack of witnesses it is not an easy thing to prove. You can't convict him on the evidence currently presented it's too circumstantial and putting someone away for life or worse on such evidence would be an injustice in its own right.

He confessed to killing Martin. Under other state's better laws, he has to justify why he did that. He SHOULD have to justify it now. Like I said, self-defense is an affirmative defense. The prosecutor shows up, says here is our evidence for you killing Martin: it was your gun, you were there, you admit it. THEN if Zimmerman has the witnesses, evidence of his injuries, ect. Take it to court. That immunity keeps him free, just because he said so.

Civil cases should work with double jeopardy, imo.

Did you read the link earlier? A man chased down another, stabbed him to death, then initially denied it. After a video tape surfaced, he claims self-defense because the victim made a motion like he was going to stab him. The victim was unarmed. Because of this law, he walks.

Remember are hypothetical fight we had earlier? How would the court prove I acted unlawfully? By defending yourself, you attacked me. I recently just had open heart surgery as well, so a hit to the chest would really fuck me up. Because I am the victor, I get to claim self-defense and walk, when in reality, you were defending yourself from me.

Let's say you never even hit me back, if it came down to me breaking my own nose or going to jail for the rest of my life. I'm breaking my nose. It's a shitty law.

[Movac]

"NO LIMIT *****" the man has no class.

[Firefly]

"NO LIMIT *****" the man has no class.
Have you come to troll and sling racial epithets? OH GOODY!

[ItsTheSheppy]

I don't understand what your point is. Does whether Martin was a good person or not change the fact that he wasn't armed and was shot to death by a man who clearly lied in his statement to police about what happened? Last time I checked, being a shithead 17 year old wannabe-thug isn't a crime that warrants arbitrary execution on the streets for.

Also, it's probably worth mentioning that Zimmerman had criminal charges for domestic violence, resisting an officer without violence, and resisting an officer with violence. So the guy who did the shooting had a violent criminal history, while the guy who was killed had no criminal history at all.

Well said.

[Movac]

Have you come to troll and sling racial epithets? OH GOODY!

Notice the quotation marks. Trayvon is the one that uses the term "*****", not I. Learn to read with context in mind, uneducated loser.

[Figment]

Notice the quotation marks. Trayvon is the one that uses the term "*****", not I. Learn to read with context in mind, uneducated loser.

So just trolling then.

[Traak]

yup, snooping isnt a crime nor is "looking suspicious".

But, that isn't why he was shot.

[ItsTheSheppy]

He's a scholar and a gentleman.

[Quovatis]

There is certainly more to the story than the initial reports of Zimmerman just pursuing and shooting him. There is evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman too and had Zimmerman on the ground beating him. Unfortunately, it might be impossible to determine what really happened. Both men had shady pasts. Martin is certainly not the angel that the media and race pimps want him to be. If Zimmerman were black and Martin white, do you think it would be getting the same media coverage? Probably not.

[ArcIyte]

I don't understand what your point is. Does whether Martin was a good person or not change the fact that he wasn't armed and was shot to death by a man who clearly lied in his statement to police about what happened? Last time I checked, being a shithead 17 year old wannabe-thug isn't a crime that warrants arbitrary execution on the streets for.

Also, it's probably worth mentioning that Zimmerman had criminal charges for domestic violence, resisting an officer without violence, and resisting an officer with violence. So the guy who did the shooting had a violent criminal history, while the guy who was killed had no criminal history at all.

You're either lying or consumed with denial. Of course you know what my point is. A very large facet of this whole situation is that the media was portraying this Martin guy as a 100% innocent little angel, who would NEVER start the fight with Zimmerman or break the law. A person's character ALWAYS comes into play in trial.

I started off playing devil's advocate since the ENTIRE news media was against this Zimmerman guy. Demonizing him by using a mugshot as his picture, while doing the exact opposite for Martin by using a childhood photo. Now I believe this kid was a thug, got pissed that someone was watching him looking into houses, and decided to do something about it.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Traak]

Read the whole thread and all the news. Then you will know why he was shot. Dont lazily ask me to do it for you.

I don't think it stated anywhere that he was shot for the reasons you stated.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Firefly]

I have. He said self defense, and there was no evidence to arrest. Im curious what conclusion you came to and how you got there.
We're talking about Westboro Traak, here. I can pretty much tell you what Captain Homophobe thinks: here's a black kid from the ghetto wearing ghetto clothes acting ghetto in the land of white folks, you know, gated communities with armed guards to keep the trash out. Probably out peeping through windows at our white daughters and entertaining lustful, sinful thoughts about despoiling the pride of white folks. And of course the black kid, being like all black kids, mouths off and acts like a gangsta thug to the poor white guy just doing his job as a member of the Community Watch. His posturing, frightening to innocent white folks, was incredibly threatening and warranted an armed, lethal response.

[ItsTheSheppy]

It may be worth pointing out that even if Martin had attacked Zimmerman, it was clear that the (armed) Zimmerman was following the (unarmed) Martin, at night. Martin apparently expressed concern that he was being followed to his girlfriend during their phone conversation. I know I would have felt threatened if I was being followed by some older guy at night as I was walking someplace, alone, armed only with a bag of Skittles.

So if Martin attacked Zimmerman, perhaps HE was just "standing his ground"?

And I guess in that case, his only sin was not carrying a gun, so he could have (completely lawfully) shot Zimmerman dead instead.

Because that law makes perfect sense.

[Quovatis]

And there's a perfect example of how religious indoctrination can cloud your view on other things. It's easy to make the jump from believing something without evidence for religious reasons to believing something without evidence for a crime. Some jury members do this all the time.

[Sgt Shultz]

It's just stupid they couldn't arrest him. The law needs to be amended.

I think we have a better understanding of why the DA did not push for an arrest. You have two witnesses with one being dead and the other advised to say nothing by a defense attorney.

The evidence is most likely not enough at this time to do anything but pontificate about the series of events. Furthermore the information about the victims past would likely be brought in during a trial and would create serious doubts. I can't see any sane DA actually pushing for an arrest at this time.

[Vash02]

I think we have a better understanding of why the DA did not push for an arrest. You have two witnesses with one being dead and the other advised to say nothing by a defense attorney.

The evidence is most likely not enough at this time to do anything but pontificate about the series of events. Furthermore the information about the victims past would likely be brought in during a trial and would create serious doubts. I can't see any sane DA actually pushing for an arrest at this time.
Well Zimmerman has a record for violent crimes and a motive ("they always get away"). pretty clean cut for US justice standards.

[Warborn]

You're either lying or consumed with denial. Of course you know what my point is. A very large facet of this whole situation is that the media was portraying this Martin guy as a 100% innocent little angel, who would NEVER start the fight with Zimmerman or break the law. A person's character ALWAYS comes into play in trial.

Martin has not broken the law though, and there is no evidence he started the fight with Zimmerman apart from Zimmerman's own testimony, for whatever that's worth when he's the only one alive who saw it. I'm not sure what you're asserting here. Does having tattoos and having been suspended make him more liable to have been a threat to Zimmerman's life, than Zimmerna was to Martin's? Again, Zimmerman is the one who has multiple criminal charges for violent offenses in his past.

I started off playing devil's advocate since the ENTIRE news media was against this Zimmerman guy. Demonizing him by using a mugshot as his picture, while doing the exact opposite for Martin by using a childhood photo. Now I believe this kid was a thug, got pissed that someone was watching him looking into houses, and decided to do something about it.

So Martin, with no criminal record, talking to his girlfriend on the way back home after buying snacks during a break in the football game, decided to attack a stranger in a neighborhood where people knew who he was -- after attempting to run away from Zimmerman first -- simply because the guy was watching him? That sounds plausible to you?

I have a counter-proposal. How about Zimmerman, a violent criminal offender and overzealous wannabe-cop, was tired that "these assholes" who "always get away" after committing crimes in his area. Plus, he didn't like "fucking coons" in the first place. So he decided he would detain Martin for when the cops arrive, which would also make him look good in the eyes of the cops. Zimmerman was hoping to become a cop himself, and this could be his first arrest. So, he chases Martin down, asks him what he's doing there, and moves to grab him to detain him. Martin hits Zimmerman in self-defense (as any of us would if a stranger chased us and made an aggressive move against us at night), a scuffle ensues, and it ends with the 110-lbs-heavier Zimmerman on top of Martin. Martin screams for help, struggling against the much larger Zimmerman. Then, Zimmerman panics (or is just a homicidal asshole with an anger problem, and he's furious he got punched in the face), pulls out his gun, and shoots Martin in the chest, killing him. That sounds more plausible to me.

Either way it needed to go to trial.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Now I believe this kid was a thug, got pissed that someone was watching him looking into houses, and decided to do something about it.

You are really misappropriating your psychic powers, dude. If I were you I'd sign on with the Department of Defense or something, maybe join the FBI and start solving cold cases. You know, since you have a super power that grants you the ability to firsthand witness accounts you were not present for.

[ArcIyte]

You are really misappropriating your psychic powers, dude. If I were you I'd sign on with the Department of Defense or something, maybe join the FBI and start solving cold cases. You know, since you have a super power that grants you the ability to firsthand witness accounts you were not present for.

Thanks for the useless hyperbole bro

[Malorn]

Meh.

[RodenyC]

The only "evidence" people have presented in this thread to the contrary is Zimmerman's use of a pronoun "they" which somehow translates into a premeditated hate crime. Oh and the fact that Zimmerman was half white and Martin was black, which immediately makes it a hate crime. What a joke.
So the fucking coons part,nothing wrong with that?


Martin has not broken the law though, and there is no evidence he started the fight with Zimmerman apart from Zimmerman's own testimony, for whatever that's worth when he's the only one alive who saw it. I'm not sure what you're asserting here. Does having tattoos and having been suspended make him more liable to have been a threat to Zimmerman's life, than Zimmerna was to Martin's? Again, Zimmerman is the one who has multiple criminal charges for violent offenses in his past.



So Martin, with no criminal record, talking to his girlfriend on the way back home after buying snacks during a break in the football game, decided to attack a stranger in a neighborhood where people knew who he was -- after attempting to run away from Zimmerman first -- simply because the guy was watching him? That sounds plausible to you?

