Thread: Shot for being suspiciously black Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=022940

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I'm curious to know from American Shipmates whether this report is reasonably accurate.

I hadn't heard about the shooting until now, but it sure does sound, from this, like a case of a white person jumping to spectacular conclusions about black people/teenagers/people covering their head when it's raining.

It also sounds quite extraordinary that the police think that just because someone has CLAIMED self defence, the onus on them is to believe him until proved otherwise. There might of course be slightly more to it than that, but it's not looking great at the moment. Hence, no doubt, the protests.

[ 22. March 2012, 06:54: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Jonathan Strange (# 11001) on :
 
That report is inaccurate in two ways.


Speaks for itself.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Okay, this report from closer media is disturbing the hell out of me.

There are witnesses. Clearly aural witnesses if not visual ones.

And also a 911 tape where cries for help can be heard. I would like to think that it would be possible to do some analysis on who it is that is calling for help on that tape.

[ 22. March 2012, 10:17: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
I wonder about this whole "neighborhood watch," idea. As long as people are just watching and then calling the police if
they see something actually criminal going on like fighting or breaking into a car or house, then fine, but if these ordinary citizens are encouraged to carry and use guns then the whole concept seems like just asking for this sort of tragedy.

My son has been followed in his car, and terrified, by a man who thought he was going to make a citizen's arrest of an underage driver (son looked young for his age) and homeowners have, many times, called the police to come and question him when he's just been out walking the sidewalks for exercise, wearing nothing but shorts and T-shirt. It's not just African Americans who are profiled as dangerous but young men in general.

Unfortunately, there are lots of men and women who are a dangerous combination of fearful and self-important. They want to be the neighborhood hero by stopping a crime in action but most of them don't have the brains to spot the difference between a serial killer climbing through a window and a Girl Scout selling cookies at the front door.

I hope they bring this killer to trial and make an example of him. Gun owners in America have been getting away with the, "I feared for my life," legal defense for too long. A few years ago a woman shot and killed an unarmed woman in a traffic dispute, and got away with it by using those words. Is that how this trigger happy jerk is getting away with a self-defense excuse? Where was the "equal force?" Maybe one of the ships lawyers can explain this but I don't get it at all.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I wonder about this whole "neighborhood watch," idea.

My understanding is that there was no neighborhood watch -- this guy just declared himself the captain of his own neighborhood watch of one, and went around "patrolling" his neighborhood armed with a handgun and a cell phone.

I'm kind of ambivalent about this sort of thing. The gun puts it over the top to my way of thinking. But I live in a small town where neighbors are likely to confront a stranger who walks up to your house when you're not home, and demand to know what they are doing there. I like that. We have each other's back. But we don't go around shooting people we don't know -- we just make sure they know that their presence is not unnoticed.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Forget Zimmerman. The The entire police force of Sanfordf should stand trial. And if they have a mayor and a town council they should as well. If they cannot guarantee the safety of people walking around, and they allow their cronies to shoot people they don't like just because they don't like them, then they deserve to go down. Every single last nostalgic-for-slavery bigoted murderer in uniform. This is not the first time things like that have happened there.

The citizens of that place should be ashamed to employ such thugs. They should be tearing down the walls of their courthouse with their bare hands to expunge their guilt.

Actions like this break the social contract. If nothing is done about it - if this is really what their poilice department is about - then there is no moral requirement on their victims to obey them. They are not law-enforcement agents, they are the criminals who have taken over the prison.

[ 22. March 2012, 13:47: Message edited by: ken ]
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
If a police department is defined as a public safety organisation, then Sanford FL does not have a police dept. Certainly the Black people of Sanford don't have a police dept. They have a Klan in uniform whose purpose is to enable legalised murder to be inflicted on them. But this has been going on in many places in the US for a long time. This example is just particularly egregious, or perhaps it stands out merely because there happened to be some audio documentary evidence.

It is almost a basic part of parenting African-American youth, especially males, in the US -- North and South -- to train the youth how to act defensively for their own safety in certain situations that European-Americans in their unawareness don't have to face.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I wonder about this whole "neighborhood watch," idea.

My understanding is that there was no neighborhood watch -- this guy just declared himself the captain of his own neighborhood watch of one, and went around "patrolling" his neighborhood armed with a handgun and a cell phone.

I'm kind of ambivalent about this sort of thing. The gun puts it over the top to my way of thinking. But I live in a small town where neighbors are likely to confront a stranger who walks up to your house when you're not home, and demand to know what they are doing there. I like that. We have each other's back. But we don't go around shooting people we don't know -- we just make sure they know that their presence is not unnoticed.

--Tom Clune

National Watch Program - National Sheriffs' Association

It is my understanding that these are just to be an organized eyes and ears outfit. There's a world of difference between shooting a guy breaking into a home and shooting him for maybe, just possibly being up to something you ain't exactly sure about.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Zimmerman was told by police to cease following Martin. His failure to comply should have led to his arrest. I do not agree with the Florida law under which Zimmerman is currently being shielded, but ISTM, this defense fails even that permissive standard. Even if Zimmerman was threatened and attacked, he had placed himself in a situation that was unnecessary and avoidable. Non racist people are highly unlikely to use racist epithets in this context. Another strike against Zimmerman and the Florida police.
lilBuddha adds another place as best to be avoided.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It also sounds quite extraordinary that the police think that just because someone has CLAIMED self defence, the onus on them is to believe him until proved otherwise. There might of course be slightly more to it than that, but it's not looking great at the moment. Hence, no doubt, the protests.

Florida has a very extensive "stand your ground" law, which basically allows shootings like this if the shooter had "reasonable fears" for their personal safety. The Florida courts have been particularly gratuitous in accepting fears as reasonable, at least in the case of certain complexion of victim. And, of course, the police have a lot of discretion in making such determinations as well, insofar as they're the ones making the call about whether charges are warranted in the first place.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I hope they bring this killer to trial and make an example of him.

I tend to agree- with the caveat of not having all of the information. (Though what info I have seen looks quite bad.)


quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Gun owners in America have been getting away with the, "I feared for my life," legal defense for too long.

Here you lose me- thanks for tarring all gun owners in America with the same brush. [Roll Eyes]

IF, and I stress the word *if*, Mr. Zimmerman was, indeed, being attacked and feared for his life- he may have been justified in shooting under the laws in almost every state in the US. (Not sure about a couple of them.) That said, everything I've heard so far seems to indicate this isn't the case. Speaking as one of the gun owners in question, I'd like to take this opportunity to ask Mr. Zimmerman to kindly get off my side.

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Where was the "equal force?" Maybe one of the ships lawyers can explain this but I don't get it at all.

IANAL, but I have studied a good deal about self-defense law. At least where I live (and, as I understand it, this is fairly common language), the law doesn't require "equal force", it requires "reasonable force", which is generally defined as using enough force to stop the threat, but no more.

quote:
609.06 AUTHORIZED USE OF FORCE.

Subdivision 1.When authorized. Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 2, reasonable force may be used upon or toward the person of another without the other's consent when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably believes them to exist:

<snip>

(3) when used by any person in resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person; or

(4) when used by any person in lawful possession of real or personal property, or by another assisting the person in lawful possession, in resisting a trespass upon or other unlawful interference with such property;

<snip>


link

The use of deadly force has more specific requirements:

quote:
609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.

The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.

link

Great bodily harm is defined as:

quote:
609.02 DEFINITIONS.

<snip>

Subd. 8.Great bodily harm. "Great bodily harm" means bodily injury which creates a high probability of death, or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily harm.

link

Keeping in mind that the cites above are not from FL law (and so the specific wording may be different, but the concepts are most likely similar), the legal questions become a) did Mr. Zimmerman have a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm? and b) who initiated the altercation? (Generally, one must be a "reluctant participant" to avail oneself of a self-defense claim.)

In short- it's not as simple as "American gun owners can just claim 'I feared for my life' and shoot whoever happens to catch their wrath at the moment". There's a whole lot more to it than that. But that's too complex for a bumper sticker or the Brady campaign's web site.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
But I live in a small town where neighbors are likely to confront a stranger who walks up to your house when you're not home, and demand to know what they are doing there. I like that.

Except that the stranger would be perfectly within his legal rights to reply, "None of your pea-pickin' business!" or indeed simply to remain silent, and any court that would find otherwise is not a court before which I would care to appear.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
But I live in a small town where neighbors are likely to confront a stranger who walks up to your house when you're not home, and demand to know what they are doing there. I like that.

Except that the stranger would be perfectly within his legal rights to reply, "None of your pea-pickin' business!" or indeed simply to remain silent, and any court that would find otherwise is not a court before which I would care to appear.
Yes, they may refuse to answer. That's not the point -- they have been put on notice that their presence has been observed. Anyone with larceny in their heart is likely to then move on. If they continue to lurk around the neighborhood, I would expect that the police would be called. I find all of that quite appropriate. Of course, YMMV.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
Blatant racist profling combined with vigilantism; sounds like America. The level of paranoia and irrational fear that many people in this country have towards blacks is disgusting and unfortunately, if you're black you're supposed to know that putting your hood up when it begins to rain is a criminal act punishable by death.

This country is rotting from within.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
But that's too complex for a bumper sticker or the Brady campaign's web site.

I guess bumper stickers are different in your neck of the woods. Around here, every bumper sticker about guns that I've ever seen are of the "this car protected by Smith & Wesson" variety. The closest thing I can recall to an anti-gun bumper sticker is, "I support the right to arm bears," but I'm not sure that counts as anti-gun.

--Tom Clune

[ 22. March 2012, 15:39: Message edited by: tclune ]
 
Posted by Jonathan Strange (# 11001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
But I live in a small town where neighbors are likely to confront a stranger who walks up to your house when you're not home, and demand to know what they are doing there. I like that.

