DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: KevShmev on March 27, 2012, 07:12:03 PM
-
I am surprised there isn't a thread on this yet, but maybe there should be?
Anyway, this whole thing has become a complete mess, and I wonder whether we will ever know what really happened. It is a tragedy no matter how you look at it, but I hate tools like Sharpton and Jesse Jackson getting half of the country worked up with their usual bull crap, but you know them, they always need a cause. :\
But yeah, should be interesting to see if charges are brought against Zimmerman. And what charges.
-
The police were wrong in not doing an investigation. But I also know not to jump to conclusions, since the kid could have gotten upset he was following him and started talking shit, because of the Teenage brain thinking they know it all. but also, I'm amazed he wasn't at least charged with disobeying a cop, which he ignored and caused it all on himself.
What upsets me isn't the tragedy but the publics reaction. it amazes me how much people follow blindly. Also the media knew people would get worked up that's why they used either the innocent kid picture or the gangsta kid one.
I feel bad for the kid, but life continues.
-
I agree, the details of what actually went down are somewhat ambiguous, and at this point with so many outside interests involved, it's only going to get muddier.
Bottom line so far appears to be that the dispatcher told Zimmerman not to pursue, and he did. At that point, he was no longer acting in self-defense, regardless of what Martin did to him (if anything) and regardless of whether or not his use of deadly force can be justified.
Absolutely tragic that this kid lost his life, but of course it has to turn into a clusterfuck of one side yelling "racism" and another decrying the kid's reputation. Too bad.
-J
-
I guess I am confused by the whole thing and what happened.
A New Orleans cop resigned after a comment he made on the story
https://www.mycenturylink.com/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CD9TP52QO0%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=931 (https://www.mycenturylink.com/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CD9TP52QO0%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=931)
EDIT: I've been looking into it some more. It's sad about what happened, but the guy says that Trayvon attacked him. What a mess!
-
I read this morning that Trayvon supposedly tackled him to the ground and started punching the guy.
-
There's been some discussion already in the chat thread,
starting with: https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=327.msg1250734#msg1250734
I'm amazed he wasn't at least charged with disobeying a cop, which he ignored and caused it all on himself.
There's no law against disobeying a 911 operator, because, well fuck those guys.
-
Bottom line so far appears to be that the dispatcher told Zimmerman not to pursue, and he did. At that point, he was no longer acting in self-defense, regardless of what Martin did to him (if anything) and regardless of whether or not his use of deadly force can be justified.
Absolutely not true. If I hear someone trying to break into my house and the 911 lady tells me to stay in my room but I still go downstairs because I'm not going to let some meth head get in and possibly harm my family, I shoot him....that's still self defense.
Zimmerman followed this guy because he was the Neighborhood watch captain of a gated community who had a string of thefts. The guy ditched him, Zimmerman turned to go back to his car and then the 6'-3" guy pops out, talks smack, sucker punches the 5'-9" Zimmerman to the ground, pounces on him and begins to pummel him. That has been backed up by the injuries Zimmerman sustained and witnesses. Absolute self defense. Dispatchers aren't Law Enforcment, they work for them but disobeying them isn't a 'crime'.
It is sad that that young man, who as each day passes we learn more and more about, is dead. It is. Just as sad is how the national media has obviously turned this into the race thing once again, like they tried with the 3 white Duke lacross players and the poor little black girl they 'raped'. And we saw what a couple weeks of actuall vetting the story did, that case vanished and those players where exhonerated and compensated after being trashed by the national media, Duke and everyone else. Much like Zimmerman will, and he isn't even white. When all the FACTS are out I think it will become perfectly clear this shooting was justified and that poor young man paid the ultimate price for poor decisions. By all accounts from friends and family, Zimmerman is torn up by doing this and by how he's being portrayed as some cold hearted murderer. But no one thinks or gives a rats ass about him or his family. It's all about the race card....
and at this point with so many outside interests involved, it's only going to get muddier.
That is what is fueling this "story" now. Outside interests and people who see a chance to scavange off of this trajedy. The a$$hat Schumer in NY wanting to essentially scrap a law that a completely different state voted on and passed, every anti gun Joe Schmo and a blog is out there hooting and hollering about vigilante justice....it's a freaking joke. It's a small town story that's where it should have stayed. No business being a national headline...none at all. But that's a completely different thread and topic....
-
GMD: As a pro-gun person, you of all people should have an issue with unnecessary laws mucking up the books. The people who prosecute laws in Florida were opposed to the so-called Stand Your Ground Law because it wasn't needed and only served to clutter up the issue. In this instance, if what you suggest is actually what happened (and I'm inclined to agree with you that it was), then it's a simple matter of self defense and Zimmerman goes free. The problem is that in an effort to appease a lobby group you're probably very familiar with, they've introduced a law that prohibited them from investigating the matter further, and as it should ideally be done, letting a jury establish whether or not Zimmerman was justified. Schumer might well be out of line for meddling in Florida's business, but if he's saying that SYG type legislation needs to be reevaluated, he's absolutely correct.
-
The worst thing about the media in this is every time they show a picture of the two, you see a picture of Zimmerman from 7 years ago (when he was 40 lbs heavier) and a picture of Martin from when he was like 11 or 12, so people get this image of this big beefy grown-up killing some small, defenseless child, which sounds horrible no matter how you slice it.
-
Bottom line so far appears to be that the dispatcher told Zimmerman not to pursue, and he did. At that point, he was no longer acting in self-defense, regardless of what Martin did to him (if anything) and regardless of whether or not his use of deadly force can be justified.
Absolutely not true. If I hear someone trying to break into my house and the 911 lady tells me to stay in my room but I still go downstairs because I'm not going to let some meth head get in and possibly harm my family, I shoot him....that's still self defense.
He was not in Zimmerman's (or anyone's) house, nor was he posing any immediate threat to anyone.
The guy ditched him, Zimmerman turned to go back to his car and then the 6'-3" guy pops out, talks smack, sucker punches the 5'-9" Zimmerman to the ground, pounces on him and begins to pummel him. That has been backed up by the injuries Zimmerman sustained and witnesses.
This may be true, but I have not heard or read these details. And the height of the parties involved is totally irrelevant. And of course it isn't a crime to ignore a 911 dispatcher, no one suggested it was. It only implies that if Zimmerman felt his life was in danger, it was after he followed the kid for a certain distance based on his own suspicion. Again, at this point, the details will probably never be known for certain, so it's all conjecture to some degree. The truth probably lies somewhere between "Martin was completely innocent, was startled by someone following him, and was shot when he tried to confront his pursuer" and "Martin beat Zimmerman to within an inch of his life and was shot only as an absolute last resort."
I agree with most of the rest of your post.
-J
-
The worst thing about the media in this is every time they show a picture of the two, you see a picture of Zimmerman from 7 years ago (when he was 40 lbs heavier) and a picture of Martin from when he was like 11 or 12, so people get this image of this big beefy grown-up killing some small, defenseless child, which sounds horrible no matter how you slice it.
Gotta play to people's emotions, but I agree completely with you. The 11 year old Trayvon pictures that are out there do not compare to the 6 foot 3 Trayvon that was shot.
-
Dispatchers aren't Law Enforcment, they work for them but disobeying them isn't a 'crime'.
QFT. It drives me nuts every time I hear someone say, "He was told by the police not to follow Trayvon." No, a 911 dispatcher (see: NOT the police) said, "We don't need you to do that," in regards to Zimmerman following him. And we still do not know if Zimmerman did stop following him or not after that. And we may never know. Sadly.
-
GMD: As a pro-gun person, you of all people should have an issue with unnecessary laws mucking up the books. The people who prosecute laws in Florida were opposed to the so-called Stand Your Ground Law because it wasn't needed and only served to clutter up the issue. In this instance, if what you suggest is actually what happened (and I'm inclined to agree with you that it was), then it's a simple matter of self defense and Zimmerman goes free. The problem is that in an effort to appease a lobby group you're probably very familiar with, they've introduced a law that prohibited them from investigating the matter further, and as it should ideally be done, letting a jury establish whether or not Zimmerman was justified. Schumer might well be out of line for meddling in Florida's business, but if he's saying that SYG type legislation needs to be reevaluated, he's absolutely correct.
You are right El Barto, good post. I will admit that my emotion was fueling a lot of that post....just realy angry at the cup game the media is playing with this story and not really 'reporting' it. From doing what Kev just mentioned with the pictures to all but burying the young boys questionalble tweets and stories about his recent behavior and run ins with the law.
A perfect example of how bad the 'mainstream' media is at reporting this....I hadn't heard that they couldn't even investigate the matter any further. That is an 'odd' addition to that law. Even here in Missouri where we have the Castle Doctrine giving us the right to inflict deadly force on our property, including vehicles, cars, yards etc., there still is an element of having to 'prove' you were justified and it can be investigated and prosecuted. Not likely, but it can be. Thanks for shining the light on that for me.
And J, please notice I admit that my post was a bit emotionally influenced. I get riled up about these type of stories because 9 out of 10 that make it to the national stage paint the 'shooter' as a monster.....the truth is what you say. I don't think we will ever know.
-
I didn't mean to suggest that they couldn't investigate further. I shouldn't have implied that. What I meant was that based on their interpretation of the law, there was likely no reason to investigate further because he was [legally] in the right.
And I've noticed the same thing about the pictures. Zimmerman's looks like a mugshot in a prison jumper, and Trayvon looks like he should be playing T-ball at the park. Due to the sensationalized nature of this, a lot of people are going to be pissed at the outcome, whatever it may be.
-
I find the racial outcry more tragic and frightening than the actual death.
-
This whole thing is a giant clusterfuck, I really have no idea what to think. Stand Your Ground laws are pretty rotten, though.
-
I didn't mean to suggest that they couldn't investigate further. I shouldn't have implied that. What I meant was that based on their interpretation of the law, there was likely no reason to investigate further because he was [legally] in the right.
And I've noticed the same thing about the pictures. Zimmerman's looks like a mugshot in a prison jumper, and Trayvon looks like he should be playing T-ball at the park. Due to the sensationalized nature of this, a lot of people are going to be pissed at the outcome, whatever it may be.
Ahhh...I gotcha. From the dozen or so Self defense shooting i hear about here in StL that take place in Missouri each year, the consensus I take from it is that it really isn't taken too much further either once the story is corroborated. Although I'd say 99% of them involve some thug or meth head breaking into someones home...not too many just out and about like this one.
This story really illustrates the sad state of affairs that our national media has deteriorated too. It's been bad for a while, then when things like this hit...it is blatantly obvious just how bad it is.
I find the racial outcry more tragic and frightening than the actual death.
As do I. It's sad to say but had this been a black man who had shot a young white guy....this story is never heard of outside the local paper.
-
Hard to say, though every time a story like this breaks and gets big I always think of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom
Just doesn't sell enough headlines I 'spose.
-
Hard to say, though every time a story like this breaks and gets big I always think of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom
Just doesn't sell enough headlines I 'spose.
Nope. I saw this story floating around FaceBook today pretty much asking the same thing. Any news organization that covered that for more than a segment would be considered racist against black people and that's the truth. There is a large double standard and a fear of being considered racist towards black people. It's perfectly fine to 'go after' all but black or muslim though.
And I want to clarify something in case it has been lost....I think it's tragic that young man lost his life. I feel for his family and I can't imagine thier pain. It's horrible. But at the same time I feel for Zimmerman as well because I cant' imagine taking someones life either...especially someone so young.
-
And the fact that you have race mongers like Spike Lee retweeting your address on a couple of occasions.
-
To be fair, this actually is a damned fascinating story, so it's hard to fault the media for jumping all over it (eventually). It certainly does seem that they're trying to make it more divisive that need be, but that's not real surprising.
Also, if people haven't read Scheavo's and my discussion in the chat thread, another aspect of this that nobody's considering is that Trayvon probably had just as much right to act in self defense as Zimmerman did. People want to look at it as if he got what he deserved for starting shit, but Zimmerman was chasing him when he had done nothing whatsoever but walk to his home in the rain. The likelihood is that Trayvon felt just as threatened as Zimmerman did, and with just as much good reason, giving him the same right to confront GZ as GZ was exercising. The time honored rule of Don't Start None/Won't Be None goes both ways in this instance, which is why I'm hesitant to dismiss Zimmerman's actions outright.
-
I have no idea what to think about the whole thing. The information is flying all over the place at a rapid rate.
However, wearing a hoodie in your Twitter avatar does not make you a social activist anymore than liking a status concerning a certain Ugandan warlord.
-
Bottom line so far appears to be that the dispatcher told Zimmerman not to pursue, and he did.
Untrue. The dispatcher asked him if he was following the guy. He said yes and the dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that." To me, that's definitely not the same as saying "Don't do that" even if the dispatcher had the authority to order him not to.
-
Bottom line so far appears to be that the dispatcher told Zimmerman not to pursue, and he did.
Untrue. The dispatcher asked him if he was following the guy. He said yes and the dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that." To me, that's definitely not the same as saying "Don't do that" even if the dispatcher had the authority to order him not to.
Seems to me simply a polite way of saying the same thing. I mean, the reason dispatchers are probably trained to say that, is because when you do follow someone, it may not end up well.
-
I was seeing it described, more or less, that he was ordered to not follow him. Putting it instead as a polite "we don't need you to follow him" isn't firm enough if you're trying to tell him "Stay away from the man" and is ambiguous in that it could also be taken to mean that following the man is merely not necessary.
Though where did I suggest that the dispatchers aren't trained to keep people from going into dangerous situation?
-
I was seeing it described, more or less, that he was ordered to not follow him. Putting it instead as a polite "we don't need you to follow him" isn't firm enough if you're trying to tell him "Stay away from the man" and is ambiguous in that it could also be taken to mean that following the man is merely not necessary.
I don't think it matters one way or the other. The dispatcher doesn't have any authority and he may not have worded it as firmly as my original post made it sound, but in the end, Zimmerman apparently called 911 and then continued to follow the kid after he was told--at the very least--that it was "unnecessary" for him to do so. It's not illegal, but still important to consider.
For the record, I absolutely take no side on this case, for lack of information among other things. But this detail in particular seems like it may hurt Zimmerman's ability to claim that he was "merely" acting in self defense.
-J
-
Let's look at it from Trayvon's point of view. He's walking to his friend's house, minding his own business. A local homeowner starts following him for no reason. He get's scared and tries to hide. The guy keeps coming for him. He gets close enough that Trayvon feels the need to jump out and defend himself. The guy who's been stalking him for no reason shoots him.
You could easily argue that it's Trayvon who acted in self defense. If a guy broke into my house, I attacked him to defend my family, and he shoots me, he doesn't get to claim self defense. Zimmerman had very shaky reasons to be following the kid, who wasn't doing anything wrong at the time.
-
That's what I'm thinking as well. Even if Trayvon did act in what could be considered a hostile manner, I'm sure it was provoked.
-
That's what I'm thinking as well. Even if Trayvon did act in what could be considered a hostile manner, I'm sure it was provoked.
The conversation heard by the girl on the phone with Travon went as such as Trevon came out of hiding and approached Zimmerman:
Travon: "Do you got a problem?"
Zimmerman: "No"
Travon: "Well you do now.."
That is when she said she heard scuffiling and the phone go dead. That correlates with Zimmermans account, and that is when Travon sucker punched him then jumped on top of him and began to pummle him. That is not being provoked to protect himself, that is acting 'macho' or whatever you want to call it.
-
I'm not so sure about that. Consider that he was residing with his dad's girlfriend. I wouldn't have wanted to lead an unknown stalker home to her house. From his point of view, Zimmerman posed a threat.
-
There is so much hyperbole flung around about this story its pretty disgusting. (Not saying that about this thread, but about the media and discussions all over). I don't really lean one way or the other because its so cloudy. It's like the two parties "defended" themselves from an attacker - trying to find out which one should be considered the attacker is most difficult when the investigation wasn't as in depth as maybe it should have been. Overall - its one giant mess.
-
Don't start nothin', won't be nothin'.
The guy had absolutely no good reason to follow Martin. His paranoia and need to confront the boy started ALL of this. If I was walking though a neighborhood that wasn't mine, I'd probably be looking around at the houses also. From all reports, that's all Martin was doing as he passed through on his way back home. Apparently that was enough for busybody Zimmerman to insert his nosy ass into a situation that didn't exist until he created it. Dude better stay hidden, because I have no doubt that sooner or later, he's going to end up on the wrong end of someone else's gun.
-
That's what I'm thinking as well. Even if Trayvon did act in what could be considered a hostile manner, I'm sure it was provoked.
The conversation heard by the girl on the phone with Travon went as such as Trevon came out of hiding and approached Zimmerman:
Travon: "Do you got a problem?"
Zimmerman: "No"
Travon: "Well you do now.."
That is when she said she heard scuffiling and the phone go dead. That correlates with Zimmermans account, and that is when Travon sucker punched him then jumped on top of him and began to pummle him. That is not being provoked to protect himself, that is acting 'macho' or whatever you want to call it.
But what wasn't heard on the phone may have been the kid being followed for who knows how long and in what way.
-
the investigation wasn't as in depth as maybe it should have been.
This is the real danger of the law in FL. It causes police not to investigate as thoroughly as they should have. Why not investigate thoroughly, bringing charges if there's any doubt that it was completely self defense and let a grand jury decide if the evidence is good enough to move forward with a trial?
-
Also, since Martin isn't alive to tell his side of the story, what does anybody *think* Zimmerman's going to say other than "Yeah, he totally attacked me, I didn't do nothin' wrong". He might be a whackjob, but he's not totally stupid.
-
If some of these accounts are correct, it looks like there is fault on BOTH parties. Zimmerman may have started it by following Martin, and he shouldnt have. But that is not reason for a physical altercation. Martin should not have escalated it, if he did, to a physical altercation. There is no clear account of the incident, so it is speculation, but....
If Martin felt threatened, he had the opportunity to flee, or threaten to call the police, or yell for help. Escalating the incident to a physical one is an act of aggression. If the above dialogue is correct, he has no claim of self defense. Zimmerman put himself in the situation, but if someone physically attacks you, then self defense is justified. The above dialogue, again IF true, makes me think there is fault on both parties, but shows Martin as an aggressor that doesnt appear very threatened.
JMO
EDIT...but seriosly, just think about this for one moment.
-If you are walking home, and someone is following you, what do you do? First, I keep on walking until I am somewhere public, or at my home where I can find shelter and protection.
-Run. Seriously....RUN.
-Yell loudly for help.
-Use the cell phone in your fucking pocket and call the police. And yell loudly that you are calling the police.
If YOU are feeling threatened by someone that may be following you, do YOU turn around and ask them if, "they have a problem"?....and when they answer no, you respond, "well now you do"??????? Then get in a physical altercation?
I sure as fuck dont respond that way. To me that is a reaction of bravado, and for sure someone that is NOT threatened. IF that dialogue is true, the kid sure as shit at a minimum shares blame for his own death.
-
makes me think there is fault on both parties, but shows Martin as an aggressor that doesnt appear very threatened.
JMO
If I'm a black kid in a crime watch neighborhood, and some loon is profiling me while following my every move, I am going to feel very threatened.
-
Being followed by a guy with a gun is threatening.
-
Being followed by a guy with a gun is threatening.
makes me think there is fault on both parties, but shows Martin as an aggressor that doesnt appear very threatened.
JMO
If I'm a black kid in a crime watch neighborhood, and some loon is profiling me while following my every move, I am going to feel very threatened.
Then RUN.
Or yell for help.
Or call the police.
How insane is it to confront your follower (especially if you see he has a gun), in an aggressive manner, and instigate a physical incident?
Im sorry, but that does not sound one bit like a reaction of someone who is threatened.
-
Depends on. Maybe he was sick and tired of being "traced" in his own neighborhood by those watchdogs. I highly doubt Zimmermann was the first and only person to follow a black kid "out of his zone" with a shotgun in his hand. If that happens to you everyday, at some point you will probably start pushing back.
rumborak
-
Being followed by a guy with a gun is threatening.
makes me think there is fault on both parties, but shows Martin as an aggressor that doesnt appear very threatened.
JMO
If I'm a black kid in a crime watch neighborhood, and some loon is profiling me while following my every move, I am going to feel very threatened.
Then RUN.
Or yell for help.
Or call the police.
How insane is it to confront your follower (especially if you see he has a gun), in an aggressive manner, and instigate a physical incident?
Im sorry, but that does not sound one bit like a reaction of someone who is threatened.
I doubt he knew he had a gun. No one with a functioning brain would charge to run at someone knowing it is possible that they will be shot. He could have ran away, been chased and tackled, and then had the shit beaten out of him. If he thought he was going to be attacked regardless, his best bet was to throw the first punch.
-
Run? A black kid running away from a white guy is just automatically "guilty". At that point, the guy gets the police, the kid is arrested no question.
Yell for help? To whom? The other white guys with guns?
Call the police? "Hey, I'm a black kid with a hoodie and a white guy is following me". The police would hang up.
You assume there is no racism in the system anymore.
-
People are known to sometimes act differently than one would expect when under duress or facing the possibility of harm. It's easy for us to say what he should have done. We weren't the ones being tailed by a self-appointed neighborhood watchman gun nut who had a history of calling the police for anything and everything and who was described by neighbors as "fixated on crime and focused on young, black males".
-
The real problem was that a man with very questionable mental health owned a gun.
rumborak
-
Call the police? "Hey, I'm a black kid with a hoodie and a white guy is following me". The police would hang up break the world land speed record coming to his aid.
-
If he thought he was going to be attacked regardless, his best bet was to throw the first punch.
Obviously not. That is NEVER the best option. He didnt even know he would be chased. Run first. If chased, then MAYBE attack.
Attacking first makes absolutely ZERO sense if there is an option to get away. And I doubt that Zimmerman would catch Martin in a race. Not only that, if you want to attack first, you do it to gain an advantage of surprise, right? How is saying, "now you got a problem" basically announcing your intent helping?
Sorry, I dont buy it for a minute. Not saying Zimmerman doesnt have fault....just that Martin not only had other options, but actually chose a course of action that escalated the situation, and contributed to his own death. JMO from sketchy details.
-
The real problem was that a man with very questionable mental health owned a gun.
rumborak
And that said questionable mental health gun owner though there was any good reason to follow a black kid who was doing nothing wrong, creating a situation that wouldn't have existed otherwise.
-
If he thought he was going to be attacked regardless, his best bet was to throw the first punch.
Obviously not. That is NEVER the best option. He didnt even know he would be chased. Run first. If chased, then MAYBE attack.
Attacking first makes absolutely ZERO sense if there is an option to get away. And I doubt that Zimmerman would catch Martin in a race. Not only that, if you want to attack first, you do it to gain an advantage of surprise, right? How is saying, "now you got a problem" basically announcing your intent helping?
Sorry, I dont buy it for a minute. Not saying Zimmerman doesnt have fault....just that Martin not only had other options, but actually chose a course of action that escalated the situation, and contributed to his own death. JMO from sketchy details.
Again, you're assuming this was an out-of-the-ordinary occurrence. Martin will have been tracked many times before on his way home I would think. At some point you push back, gun or no gun.
rumborak
-
Assuming it is an ordinary occurence would make me think he had even more ability to react in a rational manner than if it were an unusual occurence. If it were unusual, your reaction would be more likely to be instinctual. If it were an ordinary occurence, it shows even more that the kid knew what he was doing by escalating the physical aspect of the encounter.
Dont get me wrong here, as I DO NOT think what Zimmerman did was OK. This doesnt happen without Zimmerman starting it, but I also dont think it ends in a kid being killed if Martin doesnt act tough and confront physically (IF that is what happened.)
I see fault in both.
-
I brought this up in the chat thread already and it was kind of glossed over, but I still don't understand how a man with a gun shooting an unarmed man is an act of self defense. Even if Martin was kicking his ass, which it sounds like he was. Barto mentioned in the chat thread when I brought this up that people get beaten to death all the time, but I just don't see how that would have been a realistic possibility in this scenario. Multiple guys jumping one guy, a much larger person attacking a much smaller person or a man attacking a woman in an attempted rape situation then sure. But two grown men, one on one, and the guy who instigated the confrontation suddenly thinks he's going to get beaten to death unless he shoots the other guy? I would assume that if Zimmerman is the type of guy who takes it upon himself to be an armed neighborhood watch patrolman and felt confident enough to attempt to confront somebody he felt was "acting suspicious" in his neighborhood then he would be the type of man who felt that he could defend himself against another man in a fistfight.
But anyway, here's the situation as I see it in it's most basic form. Two men were in an altercation on the street. One of the men was armed with a gun, the other was unarmed. The armed man shot and killed the unarmed man. Zimmerman was not a cop, and Martin was not a suspect in some crime. Martin was not invading Zimmerman's home. Don't advocates of gun ownership for self defense often say "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6?" If police arrived on a scene where one civilian is dead on the street and another civilian is holding a gun, wouldn't they arrest the guy with the gun? Get him in a courtroom, have him judged by 12, and if he can't be proven guilty of any wrongdoing then that's that. I don't think that's too much to expect, and I think most people's outrage over this situation is that that hasn't happened.
-
The real problem was that a man with very questionable mental health owned a gun.
rumborak
I was getting worried rumborak, usually you throw that comment in any gun related thread early on. :biggrin:
What is 'questionable mental health'? I own several guns and have had speeding tickets, I called the police on a girlfriend once in my early 20's for what could be considered a 'domestic disturbance'..we were both drunk. I've smoked enough weed (not in the past 6 years) and drank enough liquor (not for 3 years) to have said and made MULTIPLE horrible decisions and say MULTIPLE horrible things to many people.
What defines 'questionable mental health?' I now carry a loaded .45 caliber handgun EVERYWHERE I go due to the insanity that our culture has reached with 'knock out' games and the not so random psycho who decides because his/her life sucks they are going to try and F up everyone elses.
Just as much as you are anti gun, I am pro.....so just how do you decide who's right to bear arms is taken away? FBI background checks are ran on EVERY person who LEGALLY buys a weapon, to get a Conceal Carry there are multiple classes and training sessions. People who acquire their CCW and legally buy weapons are a VERY small percentage of the people who pose a real threat to society.
-
People can get killed, paralyzed, and seriously hurt in simple, one on one fist fights. It happens...I saw it happen once.
-
Multiple guys jumping one guy, a much larger person attacking a much smaller person
Martin: 6'-3" High School Football Player
Zimmerman: 5'-9
Assuming the information provided by witnesses, Zimmerman and then corroborated by police and Doctors due to injuries sustained. Zimmerman was sucker punched and sustained a broken nose which knocked him to the ground. Anyone who's been nailed in the nose understands how disorientating that is. Then Marting is on top of him ramming the back of Martins head into the concrete over and over and over.
The classes I've taken warn of your gun being used against you. Did Zimmerman put himself in that situation by following Martin? Yes. Did Martin put himself in the situation of ultimately getting shot by beating Martin? Yes. It's a horrible situation.
I look at it as horrible as it sounds, judging from reading Martins 'tweets', his apparent desire to live some 'tough' life and the fact that he's a teenaged boy who's hormones are all jacked up as any guy could tell you.....Martin was trying to be tough with Zimmerman and maybe to some extent may have been in his 'right' to do so. But once he began to pummel a smaller man and that man felt his life was threatened...which it WAS....that man had every 'right' as given to him by his State as well to take the action he too.
-
There was a recent news story about a middle school girl who was killed in a basic schoolyard fight. Only two small girls. All it takes is a good blow to the noggin, be it from a fist or the concrete after going down.
And I see no reason to question Zimmerman's mental well-being. He wasn't "on patrol," either. I believe he was going to the store or something, and noticed what he deemed to be a suspicious person. I think he fucked up by escalating the situation, but not by shooting the kid once the altercation turned hostile.
-
Sounds like Zimmerman's got a pretty good case for his defense in a court of law then, yeah?
-
I don't think this character assassination stuff should factor in here. Most teenagers do dumb shit on the internet nowadays anyway.
-
There was a recent news story about a middle school girl who was killed in a basic schoolyard fight. Only two small girls. All it takes is a good blow to the noggin, be it from a fist or the concrete after going down.
I'm not sure if it has become an issue around the country, but this friggin' 'knock out game' has become pretty popular amongst the kiddos here in StL. The basic premise is a group of kids ambushes' someone/or a couple people and just begins to try and 'knock them out'.
There has been one case where the guy died, they did that move from 'American History X' on him where they put his head on a curb (after he was unconcious) and them stomped it....just recently a group of kids pummled a homeless man....it was witnessed and they were taken to court but then the witness 'decided' not to testify so they all walked free.....and as they did they laughed at the guy and stll harass him about it to this day.
There have been many times, as sad as it is, that when I am walking with my wife and 3 young boys at the park, zoo, mall...anywhere, when we walk past or through a little gaggle of teenage kids that my hand subtly clicks off the safety on my .45 and I go on high alert. That is just BS that I even have to have that in my mind...much less that it is a very real possibility that something might happen.
-
(https://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/03/20/en_0320_orr_244x183.jpg)
This is really getting annoying.
(https://www.anunews.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/aa-George-Zimmerman-in-suit-Trayvon-giving-finger.jpg)
-
I prefer this one:
(https://i.imgur.com/fONFl.jpg)
-
(https://www.anunews.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/aa-George-Zimmerman-in-suit-Trayvon-giving-finger.jpg)
Apparently the kid on the right in this picture is a completely different Trayvon Martin.
https://twitchy.com/2012/03/25/why-teamdueprocess-is-important-for-justice/
Recognize these two people? If you don’t, we’ll help you out. The man on the left is George Zimmerman, the man accused of murdering the boy on the right, Trayvon Martin. The mainstream media won’t show you these two photos because they convey a message that no one else wants to take into consideration.
Correction, 8:56 pm ET March 25, 2012: We made a mistake. The photo on the right is not of the Trayvon Martin who was shot by Zimmerman. We apologize to our readers and to the Martin family.
https://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2012/03/trayvon_martin_no_thats_not_hi.php
If you haven't come across the photo to the right, you probably will in the next day or two. Gross racists and assorted other morons are claiming that it's from the Facebook page of Trayvon Martin, the teenager shot and killed by neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman in Sanford, and that somehow that has bearing on the case.
There is no evidence that the photo is of Trayvon Martin, although there is plenty of evidence against it. Even popular right-wing blogger Dan Riehl, who claimed to be among the first to find the Facebook page, admits that it might not be him: "It doesn't appear to be the same Trayvon Martin. But I'm still not sure. It's still linked."
----
But the "Trayvon Martin" the page belongs to lists his school as Myers Middle School. All of his relatives are listed as living in Savannah, Georgia, where there is a Myers Middle School.
The late Martin, who grew up in Miami Gardens, went to Norland Middle and Highland Oaks Middle schools, and more recently attended Dr. Michael M. Krop Senior High School.
Trayvon Martin's real Facebook page is here, complete with photos and information clearly depicting him, and updated before the date of his death.
The bogus page probably belongs either to another Trayvon Martin, or to a kid who renamed his page in tribute.
https://www.facebook.com/people/Trayvon-Slimm-Martin/1353307542?sk=wall
I can't get on the facebook page. Don't know if it's because it's down or I'm not logged in.
-
The point still stands, and it's interesting to me that the people who confuse two similar looking Trayvon Martins are the grossly racist morons, and not the media for portraying them as they do.
-
Using the little kid and orange jumpsuit picture is retarded. Confusing a completely different kid that goes to a different school with the one that died because they share the same name and are both black is retarded. The cops not properly investigating the incident when it happened was retarded. The armchair detective work being done by random bloggers that clearly have no clue what they're talking about is retarded. The people that instantly claim Zimmerman got off because of racism are retarded, and the people that there can't be any racism involved because minorities can't be racist are also retarded. Zimmerman and the kid both acted retarded towards the wrong people and now one of them is dead and even if Zimmerman is found to have been completely in the right he's still going to be fucked because people are retarded. Especially Spike Lee.