I have a counter-proposal. How about Zimmerman, a violent criminal offender and overzealous wannabe-cop who, was tired that "these assholes, they always get away" after committing crimes in his area, not to mention he didn't like the "fucking coons" in the first place. So he decided he would detain Martin for when the cops arrive, which would also make him look good in the eyes of the cops. Zimmerman was hoping to become a cop himself, and this could be his first arrest. So, he chases Martin down, asks him what he's doing there, and moves to grab him to detain him. Martin hits Zimmerman in self-defense (as any of us would if a stranger chased us and made a move at us at night), a scuffle ensues, and it ends with the 110-lbs-heavier Zimmerman on top of Martin. Martin screams for help, struggling against the much larger Zimmerman. Then, Zimmerman panics (or is just a homicidal asshole angry he got hit in the face), pulls out his gun, and shoots Martin in the chest, killing him. That sounds more plausible to me.

Either way it needed to go to trial.
Also this.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[ItsTheSheppy]

It's just a shame we'll never know, because Zimmerman stood his ground harder than Martin did. If only Martin had stood HIS ground harder, then it would be Zimmerman we'd be holding rallies for. Just another example of why more people should own guns, really. you never know when the other guy might stand his ground all over your face and you won't be able to stand your ground back!

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Warborn]

If Martin were armed and Zimmerman were attempting to physically detain him until police arrived, and Martin shot and killed Zimmerman, he would have had a more compelling defense than Zimmerman has right now. Zimmerman was physically larger, had a violent criminal record, and Martin even attempted to flee. It's funny to think about how easily it becomes okay to just shoot people dead when people are packing heat.

Edit: what he said prior to the struggle that resulted also has no bearing on the events that transpired in struggle itself.

It would make it very easy for prosecutors to construct a motive for why the shooting took place, and why it wasn't self-defense but rather murder.

[Firefly]

It's just a shame we'll never know, because Zimmerman stood his ground harder than Martin did. If only Martin had stood HIS ground harder, then it would be Zimmerman we'd be holding rallies for.
Sure, a 17yr old kid can stand his ground harder against a guy with a gun. Right. Okay.

Last I checked free speech is protected in this country, so yeah, nothing wrong with that. If he in fact said that.

Everyone has a different interpretation of what he said, not that it matters.

Edit: what he said prior to the struggle that resulted also has no bearing on the events that transpired in struggle itself.
Actually, in the eyes of the law, it does. If you say something like "fucking coon", a racially-charged slur, and then proceed to accost someone and then either murder or manslaughter them, that constitutes a hate crime. So yeah, you can say whatever you want. When it leads to violence or when it becomes part of a violent encounter, it becomes a hate crime.

[Sgt Shultz]

You could contribute better to this discussion by providing evidence that things did not go down as Zimmerman claims rather than inane shit posting.

Actually Malorn I think his point is worth entertaining. He may have not intended to make a relevant point, but stumble upon it he did.

The best I can make of this situation is its a tragic accident. If Mr. Martin had been caring a firearm yes Mr. Zimmerman would be dead or maybe both would have been dead. The past histories of both parties indicate they are not angels, but not devils worthy of a death sentence either.

[ItsTheSheppy]

You could contribute better to this discussion by providing evidence that things did not go down as Zimmerman claims rather than inane shit posting.

Man, do I have some bad news for you. You might wanna sit down for this.

You see, Malorn... none of us have any evidence. Nobody. Certainly not in this forum. Not me, and not you. We're all just wanking pointlessly on an internet forum about shit we've been told from second- and third-hand sources.

So really, the only thing we can talk about are the philosophical implications of this or that. I'm happy to comment on those! I have been, in fact. Such as my many hilarious satirical posts going on about how the 'Stand Your Ground' law is complete excrement.

It's really only when people speak with some sort of (hilarious) authority on what 'actually' happened when they don't know any better than the rest of us that I am tempted to hop on my trollercycle and peddle around a bit.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Stop trolling. There are facts in the case. You choose to ignore them.

I'm trolling you, Columbo, because you're basically breaking shit down like you're on CSI or Law and Order when in reality you don't know a single thing more than the rest of us. I read all the same news articles, Mr. McCoy. We all did, or can in our spare time if we need to. It's just funny watching you pontificate like you actually have something to teach us. Haha! You don't! That's the punchline.

[Hamma]

Ignore feature.. use it ;)

[Vash02]

No, that isn't a motive for shooting someone. It's a motive for chasing someone who he believed was a burglar in his neighborhood so said burglar wouldn't get away from the police he had just called but had not yet arrived.

911 said to stop chasing and he said OK and then said "He ran", as in he had gotten away.


and if some guy ran after you and started grabbing you would you not defend yourself? Zimmerman obviously instigated the confrontation with his actions and he should be held accountable for the consequences.

[Vash02]

"Beyond reasonable doubt" <- that is the standard for a murder conviction. An unintelligible word that some believe is a racial slur is not beyond reasonable doubt of premeditated murder, which is what you are indicating.

They would also have to disprove that it did not happen exactly as Zimmerman and the witness say it did.

Here is the heart of the matter:
Was he reasonably in a life or death situation? If the answer is yes, he is justified in the shooting. If no, it was criminal.

I think getting beaten and having ones head smashed into concrete is reasonably a life-threatening situation. Do you disagree? Thats not true. you have a trial by a jury of your peers and sadly reasonable doubt is not consistant.

You can get convicted based on what you said and based on any grievances you had. Which is why you should not talk to the police.
http://youtu.be/i8z7NC5sgik

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Warborn]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/george-zimmerman-police-surveillance-16024475

So here's Zimmerman on the night after the shooting. His lawyer claimed his nose was broken and he needed stitches on his head. That's clearly not the case. I think he has a scrape on the back of his head, but any significant scalp wound bleeds profusely, as does a broken nose. He has no blood on him that I can see. I can tell why the homicide investigator didn't buy his story and wanted to charge him with manslaughter, now. This does not look like a man beaten so severely that he had to pull out his pistol for fear of his life. This doesn't even look like a guy who had been in a fight that night.

I also thought he would be a big fat guy at 250 lbs and 5'9". This guy had 110 lbs over Martin and it wasn't all fat. He would have destroyed a skinny 140 lb, 6'3" teenager in a fight.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Warborn]

So you expected him to not clean himself up 24 hours later and stay a bloody mess?

This was immediately after the event.

However, I do find it interesting that you are claiming a 140 6'3" kid couldn't outrun a 250 5'9 guy.

I didn't claim that.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Warborn]

I'm not sure what you're suggesting. What if Martin ran for a bit and then tripped? Or dropped something? Or simply didn't want to run away anymore? What if Martin never exercised and was not as fit as Zimmerman? What would the difference be? Or are you suggesting the only possible explanation is that Martin for whatever reason eluded Zimmerman and then returned to attack him, despite that not being what Martin's girlfriend heard on the phone?

I also like how we've very quickly moved away from the fact that Zimmerman was apparently uninjured, had no blood or other signs of struggle, and was walking around just fine despite supposedly having his head smashed against the ground repeatedly. For a guy who claimed to have been fighting for his life against a scrawny piece of shit he weighed almost twice as much as, he looks no worse for wear. Does that video really not change your opinion at all? I'm really starting to wonder, here.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Warborn]

He didn't visit a hospital that night. The lack of bleeding means his nose wasn't broken and his scalp wound was very superficial. His claim was that he was fighting for his life, and was forced to shoot Martin in self-defense. And yet his injuries are entirely superficial. Is this me grasping at straws? Does the fact that his injuries amount to nothing really carry no weight with you?

[ArcIyte]

More evidence. It's not looking good for George...

http://www.enclaveoilrig.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19632

[Malorn]

Meh.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Looking hale and hearty for a guy who had to shoot a teenager to save his own life.

[Warborn]

Yes its you grasping at straws. You can't tell the extent of his injuries from a few pictures. Heaven for bid he actually clean himself up after such an event.

Do you imagine the police officers let him go home and change his clothes after he had just shot and killed someone on the street? Is that common practice for a guy they take into the station in handcuffs? And the extent of his injuries match what the police report says. Scrape on the head, bloody nose (presumably he wiped it). Certainly not a laceration needing stitches, and quite clearly not a broken nose.

[TheSHiFT]

I have. He said self defense, and there was no evidence to arrest. Im curious what conclusion you came to and how you got there.

Except for the dead teenager he admits to shooting. He may claim self-defense but that is an affirmative defense.

[Traak]

Looking hale and hearty for a guy who had to shoot a teenager to save his own life.

Actually, are you required to be almost dead before you shoot someone? I mean, he can beat you until you have bled to within your last ten drops, THEN shoot?

[Figment]

Actually, are you required to be almost dead before you shoot someone? I mean, he can beat you until you have bled to within your last ten drops, THEN shoot?

While running away?

[Warborn]

Actually, are you required to be almost dead before you shoot someone? I mean, he can beat you until you have bled to within your last ten drops, THEN shoot?

It demonstrates that Zimmerman's injuries were superficial at best and that there's no way his life was actually in danger. Martin was a scrawny kid and Zimmerman is a stocky would-be police officer. Martin probably did hit him, but because Martin has girl-arms the best he managed to do was maybe bloody Zimmerman's nose. And for that, Zimmerman killed him.

[Figment]

More evidence. It's not looking good for George...

http://www.enclaveoilrig.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19632

Evidence of Enclave having bad taste? Don't think we really need that.

[UnknownDT]

This whole thing is horseshit. The media and every black person claiming it to be about race yet again. It's disgusting.

Also I hope you people know that neighborhood had been broken into 3 times that week right? The kid lived blocks away... He technically had no right to be there in a gated community. He was probably robbing it himself or scoping it out for a local gang he was trying to join.

Either way I could care less. Another kid shot Black/White/Mexican who gives a fuck.Another moron who kills someone who gives a fuck. The country is fucked up all ready... big news. Just don't say it's about race. Just because we have a black president anything wrong that happens to a black person in this country is automatically assumed to be racist.

[Vash02]

This whole thing is horseshit. The media and every black person claiming it to be about race yet again. It's disgusting.

Also I hope you people know that neighborhood had been broken into 3 times that week right? The kid lived blocks away... He technically had no right to be there in a gated community. He was probably robbing it himself or scoping it out for a local gang he was trying to join.

Either way I could care less. Another kid shot Black/White/Mexican who gives a fuck.Another moron who kills someone who gives a fuck. The country is fucked up all ready... big news. Just don't say it's about race. Just because we have a black president anything wrong that happens to a black person in this country is automatically assumed to be racist.
You do know that, for instance, drug crimes are comparable between white and blacks, yet blacks make up the majority of people stopped, searched, prosecuted and incarcerated for drug crimes?
If you are honest there is no denying that the police and the justice system are extremely biased against poor black people.