Except that the stranger would be perfectly within his legal rights to reply, "None of your pea-pickin' business!" or indeed simply to remain silent, and any court that would find otherwise is not a court before which I would care to appear.
This boy was inside a gated community because his father lived there. Zimmerman killed his neighbour's kid! The poor boy had just stepped out to get some sweets from a nearby shop.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
But I live in a small town where neighbors are likely to confront a stranger who walks up to your house when you're not home, and demand to know what they are doing there. I like that.

Except that the stranger would be perfectly within his legal rights to reply, "None of your pea-pickin' business!" or indeed simply to remain silent, and any court that would find otherwise is not a court before which I would care to appear.
Yes, they may refuse to answer. That's not the point -- they have been put on notice that their presence has been observed. Anyone with larceny in their heart is likely to then move on. If they continue to lurk around the neighborhood, I would expect that the police would be called. I find all of that quite appropriate. Of course, YMMV.

--Tom Clune

Around here we just say something like "I'm not sure if they're home" or "are you looking for the so-and-so's house" or something else that isn't confrontational but does let them know they have been seen.

I did have a neighbor call the cops one time when some guys came by during the day in an unmarked van to do some flooring work. The neighbor didn't know we had scheduled the work. About four deputies showed up, I hear. We never heard about it until a few weeks later.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
Blatant racist profling combined with vigilantism; sounds like America. The level of paranoia and irrational fear that many people in this country have towards blacks is disgusting and unfortunately, if you're black you're supposed to know that putting your hood up when it begins to rain is a criminal act punishable by death.

This country is rotting from within.

I agree. I visited a family in San Francisco a few years ago and they told me of a man who had been arrested in the neighbourhood for 'walking the street while black'. It turned out that he was the new postman.

[Frown]
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
But I live in a small town where neighbors are likely to confront a stranger who walks up to your house when you're not home, and demand to know what they are doing there.

Except that the stranger would be perfectly within his legal rights to reply, "None of your pea-pickin' business!" or indeed simply to remain silent.
Yes, they may refuse to answer. That's not the point -- they have been put on notice that their presence has been observed. Anyone with larceny in their heart is likely to then move on. If they continue to lurk around the neighborhood, I would expect that the police would be called. I find all of that quite appropriate. Of course, YMMV.

--Tom Clune

Perhaps, but who can peer within the human heart? The stranger "continuing to lurk" may simply be conducting a survey of how many homeowners use a certain brand of pesticide on their bushes. Even if the police were summoned, he'd be under no greater obligation to answer their questions than he would the questions of the curious neighbor, unless the police suspected he has committed a crime (for which they'd need probable cause to do, such as a ring of master keys or a how-to manual on lock picking in his back pocket, or a pack of suspicious looking articles strapped to his back).
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Having spent the last month in a city very close to Sanford and quite similar demographically, I am not at all surprised that someone was shot for "walking while black." The level of bigotry here is astounding, and we're in a pretty ethnically diverse, growing city. The only difference I can tell between the bigotry in my redneck Rustbelt home and the bigotry in central Florida is that here it's masked behind Southern gentility...get one of those proper belles or gentlemen out of public earshot and into the privacy of their homes and you'll hear the sort of anti-African-American rhetoric you might hear in antebellum times.

There's also a strong anti-immigrant (at least dark-skinned immigrant) sentiment here...my feeling, after five weeks in Florida, is that I hope the immigrants win this particular culture war.
 
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :
 
I don't know what happened and I don't know if this article is right or wrong; but it raises other issues that might have factored in this matter.
 
Posted by Jonathan Strange (# 11001) on :
 
New Yorker, that article is a giant lie.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
But that's too complex for a bumper sticker or the Brady campaign's web site.

I guess bumper stickers are different in your neck of the woods. Around here, every bumper sticker about guns that I've ever seen are of the "this car protected by Smith & Wesson" variety. The closest thing I can recall to an anti-gun bumper sticker is, "I support the right to arm bears," but I'm not sure that counts as anti-gun.

--Tom Clune

I've seen that one- and I rather like it, to tell the truth. But that's just my quirky sense of humor. I've always liked absurdism- and I appreciate the way(s) it can be used to bolster an argument.

We get a fair number of "save the children! ban guns!" type here (depending of what part of the state you're in), which are the ones I was referring to. YMMV, of course. (And apparently does.)
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I don't know what happened and I don't know if this article is right or wrong; but it raises other issues that might have factored in this matter.

Hmmmm... it starts with the red herring of "gangbanging" in Chicago which has nothing to do with this incident. No one doubts that other people were killed in the U.S. that day (as well as every other day). What makes this issue unique is the use of this specific gun law and whether it was misused. This is something for the courts to determine.

Also, the article's links don't really say what the article says they say.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
The city of Sanford has made public a CYA letter explaining their position. The city commission has also narrowly passed a no confidence vote on Police Chief Lee.
 
Posted by Jonathan Strange (# 11001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
the red herring of "gangbanging" in Chicago

Yes! As in, "In Chicago, black people did crime. Meanwhile, in another part of America there was a crime involving another black person. Coincidence?"
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
New Yorker's linked article states irritation with speculative reporting then proceeds to do the same.
Credible? Perhaps not.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I don't know what happened and I don't know if this article is right or wrong; but it raises other issues that might have factored in this matter.

You have as good an idea of what happened as anyone else posting here.

In one of the linked articles, it says
quote:
Investigators with the Sanford Police Department are still trying to figure out exactly what happened during an altercation which resulted in a fatal shooting in the Twin Lakes area. The shooting happened just after 7 p.m. Sunday evening on Twin Trees Lane. A man who witnessed part of the altercation contacted authorities.
"The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.

It seems to me that if Zimmerman had left his gun at home, stuck to Neighborhood Watch instead of turning into Neighborhood Vigilante there'd be even less talk here at SOF about it than is said about the Chicago body counts. If he'd shot Martin for breaking into his house, that would be ok, too.

I've not ever heard of the "stand your ground" defense before as being an actual law. The closest would be many years ago on Hill Street Blues when Forest Whitaker explained that he shot and killed a bus driver because "he was in my face".

[ 22. March 2012, 19:53: Message edited by: Mere Nick ]
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:


quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Gun owners in America have been getting away with the, "I feared for my life," legal defense for too long.

Here you lose me- thanks for tarring all gun owners in America with the same brush. [Roll Eyes]
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that all gun owners were accustomed to killing unarmed people and using the, "I feared for my life," excuse. I only have an issue with the ones who do.


quote:
[qb]609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.

The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.



That's what I'm talking about. I think lots of courts, police and gun owners alike, believe that the law you quoted does give them the right to kill if they believe they are in danger. "Reasonably believes exposes the actor to great bodily harm," can be interpreted quite loosely. A person alone at night may feel very afraid when a stranger knocks on his/her door. Maybe the stranger is a short haired young woman in jeans, running from a rapist, but the home owner's fear is not unreasonalbe. What is unreasonable is the law that gives them permission to shoot without further investigation.

Since I happen to believe that, quite often, the people most likely to own handguns are the people most fearful of home invasions and assault, then right away we have a bad situation if "reasonable fear," gives them permission to kill.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that all gun owners were accustomed to killing unarmed people and using the, "I feared for my life," excuse. I only have an issue with the ones who do.

Fair enough. So do I.

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:

quote:
609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.

The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.




That's what I'm talking about. I think lots of courts, police and gun owners alike, believe that the law you quoted does give them the right to kill if they believe they are in danger. "Reasonably believes exposes the actor to great bodily harm," can be interpreted quite loosely. A person alone at night may feel very afraid when a stranger knocks on his/her door. Maybe the stranger is a short haired young woman in jeans, running from a rapist, but the home owner's fear is not unreasonalbe. What is unreasonable is the law that gives them permission to shoot without further investigation.

Since I happen to believe that, quite often, the people most likely to own handguns are the people most fearful of home invasions and assault, then right away we have a bad situation if "reasonable fear," gives them permission to kill.

In practice, at least here, the interpretation is pretty strict- the definition of "great bodily harm" is spelled out in statute, and the term "reasonable fear" is understood to mean that the average person (i.e., someone without any great amount of training or knowledge) would be in fear of it occurring. I can't speak for FL, however, or how it would be interpreted there.

My main point was that gun owners, as a whole, aren't all alike, and don't always agree- I'm an admin on a gun-centered web forum, and I can assure you the debate has been hot and heavy about this case. The majority seem to feel about as I do, however- this case is an outlier that should be handled by the FL courts, not a reason to revamp the laws without a lot of consideration.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I think lots of courts, police and gun owners alike, believe that the law you quoted does give them the right to kill if they believe they are in danger.

Let's be honest. In practical terms, the law as it exists on the ground does "give them the right to kill if they believe they are in danger", even if they're deliberately provoking that danger. That's one of the things clearly illustrated by this case.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
I can't speak for FL, however, or how it would be interpreted there.

<snip>

The majority seem to feel about as I do, however- this case is an outlier that should be handled by the FL courts, not a reason to revamp the laws without a lot of consideration.

So, given that you "can't speak for FL", how did you reach the conclusion that there was nothing wrong with the legal code regarding guns (or the way that code is enforced "on the ground") in that state? That seems kind of like a knee-jerk default position.
 
Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
The majority [on the gun-users forum] seem to feel about as I do, however- this case is an outlier that should be handled by the FL courts, not a reason to revamp the laws without a lot of consideration.

NO. I saw something similar from a US lawyer in a UK news item earlier. He said that there's nothing wrong with the law as it stands - the issue is whether Zimmerman acted within the law.