-
I heard they're already making this into a movie. Sam Jackson will play Zimmerman, and Paul Dano will play Martin.
-
I heard they're already making this into a movie. Sam Jackson will play Zimmerman, and Paul Dano will play Martin.
:rollin
(https://www.youngmalecelebs.net/galleries/dano/Dano053.jpg)
-
Nice picture of Zbomber
-
Sounds good to me, I am ready to receive an oscar for my performance in what will obviously be the highest grossing film of all time.
-
The classes I've taken warn of your gun being used against you. Did Zimmerman put himself in that situation by following Martin? Yes. Did Martin put himself in the situation of ultimately getting shot by beating Martin? Yes. It's a horrible situation.
I completely disagree with this. There's no way for Martin to know Zimmerman had a gun, so he didn't put himself in that situation. But once you do see a gun, what the fuck are you supposed to think? I'm sorry, but any reasonable person is going to feel threatened, and Martin was a young kid with a lot of testosterone. Zimmerman made this situation when he decided to carry a gun, which makes him responsible for the results. If Zimmerman hadn't had a gun, he probably would've gotten his ass kicked, Martin probably would've ran. Maybe would've gotten arrested (police were already on the way anyways), or there'd have been a search for Martin, and maybe he would've gotten arrested then, or maybe he gets away. Either way, no one's dead. It's Zimmerman's gun, it's Zimmerman's actions which provoked the event, and so it's Zimmerman's responsibility for what happened.
That's the positive evidence on the table. All the other details are pertinent to what kind of punishment Zimmerman should receive, but they are not relevant to his guilt.
-
The classes I've taken warn of your gun being used against you. Did Zimmerman put himself in that situation by following Martin? Yes. Did Martin put himself in the situation of ultimately getting shot by beating Martin? Yes. It's a horrible situation.
I completely disagree with this. There's no way for Martin to know Zimmerman had a gun, so he didn't put himself in that situation. But once you do see a gun, what the fuck are you supposed to think? I'm sorry, but any reasonable person is going to feel threatened, and Martin was a young kid with a lot of testosterone. Zimmerman made this situation when he decided to carry a gun, which makes him responsible for the results. If Zimmerman hadn't had a gun, he probably would've gotten his ass kicked, Martin probably would've ran. Maybe would've gotten arrested (police were already on the way anyways), or there'd have been a search for Martin, and maybe he would've gotten arrested then, or maybe he gets away. Either way, no one's dead. It's Martin's gun, it's Martin's actions which provoked the event, and so it's Martin's responsibility for what happened.
That's the positive evidence on the table. All the other details are pertinent to what kind of punishment Zimmerman should receive, but they are not relevant to his guilt.
I think you mixed up the names a bit near the end. Either that or you lost me.
-
The classes I've taken warn of your gun being used against you. Did Zimmerman put himself in that situation by following Martin? Yes. Did Martin put himself in the situation of ultimately getting shot by beating Martin? Yes. It's a horrible situation.
I completely disagree with this. There's no way for Martin to know Zimmerman had a gun, so he didn't put himself in that situation. But once you do see a gun, what the fuck are you supposed to think? I'm sorry, but any reasonable person is going to feel threatened, and Martin was a young kid with a lot of testosterone. Zimmerman made this situation when he decided to carry a gun, which makes him responsible for the results. If Zimmerman hadn't had a gun, he probably would've gotten his ass kicked, Martin probably would've ran. Maybe would've gotten arrested (police were already on the way anyways), or there'd have been a search for Martin, and maybe he would've gotten arrested then, or maybe he gets away. Either way, no one's dead. It's Martin's gun, it's Martin's actions which provoked the event, and so it's Martin's responsibility for what happened.
That's the positive evidence on the table. All the other details are pertinent to what kind of punishment Zimmerman should receive, but they are not relevant to his guilt.
I think you mixed up the names a bit near the end. Either that or you lost me.
D'oh!
-
The classes I've taken warn of your gun being used against you. Did Zimmerman put himself in that situation by following Martin? Yes. Did Martin put himself in the situation of ultimately getting shot by beating Martin? Yes. It's a horrible situation.
I completely disagree with this. There's no way for Martin to know Zimmerman had a gun, so he didn't put himself in that situation. But once you do see a gun, what the fuck are you supposed to think? I'm sorry, but any reasonable person is going to feel threatened, and Martin was a young kid with a lot of testosterone. Zimmerman made this situation when he decided to carry a gun, which makes him responsible for the results. If Zimmerman hadn't had a gun, he probably would've gotten his ass kicked, Martin probably would've ran. Maybe would've gotten arrested (police were already on the way anyways), or there'd have been a search for Martin, and maybe he would've gotten arrested then, or maybe he gets away. Either way, no one's dead. It's Zimmerman's gun, it's Zimmerman's actions which provoked the event, and so it's Zimmerman's responsibility for what happened.
That's the positive evidence on the table. All the other details are pertinent to what kind of punishment Zimmerman should receive, but they are not relevant to his guilt.
This is where you and I part company. Zimmerman made the situation when he gave chase; not by carrying the weapon. Beyond that, I don't have much of a problem with his possession or use of a weapon.
-
The classes I've taken warn of your gun being used against you. Did Zimmerman put himself in that situation by following Martin? Yes. Did Martin put himself in the situation of ultimately getting shot by beating Martin? Yes. It's a horrible situation.
I completely disagree with this. There's no way for Martin to know Zimmerman had a gun, so he didn't put himself in that situation. But once you do see a gun, what the fuck are you supposed to think? I'm sorry, but any reasonable person is going to feel threatened, and Martin was a young kid with a lot of testosterone. Zimmerman made this situation when he decided to carry a gun, which makes him responsible for the results. If Zimmerman hadn't had a gun, he probably would've gotten his ass kicked, Martin probably would've ran. Maybe would've gotten arrested (police were already on the way anyways), or there'd have been a search for Martin, and maybe he would've gotten arrested then, or maybe he gets away. Either way, no one's dead. It's Zimmerman's gun, it's Zimmerman's actions which provoked the event, and so it's Zimmerman's responsibility for what happened.
That's the positive evidence on the table. All the other details are pertinent to what kind of punishment Zimmerman should receive, but they are not relevant to his guilt.
This is where you and I part company. Zimmerman made the situation when he gave chase; not by carrying the weapon. Beyond that, I don't have much of a problem with his possession or use of a weapon.
Agreed.
But eric is correct about Martin's reaction to being followed (the details of which are unclear) putting him at least partly at fault if he indeed chose to confront Zimmerman. Can't believe people are trying to argue otherwise.
-J
-
The classes I've taken warn of your gun being used against you. Did Zimmerman put himself in that situation by following Martin? Yes. Did Martin put himself in the situation of ultimately getting shot by beating Martin? Yes. It's a horrible situation.
I completely disagree with this. There's no way for Martin to know Zimmerman had a gun, so he didn't put himself in that situation. But once you do see a gun, what the fuck are you supposed to think? I'm sorry, but any reasonable person is going to feel threatened, and Martin was a young kid with a lot of testosterone. Zimmerman made this situation when he decided to carry a gun, which makes him responsible for the results. If Zimmerman hadn't had a gun, he probably would've gotten his ass kicked, Martin probably would've ran. Maybe would've gotten arrested (police were already on the way anyways), or there'd have been a search for Martin, and maybe he would've gotten arrested then, or maybe he gets away. Either way, no one's dead. It's Zimmerman's gun, it's Zimmerman's actions which provoked the event, and so it's Zimmerman's responsibility for what happened.
That's the positive evidence on the table. All the other details are pertinent to what kind of punishment Zimmerman should receive, but they are not relevant to his guilt.
This is where you and I part company. Zimmerman made the situation when he gave chase; not by carrying the weapon. Beyond that, I don't have much of a problem with his possession or use of a weapon.
Oh, I don't think it makes him a murderer, but his actions and his decisions lead to what happened, in every way. It's one of those possibilities you invite, when you carry a loaded weapon. And I wouldn't say I have a problem with him having the weapon, just that the gun, and what happens to it, is Zimmerman's responsibility.
-
Simply having the gun does not put all the responsibility on Zimmerman. That is silly. Given the limited info we have, it is clear that the actions of BOTH parties caused this to happen. It doesnt get this far without BOTH parties doing very stupid things.
-
Simply having the gun does not put all the responsibility on Zimmerman. That is silly. Given the limited info we have, it is clear that the actions of BOTH parties caused this to happen. It doesnt get this far without BOTH parties doing very stupid things.
Again, I ask you, what would have happened had there been no gun? It's a simple fact that Zimmerman had the gun on him, and it's reasonable to conclude what would have happened had there not been a gun (Zimmerman said he didn't feel threatened until Trayvon went for the gun, which he probably went for becuase he felt threatened).
So again, Zimmerman put himself in the position, himself, whereby he felt threatened, and enough to defend himself. Trayvon did not force that situation, he responded. Was he a player in the course of events? Of course. But he is not the responsible party, and no matter how you try and fashion it, he is not the responsible party.
But eric is correct about Martin's reaction to being followed (the details of which are unclear) putting him at least partly at fault if he indeed chose to confront Zimmerman. Can't believe people are trying to argue otherwise.
-J
And I can't believe you're actually interpreting my argument as that. Trayvon guilty of being young, feeling threatened, being black (Adami's post), and being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Zimmerman instigated the situation, and brought all the elements to the scene that ended up with the young mans deaths. Trayvon may have made some bad decisions, but those come after Zimmermans, and so become more justified.
Let me put it this way, Zimmerman is more responsible than Trayvon, and while Zimmerman can make a claim of self-defense that isn't absurd, Trayvon has a better claim to self-defense. Seeing as how two people cannot both be committing self-defense, that makes Zimmerman the loser out by default. To try and make this case shared and equal responsibility is absurd.
-
Again, I ask you, what would have happened had there been no gun?
Zimmerman would have gotten beaten to an unknown degree, which could easily reach the point of brain damage. As I've said, he's under no obligation to wait and see to what extent another intends to harm him.
And I feel compelled to point out that while I can certainly see how Trayvon would have felt threatened by someone following him, I can also recognize that Zimmerman had every right as a citizen on public streets to follow him. That shouldn't automatically result in a beat down.
Let me put it this way, Zimmerman is more responsible than Trayvon, and while Zimmerman can make a claim of self-defense that isn't absurd, Trayvon has a better claim to self-defense. Seeing as how two people cannot both be committing self-defense, that makes Zimmerman the loser out by default. To try and make this case shared and equal responsibility is absurd.
This is an intriguing point. I'll give it further consideration. I'll also point out that the premise is already flawed, in that both parties can commit acts of self defense if either or both of them are mistaken in their interpretations, which appears to be a distinct possibility here.
-
Zimmerman followed Martin, Martin hid....Zimmerman lost sight of him and turned around to go back to his vehicle. He wasn't pursuing Martin after that. Martin then approached and confronted Zimmerman....sucker punched and began to pummel him.
Like El Barto mentioned, those of us who carry a concealed weapon are aware that there is the possibilty that very weapon may be used against us. It is not Zimmermans 'fault' that Martin chose to go for the gun....had Martin chose to stay hidden and not be a macho about the situation he'd probably still be alive. But the fact is he did choose to engage Zimmerman...sucker punch him and then beging to beat the crap out of him. Zimmerman was well within his rights to protect his life....he doesn't know if Martin has a gun as well, a knife....
Saying Martin has a 'better claim to self defense' is just silly to me. Self defense after initiating the physical confrontation? Zimmerman had ended any attempt he was making to 'find' Martin due to Martin hiding and Zimmerman not being able to see him. Once Martin re-established that contact in the manner he did...whatever you may believe if Zimmerman should have been following him or not....that exchange is over and done with. The new contact was initiated by Martin...then Martin engages Zimmerman in a severe beating. Martin gets shot out of self defense.
I find it intriguing that something like this can be seen in two completely different lights.....and find it relieving for Zimmerman that Floridas' law will protect him because he's going to need it now that there is a witch trial going on in the press.
-
And now we come to where you and I part company. :lol
For one thing, I'm not as certain of the actual sequence of events as you seem to be. You've suggested what would be nearly a perfect scenario for Zimmerman's defense, and while it's certainly possible that it unfolded that way, it's just as possible that it's GZ's embellished testimony. As the saying goes, there are three sides to every story.
Furthermore, as I pointed out yesterday, I see no reason why Trayvon couldn't act offensively and in self defense. Consider the situation had you been in Trayvon's shoes. Would you have let an unknown stalker follow you all the way to your house? I suspect that being well armed, you would have confronted him to find out WTF before showing him the way to your family.
Also, any state's law would have defended Zimmerman under reasonable circumstances. Contrary to what the NRA would like us to believe, the prisons aren't full of people who exercised their right to self defense in liberal states. What the new Florida law does is to defend shooters under any circumstances, reasonable or otherwise. I have a problem with that.
So I guess where the lines are drawn is that Scheavo puts this mostly on Zimmerman, and I think he's largely correct. GMD dumps this squarely onto Trayvon, and I mostly agree with him as well. Yet in toto, I think you're both wrong. :lol
-
And now we come to where you and I part company. :lol
For one thing, I'm not as certain of the actual sequence of events as you seem to be. You've suggested what would be nearly a perfect scenario for Zimmerman's defense, and while it's certainly possible that it unfolded that way, it's just as possible that it's GZ's embellished testimony. As the saying goes, there are three sides to every story.
Furthermore, as I pointed out yesterday, I see no reason why Trayvon couldn't act offensively and in self defense. Consider the situation had you been in Trayvon's shoes. Would you have let an unknown stalker follow you all the way to your house? I suspect that being well armed, you would have confronted him to find out WTF before showing him the way to your family.
Also, any state's law would have defended Zimmerman under reasonable circumstances. Contrary to what the NRA would like us to believe, the prisons aren't full of people who exercised their right to self defense in liberal states. What the new Florida law does is to defend shooters under any circumstances, reasonable or otherwise. I have a problem with that.
So I guess where the lines are drawn is that Scheavo puts this mostly on Zimmerman, and I think he's largely correct. GMD dumps this squarely onto Trayvon, and I mostly agree with him as well. Yet in toto, I think you're both wrong. :lol
I base the scenario I've stated on what Zimmerman said, what mulitple witnesses have said and what the police have corroborated. We will never know for sure. I base a lot of my 'certainty' on the fact I believe Martin was a 'thug'...from reading his twitter account down to what he is on recording saying...'well you have a problem now'...then commotion and the subsequent beating. Zimmerman had multiple injuries that match his account to the tee....Martin unfortunately had one injury...a fatal shot.
There may be some 'middle ground' there that will never be known. But I know that the last thing people with a CCW liscense wants to do is shoot someone...for the reasons that is happening to Zimmerman at the moment. CCW liscense holders understand the bullseye that will be on them if they are involved in a shooting. That is why I tend to side with them, because I don't thing it is something Zimmerman set out to do.....he shouldn't be condemned for merely having a weapon.
I do 'judge' Martin a bit more in this case just by what I've learned about him and his 'lifestyle'.....I think he was a young man who like many young men his age thought he was tough and macho and made a poor decision.... a decision that not only ended his life but ruined the life of another man.
-
Most of us aren't condemning him for carrying a weapon; I've got no problem with that. Some of us are condemning him for being the prime mover in an situation that left a person dead. From any perspective, it all began with him.
-
Most of us aren't condemning him for carrying a weapon; I've got no problem with that. Some of us are condemning him for being the prime mover in an situation that left a person dead. From any perspective, it all began with him.
Let's say I get awoke tonight at 3 am. I look out my 2nd story window and see a person on my deck below. I have the wife call 911 then as she is on the phone I go over to my safe, get out my .45 and head downstairs. I get down there and my door has been jimmy'd open but no one is there. I walk over to the open door stick my head out and notice a man crouched behind my BBQ grill. Boom...Boom....a double tap center mass.....he's dead. Am I at fault?
I was not going to wait for police to show up whenever they could or wanted to. I was not going to wait for someone to enter my home and possibly harm/kill/rape my wife and kids. When I saw him on my porch I am not going to wait and talk to him and see if he's a nice guy or wait for him to pull out his gun to shoot me.
I understand that 'it all began' with Zimmerman because he chose to follow Martin, but how is investigating a suspicious suspect in a gated community that has had a recent string of burglaries doing something wrong? I just don't see it. If the mistake he made was not waiting in the car, I can understand his point why he didn't. If he was the 'captain' of that neighborhood watch it stands to reason that he knew the majority of his community. Putting myself in his shoes...I'd have been thinking that there is no way I'm waiting around for the police when one of my friends houses could be being robbed at that moment.
If anything it is sad that a 6'-3" tall black man in a hoodie is automatically considered suspicious...but we've all been conditioned to 'think' that. If your honest you know what I mean when I say that.
I guess unless or until some sort of major bombshell evidence comes to light against Zimmerman other than 5,6 8 year old accusations and the fact that he had a speeding ticket once....until/unless something drastic is uncovered....there is no way any charges should be brought against Zimmerman. If there are it is plain and simple buckling to the undeserved pressure of this media ridiculousness.
-
I just watched police surveilance video on a news site of Zimmerman after he was taken into custody. Some of you folks may want to view the video. No apparent injuries can be seen ect. ect...
https://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-video-shows-no-blood-bruises-george-194108003--abc-news-topstories.html
-
https://rollingout.com/culture/george-zimmerman-son-of-a-retired-judge-has-3-closed-arrests/
Make of this what you will. His father is a county judge. According to a records search on George, he was previously arrested for domestic violence, resisting an officer without violence and most shockingly, resisting an officer with violence — a felony charge that surely could have landed him in prison.
edit: Oops, didn't see this: Note: It has been brought to our attention that George Zimmerman has been arrested one time, not three, and that the charges against him were dropped after he completed a pre-trial diversion program. The additional two charges stem from the same incident on the same date.
Carry on.
-
I just watched police surveilance video on a news site of Zimmerman after he was taken into custody. Some of you folks may want to view the video. No apparent injuries can be seen ect. ect...
https://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-video-shows-no-blood-bruises-george-194108003--abc-news-topstories.html
From the accompanying article:
The initial police report noted that Zimmerman was bleeding from the back of the head and nose, and after medical attention it was decided that he was in good enough condition to travel in a police cruiser to the Sanford, Fla., police station for questioning.
I would think that the 'medical attention' he recieved would have also consisted of cleaning up any wounds. Who knows....really.
-
Most of us aren't condemning him for carrying a weapon; I've got no problem with that. Some of us are condemning him for being the prime mover in an situation that left a person dead. From any perspective, it all began with him.
Let's say I get awoke tonight at 3 am. I look out my 2nd story window and see a person on my deck below. I have the wife call 911 then as she is on the phone I go over to my safe, get out my .45 and head downstairs. I get down there and my door has been jimmy'd open but no one is there. I walk over to the open door stick my head out and notice a man crouched behind my BBQ grill. Boom...Boom....a double tap center mass.....he's dead. Am I at fault?
If he's hiding/crouched behind your grill, is it really the right move to shoot first? What about warning him to turn around, telling him the police are on their way, or threaten him with death if he comes any closer or tries to pull something? You see him pull a weapon, fire away, fair enough. No arguments from me there, I think you have the right to defend yourself. But it just takes a little bit of grace under pressure to make the better choice and play the part of the better man if you can.
I think my problem with this, no matter who's sequence of events we believe, is twofold. 1. That a big black kid in a hoodie is automatically considered suspicious, and 2. That in FL its apparently totally acceptable to shoot someone first, ask questions later, and not even be brought to a court to defend your case unlike pretty much every other state, from what I understand.
-
Most of us aren't condemning him for carrying a weapon; I've got no problem with that. Some of us are condemning him for being the prime mover in an situation that left a person dead. From any perspective, it all began with him.
Let's say I get awoke tonight at 3 am. I look out my 2nd story window and see a person on my deck below. I have the wife call 911 then as she is on the phone I go over to my safe, get out my .45 and head downstairs. I get down there and my door has been jimmy'd open but no one is there. I walk over to the open door stick my head out and notice a man crouched behind my BBQ grill. Boom...Boom....a double tap center mass.....he's dead. Am I at fault?
If he's hiding/crouched behind your grill, is it really the right move to shoot first? What about warning him to turn around, telling him the police are on their way, or threaten him with death if he comes any closer or tries to pull something? You see him pull a weapon, fire away, fair enough. No arguments from me there, I think you have the right to defend yourself. But it just takes a little bit of grace under pressure to make the better choice and play the part of the better man if you can.
I think my problem with this, no matter who's sequence of events we believe, is twofold. 1. That a big black kid in a hoodie is automatically considered suspicious, and 2. That in FL its apparently totally acceptable to shoot someone first, ask questions later, and not even be brought to a court to defend your case unlike pretty much every other state, from what I understand.
I think that is a fair point you make....and one that I should have included. I don't think I would just see a shadowy body and fire. You should always identify your target or in this case...person. I would be very cautious to make sure he/she knew that any intimidating move would force me to fire. I honestly hope I'm never face with any situation like that or one where I'd think I'd have to shoot at someone. That'd be horrible, and I'm certain it'd eat me up. But I'm also certain I will do what it takes to protect my wife and kids.
I think it sucks like you said that a big black kid in a hoodie...at night especially...is considered suspicious. Like you mentioned...that Florida law must have some pretty loose wording. I know that even here in Missouri which is pretty 'gun' friendly concerning the conceal carry laws and Castle Doctrine...you still can and will be held accountable and have to prove your case.
-
I just watched police surveilance video on a news site of Zimmerman after he was taken into custody. Some of you folks may want to view the video. No apparent injuries can be seen ect. ect...
https://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-video-shows-no-blood-bruises-george-194108003--abc-news-topstories.html
From the accompanying article:
The initial police report noted that Zimmerman was bleeding from the back of the head and nose, and after medical attention it was decided that he was in good enough condition to travel in a police cruiser to the Sanford, Fla., police station for questioning.
I would think that the 'medical attention' he recieved would have also consisted of cleaning up any wounds. Who knows....really.
I understand that we're not looking at high quality video but, I think that any wounds of that severity would have shown somewhat in the video. He looked rather healthy to me. Clean clothes ect. ect...
-
I understand that 'it all began' with Zimmerman because he chose to follow Martin, but how is investigating a suspicious suspect in a gated community that has had a recent string of burglaries doing something wrong?
Because the only thing "suspicious" about him was that he was black, and wearing a hoodie. Zimmerman tells us that himself, in the 9/11 tapes. It's nothing like someone being on your property.
From any perspective, it all began with him.
And really, that's my point.
-
But eric is correct about Martin's reaction to being followed (the details of which are unclear) putting him at least partly at fault if he indeed chose to confront Zimmerman. Can't believe people are trying to argue otherwise.
-J
And I can't believe you're actually interpreting my argument as that.
Don't think it was your post that I was referring to, but regardless, you're somehow reaching the other extreme...
Trayvon guilty of being young, feeling threatened, being black (Adami's post), and being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
...the assumption that Martin was innocent of any wrongdoing. Some sources report that he is the one who escalated the situation to violence. If that were the case, would you really deny that he bears any responsibility whatsoever for what transpired afterward, even though Zimmerman had been following him? Whatever went down that night, I wouldn't presume to say that there was "shared and equal responsibility," just that it's almost certain that each party has a degree of responsibility for the situation's tragic outcome.
Yours and GMD's accounts demonstrate two views that seem very sure of the details of the incident, but that differ drastically in content and come to opposite conclusions. That alone says to me that there is simply nowhere near enough information (or perhaps an abundance of suspect information) to be making these judgment calls with any kind of certainty. But understandably, our instinct is to side with the unarmed kid who lost his life, even though it's often not that cut and dry.
Trayvon may have made some bad decisions, but those come after Zimmermans, and so become more justified.
I don't know why this is necessarily true?
I was in plenty of situations when I was a young impulsive teenager where I felt I was in danger, in a bad place at a bad time, and felt "threatened." But if your instinct is to react in those situations by instigating violence, something's wrong.
I'll say this though: I find it pretty damn hard to believe that Martin was able to beat Zimmerman to the degree Zimmerman reported. GMD keeps bringing up that Martin was 6'3" versus Zimmerman's 5'9". Zimmerman outweighed the kid by over 100 fucking pounds. Not that that says anything definitively by itself, but it's tough to imagine a 250-lb man being helpless and unable to throw a lanky 140-lb featherweight (who just took him to the ground by the way) off of him when he's fighting for his life.
Let me put it this way, Zimmerman is more responsible than Trayvon, and while Zimmerman can make a claim of self-defense that isn't absurd, Trayvon has a better claim to self-defense.
If Martin initiated the actual altercation, I don't know that he actually has a better claim to self-defense. But I don't know whether or not that is true. And I don't know shit about the pertinent laws in Florida. I don't know what I'm typing right now. I don't know anything.
Another thing that I don't think has been discussed much in this thread: in spite of my distaste for the inevitable and vacuous automatic assumption of underlying racism which accompanies any crime like this in the U.S. when the victim is black and the perp is not, the Sanford cops' handling of this whole thing seems to be very suspiciously favoring Zimmerman at best, and overtly racist at worst. Particularly disturbing are the witnesses that report the police trying to get them to modify their testimonies to fit Zimmerman's account.
-J
-
lol
https://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/28/justice/florida-teen-spike-lee/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
-
What an idiot.
-
the Sanford cops' handling of this whole thing seems to be very suspiciously favoring Zimmerman at best, and overtly racist at worst. Particularly disturbing are the witnesses that report the police trying to get them to modify their testimonies to fit Zimmerman's account.
-J
I was unaware of this aspect of it. Yeah, the cops seemed to have no clue how to conduct a homicide investigation. Telling witnesses what they "really" heard is about as sketchy as it gets.
-
I just watched police surveilance video on a news site of Zimmerman after he was taken into custody. Some of you folks may want to view the video. No apparent injuries can be seen ect. ect...
https://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-video-shows-no-blood-bruises-george-194108003--abc-news-topstories.html (https://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-video-shows-no-blood-bruises-george-194108003--abc-news-topstories.html)
I came here to post this. Between this and Zimmerman saying "fucking coons" on the phone when he was talking to the 911 dispatcher who told him they didn't need him to follow Martin, something here doesn't really add up. I mean, if what Zimmerman's lawyer and father are saying on their rationalization tour through the media is true (that he was getting "pummeled with punches" or "bloodied" by Martin ) then where are the injuries? Where's the blood?
The other thing I want to mention is the "Stand Your Ground" law is absurd. You can thank the NRA for that stupidity.
The more I read and hear about this case, the more disturbing it sounds.
-
BUT DID YOU SEE THAT KID'S TWEETS?!
-
Who wouldn't say something a bit racist if someone tried beating your ass?
-
Except this was while he was talking to the 911 dispatcher, before any confrontation took place.
-
Precisely
-
Zimmerman outweighed the kid by over 100 fucking pounds.
I don't think that is true. Friends of his have said he is 40 pounds lighter than he was in most of the pictures they are showing of him in the media. Ya know, the ones showing a heavy Zimmerman (from years ago) and a 12-year old Martin. Martin was supposedly 6'2" and 170 pounds, so it is likely they were about the same weight, with Martin having the height advantage. Just saying...the idea that Martin could have gotten the best of Zimmerman in a fist fight is anything but far-fetched.
-
The police reports say that Martin was 6'3" and 140 lbs and Zimmerman was 5'9" and 250 lbs. Both seem accurate to me based on recent photos of them. Of course they could be in error, but I'm unaware of any other source claiming otherwise.
-J
-
If the guy in the video weighs 250, then he's absolutely pure muscle.
Irreverent in any case. Size isn't often the determining factor in who wins a fight.
-
Size isn't often the determining factor in who wins a fight.
Right, and I said that in my previous post. But weight is a factor, particularly in close quarters as these guys apparently were, and the weight disparity between them was great. I just find it suspicious and unlikely that a 250-lb man was really completely unable to break free from or get a 140-lb kid off of him when his life was supposedly on the line.
-J
-
Trayvon guilty of being young, feeling threatened, being black (Adami's post), and being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
...the assumption that Martin was innocent of any wrongdoing. Some sources report that he is the one who escalated the situation to violence. If that were the case, would you really deny that he bears any responsibility whatsoever for what transpired afterward, even though Zimmerman had been following him? Whatever went down that night, I wouldn't presume to say that there was "shared and equal responsibility," just that it's almost certain that each party has a degree of responsibility for the situation's tragic outcome.
Last time I checked, Zimmerman hasn't been held accountable, at all, for the outcome of these events. Trayvon's dead, so it's a little silly to start talking about what kind of punishment he deserves.
Yours and GMD's accounts demonstrate two views that seem very sure of the details of the incident, but that differ drastically in content and come to opposite conclusions. That alone says to me that there is simply nowhere near enough information (or perhaps an abundance of suspect information) to be making these judgment calls with any kind of certainty. But understandably, our instinct is to side with the unarmed kid who lost his life, even though it's often not that cut and dry.
Actually, GMD's account goes beyond hard evidence of the case. I'm keeping myself to precisely what we know. Zimmerman followed Trayvon - even after Trayvon tried to get away (Zimmerman chasing him, as you can hear on his phone, Trayvons girlfriend reporting the same thing) - had no reason to suspect Trayvon of any crime, and brought a gun into the incident that ended up being used to kill someone. Those are indisputable facts, and further information cannot overturn those facts.
I'll say this though: I find it pretty damn hard to believe that Martin was able to beat Zimmerman to the degree Zimmerman reported. GMD keeps bringing up that Martin was 6'3" versus Zimmerman's 5'9". Zimmerman outweighed the kid by over 100 fucking pounds. Not that that says anything definitively by itself, but it's tough to imagine a 250-lb man being helpless and unable to throw a lanky 140-lb featherweight (who just took him to the ground by the way) off of him when he's fighting for his life.
That's not all, apparently Trayvon had both of his legs ON Zimmerman's arms, pinning him down. AT least, that's what Zimmerman told police, and what the police told Trayvon's father, meaning the accounts as they stand seem odd.
Let me put it this way, Zimmerman is more responsible than Trayvon, and while Zimmerman can make a claim of self-defense that isn't absurd, Trayvon has a better claim to self-defense.
If Martin initiated the actual altercation, I don't know that he actually has a better claim to self-defense. But I don't know whether or not that is true. And I don't know shit about the pertinent laws in Florida. I don't know what I'm typing right now. I don't know anything.
Because he was being followed, and felt threatened. Especially under Florida law, the "stand your ground law," don't you think that his actions are acceptable? I mean fuck, if Zimmerman's hiding behind the law, Trayvon certainly would've been able to.
-
Size isn't often the determining factor in who wins a fight.
Right, and I said that in my previous post. But weight is a factor, particularly in close quarters as these guys apparently were, and the weight disparity between them was great. I just find it suspicious and unlikely that a 250-lb man was really completely unable to break free from or get a 140-lb kid off of him when his life was supposedly on the line.
-J
Thanks so much for saying that J. That's a point I've been trying to make too.
Regardless of size, race, what they were wearing, who threw the first punch or who started what, what it comes down to from what I understand is these guys were fighting in the street. Regardless of who was kicking who's ass, it was a fight. Is it true that under Florida law you can pull out a gun and shoot someone in a street fight like it's the wild west, say you were acting in self defense and that's that? That's pretty crazy/scary to me.