[Firefly]

He technically had no right to be there in a gated community. He was probably robbing it himself or scoping it out for a local gang he was trying to join.
So yeah. I'm about 100% positive that you haven't bothered to read a thing about the case. Just so you know... it's a well-documented fact by various media, regardless of their leanings, that the kid's dad lives in the gated community. It's a well-documented fact that the kid left his father's house and went to a nearby 7-11.

[ItsTheSheppy]

I could headdesk so hard, it'd create another continental rift.

[Figment]

I could headdesk so hard, it'd create another continental rift.

In Iceland it is illegal to headdesk.

[ItsTheSheppy]

In Iceland it is illegal to headdesk.

Is there a critical desk shortage?

[Skitrel]

Trayvon's parents trademarked his name for merchandising.

http://www.newser.com/story/142752/trayvons-mom-trademarks-teens-name-slogans.html

Classy.

On another note, while everyone bitches about some kid a veteran killed in his own home falsely by a police home invasion called out for medical purposes with no officers charged at all is going to slide completely under the radar.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/29/unarmed_black_veteran_kenneth_chamberlain_shot#.T3 RvlRYxxZ8.twitter

[Baneblade]

It demonstrates that Zimmerman's injuries were superficial at best and that there's no way his life was actually in danger. Martin was a scrawny kid and Zimmerman is a stocky would-be police officer. Martin probably did hit him, but because Martin has girl-arms the best he managed to do was maybe bloody Zimmerman's nose. And for that, Zimmerman killed him.

The idea is to stop them before you actually get a chance to injure or kill you.

I for one don't plan to draw down on someone and wait till they break my arm to remove their skull from their neck.

[ItsTheSheppy]

It may seem crass to trademark the name of your own dead child, except when you consider that it's primarily to stop other people frame profiting off it, which would be 100x worse. Come on, man; they even said that in the first sentence of the link you posted. Did you even read it?

As for the follow up, pointing out that the veteran's death isn't getting enough publicity isn't a criticism of the people rising up in support of Martin except insofar as to suggest that they should do that for everybody. Since you don't, that either makes you a hypocrite (if you think they should) or makes pointing it our rather crass and classless on your part, since you're propping up another tragedy to try and distract from this one, for ends I cannot begin to comprehend. If you don't like seeing people get up in arms about what appears to be the tragic killing of an innocent man made legal by a questionable law, all you need to do is nothing. Trying to guilt people into stopping, with no clear profit to gain from the exercise, just makes you seem like a creepily sociopath

See? Three paragraphs, well-thought out. Not a troll.

[ItsTheSheppy]

The idea is to stop them before you actually get a chance to injure or kill you.

I for one don't plan to draw down on someone and wait till they break my arm to remove their skull from their neck.

Are you suggesting that the moment to gun someone down is around the time where you think they might be considering hitting you? Makes me wonder how many people really, truly wish they actually did live in the Thunderdome.

[Effective]

We're talking about Westboro Traak, here. I can pretty much tell you what Captain Homophobe thinks: here's a black kid from the ghetto wearing ghetto clothes acting ghetto in the land of white folks, you know, gated communities with armed guards to keep the trash out. Probably out peeping through windows at our white daughters and entertaining lustful, sinful thoughts about despoiling the pride of white folks. And of course the black kid, being like all black kids, mouths off and acts like a gangsta thug to the poor white guy just doing his job as a member of the Community Watch. His posturing, frightening to innocent white folks, was incredibly threatening and warranted an armed, lethal response.

annndddd ./thread

[Figment]

Is there a critical desk shortage?

Could be since they still have to pay us and the UK off after their bank crisis and us bailing them out. :)

They may have sold all their desks to Ikea.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Could be since they still have to pay us and the UK off after their bank crisis and us bailing them out. :)

They may have sold all their desks to Ikea.

So when one has a mighty need to headdesk, what do they do? There must be other surfaces to head___.

[Skitrel]

It may seem crass to trademark the name of your own dead child, except when you consider that it's primarily to stop other people frame profiting off it, which would be 100x worse. Come on, man; they even said that in the first sentence of the link you posted. Did you even read it?

Whether it's stated in the article is irrelevant to the act of trademarking and taking out two patents on his name. Time will tell, I'm more inclined to believe book deals, talkshow deals, magazine deals and a future movie of the event will happen. It may be innocent, it may not be, the point of the matter is that trademarking does absolutely nothing, one has to pursue and shut down things in order to stop others profiting, are they going to spend an inordinate amount of money to do that? I sincerely doubt it.

Not to mention the fact that it's a trademark... If they don't use it, they lose it, that's just how trademarks work.

As for the follow up, pointing out that the veteran's death isn't getting enough publicity isn't a criticism of the people rising up in support of Martin except insofar as to suggest that they should do that for everybody. Since you don't, that either makes you a hypocrite (if you think they should) or makes pointing it our rather crass and classless on your part, since you're propping up another tragedy to try and distract from this one, for ends I cannot begin to comprehend. Trying to guilt people into stopping, with no clear profit to gain from the exercise, just makes you seem like a creepily sociopath

See? Three paragraphs, well-thought out. Not a troll.

At which point did I criticize the people standing up for Martin? Don't put words where they weren't said. The criticism is of greater injustices occurring, a failure of a corrupt police nation, and the failure of your media to publicise such injustices.

If you don't like seeing people get up in arms about what appears to be the tragic killing of an innocent man made legal by a questionable law, all you need to do is nothing.

Once again, do not place words in someone's mouth when they have not stated it.

[ItsTheSheppy]

My media?

Man, and I'm not even making any money off of it.

Anyway, what makes me leery is this:

Whether it's stated in the article is irrelevant to the act of trademarking and taking out two patents on his name. Time will tell, I'm more inclined to believe book deals, talkshow deals, magazine deals and a future movie of the event will happen. It may be innocent, it may not be[...]

It may be innocent? It may not be? First of all, I fail to understand how it's even a significant thing to point out. Even if we indeed lived in an alternate reality where grieving parents saw the death of their child as a profit-enabled opportunity, it would mean absolutely nothing about whether or not the Martin shooting was a terrible tragedy, or that the law that prevented Zimmermen from even being investigated is an unjust law with dangerous implications.

The only reason I can imagine even bothering to bring it up, and then make the mental leap to the idea that it -may be possible- that the parents are going to try and profit off of it, would be to distract people from the issue or to try and lessen its impact. And why do that? Why indeed. Therein we find some really uncomfortable implications about your motives. I have a hard time believing yours are so innocent. Unless there's something I'm missing?

Perhaps the question I'd need clarification on is, so what if they did try to profit off it? What if they wanted to make a Trayvon Martin theme park? Please tell me how that would have anything to do with the a) tragedy of his untimely death, or b) the just or unjust nature of the law that protects his killer.

[Skitrel]

My media?

Man, and I'm not even making any money off of it.

Anyway, what makes me leery is this:



It may be innocent? It may not be? First of all, I fail to understand how it's even a significant thing to point out. Even if we indeed lived in an alternate reality where grieving parents saw the death of their child as a profit-enabled opportunity, it would mean absolutely nothing about whether or not the Martin shooting was a terrible tragedy, or that the law that prevented Zimmermen from even being investigated is an unjust law with dangerous implications.

The only reason I can imagine even bothering to bring it up, and then make the mental leap to the idea that it -may be possible- that the parents are going to try and profit off of it, would be to distract people from the issue or to try and lessen its impact. And why do that? Why indeed. Therein we find some really uncomfortable implications about your motives. I have a hard time believing yours are so innocent. Unless there's something I'm missing?

[quote]Perhaps the question I'd need clarification on is, so what if they did try to profit off it? What if they wanted to make a Trayvon Martin theme park? Please tell me how that would have anything to do with the a) tragedy of his untimely death, or b) the just or unjust nature of the law that protects his killer.

See, here's the rub, I made absolutely no comments about whether his killing was just or unjust and I don't intend. My opinion is invalid as is everybody else's, the only thing that matters are the facts, and none of us are in possession of the facts, therefore none of us are qualified to make any judgements at all.

You seek to find motive in my posting of it, but there is no need for motive at all other than adding relevant information to the topic. The topic is Trayvon Martin, his parents have filed for trademarks and patents, I added that information to the topic as it wasn't here yer. You'll notice that I've participated nowhere else in the topic and intend to not participate in any way with regards to subjective nonsense in regards to a crime that absolutely none of us have a complete picture of.

As for "your media", yes, your media. They're not my media, I'm not American, in fact I come from a country where this shit, for the most part, rarely happens in the slightest, in fact we're the highest rated country in the world on equality too. Do stop with the conspiracy talk.

Anyway, I'm out again, the only point was adding something relevant to topic that wasn't here yet. You'd do well not to attack people with accusatory remarks of negative motives to undermine a movement for justice (on a tiny gaming forum? Yeah sure, that's going to make an impact...) simply because someone has posted something that can be reflected negatively. It's relevant information, so I posted it.

Peace.

[Warborn]

The idea is to stop them before you actually get a chance to injure or kill you.

I for one don't plan to draw down on someone and wait till they break my arm to remove their skull from their neck.

Yes, I'm sure the 250 lb Zimmerman had to worry about the 140 lb Martin breaking his arm and removing his skull. You can tell by how horribly Zimmerman was beaten by Martin cold-clocking him and then jumping on top of him to pummel his head for an extended period of time. Look at all that blood. The bruises. The lacerations. Or look at Martin's hands, which the funeral director who prepared him said had no signs of having been used for punching (no cuts or bruises on the knuckles).

Clearly the reasonable thing to do was shoot him, even if we accept Zimmerman's bullshit claim that Martin vanished into thin air and then jumped him when he was heading back to his truck.

[Baneblade]

Are you suggesting that the moment to gun someone down is around the time where you think they might be considering hitting you? Makes me wonder how many people really, truly wish they actually did live in the Thunderdome.

You will know when lethal force may be necessary. Your statement tells me you've never been in a life or death conflict situation.

Yes, I'm sure the 250 lb Zimmerman had to worry about the 140 lb Martin breaking his arm and removing his skull. You can tell by how horribly Zimmerman was beaten by Martin cold-clocking him and then jumping on top of him to pummel his head for an extended period of time. Look at all that blood. The bruises. The lacerations. Or look at Martin's hands, which the funeral director who prepared him said had no signs of having been used for punching (no cuts or bruises on the knuckles).

Clearly the reasonable thing to do was shoot him, even if we accept Zimmerman's bullshit claim that Martin vanished into thin air and then jumped him when he was heading back to his truck.

I don't pretend to know what happened, I'm simply sharing important information with those who clearly need some.


Off topic, I think your name should be changed to something less... innaccurate.

[ItsTheSheppy]

You will know when lethal force may be necessary. Your statement tells me you've never been in a life or death conflict situation.