NO. One issue is whether Zimmerman acted within the law but if he did, it certainly calls attention to whether the law or its application needs changing. No-one can claim the law is fine as it is when this sort of thing can happen.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So, given that you "can't speak for FL", how did you reach the conclusion that there was nothing wrong with the legal code regarding guns (or the way that code is enforced "on the ground") in that state? That seems kind of like a knee-jerk default position.

I didn't- I merely suggested that calls to change the law *may* just be a bit premature, without seeing how it actually plays out in court.


quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Let's be honest. In practical terms, the law as it exists on the ground does "give them the right to kill if they believe they are in danger", even if they're deliberately provoking that danger. That's one of the things clearly illustrated by this case.

I disagree. Here, at least, one must be a "reluctant participant"; initiating the physical confrontation would lead (and has led) to murder charges.

I think this is the FL statute in question:

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

link

The first line "a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity" seems to negate the theory that the law protects the aggressor; If a person started the physical encounter, he's committing an unlawful act, and would not be able to avail himself of this defense.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

It is my understanding that these are just to be an organized eyes and ears outfit. There's a world of difference between shooting a guy breaking into a home and shooting him for maybe, just possibly being up to something you ain't exactly sure about.

Exactly right, Mere Nick. In fact, you can argue that the neighbors providing an "aural witness" to what was going on is a better example of what a neighborhood watch is supposed to do.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
No-one can claim the law is fine as it is when this sort of thing can happen.

Hold on, I believe the incident is considered fine as long as a white person kills a black person. Think we might see a difference of opinion should the colours be reversed.
Sarcasm aside, the "Castle defense" is questionable, this law is insane.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
The majority [on the gun-users forum] seem to feel about as I do, however- this case is an outlier that should be handled by the FL courts, not a reason to revamp the laws without a lot of consideration.

NO. I saw something similar from a US lawyer in a UK news item earlier. He said that there's nothing wrong with the law as it stands - the issue is whether Zimmerman acted within the law.

NO. One issue is whether Zimmerman acted within the law but if he did, it certainly calls attention to whether the law or its application needs changing. No-one can claim the law is fine as it is when this sort of thing can happen.

Here again, until we see how it actually plays out in court, how would we know the law needs changing?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Here again, until we see how it actually plays out in court, how would we know the law needs changing?

Because it leaves too much open to interpretation.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Here again, until we see how it actually plays out in court, how would we know the law needs changing?

When we see folks playing Neighborhood Vigilante distributing street justice and then hiding behind it.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
No-one can claim the law is fine as it is when this sort of thing can happen.

That assumes the law has correctly been applied.

As LilBuddha said up thread, and as the video I linked to said, there is a school of legal thought that even WITH Florida's quite permissive self-defense law, this wasn't a case of self-defense.

And from the small amount I know, I'm joining the school of thought. One of the biggest worries here is that the police have set a threshhold so low that they will accept you were defending yourself by following someone around. It doesn't look to me, or to many other people, that the text of the law actually permits such behaviour.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I've been thinking about this a little further. I think the real source of bother here is simply that it doesn't feel as if the self-defence claim is being tested.

No doubt some people wouldn't be satisifed until Zimmermann was convicted. But for many, including myself, it's more a sense that a court should be deciding it. Or even, it's that the police should LOOK like they were investigating it more carefully. So that they would be in a position to explain, lucidly and clearly, why they were satisfied, for example, that it was Zimmermann shouting for help. And why they were satisfied that Trayvon attacked him, not the other way around.

Of course, even if Trayvon did start punching Zimmermann, it'd be rather interesting to consider self-defence from Trayvon's point of view. Man with a gun starts following me around. Hmm. I might use reasonable force against him.

Even if it was Zimmermann calling for help, the nature of the incident takes on a very different character depending on exactly when you take the 'incident' as having started. Even if you take Zimmermann as telling the truth, as he sees it, I don't think it's an open and shut case that he's within the law. I think it's the kind of case that a court should be examining. Which will only happen if he's charged.


It does remind me a little of a case here. I didn't know any of the people directly involved, but I knew the mother of a man who shot 2 other men dead, and a friend of mine from another context was a friend and former co-worker of one of the dead men.

It was ruled self-defence. But only after a trial where the reasons why he was terrified for his life were made apparent and aired in a public forum.

[ 22. March 2012, 23:13: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Addendum: I think it's worth adding that in the case here, the shooter was in some ways portrayed in a bad light (although still not as bad as this Florida case, in that the dead men here came to the shooter's house. WHY they came to the house became a central part of the case).

One of the things his mother was rather upset about was that the local media claimed the 2 men were shot with a 'sawn-off shotgun'.

Because it made her son look like he was already a criminal. Who has a sawn-off shotgun? Why do you saw the barrel off a shotgun?

The truth was, he shot them with a short-barrel shotgun that was specifically designed that way for legitimate uses, that he hadn't altered, and which he had completely legally for his work. A very small change between the facts and the media presentation of the story made a big difference in public perception towards her son.

But a court is able to sort that kind of thing out.

[ 22. March 2012, 23:25: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
The entire police department should be locked in stocks outdoors in the rain for 72 hours and forced to watch a continual loop of In the heat of the night while passers-by throw shit in their faces. And then sacked without compensation.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The entire police department should be locked in stocks outdoors in the rain for 72 hours and forced to watch a continual loop of In the heat of the night while passers-by throw shit in their faces. And then sacked without compensation.

Yeah, because obviously the ENTIRE police department was in on it, right? Especially the low ranked guys who weren't on shift at the time.
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The entire police department should be locked in stocks outdoors in the rain for 72 hours and forced to watch a continual loop of In the heat of the night while passers-by throw shit in their faces. And then sacked without compensation.

Yeah, because obviously the ENTIRE police department was in on it, right? Especially the low ranked guys who weren't on shift at the time.
While I definitely believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty, in all too many of these small-city and town police departments this sort of activity is representative of the culture that permeates the whole police dept.

That is why i said in my earlier post that in such towns African-Americans (and other non-"whites") don't have a police dept. if police dept. is defined as a public safety service.

What i would do in such a case is to suspend the entire dept. and bring in another more law-abiding agency to manage public safety functions. Then after appropriate investigation of the suspended police dept., if there were actually decent individuals found, they could become part of a new or reformed police dept. The others should not be allowed to ever again be a police officer.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I think you're confusing police culture issues with police actions in a particular case. One may well contribute to the other, and both need investigation and addressing, but suspending or sacking entire police departments strikes me as a blunt knee-jerk response that is likely to be counterproductive.

Any police force member who didn't have a problem with racial issues beforehand sure as hell WILL have after you tell them all, universally, how they're all horrible and incompetent.

Honestly, how are these variations on "all police are racists" any different to all the variations of "all blacks are criminals"?
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
So, instead of a trial, which would have some sort of rules and procedures which would make the full disclosure and arguments visible, we are to have grandstanding politicians at various levels of government set up "enquiries" and "Grand Juries" that can do whatever they want with what may or may not be evidence.

Doesn't sound like a particularly civilised way of doing things.

But, then, the victim was black, so, like the Alice in Wonderland version, "verdict first, trial later". He was black, so he was a criminal, and therefore should have been shot.

Is there any way that the NRA can make a case that this was a legitimate use of a gun?

Don't answer that, I know the answer, it is just too depressing to say it.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
It's spring break right now, so there's teenagers everywhere. They ALL wear hoodies. Both in the affluent West side and the more ordinary East side. Lots of grownups were wearing them too. (It rained and snowed today.) Most of the kids were also wearing headphones, which means they might not hear someone calling out a warning to them. (In fact, we just had an incident where a police dog chomped on a suspect who had no idea he was being arrested because of his damn headphones.)

Perhaps the law on self-defense isn't tight enough, perhaps we don't have all the info in this case. Whatevs. ISTM the really awful thing is that these folks are living in a gated community in a state of fear, and a young man - just doing what teenagers do - is dead because of that fear. These folks don't need Neighbourhood Watch, they need to be a neighbourhood. OliviaG
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
... Of course, even if Trayvon did start punching Zimmermann, it'd be rather interesting to consider self-defence from Trayvon's point of view. Man with a gun starts following me around. Hmm. I might use reasonable force against him.
...

And another thing about teenagers - they seem unable to call 911 or ask for help from a passerby. They'll just phone a parent, boy/girlfriend, uncle, whatever. [Roll Eyes] OliviaG
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I have to confess I don't understand this whole 'gated community' business very well. I'm aware such things exist, but that's about it.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
These folks don't need Neighbourhood Watch, they need to be a neighbourhood. OliviaG

[Overused]

[ 23. March 2012, 01:41: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
I saw an interview with one of the authors of Florida's Stand Your Ground Law and he believes that at the very least the way the law is being enforced needs review and quite possibly the law itself needs adjusting as it appeared to him from a few incidents that people were literally getting away with murder.

As to all the protests and petitions and demands for the arrest of Zimmerman I don't believe in policing by popular opinion any more than I believe in shoddy police work. Let the Law officials do their jobs - they are now well aware there is additional evidence and missed evidence in this case, not to mention the Feds are now looking over their shoulders.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:

As to all the protests and petitions and demands for the arrest of Zimmerman I don't believe in policing by popular opinion any more than I believe in shoddy police work. Let the Law officials do their jobs - they are now well aware there is additional evidence and missed evidence in this case, not to mention the Feds are now looking over their shoulders.