-
Regardless of size, race, what they were wearing, who threw the first punch or who started what, what it comes down to from what I understand is these guys were fighting in the street. Regardless of who was kicking who's ass, it was a fight. Is it true that under Florida law you can pull out a gun and shoot someone in a street fight like it's the wild west, say you were acting in self defense and that's that? That's pretty crazy/scary to me.
A person is under no obligation to get their ass kicked. Period. In many states, a person has the right to use force, including deadly force, to stop an unlawful use of force against them. I have no problem with this.
-
Regardless of size, race, what they were wearing, who threw the first punch or who started what, what it comes down to from what I understand is these guys were fighting in the street. Regardless of who was kicking who's ass, it was a fight. Is it true that under Florida law you can pull out a gun and shoot someone in a street fight like it's the wild west, say you were acting in self defense and that's that? That's pretty crazy/scary to me.
A person is under no obligation to get their ass kicked. Period. In many states, a person has the right to use force, including deadly force, to stop an unlawful use of force against them. I have no problem with this.
Fair enough. I do. If someone is invading your home or property, or even just jumps you on the street for no reason then I'm right there with you. But since this is a situation that one guy instigated by choosing to follow another guy for no reason other than he "looked suspicious," whatever that means, and the other guy escalated in reacting by throwing blows, then I don't see this as being much different from the street brawls I've seen break out in front of bars a million times. The idea that someone is within their rights to pull out a gun in a situation like that and blow the other guy away just seems kind of barbaric to me. If Zimmerman were a cop and/or Martin had so much as a screwdriver to use as a deadly weapon then my whole opinion would change.
-
The only thing that is clear to me, is that both parties made some very bad decisions, all of which led to this tragedy. There were likely so many instances where it could have been diffused and sent on another less lethal path....with just a different action one or both parts. Both parties made active choices that led to a death of one person, and the ruin of another life. Tragic.
There is no 100% right or 100% wrong in this case. It is almost for sure that there is responsibility on both parties for the direction this incident was taken. Too bad that neither the family of the deceased nor Zimmerman likely wont accept that fact.
-
The only thing that is clear to me, is that both parties made some very bad decisions, all of which led to this tragedy. There were likely so many instances where it could have been diffused and sent on another less lethal path....with just a different action one or both parts. Both parties made active choices that led to a death of one person, and the ruin of another life. Tragic.
This. Beyond that, it boggles the mind to see people spouting off about what we "know" and which facts are supposedly "indisputable."
-
Very well said Eric. Basically I just don't think it's unreasonable to expect Zimmerman to have to plead his case in a court of law. I'd want Martin to do the same, if he wasn't, you know, dead.
-
Regardless of size, race, what they were wearing, who threw the first punch or who started what, what it comes down to from what I understand is these guys were fighting in the street. Regardless of who was kicking who's ass, it was a fight. Is it true that under Florida law you can pull out a gun and shoot someone in a street fight like it's the wild west, say you were acting in self defense and that's that? That's pretty crazy/scary to me.
A person is under no obligation to get their ass kicked. Period. In many states, a person has the right to use force, including deadly force, to stop an unlawful use of force against them. I have no problem with this.
Fair enough. I do. If someone is invading your home or property, or even just jumps you on the street for no reason then I'm right there with you. But since this is a situation that one guy instigated by choosing to follow another guy for no reason other than he "looked suspicious," whatever that means, and the other guy escalated in reacting by throwing blows, then I don't see this as being much different from the street brawls I've seen break out in front of bars a million times. The idea that someone is within their rights to pull out a gun in a situation like that and blow the other guy away just seems kind of barbaric to me. If Zimmerman were a cop and/or Martin had so much as a screwdriver to use as a deadly weapon then my whole opinion would change.
You cant escalate any situation to physical violence and not expect the chance that it can then get escalated to deadly force. That is the kicker here. The escalation to PHYSICAL violence. There is a big leap there. Once it escalates to physical harm, it opens a whole big fucking bag of bad shit to happen. And that includes self defense with a gun.
If some one is arguing with you in a bar, that is merely a verbal altercation. If it is MUTUAL combat, then there is no case for pulling a gun and defending yourself. But if one guy then decides to escalate from verbal to go after you and physically harm you, you have a right to defend yourself. That is a threshold that some here are missing. The threshold that is crossed when an incident is raised to physical violence by ONE party against another...not mutually.
You cant escatale a verbal incident to a physical one (not mutually), and not be responsible, at least in part, for the outcome.
-
Sounds like Zimmerman's got a pretty good case for his defense in a court of law then, yeah?
-
Sounds like Zimmerman's got a pretty good case for his defense in a court of law then, yeah?
Hard to say. Even aside from how much we just don't know about what happened, the fact that the media has turned this into a public spectacle and practically declared Zimmerman's guilt doesn't go very far in guaranteeing him a fair trial. If he's guilty, so be it. But it sucks having to go into trial with jurors who may be of the mindframe of, "We already know he's guilty. Now we just have to sit through all these lawyer games to 'hear the facts' before we can move on to finding a way to convict him."
-
Sounds like Zimmerman's got a pretty good case for his defense in a court of law then, yeah?
IF...and a big if, as we really dont know the facts.....IF Martin escalated a verbal altercation to physical violence, with Zimmerman not wanting a physical altercation, especially if Martin had other obvious options, then yes I would say self-defense would be a factor.
-
Sounds like Zimmerman's got a pretty good case for his defense in a court of law then, yeah?
Hard to say. Even aside from how much we just don't know about what happened, the fact that the media has turned this into a public spectacle and practically declared Zimmerman's guilt doesn't go very far in guaranteeing him a fair trial.
Also a very good point Bosk. That's another reason why more than anything else this whole thing is just a giant ball of fuck.
Well enough P/R discussion for me boys, I suck at this anyway. I'm gonna go try and be funny in GD and GMD. Peace!
-
Not that it matters, but I find myself wondering: If Zimmerman hadn't had a gun on him, how likely is it that he'd have had the confidence to get out and try to follow Martin? It seems likely he figured he had the protection of a gun, should something happen. Maybe he STILL would've gone after Martin had he not had a gun, but it just seems a little less likely you'd involve yourself like that, without the piece of mind of knowing you have a gun.
Also, he didn't know if Martin had a gun or not, so it seems even MORE foolhardy to have gone after him. If he thought Martin had a gun, it seems fairly likely that SOMEBODY would pull a gun. If he thought Martin did NOT have a gun, then he'd have felt a certain confidence in following, because his gun would protect him. Either way, seems foolish.
None of this means anything and isn't intended to draw any conclusions, just kinda thinking out loud.
You cant escatale a verbal incident to a physical one (not mutually), and not be responsible, at least in part, for the outcome.
And neither a verbal or physical incident would've happened, had Zimmerman stayed where he was at instead of trying to follow Martin, to keep him from "getting away". Getting away implies wrongdoing, something Zimmerman seemingly had no reason to infer.
-
And neither a verbal or physical incident would've happened, had Zimmerman stayed where he was at instead of trying to follow Martin, to keep him from "getting away". Getting away implies wrongdoing, something Zimmerman seemingly had no reason to infer.
This is what makes me think that people arent thinking logically here. Not a dig at you personally. But you dont even mention the other parties shared responsibility. You cant lump all responsibility on Zimmerman due to the initial mistake. Without Martins actions, it doesnt end this way. It is the actions of BOTH. Not just the inital action.
It would be like this scenario:
A guy behind you on the highway is driving aggressively, weaving in and out of traffic agressively and dangerously, trying to get past you. Honking horn, tailgaiting VERY close, yelling, and flipping you off. You decide to hit the brakes to prove a point so he will back off. Unfortunately he is looking in the next lane and hits you, causing you to lose control and cause an accident where you are hurt, and others are hurt.
It is like you are saying the other driver is totally responsible, because if he wasnt driving aggressively in the first place, none of this would have happened. That is pretty poor reasoning. You made a poor choice in the situation that had the very real consequense of either escalating the other drivers aggressiveness and/or cause an accident. You should have continued to drive in a proper manner. You have shared responsibility.
Assuming "facts" discussed here, it appears that Zimmerman made the "first" bad decision, or desicions. However, it does not make him totally responsible for Martin's bad decisions. If martin chose to escalate this to another physical level, when he may clearly have had other choices, puts clearly a share of responsibility squarely on his shoulders.
Considering what some of the "facts" are, it is difficult for me to see how someone with no bias or emotion can come to any conclusion other thnt both parties having some shared responsibility here.
-
It IS the actions of both, assuming Martin actually started shit, which we don't know for sure. If somehow we manage to find out for certain that Martin started something, I'd certainly agree that he carried some of the fault for what happened. But we don't know that for sure and likely never will.
We do know that Zimmerman followed Martin, seemingly unnecessarily. Sans that, nobody ends up dead.
-
It IS the actions of both, assuming Martin actually started shit, which we don't know for sure. If somehow we manage to find out for certain that Martin started something, I'd certainly agree that he carried some of the fault for what happened. But we don't know that for sure and likely never will.
We do know that Zimmerman followed Martin, seemingly unnecessarily. Sans that, nobody ends up dead.
That is a slippery slope. Did Martin do something that would justify the suspicion of an average Neighborhood Watch Patrol person? We dont know for sure and likely never will. Maybe he looked in a parked car? I have done that before, just to see the interior of a car I am interested in. Im sure it looked suspicious to someone watching. Can we blame him for acting in a suspicious manner as the first mistake....therefore being the cause of the inevitable tragic end? Of course not. Not saying this happened, just making a point.
My point is this: we dont know all the facts, and until you do, you just cant go back to the person who made the first mistake and place all blame there.
-
So if I walk up to a person and punch him in the back of the head, and in return he attacks me, and then I shoot him to death.
I'm not actually the person to blame? He is partially to blame? Really? At that point, what is the purpose of assigning blame? You're just missing the entire point of the situation and breaking it down to "Well..........it's both of their faults really, so it's not really anyone's fault, ice cream anyone?"
-
So if I walk up to a person and punch him in the back of the head, and in return he attacks me, and then I shoot him to death.
I'm not actually the person to blame? He is partially to blame? Really? At that point, what is the purpose of assigning blame? You're just missing the entire point of the situation and breaking it down to "Well..........it's both of their faults really, so it's not really anyone's fault, ice cream anyone?"
Seriously? If that is what you got from this discussion so far, then Im not sure I can reply.
Your analogy, and your interpretation of how "fault" should be determined, is so far off it is difficult to respond.
-
So if I walk up to a person and punch him in the back of the head, and in return he attacks me, and then I shoot him to death.
I'm not actually the person to blame? He is partially to blame? Really? At that point, what is the purpose of assigning blame? You're just missing the entire point of the situation and breaking it down to "Well..........it's both of their faults really, so it's not really anyone's fault, ice cream anyone?"
Seriously? If that is what you got from this discussion so far, then Im not sure I can reply.
Well I added the ice cream part on my own. Figured it would make things nicer.
You've created a very slippery slope. Essentially, under your guys' interpretation of what happened, any white guy can follow around (with a gun) any black guy for any reason. Provoke a fight, kill the kid and then get off. You've created a perfectly legal way to murder people.
-
So if I walk up to a person and punch him in the back of the head, and in return he attacks me, and then I shoot him to death.
I'm not actually the person to blame? He is partially to blame? Really? At that point, what is the purpose of assigning blame? You're just missing the entire point of the situation and breaking it down to "Well..........it's both of their faults really, so it's not really anyone's fault, ice cream anyone?"
Fuck it, I will reply. In your scenario, you instigated physical violence seemingly without any justification. You will likely be at least partially responsible for the outcome. Did the other person physically defend himself, or did he "attack" you after what was your only punch? Did you move away from him after your first punch, showing no more threat? Then maybe he is not justified in self-defense. See how your anaolgy is so far off, and lacks so much info, that it is silly to use it in this discussion.
And to then talk about blame in a way that is seemingly done to incite a reaction, is counter-productive. Partial or split blame does not cancel out blame. You cant be so black and white about a scenario like this as to think that one person is at fault. It is very grey, and both parties can easily have shared responsibility and blame.
-
So if I walk up to a person and punch him in the back of the head, and in return he attacks me, and then I shoot him to death.
I'm not actually the person to blame? He is partially to blame? Really? At that point, what is the purpose of assigning blame? You're just missing the entire point of the situation and breaking it down to "Well..........it's both of their faults really, so it's not really anyone's fault, ice cream anyone?"
Seriously? If that is what you got from this discussion so far, then Im not sure I can reply.
Well I added the ice cream part on my own. Figured it would make things nicer.
You've created a very slippery slope. Essentially, under your guys' interpretation of what happened, any white guy can follow around (with a gun) any black guy for any reason. Provoke a fight, kill the kid and then get off. You've created a perfectly legal way to murder people.
How do you come to the conclusion that Zimmerman provoked a fight? Provoke a verbal confrontation, OK. But I have yet to see a valid reason to escalate it to a physical attack. Escalating it to the physical is the threshold is where consequenses drastically change, and Im not sure many see that distinction. That is where Martins responsibily comes into play.
Martin: "You got a problem?"
Zimmerman: "No."
Martin: "Good Mother fucker. Im going to walk home in peace now Bitch or Im going to call the Pigs. Walk away Bitch."
Done. Cops show up. No one dies. But unfortunately for both, it goes like this:
Martin: "You got a problem?"
Zimmerman: "No."
Martin: "Well now you do." Physical altercation ensues.
PHYSICAL. Big difference.
Not saying it went down like that for sure, but the escalation to the physical gets shared responsibility.
-
Z told 911 "This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around looking about.", then later "looking at all the houses".
I suppose it's possible to discern whether an average person with a hoodie on walking up the street at night in the rain may or may not be on drugs, but not to me, it wouldn't be. Yeah, if it was raining, maybe it's odd he's out in the rain, but reports indicate he was walking home. I suppose we can't be sure on that. I know that if I'm walking through a neighborhood, I'm looking at houses, just out of curiosity. I would hope that nobody would find me suspicious for doing so, even if I was walking home in the rain. Z's 911 transcript indicates that Martin notices Z watching him and he comes closer to see what's up. Then he runs.
So okay, maybe Martin shouldn't have approached him, but Z clearly indicates to 911 that Martin was running away. At that point, I cannot come up with any good reason to follow, other than the fact that he had it in his head that he wasn't going to let someone get away who by his own account was not actually doing anything wrong. I suppose to Z, it was suspicious, but that's clearly a subjective point that each of us could see differently.
-
Following a person at night. It's provoking.
It doesn't cause a fight, but it provokes one. Like I said, essentially anyone at this point is allowed to follow anyone else, seem dangerous, then kill the person if the person tries to fight.
Also, sorry if this has been posted, but at what range did Zimmerman shoot Martin? Was it point blank? How far away was he when he was shot?
-
You've created a very slippery slope. Essentially, under your guys' interpretation of what happened, any white guy can follow around (with a gun) any black guy for any reason. Provoke a fight, kill the kid and then get off. You've created a perfectly legal way to murder people.
Don't know what Florida's laws state now that they went and mucked them all up, but traditionally it doesn't work if you provoke the use of force yourself. Hell, even Chief Wiggum knew that.
§ 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in
Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against
another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful force.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows
is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace
officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or
search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under
Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or
attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly
communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing
he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts
to use unlawful force against the actor; or
-
Seeing a huge white guy following you around in the rain, is in my opinion, a provocation. Maybe not a justification, but a provocation none the less.
Unless you want to tell me that Martin just noticed Zimmerman standing there, and randomly felt the urge to charge and attack him.
-
Seeing a huge white guy following you around in the rain, is in my opinion, a provocation. Maybe not a justification, but a provocation none the less.
Unless you want to tell me that Martin just noticed Zimmerman standing there, and randomly felt the urge to charge and attack him.
Martin: "You got a problem?"
Zimmerman: "No."
Martin: "Well now you do."
Assuming the above quote is true, do you think the physical escalation was even provoked, much less justified?
Seems plausible that Z did not want a fucking thing to do with any sort of physical altercation, and that M was fucking Hella pissed off about being profiled and followed.
Even if that wasnt the scenario. it just isnt justified to take it to a physical level, when it was clear that there were many obvious non physical options.
-
I'm not talking about justified. And yes, following someone around in the rain at night is provoking. Any one of you will feel threatened if a big guy was following you around at night in the rain.
-
I'm not talking about justified. And yes, following someone around in the rain at night is provoking. Any one of you will feel threatened if a big guy was following you around at night in the rain.
How threatened are you if you confront the guy following you like this:
You: "You got a problem?"
Him: "No."
You: "Well now you do."
And then instigate a physical attack.
Sounds like "pissed off" instead of "threatened"
And just to be clear on two points. Im not saying it is a fact it happened like the quotes above. And more importantly, if it isnt JUSTIFIED, then you shouldnt do it, and you share respoonsibility. You can be "provoked" all day about a multitude of shit. You dont get to kick someone in the throat if they call your Mom a whore....you were provoked, but not justified. BIG difference.
-
Well Zimmerman was lying, or else he wouldn't have been following him calling the police and calling him racist terms.
So no, I won't trust the huge guy following me in the middle of the night when he says it's all good. Because if it were all good, the dude wouldn't be following me at night in the rain.
-
Well Zimmerman was lying, or else he wouldn't have been following him calling the police and calling him racist terms.
So no, I won't trust the huge guy following me in the middle of the night when he says it's all good. Because if it were all good, the dude wouldn't be following me at night in the rain.
But it doesnt justify physical violence, especially when there are many, and obvious, non violent alternatives.
-
You: "You got a problem?"
Him: "No."
You: "Well now you do."
Assuming he said that. I won't debate that issue, since as far as I know (maybe I'm wrong), we don't know that for certain. What we do know is that Zimmerman made an assumption that Martin was up to no good, Martin approached (maybe to see why Zimmerman was watching him, don't know), then ran. Zimmerman followed. When the kid ran, that should have been it. Leave it to the police. That does not appear to have been enough for Zimmerman.
Zimerman would say whatever he had to to exhonerate himself. You would, I would, anyone would. Zimmerman would also be able to say that Martin said whatever he wanted the police to hear. It isn't like Martin's going to contradict him, what with being dead and all.
-
Well Zimmerman was lying, or else he wouldn't have been following him calling the police and calling him racist terms.
So no, I won't trust the huge guy following me in the middle of the night when he says it's all good. Because if it were all good, the dude wouldn't be following me at night in the rain.
But it doesnt justify physical violence, especially when there are many, and obvious, non violent alternatives.
Not what I'm arguing. He provoked violence. The fact that the violence wasn't justified is the reason he gets away with it.
How about this. Some people aren't super rational. Some people grew up in a neighborhood where you have to physically defend yourself often. All I have to do, is go into any of these neighborhoods, start yelling at and insulting people. Then of course kill them if they try to attack me. Legal murder. It's an issue. The person went out looking for trouble, caused a problem by looking for it, killed a man and now suddenly it's not really his fault completely.
-
Well Zimmerman was lying, or else he wouldn't have been following him calling the police and calling him racist terms.
So no, I won't trust the huge guy following me in the middle of the night when he says it's all good. Because if it were all good, the dude wouldn't be following me at night in the rain.
But it doesnt justify physical violence, especially when there are many, and obvious, non violent alternatives.
Not what I'm arguing. He provoked violence. The fact that the violence wasn't justified is the reason he gets away with it.
How about this. Some people aren't super rational. Some people grew up in a neighborhood where you have to physically defend yourself often. All I have to do, is go into any of these neighborhoods, start yelling at and insulting people. Then of course kill them if they try to attack me. Legal murder. It's an issue. The person went out looking for trouble, caused a problem by looking for it, killed a man and now suddenly it's not really his fault completely.
1- Your analogies are so far off it is getting silly.
2- Correct, it is not his fault completely, unless it was his intent to kill someone from the start. Hence my comment on your analogy.
EDIT: Not sure I understand why you dont place any blame on someone who escalates a verbal altercation to physical violence. You dont get to punch someone in the throat if they call your Mom a Cum Dumpster. It isimply isnt justified, and by doing so, you must share responsibility in the outcome. I dont understand why that gets a pass by you.
I am merely saying I think it is likely, given the available info, that blame is shared by both parties. Both.
People dont die from insults and arguments. They end up dead when it tips into the physical. The person that does that tipping can be partially responsible. If Martin wasnt clearly threatened with physical harm, it was a very poor and unfortunate choice to escalate it to the physical.
I think I have made my views very clear, and will bow out for now. :)
-
Which leads me to my original point. All conflicts share fault. If we leave it at "it's both of their faults", then nothing happens.
-
Which leads me to my original point. All conflicts share fault. If we leave it at "it's both of their faults", then nothing happens.
What do you mean "nothing happens"?
That makes no sense.
Determining levels of involvement and responsibility can teach valuable lessons, and determine the level of punishment of involved parties.
Its like it has to be either black, white, or nothing with you.
-
Which leads me to my original point. All conflicts share fault. If we leave it at "it's both of their faults", then nothing happens.
What do you mean "nothing happens"?
That makes no sense.
I guess I am just looking at it in a legal way or something. If a judge said "Well it's both of your faults"....then what is he to do? You know? Maybe I'm not making myself very clear.
-
Which leads me to my original point. All conflicts share fault. If we leave it at "it's both of their faults", then nothing happens.
What do you mean "nothing happens"?
That makes no sense.
I guess I am just looking at it in a legal way or something. If a judge said "Well it's both of your faults"....then what is he to do? You know? Maybe I'm not making myself very clear.
As an example, perhaps it will determine the specific type of punishment is given to each party, or what type of civil judgement is awarded. Just because fault is split, it doesnt mean punishment cant be split.
EDIT:
Man I got sucked into this discussion. I gots to go. Have a good one y'all. I have to get to my night job on the Neighborhood Watch Patrol. LOL.
....too soon? ;)
-
The person went out looking for trouble, caused a problem by looking for it, killed a man and now suddenly it's not really his fault completely.
I'm not entirely sure that's how it happened, but I think it's a reasonable enough way of looking at it that it should fall to a jury to decide. It should come down to reason, and that's a determination better left to a jury than us.
-
Neighborhood Watch trailer scrapped after shooting
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/17548011
-
You cant escalate any situation to physical violence and not expect the chance that it can then get escalated to deadly force. That is the kicker here. The escalation to PHYSICAL violence. There is a big leap there.
Exactly the point I was making earlier:
Some sources report that he is the one who escalated the situation to violence. If that were the case, would you really deny that he bears any responsibility whatsoever for what transpired afterward, even though Zimmerman had been following him? Whatever went down that night, I wouldn't presume to say that there was "shared and equal responsibility," just that it's almost certain that each party has a degree of responsibility for the situation's tragic outcome.
Doesn't mean the kid is as responsible as Zimmerman for what happened, but it definitely indicates that he's not completely free of blame.
How about this. Some people aren't super rational. Some people grew up in a neighborhood where you have to physically defend yourself often. All I have to do, is go into any of these neighborhoods, start yelling at and insulting people. Then of course kill them if they try to attack me. Legal murder. It's an issue. The person went out looking for trouble, caused a problem by looking for it, killed a man and now suddenly it's not really his fault completely.
Nothing I've seen about this kid's background--other than his race, if you please--suggests that he grew up in a place like this. Not sure if you were implying that or if this was a completely hypothetical scenario, but he's from the suburbs. Now his upbringing or family life may very well have contributed to the way he reacted in this situation, but the bottom line is, it doesn't matter if someone just "isn't super rational." That doesn't exempt them from responsibility for their own actions.
If Martin had actually beaten the shit out of Zimmerman, who later died of a brain hemorrhage or something, wouldn't Martin be at least partly culpable for what transpired? Of course, and so would Zimmerman. Each probably to varying degrees. The outcomes are different, but what led up to them remains the same.
-J
-
I think THIS (https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html) is the Florida law that Zimmerman is citing to defend his actions in this case.
-
Also, sorry if this has been posted, but at what range did Zimmerman shoot Martin? Was it point blank? How far away was he when he was shot?
I don't think that information has been released yet, as it is still an ongoing investigation, but that, along with the trajectory of the bullet, are vital when trying to figure out what really happened. A shot from very close range and the bullet going in an odd angle will indicate a struggle of some sort immediately prior to the gunshot. Until we know that info, it is hard to know what really happened in the moments before Martin was shot.
-
The only thing that is clear to me, is that both parties made some very bad decisions, all of which led to this tragedy. There were likely so many instances where it could have been diffused and sent on another less lethal path....with just a different action one or both parts. Both parties made active choices that led to a death of one person, and the ruin of another life. Tragic.
This. Beyond that, it boggles the mind to see people spouting off about what we "know" and which facts are supposedly "indisputable."
What do you not find indisputable about the fact that Zimmerman called 911, and followed Trayvon? Are you calling the 911 tape bogus? I'm really not basing the logic off anything other than that, and unless there's a massive conspiracy afoot, I'm basically saying the sky is blue.
Keep in mind, I'm not saying ring the guy up, or anything close to that. I'm saying, he deserves some sort of punishment. What degree of punishment depends upon the rest of the evidence, more of which may still come out. Maybe he does deserve to rot in prison, maybe he deserves probation, fines, and community service.
(this relates to the thread in general)
But to say that he shouldn't be punished at all is a ridiculous statement to make. Seeing as how the claim of self-defense, as currently being used, means Zimmerman get's off completely free, that's fucking bullshit, and for every reason I've given, and for undeniable facts that we do know about the case.
-
I'm not gonna link to the articles, because I honestly think it's disgusting, but I cant' believe that Republicans and Conservatives are really fucking trying to "catch" Obama as a racist over his Trayvon remarks. And not just the shit Gingrich said, I mean more recent ridiculous comparisons, which completely misunderstand why this case is maddening to people.
-
What do you not find indisputable about the fact that Zimmerman called 911, and followed Trayvon? Are you calling the 911 tape bogus?
Pretty much nothing. But that is completely different than your previous post about "indisputable facts." In your own words:
Actually, GMD's account goes beyond hard evidence of the case. I'm keeping myself to precisely what we know. Zimmerman followed Trayvon - even after Trayvon tried to get away (Zimmerman chasing him, as you can hear on his phone, Trayvons girlfriend reporting the same thing) - had no reason to suspect Trayvon of any crime, and brought a gun into the incident that ended up being used to kill someone. Those are indisputable facts, and further information cannot overturn those facts.
The "indisputable facts," according to you:
1. "Zimmerman followed Trayvon" -- Probably not in dispute.
2. "even after Trayvon tried to get away" -- Very much disputable. You have no idea what the truth is regarding that "fact."
3. "Zimmerman chasing him" -- Maybe. Even if he was following, "following" is not necessarily "chasing." Again, very much disputable.
4. "Trayvons girlfriend reporting the same thing" -- Okay, she reported it. The fact that she reported it is indisputable. She did. But whether what she reported actually happened is very much disputable.
5. "had no reason to suspect Trayvon of any crime" -- Um, no. This is very much in dispute.
6. "brought a gun into the incident that ended up being used to kill someone" -- Yeah, that one is probably indisputable.
Bottom line is, you like thousands of others don't know what you are talking about if you think sufficient facts to convict (or to acquit, for that matter) are "indisputable." There is a LOT about the story that only a small handful of people know. Nobody at this stage should be saying the key facts of the case are indisputable or what the outcome of the case should be.
But to say that he shouldn't be punished at all is a ridiculous statement to make. Seeing as how the claim of self-defense, as currently being used, means Zimmerman get's off completely free, that's fucking bullshit, and for every reason I've given, and for undeniable facts that we do know about the case.
Whether he should or shouldn't has yet to be decided. There is a lot that goes into that that, again, we simply do not know. But I don't think anyone in this thread has said that they think he should NOT be punished. Even if he successfully pleads and proves self-defense, that does not mean other factors won't still lead to some sort of conviction. Self-defense is not always a complete defense to a conviction. A defendant can sometimes still be convicted, and the self-defense defense will only be a partial defense that will mitigate, but not eliminate, the sentence.
-
I think people have been sensibly trying to avoid the subject, but I think there's every reason to believe that actually letting justice be served could result in billions of dollars in property damage. I guarantee that LEO in Florida is already well into the planning stages, and it would surprise me if the Federales weren't having similar discussions. I'm thinking we might be to the point where pragmatism might need to play a pretty big role in the outcome of this. Find a way where he gets 2 years handed down, serves 9 months someplace safe, and then quietly disappears. I think it's a safe bet the guy's life is already pretty well screwed, so this might actually be the best outcome for him, as well.
-
Actually, GMD's account goes beyond hard evidence of the case. I'm keeping myself to precisely what we know. Zimmerman followed Trayvon - even after Trayvon tried to get away (Zimmerman chasing him, as you can hear on his phone, Trayvons girlfriend reporting the same thing) - had no reason to suspect Trayvon of any crime, and brought a gun into the incident that ended up being used to kill someone. Those are indisputable facts, and further information cannot overturn those facts.
My account is based on the police report, Zimmermans account, the eye witness account and even Martins Girlfriends account. Zimmerman lost sight of Martin and began to walk back to his car. If Martin were so frightened then he could have just called it even and waited until Zimmerman was gone....but instead he chose to confront him.
I will not apologize or back off my support for a man who is being railroaded and having his life ruined by protecting himself and shooting a thug who jumped him. That's what Martin was. Read the tweets....look at the 'real' pics...judgmental...a bit....but if the shoe fits.
As I said...unless there is some sort of bombshell evidence that comes out against Zimmerman...which could happen....my position in his defense will not change. But it's fascinating that the evidence that clearly illustrates Martin as a wanna be ganster.....with that type of mindset and attitude is being glossed over like it has nothing to do with this case.
Just as my position won't change....those of you just as adament on the other side of the argument aren't changing yours either so....what's the point...
-
1. "Zimmerman followed Trayvon" -- Probably not in dispute.
It's not in dispute, becuase Zimmerman says hes doing so on the 911 tape. Are you going to dispute that by saying Zimmerman is lying? That the events of Zimmerman' following Trayvon didn't happen, which they obviously did? You're just denying reality at this point.
2. "even after Trayvon tried to get away" -- Very much disputable. You have no idea what the truth is regarding that "fact."
3. "Zimmerman chasing him" -- Maybe. Even if he was following, "following" is not necessarily "chasing." Again, very much disputable.
You can actually hear Zimmerman chasing after him in the tape, and its the only logical conclusion from his actions. Again, it's all on the tape. Do you give chase to someone who isn't trying to get away? (*edit* which doesn't require Trayvon to know he's getting away)
4. "Trayvons girlfriend reporting the same thing" -- Okay, she reported it. The fact that she reported it is indisputable. She did. But whether what she reported actually happened is very much disputable.
Okay, this is fair, I forgot I had mentioned this, as it was a parenthetical thought. But notice how the events on the tape, and the reported events per the girlfriend, who we know was talking with Trayvon 5 minutes before the police showed up. And it's undeniably true that she reported it. So I stand by my statement, that none of the evidence I'm using is disputable (which is not the same as saying my interpretation is indisputable).
5. "had no reason to suspect Trayvon of any crime" -- Um, no. This is very much in dispute.
Again, it's on the fucking tape. Zimmerman saw a black kid, in a hoodie, and basically formed his own assumptions from there. It's almost like you have listened to the tape?
6. "brought a gun into the incident that ended up being used to kill someone" -- Yeah, that one is probably indisputable.
Again, probably? If Zimmerman shot Trayvon with a gun taht wasn't his own, we would definitely know about it. It would mean it had to of been Trayvon's, and do you honestly think Zimmerman would claim that gun as his own? You have to start thinking crazy things to think there's a possibility that his is disputable.
Nobody at this stage should be saying the key facts of the case are indisputable or what the outcome of the case should be.