Yes, because that makes any difference.

To be honest, I'd be a TERRIBLE judge of when it's necessary, for just that reason. I can't see how being put in that situation would make me any better of a judge, just for having gone through it. It's like saying I'd be a good chef, because I stood in a kitchen.

This is why we have trained people, whose job it is to know these things. They're called police officers. I'm okay with them walking around at night, armed, keeping an eye on people. They tend to average somewhat lower on the "killing innocent people" scale. They're not perfect, because nobody is, but at least we can adjust our chances.

Unfortunately, if I want to go buy a gun, I'm not aware of any weeks-long training regimens I need to attend. I'm pretty sure the state just checks to see if I'm a) insane, or b) a felon. And if not, then score! I'm a walking, talking death-dealer, and your life may or may not be subject to my completely untrained judgement. and thanks to laws that permit me to carry my weapon concealed, you may not even know! You'll just have to assume. SUSPECT EVERYBODY.

All I need to hope if I kill someone is that a) they're good and dead so their story can't contradict mine, and b) my self defense claim is convincing enough to sound legit, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, c) there aren't any direct witnesses at the time to contradict me either. It's a 1-2-3 recipe for getting away with murder! In Florida. And Illinois. And Kentucky. Montana. North Carolina. Oklahoma. Texas (because OF COURSE). Utah. Washington. West Virginia.

Not New Hampshire, though... yet! We'll jump on that 'legalize murder' bandwagon soon, just as soon as this inconvenient "teenager gunned down in own neighborhood by overzealous vigilante" business works its way to the back pages.

[Figment]

You will know when lethal force may be necessary. Your statement tells me you've never been in a life or death conflict situation.

May, not is, being the key here: you just don't know. If you are paranoid, stressed, full of adrenaline, prejudiced with fear, anxious, intoxicated or otherwise mentally influenced, your judgement may well be influenced.

But hey, overreacting is simply impossible, isn't it? Nobody ever overreacts to anything. Sorry, but I find the people in this thread jumping to the defense of Zimmerman rather premature and I expect they act (as some indicated) out of the motivation to protect their own right to fire at potential criminals and the potential consequences that come from that. See, I can imagine one claims that it is possible the guy acted in such and such way, but even then one would expect an investigation and apprehension of the suspect first awaiting trial.

If your sister got shot and the person who did so said "well she was about to scratch my eyeballs out so I had to defend myself" and they'd say "oh well, okay then", then you'd want to at the very least see this guy quaranteened and the case investigated properly. At the very least you'd expect bail in awaiting of trial. That's the basics of your freedoms being protected from others being arbitrary judge juries and executioners in one.


So I find this a bit bold statement. Especially when - as Sheppy indicated - you have not received any training in handling aggression or self defense. Grabbing a gun is easy, not the best way and certainly should not be the default method of defense.

Considering the guy was unarmed and rather scrawny... I doubt that it was needed for Zimmerman to shoot him and that he could have simply been very hasty and somewhat prejudiced in his judgement is very likely to me, especially given the phonecall: he was intended to stop the guy somehow before he even got jumped. Maybe he got caught up in the moment, maybe he made the threat seem bigger to himself because he expected it. Maybe, just maybe, Zimmerman did not have any reason to fire and maybe, just maybe, the teen was the one who acted out of fear for his life when he was stalked by a guy carrying a gun.

Seems to me some don't even consider the perspective of the boy, who did not know who Zimmerman was. For all we know he thought he was being mugged.

[Baneblade]

There is a definitive moment when you know your life is in danger regardless of training, and that is when lethal force is something you have already chosen to use... assuming you don't try flight first.

Being trained or not really doesn't define a life and death scenario where you are forced to resort to self defense. All training does is make it easier for you to do something under stress, that is what it is for.


Side note: Even hinting that I'm taking Zimmerman or Martin's 'side' is just a sign of stupidity, when I neither claimed nor inferred any such thing. I, again, am not in a position to judge what happened and I refuse to be sensationalized.

[ItsTheSheppy]

And what if I decide that my life is in danger if you outweigh me by 100 lbs and I think you're starting to look mad at me? Is that grounds for justifiable homicide?

Also-

...assuming you don't try flight first.

Stand Your Ground law says I don't have to try that. I can just shoot first and worry about my story later.

[Baneblade]

You would know, there is no gray area there. Now whether your response was totally appropriate or not... that is the gray area.

[ItsTheSheppy]

You would know, there is no gray area there. Now whether your response was totally appropriate or not... that is the gray area.

Who are you to decide if my response was appropriate? I thought my life was in danger because that guy looked big and mean and he was looking at me funny. Also I'm pretty sure he threatened to kill me. Never mind that there are no witness to corroborate or contradict that; that's my story.

Are you saying you're a better judge than me of when I feel my life is in danger?

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Warborn]

So what's the threshold weight where it becomes impossible to be successfully attacked?

It's when you get punched in the face by someone and it's not even enough to leave a bruise or anything. If someone hits you straight-on in the face and you don't even have a bruise, you're not allowed to kill them. New rule. Sounds pretty good.

[Figment]

Indeed. This also works out on playgrounds.

[ItsTheSheppy]

It's when you get punched in the face by someone and it's not even to leave a bruise or anything. If someone hits you straight-on in the face and you don't even have a bruise, you're not allowed to kill them.

Conversely, if someone hits you and you bruise you are able to immediately kill them because your life is in danger.

Just for the record, I do not agree with Warborn here. You can't draw a line that says "X is a threat deserving lethal force, and Y is not" because everyone is different.

I would suggest that the law state that if someone feels their life is in danger, that they have an obligation to flee the situation, and are only legally permitted to use lethal force if escape is impossible.

Then we wouldn't have situation like, say, when someone takes it upon themselves to instigate a situation they lose control of and resort to lethal force to rectify.

[Warborn]

I was being facetious.

[Quovatis]

Will be interesting to see what the one third-party witness to the event actually said. The person gave their statement to the police, but will not talk to anyone else. I think the whole case will ride on this witness.

[Baneblade]

Will be interesting to see what the one third-party witness to the event actually said. The person gave their statement to the police, but will not talk to anyone else. I think the whole case will ride on this witness.

The witness will say whatever the witness needs to say to not be targeted.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Warborn]

Zimmerman got medical attention before being in the police station video.

Well, there are videos of people getting their nose broken on YouTube you can take a look at to get an idea of why that clearly doesn't make a difference. If there are any other people in the medical field reading this thread they can chime in, but a broken nose bleeds profusely and is associated with swelling and bruising around the area. The clots, plus the edema, makes breathing through your nose awfully tough.

Zimmerman was breathing through his nose just fine. No blood on his shirt despite having apparently had his nose broken at the start of his fight. There was no discolouration, no apparent pain, and the broken nose had apparently stopped bleeding mere minutes after Zimmerman was shown on camera. How interesting.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Warborn]

If you've ever seen someone with a broken nose or with a severe scalp laceration/avulsion that needs stitches you'd know why the police video is pretty damning.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Warborn]

The police report (http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Twin%20Lakes%20Shooting%20Initial%20Report.pdf) said he was bleeding from the nose and the back of the head. It does not make any claims about the severity of the bleedings or the size of the wound. The claim that the nose was broken and the head required stitches came from Zimmerman's lawyer, prior to the video of Zimmerman being released. It is apparent that whatever injuries Zimmerman sustained, they did not require treatment by paramedics, as there are no dressings and the wounds had both not bled enough to stain his clothing, nor were they still bleeding when Zimmerman was taken to the police station several minutes later.

The question you should be asking (and the one that is far more relevant) is whether those injuries were self-inflicted.

Martin's hands displayed no signs of having been used to beat a man for a minute and break a nose with a punch. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/30/us-usa-shooting-florida-undertaker-idUSBRE82T19R20120330)

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Warborn]

Yes, Martin's hands showing no signs of violence and Zimmerman's face showing no signs of injury. We clearly have no evidence that Zimmerman was or was not severely beaten by Martin. It's a total coin-toss. It is me, I am the one who needs lessons in logic.

[Traak]

Interesting that the police have access to all the evidence, the responsibility to do anything if there was wrongdoing, and they aren't.

So, either they are all corrupt, or perhaps it WAS self-defense.

[ArcIyte]

That does not mean he did not do so.

Edit: I'm tired of giving Warborn lessons in logical reasoning. I'm done with this thread. The courts will sort it out.

BUT HIS HANDS

[WildGunsTomcat]

http://content.bitsontherun.com/previews/YjBNjJha-svqBtzyp

I'm just gonna leave this link here.

It's Piers Morgan...a British Man....ripping a black reporter apart for trying and convicting George Zimmerman without there even being a trial yet.

"But you haven't lived here long enough, you just don't understand the YEARS of hurt against the black man in America..."

Piers: "Pfft yeah okay you hack."

Watch it, good stuff.

Also: Let the courts decide this, I personally think he was justified...but we'll see IF it goes to trial. And that's a HUGE if.

[Figment]

Also: Let the courts decide this, I personally think he was justified...but we'll see IF it goes to trial. And that's a HUGE if.

That's basically the point. It is certain that Zimmerman killed Martin by his own admittance and all evidence (gun fired, bullet, etc).

The question is whether or not it was justifiable self-defense or alterior motives played a role, as well as whether or not Zimmerman was the actual aggressor, instigator or provocator in the incident.

So it is not that there is no evidence that Zimmerman shot Martin, it is the question of 'why'. If there are doubts about the motivation that it may be more than self-defense or provoked by Zimmerman's actions, then that is more than enough reason to press charges and go to court.

Touré may be prejudiced and as a journalist that's a bad quality. I can understand where Touré is coming from (historical social inferiority complex and history of racial violence), but he is jumping to conclusions.

Do note: we are merely speculating in this thread whether or not it is the case and it will remain speculation since we will not have full evidence and ar reliant on just the information passed in any media. I personally have not asserted that Zimmeran actually acted on racial motives, just that there's a case to be made based on the interpretation of the tapes. I've argued from that perspective, considering there are plenty that did the opposite and I'd say it's not an extremely unlikely scenario. From what I understand from those jumping to the defense of Zimmerman, it's often from a motivation to protect that law, rather than Zimmerman. if the law is flawed though, then it is in the public interest to hold it up for scrutiny.
In some cases I sense an undertone of frustration with certain crime, the gangsta culture and with it, identification with Zimmerman. That too is understandable, but still no justification.

So the same bias argument can be said for anyone jumping to Zimmerman's defense by default and I'm quite sure Pierce would utterly rip those apart as well. In fact, saw a small part of him interviewing the brother of Zimmerman yesterday on CNN as well as the lawyer representing Martin. He looks at both sides of the argument and as a Brit is neutral.