No one believes in "trial by media". But the reason the missed evidence has come to light and the Feds are looking over their shoulders is precisely because of the press the case has been given. The press and popular opinion did serve a useful role in this case by demanding not a conviction but an investigation. Sadly, much evidence has inevitably already been lost due to the delay in securing the crime scene, interviewing witnesses, etc.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The entire police department should be locked in stocks outdoors in the rain for 72 hours and forced to watch a continual loop of In the heat of the night...

Dude. Don't become what you hate.
 
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Florida has a very extensive "stand your ground" law, which basically allows shootings like this if the shooter had "reasonable fears" for their personal safety. The Florida courts have been particularly gratuitous in accepting fears as reasonable, at least in the case of certain complexion of victim. And, of course, the police have a lot of discretion in making such determinations as well, insofar as they're the ones making the call about whether charges are warranted in the first place.

Which just confirms my worst fears that American so-called gun law amounts to "it's fine to shoot anybody anytime as long as you feel like it". Sounds just like Afghanistan. No wonder that like many other outsiders, I don't want to visit either place, since I'm keen to stay alive.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
As to all the protests and petitions and demands for the arrest of Zimmerman I don't believe in policing by popular opinion any more than I believe in shoddy police work. Let the Law officials do their jobs - they are now well aware there is additional evidence and missed evidence in this case, not to mention the Feds are now looking over their shoulders.

It seems to me that they were well aware of additional evidence before the protests. The only difference is that they've been made to look like a bunch of incompetent, corrupt, racist idiots by a crowd of uppity blacks and liberals.

If they'd have done their jobs in the first place, you'd still have had a shit storm, but the stream of faecal matter would have been directed at the lawmakers, rather than the police.
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
As to all the protests and petitions and demands for the arrest of Zimmerman I don't believe in policing by popular opinion any more than I believe in shoddy police work. Let the Law officials do their jobs - they are now well aware there is additional evidence and missed evidence in this case, not to mention the Feds are now looking over their shoulders.

It seems to me that they were well aware of additional evidence before the protests. The only difference is that they've been made to look like a bunch of incompetent, corrupt, racist idiots by a crowd of uppity blacks and liberals.

If they'd have done their jobs in the first place, you'd still have had a shit storm, but the stream of faecal matter would have been directed at the lawmakers, rather than the police.

It is still wrong for the public to have a say in whether a person is arrested - that's how a lot of this crap started. As I stated the Feds are there and I think every i will be dotted and t crossed on this one. It's time for the public to back off a bit. Keep it in the public mind by reminder articles but quit demanding as the crowds I saw on the news tonight that "Zimmerman be arrested and convicted".

I will agree the shit storm stirred up by this affair will force lawmakers to review these "Stand Your Ground" laws to ensure it's spelled out specifically when you do and don't have the right to use lethal force. From what I understand Florida's law is so loosely written it's relatively easy to get away with murder. One of the author's has admitted that, though that obviously wasn't his intention. The law is so vague, police may not be able to arrest gain a conviction. At least the Feds provide a backup with civil rights laws if warranted.

[ 23. March 2012, 09:46: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I think you're confusing police culture issues with police actions in a particular case. One may well contribute to the other, and both need investigation and addressing, but suspending or sacking entire police departments strikes me as a blunt knee-jerk response that is likely to be counterproductive.

Any police force member who didn't have a problem with racial issues beforehand sure as hell WILL have after you tell them all, universally, how they're all horrible and incompetent.

Honestly, how are these variations on "all police are racists" any different to all the variations of "all blacks are criminals"?

Yes and no. This looks a lot to me like institutional racism. Note that the phrase was coined in connection with a police force (the Met in the Stephen Lawrence inquiry). Does it mean that every single individual working for the Metropolitan or the Stanford police is racist? No, but it does means that the whole structure of the institution from the top down effectively discriminates against black people.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
It is still wrong for the public to have a say in whether a person is arrested - that's how a lot of this crap started.

Since policing is essentially (unless you live in a police state) by the consent of the people, it's in everybody's interest including the police's that no one gets a free pass when it comes to obeying the law.

If the public see that their law-enforcing representatives are favouring one sector of the community over another, then they've every right - and in fact a duty - to demand equality before the law.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

Is there any way that the NRA can make a case that this was a legitimate use of a gun?

I'm not the NRA (not by a *long* shot- they're more than a little off the deep end, if you ask me), but here's a possibility. NOTE: this is a *hypothetical* situation- none of us know all the details on the real situation. That said, I haven't knowingly contradicted any of the publicly available evidence, either.

What if it went down this way:

quote:
A is on phone with 911, following B down the street. B is on his phone with friend. A confronts B, asking "what are you doing around here?". B ignores him. A blocks B's path and again confronts him verbally, more aggressively this time, but does not physically touch him. B, being angry/confused/scared/whatever attacks A. A, fearing he's about to be beaten to death, shoots B with a heretofore concealed weapon.


Under the laws in most U.S. states, this would most likely be considered a legitimate use of the firearm- A did not initiate the physical confrontation, but was defending himself from an unprovoked attack. (Angry words are just words, and force is not authorized to stop them, therefore B's use of force against A is an illegal assault.)

---

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:

As to all the protests and petitions and demands for the arrest of Zimmerman I don't believe in policing by popular opinion any more than I believe in shoddy police work. Let the Law officials do their jobs - they are now well aware there is additional evidence and missed evidence in this case, not to mention the Feds are now looking over their shoulders.

Yes. All the rallies (and why one in New York, anyway?) and calls for Mr. Zimmerman to be locked up without an investigation (to say nothing of the police to be put in the stocks) smell of lynch mob law, to my mind. Let the law have a chance to work before we decide to change it or ignore it entirely- if you do that, you're no better that the alleged perpetrator.

[ 23. March 2012, 13:12: Message edited by: jbohn ]
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
All the rallies (and why one in New York, anyway?) and calls for Mr. Zimmerman to be locked up without an investigation (to say nothing of the police to be put in the stocks) smell of lynch mob law, to my mind.

So you're all for vigilante shootings of unarmed people, but have a problem with lynch mobs? Your moral distinctions are a bit too subtle for me to grasp, I'm afraid.

--Tom Clune

[ 23. March 2012, 13:24: Message edited by: tclune ]
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
Bottom line - this is a core part of the reality for Black people in the USA
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
All the rallies (and why one in New York, anyway?) and calls for Mr. Zimmerman to be locked up without an investigation (to say nothing of the police to be put in the stocks) smell of lynch mob law, to my mind.

So you're all for vigilante shootings of unarmed people, but have a problem with lynch mobs? Your moral distinctions are a bit too subtle for me to grasp, I'm afraid.

--Tom Clune

Tom, you apparently misunderstand. Let me try to be clearer.

I support the rule of law. Period.

IF the incident happened as Mr. Zimmerman claims, and he was physically attacked by the unarmed Mr. Martin, and IF he was, indeed, in reasonable fear for his life, I would say he's probably OK here. I understand there are those who think that it is never OK to defend oneself, but I think they're nuts.

IF he's lying, and he shot an unarmed kid on the way back from the store- lock him up and throw away the key. The world has no place for racists and murderers, and if that's what actually happened here, he deserves whatever punishment FL law can hand out.

NEITHER of those outcomes can be ascertained by rallies thousands of miles away, or by the knee-jerk liberal response of "Guns bad! Racist police! Deep South! OMG!" that I'm seeing on this thread. It's just not useful, or helpful, to anyone- not Mr. Zimmerman, not the family of young Mr. Martin, not anyone. And they could all use prayers and compassion right about now- there are no winners in a gunfight, only degrees of losing.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
What if it went down this way:

quote:
A is on phone with 911, following B down the street. B is on his phone with friend. A confronts B, asking "what are you doing around here?". B ignores him. A blocks B's path and again confronts him verbally, more aggressively this time, but does not physically touch him. B, being angry/confused/scared/whatever attacks A. A, fearing he's about to be beaten to death, shoots B with a heretofore concealed weapon.

That would contradict what is publicly known of the testimony offered by B's friend. Do you have any reason to consider the alleged perpetrator's contradictory account more credible? (It should be noted that the bit about "A confronts B" also contradicts what we know about A's testmony.)

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Let the law have a chance to work before we decide to change it or ignore it entirely- if you do that, you're no better that the alleged perpetrator.

First off, the problem here is that the law is "working". It's been cited by the Sanford police as the reason they felt unable to continue investigating a "he said, he's dead" homicide. Your claim to want to "see how it actually plays out in court" ignores the rather obvious point that, prior to the current public outcry, there didn't seem to be any chance of Zimmerman seeing the inside of a courtroom in this month-old case. And we already have some pretty clear examples of how this law works in court:

quote:
As critics assail Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law in the wake of the killing of an unarmed Miami Gardens teen in Sanford, a Miami-Dade judge on Wednesday cited the law in tossing out the case of a man who chased down a suspected burglar and stabbed him to death.

Greyston Garcia was charged with second-degree murder in the slaying of Pedro Roteta, 26, whom he chased for more than a block before stabbing the man.

Given what seems to be the common application of this law in Florida, isn't this exactly the kind of situation the American consitutional system intended to be handled by the legislature, clarifying or revising the interpretation of the law as practiced by the executive and judicial authorities?
 
Posted by Jonathan Strange (# 11001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:

What if it went down this way:

But it didn't. A 140lb black 17-year-old male is on his way home from a shop with skittles and a can of ice tea in his pocket. A 200lb 28-year-old male follows him, calls 911 on him, intimidates him and creates an altercation in which the 17-year-old is scared enough to call for help. The older male shoots the younger male in the chest and kills him.

That's what happened. There's no need to hypothesise.
 
Posted by Jonathan Strange (# 11001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
in a gunfight

I was not aware that Trayvon Martin was also armed.