You'll notice I'm not actually saying what the outcome should be, don't you? It's the part quoted below. The outcome would involve the actual charges (murder, manslaughter, etc), and I'm quite clearing saying I'm not sure where that should fall.
But to say that he shouldn't be punished at all is a ridiculous statement to make. Seeing as how the claim of self-defense, as currently being used, means Zimmerman get's off completely free, that's fucking bullshit, and for every reason I've given, and for undeniable facts that we do know about the case.
Whether he should or shouldn't has yet to be decided. There is a lot that goes into that that, again, we simply do not know. But I don't think anyone in this thread has said that they think he should NOT be punished. Even if he successfully pleads and proves self-defense, that does not mean other factors won't still lead to some sort of conviction. Self-defense is not always a complete defense to a conviction. A defendant can sometimes still be convicted, and the self-defense defense will only be a partial defense that will mitigate, but not eliminate, the sentence.
[/quote]
:facepalm:
You do realize that this is what the whole hullabaloo is about, right? Zimmerman is getting a complete defense from a conviction, because he's claiming self defense. I heard that the police wanted to charge him with manslaughter, but a State lawyer had to turn that down becuase there wasn't enough evidence to prove that Zimmerman wasn't acting in self-defense.
If things were operating how you say they should be, there wouldn't be a story. I'm forced to assume you really don't know anything about this case at this point.
-
But it's fascinating that the evidence that clearly illustrates Martin as a wanna be ganster.....with that type of mindset and attitude is being glossed over like it has nothing to do with this case.
Actually, it has exactly nothing to do with this case. Wannabe thug gangsters can be victims just as well as anybody else. It's also completely irrelevant that Zimmerman might have had a sketchy past. The only thing that matters is the facts of this particular case, and back-stories don't qualify.
-
Actually, GMD's account goes beyond hard evidence of the case. I'm keeping myself to precisely what we know. Zimmerman followed Trayvon - even after Trayvon tried to get away (Zimmerman chasing him, as you can hear on his phone, Trayvons girlfriend reporting the same thing) - had no reason to suspect Trayvon of any crime, and brought a gun into the incident that ended up being used to kill someone. Those are indisputable facts, and further information cannot overturn those facts.
My account is based on the police report, Zimmermans account, the eye witness account and even Martins Girlfriends account. Zimmerman lost sight of Martin and began to walk back to his car. If Martin were so frightened then he could have just called it even and waited until Zimmerman was gone....but instead he chose to confront him.
I will not apologize or back off my support for a man who is being railroaded and having his life ruined by protecting himself and shooting a thug who jumped him. That's what Martin was. Read the tweets....look at the 'real' pics...judgmental...a bit....but if the shoe fits.
As I said...unless there is some sort of bombshell evidence that comes out against Zimmerman...which could happen....my position in his defense will not change. But it's fascinating that the evidence that clearly illustrates Martin as a wanna be ganster.....with that type of mindset and attitude is being glossed over like it has nothing to do with this case.
Just as my position won't change....those of you just as adament on the other side of the argument aren't changing yours either so....what's the point...
I think what you bring up is perfectly legitimate to bring up, and like I said, is assuredly pertinent to what manner Zimmerman get's punished. But, what you bring up is testimonial evidence, which means it needs to stand up in a court, with the rest of the evidence. I didn't mean to imply that you're story was wrong, it certainly could be right, only that my story is a 911 tape most of us have heard, and can't really be refuted by other evidence. Zimmermans account can be refuted. And so far, Zimmermans account is enough to keep him from getting prosecuted.
-
Seriously, Scheavo, you don't have a clue about how the legal system works. None. If you can't participate in the debate intelligently, leave.
-
Seriously, Scheavo, you don't have a clue about how the legal system works. None. If you can't participate in the debate intelligently, leave.
I know how the legal system is supposed to work, but how it's supposed to work is not how it's working in this case. Why do you think the Department of Justice was called in? Because the system was working so wonderfully? Why do you think there's a huge debate about the stand your ground law? Because it doesn't mess with the system you're defending?
-
I'm not defending anything. I'm pointing out that you have no clue what you are talking about when you say facts are "indisputable" or when you pontificate about what the implications of self-defense are.
-
But it's fascinating that the evidence that clearly illustrates Martin as a wanna be ganster.....with that type of mindset and attitude is being glossed over like it has nothing to do with this case.
Actually, it has exactly nothing to do with this case. Wannabe thug gangsters can be victims just as well as anybody else. It's also completely irrelevant that Zimmerman might have had a sketchy past. The only thing that matters is the facts of this particular case, and back-stories don't qualify.
your right...what I should have said or meant to say is that...weighing what I see/read/learn about the two involved....I believe/trust Zimmermans 'story' more than I do any of the suggested scenarios where Marting is a helpless victim with a 12 year old face
-
It isn't disputable that Martin tried to get away. Zimmerman even said Martin was running away.
-
I'm not defending anything. I'm pointing out that you have no clue what you are talking about when you say facts are "indisputable" or when you pontificate about what the implications of self-defense are.
Bosk, I'm sure you know more about the legal system than me. What you don't seem to know much about, is this case specifically. Florida has a very asinine law that is defending Zimmerman from facing charges, and protects anyone from getting charged for something similar unless the state can prove that the defendant was not acting in self defense. The rest, I can only assume are your weird interpretations of what I have said, which may be a result of my own poor word choice. There were many legal experts who said this law basically legalizes murder, so long as you don't have any witnesses.
And again, the facts I'm bringing up are basically describing what happens on the 911 call, that is recorded, that is official record. How exactly are you going to dispute the accused own words, at the time of the event, as they are recorded on police record? Seriously? It's not as if pointing to hearsay, or possible events on the ground I'm pointing out what definitely happened, what we definitely know about the case, and nothing more.
Here's what I'm doing: I'm saying there is gravity. What the judicial system gets to decide upon is whose right, Newton or Einstein. But me pointing out the indisputable fact that there is gravity, does not invalidate either Newton or Einstein, and it is not pontificating or speaking out of my ass.
It isn't indisputable that Martin tried to get away. Zimmerman even said Martin was running away.
Double negative fail?
-
You're right. I meant to say it isn't disputable. Thanks.
In other news, for the word "thanks", my phone suggests "Run-d.m.c." as a correction. WTF?
-
Okay, well now at least you've toned down the rhetoric so we can at least have a discussion.
Florida has a very asinine law that is defending Zimmerman from facing charges, and protects anyone from getting charged for something similar unless the state can prove that the defendant was not acting in self defense. The rest, I can only assume are your weird interpretations of what I have said, which may be a result of my own poor word choice. There were many legal experts who said this law basically legalizes murder, so long as you don't have any witnesses.
Yes, I realize that is what the "experts" on the 10:00 news may be saying, but that's not actually how it works. I mean, it sort of is, but it is a very distorted picture.
And again, the facts I'm bringing up are basically describing what happens on the 911 call, that is recorded, that is official record. How exactly are you going to dispute the accused own words, at the time of the event, as they are recorded on police record? Seriously? It's not as if pointing to hearsay, or possible events on the ground I'm pointing out what definitely happened, what we definitely know about the case, and nothing more.
Yes, what you bring up is from the 911 call. But there are at least two reasons why a good portion of what you cite to is still not "indisputable."
(1) The 911 call is not necessarily the whole picture. You are putting your own spin and interpretation on a lot of the facts. Your interpretation may seem like the most logical. And at the end of the day, it might actually end up being exactly what is proven at trial. But as of right now, the fact remains that there may be other interpretations you and I are not aware of. We simply do not know at this stage.
(2) Even if there is little or now room for interpretation or context or other explanations from Zimmerman or other witnesses, the 911 tape could very well end up partially or completely inadmissible at trial. The fact that a 911 tape exists doesn't make the facts that are captured on the 911 tape admissible at trial.
Bottom line is, yes, there is a 911 tape. But the existence of a 911 tape does not make your interpretation of what you are hearing on the 911 tape the "indisputable" story, or even the complete story for that matter.
Here's what I'm doing: I'm saying there is gravity. What the judicial system gets to decide upon is whose rights, Newton or Einstein. But me pointing out the indisputable fact that there is gravity, does not invalidate either Newton or Einstein, and it is not pontificating or speaking out of my ass.
I understand that is what you think you are doing, but you aren't quite there. The only thing that is "gravity" is that there is a 911 tape. What is on the tape and what it means are still VERY much up in the air.
-
1) The 911 call is not necessarily the whole picture. You are putting your own spin and interpretation on a lot of the facts. Your interpretation may seem like the most logical. And at the end of the day, it might actually end up being exactly what is proven at trial. But as of right now, the fact remains that there may be other interpretations you and I are not aware of. We simply do not know at this stage.
I'm not saying it's the whole picture. I'm saying it is what it is. Zimmerman calls the police, says there's a black kid wearing a hoodie whom he suspects. He then follows said kid, telling the operator that he's following said kid, and that said kid is walking away. To come to a different conclusion requires you to imagine that Zimmerman called the police, and lied about what he was doing. Now, I guess technically possible, but it takes some insane amount of mind-wrangling to think that this happened. You can hear Zimmerman voice, you can tell his describing events as they are happening, and that he's telling you what he's doing.
Also, you need to dissociate that from what's admissible in court. I've never actually talked about that, I've simply made the case that Zimmerman needs to be charged with something. There is more than enough evidence to charge him with something, something which has not been done because of the State law, which may or may not say this or that - but clearly causes confusion amongst lawyers and legal experts as to what it actually means and says.
Let's also not kid ourselves into thinking that just becuase evidence isn't admissible in court, that said evidence doesn't thereby exist. We have provisions which throw out evidence for good reasons, but they don't actually change the facts on the ground. I've benefited from these provisions myself, and I know that having the evidence thrown out simply made it impossible to convict me, but it didn't make one ounce of difference as to my actual guilt.
(by the way, out of curiosity, how could a 911 tape be thrown out? What could lead to it not being admissable in court?)
-
I'm not saying it's the whole picture. I'm saying it is what it is.
Except that it isn't simply "what it is." It may completely distort what actually happened and paint an incorrect picture that is not accurate. Am I saying that it does? No. I'm just saying that it could. Which is why I am saying that it is far too premature to be saying that an interpretation of a couple of facts is the equivalent of indisputable facts.
Also, you need to dissociate that from what's admissible in court. I've never actually talked about that, I've simply made the case that Zimmerman needs to be charged with something. There is more than enough evidence to charge him with something, something which has not been done because of the State law, which may or may not say this or that - but clearly causes confusion amongst lawyers and legal experts as to what it actually means and says.
That's all fine. But then you shouldn't be saying that facts are "indisputable" and that there is enough "indisputable" evidence that he should be punished. That is a different thing than merely saying there is enough evidence to charge him.
(by the way, out of curiosity, how could a 911 tape be thrown out? What could lead to it not being admissable in court?)
There are any number of reasons why evidence that may seem clear and reliable may not be admissible. I'm not saying that is the case with the 911 tape. But it might be. Again, we don't know. We can listen to the tape, but we don't know enough about the fine details of the case to know what would be excluded and why.
-
I'm not saying it's the whole picture. I'm saying it is what it is.
Except that it isn't simply "what it is." It may completely distort what actually happened and paint an incorrect picture that is not accurate. Am I saying that it does? No. I'm just saying that it could. Which is why I am saying that it is far too premature to be saying that an interpretation of a couple of facts is the equivalent of indisputable facts.
99% of the time, I'd be agreeing with you, and always would have. But thanks to our news media, I've been given access to pretty damn solid evidence, which some peole are using to make all sorts of claims, but which I'm simply pionting out makes Zimmerman responsible, in some fashion, for what happened.
Also, you need to dissociate that from what's admissible in court. I've never actually talked about that, I've simply made the case that Zimmerman needs to be charged with something. There is more than enough evidence to charge him with something, something which has not been done because of the State law, which may or may not say this or that - but clearly causes confusion amongst lawyers and legal experts as to what it actually means and says.
That's all fine. But then you shouldn't be saying that facts are "indisputable" and that there is enough "indisputable" evidence that he should be punished. That is a different thing than merely saying there is enough evidence to charge him.
Well, there's what I think, and there's what I think should be done. I think Zimmerman is guilty of something - and if I were on the jury, I'd be voting for some sort of manslaughter charge- but I'm not so asinine as to think we should just skip the legal process. It plays an important role, but unfortunately, much of that role is not happening. The investigation into the matter was inadequate, people were not interviewed, and a full report was not done.
(by the way, out of curiosity, how could a 911 tape be thrown out? What could lead to it not being admissable in court?)
There are any number of reasons why evidence that may seem clear and reliable may not be admissible. I'm not saying that is the case with the 911 tape. But it might be. Again, we don't know. We can listen to the tape, but we don't know enough about the fine details of the case to know what would be excluded and why.
Ya, I guess I was just hoping for a way in which a 911 tape could be inexcusable. From what I know about the reasoning for dropping evidence, I just can't see how that could play a role in a freely given 911 call.
-
Florida has a very asinine law that is defending Zimmerman from facing charges, and protects anyone from getting charged for something similar unless the state can prove that the defendant was not acting in self defense. The rest, I can only assume are your weird interpretations of what I have said, which may be a result of my own poor word choice. There were many legal experts who said this law basically legalizes murder, so long as you don't have any witnesses.
Yes, I realize that is what the "experts" on the 10:00 news may be saying, but that's not actually how it works. I mean, it sort of is, but it is a very distorted picture.
Ya know, Hoss, I get that you don't like to play lawyer in here, which is very understandable to me, but if you're going to throw around statements such as that, you really should offer up some sort of explanation. That very point is something that I think we would all like to understand better, and while I certainly don't expect you to play law professor, if you're going to address that fairly important legal matter, the least you can do is something better than yeah, but they're wrong, though.
-
Florida has a very asinine law that is defending Zimmerman from facing charges, and protects anyone from getting charged for something similar unless the state can prove that the defendant was not acting in self defense. The rest, I can only assume are your weird interpretations of what I have said, which may be a result of my own poor word choice. There were many legal experts who said this law basically legalizes murder, so long as you don't have any witnesses.
Yes, I realize that is what the "experts" on the 10:00 news may be saying, but that's not actually how it works. I mean, it sort of is, but it is a very distorted picture.
Ya know, Hoss, I get that you don't like to play lawyer in here, which is very understandable to me, but if you're going to throw around statements such as that, you really should offer up some sort of explanation. That very point is something that I think we would all like to understand better, and while I certainly don't expect you to play law professor, if you're going to address that fairly important legal matter, the least you can do is something better than yeah, but they're wrong, though.
I imagine an investigation can reveal alterior motive, which can be enough to convict without evidence. *It doesn't legalize murder, I see the hyperbole now, it just makes self-defense claims all that much easier, making rage, random, and spur of the moment killings harder to convict. Your standard jealous wife, husband, ex, will still be found through an investigation. But in this case, the suspect is easily known, what is not known are the exact circumstances - which is playing the difference between charges, and no charges.
My question would be, why was this cases investigation so obviously inadequate? Is it the law, racism, lack of funding, general inadaquacy, etc? I think the wording is very tricky, and it the issue with the law is that it can shift the burden of proof to a point where charges won't stick - as possibly seen by this case.
-
I don't think the case's investigation was so thoroughly inadequate. The cops had enough that they wanted to charge Zimmerman, and the prosecutor told them not to waste their time. I think this was a function of the way the law was written. It's also worth noting that the prosecutors of their state were largely opposed to NRA law because they foresaw situations like this.
-
I don't think the case's investigation was so thoroughly inadequate. The cops had enough that they wanted to charge Zimmerman, and the prosecutor told them not to waste their time. I think this was a function of the way the law was written. It's also worth noting that the prosecutors of their state were largely opposed to NRA law because they foresaw situations like this.
Well, they apparently never interviewed Trayvons girlfriend, who seems like someone who would be relevant to talk to regarding self-defense claims. The old way, the claim would have risen, the girl would have been interviewed. As it is, that didn't happen, and is probably only happening now because of the outrage.
Of course, I think there should be enough evidence to charge him with manslaughter, and let the system work from there, so I don't really disagree with what you just said.
-
Actually, GMD's account goes beyond hard evidence of the case. I'm keeping myself to precisely what we know. Zimmerman followed Trayvon - even after Trayvon tried to get away (Zimmerman chasing him, as you can hear on his phone, Trayvons girlfriend reporting the same thing) - had no reason to suspect Trayvon of any crime, and brought a gun into the incident that ended up being used to kill someone. Those are indisputable facts, and further information cannot overturn those facts.
My account is based on the police report, Zimmermans account, the eye witness account and even Martins Girlfriends account. Zimmerman lost sight of Martin and began to walk back to his car. If Martin were so frightened then he could have just called it even and waited until Zimmerman was gone....but instead he chose to confront him.
I will not apologize or back off my support for a man who is being railroaded and having his life ruined by protecting himself and shooting a thug who jumped him. That's what Martin was. Read the tweets....look at the 'real' pics...judgmental...a bit....but if the shoe fits.
As I said...unless there is some sort of bombshell evidence that comes out against Zimmerman...which could happen....my position in his defense will not change. But it's fascinating that the evidence that clearly illustrates Martin as a wanna be ganster.....with that type of mindset and attitude is being glossed over like it has nothing to do with this case.
Just as my position won't change....those of you just as adament on the other side of the argument aren't changing yours either so....what's the point...
The same way you are glossing over the fact that Zimmerman referred to Martin as a "F*cking Coon" while on the phone with 911? If you're going to make Martin's "mindset and attitude" part of the equation, then why don't you want to make Zimmerman's "mindset and attitude" (clearly racist) part of it as well? Is is possible that it's because it conflicts with your pro-gun biased tendency to defend anyone else who, like you, feels the need to walk around with a loaded deadly weapon on them at all times?
You know, all things considered here (and obviously, we can't know everything about what went on) if Zimmerman's not carrying that weapon on that day, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion because *probably* no one would be dead. There are no reports that Martin was carrying any kind of weapon, and I doubt that Zimmerman would have "followed" (his word to the 911 dispatcher) Martin at all if he were not carrying.
-
Which is kinda what I was thinking about in an earlier post. Zimmerman knew that whatever happened, he had the protection of a gun. To some people, gun = balls. It would seem a lot MORE foolhardy to follow a stranger around your neighborhood, without the peace of mind of knowing you have a gun on you.
-
Actually, GMD's account goes beyond hard evidence of the case. I'm keeping myself to precisely what we know. Zimmerman followed Trayvon - even after Trayvon tried to get away (Zimmerman chasing him, as you can hear on his phone, Trayvons girlfriend reporting the same thing) - had no reason to suspect Trayvon of any crime, and brought a gun into the incident that ended up being used to kill someone. Those are indisputable facts, and further information cannot overturn those facts.
My account is based on the police report, Zimmermans account, the eye witness account and even Martins Girlfriends account. Zimmerman lost sight of Martin and began to walk back to his car. If Martin were so frightened then he could have just called it even and waited until Zimmerman was gone....but instead he chose to confront him.
I will not apologize or back off my support for a man who is being railroaded and having his life ruined by protecting himself and shooting a thug who jumped him. That's what Martin was. Read the tweets....look at the 'real' pics...judgmental...a bit....but if the shoe fits.
As I said...unless there is some sort of bombshell evidence that comes out against Zimmerman...which could happen....my position in his defense will not change. But it's fascinating that the evidence that clearly illustrates Martin as a wanna be ganster.....with that type of mindset and attitude is being glossed over like it has nothing to do with this case.
Just as my position won't change....those of you just as adament on the other side of the argument aren't changing yours either so....what's the point...
The same way you are glossing over the fact that Zimmerman referred to Martin as a "F*cking Coon" while on the phone with 911? If you're going to make Martin's "mindset and attitude" part of the equation, then why don't you want to make Zimmerman's "mindset and attitude" (clearly racist) part of it as well? Is is possible that it's because it conflicts with your pro-gun biased tendency to defend anyone else who, like you, feels the need to walk around with a loaded deadly weapon on them at all times?
You know, all things considered here (and obviously, we can't know everything about what went on) if Zimmerman's not carrying that weapon on that day, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion because *probably* no one would be dead. There are no reports that Martin was carrying any kind of weapon, and I doubt that Zimmerman would have "followed" (his word to the 911 dispatcher) Martin at all if he were not carrying.
The audio of Zimmerman calling him a 'coon' is almost innaudable and he says he called him a 'goon' anyway. It's really how you want to interpret it. If your leaning toward wanting to fry Zimmerman for protecting himself then you'll hear 'coon'. If not, then it's 'goon'. I take in account that he had fostered/big brothered black kids...he isn't white he's a mixed race.....and that friends of all races and family members swear repeatedly that using a racist term is completely out of character for him.
Zimmerman had/has every right given to him by his state to carry a gun. Saying Martin wouldn't be dead if Zimmerman didn't have that gun is obvious...but Zimmerman may be dead if he hadn't. One will never know if Zimmerman would have continued to try and see what Martin was up to if he didn't have the gun. It's not really relavent if you ask me.
I carry a gun...all the time. It's not my fault if I shoot someone that is threatening me or my family. At all. It is a huge responsibility to carry a weapon and one that shouldn't be taken lightly. But just because one has a CCW liscense and is carrying doesn't mean they can be automatically blamed because 'well he/she wouldn't have been shot and killed if he/she didn't have the weapon'.
Zimmerman told the police he followed Martin because he wanted to see where he went to to tell the police. There had been a string of robberies. That is how 'breaks' in the case happen. "Yeah I saw a suspicious guy (and I'm sorry but whether it's profiling or whatever...a tall Black man, wearing a hoodie walking between houses which Martin was doing, at night is suspicious) walking between houses, I followed him and he went into that home." The police knock on the door...interview/question Martin...it's no harm no foul.....unless they discover this or that which may or may not have tied him to the break ins. I'm not saying I believe Martin was the person who was robbbing the homes. All I am saying is that is how police work and 'breaks' in a case happen.
Zimmerman lost track of Martin and was returning to his vehicle. Any type of 'pursuing' or 'chasing' had ended. The encounter where Martin was shot was initiated by Martin approaching Zimmerman. That is where I fault Marting for simply being young and Macho...thinking he'd do something about it.
I cannot and will not fault Zimmerman for following Martin to see what he was up to.....especially due to the fact he was part of a neighborhood watch...in a gated community....that had been under attack by a rash of break ins. And, I will not fault him for exercising his right to bear and conceal a weapon as given to him by the state he lives in. Is the law 'leniant'? Maybe. But if the prosecutors and other interest groups fought it and it was still voted on and passes by the citezens of that state...then guess what...it's the law.
-
Wow, it's pretty amazing how much you know about this case
-
Wow, it's pretty amazing how much you know about this case
It's all out there in the hundreds of articles that have been written about it.
-
Regarding the alleged racial slur, it is fairly inaudible, but enhanced audio is out there now. It definitely sounds like goon or coon, but I don't think you say for sure which one it is. It sounds like both.
-
Florida has a very asinine law that is defending Zimmerman from facing charges, and protects anyone from getting charged for something similar unless the state can prove that the defendant was not acting in self defense. The rest, I can only assume are your weird interpretations of what I have said, which may be a result of my own poor word choice. There were many legal experts who said this law basically legalizes murder, so long as you don't have any witnesses.
Yes, I realize that is what the "experts" on the 10:00 news may be saying, but that's not actually how it works. I mean, it sort of is, but it is a very distorted picture.
Ya know, Hoss, I get that you don't like to play lawyer in here, which is very understandable to me, but if you're going to throw around statements such as that, you really should offer up some sort of explanation. That very point is something that I think we would all like to understand better, and while I certainly don't expect you to play law professor, if you're going to address that fairly important legal matter, the least you can do is something better than yeah, but they're wrong, though.
I hear you. And I did do that in the first post in the thread where I was explaining how self defense comes into play, albeit in very cursory terms.
But you're right, and that's why I rarely even comment on these kinds of posts, because I don't want to get into law professor mode. I was content just quietly following the thread without commenting. But between Sceavo and gmillerdrake and others commenting about what we all surely must "know," my frustration over the fact that this case is being tried in the "court of public opinion" by people who really don't have enough information just got the best of me.
-
But between Sceavo and gmillerdrake and others commenting about what we all surely must "know," my frustration over the fact that this case is being tried in the "court of public opinion" by people who really don't have enough information just got the best of me.
I totally agree with this. It is impossible for any of us to know enough at this point to say for sure what we think really happened.
-
And for the record, in case it wasn't clear, I am not taking Zimmerman's side either. Since Scheavo was the one I was directly interacting with, it may have seemed that way. But my point is simply that we don't know, so we shouldn't be taking sides at all--either side. It just makes me sick the way this whole thing is being covered and how it is being used as just one more thing to polarize people. Haven't we had enough of this kind of garbage driving people apart?
-
Also, with the information now out there that Martin had had problems in high school, including apparently taking a swing at a bus driver, it makes it more plausible that he would have confronted Zimmerman and instigated a physical confrontation. Now, his past has no bearing on Zimmerman thinking he looked suspicious, as Zimmerman couldn't have possibly known what some random 17-year old kid had done in school or whatever, but it does make it look like he was an aggressive kid who had no qualms about throwing down.
Also, I am still not taking sides here either. Just trying to offer some perspective.
-
But between Sceavo and gmillerdrake and others commenting about what we all surely must "know," my frustration over the fact that this case is being tried in the "court of public opinion" by people who really don't have enough information just got the best of me.
I totally agree with this. It is impossible for any of us to know enough at this point to say for sure what we think really happened.
It is easy to speculate fueled by emotion....and I have no problems admitting that is what I am doing. I've based my opinion off of what I've read about the case combined with a bit of deductive reasoning which can and probably is influenced by my own beliefs. I particularly don't like the witch hunt that is trying to burn Zimmerman at the stake, and as Bosk1 mentioned yesterday...just due to the media hype and overexposure of theoretical scenarios....Zimmermans 'right to a fair trial' is near impossible.
And I do get a bit 'touchy' in cases like this becaue I do carry a weapon and when something like this happens it's all of a sudden 'people with guns are bad' and I take it personal.
-
He said coon, and it doesn't make a damn bit of difference. Racist assholes can shoot people in self defense just the same as the next man. And for the record, I don't think it necessarily makes him a racist asshole, either. If I were chasing somebody I suspected of being a burglar there's no telling what I'd call the guy, and I damn sure wouldn't want to be held accountable for it afterward.
And I'd like to briefly hit on KNH's and Cosmo's point. There's nothing illegal or improper about his carrying a gun. Based on what seems the most likely scenario, there's nothing illegal or improper about his using the gun to fend off an attack. If you want to argue that he put himself into that situation and should be held accountable for for the outcome, then that's fine; I'm inclined to agree with you. Let's try and keep what's right, what's wrong, and what's legally acceptable in this situation in perspective.
-
I never said he should or shouldn't have been carrying a gun, I was (earlier) just thinking out loud, wondering "If he hadn't been carrying a gun, I wonder if he'd have been less likely to follow the kid. Probably." As I said then, it doesn't really mean anything and has no bearing on the case, just something I kinda wondered about. Obviously something we'll never be able to know.
-
He said coon, and it doesn't make a damn bit of difference. Racist assholes can shoot people in self defense just the same as the next man. And for the record, I don't think it necessarily makes him a racist asshole, either. If I were chasing somebody I suspected of being a burglar there's no telling what I'd call the guy, and I damn sure wouldn't want to be held accountable for it afterward.
And I'd like to briefly hit on KNH's and Cosmo's point. There's nothing illegal or improper about his carrying a gun. Based on what seems the most likely scenario, there's nothing illegal or improper about his using the gun to fend off an attack. If you want to argue that he put himself into that situation and should be held accountable for for the outcome, then that's fine; I'm inclined to agree with you. Let's try and keep what's right, what's wrong, and what's legally acceptable in this situation in perspective.
Uh, right. Never said, implied, intimated or otherwise conveyed that he is not entitled to carry his weapon if he's licensed to carry it. However, remove the gun from the scene of this incident and you dramatically reduce the possibility that someone ends up dead. THAT -and ONLY THAT- was my point.
-
Relevant (and pretty unbiased, I think) analysis of the audio. (https://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2012/03/22/ac-tuchman-trayvon-zimmerman.cnn)
-
But between Sceavo and gmillerdrake and others commenting about what we all surely must "know," my frustration over the fact that this case is being tried in the "court of public opinion" by people who really don't have enough information just got the best of me.
I totally agree with this. It is impossible for any of us to know enough at this point to say for sure what we think really happened.
It is easy to speculate fueled by emotion....and I have no problems admitting that is what I am doing. I've based my opinion off of what I've read about the case combined with a bit of deductive reasoning which can and probably is influenced by my own beliefs. I particularly don't like the witch hunt that is trying to burn Zimmerman at the stake, and as Bosk1 mentioned yesterday...just due to the media hype and overexposure of theoretical scenarios....Zimmermans 'right to a fair trial' is near impossible.
And I do get a bit 'touchy' in cases like this becaue I do carry a weapon and when something like this happens it's all of a sudden 'people with guns are bad' and I take it personal.
No, you are fine. But deductive reasoning only goes so far; the most plausible explanation is not always the factual one. That's all. :)
And I don't like the witch hunt in regards to it becoming a black vs. white or left vs. right thing, which it was to many initially. That kind of shit is bogus.
-
Relevant (and pretty unbiased, I think) analysis of the audio. (https://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2012/03/22/ac-tuchman-trayvon-zimmerman.cnn)
No 'g' to be found anywhere in that. If I were asked what I thought he said I'd say it's 'coons'. Had he continued to 'chase' down Martin and then shoot him I think it'd be a different story. But again, he was walking back to his vehicle when Martin confronted him. I'd tend to agree with what El Barto mentioned earlier:
He said coon, and it doesn't make a damn bit of difference. Racist assholes can shoot people in self defense just the same as the next man. And for the record, I don't think it necessarily makes him a racist asshole, either. If I were chasing somebody I suspected of being a burglar there's no telling what I'd call the guy, and I damn sure wouldn't want to be held accountable for it afterward.
Bottom line...this case is a mess....should've never been a national story and the usual race baiting suspects are out in full force making sure they will stay in business for the time being. I wish there were some gated community CCT video out there that could put this thing to rest once and for all. Unless further evidence comes forward, I don't see how Zimmerman gets any time given Florida's law.
-
You've got a "neighborhood watch volunteer" walking around with a gun, following someone because they're walking down the street "looking suspicious"
This whole situation reeks to high heaven of straight up racial profiling and I don't think it's any wonder or surprise that the lead investigator thought Zimmerman's version of events didn't really add up and wanted to bring manslaughter charges but was shot down because of the [NRA] Stand Your Ground Law [/NRA]
-
And I am finished with this thread.
-
And I do get a bit 'touchy' in cases like this becaue I do carry a weapon and when something like this happens it's all of a sudden 'people with guns are bad' and I take it personal.
No need to get up in arms over it.
No wait...
Sorry, I couldn't resist...
-
Bottom line...this case is a mess....should've never been a national story and the usual race baiting suspects are out in full force making sure they will stay in business for the time being. I wish there were some gated community CCT video out there that could put this thing to rest once and for all. Unless further evidence comes forward, I don't see how Zimmerman gets any time given Florida's law.
While I certainly don't like the way the media is portraying and often prosecuting this case, I disagree that it shouldn't have been a big story. I think you could probably agree that a jury should have been the people to decide the outcome of this, and had that happened early on he might have gotten a fair and impartial one. The problem is that Mr. Florida decided not to bother, and I think that's newsworthy; whether it's because they're fucking corrupt, or because they enacted a law that makes this whole matter far too sketchy for reasonable people to stomach.