Same for Obama really, I don't get why he - and other US presidents and politicians - regularly make judgmental personal opinion comments on such incidents. As a politician and worse, representative of the non-biased state, your job is not to act as defense attorney nor prosecution but a representative of the people. Especially since you have trial by jury, the influence from high profile, public figures when making statements is not beneficial to the fairness of the trial.


Still, it should come to a trial.

[Warborn]

It's clear that Zimmerman lied about what happened to police, and that the Sanford PD themselves grossly mishandled the case. On that basis alone I'd think it does warrant a more thorough investigation, which is supposedly underway as we speak. On top of that, thanks to idiots like the Black Panthers and Spike Lee, offering bounties for Zimmerman's capture and twittering about where Zimmerman is supposedly hidden (when really it's an innocent, elderly couple who then receive death threats) I think there really needs to be a trial, if only because there are enough crazy people seeking Zimmerman's death despite there being no conviction that Zimmerman probably wouldn't be able to lead a normal, safe life if this is just left hanging.

[Vash02]

http://content.bitsontherun.com/previews/YjBNjJha-svqBtzyp

I'm just gonna leave this link here.

It's Piers Morgan...a British Man....ripping a black reporter apart for trying and convicting George Zimmerman without there even being a trial yet.

"But you haven't lived here long enough, you just don't understand the YEARS of hurt against the black man in America..."

Piers: "Pfft yeah okay you hack."

Watch it, good stuff.

Also: Let the courts decide this, I personally think he was justified...but we'll see IF it goes to trial. And that's a HUGE if.
Coming from the man who made it his profession for years in convicting people before their trials its a bit rich.


P.S. Keep the treasonous bastard.
Signed,
Britain xx.

[WildGunsTomcat]

That's basically the point. It is certain that Zimmerman killed Martin by his own admittance and all evidence (gun fired, bullet, etc).

The question is whether or not it was justifiable self-defense or alterior motives played a role, as well as whether or not Zimmerman was the actual aggressor, instigator or provocator in the incident.

So it is not that there is no evidence that Zimmerman shot Martin, it is the question of 'why'. If there are doubts about the motivation that it may be more than self-defense or provoked by Zimmerman's actions, then that is more than enough reason to press charges and go to court.

Touré may be prejudiced and as a journalist that's a bad quality. I can understand where Touré is coming from (historical social inferiority complex and history of racial violence), but he is jumping to conclusions.

Do note: we are merely speculating in this thread whether or not it is the case and it will remain speculation since we will not have full evidence and ar reliant on just the information passed in any media. I personally have not asserted that Zimmeran actually acted on racial motives, just that there's a case to be made based on the interpretation of the tapes. I've argued from that perspective, considering there are plenty that did the opposite and I'd say it's not an extremely unlikely scenario. From what I understand from those jumping to the defense of Zimmerman, it's often from a motivation to protect that law, rather than Zimmerman. if the law is flawed though, then it is in the public interest to hold it up for scrutiny.
In some cases I sense an undertone of frustration with certain crime, the gangsta culture and with it, identification with Zimmerman. That too is understandable, but still no justification.

So the same bias argument can be said for anyone jumping to Zimmerman's defense by default and I'm quite sure Pierce would utterly rip those apart as well. In fact, saw a small part of him interviewing the brother of Zimmerman yesterday on CNN as well as the lawyer representing Martin. He looks at both sides of the argument and as a Brit is neutral.

Same for Obama really, I don't get why he - and other US presidents and politicians - regularly make judgmental personal opinion comments on such incidents. As a politician and worse, representative of the non-biased state, your job is not to act as defense attorney nor prosecution but a representative of the people. Especially since you have trial by jury, the influence from high profile, public figures when making statements is not beneficial to the fairness of the trial.


Still, it should come to a trial.

For once Figment, you and I are in total agreement.

What bothers me fundamentally about this, is that he has been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion...without having all the facts.

That's fucked up.

Also, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are using this situation to incite racism.

Just look at this:

13 shot, 2 dead in Chicago by 'Hoodies' in Rep. Rush's District (http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/5090)

When does it end?

Another thing I take issue with, is this kid gets shot....

But in Kansas City...a white kid is almost burned to death by black racists because the kid's last name is 'Coon'....almost ZERO fucking media attention.

Sauce for that story (http://twoguys2012.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/white-kid-burned-by-two-black-kids-in-kansas-city-racial-attack-real-story-real-news-wheres-president-obama/)

Even More Sauce for that Story (http://www.newsnet14.com/?p=98074)

Then, Obama......

Oh God don't get me started on that jackass.

[Vecha]

For once Figment, you and I are in total agreement.

What bothers me fundamentally about this, is that he has been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion...without having all the facts.

That's fucked up.

Also, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are using this situation to incite racism.

Just look at this:

13 shot, 2 dead in Chicago by 'Hoodies' in Rep. Rush's District (http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/5090)

When does it end?

Another thing I take issue with, is this kid gets shot....

But in Kansas City...a white kid is almost burned to death by black racists because the kid's last name is 'Coon'....almost ZERO fucking media attention.

Sauce for that story (http://twoguys2012.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/white-kid-burned-by-two-black-kids-in-kansas-city-racial-attack-real-story-real-news-wheres-president-obama/)

Even More Sauce for that Story (http://www.newsnet14.com/?p=98074)

Then, Obama......

Oh God don't get me started on that jackass.

http://www.kctv5.com/story/17260926/mother-of-teen-who-claims-set-on-fire-says-were-being-brushed-off

Here's a link to the local news story...in case anyone doubts the story.

Pretty insane...

[Malorn]

Meh.

[WildGunsTomcat]

People siding with Zimmerman want to see proof and not see an innocent man convicted because some race peddlers make an issue out of it and the media hypes it for ratings. The coverage has been horribly biased. It's embarrassing and shameful.

In America we are innocent until proven guilty, so people siding with Zimmerman are not the same as the people pushing to convict him.

Our media is also covering the story horribly and convicting the man on TV because drama and injustice gets more clicks and ad revenue (Ya newsflash, the Media is a business, so it too is biased by nature).


(popping back in for this comment on how the story is being represented, not the facts of the story)

Exactly.

If Zimmerman is guilty, as I have stated numerous times before...I'll be the first to tell you to put him in jail.

What I take umbrage with is the OBVIOUS media bias and the petty and blatant race baiting being done by many people in this country.

I mean...fuck...Al Sharpton all but TOLD the black community on Friday that if "Justice" isn't served to Zimmerman that they should escalate their activities past civil disobedience. So Sharpton is advocating violence against people without actually coming out and saying it.....and he's not being persecuted why? Because people are fucking stupid that's why...I have no other way to explain that one.

What I also find amusing is the people from other countries using this incident to poke a fucking stick at America once again, although why I'm shocked I have not a clue...this is just par for the course really.

How about we let the investigation complete, and IF there is going to be a trial...and that's a HUGE IF.....let that outcome complete before we try and convict the man.

[Figment]

People siding with Zimmerman want to see proof and not see an innocent man convicted because some race peddlers make an issue out of it and the media hypes it for ratings. The coverage has been horribly biased. It's embarrassing and shameful.

In America we are innocent until proven guilty, so people siding with Zimmerman are not the same as the people pushing to convict him.

Our media is also covering the story horribly and convicting the man on TV because drama and injustice gets more clicks and ad revenue (Ya newsflash, the Media is a business, so it too is biased by nature).


(popping back in for this comment on how the story is being represented, not the facts of the story)

Thing is, he is guilty of a killing: he took someone's life, regardless of why. You honestly think that if you kill someone and there are no witnesses you can get away with it because motive can't immediately be established?

Even if it is clear someone didn't just defend themselves, they could say "well hey, I have the right to bare arms, they for no reason felt threatened, they all overreacted and attacked me, so I had to kill them". In the most perverse scenario, a mass murderer or terrorist could claim self-defense under the condition that nobody can tell a story contradicting his or hers.

Zimmerman IS the killer and thus the only and confirmed suspect. He's not yet a convict, however, a court should determine if the killing was justified, not he himself. Otherwise you have no need for a justice system at all.


Media portraying someone either way, guilty or innocent, is irrelevant. It has no impact on the legal side of things or chain of events that lead to the killing. Media certainly are no justifiable reason to convict or defend someone. Only the facts are.


Motive needs to be established in a court of law and detective work, not by the police arriving on the scene. They have to arrest the suspect and bring him to court, not be judge and jury.

[Quovatis]

In the new "enhanced" video of Zimmerman being taken to the police station, you can now clearly see there are lacerations on the back of his head. That doesn't mean everything he's said is true, but it does back up some of it.

We just need all the evidence. It's a real shame that the media and especially the black community don't care about all the evidence and have already convicted Zimmerman.

[Figment]

I mean...fuck...Al Sharpton all but TOLD the black community on Friday that if "Justice" isn't served to Zimmerman that they should escalate their activities past civil disobedience. So Sharpton is advocating violence against people without actually coming out and saying it.....and he's not being persecuted why? Because people are fucking stupid that's why...I have no other way to explain that one.

Then again, in another debate it is argued that violence is permitted to protect against a government that harms your rights...

Whether violence is justified or rights are harmed has always been a subjective thing... So... yeah.


As you'll understand though, I find the idea of violent rebellion over such case bad per definition. But even more if it cannot be solidified that it is done for the reason it is claimed to be (ie in this case racial murder).



What though if they rose up because the government won't arrest someone who harmed someone else's right to live to at least await trial or needing to make bail? How many people are locked up awaiting trial before it is even 100% clear that they killed someone?

[Warborn]

I suspect this will go to trial. On 10 April they'll be having a grand jury decide whether Zimmerman is tried for something. At any rate, either the law needs to be changed or Zimmerman needs to be sentenced for some sort of murder. An armed guy chasing down and shooting an unarmed teenager should not be considered acceptable in any civilized society.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Vecha]

An armed guy chasing down and shooting an unarmed teenager should not be considered acceptable in any civilized society.



Who thinks that's acceptable?

The debate is over actually what took place. We don't exactly know what happened...we can guess/hypothesize/etc...but we can't confirm or deny whether he chased the kid down and shot him...there are alot of holes in his story, yes, but I don't think any of us are qualified to jump to any conclusions..yet.

The rhetoric(all around) is getting ridiculous. The politicizing(demanding renewed/changed gun control laws) over this kid's death needs to cool down.

I'll personally hold my judgement.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Who thinks that's acceptable?