This wasn't a gunfight; it was racially-motivated vigilante murder.
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:

What if it went down this way:

But it didn't. A 140lb black 17-year-old male is on his way home from a shop with skittles and a can of ice tea in his pocket. A 200lb 28-year-old male follows him, calls 911 on him, intimidates him and creates an altercation in which the 17-year-old is scared enough to call for help. The older male shoots the younger male in the chest and kills him.

That's what happened. There's no need to hypothesise.

it's still being debated about who actually called for help, so voice forensics will have to be used to sort that out, Neighbors and friends are coming out to defend Zimmermen who is a spanish speaking minority with black family members. And no one can agree a slur was used on the 911 call. Zimmerman's story stinks, but I don't like mob action, That's why I say this needs honest police work, not a mob set up. I believe the Feds will see that anything that needs to be done will be done.

Hopefully Florida will tighten up it's gun laws
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
in a gunfight

I was not aware that Trayvon Martin was also armed.

This wasn't a gunfight; it was racially-motivated vigilante murder.

It reminds me of some weaseling done by Caspar Weinberger during the Reagan administration, testifying before some Congressional subcommittee on the murder of a busload of nuns by some American-armed militants in Central America. He characterized the event as "an exchange of fire", prompting one of the Congressmen to ask him if the nuns were also armed.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
I support the rule of law. Period.

IF the incident happened as Mr. Zimmerman claims, and he was physically attacked by the unarmed Mr. Martin, and IF he was, indeed, in reasonable fear for his life, I would say he's probably OK here. I understand there are those who think that it is never OK to defend oneself, but I think they're nuts.

Supporting the rule of law should depend on what the law says, ISTM. In my state, anyone who stalked another individual and then ended up shooting him, whether that individual was armed or not, would be in serious trouble. The notion that you can pursue another person (after having been told not to do so by the 911 dipatcher) and then claim self-defense for shooting them is so far beyond the pale of "self defense" that it is genuinely shocking that this man was not even arrested after the shooting. It sure seems that the only person who would have had any claim to self-defense was the victim.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
And jbohn, what do you mean by "and why [a rally] in New York"?

If you think this was just a local incident without national significance, with all due respect, you are utterly divorced from reality. Not only must there be a national outcry, but US citizens of European ancestry have an especial responsibility to speak out against this cancer that has been at the heart of the US from the beginning.
 
Posted by Jonathan Strange (# 11001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
And no one can agree a slur was used on the 911 call.

There is definitely a slur - the debate is whether it is racist or not. Either he says "fucking coons" or "fucking punks". I've heard the unedited recording and to me it sounds like the former.
 
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :
 
Guests in our country murdered in cold blood. Where's the outrage about this?
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Guests in our country murdered in cold blood. Where's the outrage about this?

Did you read the story, New Yorker? The killer is on trial for murder.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Guests in our country murdered in cold blood. Where's the outrage about this?

I suspect the main difference can be found in the caption of the first picture.

quote:
Accused: Shawn Tyson is on trial for the murders of British tourists James Cooper and James Kouzaris

 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
There was plenty of outrage over here. Less so in the US where this sort of thing happens all the time, I guess.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
I support the rule of law. Period.

IF the incident happened as Mr. Zimmerman claims, and he was physically attacked by the unarmed Mr. Martin, and IF he was, indeed, in reasonable fear for his life, I would say he's probably OK here. I understand there are those who think that it is never OK to defend oneself, but I think they're nuts.

Supporting the rule of law should depend on what the law says, ISTM. In my state, anyone who stalked another individual and then ended up shooting him, whether that individual was armed or not, would be in serious trouble. The notion that you can pursue another person (after having been told not to do so by the 911 dipatcher) and then claim self-defense for shooting them is so far beyond the pale of "self defense" that it is genuinely shocking that this man was not even arrested after the shooting. It sure seems that the only person who would have had any claim to self-defense was the victim.

--Tom Clune

Here, if I understand our laws correctly, defense applies to the physical confrontation; the "stalking" or verbal confrontation is a separate matter. That said, it's an area that's not been extensively tested. As far as FL law, I don't claim to know the ins and outs of how it applies there. This is one of those cases where a great deal depends on what state you happen to live in. In Illinois, they'd have run him in for the loaded gun- the shooting would be a separate charge, if it came to that.

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
And jbohn, what do you mean by "and why [a rally] in New York"?

If you think this was just a local incident without national significance, with all due respect, you are utterly divorced from reality. Not only must there be a national outcry, but US citizens of European ancestry have an especial responsibility to speak out against this cancer that has been at the heart of the US from the beginning.

Why does it have any more significance that any other shooting? I just read a police report on the neighborhood I work in- a teenager was shot and killed there. I don't know that it even made the local news, let alone national. What makes this story different? Oh, wait- we can shout "racism", and it's an election year.

Speaking as a "US citizen of European ancestry", I speak out against racism all the time. Part of my life, really- I work in inner-city schools, in one of the most diverse cities in the US. I don't, however, generally jump to labeling people racists without some semblance of evidence.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
As to all the protests and petitions and demands for the arrest of Zimmerman I don't believe in policing by popular opinion any more than I believe in shoddy police work. Let the Law officials do their jobs - they are now well aware there is additional evidence and missed evidence in this case, not to mention the Feds are now looking over their shoulders.

It seems to me that they were well aware of additional evidence before the protests. The only difference is that they've been made to look like a bunch of incompetent, corrupt, racist idiots by a crowd of uppity blacks and liberals.

If they'd have done their jobs in the first place, you'd still have had a shit storm, but the stream of faecal matter would have been directed at the lawmakers, rather than the police.

It is still wrong for the public to have a say in whether a person is arrested - that's how a lot of this crap started. As I stated the Feds are there and I think every i will be dotted and t crossed on this one. It's time for the public to back off a bit. Keep it in the public mind by reminder articles but quit demanding as the crowds I saw on the news tonight that "Zimmerman be arrested and convicted".

Nuance is difficult to obtain in such inflammatory matters as this, when people's lives are at stake and a young boy is dead. But the cooler heads have called not for conviction, but for investigation. That's appropriate.

To suggest the public has no role in this is to ignore the history of the civil rights movement in the US, when such public outcry was essential to reversing generations-long patterns of racially biased policing. I'm not saying that's happened here-- although it sure looks suspicious. I'm saying the public has a role to play in finding out if that's what's going on.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The entire police department should be locked in stocks outdoors in the rain for 72 hours and forced to watch a continual loop of In the heat of the night while passers-by throw shit in their faces. And then sacked without compensation.

Yeah, because obviously the ENTIRE police department was in on it, right? Especially the low ranked guys who weren't on shift at the time.
While I definitely believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty, in all too many of these small-city and town police departments this sort of activity is representative of the culture that permeates the whole police dept.

That is why i said in my earlier post that in such towns African-Americans (and other non-"whites") don't have a police dept. if police dept. is defined as a public safety service.

What i would do in such a case is to suspend the entire dept. and bring in another more law-abiding agency to manage public safety functions. Then after appropriate investigation of the suspended police dept., if there were actually decent individuals found, they could become part of a new or reformed police dept. The others should not be allowed to ever again be a police officer.

We haven't been to Florida in a few years but is there any way part of the settlement could be that my wife spanks me about once a week?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:

NEITHER of those outcomes can be ascertained by rallies thousands of miles away, or by the knee-jerk liberal response of "Guns bad! Racist police! Deep South! OMG!" that I'm seeing on this thread. It's just not useful, or helpful, to anyone- not Mr. Zimmerman, not the family of young Mr. Martin, not anyone. And they could all use prayers and compassion right about now- there are no winners in a gunfight, only degrees of losing.

Looks to me like you posted to the wrong thread, since I see NO calls for "Guns bad! Racist police! Deep South! OMG!".

otoh, our history here in the US is such that "rallies thousands of miles away" have, in fact, been quite helpful in bringing justice to these sorts of situations.

Again, we are calling for investigation, not conviction. Just as we did 50 years ago.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
... Zimmerman's story stinks, but I don't like mob action, That's why I say this needs honest police work, not a mob set up. I believe the Feds will see that anything that needs to be done will be done.

Hopefully Florida will tighten up it's gun laws

Once more with feeling: if it hadn't been for the "mob action", there wouldn't have been ANY police work, honest or otherwise. And Zimmerman, being still alive, has already had far more benefit of the doubt than he gave Trayvon Martin. OliviaG
 
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :
 
Filming an amateur rap video. Where's the outrage over this?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Filming an amateur rap video. Where's the outrage over this?

Once again, from the cited article:

quote:
The officers who were on the scene grabbed potential suspects.

Action News had the only camera on the scene as several young men were handcuffed and shown to witnesses before being loaded into a police van and patrol cars.

Detectives say they found guns on three of the men and one was identified as the killer.

For whatever reason you seem unable to grasp the idea that the biggest outrage in the Trayvon Martin case is the way the local authorities essentially shrugged their shoulders and said "eh, whatevs".
 
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For whatever reason you seem unable to grasp the idea that the biggest outrage in the Trayvon Martin case is the way the local authorities essentially shrugged their shoulders and said "eh, whatevs".

Huh? The police chief has stepped aside. The governor has appointed a special prosecutor and, heaven help us, even Al Sharpton is involved.

[ 23. March 2012, 15:07: Message edited by: New Yorker ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For whatever reason you seem unable to grasp the idea that the biggest outrage in the Trayvon Martin case is the way the local authorities essentially shrugged their shoulders and said "eh, whatevs".

Huh? The police chief has stepped aside. The governor has appointed a special prosecutor and, heaven help us, even Al Sharpton is involved.
And you take all this as evidence of what a terrific job that police chief has been doing? How does that work exactly?