-
You've got a "neighborhood watch volunteer" walking around with a gun, following someone because they're walking down the street in between houses "looking suspicious"
This whole situation reeks to high heaven of straight up racial profiling
Black or white, hispanic or whatever....if you're walking in between houses at night with a hoodie on......that is 'suspicious'. Doesn't matter if Zimmerman was a 'volunteer' or not....could have been a "normal" member of that community with a gun.....Martin was acting suspicious plain and simple.
And I do get a bit 'touchy' in cases like this becaue I do carry a weapon and when something like this happens it's all of a sudden 'people with guns are bad' and I take it personal.
No need to get up in arms over it.
No wait...
Sorry, I couldn't resist...
:lol That's pretty good.
-
Walking down the street isn't suspicious. If it were, then LOTS more people would be arrested.
-
Wait, when did wearing a hoodie become a bad thing? Hell, I am 38, and still own two of them (and wear my Blues one to every game). And not only I am a law-abiding citizen, but I am one of the whitest white men out there. :lol :lol
-
Bottom line...this case is a mess....should've never been a national story and the usual race baiting suspects are out in full force making sure they will stay in business for the time being. I wish there were some gated community CCT video out there that could put this thing to rest once and for all. Unless further evidence comes forward, I don't see how Zimmerman gets any time given Florida's law.
While I certainly don't like the way the media is portraying and often prosecuting this case, I disagree that it shouldn't have been a big story. I think you could probably agree that a jury should have been the people to decide the outcome of this, and had that happened early on he might have gotten a fair and impartial one. The problem is that Mr. Florida decided not to bother, and I think that's newsworthy; whether it's because they're fucking corrupt, or because they enacted a law that makes this whole matter far too sketchy for reasonable people to stomach.
Totally agree that a jury should have heard the case because in a situation like this you better be Damn sure you can prove you're life was in danger. But the ONLY reason this even became a story because it was a young black man who was shot and killed by a 'white' looking guy. If an adult black male had shot and killed some young white teenage punk it'd never have seen the national media airwaves.
-
What? Of course it would have.
The reason this became a big story is because the guy never even got charged with anything or had to plead his case or.......well.....anything. He literally just killed a man, no questions asked. That's why it's a big story.
And if a white person had been shot by a black guy....well the only reason that wouldn't have been a story is because the black guy would have been convicted and sentenced to life in jail before the news papers ever even heard of it.
-
Bottom line...this case is a mess....should've never been a national story and the usual race baiting suspects are out in full force making sure they will stay in business for the time being. I wish there were some gated community CCT video out there that could put this thing to rest once and for all. Unless further evidence comes forward, I don't see how Zimmerman gets any time given Florida's law.
While I certainly don't like the way the media is portraying and often prosecuting this case, I disagree that it shouldn't have been a big story. I think you could probably agree that a jury should have been the people to decide the outcome of this, and had that happened early on he might have gotten a fair and impartial one. The problem is that Mr. Florida decided not to bother, and I think that's newsworthy; whether it's because they're fucking corrupt, or because they enacted a law that makes this whole matter far too sketchy for reasonable people to stomach.
Totally agree that a jury should have heard the case because in a situation like this you better be Damn sure you can prove you're life was in danger. But the ONLY reason this even became a story because it was a young black man who was shot and killed by a 'white' looking guy. If an adult black male had shot and killed some young white teenage punk it'd never have seen the national media airwaves.
I hardly see how that matters, but I suppose then that it's a good thing that the details are what they are. If the roles had been reversed, I'd be just as interested in seeing a jury render a decision, and just as incensed if a prosecutor refused to move forward with the case.
-
Walking down the street isn't suspicious. If it were, then LOTS more people would be arrested.
But darting in between homes, at night, in a community with a recent history of burglaries is. Even if Martin were just taking a short cut home, like I said in an earlier post, Zimmerman follows him to his house....points out to the police "that's where the suspicious" guys went. The police interview him and if there is nothing to it there is nothing to it. "Something" happened to the contrary after Zimmerman began to walk back to his car. I 'believe' Zimmermans story for reasons I've expressed multiple times....maybe I'm wrong and if evidence comes out that proves he's a liar and his story is bogus then it's a big 'I was wrong and I'm an Idiot'.
-
I had heard the 911 tape before, but hadn't heard the "coon/goon" part and was wondering where that came from. After listening to the audio enhancement from CNN... :lol So that's what the commotion is about? Hypothetical: Although this may not seem likely, isn't the following hypothetical at least plausible?
***The following is a dramatization that may or may not have anything to do with the actual facts***
1. Zimmerman following Martin in between the townhomes in the neighborhood while holding his cell phone and talking to the 911 dispatcher.
2. Zimmerman loses sight of Martin. Is still going back and forth between the townhomes.
3. Is trying to simultaneously hurry, but also proceed cautiously and quietly because he no longer knows where Martin is, and is a bit freaked out.
4. Rounds the corner of a townhome and almost trips over an overturned trash can, with the trash strewn about on the ground, but manages to avoid it.
5. Expresses his frustration over the fact that, like a lot of Florida neighborhoods, his has been plagued recently by a family of raccoon, oppossums, or other large vermin that have been making a mess of the trash cans and making themselves a general neighborhood nuisance.
6. Expresses his frustration by muttering under his breath, "f'ing coons!"
*************
Possible? :biggrin: Or no, because the fact that he is only partially a minority makes him a white racist?
-
Haha. It's funny because only white people can be racist.
-
Haha. It's funny because only white people honkies can be racist.
FTFY
-
Haha. It's funny because only white people can be racist.
And they MUST be, if they are suspicious of a minority.
As I poke fun at the notion, the more I read, the more I do think that in this case it sounds like Zimmerman may have had racial prejudices that contributed to this whole thing.
-J
-
I don't get statements like "Only white people can be racist, lOLOLOL" in this thread.
Essentially, you're taking a possibly racist man and trying to argue that he shouldn't be called racist because the media generally portrays whites as racist.
Of course white people can be racist. Blacks can be racist, mexicans, jews, and even midgets. But white people can be are ARE generally racist to a degree. And what did Martin do that was racist? If nothing, then why are we trying to defend the idea that non whites can be racist? I just don't get the point of mentioning it.
-
Haha. It's funny because only white people can be racist.
And they MUST be, if they are suspicious of a minority.
As I poke fun at the notion, the more I read, the more I do think that in this case it sounds like Zimmerman may have had racial prejudices that contributed to this whole thing.
-J
I don't really have much of an opinion on if it was a racial thing or not. I don't think it has much to do with what should or shouldn't be done with Zimmerman, either he's accountable for provoking a fight that led to someone's death or he isn't. Whether he was suspicious of Martin because he was black seems irrelevant, although it would make him a jerk.
I don't get statements like "Only white people can be racist, lOLOLOL" in this thread.
Essentially, you're taking a possibly racist man and trying to argue that he shouldn't be called racist because the media generally portrays whites as racist.
Of course white people can be racist. Blacks can be racist, mexicans, jews, and even midgets. But white people can be are ARE generally racist to a degree. And what did Martin do that was racist? If nothing, then why are we trying to defend the idea that non whites can be racist? I just don't get the point of mentioning it.
The racism comments have nothing to do with anything Martin did. This tangent is about if Zimmerman targeted Martin specifically because Martin is black, which is supported with a supposed slur/insult he muttered during the 911 call. Some people then bring up the fact that Zimmerman isn't white, implying that of course he couldn't have had any kind of racial prejudice.
-
Zimmerman isn't white?
People said that because he isn't white he can't be racist? WTF?
-
Or no, because the fact that he is only partially a minority makes him a white racist?
-
Or no, because the fact that he is only partially a minority makes him a white racist?
Ah, I stopped reading that post after the "He didn't mean black people, he meant raccoons...duh!" thing.
-
Zimmerman isn't white?
People said that because he isn't white he can't be racist? WTF?
His mother was Peruvian, and he considers himself Hispanic.
As for the racial overtones, I don't think TW did anything untoward. I do think a lot of people are applying elements of race where they needn't be. Quite frankly, I think this is a fine example of a situation where race is completely irreverent, but plenty of people are desperately looking to introduce it.
What really annoys me is the notion that a black man can't be deemed suspicious for any reason other than his race. People generally get singled out because they look like troublemakers; not because they're black or white. I can certainly tell you that cops fucked with me enough times for looking like I didn't belong somewhere, and I'm white as snow.
-
^Well said.
-
Zimmerman isn't white?
People said that because he isn't white he can't be racist? WTF?
His mother was Peruvian, and he considers himself Hispanic.
As for the racial overtones, I don't think TW did anything untoward. I do think a lot of people are applying elements of race where they needn't be. Quite frankly, I think this is a fine example of a situation where race is completely irreverent, but plenty of people are desperately looking to introduce it.
What really annoys me is the notion that a black man can't be deemed suspicious for any reason other than his race. People generally get singled out because they look like troublemakers; not because they're black or white. I can certainly tell you that cops fucked with me enough times for looking like I didn't belong somewhere, and I'm white as snow.
But between Sceavo and gmillerdrake and others commenting about what we all surely must "know," my frustration over the fact that this case is being tried in the "court of public opinion" by people who really don't have enough information just got the best of me.
This ties in with both of these posts:
There's several elements to the case that are causing problems, and I think a lot of the uproar is being misunderstood. I am not outraged because Zimmerman hasn't been convicted. I'm outraged becuase he hasn't been charged, and isn't facing trial. The stated reason for why this isn't happening is becuase of the Stand Your Ground law. Now, there's proven racism in police departments and the legal system, so it's false to say that race is irrelevant in this case. Those two things are really are what's the cause o this uproar. If Zimmerman was facing charges like he should be, then no one would really care, becuase murders happen shockingly often in America, and we never hear about them. Ya, the actual events of the case are weird and disturbing, but to think that those events themselves are what have people in such an uproar, is I think, very off the mark.
And it's more than my opinion, I think. I have seen Trayvons father repeatedly say that he doesn't want an eye for an eye, he wants justice, and nothing more. That to me implies he wants an arrest, he wants a charge, and he wants a trial. Then there's also this article (https://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-30/news/os-george-zimmerman-trayvon-al-sharpton-20120330_1_civil-disobedience-national-action-network-national-association) about Al Sharpton. THe article is played up like the man wants blood, or something, but it Sharpton clearly says at the end:
"Whether he [Zimmerman] had a swollen or broken nose, neither one means he had to take a 9mm and kill someone," he said. "It's not about saying Zimmerman is innocent or guilty, this is about whether there was probable cause to arrest him."
He criticized the way authorities have released information about the case and said they are setting a harmful precedent, he said.
-
The DA appears to have told them that prosectuing the case would be a waste of time. I see no reason to infer any institutionalized racism in that decision. Maybe the guy's a Klansman, and maybe he just thought it wouldn't ever get a conviction. In much the same way that suspecting TW of being up to no good isn't automatically a racial issue, neither is a decision not to move forward with criminal precedings. Assuming otherwise just furthers the problem that this has become.
-
The DA appears to have told them that prosectuing the case would be a waste of time. I see no reason to infer any institutionalized racism in that decision. Maybe the guy's a Klansman, and maybe he just thought it wouldn't ever get a conviction. In much the same way that suspecting TW of being up to no good isn't automatically a racial issue, neither is a decision not to move forward with criminal precedings. Assuming otherwise just furthers the problem that this has become.
I never laid the blame on any specific part, I just said that there's proven racism. Black people tend to get stiffer penalties, and are more often convicted. It's a reasonable question to ask regarding this case, considering the maltreatment the case is getting. Is it just the Stand Your Ground law? Or is it that becuase it was "just a black kid," the DA didn't care, which could be for a variety of reasons which themselves are not actually racist? And, if Zimmerman was black, would the case be proceeding in the same way? I'm not making a final judgement.
For instance, requests for pardons: even though the system is made up, from the start, to keep race out of the actual application process, you are much more likely to get pardoned if you are white, than if you are black - even if the crimes are the same. The sample size is too large for it to be a random occurrence, and there is active measurements to try and prevent this thing from happening already.
-
I would just like to say there is nothing "suspicious" about wearing a hoodie. That's just silly.
-
Here's the real question: why is this a national issue?
-
Here's the real question: why is this a national issue?
Well for some of us, it's because there was virtually no investigation.
-
Here's the real question: why is this a national issue?
Well for some of us, it's because there was virtually no investigation.
Regardless of what people think, this is why it's a national issue. The news media latched onto it for this reason. Trayvon's family made a big deal about it for this reason. The Department of Justice got called in for this reason. Once the media got into it, I think some people started to think the troubling aspect were the actual event and crime - and I really don't think that's the issue. The issue is that what we know for sure happened, is enough to warrant an arrest and a trial, and a full investigation. That process is not happening, and for reasons that no one can really understand.
-
Well, that's why I was asking.
-
Well, that's why I was asking.
Well, that's why I answered. I think a lot of people, and they seem to be mostly on the right for whatever reason, are fundamentally misunderstanding the outrage, and are thus misunderstanding what people are arguing for, what their point is, etc.
-
My biggest issue with this whole ordeal is Florida's 'Stand Your Ground' law. When there are no other witnesses, how can law enforcement simply go on the word of the shooter?
-
My biggest issue with this whole ordeal is Florida's 'Stand Your Ground' law. When there are no other witnesses, how can law enforcement simply go on the word of the shooter?
No kidding. What moron thought this was a good idea?
"No seriously, guys. I was defending myself. Honest."
"OK, that's good enough for me."
-
It's like in Morrowind when you're just walking by minding your own business and some guy's like "You N'wah!" and you're all "oh no you didn't, lightning to the face!" but then the guards murder you. So you load your saved game and this time you provoke the guy until he punches you then you murder him in the face and this time the guards chill because it was totally self defense. Then we laugh about how silly Elder Scrolls logic is, but the joke's on us because our lawmakers were taking notes the whole time.
-
It's like in Morrowind when you're just walking by minding your own business and some guy's like "You N'wah!" and you're all "oh no you didn't, lightning to the face!" but then the guards murder you. So you load your saved game and this time you provoke the guy until he punches you then you murder him in the face and this time the guards chill because it was totally self defense. Then we laugh about how silly Elder Scrolls logic is, but the joke's on us because our lawmakers were taking notes the whole time.
Fuck. This just blew my mind.
-
The best point by point analysis I've seen yet. And further proof that eye-witnesses aren't worth shit.
What is known, what isn’t about Trayvon Martin’s death (https://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/31/2725442/what-is-known-what-isnt-about.html)
-
It's like in Morrowind when you're just walking by minding your own business and some guy's like "You N'wah!" and you're all "oh no you didn't, lightning to the face!" but then the guards murder you. So you load your saved game and this time you provoke the guy until he punches you then you murder him in the face and this time the guards chill because it was totally self defense. Then we laugh about how silly Elder Scrolls logic is, but the joke's on us because our lawmakers were taking notes the whole time.
POTY
-
The best point by point analysis I've seen yet. And further proof that eye-witnesses aren't worth shit.
What is known, what isn’t about Trayvon Martin’s death (https://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/31/2725442/what-is-known-what-isnt-about.html)
Is there a way to forensically identify who's screaming in the 911 tapes?
-
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/trayvon-martin-nbc-news-editing-911-call-306359
It's shocking that NBC would do something like this. /sarcasm
-
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/trayvon-martin-nbc-news-editing-911-call-306359
It's shocking that NBC would do something like this. /sarcasm
Sensationalism at its best.
I feel sorry for the family, but damn this has gone overboard. Guess we'll have to wait for a famous celebrity scandal or a missing white girl.
Also, this is why I can't stand the media in general, they can easily manipulate and people believe...the devils work at its finest
-
I'm not to familiar with neighborhood watch programs because I never lived anywhere where they had one, but here's one thing that sort of bothers me. Why is an untrained citizen patrolling the streets with a gun? I don't mean training for using a gun, but training on how to deal with situations involving a suspicious person. I'm a gun owner myself so I'm not anti-gun, but I bet if GZ isn't packing, he probably backs off Trayvon a bit and doesn't make it so obvious he's following him, which may have prevented the whole thing from escalating the way it did.
-
He wasn't patrolling the streets. He was going to the grocery store, and carrying a weapon as per his rights.
-
The media always says he's the watch captain, so I just assumed that he was acting in that capacity. Even then, I'm still not wild about the idea of people arming themselves to do routine things like go to the grocery store...accidents happen, LIKE THIS.
-
The media always says he's the watch captain, so I just assumed that he was acting in that capacity. Even then, I'm still not wild about the idea of people arming themselves to do routine things like go to the grocery store...accidents happen, LIKE THIS.
While I obviously disagree about the accidental part, I generally do agree about arming yourself to go to the store; although I'd consider it more of a personal decision than anything else. As you know, walking around with a loaded weapon completely changes your mindset. I don't want to have to tote that mindset around just to pick up a gallon of milk. I'd rather be able to wander around in a casual state of mind and ogle the SMU chicks shopping. The other aspect is that I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to carry in most of the grocery stores down here since they sell beer/wine. Leaving a weapon in your car seems dangerous and counterproductive.
-
I didn't mean accident as in he accidentally shot him, I meant accident in that was preventable outcome if he didn't have a gun. It's that mindset that you mentioned I don't want people having constantly. Arguments and misunderstandings can't escalate to someone being shot if the gun isn't there in the first place. At worst you someone gets there ass kicked, and I'd rather have my ass kicked than be dead or having the guilt of taking someones life. Damn it I sound like Cole. :lol I think we are generally agreeing though.
-
I didn't mean accident as in he accidentally shot him, I meant accident in that was preventable outcome if he didn't have a gun. It's that mindset that you mentioned I don't want people having constantly. Arguments and misunderstandings can't escalate to someone being shot if the gun isn't there in the first place. At worst you someone gets there ass kicked, and I'd rather have my ass kicked than be dead or having the guilt of taking someones life. Damn it I sound like Cole. :lol I think we are generally agreeing though.
I was gonna rag on you for sounding an awful lot like Cole, but you done pointed out a perspective that I hadn't considered before. Never considered everybody else feeling like I do when carrying a weapon; not a particularly reassuring prospect. Still, while I'm inclined to agree that a civilized person should probably take a bit of a beating before killing somebody, the fact remains that there's a point where a beatdown moves from fist-fight to something considerably more serious, and not everybody will agree about where that point is. A reasonable person should be able to prevent it from moving past that point.
That's actually a damned fascinating consideration. How much damage should a reasonable person take before using deadly force? Black eye? Missing teeth? Broken jaw? Broken limbs? Head trauma? Internal injuries?
-
The media always says he's the watch captain, so I just assumed that he was acting in that capacity. Even then, I'm still not wild about the idea of people arming themselves to do routine things like go to the grocery store...accidents happen, LIKE THIS.
While I obviously disagree about the accidental part, I generally do agree about arming yourself to go to the store; although I'd consider it more of a personal decision than anything else. As you know, walking around with a loaded weapon completely changes your mindset. I don't want to have to tote that mindset around just to pick up a gallon of milk. I'd rather be able to wander around in a casual state of mind and ogle the SMU chicks shopping. The other aspect is that I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to carry in most of the grocery stores down here since they sell beer/wine. Leaving a weapon in your car seems dangerous and counterproductive.
This is interesting to me. I guess I have a different point of view being I do carry a weapon at all times. There is no rhyme or reason to when/where someone is going to decide they are going to rob a convinience store and kill the clerk and customers who are there.....which could be at the exact moment you are down there just to pick up a gallon of milk. The 5 O'clock news doesn't lead with a story that warns you John Smith is going to shoot up the Piggly Wiggly....it's BTW John Smith just shot up the Piggly Wiggly and killed the clerk and 4 customers for no apparent reason.
People (like me) who carry a weapon are 'confortable' trading the responsibility and mindset required to walk around with a weapon when balanced against the fact I am protecting my life and my families life. El Barto makes a good point when saying leaving a weapon in your car is dangerous and counterproductive. The CCW classes I've taken (1 to get my liscense and 3 more to refresh/re-learn/stay up to date on the laws) have all encouraged the participants that if you aren't carrying your weapon a 100% of the time, then you shouldn't even carry it. Here and there carrying is a bad habit to form because you can confuse if you left it in your car/ is it still home in my safe / did I lock my safe / did I lock it up in the car....etc.
Even here in MO there are places where carrying is "prohibited", but if you are found to be carrying in/on those locations it is not a 'Criminal Offense'. If you are discovered to have a weapon and are asked to leave and you dont (which why would you not) the police are called and they ask you to leave. If you still refuse(which I can't see anyone doing) you face a fine of $100. From there if you decide to make a ruckus you face revokment of your liscense and so on....but I can't imagine anyone not just leaving IF discovered.
My point is, I easily take the chance of at most...paying a $100 fine over not being prepared. An example would be you are not 'supposed' to bring your weapon into any sporting event that holds over 5,000 people. Now leaving your gun in you car if you are lets say at the Cardinals game in Downtown St Louis is foolish...even in the lockbox I have it is still open to be stolen. So why even take a weapon to the game then? My reasoning is that when leaving the game, walking back to your vehicle at 10-11 at night....is exactly when you'd want to be protected from the element of society that likes to prey on moments like that. I risk 'being discovered' and being kicked out of the game or at worst a $100 fine everytime to assure that when me, my wife and 3 young boys are walking back to our vehicle that our lives aren't ended or she isn't raped or my kids aren't beaten and so on.....and it doesn't bother me a bit.
And, at this point having had this liscense to carry for close to 6 years now, I can walk around with a 'casual' mindset even with the knowledge of having a weapon on me and understanding the responsibility / danger that accompanies it. It's just something I'm willing to live with considering everything that goes into that decision. Chances are, I NEVER have to even think about drawing my weapon (I've only begun to consider it once and the moment was handled by the business) ever in my life. I don't want to not have that option though.
-
I wouldn't leave a gun in the car either. I'd leave it at home. I've never been afraid to go somewhere because it might get robbed. When that day comes, I'm moving out of town. I have a friend who is a cop and he CC's everywhere and I'm still not comfortable with it. I don't care how responsible someone is (or more likely thinks they are), it is simply an instance of risk far outweighing any reward. My 45 is sitting at home not posing a threat to anyone other than someone who has no business being there, the only place I take it is to the range.
-
^That's kinda my sentiment as well. I simply don't feel the need for CC. And if our society ever devolved to the point where I felt I needed to carry outside my home, I think we would have devolved to the point where the CC laws would largely be irrelevant anyway.
-
Yeah, it's the risk/reward part that's the kink. If you're planning a stroll through Harlem at 2 in the AM, then I can see how it'd make sense. Arming yourself because somebody might rob the grocery store and shoot all the shoppers at the exact time you're in there borders on paranoia.
And in Texas, carrying a weapon where it's prohibited, which includes a ton of places, is a class A misdemeanor; not something to write off as trivial. I'm not sure what the rate of prosecution is for it, but I think I'd just as soon take a pass.
-
Just for the record, there's a thread about this on another board I'm on, with similar back and forth, do know/don't know, evidence/no evidence, etc. It hadn't been posted in all weekend, then someone posted in it again this morning. Plenty of people are tired of seeing the thread and today someone said
This thread needs to die.
Someone then suggested:
give the thread some skittles, tea, and a hoodie.
then call zimmerman.
too soon?
I lol'd.
-
Basically this incident Tested the "Stand Your Ground" Law, which proved to be full of flaws.
-
It's like in Morrowind when you're just walking by minding your own business and some guy's like "You N'wah!" and you're all "oh no you didn't, lightning to the face!" but then the guards murder you. So you load your saved game and this time you provoke the guy until he punches you then you murder him in the face and this time the guards chill because it was totally self defense. Then we laugh about how silly Elder Scrolls logic is, but the joke's on us because our lawmakers were taking notes the whole time.
You are my hero of the day. :lol
-
The best point by point analysis I've seen yet. And further proof that eye-witnesses aren't worth shit.
What is known, what isn’t about Trayvon Martin’s death (https://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/31/2725442/what-is-known-what-isnt-about.html)
Is there a way to forensically identify who's screaming in the 911 tapes?
I heard it reported that two forensic audio specialists claimed that the screams on the tape weren't that of Zimmerman with the second claiming it definitely was that of Martin. On the other hand, in the same report I heard an interview with an independent audio forensic specialist (though who hadn't heard the recording prior to the interview) who claimed that analysis of this type of thing is rarely, if ever, use screams as you have to compare to known real samples (that are going to be spoken and not screamed; hence changing a lot of aspects to the waves to look at) and *never* conclude only from audio analysis that the person is who the analysis concludes it is.
And before someone says I might've been listening to some Fox News thing, it was a BBC radio service.
-
^I heard that too.
Also there's another video out there which is better quality and supposedly shows that Zimmerman has some sort of visible injury. Haven't seen it though.
-J
-
Maybe this has already been discussed previously, as I haven't read through the entire thread, but this really gets me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q3ASKmZ-8A
Basically, we should have the right to bear arms, yet not have the freedom to wear whatever the hell we want to wear without fear of losing our lives.
-
Maybe this has already been discussed previously, as I haven't read through the entire thread, but this really gets me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q3ASKmZ-8A
Basically, we should have the right to bear arms, yet not have the freedom to wear whatever the hell we want to wear without fear of losing our lives.
Not sure if you object to the message or the reality. I think Geraldo's right.
You have to recognize that this whole stylizing yourself as a gangster, you're gonna be a gangsta wannabe, well people are going to perceive you as a menace. That's what happens.
I think people should be able to wear whateverthehell they want to wear, but they should also recognize that if they want to wear something that makes them look like a thug, that's how people will see them. I'd say that the problem isn't about freedom to dress yourself, but the glamorizing of a dangerous lifestyle. Maybe I'll wear fatigues, body armor and balaclava to the grocery store later on (my Wehrmacht dress uniform is at the cleaners).
That's the first time I've seen what Gerlado got so much flack for. That's unfortunate. If Bill Cosby had said it there wouldn't have been any problem.
As for the right to bear arms, that applied to Trayvon as well. He had the right to carry a gun to protect himself from damn-fool wannabe cops.
-
I have no idea what else Martin was wearing. But being black in a hoodie doesn't make you a gangsta wannabe. It was raining, perhaps the hood was to protect his head from the rain?
-
I have no idea what else Martin was wearing. But being black in a hoodie doesn't make you a gangsta wannabe. It was raining, perhaps the hood was to protect his head from the rain?
This. Everyone my age wears hoodies, myself included. If it is raining, why WOULDN'T he have the hood up?
-
I have no idea what else Martin was wearing. But being black in a hoodie doesn't make you a gangsta wannabe. It was raining, perhaps the hood was to protect his head from the rain?
Fair enough. I assumed he was dressed like a thug.
-
I have no idea what else Martin was wearing. But being black in a hoodie doesn't make you a gangsta wannabe. It was raining, perhaps the hood was to protect his head from the rain?
Fair enough. I assumed he was dressed like a thug.
He very well may have been. But aside from wearing a hoodie in the rain, I haven't read anything that stated that he was thugged out. Well at least this horrible situation will produce a great new campaign for umbrella companies.
"Umbrellas, they'll save your life"
-
The best point by point analysis I've seen yet. And further proof that eye-witnesses aren't worth shit.
What is known, what isn’t about Trayvon Martin’s death (https://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/31/2725442/what-is-known-what-isnt-about.html)
Is there a way to forensically identify who's screaming in the 911 tapes?
I heard it reported that two forensic audio specialists claimed that the screams on the tape weren't that of Zimmerman with the second claiming it definitely was that of Martin. On the other hand, in the same report I heard an interview with an independent audio forensic specialist (though who hadn't heard the recording prior to the interview) who claimed that analysis of this type of thing is rarely, if ever, use screams as you have to compare to known real samples (that are going to be spoken and not screamed; hence changing a lot of aspects to the waves to look at) and *never* conclude only from audio analysis that the person is who the analysis concludes it is.
And before someone says I might've been listening to some Fox News thing, it was a BBC radio service.
If experts disagree, are you supposed to go by gut instinct? Can't do the rational thing.
-
I have no idea what else Martin was wearing. But being black in a hoodie doesn't make you a gangsta wannabe. It was raining, perhaps the hood was to protect his head from the rain?
Fair enough. I assumed he was dressed like a thug.
No, he was just wearing a hoodie. I have a few hoodies myself, but I should be OK walking around town, since I'm white.
-
I have no idea what else Martin was wearing. But being black in a hoodie doesn't make you a gangsta wannabe. It was raining, perhaps the hood was to protect his head from the rain?
Fair enough. I assumed he was dressed like a thug.
No, he was just wearing a hoodie. I have a few hoodies myself, but I should be OK walking around town, since I'm white.
Not exactly. If you had your pants way down, showing your underwear....walked with that "gansta lean", and had your head down a bit with your hoodie up hiding yopur face...walking slow....looking at houses....yes you would be stopped, or looked at with suspicion. I have to admit, I would probably do the same, and have done so in the past. It isnt racist. It is a generalization and a stereotype of a dress and behavoir. Unfortunately, many stereotypes exist because there is some truth to it. If I saw that dress and behavoir in my neighborhood, I would be suspicious, regardless of race.
I saw two african american kids walking near my neighbors house last year. Pants down, hoodies on with hoods up, and walking nice and slow. They had just broken into my neighbors house. As soon as I saw them, I was suspicious.
I didnt see two african american men in suits and ties. It is a stereotype yes, but one that has at least some truth to it.
EDIT: also, running is a suspicious behavoir....it would be to me if I asked someone what they were doing. If I was walking in my neighborhood, and some guy asked me what I was doing, I would say "I live here...right over there on 76th terrace", and not in a confrontational tone. That is behavoir that will likely not raise suspicion, or at least decrease it.
Not making any statements about this case in particular, but just pointing out that dress and behavoir of certain stereotypes will arouse suspicion....and there is some truth to the stereotypes.
-
Do we even know what was going on below his waist?
-
Do we even know what was going on below his waist?
I doubt he was wearing skinny jeans, but I didnt bring up pants in regards to Travon specifically. Just that certain dress and behavoir can raise suspicion, regardless of race.
Again, not specifically about this case, but I do think it is a good thing that people address suspicious behavoir in their neighborhood. It is better to be safe than sorry.
I live across from a park, and there are alot of kids coming and going. Some are obviously troublemakers, kicking over stuff, causing property damage, yelling profanity. I have a 3 and 6 yr old daughters, and I dont think some behavoir is appropriate in my neighborhood. I confront them, and they change their behavoir, at least until out of my view. If I see behavoir like I posted in the earlier post, I will just make myself VERY visible. Usually with some gardening tool in hand LOL.
My only point was a general one. You dont see kids robbing houses in 3 piece suits. You see that type of behavoir from kids with certain dress and behavoir...and not exculsively "black kids in hoodies". I have suspicions because there is some truth behind the stereotypes, and I need to be on guard to protect my family and possessions.
Are ALL kids dressed like that going to do something criminal? Of course not. But more dressed like that and acting like that will do something criminal than someone in a 3 piece suit. JMO
-
Oh ok, so you're just making up that he was all gangsta. Gotcha.
-
Do we even know what was going on below his waist?
Are ALL kids dressed like that going to do something criminal? Of course not. But more dressed like that and acting like that will do something criminal than someone in a 3 piece suit. JMO
I'd like to introduce you to some friends. They used to run these huge companies...Worldcom and Enron. :P
:biggrin: Of course there is a valid point to the "clothes=first impressions" argument, but Zimmerman following a kid who happened to be black and wore a hoodie before he did anything suspicious other than just being there? That's not justifiable paranoia or looking out for kids or your neighborhood, that's profiling.