The debate is over actually what took place. We don't exactly know what happened...we can guess/hypothesize/etc...but we can't confirm or deny whether he chased the kid down and shot him...there are alot of holes in his story, yes, but I don't think any of us are qualified to jump to any conclusions..yet.

The rhetoric(all around) is getting ridiculous. The politicizing(demanding renewed/changed gun control laws) over this kid's death needs to cool down.

I'll personally hold my judgement.

I more or less agree with this here.

The police need to investigate. There needs to be something more than nothing. A boy lost his life; surely they can be arsed to at least show due diligence?

[Vecha]

I more or less agree with this here.

The police need to investigate. There needs to be something more than nothing. A boy lost his life; surely they can be arsed to at least show due diligence?

Yeah...I agree with that. I hope they are investigating with some form of competence. Justice is led by humans...which leads to imperfections.

Alot better than relying on the media though.

Hopefully by having the chief of police, or whatever he was, step down...they can actually find out what went down...and if Zimmerman is full of shit.

[WildGunsTomcat]

I more or less agree with this here.

The police need to investigate. There needs to be something more than nothing. A boy lost his life; surely they can be arsed to at least show due diligence?

Yeah I'll agree with this.

But again, how do we know they're not doing anything? We don't. We know what a biased media feeds us.

[Warborn]

We don't exactly know what happened...we can guess/hypothesize/etc...but we can't confirm or deny whether he chased the kid down and shot him...there are alot of holes in his story, yes, but I don't think any of us are qualified to jump to any conclusions..yet.

We know he followed Martin because of the 911 call and statement to the police.

And Zimmerman was allowed to walk, so who thinks it's acceptable? Well, I guess the state legislature which made a law saying that people could do that sort of thing and just walk away from it.

[WildGunsTomcat]

Yeah...I agree with that. I hope they are investigating with some form of competence. Justice is led by humans...which leads to imperfections.

Alot better than relying on the media though.

Hopefully by having the chief of police, or whatever he was, step down...they can actually find out what went down...and if Zimmerman is full of shit.

Also, he stepped down not because of incompetence or any mishandling Vecha...he stepped down because people were threatening his kids' lives.

News Link (http://mobile.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/120324/threatening-email-trayvon-martin-police-chief)

[Baneblade]

This kind of thing is why I carry a gun, people are stupid and at the end of the day, Id rather be the one standing. Im just waiting for that moment when my shaved head makes me a target for some racist person who hates white... ish people.

[Warborn]

Or they could get rid of letting people walk around with a gun on them. Seems to me that carrying a gun and hoping someone attacks you so that you can shoot them is maybe not the most healthy attitude.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Baneblade]

Or they could get rid of letting people walk around with a gun on them. Seems to me that carrying a gun and hoping someone attacks you so that you can shoot them is maybe not the most healthy attitude.

Yeah, cause that is the reason I have a CCW... liberals...

[Warborn]

Im just waiting for that moment when my shaved head makes me a target for some racist person who hates white... ish people.

So you wrote this words but didn't mean to imply that you're anticipating someone targeting you based on race? I guess I'm just too liberally liberal to liberal through this post and liberal your meaning liberal.

Also I vote NDP not Liberal so I'm not a liberal, thanks.

[Baneblade]

So you wrote this words but didn't mean to imply that you're anticipating someone targeting you based on race? I guess I'm just too liberally liberal to liberal through this post and liberal your meaning liberal.

Also I vote NDP not Liberal so I'm not a liberal, thanks.

People are fucked up and do fucked up things for a lot of reasons. I dont discriminate between different flavors of fucked, Im armed for them all.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Vecha]

We know he followed Martin because of the 911 call and statement to the police.

And Zimmerman was allowed to walk, so who thinks it's acceptable? Well, I guess the state legislature which made a law saying that people could do that sort of thing and just walk away from it.


My comment should have been more clear.

I took issue with your comment in how it seemed to suggest he followed him with the intention of doing harm.

Also...I don't think the state legislature said, "Gee, let's make a law that let's people shoot whoever they want."

Laws could always be made more clear. Perhaps this law does need to be changed.

[Warborn]

Also...I don't think the state legislature said, "Gee, let's make a law that let's people shoot whoever they want."

And yet that's essentially the effect. The cops have to take the shooter's word for it and unless they have a witness or the event becomes a national thing, that's the end of it. I wonder how many situations have gone down like the Zimmerman-Martin one did, where someone kills someone else in self-defense and they simply take the shooter's word as gospel.

[Vecha]

And yet that's essentially the effect. The cops have to take the shooter's word for it and unless they have a witness or the event becomes a national thing, that's the end of it. I wonder how many situations have gone down like the Zimmerman-Martin one did, where someone kills someone else in self-defense and they simply take the shooter's word as gospel.

I thought there was a witness?

Anywho, I get your point, and for the most part agree with it.

If the law is worded that anyone can shoot someone and claim self defense, then it needs to be changed.

For now, I'll wait to see what the investigation find...was he actually defending himself...did he actually have a broken nose/was roughed up.

[Hamma]

Laws like this need to exist otherwise you have criminals suing homeowners when they cut their arms on the glass as they break into their homes.

It happens all the time in states like Massachusetts.

Citizens who carry guns are not looking for reasons to get in a shootout. Quite the contrary however they hope they never have to use it but they have the piece of mind that if they need to they won't become a victim.

[WildGunsTomcat]

Laws like this need to exist otherwise you have criminals suing homeowners when they cut their arms on the glass as they break into their homes.

It happens all the time in states like Massachusetts.

Citizens who carry guns are not looking for reasons to get in a shootout. Quite the contrary however they hope they never have to use it but they have the piece of mind that if they need to they won't become a victim.

That's something people in lily white Canada...all safe as a bug in a rug in their neighborhoods where everyone is apparently perfect will never understand.

Someone got shot? OMG WHY????? WHY IS THERE A NEED FOR VIOLENCEEEEE????!!!

[Warborn]

That's something people in lily white Canada...all safe as a bug in a rug in their neighborhoods where everyone is apparently perfect will never understand.

Someone got shot? OMG WHY????? WHY IS THERE A NEED FOR VIOLENCEEEEE????!!!

Yes, it is a bad thing that we don't let our citizens shoot each other in the street like it's the wild west. This is a thing that reflects poorly upon us as a nation.

[Vecha]

Yes, it is a bad thing that we don't let our citizens shoot each other in the street like it's the wild west. This is a thing that reflects poorly upon us as a nation.

I hope you realize that not all states in the US have the same laws as Florida(and other states).

The US is more like...Europe...some states are drastically different from one another..like setting foot in another country.


California for instance has stricter gun laws than many southern states.

(Not saying Florida and other states are horrible--I live in Alabama. Somewhat Liberal too. Yes, my life is interesting some days.--...but just thought I'd mention that.)

[TheSHiFT]

Laws like this need to exist otherwise you have criminals suing homeowners when they cut their arms on the glass as they break into their homes.

It happens all the time in states like Massachusetts.

Citizens who carry guns are not looking for reasons to get in a shootout. Quite the contrary however they hope they never have to use it but they have the piece of mind that if they need to they won't become a victim.

False dichotomy. You can have laws like the castle doctrine but you dont need laws such as Florida's shitty SYG statute.

[Figment]

Laws like this need to exist otherwise you have criminals suing homeowners when they cut their arms on the glass as they break into their homes.

It happens all the time in states like Massachusetts.

Citizens who carry guns are not looking for reasons to get in a shootout. Quite the contrary however they hope they never have to use it but they have the piece of mind that if they need to they won't become a victim.

Uhm... Sorry, but castle law (shooting people) doesn't exactly mean "burglars are allowed to cut themselves by glass bla bla".

Obviously that's an indication of bad laws though, that a burglar can sue house owners for damage they did themselves while tresspassing. But that has nothing to do with the right to shoot them. That would be the right to cut them with glass. :s

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Figment]

Never said there wasn't any bias on either side: as said before on several occassions, BOTH sides that claim to know for a 100% certainty if he is guilty or innocent of a hate crime before court has decided are biased. Anyone claiming Zimmerman should go free without trial is just as much biased as anyone saying he should be hang for racial murder right now.

Then again,

"Yep, completely stable and rational people attending those rallies."

Can I loan this non-argument/insult/insinuation/character murder of opposition/strawman/etc. for later debates?

[Figment]

I thought there was a witness?

Anywho, I get your point, and for the most part agree with it.

If the law is worded that anyone can shoot someone and claim self defense, then it needs to be changed.

For now, I'll wait to see what the investigation find...was he actually defending himself...did he actually have a broken nose/was roughed up.

The problem with that is that, say there's a rape attempt, but it never got to the raping part as the guy shot or stabbed the woman first during a struggle. Say the rapist got scratched by the woman's nails and has other bruises.

Could he then go and claim self-defense against self-defense?

[WildGunsTomcat]

(Warning: This post contains references to content that may be offensive to sensitive people)

Since many folks like to call George Zimmerman a racist, how would you classify this woman?

Here's a glimpse of the media-fueled race riots that are going to occur when Zimmerman is either a) not arrested, or b) not convicted

Here's one news account:
http://nation.foxnews.com/weird-news/2012/03/21/caught-tape-student-goes-ballistic-evolution-class



Here's the Youtube video (definitely not work safe)
girl goes crazy in class at FAU - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qkm3BBbuUQ4)


Here's the police report:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/86380970/Jonatha-Carr-Police-Report



She had to be tazed three times and sent directly to the nut house under the Florida "Baker Act" which allows for immediate involuntary commitment to a mental institution.

Apparently she really doesn't like Peacocks. Or whites. Or ****. Or Arabs. But she's still out on Asians...they might be ok.

In a completely unrelated note, this woman was interviewed the day before by the local news for organizing a Treyvon Martin rally. Yep, completely stable and rational people attending those rallies.

What Malorn is pointing out here, is the same thing being pointed out by a great many people...but no one is listening apparently:

Everyone is screaming that Zimmerman MUST be racist because he killed a black child. But these are the types of people screaming that: Racists.

Completely sane, rational people indeed.

[Figment]

What Malorn is pointing out here, is the same thing being pointed out by a great many people...but no one is listening apparently:

Everyone is screaming that Zimmerman MUST be racist because he killed a black child. But these are the types of people screaming that: Racists.

Completely sane, rational people indeed.

So you are, as Malorn already was, insinuating that anyone attending rallies is a deranged racist, simply because one person apparently is? Isn't that... stereotyping?

[WildGunsTomcat]

So you are, as Malorn already was, insinuating that anyone attending rallies is a deranged racist, simply because one person apparently is? Isn't that... stereotyping?