[ 23. March 2012, 15:11: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
And, as has been said many times already, the basic call from all these "outsiders" is for there to be a visible due process of law. Zimmerman may indeed be innocent of murder or assault, but we cannot have anything BUT "mob calls" if the police refuse to do their job, which is to initiate the process known as a trial.

Trials are to establish, to the best fo everyone's ability, what actually happened. That trials have also become media circuses is unfortunate and unhelpful.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
... Zimmerman's story stinks, but I don't like mob action, That's why I say this needs honest police work, not a mob set up. I believe the Feds will see that anything that needs to be done will be done.

Hopefully Florida will tighten up it's gun laws

Once more with feeling: if it hadn't been for the "mob action", there wouldn't have been ANY police work, honest or otherwise. And Zimmerman, being still alive, has already had far more benefit of the doubt than he gave Trayvon Martin. OliviaG
Let me be clear (and this isn't meant to be disagreeing with OliviaG, quite the reverse).

Zimmerman needs locking up unless the whole thing is a fabrication from the ground up. It's bad, and nothing is going to bring Trayvon Martin back. But the specific shooting is not the cause of the outrage.

The outrage is about the almost indefensible behaviour of the police. The laws are worth nothing if the people enforcing them don't.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For whatever reason you seem unable to grasp the idea that the biggest outrage in the Trayvon Martin case is the way the local authorities essentially shrugged their shoulders and said "eh, whatevs".

Huh? The police chief has stepped aside. The governor has appointed a special prosecutor and, heaven help us, even Al Sharpton is involved.
And you take all this as evidence of what a terrific job that police chief has been doing? How does that work exactly?
Exactly. The police chief failed in his job to protect the citizens by insuring there was an investigation. The reason the police chief has stepped aside and a special prosecutor has been appointed is a direct result of the public outcry.

Again, we have a long history of the direct relationship between "public outcry" and the positive outcome of bringing light and justice to unjust systems-- both in the US and elsewhere. We have had negative outcomes as well, of course-- a rush to judgment where innocents got trampled. But, while people will always speculate and rush ahead of the evidence, I see nothing here that looks like a rush to judgment. Rather, we see the positive outcome of a bringing about an investigation in a matter where an investigation is clearly called for.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Looks to me like you posted to the wrong thread, since I see NO calls for "Guns bad! Racist police! Deep South! OMG!".

Let me help you:

Racism (and implied Deep South):

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Hold on, I believe the incident is considered fine as long as a white person kills a black person. Think we might see a difference of opinion should the colours be reversed.

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The entire police department should be locked in stocks outdoors in the rain for 72 hours and forced to watch a continual loop of In the heat of the night while passers-by throw shit in their faces. And then sacked without compensation.

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
That is why i said in my earlier post that in such towns African-Americans (and other non-"whites") don't have a police dept. if police dept. is defined as a public safety service.

Guns:

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Is there any way that the NRA can make a case that this was a legitimate use of a gun?

(what does the NRA have to do with it?)

I'll admit- I didn't find OMG! [Biased]

--------------

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
otoh, our history here in the US is such that "rallies thousands of miles away" have, in fact, been quite helpful in bringing justice to these sorts of situations.

Perhaps- if we concede that the issue is anything more than a tempest in a teacup, stirred up for political point-grabbing. Don't get me wrong- this is a tragedy. But it's no more tragic than any number of similar stories, none of which make the national news. So why this one? I'm a bit cynical. Sounds like a local law-enforcement issue to me.

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, we are calling for investigation, not conviction. Just as we did 50 years ago.

*You* might be, and I'd guess you are- my impression of you is that you're pretty deliberative and fair-minded, based on our interactions on the Ship. Others? No- they're calling for his arrest, conviction, and incarceration; that's where I believe they're going off the deep end. Give the legal system time to do its work, then start worrying about what it didn't do.

----------

quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
ItThese folks don't need Neighbourhood Watch, they need to be a neighbourhood.

I missed this earlier. [Overused]
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Give the legal system time to do its work, then start worrying about what it didn't do.

Mission accomplished. This killing happened a month ago: the police chose to not investigate, and had closed the case. It was only then that the protests began. You must be very happy with their restraint -- or were you just blowing smoke?

--Tom Clune

[ 23. March 2012, 16:48: Message edited by: tclune ]
 
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
This killing happened a month ago: the police chose to not investigate, and had closed the case.

Is this correct? I believe that the police investigated and found no reason to charge Mr. Zimmerman.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Give the legal system time to do its work, then start worrying about what it didn't do.

Mission accomplished. This killing happened a month ago: the police chose to not investigate, and had closed the case. It was only then that the protests began. You must be very happy with their restraint -- or were you just blowing smoke?

--Tom Clune

I'm satisfied that the police, if they didn't feel they had evidence to charge Mr. Zimmerman with a crime, didn't arrest him- that's how the law is supposed to work. If there's evidence they didn't have, or didn't use, then further investigation may be called for.

With that, folks complained to their elected officials, and they're taking a second look at the case. Perfect. Again, that's how the system is supposed to work.

My issue isn't with them- it's with the media-manufactured frenzy and cries of racism and bigotry without hard evidence. It rings hollow, to me, when the same thing happens in other places and times, and it's not a national story.

As I said in the beginning, the evidence that we, the public, have seems to point to Mr. Zimmerman as the "bad guy". That said, we don't have all the evidence. I just wish folks weren't quite so quick to jump into default "the law is wrong" "he's guilty" mode before the system has time to work it out.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
My issue isn't with them- it's with the media-manufactured frenzy and cries of racism and bigotry without hard evidence.

They didn't test Zimmerman for either drink or drugs - though they did the same to the dead body. They didn't make any attempt to work out why his statements to the police and the account he gave to the dispatcher varied. They also didn't make any attempt to trace the victim (such as dialling any of the numbers on his phone), he was in a morgue for three days until they figured he was the boy his father had reported missing.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:

With that, folks complained to their elected officials, and they're taking a second look at the case. Perfect. Again, that's how the system is supposed to work.

My issue isn't with them- it's with the media-manufactured frenzy and cries of racism and bigotry without hard evidence. It rings hollow, to me, when the same thing happens in other places and times, and it's not a national story.

Without the " media-manufactured frenzy" the "folks" you're referring to wouldn't have known about the case in order to complain. The "media-manufactured frenzy" is precisely why we're having a second look. Which, as you said, is " how the system is supposed to work."

People will speculate, and some of that speculation crosses a line. I'm not hearing a lot of that here, but yes, there is some. So, yes, call people on that when you hear it. But going to the opposite extreme and denouncing the public outcry is circumventing the very system you are supposedly supporting.

aside: Having listened to the tape, I'm not sure if this is about potential racism or potential agism ("young punks") but I don't really care, either is offensive.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
My issue isn't with them- it's with the media-manufactured frenzy and cries of racism and bigotry without hard evidence.

They didn't test Zimmerman for either drink or drugs - though they did the same to the dead body. They didn't make any attempt to work out why his statements to the police and the account he gave to the dispatcher varied. They also didn't make any attempt to trace the victim (such as dialling any of the numbers on his phone), he was in a morgue for three days until they figured he was the boy his father had reported missing.
I haven't seen any of this evidence- if true, it is certainly concerning and certainly changes things. It definitely brings into question the conduct of the police.

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Without the " media-manufactured frenzy" the "folks" you're referring to wouldn't have known about the case in order to complain. The "media-manufactured frenzy" is precisely why we're having a second look. Which, as you said, is " how the system is supposed to work."

The family would have known. The neighbors would have known. Locals (assuming it made the *local* news) would have known. I'll grant you that Al Sharpton probably wouldn't have known- not that that's necessarily a bad thing.

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
aside: Having listened to the tape, I'm not sure if this is about potential racism or potential agism ("young punks") but I don't really care, either is offensive.

Indeed.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
My issue isn't with them- it's with the media-manufactured frenzy and cries of racism and bigotry without hard evidence.

They didn't test Zimmerman for either drink or drugs - though they did the same to the dead body. They didn't make any attempt to work out why his statements to the police and the account he gave to the dispatcher varied. They also didn't make any attempt to trace the victim (such as dialling any of the numbers on his phone), he was in a morgue for three days until they figured he was the boy his father had reported missing.
I haven't seen any of this evidence- if true, it is certainly concerning and certainly changes things. It definitely brings into question the conduct of the police.
How do you have an opinion about this case without having come across these fairly well known and, as far as I know, uncontested facts?
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
How do you have an opinion about this case without having come across these fairly well known and, as far as I know, uncontested facts?

In, I suspect, the same way as you have this opinion without knowing whether FL law requires someone to be a reluctant participant in the altercation (most states do):

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Let's be honest. In practical terms, the law as it exists on the ground does "give them the right to kill if they believe they are in danger", even if they're deliberately provoking that danger. That's one of the things clearly illustrated by this case.

I simply hadn't seen those pieces of evidence presented. I don't claim to know all, or see all.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
In, I suspect, the same way as you have this opinion without knowing whether FL law requires someone to be a reluctant participant in the altercation (most states do):

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Let's be honest. In practical terms, the law as it exists on the ground does "give them the right to kill if they believe they are in danger", even if they're deliberately provoking that danger. That's one of the things clearly illustrated by this case.


Umm, I also cited a pretty clear example illustrating that on an "as applied" basis, Florida's law does not require reluctance to claim self defense.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For whatever reason you seem unable to grasp the idea that the biggest outrage in the Trayvon Martin case is the way the local authorities essentially shrugged their shoulders and said "eh, whatevs".