-
Oh ok, so you're just making up that he was all gangsta. Gotcha.
Adami, stop the race baiting NOW.
-
??? What race-baiting?
-
Oh ok, so you're just making up that he was all gangsta. Gotcha.
Adami, stop the race baiting NOW.
What? I can't tell if you're kidding. He admitted that it's something he is just assuming. How am I baiting?
-
Didn't I read somewhere that he didn't actually live there, that he was staying at the dad's/dad's girlfriend's house while visiting?
-
Oh ok, so you're just making up that he was all gangsta. Gotcha.
I wasnt making up that ANYONE was "gangsta". I said several times (I would suggest reading my posts) that I was not referring to Trayvon in particular, but that certain stereotypical appearance and behavoirs will arouse suspicion. And that those stereotypes have some basis in truth.
Of course there is a valid point to the "clothes=first impressions" argument, but Zimmerman following a kid who happened to be black and wore a hoodie before he did anything suspicious other than just being there? That's not justifiable paranoia or looking out for kids or your neighborhood, that's profiling.
Do we really know what his behavoir was? It very well could have been suspicious. I dont think it is, or can be, known what his actual behavoir was that night. Saying he was "just being there" has no basis in fact or evidence. We really dont know do we?
-
Well it seems I'm not allowed to suggest that Martin wasn't dressed as a gangster, so fair enough.
-
Oh ok, so you're just making up that he was all gangsta. Gotcha.
Adami, stop the race baiting NOW.
What? I can't tell if you're kidding. He admitted that it's something he is just assuming. How am I baiting?
The only way I could see anyone considering your comment to be "race baiting" is if they already go in with the idea that "gangsta" = black. Wouldn't be too surprising, discussion about this part of the story seems to bring out a lot of crazy talk from people. Like statements that wearing your pants low and having the hood of your hoodie up is "suspicious behavior."
-
Well it seems I'm not allowed to suggest that Martin wasn't dressed as a gangster, so fair enough.
You're not allowed to imply that anyone who disagrees with you is a racist, no. And you frequently do that.
-
What does "gangsta" have to do with race?
-
Well it seems I'm not allowed to suggest that Martin wasn't dressed as a gangster, so fair enough.
You're not allowed to imply that anyone who disagrees with you is a racist, no. And you frequently do that.
When did I do that? I said he was making it up. I didn't mention the word racist.
-
Well it seems I'm not allowed to suggest that Martin wasn't dressed as a gangster, so fair enough.
You posted it in response to my post, criticizing me for suggesting he was dressed like a ganster.
Just read the posts in their entirety before responding. I didnt say anyhting about Travon, and thought I was very clear I wasnt even talking about him in particular.
-
Well it seems I'm not allowed to suggest that Martin wasn't dressed as a gangster, so fair enough.
You posted it in response to my post, criticizing me for suggesting he was dressed like a ganster.
Just read the posts in their entirety before responding. I didnt say anyhting about Travon, and thought I was very clear I wasnt even talking about him in particular.
Fair enough. Just seemed random then. We're discussing Martin. Listing a bunch of other activity that might be considered suspicious seems random. I understand what you were trying to get at. But since this thread is about Martin, we're just saying that what he specifically did shouldn't be considered suspicious. Obviously other activity can be considered suspicious.
-
The only way I could see anyone considering your comment to be "race baiting" is if they already go in with the idea that "gangsta" = black. Wouldn't be too surprising, discussion about this part of the story seems to bring out a lot of crazy talk from people. Like statements that wearing your pants low and having the hood of your hoodie up is "suspicious behavior."
Wearing your pants low with a hoodie may not be suspicious behavior in and of itself. When coupled with other behavoir in certain environments, it certainly adds to a suspicious assessment. In a perfect world, no one would be suspicious of anyone else until they committed a bad act. But then its too late. Suspicion is hard wired in us as a survival mechanism, and there are truths behind most stereotypes, like it or not
-
The only way I could see anyone considering your comment to be "race baiting" is if they already go in with the idea that "gangsta" = black. Wouldn't be too surprising, discussion about this part of the story seems to bring out a lot of crazy talk from people. Like statements that wearing your pants low and having the hood of your hoodie up is "suspicious behavior."
Wearing your pants low with a hoodie may not be suspicious behavior in and of itself. When coupled with other behavoir in certain environments, it certainly adds to a suspicious assessment. In a perfect world, no one would be suspicious of anyone else until they committed a bad act. But then its too late. Suspicion is hard wired in us as a survival mechanism, and there are truths behind most stereotypes, like it or not
I completely agree. But I haven't read anything about what Martin was wearing beyond a hoodie.
But whatever, since it seems me suggesting that not every human being judging this case is unbias and free of prejudice will get me banned, I will just bow out of this thread for good. Best of luck to everyone.
-
Slowly walking by houses while closely inspecting them is suspicious behavior regardless of how they're dressed. Bringing low pants or whatever other fashion tastes you don't agree with into it is silly.
-
Well it seems I'm not allowed to suggest that Martin wasn't dressed as a gangster, so fair enough.
You posted it in response to my post, criticizing me for suggesting he was dressed like a ganster.
Just read the posts in their entirety before responding. I didnt say anyhting about Travon, and thought I was very clear I wasnt even talking about him in particular.
Fair enough. Just seemed random then. We're discussing Martin. Listing a bunch of other activity that might be considered suspicious seems random. I understand what you were trying to get at. But since this thread is about Martin, we're just saying that what he specifically did shouldn't be considered suspicious. Obviously other activity can be considered suspicious.
Two points.
1) The discussion can take tangents and discuss general aspects, not just specifics. I clearly even stated I wasnt talking about Travon specifically. But this is a heated topic, so you may have glossed over it. No harm, no foul.
2) We dont know what his behavoir specifically was that night. His behavoir could have, when coupled with the appearance, been enough to cause suspicion in the average neighborhood resident. To say he was doing nothing but just "being there" isnt supported by any evidence yet.
-
Slowly walking by houses while closely inspecting them is suspicious behavior regardless of how they're dressed. Bringing low pants or whatever other fashion tastes you don't agree with into it is silly.
Judgements made on appearance are not "silly". They may not feel good to you in Utopia, but in the real world, they matter.
-
Slowly walking by houses while closely inspecting them is suspicious behavior regardless of how they're dressed. Bringing low pants or whatever other fashion tastes you don't agree with into it is silly.
Perhaps, but it's also human nature. And lets be clear here. The entire reason for some of these fashion trends is so that people WILL think they're thugs.
-
Slowly walking by houses while closely inspecting them is suspicious behavior regardless of how they're dressed. Bringing low pants or whatever other fashion tastes you don't agree with into it is silly.
Judgements made on appearance are not "silly". They may not feel good to you in Utopia, but in the real world, they matter.
Judging that low pants and a hoodie with the hood up = suspicious behavior absolutely is silly. Just as much as skydivingninja's joke about people wearing suits being crooked business men.
-
Slowly walking by houses while closely inspecting them is suspicious behavior regardless of how they're dressed. Bringing low pants or whatever other fashion tastes you don't agree with into it is silly.
Judgements made on appearance are not "silly". They may not feel good to you in Utopia, but in the real world, they matter.
Judging that low pants and a hoodie with the hood up = suspicious behavior absolutely is silly. Just as much as skydivingninja's joke about people wearing suits being crooked business men.
All I can say is, a LOT of people disagree with you. Personally, I think it depends on context, and there will be plenty of grey areas. But some of those suspicions may be silly in some contexts while perfectly valid in others. Wearing red shouldn't make people suspicious. But if you live in certain gang-infested areas of some cities where simply wearing a color is a gang identifier, wearing red can get you beat up, arrested, or killed. Whether it may seem rational is irrelevant. It is just a fact. It doesn't really make sense to just close your eyes to it and label it silly just because you or I might disagree with it being valid.
-
There's a pretty huge difference between "wearing clothes that matches the "uniform" of an active gang in the area is suspicious behavior" and a blanket "low pants and a hoodie is suspicious."
-
Maybe yes, and maybe no. Again, I don't think you can simply write off an opinion that it is suspicious. In some contexts, it is. In others, it isn't. But given your "gang uniform" comment, I don't think you have the background to appreciate the differences in some contexts. Don't take that as a slam--it's not meant to be. But I don't think you understand the example I was giving.
-
The best point by point analysis I've seen yet. And further proof that eye-witnesses aren't worth shit.
What is known, what isn’t about Trayvon Martin’s death (https://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/31/2725442/what-is-known-what-isnt-about.html)
Is there a way to forensically identify who's screaming in the 911 tapes?
I heard it reported that two forensic audio specialists claimed that the screams on the tape weren't that of Zimmerman with the second claiming it definitely was that of Martin. On the other hand, in the same report I heard an interview with an independent audio forensic specialist (though who hadn't heard the recording prior to the interview) who claimed that analysis of this type of thing is rarely, if ever, use screams as you have to compare to known real samples (that are going to be spoken and not screamed; hence changing a lot of aspects to the waves to look at) and *never* conclude only from audio analysis that the person is who the analysis concludes it is.
And before someone says I might've been listening to some Fox News thing, it was a BBC radio service.
If experts disagree, are you supposed to go by gut instinct? Can't do the rational thing.
I didn't go by gut instinct. I can, and do, the rational thing of listening to an expert and determining if their explanation sounds reasonable.
-
Maybe yes, and maybe no. Again, I don't think you can simply write off an opinion that it is suspicious. In some contexts, it is. In others, it isn't. But given your "gang uniform" comment, I don't think you have the background to appreciate the differences in some contexts. Don't take that as a slam--it's not meant to be. But I don't think you understand the example I was giving.
You were talking about gangs that, for example, all wear red, so if you were to wear red in that area then people would think you could be a member of that gang. I live in a city that's got moderate gang related crime / activity. We weren't allowed to wear plain white T-shirts in high school for gang reasons. I understand what you're talking about. There's still a huge difference between wearing a specific type of clothes that could identify you as a local gang member and something as generic as loose pants and a "hoodie."
-
Maybe yes, and maybe no. Again, I don't think you can simply write off an opinion that it is suspicious. In some contexts, it is. In others, it isn't. But given your "gang uniform" comment, I don't think you have the background to appreciate the differences in some contexts. Don't take that as a slam--it's not meant to be. But I don't think you understand the example I was giving.
You were talking about gangs that, for example, all wear red, so if you were to wear red in that area then people would think you could be a member of that gang. I live in a city that's got moderate gang related crime / activity. We weren't allowed to wear plain white T-shirts in high school for gang reasons. I understand what you're talking about. There's still a huge difference between wearing a specific type of clothes that could identify you as a local gang member and something as generic as loose pants and a "hoodie."
But it's not that simple. There are plenty of gang neighborhoods where there isn't a specific "uniform" or article of clothing--which is especially true in areas where police crack down on gangs, so the gang's become much more loose in what constitutes a gang identifier. Rather than the plain white t-shirt example you gave, it could be as simple as having white anywhere on your clothing, period. You could be dressed in jeans and a black t-shirt, but if you've got white shoes, you could be flagged. You could be wearing blue sweats with a white stripe and be flagged.
The point is simply that you can wear something that would be completely innocuous in many contexts, that can end up intentionally or unintentionally creating a negative label in other contexts.
-
What a few of you are calling "gangsta" or "thug" attire I'd probably call "hip-hop" attire, which is the current cultural movement adopted by the youth of today of all races. I'd say that kids today dress that way because they listen to hip-hop and want to be associated with that scene, just like the metalheads of yesteryear dressed in denim, leather and spikes because they wanted to be identified as a metalhead, not a Hell's Angel or something. Hasn't this been going on for like, ever? Wasn't the greaser style that teens were into in the 50's or whatever originally associated with some sort of criminal element? Hip-hop culture is just the current youth movement to be deemed a threat to decent society by good old-fashioned Americans (aka old people). To me anyone who looks at a kid dressed in hip-hop gear and thinks "OMG gangbanger thug (p.s. I hate the word "thug," can we like have a funeral for that word? fucking a) is as out of touch as Tipper Gore was during the '80s. I'd look at a kid dressed that way and think "kid." I guess perception of stuff like this depends greatly on our own point of view, like 'ol Obi-Wan said.
-
Maybe yes, and maybe no. Again, I don't think you can simply write off an opinion that it is suspicious. In some contexts, it is. In others, it isn't. But given your "gang uniform" comment, I don't think you have the background to appreciate the differences in some contexts. Don't take that as a slam--it's not meant to be. But I don't think you understand the example I was giving.
You were talking about gangs that, for example, all wear red, so if you were to wear red in that area then people would think you could be a member of that gang. I live in a city that's got moderate gang related crime / activity. We weren't allowed to wear plain white T-shirts in high school for gang reasons. I understand what you're talking about. There's still a huge difference between wearing a specific type of clothes that could identify you as a local gang member and something as generic as loose pants and a "hoodie."
But it's not that simple. There are plenty of gang neighborhoods where there isn't a specific "uniform" or article of clothing--which is especially true in areas where police crack down on gangs, so the gang's become much more loose in what constitutes a gang identifier. Rather than the plain white t-shirt example you gave, it could be as simple as having white anywhere on your clothing, period. You could be dressed in jeans and a black t-shirt, but if you've got white shoes, you could be flagged. You could be wearing blue sweats with a white stripe and be flagged.
The point is simply that you can wear something that would be completely innocuous in many contexts, that can end up intentionally or unintentionally creating a negative label in other contexts.
You're still talking about wearing a specific color in an area where a gang has decided they're going to use any amount of that color as their identifier. Yes, it's reasonable to be suspicious of that color in that specific case, just like it'd be reasonable to be suspicious of anyone wearing a suit if there were a nice suit gang in your area. As far as I could tell eric wasn't talking about that kind of specific case. I doubt that there's a "loose pants and random hoodie" gang in his area (or in the area that Trayvon was shot, for that matter), although I suppose it's possible I'm wrong.
-
If you suspect someone of something, is there anything they can do that won't be suspicious?
-
If you suspect someone of something, is there anything they can do that won't be suspicious?
Yes. When asked what they are doing here, they respond, "Oh, Hi there. Yeah, Im Eric Smith, I live 2 streets over on Holly Lane. Have a good day!:
Saying, "You got a problem?", or running will cause more suspicion.
So to answer your question, there are certainly things that can be done that wont be suspicious, and there are mnay things that can be done to STOP the suspicion
-
If you suspect someone of something, is there anything they can do that won't be suspicious?
Yes. When asked what they are doing here, they respond, "Oh, Hi there. Yeah, Im Eric Smith, I live 2 streets over on Holly Lane. Have a good day!:
Saying, "You got a problem?", or running will cause more suspicion.
So to answer your question, there are certainly things that can be done that wont be suspicious, and there are mnay things that can be done to STOP the suspicion
Sure, when the person asking you what you're doing there is a cop. What business is it of some other random guy on the street what you are doing, or where you live?
-
If you suspect someone of something, is there anything they can do that won't be suspicious?
Yes. When asked what they are doing here, they respond, "Oh, Hi there. Yeah, Im Eric Smith, I live 2 streets over on Holly Lane. Have a good day!:
Saying, "You got a problem?", or running will cause more suspicion.
So to answer your question, there are certainly things that can be done that wont be suspicious, and there are mnay things that can be done to STOP the suspicion
Sure, when the person asking you what you're doing there is a cop. What business is it of some other random guy on the street what you are doing, or where you live?
You trying to tell me that if I saw a guy walking through my neighbors yard, dressed 'suspiciously' knowing that my subdivision had been hit by a string of burglaries that I can't walk over to that guy and ask him who he is and what he is doing? I have every right to do that Officer or not....and I'd expect my neighbors to do the same.
And you know....yes Martin WAS dressed suspiciously. It sucks to say that 'stereotype' for black males is there....and it sucks even more to say that it's there for a statistical reason....not because whitey hates blacks. I'm sorry that a black man walking at night, in between homes, dressed in a hoodie is 'suspicious'.....but it is. Plain and simple. Doesn't make me a racist for thinking that......but it isn 't some mass conspiracy that makes that type of garb 'suspicious'......it's suspicious for a reason.
-
If you suspect someone of something, is there anything they can do that won't be suspicious?
Yes. When asked what they are doing here, they respond, "Oh, Hi there. Yeah, Im Eric Smith, I live 2 streets over on Holly Lane. Have a good day!:
Saying, "You got a problem?", or running will cause more suspicion.
So to answer your question, there are certainly things that can be done that wont be suspicious, and there are mnay things that can be done to STOP the suspicion
Sure, when the person asking you what you're doing there is a cop. What business is it of some other random guy on the street what you are doing, or where you live?
You trying to tell me that if I saw a guy walking through my neighbors yard, dressed 'suspiciously' knowing that my subdivision had been hit by a string of burglaries that I can't walk over to that guy and ask him who he is and what he is doing? I have every right to do that Officer or not....and I'd expect my neighbors to do the same.
And you know....yes Martin WAS dressed suspiciously. It sucks to say that 'stereotype' for black males is there....and it sucks even more to say that it's there for a statistical reason....not because whitey hates blacks. I'm sorry that a black man walking at night, in between homes, dressed in a hoodie is 'suspicious'.....but it is. Plain and simple. Doesn't make me a racist for thinking that......but it isn 't some mass conspiracy that makes that type of garb 'suspicious'......it's suspicious for a reason.
I don't think Black has anything to do with it. IMO, a young man of any race walking at night, in between homes, dressed in a hoodie is "suspicious" in a lot of contexts, but race is not really a factor that I think should factor in. I would consider a White young man in that same situation "suspicious," whereas if you said a Black man walking at night, in between homes, dressed in a hoodie while taking out the trash to not be suspicious in the least.
-
If you suspect someone of something, is there anything they can do that won't be suspicious?
Yes. When asked what they are doing here, they respond, "Oh, Hi there. Yeah, Im Eric Smith, I live 2 streets over on Holly Lane. Have a good day!:
Saying, "You got a problem?", or running will cause more suspicion.
So to answer your question, there are certainly things that can be done that wont be suspicious, and there are mnay things that can be done to STOP the suspicion
Sure, when the person asking you what you're doing there is a cop. What business is it of some other random guy on the street what you are doing, or where you live?
You trying to tell me that if I saw a guy walking through my neighbors yard, dressed 'suspiciously' knowing that my subdivision had been hit by a string of burglaries that I can't walk over to that guy and ask him who he is and what he is doing? I have every right to do that Officer or not....and I'd expect my neighbors to do the same.
And you know....yes Martin WAS dressed suspiciously. It sucks to say that 'stereotype' for black males is there....and it sucks even more to say that it's there for a statistical reason....not because whitey hates blacks. I'm sorry that a black man walking at night, in between homes, dressed in a hoodie is 'suspicious'.....but it is. Plain and simple. Doesn't make me a racist for thinking that......but it isn 't some mass conspiracy that makes that type of garb 'suspicious'......it's suspicious for a reason.
I don't think Black has anything to do with it. IMO, a young man of any race walking at night, in between homes, dressed in a hoodie is "suspicious" in a lot of contexts, but race is not really a factor that I think should factor in. I would consider a White young man in that same situation "suspicious," whereas if you said a Black man walking at night, in between homes, dressed in a hoodie while taking out the trash to not be suspicious in the least.
Yeah you're right about that. I personally would deem anyone in a hoodie darting between homes at night 'suspicious'. Could be kids just playing....but when confronted they could explain that or what they were doing instead of running or whatever and compounding that suspicion.
-
So, was Trayvon trespassing or was he still on public property while "in between homes?"
-
So, was Trayvon trespassing or was he still on public property while "in between homes?"
Moot IMO from the viewpoint of a resident. You can be acting suspicious regardless of property ownership. Maybe there is a utility easement that is owned by the city in between houses...it doesnt mean you belong there, and would still be considered suspicious.
It may be a factor in a legal proceeding if he was charged with something, but it doesnt negate suspicious behavoir. You can have suspicious behavoir by a person on his very own property. I mean, the guy can be in his own home, and his actions can still certainly be suspicious, right?
-
So, was Trayvon trespassing or was he still on public property while "in between homes?"
I don't know. I know that if you are on someones property without thier permission it is trespassing, and in Missouri under the 'Castle Doctrine' one could legally shoot in self defense on thier property i.e...home, car, boat, yard....and there is an extension to that law if you've been asked to care for someone's home or property...the same laws apply as if it were 'your' property.
Assuming that the 'yards' of the condos were the property of the owners and not 'common ground' then I'd say he was trespassing. Either way, tresspassing or not.... given the history of break ins and the heightened alert the neighborhood watch was apparently on....I don't fault Zimmerman one bit for wanting to find out what Martin was up to. As was mentioned earlier..all it would have taken was a 'I'm staying at such and such address, Zimmerman either follows him to verify that or hand the info. over to the police and they can. End of story. 'Something' happened that we will probably never know for sure that set those horrible events in motion. For reasons I've explained 100x in this thread already..I'll take Zimmermans word of the account until / unless some other evidence comes in to play to discount it. As of yet, none has.
-
If you suspect someone of something, is there anything they can do that won't be suspicious?
Yes. When asked what they are doing here, they respond, "Oh, Hi there. Yeah, Im Eric Smith, I live 2 streets over on Holly Lane. Have a good day!:
Saying, "You got a problem?", or running will cause more suspicion.
So to answer your question, there are certainly things that can be done that wont be suspicious, and there are mnay things that can be done to STOP the suspicion
Sure, when the person asking you what you're doing there is a cop. What business is it of some other random guy on the street what you are doing, or where you live?
You trying to tell me that if I saw a guy walking through my neighbors yard, dressed 'suspiciously' knowing that my subdivision had been hit by a string of burglaries that I can't walk over to that guy and ask him who he is and what he is doing? I have every right to do that Officer or not....and I'd expect my neighbors to do the same.
And you know....yes Martin WAS dressed suspiciously. It sucks to say that 'stereotype' for black males is there....and it sucks even more to say that it's there for a statistical reason....not because whitey hates blacks. I'm sorry that a black man walking at night, in between homes, dressed in a hoodie is 'suspicious'.....but it is. Plain and simple. Doesn't make me a racist for thinking that......but it isn 't some mass conspiracy that makes that type of garb 'suspicious'......it's suspicious for a reason.
No, I'm not trying to tell you that. Not sure how you got that from what I said. You can walk over to that guy and say whatever you want. I'm just saying if you're just some guy from the neighboorhood who comes over to him saying "hey man what are you doing," which is within your rights, it is within his rights to say "fuck you, mind your own business."
You seem to be approaching all of this from the mindset that this kid was prowling around the neighboorhood, when most reports I've read (including the "what we do & don't know" one that Barto posted a while back) indicate that this kid was walking near houses in an attempt to get out of the rain. And he was on his cellphone headset the whole time talking w/ his girlfriend, who should be able to provide an account of what this kid was actually doing in the moments that led to his confrontation with Zimmerman (whether that's reliable or not is up to you). At the end of the day though we're still where we were at the start of this thread- nobody really knows for sure what happened and what everyone's motives were. And this is because there hasn't been a proper investigation. And that is why this whole thing is an issue.
-
I agree that, in a shhoting death, a "proper investigation" should occur.
One problem is that a "proper investigation" may not show any actual evidence to corroborate, or refute, anyones story.
What happens then? All hell breaks loose I fear.
-
You seem to be approaching all of this from the mindset that this kid was prowling around the neighboorhood
I'm approaching it from the mindset that I think Zimmerman was well within his 'rights' to follow Martin and be curious to what he was up to...black...white...hoodie...no hoodie. That's it. I think the onus was on Martin to 'validate' his being there and where he was going. That isn't unreasonable to have to answer, especially in a gated community like that. I think that Martins age and the 'bravado' that go along with it along with the lifestyle he so elegantly participated in on twitter influenced him to handle the situation in a manner that ultimately led to him being shot. That's what I believe...not stating that as FACT....just my opinion.
If anything this case has exposed Floridas Law to be too liberal in interpretation. Even MO's Castle Doctrine each instance of someone shooting in self defense is automatically reviewed by prosecutors and the burden is on the 'shooter' to prove why they did it. There were (7) cases last year in MO where the Castle Doctrine was envoked and all 7 were justified. Albeit, all cases involved an intruder breaking in to someones home which leaves little room to 'doubt' the shooters story or 'side' with the victim.
-
So it seems like we're all pretty much in agreement then that this case has not been investigated and handled properly. Yay!
-
This is interesting:
And he was on his cellphone headset the whole time talking w/ his girlfriend...
I hadn't thought about this before, but something just occurred to me as I was reading your post. In the 911 tape, at the beginning, Zimmerman makes the comment about Martin stumbling around and looking like he is on drugs. I wonder if the fact that he was on the phone may have contributed to Zimmerman's perception. Think about it. If Martin had a headset on that was not visible because of the hoodie, he was likely focused on the conversation and may have had a distant look on his face and appear to be somewhat wandering and not focused, as a lot of us sometimes do when we are holding a phone conversation while trying to do something else at the same time. Just makes me wonder whether the phone thing could have actually been part of the trigger for this whole mess and contributed to Martin looking "suspicious" to Zimmerman. Whether Martin was on the path between the townhomes or not, if he was walking with purpose making it obvious that he was going somewhere, or if he were visibly holding a phone up to his head and talking, I'm guessing he may have looked a lot less "suspicious," regardless of the other factors.
-
Quoting from Boortz what I think is a good take on the SYG part:
As for the SYG law and the Trayvon Martin case, I haven’t seen anyone else bring this up, but both Trayvon and Zimmerman had the SYG law on their side under the three possible operating scenarios here:
George Zimmerman. If Zimmerman was attacked by Trayvon, as he claims, he had the legal authority to use deadly force to repel the attack. BUT .. and this is a big but here .. if he was pursuing Trayvon, as he said he was, the SYG law would not protect him from prosecution. Zimmerman wasn’t standing his ground. He was in pursuit. I see no reason for repeal of SYG here because the law will not stand as a defense for what Zimmerman did. By the way …. I heard Juan Williams on Fox News Channel say – not once, but several times --- that George Zimmerman had been told by the police to stop his pursuit of Trayvon. First of all, there is no evidence that the 911 dispatcher Zimmerman was talking to was was a police officer. Secondly, the dispatcher didn’t say “Don’t do that.” The dispatcher said “You don’t need to be doing that.” Telling someone that they don’t need to be doing something is quite different from telling someone NOT to do something. Williams should understand this.
Trayvon Martin: How would the SYG law stand to protect Trayvon? If Trayvon had noticed he was being followed, and if he elected to flee his pursuer he would have every right to do so. He would also have every right to turn and to confront his pursuer. That would be “standing your ground.” So the rumored testimony of this eyewitness who said he saw Zimmerman on the ground with Trayvon pummeling him does not necessarily implicate Trayvon. If he was standing his ground he was acting within the law.
Now here’s where it could get complicated. What if Zimmerman had ceased his pursuit of Trayvon and retreated to his car. What if Trayvon then pursued Zimmerman to his car and attacked him. Trayvon would then lose his protection under SYG, just as Zimmerman did when he initiated a pursuit. But if Zimmerman than became the pursued instead of the pursuer, does he then have the SYG law to rely on? That’s an interesting question, and one that I think would have to be put in front of a jury.
-
So it seems like we're all pretty much in agreement then that this case has not been investigated and handled properly. Yay!
I had 'assumed' that Floridas law was pretty much Missouri's las being that they are one of many states that once you get a Conceal Carry Liscense here in MO, I can carry in Florida..(there are many states that reciprocate like that) so I had assumed the laws were pretty much the same save a detail here or there.....but once this story became a story and Floridas law was 'exposed', it's VERY open for interpretation. To have the ability just to say 'Yeah, I was scared for my life' and that be that......that is scary in it's own. And I'm a HUGE Pro-Gun man....Huge.....and that law is still a bit un nerving for me.
I like and trust the law we have here in MO because you know that if you are going to draw your weapon and shoot someone, you WILL have to prove that it was self defense and that you feared for your life. I think that in it's own can and will stop any Tom, Dick or Harry from just arbitrarily shooting someone and claiming self defense.
I DONT think that's what Zimmerman did.......but that Florida law can and does allow people to say and do just that. What I fear and what is already happening is that instead of ammending that law and making the proper changes to it the Anti-gun folk are out in full force trying to just wipe any type of self defense law from the books completely.
-
If you suspect someone of something, is there anything they can do that won't be suspicious?
Yes. When asked what they are doing here, they respond, "Oh, Hi there. Yeah, Im Eric Smith, I live 2 streets over on Holly Lane. Have a good day!:
Saying, "You got a problem?", or running will cause more suspicion.
So to answer your question, there are certainly things that can be done that wont be suspicious, and there are mnay things that can be done to STOP the suspicion
That's not really in Trayvon's ability, to have Zimmerman ask him a question. Zimmerman didn't approach him, didn't identify himself, didn't make it clear what his intentions were. So, is there anything Trayvon could have done that would not have been susicious? Walking home? Running? Hiding?
-
That's not really in Trayvon's ability, to have Zimmerman ask him a question. Zimmerman didn't approach him, didn't identify himself, didn't make it clear what his intentions were. So, is there anything Trayvon could have done that would not have been susicious? Walking home? Running? Hiding?
That brings me back to what I believe. I believe Zimmermans story that he 'lost' sight of Martin....began heading back to his vehicle...at which time Martin engaged Zimmerman. At that point instead of saying 'now you have a problem' or whatever, that is/was his chance to validate himself or state his place/purpose etc. That's where I believe his age/mentality came in to play and the situation escalated to what it did leading to him being shot. I don't think we will ever know, and without further evidence that 'is' what happened.
-
That's not really in Trayvon's ability, to have Zimmerman ask him a question. Zimmerman didn't approach him, didn't identify himself, didn't make it clear what his intentions were. So, is there anything Trayvon could have done that would not have been susicious? Walking home? Running? Hiding?
That brings me back to what I believe. I believe Zimmermans story that he 'lost' sight of Martin....began heading back to his vehicle...at which time Martin engaged Zimmerman. At that point instead of saying 'now you have a problem' or whatever, that is/was his chance to validate himself or state his place/purpose etc. That's where I believe his age/mentality came in to play and the situation escalated to what it did leading to him being shot. I don't think we will ever know, and without further evidence that 'is' what happened.
But if he finally did sneak out of site, he did so only after trying to get away, and having Zimmerman follow him. There's no reason Martin should be expected to assume he's lost Zimmerman, or that Zimmerman isn't looking for him.
Also, as I pointed out, the line of events that you portray has Zimmerman not identifying himself, not making it clear what his intentions were. He lied, Trayvon probably knew it, and that'd make him feel more threatened.
-
That's not really in Trayvon's ability, to have Zimmerman ask him a question. Zimmerman didn't approach him, didn't identify himself, didn't make it clear what his intentions were. So, is there anything Trayvon could have done that would not have been susicious? Walking home? Running? Hiding?
That brings me back to what I believe. I believe Zimmermans story that he 'lost' sight of Martin....began heading back to his vehicle...at which time Martin engaged Zimmerman. At that point instead of saying 'now you have a problem' or whatever, that is/was his chance to validate himself or state his place/purpose etc. That's where I believe his age/mentality came in to play and the situation escalated to what it did leading to him being shot. I don't think we will ever know, and without further evidence that 'is' what happened.
But if he finally did sneak out of site, he did so only after trying to get away, and having Zimmerman follow him. There's no reason Martin should be expected to assume he's lost Zimmerman, or that Zimmerman isn't looking for him.
Also, as I pointed out, the line of events that you portray has Zimmerman not identifying himself, not making it clear what his intentions were. He lied, Trayvon probably knew it, and that'd make him feel more threatened.