Sure why not?

Isn't that what the majority of people are doing to Zimmerman?

He's a white guy with a gun, he MUST have profiled and stereotyped Trayvon Martin right?

He was chasing this poor little child down like a scared rabbit...his hate mongering, KKK loving conservative eyes glowing red with hatred for the black man.

Right?


Zimmerman was a democrat by the way...and a hispanic ***. He wasn't white.

[Figment]

Sure why not?

Isn't that what the majority of people are doing to Zimmerman?

He's a white guy with a gun, he MUST have profiled and stereotyped Trayvon Martin right?

Well... As you can tell from the 911 tapes... He did profile and stereotype him as a criminal. (I personally presume based on wearing a hood). Hell, he saw a kid walk down the street, got suspicious and called 911.


Why? Why did he do that if the kid was just walking home while on the phone with his girlfriend?

He didn't talk to him yet, he hadn't stalked him yet then... What else could it have been aside from stereotype criminal appearance? You'd think behaviour would be one thing. But, rather than consider the idea that if you'd be stalked you'd start moving faster, the guy must have been fleeing. That too is a prejudice: a selective conclusion to fit the frame of mind.

From my perspective, Zimmerman was simply looking for observations that matched the conclusion he had already drawn: he had spotted a criminal, or as he put it "a real suspicious guy".


Racial hatred may have very little to do with it, from where I stand it could easily have been the "black gangsta" stereotype, of which ethnicity is not the main, but a sub-characteristic. As such, my concern is with Zimmerman triggering/provoking aggression by coming over in a threatening manner and then claiming self-defense. Would I consider it to be a planned murder? No. A racial murder? No. Self-induced manslaughter? Yes, possibly, as it seems to have been a bit of a self-fullfilling prophecy in terms of turns of events.

Anyway, I don't subscribe to the view of people (which you are calling racist) that say it'd be the main characteristic that triggered the train of thought. That's more like hijacking the topic for use in a political agenda. I'm more of the opinion that stress and adrenaline, combined with frustration and some paranoia lead to the incident. I don't think Zimmerman intended to kill him during the chase, perhaps not even as he shot: he probably just wanted some sort of justice being done for once and would probably have prefered the guy being arrested and not expected him to become aggressive out of fear, or whatever other reason.

However, what is clear is that Martin clearly had taken note of Zimmerman and that gave him enough reason to start running.

That's my theory anyway. I can't prove it, but it is in line with this transcript:
http://www.examiner.com/unsolved-cases-in-national/george-zimmerman-s-911-call-transcribed

What exactly happened after that, what exactly made Zimmerman suspicious, that's up for debate.

He was chasing this poor little child down like a scared rabbit...his hate mongering, KKK loving conservative eyes glowing red with hatred for the black man.

Right?

I don't believe anyone in this thread claimed anything close to that.

Zimmerman was a democrat by the way...and a hispanic ***. He wasn't white.

Sure, but rather irrelevant, prejudism exist within everyone after all.

[Warborn]

Since many folks like to call George Zimmerman a racist, how would you classify this woman?

As a person who had a mental break and needed to be institutionalized. I don't see what the comparison you're trying to make here is. Are you saying Zimmerman needs to be locked up? That he's maybe schizophrenic and violently unstable like this girl might be? Or are you mad that society isn't up in arms over the things an insane person said during a fit of hysterics?

Sure why not?

Isn't that what the majority of people are doing to Zimmerman?

He's a white guy with a gun, he MUST have profiled and stereotyped Trayvon Martin right?

He saw a black kid in a hoodie and called the police, describing him as suspicious, saying he looked like he was on drugs, and that he was up to something. None of that was true, of course. Then, as he chased Martin, he said "fucking coons" under his breath, and prior to that remarked how "these assholes, they always get away".

So... no? No, I don't think Zimmerman is being unfairly targeted as being a racist who stereotyped Martin. His friend tried to tell us that he said "fucking goons" and that "goons" is a term of endearment amongst highschool kids these days (note: Zimmerman is 28) and that race had nothing to do with it. But, neighbors had also described Zimmerman as telling them to be on the lookout for suspicious black people.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Warborn]

http://open.salon.com/blog/chauncey_devega/2012/03/29/smearing_trayvon_martin_blacks_commit_more_crime_a nd



The killing of Trayvon Martin is a Rorschach test for American society. This tragedy reveals a deep divide in our political imaginations and communities. It also is a mirror for the fissures of race, ideology, and party that still vex and befuddle us to the present.

Some folks imagine themselves, their children, and members of their communities as Trayvon Martin. To their eyes, Trayvon is a symbol of how American society all too often devalues the lives of people of color.

Other people imagine themselves as George Zimmerman. To them, he is a "victim," a "good" man who only wanted to protect his neighborhood from crime and "suspicious" people. Moreover, the assertion that George Zimmerman acted out of racial bias in his hunting and killing of Trayvon Martin is personally offensive to them.

Because Zimmerman is “them,” and “they” are Zimmerman, he is quite simply a "law abiding" citizen who is being made a victim of "reverse racism," "race hustlers," and "the liberal media."

I thought this was a good article and pretty accurately describes how this whole thing appears to me.

[Figment]

But never say they might be biased! D:

For how could they be! Everyone else is biased! D:

[WildGunsTomcat]

I'm just gonna leave this here. (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/03/enhanced-video-zimmerman-in-police-station-appears-to-show-injuries/?test=latestnews)

[Warborn]

It's Fox News. Nobody cares what Fox News has to say about any particular issue.

[Vecha]

http://open.salon.com/blog/chauncey_devega/2012/03/29/smearing_trayvon_martin_blacks_commit_more_crime_a nd



I thought this was a good article and pretty accurately describes how this whole thing appears to me.


I agree with the snippet from the article you showed...The whole politicizing of this whole thing is just sickening.

I personally feel I keep getting tugged in twenty different directions. Seems everyone is bringing their past emotional baggage into this debate...whether its racial tension issues or gun control issues(both sides).

[WildGunsTomcat]

It's Fox News. Nobody cares what Fox News has to say about any particular issue.

How very closed minded of you Warborn.

Why don't you read the bottom of the report:

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Which means the AP reported it initially, and Fox News Re-Reported it (in their own words to avoid plagiarism and accusations that they steal their news from other news sources)

Why don't you stop with the bullshit hate of Fox News for a second, and read the report.

Edit:

Since you seem to be irrationally biased against Fox News...for obvious reasons...here it is at CBS news...it might be a little easier for your liberal sensibilities to see it at a liberal news source.

Liberal News Source For All You Liberals Out There. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57408577-504083/enhanced-video-shows-apparent-injury-on-george-zimmermans-head-police-say/)

I also want to say I love how you dodged the reported information that Zimmerman's story that he was under attack might have merit.

inb4 he was stalking and profiling....you've said it many times before.

[Warborn]

It's not bullshit hate of Fox News, it's legitimate disdain for a "news" company which in actuality is nothing more than the mouth piece of the mainstream Republican Party. If you're going to cite a source for something, don't cite a shitty source that nobody with any sense takes seriously.

You don't get a scrape on your head which doesn't bleed significantly and doesn't require medical attention from having your head bashed against concrete repeatedly. Zimmerman's injuries were, I suspect, as the police report suggests: Superficial injuries with slight bleeding to the nose and back of the head as a result. Not as his lawyer claims: A broken nose and a head that required stitches. However he got whatever may or may not be on the back of his head in that video, it wasn't as Zimmerman claimed.

[Zulthus]

Not to sound like an asshole, but I don't even see why people care about this guy. This shit happens DAILY in the US and nobody gives a fuck, but SUDDENLY they care SO MUCH about a dead black guy just because the media makes it into something big.

Not much to see here. Many, many people get murdered daily, and in many cases over racism. None of them justified.

[Baneblade]

It is called distraction. It is no accident this is happening right now, it takes attention from Obamacare being destroyed by the Supreme Court.

[WildGunsTomcat]

It's not bullshit hate of Fox News, it's legitimate disdain for a "news" company which in actuality is nothing more than the mouth piece of the mainstream Republican Party. If you're going to cite a source for something, don't cite a shitty source that nobody with any sense takes seriously.

You don't get a scrape on your head which doesn't bleed significantly and doesn't require medical attention from having your head bashed against concrete repeatedly. Zimmerman's injuries were, I suspect, as the police report suggests: Superficial injuries with slight bleeding to the nose and back of the head as a result. Not as his lawyer claims: A broken nose and a head that required stitches. However he got whatever may or may not be on the back of his head in that video, it wasn't as Zimmerman claimed.

Yeah, Fox News is a Republican mouthpiece..because all the other news outfits are so liberal its disgusting.

But I guess the repubs can't even have one eh?

Also, it adds weight to the fact that he was attacked.

And it also adds weight to the fact that, by Florida state law, he had every right to put a bullet in his attacker...because he had a CCL.

Case closed.

[Vash02]

Tom, if Zimmerman attacked Trayvon (Which, judging by Zimmermans words and actions, he did), did Trayvon not have the right to defend himself also? or does that law only protect the guy with the gun?

If you instigate the confrontation you should have to pay the consequences.

[Warborn]

Yeah, Fox News is a Republican mouthpiece..because all the other news outfits are so liberal its disgusting.

It's interesting how some people only see things as being either "good" or "so liberal its disgusting".

And it also adds weight to the fact that, by Florida state law, he had every right to put a bullet in his attacker...because he had a CCL.

Except Martin almost certainly wasn't the attacker. The only reason anyone thinks Martin (a kid with no history of violence on his way home from the store, talking to his girlfriend on the way) was the attacker here is because of scary black person stereotypes. It is vastly more probable that Zimmerman, a guy who does have a violent history, who had been fired from a security job for being too aggressive, who actively chased down Martin, made things turn physical.

To assume that Zimmerman did indeed get lost in his own three-street neighborhood, and Martin attacked him, tried to take his gun, and then said "You got me!" as Zimmerman shot him, well, it isn't because of logic that you believe that's anything like the truth.

[Fenrys]

This shit happens DAILY in the US and nobody gives a fuck, but SUDDENLY they care SO MUCH about a dead black guy just because the media makes it into something big.

Now that is an interesting question! Why did the MSM choose to make so much ado about a scenario like this one, at this particular time?

What else would we be talking and thinking about if not for this distraction?

It is called distraction. It is no accident this is happening right now, it takes attention from Obamacare being destroyed by the Supreme Court.

Or Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness, signed on the ides of March.

Or . . . ?

[ArcIyte]

...