Huh? The police chief has stepped aside. The governor has appointed a special prosecutor and, heaven help us, even Al Sharpton is involved.
This happened ONLY AFTER the public outcry.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Umm, I also cited a pretty clear example illustrating that on an "as applied" basis, Florida's law does not require reluctance to claim self defense. [/QB]

I might point out that case isn't settled, either- the DA is appealing the verdict, and it will likely be some time before it works its way through the courts. (FWIW, I agree with the DA- this seems to be a perversion of the "self-defense" justification; if you can chase him down, you could be avoiding the fight instead. The law was meant to remove the duty to run away from an attacker -as in many cases, that isn't practical or safe- not to allow chasing someone down and attacking them.)
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Umm, I also cited a pretty clear example illustrating that on an "as applied" basis, Florida's law does not require reluctance to claim self defense.

I might point out that case isn't settled, either- the DA is appealing the verdict, and it will likely be some time before it works its way through the courts. (FWIW, I agree with the DA- this seems to be a perversion of the "self-defense" justification; if you can chase him down, you could be avoiding the fight instead. The law was meant to remove the duty to run away from an attacker -as in many cases, that isn't practical or safe- not to allow chasing someone down and attacking them.)
There seems to be a growing pile of evidence that your personal interpretation of what the Florida legislature "meant" is not the one favored by that state's executive or judicial authorities. Which brings me back to my earlier, still unanswered question. Isn't what you contend is going on here (executive and judicial officials misconstruing the intent of the legislature), exactly the kind of problem the American constitutional system intends to be handled with a legislative solution (i.e. the legislature revising or clarifying its position)?
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Isn't what you contend is going on here (executive and judicial officials misconstruing the intent of the legislature), exactly the kind of problem the American constitutional system intends to be handled with a legislative solution (i.e. the legislature revising or clarifying its position)?

Yes, it is- after careful deliberation. The American constitutional system is designed such that the laws are slow to be changed, and this isn't an accident; it allows time for careful study before making drastic changes that can have unintended consequences. Whether or not it does this well is another topic. [Biased]

For the record, I never said the law in question shouldn't be changed- I said the legislature ought to let the courts (via the cases before them) finish interpreting the current one before changing it mid-stream.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Isn't what you contend is going on here (executive and judicial officials misconstruing the intent of the legislature), exactly the kind of problem the American constitutional system intends to be handled with a legislative solution (i.e. the legislature revising or clarifying its position)?

Yes, it is- after careful deliberation. The American constitutional system is designed such that the laws are slow to be changed, and this isn't an accident; it allows time for careful study before making drastic changes that can have unintended consequences. Whether or not it does this well is another topic. [Biased]

For the record, I never said the law in question shouldn't be changed- I said the legislature ought to let the courts (via the cases before them) finish interpreting the current one before changing it mid-stream.

And to return to yet another (similarly unanswered) question, how does that work in a case like Mr. Zimmerman's, where the police have (apparently) interpreted the law in such a way that precludes its consideration by any court?
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
I agree with the DA- this seems to be a perversion of the "self-defense" justification; if you can chase him down, you could be avoiding the fight instead.

I agree with this as well as most everything else jbohn has said here. I seriously doubt that this man, a member of a minority himself, will turn out to be a rabid racist who shoots people for being black. I think his real problem was probably too much self-awarded power and too many Clint Eastwood movies. I imagine he was enjoying bullying Trayvon until, all of a sudden the teen became angry himself and the man fired out of fear. Bullies are often cowards.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
It should also be asked that if seven years of case law since the "stand your ground" law was enacted are insufficient for the legislature to get a sense of how the courts are applying the law, how much time would you consider enough?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
I agree with the DA- this seems to be a perversion of the "self-defense" justification; if you can chase him down, you could be avoiding the fight instead.

I agree with this as well as most everything else jbohn has said here. I seriously doubt that this man, a member of a minority himself, will turn out to be a rabid racist who shoots people for being black. I think his real problem was probably too much self-awarded power and too many Clint Eastwood movies. I imagine he was enjoying bullying Trayvon until, all of a sudden the teen became angry himself and the man fired out of fear. Bullies are often cowards.
I'm pretty sure jbohn made that particular comment in regard to the Garcia case I mentioned earlier, which featured a similar application of the "stand your ground law".
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
... Don't get me wrong- this is a tragedy. But it's no more tragic than any number of similar stories, none of which make the national news. So why this one? I'm a bit cynical. Sounds like a local law-enforcement issue to me. ...

OK, if there are many similar stories (regardless of whether they make the news or not), how can it be a local issue? How many different places does something have to happen before it's no longer just local? OliviaG

PS Thanks for the props. I wasn't trying to be glib - I really do find it inconceivable that Zimmermann didn't recognize a kid from his own neighbourhood. I may not know everyone's name or where they live, but I know the faces I see regularly.
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
It is still wrong for the public to have a say in whether a person is arrested - that's how a lot of this crap started.

Since policing is essentially (unless you live in a police state) by the consent of the people, it's in everybody's interest including the police's that no one gets a free pass when it comes to obeying the law.

If the public see that their law-enforcing representatives are favouring one sector of the community over another, then they've every right - and in fact a duty - to demand equality before the law.

They have the right to their opinion, but their opinion should not weigh in at all whether or not a person is arrested. That's how a lot of blacks ended up wrongfully convicted and 2 wrongs don't make a right. Public pressure has served to ensure a proper investigation on local, state and Federal levels. It's time for the public to back off for a bit. I've read to today of walkouts and other things that will occur if Zimmerman is not arrested. Another form of vigilante justice. Let the investigation happen now that it is in process.
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
All the rallies (and why one in New York, anyway?) and calls for Mr. Zimmerman to be locked up without an investigation (to say nothing of the police to be put in the stocks) smell of lynch mob law, to my mind.

So you're all for vigilante shootings of unarmed people, but have a problem with lynch mobs? Your moral distinctions are a bit too subtle for me to grasp, I'm afraid.

--Tom Clune

Original posted answered much beetter (and nicer) than I could.

[ 23. March 2012, 21:42: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
And no one can agree a slur was used on the 911 call.

There is definitely a slur - the debate is whether it is racist or not. Either he says "fucking coons" or "fucking punks". I've heard the unedited recording and to me it sounds like the former.
"Fucking punks" is not a racial slur - it's generally used for youths of all races. The shooter has black family members and they and friends of Zimmerman say he's not racist. I'd go for paranoid with a hero complex. He's also a wanna be cop as he's been through police training.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
They have the right to their opinion, but their opinion should not weigh in at all whether or not a person is arrested. That's how a lot of blacks ended up wrongfully convicted and 2 wrongs don't make a right.

There is a major distinction between being arrested and being convicted (wrongfully or not). An arrest is just that--an arrest. The person is a suspect and might be released later after investigation or might be taken to trial after investigation. Heck, innocent people are arrested on practically every episode of "Law & Order"--it is not that unusual. But you arrest because you have reason to think that person committed a crime. As I understand the situation in this case, the police had a dead person shot, and the person who shot him. That person said "trust me, it was self-defense." How does that not lead to at least an arrest while further investigation is done? You have a person with a gun in hand, a person shot dead and the person with the gun admits to having done the shooting. That is at least a basis to suspect that there might be a crime here at least worthy of further investigation and, hey, maybe the suspected perp should be arrested while that investigation is done.

I agree with you that nobody should rush to conviction and the public and pundits need to back off, but what I cannot grasp is how that fact suituation did not result in at least an arrest--even if he was released on bail later. Why would any police officer accept the shooter's unsupported word as sufficient reason NOT to arrest in that situation?
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
They have the right to their opinion, but their opinion should not weigh in at all whether or not a person is arrested. That's how a lot of blacks ended up wrongfully convicted and 2 wrongs don't make a right.

There is a major distinction between being arrested and being convicted (wrongfully or not). An arrest is just that--an arrest. The person is a suspect and might be released later after investigation or might be taken to trial after investigation. Heck, innocent people are arrested on practically every episode of "Law & Order"--it is not that unusual. But you arrest because you have reason to think that person committed a crime. As I understand the situation in this case, the police had a dead person shot, and the person who shot him. That person said "trust me, it was self-defense." How does that not lead to at least an arrest while further investigation is done? You have a person with a gun in hand, a person shot dead and the person with the gun admits to having done the shooting. That is at least a basis to suspect that there might be a crime here at least worthy of further investigation and, hey, maybe the suspected perp should be arrested while that investigation is done.

I agree with you that nobody should rush to conviction and the public and pundits need to back off, but what I cannot grasp is how that fact suituation did not result in at least an arrest--even if he was released on bail later. Why would any police officer accept the shooter's unsupported word as sufficient reason NOT to arrest in that situation?

In this case Zimmerman claimed self defense and under Florida law he has the right to chase someone who he feels is a threat to him or others. One should have probable cause backed up by evidence and should be sufficient to lead to a conviction. The public has speculation on the 911 call, but there needs to voice evaluation to determine who was crying for help. Even the neighbors are divided. There were no eye witnesses or video of the event. The girlfriend's testimony isn't sufficient and may be undercut by other witnesses. They are there but haven't been mentioned much on this thread. There is also the issue of whether this case can be successfully prosecuted with the current version of Florida's "Stand Your Ground Law" which has allowed people to chase and execute others and get away with it since the law was put in place. Even one of the original authors admits that it's being used to get away with murder. Public opinion/outrage can put pressure on legislatures to change the law, but that won't affect this case.

IMO, Zimmerman's story stinks, but I want an arrest based on solid police work, which, with independent State and Federal oversight can now take place. Public protests got that - now they need to back off for a bit, not make threats if there isn't an immediate arrest. I'd be very afraid to live in a country where popular opinion carries more weight than a solid police investigation.