It is a huge cluster 'F'...for sure. I think even if we knew for certain every action of both, every word spoken of both....like Praxis pointed out earlier....there could possibly have been multiple changing moments of who was threatened at what time and by whom. It's a mess...it really is. That is why I think that without further evidence proving otherwise....under the law Florida has at the moment and at the time of the shooting....Zimmerman is "innocent" and shouldn't face any time. Do I think that's right? No. But when it come's down to it that IS the law and the only thing that can be done about it is from here forward....about changing that law to a more reasonable SYG law.
-
>:( WHEN WILL YOU ADDRESS MY
MONKEY PHONE ARGUMENT?
-
That's not really in Trayvon's ability, to have Zimmerman ask him a question. Zimmerman didn't approach him, didn't identify himself, didn't make it clear what his intentions were. So, is there anything Trayvon could have done that would not have been susicious? Walking home? Running? Hiding?
That brings me back to what I believe. I believe Zimmermans story that he 'lost' sight of Martin....began heading back to his vehicle...at which time Martin engaged Zimmerman. At that point instead of saying 'now you have a problem' or whatever, that is/was his chance to validate himself or state his place/purpose etc. That's where I believe his age/mentality came in to play and the situation escalated to what it did leading to him being shot. I don't think we will ever know, and without further evidence that 'is' what happened.
But if he finally did sneak out of site, he did so only after trying to get away, and having Zimmerman follow him. There's no reason Martin should be expected to assume he's lost Zimmerman, or that Zimmerman isn't looking for him.
Also, as I pointed out, the line of events that you portray has Zimmerman not identifying himself, not making it clear what his intentions were. He lied, Trayvon probably knew it, and that'd make him feel more threatened.
It is a huge cluster 'F'...for sure. I think even if we knew for certain every action of both, every word spoken of both....like Praxis pointed out earlier....there could possibly have been multiple changing moments of who was threatened at what time and by whom. It's a mess...it really is. That is why I think that without further evidence proving otherwise....under the law Florida has at the moment and at the time of the shooting....Zimmerman is "innocent" and shouldn't face any time. Do I think that's right? No. But when it come's down to it that IS the law and the only thing that can be done about it is from here forward....about changing that law to a more reasonable SYG law.
Well, there still the Federal Government, whose laws are Supreme. The FBI is now investigating this, so there's still the possibility of federal laws (though that might only be if its "hate crime" related?)
Oh, and the fact that his is the law in Florida is why I'm upset. I'm not calling for Zimmerman's head, I'm calling for his trial. The SYG law definitely needs to be addressed, but I've seen supporters of the law say that this case shouldn't fall under the SYG law, yet it practically is doing so. So it may not be legal, it's just that the law has set up the judicial system in such away, that it's become impossible to legally prove the case.
-
>:( WHEN WILL YOU ADDRESS MY MONKEY PHONE ARGUMENT?
:blush Oh sorry. :omg:
I think your assesment is fair. It is 'funny' to watch people on thier bluetooths talking, waving thier arms...and carrying on. And that could go to explain why he 'appeared' to be on drugs or acting strange. Impossible for Zimmerman to be able to tell at night, but I don't think it's any fault of Zimmerman if he mis-interpreted what he saw....I'm sure I've been pretty clear I support the 'motive' behind Zimmerman following Martin to try and verify who he was and what he was up to.
-
That's not really in Trayvon's ability, to have Zimmerman ask him a question. Zimmerman didn't approach him, didn't identify himself, didn't make it clear what his intentions were. So, is there anything Trayvon could have done that would not have been susicious? Walking home? Running? Hiding?
That brings me back to what I believe. I believe Zimmermans story that he 'lost' sight of Martin....began heading back to his vehicle...at which time Martin engaged Zimmerman. At that point instead of saying 'now you have a problem' or whatever, that is/was his chance to validate himself or state his place/purpose etc. That's where I believe his age/mentality came in to play and the situation escalated to what it did leading to him being shot. I don't think we will ever know, and without further evidence that 'is' what happened.
But if he finally did sneak out of site, he did so only after trying to get away, and having Zimmerman follow him. There's no reason Martin should be expected to assume he's lost Zimmerman, or that Zimmerman isn't looking for him.
Also, as I pointed out, the line of events that you portray has Zimmerman not identifying himself, not making it clear what his intentions were. He lied, Trayvon probably knew it, and that'd make him feel more threatened.
It is a huge cluster 'F'...for sure. I think even if we knew for certain every action of both, every word spoken of both....like Praxis pointed out earlier....there could possibly have been multiple changing moments of who was threatened at what time and by whom. It's a mess...it really is. That is why I think that without further evidence proving otherwise....under the law Florida has at the moment and at the time of the shooting....Zimmerman is "innocent" and shouldn't face any time. Do I think that's right? No. But when it come's down to it that IS the law and the only thing that can be done about it is from here forward....about changing that law to a more reasonable SYG law.
Yes, you've made that quite clear, and that's quite nice, but I think most of us would be more comfortable if that was decided in a court of law.
-
That's not really in Trayvon's ability, to have Zimmerman ask him a question. Zimmerman didn't approach him, didn't identify himself, didn't make it clear what his intentions were. So, is there anything Trayvon could have done that would not have been susicious? Walking home? Running? Hiding?
That brings me back to what I believe. I believe Zimmermans story that he 'lost' sight of Martin....began heading back to his vehicle...at which time Martin engaged Zimmerman. At that point instead of saying 'now you have a problem' or whatever, that is/was his chance to validate himself or state his place/purpose etc. That's where I believe his age/mentality came in to play and the situation escalated to what it did leading to him being shot. I don't think we will ever know, and without further evidence that 'is' what happened.
But if he finally did sneak out of site, he did so only after trying to get away, and having Zimmerman follow him. There's no reason Martin should be expected to assume he's lost Zimmerman, or that Zimmerman isn't looking for him.
Also, as I pointed out, the line of events that you portray has Zimmerman not identifying himself, not making it clear what his intentions were. He lied, Trayvon probably knew it, and that'd make him feel more threatened.
It is a huge cluster 'F'...for sure. I think even if we knew for certain every action of both, every word spoken of both....like Praxis pointed out earlier....there could possibly have been multiple changing moments of who was threatened at what time and by whom. It's a mess...it really is. That is why I think that without further evidence proving otherwise....under the law Florida has at the moment and at the time of the shooting....Zimmerman is "innocent" and shouldn't face any time. Do I think that's right? No. But when it come's down to it that IS the law and the only thing that can be done about it is from here forward....about changing that law to a more reasonable SYG law.
Yes, you've made that quite clear, and that's quite nice, but I think most of us would be more comfortable if that was decided in a court of law.
I only disagree with that to the point that as long as it is due to the process.....and not due to the large amount of social pressure that is being forced behind this issue. If Zimmerman going to trial is a part of the 'natural' process from what happened on that night, then most definately he should stand trial.
But if he's already been exhonorated by the law....charges were not filed due to the law..... but all of a sudden due to the 'outrage' and social pressure he's going to be put on trial to try and placate the masses....I think that's where I would disagree.
-
Ok I'm going to stop quoting so the quote pyramid doesn't get too huge.
As has been pointed out before by myself and others- the "outrage" is because Zimmerman hasn't been charged with anything or put on trial. If that is because of the SYG law in Florida, then yes that law is flawed and should be reviewed. I would like to think that I live in a society that if one civilian kills another civilian, then the killer should have to stand trial to determine whether or not the killing was justified. I mean, killing a person is a pretty big deal, to me anyway. I think you've even said yourself that the idea that cops can show up to a scene with one guy dead and another guy holding a gun, and the guy with the gun can just say "oh it was self defense, honest" and the cops are like "cool, run along then" is pretty messed up, yeah?
-
I know I'm late to the party, but has anyone brought up the fact that it was raining outside? That's why Trayvon had the hoodie up.
It seems like, at the bare minimum, Zimmermann overreacted.
-
Maybe this has already been discussed previously, as I haven't read through the entire thread, but this really gets me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q3ASKmZ-8A
Basically, we should have the right to bear arms, yet not have the freedom to wear whatever the hell we want to wear without fear of losing our lives.
Not sure if you object to the message or the reality. I think Geraldo's right.
You have to recognize that this whole stylizing yourself as a gangster, you're gonna be a gangsta wannabe, well people are going to perceive you as a menace. That's what happens.
I think people should be able to wear whateverthehell they want to wear, but they should also recognize that if they want to wear something that makes them look like a thug, that's how people will see them. I'd say that the problem isn't about freedom to dress yourself, but the glamorizing of a dangerous lifestyle. Maybe I'll wear fatigues, body armor and balaclava to the grocery store later on (my Wehrmacht dress uniform is at the cleaners).
That's the first time I've seen what Gerlado got so much flack for. That's unfortunate. If Bill Cosby had said it there wouldn't have been any problem.
As for the right to bear arms, that applied to Trayvon as well. He had the right to carry a gun to protect himself from damn-fool wannabe cops.
I know this is kind of a late response, and the discussion on this matter has somewhat died down a bit. Yet I feel the need to express my own thoughts on the matter. Rivera's statement that the hoodie was just as much to blame for as Zimmerman himself was what really threw my off. As for the whole 'glamorizing' of a lifestyle (gangster in this case), I think this is a sorry argument. I frequently wear hoodies and know many other people who do as well, and I am the farthest thing from a gangster that you would ever see. As other posters suggested, maybe the hoodie was to protect from the weather... Also, to compare a hoodie to fatigues, body armor and a balaclava is a bit extreme.
Anyhow, this is just my opinion, and nothing more. We are all entitled to them, just wanted to put my two cents out there...
-
Pretty interesting developments on the case. Zimmermann's lawyers quit because they have lost contact with him and he is talking to the Investigator and Sean Hannity. Pretty interesting. They think they know where he is-they said to stop looking in Florida-but they fear for his mental health.
I would not want to be in his shoes. No matter what happens, GZ will never have a normal life again
-
He'll get no-billed, move someplace low-key and sell the rights to the story for 6 figures. And the same media that's tried so hard to fuck his life will save it by moving onto the next water-cooler sensation. When was the last time we talked about the chick that killed her daughter because her lifestyle was cramped? Even remember her name? Americans have short memories and like their sleaze current.
Assuming he doesn't get shot in the next two months, George Zimmerman will be fine.
-
He'll get no-billed, move someplace low-key and sell the rights to the story for 6 figures. And the same media that's tried so hard to fuck his life will save it by moving onto the next water-cooler sensation. When was the last time we talked about the chick that killed her daughter because her lifestyle was cramped? Even remember her name? Americans have short memories and like their sleaze current.
Assuming he doesn't get shot in the next two months, George Zimmerman will be fine.
Casey Anthony, I was really hoping she would accept Hustler's offer, that would have been legendary.
-
Zimmermann's lawyers quit because they have lost contact with him and he is talking to the Investigator and Sean Hannity. Pretty interesting. They think they know where he is-they said to stop looking in Florida-but they fear for his mental health.
And it's pretty unusual for attorneys who drop a client to hold a press conference telling stuff like this. Not only that, but there's some question as to whether some of this is privileged information that they weren't allowed to discuss in this type of forum.
-
Anyone anticipate the sh%t hitting the fan when the prosecutor comes back and says she's not filing ANY charges? Not bringing the case to the grand jury can only mean 1 of 2 things, either she has new/un-released evidence where she doesn't need a grand juries inquiries to bring charges, and she will....or she has no further evidence and will not be filing charges. If she doesn't file charges I have a sneaky feeling there will be more than one violent 'outburst' by the black community. That community has been 'charged' up by the race baiters and low life scum who live on that type of crap and if/when no charges are filed the 'outrage' IMO won't be contatined to merely voiced or written.
He'll get no-billed, move someplace low-key and sell the rights to the story for 6 figures. And the same media that's tried so hard to fuck his life will save it by moving onto the next water-cooler sensation. When was the last time we talked about the chick that killed her daughter because her lifestyle was cramped? Even remember her name? Americans have short memories and like their sleaze current.
Assuming he doesn't get shot in the next two months, George Zimmerman will be fine.
Great point El Barto. Our culture always willinlgy runs towards the next shiny object dangled in front of us.....
-
Well, I heard a week ago even, that the city was preparing for trouble.
I'm still interested to see what happens with the Federal Case. Florida may have screwed itself with it's stand your ground law, but luckily that's why were supposed to have the federal government as well.
-
What needs to happen is that the FBI and the DoJ need to release their reports first, which will hopefully diffuse somewhat Florida's inability to prosecute. I'm not sure it'll make a difference, but it might.
And I've expected trouble all along. Furthermore, I'd be willing to be that every LEA in America serving a population >100k is making plans for trouble breaking out. That includes the NG, BTW. The irony is that a likely outcome will be several more "Stand your ground" type issues arising as a result of insurrection.
-
That includes the NG, BTW. The irony is that a likely outcome will be several more "Stand your ground" type issues arising as a result of insurrection.
Hah!
Not that it's really a laughing matter, I just find irony amusing, and I think you're right.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/george-zimmerman-to-be-charged-in-trayvon-martin-shooting-law-enforcement-official-says/2012/04/11/gIQAHJ5oAT_print.html
Florida special prosecutor Angela Corey plans to announce as early as Wednesday afternoon that she is charging neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, according to a law enforcement official close to the investigation.
If true, that's good news.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/george-zimmerman-to-be-charged-in-trayvon-martin-shooting-law-enforcement-official-says/2012/04/11/gIQAHJ5oAT_print.html
Florida special prosecutor Angela Corey plans to announce as early as Wednesday afternoon that she is charging neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, according to a law enforcement official close to the investigation.
If true, that's good news.
For the rest of us, but sucks for GZ.
Like I said before, even though he likely acted legally, he did exercise poor judgement, and having him take one for the team won't break my heart, though.
-
Has anyone noticed the media's shift in the photos they are using. Currently all you are seeing is the photo of Zimmerman in a tie instead of the jump suit.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/george-zimmerman-to-be-charged-in-trayvon-martin-shooting-law-enforcement-official-says/2012/04/11/gIQAHJ5oAT_print.html
Florida special prosecutor Angela Corey plans to announce as early as Wednesday afternoon that she is charging neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, according to a law enforcement official close to the investigation.
If true, that's good news.
Only if there is actual 'evidence' against him other than has been presented and she isn't merely trying to appease the Martin supporters due to political and social pressure. There is no way GZ gets a fair trial in his county or state for that matter.
Has anyone noticed the media's shift in the photos they are using. Currently all you are seeing is the photo of Zimmerman in a tie instead of the jump suit.
That's because they know they've succeeded in painting the picture they wanted painted.....and now they can claim "well we did post a recent picture" if accused of being a part of setting the public against GZ by using that mug shot picture from 5 years ago.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/george-zimmerman-to-be-charged-in-trayvon-martin-shooting-law-enforcement-official-says/2012/04/11/gIQAHJ5oAT_print.html
Florida special prosecutor Angela Corey plans to announce as early as Wednesday afternoon that she is charging neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, according to a law enforcement official close to the investigation.
If true, that's good news.
Only if there is actual 'evidence' against him other than has been presented and she isn't merely trying to appease the Martin supporters due to political and social pressure. There is no way GZ gets a fair trial in his county or state for that matter.
I disagree. I suspect they're counting on him getting a fair trial. If they no-bill him there'll be automatic unrest. If they let a jury find him not-guilty, there will be possible unrest. If I'm the prosecutor and I know that he'll never get convicted anyway (which is why they declined to prosecute him the first time), then I'd certainly consider a show trial to possibly stave off civil unrest.
-
Not a legal analyst, but how does SYG apply here? It's not really standing your ground if you start the confrontation.
-
Not a legal analyst, but how does SYG apply here? It's not really standing your ground if you start the confrontation.
A: we don't know who started the confrontation.
B: it actually is possible to start the confrontation and still be able to claim SD. Technically, you can start a fight, and then attempt to disengage. If your adversary continues to escalate the situation after you're trying to disengage, you're back into self defense country.
-
Not a legal analyst, but how does SYG apply here? It's not really standing your ground if you start the confrontation.
Well that's the issue really. If GZ's account is accurate and is what happened then he didn't start the confrontation. The moment he began to head back to his vehicle and 'pursuit' that he had initiated ended. He claims that Martin then came out of hidind....and subsequently after whatever events took place....was shot. Martin would have been the one 'confronting' in that case.
No one really knows what happened...it's impossible to know without further evidence. Maybe she has some. But if she doesn't, then I don't see how he can be convicted. But then again...he'd make a nice sacrificial offering to the crowd that's screaming murder.
I disagree. I suspect they're counting on him getting a fair trial. If they no-bill him there'll be automatic unrest. If they let a jury find him not-guilty, there will be possible unrest. If I'm the prosecutor and I know that he'll never get convicted anyway (which is why they declined to prosecute him the first time), then I'd certainly consider a show trial to possibly stave off civil unrest.
I don't know. I just think that unless she produces some further evidence GZ is being charged merely to satisfy the witch hunt...that she's buckling to social and political pressure. It wouldn't be the first or last time that happened....
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/george-zimmerman-to-be-charged-in-trayvon-martin-shooting-law-enforcement-official-says/2012/04/11/gIQAHJ5oAT_print.html
Florida special prosecutor Angela Corey plans to announce as early as Wednesday afternoon that she is charging neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, according to a law enforcement official close to the investigation.
If true, that's good news.
Only if there is actual 'evidence' against him other than has been presented and she isn't merely trying to appease the Martin supporters due to political and social pressure. There is no way GZ gets a fair trial in his county or state for that matter.
Has anyone noticed the media's shift in the photos they are using. Currently all you are seeing is the photo of Zimmerman in a tie instead of the jump suit.
That's because they know they've succeeded in painting the picture they wanted painted.....and now they can claim "well we did post a recent picture" if accused of being a part of setting the public against GZ by using that mug shot picture from 5 years ago.
A special investigator isn't going to come into the case, and not make charges without evidence. From what we all know bout the case (the 911 tape), there's more than enough evidence to make Zimmerman culpable of something. The reason he wasn't charged, I believe, wasn't because prosectuors or the police felt that was right, but only becuase they couldn't overcome the self-defense claims, and the SYG law.
Combining those two facts, and I don't see how Zimmerman facing charges, of probably manslaughter, could possibly be a bad thing. It's not like we're convicting him, we're putting him on trial.
-
CNN is now reporting that that prosecutor is going to hold a press conference at 6pm EDT today
-
I disagree. I suspect they're counting on him getting a fair trial. If they no-bill him there'll be automatic unrest. If they let a jury find him not-guilty, there will be possible unrest. If I'm the prosecutor and I know that he'll never get convicted anyway (which is why they declined to prosecute him the first time), then I'd certainly consider a show trial to possibly stave off civil unrest.
I don't know. I just think that unless she produces some further evidence GZ is being charged merely to satisfy the witch hunt...that she's buckling to social and political pressure. It wouldn't be the first or last time that happened....
And while I don't generally approve of buckling to social pressure, it's very definitely the pragmatic approach here. If GZ were clearly innocent, I'd feel a bit worse about it, but he definitely seems to bear some culpability here, so his further involvement in a preceding which will invariably exonerate him doesn't' bother me too much.
-
I don't see how we can possibly know whether or not a trial will "invariably exonerate" anyone at this point.
-
I believe, wasn't because prosectuors or the police felt that was right, but only becuase they couldn't overcome the self-defense claims, and the SYG law.
Combining those two facts, and I don't see how Zimmerman facing charges, of probably manslaughter, could possibly be a bad thing. It's not like we're convicting him, we're putting him on trial.
I understand that and if there is further evidence that points to the possibility of him being guilty of manslaughter or murder then he needs to face trial. But, if the evidence remains the same and there is 'nothing new' then the only thing that has changed is the political and social pressures to "right a supposed wrong". If there is nothing new to add then by Floridas existing law he's legally done nothing wrong and is facing the chance of getting convicted for no other reason other than public outcry and race baiting activists succeeding in thier mission.
And while I don't generally approve of buckling to social pressure, it's very definitely the pragmatic approach here. If GZ were clearly innocent, I'd feel a bit worse about it, but he definitely seems to bear some culpability here, so his further involvement in a preceding which will invariably exonerate him doesn't' bother me too much.
I agree with this, mostly. It is a pragmatic and logical and the 'correct' way to handle this and should have been done in the first place. I just think that the ONLY reason it's even being done now is because of the social and political pressure.
-
I disagree. I suspect they're counting on him getting a fair trial. If they no-bill him there'll be automatic unrest. If they let a jury find him not-guilty, there will be possible unrest. If I'm the prosecutor and I know that he'll never get convicted anyway (which is why they declined to prosecute him the first time), then I'd certainly consider a show trial to possibly stave off civil unrest.
I don't know. I just think that unless she produces some further evidence GZ is being charged merely to satisfy the witch hunt...that she's buckling to social and political pressure. It wouldn't be the first or last time that happened....
And while I don't generally approve of buckling to social pressure, it's very definitely the pragmatic approach here. If GZ were clearly innocent, I'd feel a bit worse about it, but he definitely seems to bear some culpability here, so his further involvement in a preceding which will invariably exonerate him doesn't' bother me too much.
So here's where my knowledge of our legal system stops: so say Zimmerman is charged with manslaughter, but the jury feels that though Zimmerman deserves some punishment, manslaughter isn't the answer. What powers do they have in this case? Must they either agree or disagree to the charges present, or can they determine something different? I feel as if they don't have options on the matter, which strikes me as ideologically unsound.
I understand that and if there is further evidence that points to the possibility of him being guilty of manslaughter or murder then he needs to face trial. But, if the evidence remains the same and there is 'nothing new' then the only thing that has changed is the political and social pressures to "right a supposed wrong". If there is nothing new to add then by Floridas existing law he's legally done nothing wrong and is facing the chance of getting convicted for no other reason other than public outcry and race baiting activists succeeding in thier mission.
What I don't think you're getting, is that what Zimmerman did could be illegal according to Florida State Law, just that the SYG law makes it impossible to prove responsibility. That would mean the reason he wasn't charged isn't because of lack of evidence, of the events on the ground, but the prosecutor not feeling he can get a charge to land. A new prosecutor could look at the evidence already available, determine that Zimmerman should be charged, and feel that there's enough evidence to convict / feels they can make the charges stick. Remember, the police wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter, and their initial take is probably the most accurate one.
Or, you could say that if Trayvon had been someone more well known, someone with connections in the first place, there would have been charges earlier anyways. Public pressure could simply have made it so what should have be done is actually done, instead of the case being let fall through the cracks becuase it's just another black kid who god shot - which is where racism can certainly come into play in the American legal system.
-
I disagree. I suspect they're counting on him getting a fair trial. If they no-bill him there'll be automatic unrest. If they let a jury find him not-guilty, there will be possible unrest. If I'm the prosecutor and I know that he'll never get convicted anyway (which is why they declined to prosecute him the first time), then I'd certainly consider a show trial to possibly stave off civil unrest.
I don't know. I just think that unless she produces some further evidence GZ is being charged merely to satisfy the witch hunt...that she's buckling to social and political pressure. It wouldn't be the first or last time that happened....
And while I don't generally approve of buckling to social pressure, it's very definitely the pragmatic approach here. If GZ were clearly innocent, I'd feel a bit worse about it, but he definitely seems to bear some culpability here, so his further involvement in a preceding which will invariably exonerate him doesn't' bother me too much.
So here's where my knowledge of our legal system stops: so say Zimmerman is charged with manslaughter, but the jury feels that though Zimmerman deserves some punishment, manslaughter isn't the answer. What powers do they have in this case? Must they either agree or disagree to the charges present, or can they determ
My understanding of it (and this is probably more L.A. Law than anything else) is that a jury can only find him guilty or not guilty of the charges that are presented to them, and those are determined by the prosecutor's office. I gather that it's customary to give them several options, so that they'll at least give him something. A different strategic approach would be to make it all or nothing, presumably so that a jury's choices are to let him go scot-free or mainline him.
This is really more Bosk's territory. I'm not certain how jury charging really works, but this is what I've gathered. What I'm unclear on is whether or not the judge can provide alternatives that the prosecutors didn't.
-
Your description fits my loose understanding of it, I guess I just have problems with letting someone go free becuase the wrong charges were filed, or becuase there isn't an appropriate law on the books to fit the crime. It's part of why we have trial by juries, if you ask me.
-
Whoa, 2nd degree murder.
I wonder if Barto and Scheavo will now debate if Zimmerman should be strip-searched... :corn
-
I doubt they'll hold him, so no on the strip search.
She must know something we don't.
(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
There's certainly nothing we know that would point to a depraved indifference of human life. She's completely discounting any possibility that this was self defense. Kinda scratching my head at this one.
edit: upon further reflection, this might be the all or nothing approach I alluded to earlier. She might be charging him with something that she knows won't stick so-as to deflate the situation.
-
She must know something we don't.
(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
There's certainly nothing we know that would point to a depraved indifference of human life. She's completely discounting any possibility that this was self defense. Kinda scratching my head at this one.
edit: upon further reflection, this might be the all or nothing approach I alluded to earlier. She might be charging him with something that she knows won't stick so-as to deflate the situation.
Ya, my first response was she must have found something. We don't know anything about Trayvon's body, and that can hold a treasure trove of information that's relevant to this case. Under the scenario where there wasn't any evidence Trayvon was involved in a fight, than this situation definitely doesn't become one of self-defense. The bullet trajectory itself could be relevant. Eye-witness and testimonial evidence could also go against him, we don't know the details of those interviews.
So Bosk, can Zimmerman still be convicted of manslaughter in this scenario, or must be in be second degree murder? Becomes easier to ask the question now that there''s a direct example. Of course, I'm not saying he should be convicted, I'm just wondering what the legal possibilities are.
-
Looks like I was completely wrong. That scenario involves what's known as a lesser included offense. That refers to a less serious crime which is necessarily a component of the greater one.
A lesser included offense, in criminal law, is a crime for which all of the elements necessary to impose liability are also elements found in a more serious crime.
For example, the common law crime of larceny requires the taking and carrying away of tangible property from another person, with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of that property. Robbery, under the common law, requires all of the same elements, plus the use of force or intimidation to accomplish the taking. Therefore, larceny is a lesser included offense in the offense of robbery, as every robbery includes a larceny as part of the crime. Assault is also a lesser included offense of robbery, just as battery is necessarily a lesser included offense to murder, and false imprisonment is usually a lesser included offense to kidnapping.
As for informing the jury of that option, it would seem that judge decides whether or not it happens, and that's largely based on the wants of the lawyers (capital cases are an exception). The prosecutor might want an included lesser offense as an option to hedge his bet. The defendant might raise a defense which includes the lesser included offense. Conversely, the defense might want no LIO presented forcing the jury to go all or nothing. The judge, as the arbitrator of the law, decides which happens.
-
He looks better than I thought he would. Here is the booking photo from today
(https://web.quartz.synacor.com/api/hangar.php/c21hcnRyZXNpemU6NTEyOjM0MDox/https://newsimages.quartz.synacor.com/ap_photos/f9feb1a2-9f11-4c22-b629-50f5b5b17e9b.jpeg)
-
Looks like I was completely wrong. That scenario involves what's known as a lesser included offense. That refers to a less serious crime which is necessarily a component of the greater one.
A lesser included offense, in criminal law, is a crime for which all of the elements necessary to impose liability are also elements found in a more serious crime.
For example, the common law crime of larceny requires the taking and carrying away of tangible property from another person, with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of that property. Robbery, under the common law, requires all of the same elements, plus the use of force or intimidation to accomplish the taking. Therefore, larceny is a lesser included offense in the offense of robbery, as every robbery includes a larceny as part of the crime. Assault is also a lesser included offense of robbery, just as battery is necessarily a lesser included offense to murder, and false imprisonment is usually a lesser included offense to kidnapping.
As for informing the jury of that option, it would seem that judge decides whether or not it happens, and that's largely based on the wants of the lawyers (capital cases are an exception). The prosecutor might want an included lesser offense as an option to hedge his bet. The defendant might raise a defense which includes the lesser included offense. Conversely, the defense might want no LIO presented forcing the jury to go all or nothing. The judge, as the arbitrator of the law, decides which happens.
Well that certainly makes sense. Thanks for the research.
-
So, I wonder what his bail will be set at? 2nd Degree Murder charge? I don't see them setting his bail at less than 7 figures.
-
So, I wonder what his bail will be set at? 2nd Degree Murder charge? I don't see them setting his bail at less than 7 figures.
Some talking heads on the radio yesterday said that the amount of bail requested would indicate what type of case they think they have against him. That if they believed he were a danger to others or himself that it'd be something astronomical....I don't know. I mean, if the guy wanted to 'flee' he'd have certainly done it by now. But on the other hand if I were him given the amount of hatred being spewed his way and the ridiculous death contracts being offered by certain groups...I'd stay in custody, take the three meals a day and protection. Even if he gets bail....that's what he'll be doing anyway so why not do it on the State's dime?
-
So, I wonder what his bail will be set at? 2nd Degree Murder charge? I don't see them setting his bail at less than 7 figures.
Some talking heads on the radio yesterday said that the amount of bail requested would indicate what type of case they think they have against him. That if they believed he were a danger to others or himself that it'd be something astronomical....I don't know. I mean, if the guy wanted to 'flee' he'd have certainly done it by now. But on the other hand if I were him given the amount of hatred being spewed his way and the ridiculous death contracts being offered by certain groups...I'd stay in custody, take the three meals a day and protection. Even if he gets bail....that's what he'll be doing anyway so why not do it on the State's dime?
Yeah, I expect his bail to be low, but I'd just stay behind closed doors for awhile.
-
So Bosk, can Zimmerman still be convicted of manslaughter in this scenario, or must be in be second degree murder? Becomes easier to ask the question now that there''s a direct example. Of course, I'm not saying he should be convicted, I'm just wondering what the legal possibilities are.
Sorry, I meant to respond to this yesterday, and I got sidetracked by a few phone calls right before I left the office. Barto nailed it in referencing the "lesser included offense" doctrine. But what I cannot remember and am not sure about how it is applied from state to state is how that actually plays out in practice. (remember, I am not a criminal lawyer) A believe (but am not 100% certain) that if the lesser included offense is not initially pled by the prosecution, that it is off the table. Let me illustrate it this way in very simple, straightforward terms:
Without worrying about what the elements are, let's say you have to prove elements 1, 2, 3, and 4 to establish murder2. Of those, if you prove 1, 2, and 3, you have established manslaughter regardless of whether or not you prove 4. So here's how it works. The jury goes back to deliberate and is given jury instructions that list those 4 elements. They jury must find that for each and every one of those elements, there is enough evidence to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt exists as to any element, there is no conviction. But if the jury finds that 1, 2, 3, and 4 are established beyond a reasonable doubt, they come back and tell the judge that they find the defendant is guilty of man2. What that means, according to the lesser included offense doctrine, is that they don't even need to reach a verdict as to manslaughter, because they had to have found that the 3 elements were already established in reaching their verdict on murder2. BUT, as a practical matter, there are other legal doctrines that come into play that say if a defendant is convicted of the greater crime, he is sentenced according to that conviction and the lesser one essentially just gets merged or absorbed into that. So, for instance, if murder2 carries 20 years and manslaughter carries 5 (hypothetically), you will get 20 years, not 25.
But it doesn't work the way you were asking, Scheavo. At least, not precisely. If murder2 is the only charge, if the jury acquits a defendant, a judge does not know which elements the jury found established and which ones they didn't, so he cannot on his own say that the lesser included offense is established. The jury may have found 1 and 2, but not 3 and 4. They may have found 1, 2, and 3, but not 4. Or they may have found none established. The judge doesn't know. So, no, the judge cannot impose a sentence based on a lesser included offense that the jury did not convict on, and the jury cannot convict on a lesser included offense that was not pled.