I am amazed at how you ignore large facets of this case, and warp the rest to fit your personal political ethos. More surprising is how blatant the media has been in doing the same. What they're doing is almost criminal in itself.

Do you actually believe in the garbage you post or are you just board warrioring?

[Warborn]

What are my personal political ethos which warp my perception of this case as a white Canadian?

And I'd say I've read/heard pretty much every facet of this. It may be every day stuff where some people are from, but it's a pretty crazy story for me. What I'd really like to know is whether the defense of Zimmerman here is a racial thing, a 2nd amendment thing, a... "the LIEberal media are saying X, therefore I believe Y!" thing, or what.

[Baneblade]

How about a due process thing?

[Warborn]

Acknowledging the facts surrounding the case doesn't mean that all of a sudden George Zimmerman is no longer entitled to due process. I know PSU is a pretty cool site with a pretty happening Political Debate sub-forum, but I think the Florida prosecutors are going to go at it without consulting us for the verdict this time.

And yes, I think Zimmerman is going to be indicted. Angela Corey is the one looking into it. Prosecutor in Florida teen shooting aims to do "right thing". (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/04/us-usa-florida-shooting-corey-idUSBRE83306620120404)

[Baneblade]

Point is, the man will be found guilty no matter what the truth is. His due process was taken from him by the media.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Figment]

I am amazed at how you ignore large facets of this case, and warp the rest to fit your personal political ethos. More surprising is how blatant the media has been in doing the same. What they're doing is almost criminal in itself.

Do you actually believe in the garbage you post or are you just board warrioring?

I'm also amazed at how you are absolutely certain it was justifiable homicide. I'm also amazed at how everyone defending Zimmerman is trying to draw attention away from him and onto the media, as if that is more important than a fair trial itself.

Does the media influence? Sure. Should it? No. /deliberate media derail to blame it on the liberals.

Ad hominem much btw?

[TheSHiFT]

Point is, the man will be found guilty no matter what the truth is. His due process was taken from him by the media.

YEA! Just like OJ's and Casey Anthony.

[WildGunsTomcat]

YEA! Just like OJ's and Casey Anthony.

That is actually a good point.

If the public thinks you're guilty....you're automatically guilty.

That's why Casey Anthony is in hiding...even though she was found not guilty of any wrongdoing.

And that's why I'm saying give the fucking justice system a chance to do their job before you start crying about Zimmerman getting away with some type of injustice. You don't know what happened, you weren't there....you don't know better than anyone else.

This discussion...like another poster commented....is warping into a political ethos war.

[Warborn]

Point is, the man will be found guilty no matter what the truth is. His due process was taken from him by the media.

That isn't true at all. OJ walked, even though he was clearly guilty, because the cops/prosecution were incompetent and Johnnie Cochran came at them with the wookie defense. OJ's case wasn't obvious before the trial began, though, so maybe the analogy is a bit off.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Warborn]

Or maybe there's another reason why I might think poorly of a man who chased down an unarmed teenager and shot him to death with a pistol. Or do you suppose all the Americans who agree with my sentiment are themselves... non-American? Honestly I'm not sure why where I'm from makes any difference. Is there a place on the planet where it's a fine thing for men to go around shooting boys because they think they're suspicious?

[Hamma]

Innocent until proven guilty.

[WildGunsTomcat]

Or maybe there's another reason why I might think poorly of a man who chased down an unarmed teenager and shot him to death with a pistol. Or do you suppose all the Americans who agree with my sentiment are themselves... non-American? Honestly I'm not sure why where I'm from makes any difference. Is there a place on the planet where it's a fine thing for men to go around shooting boys because they think they're suspicious?

Good God Warborn...you just keep jumping over the fact that Zimmerman was attacked by this man. I'm not going to call him a kid because he was almost 18 and almost 3 feet taller than Zimmerman.

I'm sorry you don't quite understand it, and that's okay...but in this country you have the right in some states to defend yourself from being attacked with deadly force. If someone is on top of me attacking me, like this kid supposedly was according to two witnesses and police evidence...I have the legal right to put a bullet in them.

How is this a hard concept to understand?

It's mostly the non-americans and soft liberal types that are arguing against this....and saying that it MUST be a racial profiling thing and that Zimmerman was stalking him.

When the evidence and witness testimony does not corroborate that viewpoint at all.

So at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter to anyone if you think poorly of this man. This man was legally well within his rights to use his sidearm to stop from being attacked.

Is there a place on the planet where it's a fine thing for men to go around shooting boys because they think they're suspicious?

And this is absolute unsubstantiated rubbish. You're trying to make it seem like Zimmerman was following this kid around with the express intent to shoot him, when again...the evidence doesn't support it. It's adding fuel to the fire that "Zimmerman saw a black kid and was obviously racist because he said "These assholes always get away with this" and that he might have said "Coon" on a 911 recording that was so garbled as to be laughable...so that's all the evidence we need to convict him of wrongdoing in the court of public opinion." Rubbish. Pure Rubbish with no basis in fact other than it jives with your own personal ethos and social viewpoint.

Is your entire argument to be based around innuendo and straw men?

[TheSHiFT]

Innocent until proven guilty.

Zimmerman admitted to killing Martin. Zimmerman claims self-defense. Self-defense is an affirmative defense (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Affirmative+Defense), the burden of proof shifts to Zimmerman. However, Flordia's SYG law is so terrible, whoever lives through an altercation can use self-defense as an immunity to trial! Total bullshit.

[TheSHiFT]

Good God Warborn...you just keep jumping over the fact that Zimmerman was attacked by this man. I'm not going to call him a kid because he was almost 18 and almost 3 feet taller than Zimmerman.


Where is the evidence that MARTIN wasn't standing his ground from Zimmerman?

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[TheSHiFT]

And that makes it justifiable homicide? Because he failed to defend himself?

[Malorn]

Meh.

[TheSHiFT]

Looks like you are not understanding me. There is a probability that Martin had reasonable belief to defend himself against Zimmerman. Now because Martin failed to do so, does that make his death a justifiable homicide?

[Baneblade]

If Martin were alive and Zimmerman dead, none of us would know who either of them are.

[CutterJohn]

Quote from another place on this topic..

As a gun owner, you have to be cool-headed, moreso than the police ever have to be.

And you do not ever run around pretending to be the police while carrying a gun because then shit like this can happen.

You do not start shit, act aggressively, flip the bird, roll your eyes, talk shit, or even raise your voice. To anyone. Ever.

A combat instructor (who happened to be Buddhist and a Marine) once said to me: "From now on, when dealing with (ed.) crazy / possibly violent people, you will lose every argument. You are always wrong. You are sorry for impinging on their day. You will apologize and apologize again. You will back the fuck down. You will put your tail between your legs. You will let them talk shit about your ladyfriend. You will let them call your mother a bitch and a whore and your dad a bastard. You have no ego. "

"You do all this because if you are the one to start a fight, by default that fight now has a gun in it, and if you start losing, you're going to pull it and kill him. And even if you don't go to jail because you could convince the jury that it was self-defense, you're going to have to live with the fact that you could have saved someone's life and yet you let your ego kill someone."

"You are not the police, so don't act like them. Though all of you [civilians] are better shots than the police, you do not have the training, the continuum of force policy, or a union plus free lawyers protecting you if you screw up."
ed: He also said: "but after backing down and trying to apologize, if at any time you then feel your life or that of a loved one is in danger, put three rounds into his [cardiothoracic] vault, call the police, give a statement, go home, and sleep like a baby. You did all you could for your attacker, and he was the one that made the final decision to kill himself."

[Figment]

Innocent until proven guilty.

"Probable cause". If it is established the guy killed, that's enough probable cause for me. Why he killed is IMO to be established in court (a case has to be made by both sides).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

Innocence until proven guilty is fine, but that doesn't mean you should walk by default as long as you claim self-defense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense

Most of the above goes on about US application. Now, it seems to me that even in the US law, there should be a clear indication of threat to own life. Not just protection against bruises and some superficial wounds, in order to justify lethal force.

You should also have done all you can to evade hurt, including having no place to retreat to, correct? And with the castle law thing, that is defined as your own house, not your own neighbourhood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine

Which ironically is NOT of American origin, but British. So please drop the "you foreigners don't understand anything" routine, please. It's stupid and insulting. Anyway:

Conditions of use

Each state differs in the way it incorporates the castle doctrine into its laws, what premises are covered (abode only, or other places too), what degree of retreat or non-deadly resistance is required before deadly force can be used, etc.

Typical conditions that apply to some Castle Doctrine laws include[citation needed]:

An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully or forcibly enter an occupied residence, business or vehicle.
The intruder must be acting illegally—the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack, for example, officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
In some states, the occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some lesser felony, such as arson or burglary
The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)


In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law or aiding or abetting another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use force upon an officer of the law performing a legal duty

So let's see:

1. Not applicable.
2. Not applicable.
3. No an occupant of home, but Zimmerman claims to serious impending bodily harm.
4. Me thinks this might apply, in terms of Zimmerman believing so, but you'd think more than a mere suspicion is required? Paranoid people would always have an excuse?
5. It is at the very least possible Zimmerman provoked a response and instigated the incident by following / stalking Martin if Martin felt threatened. If Martin had legal authority to attack Zimmerman is something completely different. It is not know if or why Martin would have attacked Zimmerman.
6. Considering he was in the middle of the a neighbourhood, he had the chance to retreat. You could argue he was doing so by returning to his car (the car in some laws is considered to fall under the castle).

So basically, what Zimmerman needs is the Stand-your-ground law to appeal to #6.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

That could provide him with immunity from arrest and prosecution. So in the strictest sense of the laws available, Malorn and co. could be right that he should not be prosecuted. This though depends on the exact wording of the state law.

One would think that there has to be sufficient reason for a self-defense claim. And that too entirely depends on interpretation of events. If you look at the actual Florida clause:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law#Florida

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Here the problem is "reasonably believes". What is reasonable? And doesn't this shift the burden of proof to the claimant since this is the person who made the judgement on what was reasonable?

And as others have said, what would have been the reason for Martin to initiate an attack, which all depends on what actually happened (which is word against no word). Would it be possible he felt threatened by Zimmerman? Did Zimmerman block his escape route? Did Martin believe Zimmerman was the guy who was suspicious and did HE try to subdue Zimmerman for whatever reason, without wanting to resort to deadly force or great bodily harm?

Was Martin armed? No. Was it likely he'd have won a fist fight? When did Zimmerman actually pull his gun? What were their respective positions? Is it reasonable to assume Zimmerman had no other options left for self-defense? There are a lot of questions to be answered IMO before you can make someone immune to prosecution.

Etc. etc.