HOWEVER, as a practical matter in murder cases, that is usually taken care of BEFORE TRIAL. If the prosecution pleads ONLY murder2, that is a mistake on their part. They aren't really supposed to take an "all-or-nothing" approach when there is a middle ground available. So they are supposed to also plead manslaughter. The system is designed that way to protect the interests of both the defendant AND the state. It protects the state because you may otherwise have a guilty defendant walk simply because the prosecution aimed too high and did not include a lesser offense, and the jury found that the evidence fell just short of what was actually charged. (e.g., if Zimmerman should be guilty of manslaughter, but it isn't pled, and the jury lets him walk because there just isn't quite enough for murder2) Conversely, it protects the defendant who might be in a situation where he should be guilty of a lesser offense that isn't pled, but not of the greater offense, and you have a jury that says, "well, even though there isn't quite enough evidence to convict of murder2, it's obvious he's guilty of something, and we can't just let him walk, so since murder2 is our only option, that's what he gets." So, usually, the prosecutor's office takes care of making sure the lesser offense is pled. And if they don't, I believe (but am not certain, and it may vary considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction) the judge will get it added BEFORE trial so that the jury has the option.
*And please take careful note of my disclaimers. People sometimes assume lawyers must know everything about every kind of law, but that isn't the case. I am trying to share what level of knowledge I have while also being quick to point out that there are gaps in my knowledge because this is an area that is far outside of my practice. Both the substantive law and the procedure are very, very different than what I do and, believe it or not, MOST of the practical application of the procedure is not something that is taught in law school. It is something you pick up when you start working in a given area. So, just want to point out that I am not claiming to be a legal know-it-all.
-
I just read that even before this case will go to trial, during the evidentiary hearing in which Corey will need to prove that Martin’s death was caused by a criminal act of Zimmerman, and that the act was “demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life."
Zimmerman will have to present a "preponderance of evidence" that he acted in self-defense, which means he will have to show he had a "reasonable belief" that such force was necessary.....
I have a hard time believing that a judge will not allow this to go to trial, that he/she would end it right off by saying Zimmerman acted in self defense. Unless the evidence isn't there for the prosecution or is there for Zimmerman.
-
I'm not a legal expert by any means, but when I saw murder 2 my first thought was the sever charge will placate the activist community, but likely hard to get a conviction for, since they have to prove GZ acted with malice, which I think would be difficult to prove since he was on 911 to get police to check out TM before everything went down. It seems like a manslaughter is the more appropriate charge, and a conviction on that would be easier to get I would think.
-
Manslaughter is an "unintended" killing. That doesn't work here.
-
I sort of gathered from my brief bit of research that the defense could essentially give up on the components of a lesser included offense and fight only the specific components of the greater charge, which would basically force the LIO into play. I suppose it's possible that's only an option if the prosecution offers it up, but that hardly seems fair.
It does seem to me that the lesser included offenses have all been well established by now. In this example, they've almost certainly addressed countless times what the components of manslaughter vs murder are, so I don't see how there could really be much wiggle room going in.
What I know is that there have been plenty of cases and appeals addressing whether or not the judge is obligated to inform the jury of these options, and in most instances he's not.
Manslaughter is an "unintended" killing. That doesn't work here.
No, it's just a killing that's less culpable than murder. That's why there's the distinction between voluntary and involuntary manslaugher.
-
*And please take careful note of my disclaimers. People sometimes assume lawyers must know everything about every kind of law, but that isn't the case. I am trying to share what level of knowledge I have while also being quick to point out that there are gaps in my knowledge because this is an area that is far outside of my practice. Both the substantive law and the procedure are very, very different than what I do and, believe it or not, MOST of the practical application of the procedure is not something that is taught in law school. It is something you pick up when you start working in a given area. So, just want to point out that I am not claiming to be a legal know-it-all.
Well thanks for the answer. It was helpful. The reasons in this last paragraph are actually why I have such a hard time with this stuff. There's the same logic behind it, but exactly how it plays out is due more to practice and tradition, and that's something I have a hard time remembering.
Manslaughter is an "unintended" killing. That doesn't work here.
Well, not quite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter
In Florida, manslaughter, defined as: The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder
"culpable negligence" sounds close to what I feel Zimmerman did wrong.
-
She might be charging him with something that she knows won't stick so-as to deflate the situation.
Here's why I don't thinmk that would work:
https://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-12/news/os-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-charged-jail-20120412_1_face-murder-charges-today-show-accident
This morning, when she was asked what she would like to say to Zimmerman, Fulton said on The Today Show that she wants an apology from him.
"I believe it was an accident. I believe it just got out of control and he couldn't turn the clock back," Fulton said, revealing her opinion about what happened the night her 17-year-old son was shot to death. "I would ask him, did he know that that was a minor, that that was a teenager and that he did not have a weapon."
Fulton said even if Zimmerman is found not guilty, the arrest achieves the goal of their campaign to raise awareness and bring him to justice.
Like I said earlier, most of the outrage was over the fact that he hadn't been charged. There are some elements out there who are angry that he's not convicted or dead by now, but those are a small minority. I think the act of arrested Zimmerman does a lot to dissuade the anger the black community had over the incident, and it definitly get's rid of what angered me about the case.
-
His mom seems to be taking a very reasonable attitude towards the situation. But as a wise man once said, a person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals. I have little faith that her sensibility would be the prevailing attitude of the angry mob.
-
His mom seems to be taking a very reasonable attitude towards the situation. But as a wise man once said, a person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals. I have little faith that her sensibility would be the prevailing attitude of the angry mob.
Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.
-
This morning, when she was asked what she would like to say to Zimmerman, Fulton said on The Today Show that she wants an apology from him.
"I believe it was an accident. I believe it just got out of control and he couldn't turn the clock back," Fulton said, revealing her opinion about what happened the night her 17-year-old son was shot to death. "I would ask him, did he know that that was a minor, that that was a teenager and that he did not have a weapon."
Fulton said even if Zimmerman is found not guilty, the arrest achieves the goal of their campaign to raise awareness and bring him to justice.
Like I said earlier, most of the outrage was over the fact that he hadn't been charged. There are some elements out there who are angry that he's not convicted or dead by now, but those are a small minority. I think the act of arrested Zimmerman does a lot to dissuade the anger the black community had over the incident, and it definitly get's rid of what angered me about the case.
I admire her attitude and approach. But there is a bit practical problem for Zimmerman with the apology issue. Since he is now being charged, there's the whole "anything you can can and will be used against you in a court of law" thing. I.e., anything that he says can potentially be put in front of a jury to incriminate him, or to at least be spun so that it looks incriminating (e.g., "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you should all ask yourselves: why would the defendant apologize if he had done nothing wrong?"). Of course, the opposite is also true. The defense can argue, "look, it wasn't premeditated, and it wasn't a hate crime. They guy even apologized. He's not the demon the prosecution are making him out to be." But my point is simply that, because of the danger of his statements being used against him, any apology he makes will likely be scripted and will be very short and preemptively scrubbed by his lawyers of anything that could be spun to paint him in a negative light. So this presents a problem for Zimmerman, because if he issues such an apology, it is likely to sound insincere, which could just whip up some people even more than if he keeps his mouth shut.
-
I didn't mean to highlight on the apology, or what could actually result of the apology, or if Zimmerman should apologize. I simply wanted to point out her position, as the mother of the child killed.
She also apparently tried to restate her statement, probably because of the prosecutor. Her statements get into the situation like Zimmerman's apology did. I could see the defense wanting to use this statement (if they legally can, but since it's public I believe it can be?) to try and highlight the "accidental" nature.
-
This is a bit off-topic but the whole "anything you say can be used against you" line in Miranda warnings doesn't include another very important point that those statements, AFAIK, *can't* be used *for* you.
See, police testimony about what you said to them that they can't personally verify is hearsay but there's an exemption for statements that are against your own interest. So when you try to have them testify on stuff that you said that benefit you are thrown out because there is no exemption for hearsay statements that are in your own interest.
-
This is a bit off-topic but the whole "anything you say can be used against you" line in Miranda warnings doesn't include another very important point that those statements, AFAIK, *can't* be used *for* you.
See, police testimony about what you said to them that they can't personally verify is hearsay but there's an exemption for statements that are against your own interest. So when you try to have them testify on stuff that you said that benefit you are thrown out because there is no exemption for hearsay statements that are in your own interest.
Yup. That's high on the list of reasons why you don't answer any questions. Ever. Even if you're innocent.
-
This is a bit off-topic but the whole "anything you say can be used against you" line in Miranda warnings doesn't include another very important point that those statements, AFAIK, *can't* be used *for* you.
See, police testimony about what you said to them that they can't personally verify is hearsay but there's an exemption for statements that are against your own interest. So when you try to have them testify on stuff that you said that benefit you are thrown out because there is no exemption for hearsay statements that are in your own interest.
Not really true. There are plenty of different hearsay exceptions that could apply. Plus, the defendant can take the stand and just say what he or she wants to say.
-
As I understand it, Johnny has no obligation to confirm anything exculpatory that you say during questioning. He can and will use anything incriminating, however.
-
Not really true. There are plenty of different hearsay exceptions that could apply. Plus, the defendant can take the stand and just say what he or she wants to say.
But that's the point: I cannot, at least according to my reading of Federal Rule of Evidence 801 (d), use prior statements of mine for my defense unless I have given testimony related to it. By default, the statements would be inadmissible (according to how I read the rule and according to what I'd seen in a presentation by a law professor).
-
As I understand it, Johnny has no obligation to confirm anything exculpatory that you say during questioning. He can and will use anything incriminating, however.
No obligation to volunteer the statement, no. But if asked a question that would call for that information, and he withholds it, he is perjuring himself and is in contempt of court.
Not really true. There are plenty of different hearsay exceptions that could apply. Plus, the defendant can take the stand and just say what he or she wants to say.
But that's the point: I cannot, at least according to my reading of Federal Rule of Evidence 801 (d), use prior statements of mine for my defense unless I have given testimony related to it. By default, the statements would be inadmissible (according to how I read the rule and according to what I'd seen in a presentation by a law professor).
Again, that is not exactly true. FRE 801 only covers things that are exclusions from the hearsay rule--i.e., things that are considered not hearsay. There are other rules that are exceptions to the hearsay rule that would let statements come in even though they are hearsay. In other words, they are hearsay, so the general rules is that hearsay does not come into evidence, but even though they are hearsay, there are exceptions that let them come into evidence anyway. As those rules apply, there are TONS of situations where a witness can testify as to his own prior statements. And, again, even aside from that, even in situations where you cannot testify as to the statement itself, you can still testify as to the facts. So let's assume you couldn't testify as follows (which isn't true, but let's assume): "Then I said to him, 'Oh, it looks like you have a gun!'" You would still be allowed to testify: "It looked to me like he had a gun."
-
No obligation to volunteer the statement, no. But if asked a question that would call for that information, and he withholds it, he is perjuring himself and is in contempt of court.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc#t=9m20s
As the above indicates, the questions/answers would be hearsay, at least according to James Duane (professor at Regent University School of Law).
Again, that is not exactly true. FRE 801 only covers things that are exclusions from the hearsay rule--i.e., things that are considered not hearsay. There are other rules that are exceptions to the hearsay rule that would let statements come in even though they are hearsay. In other words, they are hearsay, so the general rules is that hearsay does not come into evidence, but even though they are hearsay, there are exceptions that let them come into evidence anyway. As those rules apply, there are TONS of situations where a witness can testify as to his own prior statements.
Fair enough, I realize there are aspects of this that you'd know better from being an attorney and having gone through far more than my 0 hours of law study. Although, I thought I was being clear that I wasn't talking about a situation where someone is testifying about his/her prior statements.
-
Eek.
Florida investigators say in an affidavit that George Zimmerman profiled, confronted, then fatally shot Trayvon Martin.
-
No obligation to volunteer the statement, no. But if asked a question that would call for that information, and he withholds it, he is perjuring himself and is in contempt of court.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc#t=9m20s
As the above indicates, the questions/answers would be hearsay, at least according to James Duane (professor at Regent University School of Law).
Yeah, that video was pretty much my whole understanding of the matter.
I love when the cop asks if any of the sped on the way to class that morning, and half of them raised their hands. :rollin
-
No obligation to volunteer the statement, no. But if asked a question that would call for that information, and he withholds it, he is perjuring himself and is in contempt of court.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc#t=9m20s
As the above indicates, the questions/answers would be hearsay, at least according to James Duane (professor at Regent University School of Law).
Yes, and as is typical for a law school professor, he is presenting from the perspective of an academic, not a practitioner who has actual experience in court. And, again, he is only focusing on 801(d). There are plenty of hearsay exceptions that would let the statement in. 801(d) itself provides three situations in which the statement would not be hearsay and would be admissible. But in addition to that, look at 803. If any of the statements to the police (or to anyone else, for that matter) fall within any of the 23 exceptions in 803, they come into evidence.
-
Actually, I think you'll find that he was talking from that perspective because he was talking mostly to non-lawyer laypeople rather than because he possibly never practiced.
-
Heard in the news today some woman praising Jesus for the arrest :lol
rumborak
-
Actually, I think you'll find that he was talking from that perspective because he was talking mostly to non-lawyer laypeople rather than because he possibly never practiced.
Either way, it boils down to: Read the rules. There are TONS of exceptions where that kind of thing could come in. It's in black and white.
-
How the @*%# is this news? :tdwn
George Zimmerman buys $79.84 worth of items from jail store (https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/george-zimmerman-buys-79-84-worth-items-jail-214706403.html)
-
Morbid curiosity
-
Bill Cosby is officially the Benjamin Franklin of black folk. After him I guess it's Colin Powell as the elder statesman.
It amuses me that as soon as he makes a rambling and disjointed statement on the matter, it's front page news because everybody's been waiting so long for his take. I generally agree with what he had to say, but he's certainly not as keen as he once was. It's also very hard to listen to him now without hearing him in the Eddie Murphy voice.
-
A Photo has been released of the back of Zimmermans head three minutes after he shot Martin in self defense.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-case-exclusive-photo-shows-bloodied-back/story?id=16177849#.T5FQs9lWBIQ
-
It hasn't been legally determined yet if it was "self defense" otherwise dude wouldn't be in jail charged with 2nd degree murder. Just sayin'
-
It hasn't been legally determined yet if it was "self defense" otherwise dude wouldn't be in jail charged with 2nd degree murder. Just sayin'
Dude is in jail charged with 2nd degree murder because of public and political pressure....period. The "original" investigation from the police and prosecution evidently believed Zimmerman acted in self defense otherwise he would have been charged right off the bat. It wasn't until the "special" prosecution was enlisted after the outcry and media hype that these charges were brought against him, and no matter what she says....it's due to the social and political pressures and nothing more.
I'm going to trust that the 'system' will work in this case.....either way. If they have evidence showing he didn't act in self defense and he 'murdered' Martin....then good.....send him to prison. But if the evidence shows he acted in self defense and within the confies of the SYG law.....he deserves to be exhonerated and not convicted of a lesser crime at all to appease the public and family.
-
It hasn't been legally determined yet if it was "self defense" otherwise dude wouldn't be in jail charged with 2nd degree murder. Just sayin'
Dude is in jail charged with 2nd degree murder because of public and political pressure....period. The "original" investigation from the police and prosecution evidently believed Zimmerman acted in self defense otherwise he would have been charged right off the bat. It wasn't until the "special" prosecution was enlisted after the outcry and media hype that these charges were brought against him, and no matter what she says....it's due to the social and political pressures and nothing more.
I'm going to trust that the 'system' will work in this case.....either way. If they have evidence showing he didn't act in self defense and he 'murdered' Martin....then good.....send him to prison. But if the evidence shows he acted in self defense and within the confies of the SYG law.....he deserves to be exhonerated and not convicted of a lesser crime at all to appease the public and family.
Oh, I didn't realize you had somehow managed to see all of the evidence in the case. My bad.
-
It hasn't been legally determined yet if it was "self defense" otherwise dude wouldn't be in jail charged with 2nd degree murder. Just sayin'
Dude is in jail charged with 2nd degree murder because of public and political pressure....period. The "original" investigation from the police and prosecution evidently believed Zimmerman acted in self defense otherwise he would have been charged right off the bat. It wasn't until the "special" prosecution was enlisted after the outcry and media hype that these charges were brought against him, and no matter what she says....it's due to the social and political pressures and nothing more.
I'm going to trust that the 'system' will work in this case.....either way. If they have evidence showing he didn't act in self defense and he 'murdered' Martin....then good.....send him to prison. But if the evidence shows he acted in self defense and within the confies of the SYG law.....he deserves to be exhonerated and not convicted of a lesser crime at all to appease the public and family.
Oh, I didn't realize you had somehow managed to see all of the evidence in the case. My bad.
I have a crystal ball....bought it at a yard sale years ago....
-
It hasn't been legally determined yet if it was "self defense" otherwise dude wouldn't be in jail charged with 2nd degree murder. Just sayin'
Dude is in jail charged with 2nd degree murder because of public and political pressure....period. The "original" investigation from the police and prosecution evidently believed Zimmerman acted in self defense otherwise he would have been charged right off the bat. It wasn't until the "special" prosecution was enlisted after the outcry and media hype that these charges were brought against him, and no matter what she says....it's due to the social and political pressures and nothing more.
I'm going to trust that the 'system' will work in this case.....either way. If they have evidence showing he didn't act in self defense and he 'murdered' Martin....then good.....send him to prison. But if the evidence shows he acted in self defense and within the confies of the SYG law.....he deserves to be exhonerated and not convicted of a lesser crime at all to appease the public and family.
That's not exactly correct. The original investigation was quite ambiguous, with the police wanting him charged. The didn't no-bill him because they felt he acted lawfully, but because the prosecutors didn't think they could win a conviction. There's a big difference between "he done right" and "we can't prove that he did wrong."
-
I really don't care as this happens a lot. But what I do care about is what's going to,happen with that Law, as it was proven to be full of flaws.
-
It hasn't been legally determined yet if it was "self defense" otherwise dude wouldn't be in jail charged with 2nd degree murder. Just sayin'
Dude is in jail charged with 2nd degree murder because of public and political pressure....period. The "original" investigation from the police and prosecution evidently believed Zimmerman acted in self defense otherwise he would have been charged right off the bat. It wasn't until the "special" prosecution was enlisted after the outcry and media hype that these charges were brought against him, and no matter what she says....it's due to the social and political pressures and nothing more.
I'm going to trust that the 'system' will work in this case.....either way. If they have evidence showing he didn't act in self defense and he 'murdered' Martin....then good.....send him to prison. But if the evidence shows he acted in self defense and within the confies of the SYG law.....he deserves to be exhonerated and not convicted of a lesser crime at all to appease the public and family.
That's not exactly correct. The original investigation was quite ambiguous, with the police wanting him charged. The didn't no-bill him because they felt he acted lawfully, but because the prosecutors didn't think they could win a conviction. There's a big difference between "he done right" and "we can't prove that he did wrong."
Well, IMO.....unless they come out with some never before seen or found evidence, which is possible........but unless that is the case and it turns out there is no "new" evidence other than the public and political outcry...those are the reasons he has been charged. Not due to 'new' or incriminating evidence but due to Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the national media firing up the torches and grabbing the pitchforks.
I don't see how Zimmerman recieves a 'fair' trial...at all. I have no doubts that he is going to get convicted of 'something'....maybe the evidence will end up supporting that he should. But even if it doesn't show anything new or absolute I think the guy is going to get convicted of some sort of charge if only so 'they' can say...."look we did something about it."
-
It hasn't been legally determined yet if it was "self defense" otherwise dude wouldn't be in jail charged with 2nd degree murder. Just sayin'
Dude is in jail charged with 2nd degree murder because of public and political pressure....period. The "original" investigation from the police and prosecution evidently believed Zimmerman acted in self defense otherwise he would have been charged right off the bat. It wasn't until the "special" prosecution was enlisted after the outcry and media hype that these charges were brought against him, and no matter what she says....it's due to the social and political pressures and nothing more.
I'm going to trust that the 'system' will work in this case.....either way. If they have evidence showing he didn't act in self defense and he 'murdered' Martin....then good.....send him to prison. But if the evidence shows he acted in self defense and within the confies of the SYG law.....he deserves to be exhonerated and not convicted of a lesser crime at all to appease the public and family.
That's not exactly correct. The original investigation was quite ambiguous, with the police wanting him charged. The didn't no-bill him because they felt he acted lawfully, but because the prosecutors didn't think they could win a conviction. There's a big difference between "he done right" and "we can't prove that he did wrong."
Well, IMO.....unless they come out with some never before seen or found evidence, which is possible........but unless that is the case and it turns out there is no "new" evidence other than the public and political outcry...those are the reasons he has been charged. Not due to 'new' or incriminating evidence but due to Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the national media firing up the torches and grabbing the pitchforks.
I don't see how Zimmerman recieves a 'fair' trial...at all. I have no doubts that he is going to get convicted of 'something'....maybe the evidence will end up supporting that he should. But even if it doesn't show anything new or absolute I think the guy is going to get convicted of some sort of charge if only so 'they' can say...."look we did something about it."
Well the family did say they only wanted an arrest. And they got it.
-
The judge denying the prosecutions request of 1 million dollar bond and setting it at $150,000 does say a lot about the case already. A local radio show fielded a caller identifying himself as a prosecutor and he basically said that if there were overwhelming evidence against Zimmerman in the evidentiary hearing....that a higher bail would have been granted. Is that accurate Bosk1?
-
It hasn't been legally determined yet if it was "self defense" otherwise dude wouldn't be in jail charged with 2nd degree murder. Just sayin'
Dude is in jail charged with 2nd degree murder because of public and political pressure....period. The "original" investigation from the police and prosecution evidently believed Zimmerman acted in self defense otherwise he would have been charged right off the bat. It wasn't until the "special" prosecution was enlisted after the outcry and media hype that these charges were brought against him, and no matter what she says....it's due to the social and political pressures and nothing more.
I'm going to trust that the 'system' will work in this case.....either way. If they have evidence showing he didn't act in self defense and he 'murdered' Martin....then good.....send him to prison. But if the evidence shows he acted in self defense and within the confies of the SYG law.....he deserves to be exhonerated and not convicted of a lesser crime at all to appease the public and family.
That's not exactly correct. The original investigation was quite ambiguous, with the police wanting him charged. The didn't no-bill him because they felt he acted lawfully, but because the prosecutors didn't think they could win a conviction. There's a big difference between "he done right" and "we can't prove that he did wrong."
Well, IMO.....unless they come out with some never before seen or found evidence, which is possible........but unless that is the case and it turns out there is no "new" evidence other than the public and political outcry...those are the reasons he has been charged. Not due to 'new' or incriminating evidence but due to Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the national media firing up the torches and grabbing the pitchforks.
I don't see how Zimmerman recieves a 'fair' trial...at all. I have no doubts that he is going to get convicted of 'something'....maybe the evidence will end up supporting that he should. But even if it doesn't show anything new or absolute I think the guy is going to get convicted of some sort of charge if only so 'they' can say...."look we did something about it."
He was involved in an incident that might warrant a trial. They decided that it probably wasn't worth it, until the uproar, and then they decided to go ahead and do it anyway. I see nothing problematic with that at all. Lots of people who are innocent still get put on trial, and while it sucks for them, it does also serve to demonstrate their innocence.
The judge denying the prosecutions request of 1 million dollar bond and setting it at $150,000 does say a lot about the case already. A local radio show fielded a caller identifying himself as a prosecutor and he basically said that if there were overwhelming evidence against Zimmerman in the evidentiary hearing....that a higher bail would have been granted. Is that accurate Bosk1?
I'm not sure if it's how things work in the real world, but evidence of guilt or innocence shouldn't play any part whatsoever in the bail decision. Hell, no quality evidence has actually been presented yet. It's a function of flight risk and risk of further harm. The amount, ideally, should be based on what's required to insure that he's compelled to stick around (nobody wants to forfeit $150k) and give him the opportunity to afford it (if it's deserved at all).
-
One thing to consider is that he won't have to give $150,000. Remember that when they set bail, you usually only have to provide 10% of that total to be released. So he only needs to give $15,000 which is doable.
-
One thing to consider is that he won't have to give $150,000. Remember that when they set bail, you usually only have to provide 10% of that total to be released. So he only needs to give $15,000 which is doable.
I'm not sure, but I think the way it works is that the bail-bondsman puts up the full amount, and you only have to pay him 10%, which is his take and therefore non-refundable. That puts the onus on the bondsman to make sure you don't skip out, since his refund is contingent on you being where you're supposed to be.
-
Just FYI, El Barto, but the evidence against you in a criminal proceeding weighs very heavily on what kind of bail they set. If the prosecution has tight evidence against a murderer, for example, they will often set no bail at all, but if the evidence is weak, then bail is set. If it's really weak, the bail may be a very small amount.
-
Just FYI, El Barto, but the evidence against you in a criminal proceeding weighs very heavily on what kind of bail they set. If the prosecution has tight evidence against a murderer, for example, they will often set no bail at all, but if the evidence is weak, then bail is set. If it's really weak, the bail may be a very small amount.
If that's the case here then, what does the $150,000 signify? Is that high? Low? If Zimmermans lawyers think that's low could they waive his right to be tried by a jury and accept a trial by a judge, thinking the judge doesn't see significant evidence? To me $150,000 is a lot...but on the other hand if the prosecution wanted a million and only got 150k...that seems like a huge gap.
-
Just FYI, El Barto, but the evidence against you in a criminal proceeding weighs very heavily on what kind of bail they set. If the prosecution has tight evidence against a murderer, for example, they will often set no bail at all, but if the evidence is weak, then bail is set. If it's really weak, the bail may be a very small amount.
If that's the case here then, what does the $150,000 signify? Is that high? Low? If Zimmermans lawyers think that's low could they waive his right to be tried by a jury and accept a trial by a judge, thinking the judge doesn't see significant evidence? To me $150,000 is a lot...but on the other hand if the prosecution wanted a million and only got 150k...that seems like a huge gap.
Second degree murder bail set at $150k....eh, that's pretty low, I think. I've seen $500k for armed robbery.
-
To me $150,000 is a lot...but on the other hand if the prosecution wanted a million and only got 150k...that seems like a huge gap.
But people don't pay the whole $150,000, generally.
As was pointed out by me (with the correction by El Barto), you'd pay a bail bondsman 10% of the bail (in this case, $15,000) and the bondsman agrees to be responsible for the bail since they trust that you won't skip out.
-
To me $150,000 is a lot...but on the other hand if the prosecution wanted a million and only got 150k...that seems like a huge gap.
But people don't pay the whole $150,000, generally.
As was pointed out by me (with the correction by El Barto), you'd pay a bail bondsman 10% of the bail (in this case, $15,000) and the bondsman agrees to be responsible for the bail since they trust that you won't skip out.
That is one way to do it, but I am pretty sure you can also still put property or other items of value up as collatoral to insure your appearance at trial. So if I owned a house that was worth at least 150K then I could put it up as bond. Not sure about the 10% part either never having had to use the services of a bondsman but typically thats the rate they pay a bail agent for recovery of a skip not sure if there is anytihng in the correllation there or not.
-
I'd read you could put property up as collateral but I wasn't sure if that applied in every jurisdiction. But the 10% to a bondsman definitely is used everywhere.
-
Every state is different, and given the shaky ground of allowing people to profit from law enforcement activities, it's pretty heavily regulated (and rightly so). Some states don't allow bondsman to operate at all. The ones that do will often set a fixed percentage, 10-20%.
-
I saw this online today. Taken 3 minuted after Trayvon was shot, a neighbor snapped a photo of the back of Zimmerman's head. Pretty nasty. Could this be used against the claim that Trayvon was on the bottom? It definitely does show that his head was being hit on the ground
(https://i639.photobucket.com/albums/uu117/Oblivionfan10/90a55955.jpg)
-
It's one thing which goes towards corroborating his story, but proves nothing.
-
No doubt though, it must have hurt :P
-
Y'all seen this yet? Quite a bit of interesting new info on Zimmerman. Paints a picture that seems to cast doubt on the allegations of racism, at least.
https://news.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-prelude-shooting-194235114.html
-J
-
It's over. Trayvon was no angel, but the media decided to make it look like he was with an old picture of him. He was another thug wannabe casing a neighborhood. Zimmerman started following him, then backed off (but Trayvon noticed). Trayvon then confronted and attacked Zimmerman, and Zimmerman and shot him (the stand your ground law lets you use deadly force in self defense). Zimmerman had cuts and bruises, so it was justified (hence not being arrested).
He shouldn't have followed Trayvon initially (just report suspicious people to the cops and leave it at that), but Trayvon shouldn't have confronted him. That's why this trial will go nowhere. Then it turns out Zimmerman was a registered Democrat (against the media's entire narrative of a racist white Republican shooter, hell they edited the 911 tape!), and now Zimmerman, the hispanic (media calls him white) had a black relative.
I wonder if the black kids that beat up some white people, almost to the point of death, while shouting "for Trayvon!" will be tried for hate crimes. The media is helping the White House and DOJ stir up racial tensions for the upcoming election. It's blatantly obvious. It won't work though.. getting a fraction of 13% of the population to riot in a nation of so many law abiding gun owners is just going to end badly for the rioters.
-
It looks like you've now moved from whacky, slightly paranoid eccentric right on into full blown delusional crazy person. My condolences. And tell Travis I said howdy.
-
Jeez, PrAxis..... ::)
-
What's so crazy about it? It fits the media's MO to a t.
https://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425
-
There's nothing crazy about suggesting the media is distorting the facts. That's common place, and is something all of the outlets do to sell papers/increase viewership/obtain hits, etc. Trying to connect it to a broader conspiracy to incite rioting to get dickhead Obama reelected is the work of a deranged mind.
I agree with you more or less concerning the TW/GZ situation, but not everything is a god damned communist conspiracy.
-
I never said Obama is a commie, nor do I feel that way. He's a corporatist (follow the money).
-
Zimmerman started following him, then backed off (but Trayvon noticed).
Unless something new came up, there's no evidence for the bold part. It's simply Zimmerman's testimony. I'd say the case does rest upon this, but it's ridiculous to not prosecute the person who shot someone because they said it was self-defense. Let's wait till the trial, and all the evidence, to make this decision.
-
It's over. Trayvon was no angel, but the media decided to make it look like he was with an old picture of him. He was another thug wannabe casing a neighborhood. Zimmerman started following him, then backed off (but Trayvon noticed). Trayvon then confronted and attacked Zimmerman, and Zimmerman and shot him (the stand your ground law lets you use deadly force in self defense). Zimmerman had cuts and bruises, so it was justified (hence not being arrested).
He shouldn't have followed Trayvon initially (just report suspicious people to the cops and leave it at that), but Trayvon shouldn't have confronted him. That's why this trial will go nowhere. Then it turns out Zimmerman was a registered Democrat (against the media's entire narrative of a racist white Republican shooter, hell they edited the 911 tape!), and now Zimmerman, the hispanic (media calls him white) had a black relative.
I wonder if the black kids that beat up some white people, almost to the point of death, while shouting "for Trayvon!" will be tried for hate crimes. The media is helping the White House and DOJ stir up racial tensions for the upcoming election. It's blatantly obvious. It won't work though.. getting a fraction of 13% of the population to riot in a nation of so many law abiding gun owners is just going to end badly for the rioters.
....
How would racial riots help Obama get re-elected?