In short, in Florida you almost have to have video tape of the murder or several eye witnesses who all say the same thing. And even then they may go free because of this idiotic law. There isn't that evidence in this case.

[ 23. March 2012, 22:12: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
In this case Zimmerman claimed self defense and under Florida law he has the right to chase someone who he feels is a threat to him or others. One should have probable cause backed up by evidence and should be sufficient to lead to a conviction. The public has speculation on the 911 call, but there needs to voice evaluation to determine who was crying for help. Even the neighbors are divided. There were no eye witnesses or video of the event. The girlfriend's testimony isn't sufficient and may be undercut by other witnesses. They are there but haven't been mentioned much on this thread. There is also the issue of whether this case can be successfully prosecuted with the current version of Florida's "Stand Your Ground Law" which has allowed people to chase and execute others and get away with it since the law was put in place.

"Probable cause backed up by evidence": Gun fired in Person A's hand. Bullet from gun in Person B's body. That is probable cause with evidence that A shot B and sufficient for arrest and possibly conviction. The allegation of self-defense is not evidence. It is a claim or allegation. If believed, it can be a defense against conviction, but it is not "evidence" in itself and the burden of proving it rests on the person making the allegation (Person A). That can be tested in a court but it is not a bar to arrest.

The rest of what you mentioned has come out after further investigation (or merits further investigation). Like I said, after arrest and further investigation, Person A might be released because the police determine that there is not enough evidence to go to trial--but that does not mean that there was insufficent evidence to justify an arrest when the event happened. Again, don't conflate what is needed for arrest with what is needed for prosecution or conviction.

And we remain in agreement that the public and pundits need to back off now and allow a proper investigation to be done. Recognizing that does not change the fact that--regardless of the result of that investigation--there are serious questions that need to be asked as to why he was not arrested at the time. There was sufficient physical evidence (i.e., evidence that does not require questions of a person's credibility) to justify making an arrest, even if that arrest did not lead to prosecution.
 
Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
As I understand the situation in this case, the police had a dead person shot, and the person who shot him. That person said "trust me, it was self-defense." How does that not lead to at least an arrest while further investigation is done? You have a person with a gun in hand, a person shot dead and the person with the gun admits to having done the shooting. That is at least a basis to suspect that there might be a crime here at least worthy of further investigation and, hey, maybe the suspected perp should be arrested while that investigation is done.

I agree with you that nobody should rush to conviction and the public and pundits need to back off, but what I cannot grasp is how that fact suituation did not result in at least an arrest--even if he was released on bail later. Why would any police officer accept the shooter's unsupported word as sufficient reason NOT to arrest in that situation?

Damn right. They'd need to check for witnesses and corroborating evidence before letting the person go. I'm glad it's being looked into by higher authorities.

If he's still got nothing against him under the law as it stands, then ok. But the law obviously needs reviewing with better guidance for the police on how to apply it.
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
In this case Zimmerman claimed self defense and under Florida law he has the right to chase someone who he feels is a threat to him or others. One should have probable cause backed up by evidence and should be sufficient to lead to a conviction. The public has speculation on the 911 call, but there needs to voice evaluation to determine who was crying for help. Even the neighbors are divided. There were no eye witnesses or video of the event. The girlfriend's testimony isn't sufficient and may be undercut by other witnesses. They are there but haven't been mentioned much on this thread. There is also the issue of whether this case can be successfully prosecuted with the current version of Florida's "Stand Your Ground Law" which has allowed people to chase and execute others and get away with it since the law was put in place.

"Probable cause backed up by evidence": Gun fired in Person A's hand. Bullet from gun in Person B's body. That is probable cause with evidence that A shot B and sufficient for arrest and possibly conviction. The allegation of self-defense is not evidence. It is a claim or allegation. If believed, it can be a defense against conviction, but it is not "evidence" in itself and the burden of proving it rests on the person making the allegation (Person A). That can be tested in a court but it is not a bar to arrest.

The rest of what you mentioned has come out after further investigation (or merits further investigation). Like I said, after arrest and further investigation, Person A might be released because the police determine that there is not enough evidence to go to trial--but that does not mean that there was insufficent evidence to justify an arrest when the event happened. Again, don't conflate what is needed for arrest with what is needed for prosecution or conviction.

And we remain in agreement that the public and pundits need to back off now and allow a proper investigation to be done. Recognizing that does not change the fact that--regardless of the result of that investigation--there are serious questions that need to be asked as to why he was not arrested at the time. There was sufficient physical evidence (i.e., evidence that does not require questions of a person's credibility) to justify making an arrest, even if that arrest did not lead to prosecution.

This is Florida where you need a hell of a lot more than in any other state to make an arrest and get a conviction. As posted before the law lets anyone shoot another if they feel the person is a threat to themselves, others or to property. It is so ridiculously worded that others who have chased people and then killed them have literally gotten away with murder. What is probable cause in any other state matters not in Florida. Even the author of the law says that the law is and has been used to literally get away with murder and needs adjusting. When the law is so broadly written you practically need a video and multiple eye witnesses. There is conflicting testimony in this case, conflicting witnesses who differ in what they heard, their descriptions of the "watch volunteer. Our opinions of what "probable cause" should be matter not in Florida.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
And no one can agree a slur was used on the 911 call.

There is definitely a slur - the debate is whether it is racist or not. Either he says "fucking coons" or "fucking punks". I've heard the unedited recording and to me it sounds like the former.
"Fucking punks" is not a racial slur - it's generally used for youths of all races. The shooter has black family members and they and friends of Zimmerman say he's not racist. I'd go for paranoid with a hero complex. He's also a wanna be cop as he's been through police training.
Note that Jonathan said precisely that-- it is a slur, whether or not it is a racial slur is what's unclear. If not racial, it is ageist. Indeed, I suspect the derogatory & demeaning stereotyping of young men may be as potentially dangerous as those of black men.
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
And no one can agree a slur was used on the 911 call.

There is definitely a slur - the debate is whether it is racist or not. Either he says "fucking coons" or "fucking punks". I've heard the unedited recording and to me it sounds like the former.
"Fucking punks" is not a racial slur - it's generally used for youths of all races. The shooter has black family members and they and friends of Zimmerman say he's not racist. I'd go for paranoid with a hero complex. He's also a wanna be cop as he's been through police training.
Note that Jonathan said precisely that-- it is a slur, whether or not it is a racial slur is what's unclear. If not racial, it is ageist. Indeed, I suspect the derogatory & demeaning stereotyping of young men may be as potentially dangerous as those of black men.
Perhaps, but most who use it refer to criminal youth, not as a general slur. If Zimmerman truly believed Martin had criminal intent that would be the context. Should he have let the police handle it? Yep, but more and more people are taking matters into their own hands and Florida gives them the right to literally chase people down and kill them. We'll see if that changes.

[ 24. March 2012, 00:17: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
Have to add, the more I read about Florida's law and how many people have been able to get away with what would have got them convicted of murder in most other states, I am astounded that such insanity exists legally. I also have to agree with tclune(?) that walking around with a gun does make some people more aggressive. They may have a hero complex or just plain don't take "disrespect" from anyone, including love ones. Take a look at the news - there isn't a day that goes by these days without gun violence be it in a place of business or a school or a home. Today's example is a shooting rampage in a NC tire store.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
The shooter has black family members and they and friends of Zimmerman say he's not racist.

So, no one with gay family members could be homophobic? Faulty logic.
I know multiracial family groups which have members who are prejudiced, even if they do not express this to other family members.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:


quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Without the " media-manufactured frenzy" the "folks" you're referring to wouldn't have known about the case in order to complain. The "media-manufactured frenzy" is precisely why we're having a second look. Which, as you said, is " how the system is supposed to work."

The family would have known. The neighbors would have known. Locals (assuming it made the *local* news) would have known. I'll grant you that Al Sharpton probably wouldn't have known- not that that's necessarily a bad thing.

They knew a month ago. And I'm quite sure they were squawking loudly. But that got them nowhere, obviously, until their squawking hit the ears of the media. Again, it was only after the "media-manufactured frenzy" that the "system worked" and an investigation was begun.
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
The shooter has black family members and they and friends of Zimmerman say he's not racist.

So, no one with gay family members could be homophobic? Faulty logic.
I know multiracial family groups which have members who are prejudiced, even if they do not express this to other family members.

You have a valid point. Remember, though, Zimmerman is himself a minority: Latino. I'm not buying him as a racist, just a paranoid guy with a hero complex and wannabe cop.
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
There is some irony in the fact that if Zimmerman had been walking through some neighborhoods at night, he could have been the victim (if he was an actor, he'd be typecast as a low-level Mexican drug dealer).

But he was going against all the rules of Neighborhood Watch--it's pretty clear that he's one of those guys who gets a hard-on pretending to be Dirty Harry.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Common mistake among white people is that there should be no prejudice between different groups of colour. IIRC, there is a major problem in parts of the US between Latino and Black populations.
Latino/Hispanic varies from pale as paper redhead to dark as can be black. And racism is rampant in the Latin American world.
I will concede though, Zimmerman's primary motivation would seem to be as you describe.

ETA: Response to Nightowl2

[ 24. March 2012, 03:31: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Filming an amateur rap video. Where's the outrage over this?

I've said before, in another thread I started, how tiresome I find this method of argument. The idea that people aren't allowed to have feelings about one issue unless they promise to have feelings about another issue, or that they have to spend time explaining the differences between the original situation and whatever other vaguely similar case someone feels like dredging up, is just profoundly irritating.

Why? Because it's a demand to fulfil an impossible task. There are 6 or 7 billion people on this planet. I can't monitor what every single one of them is doing and pronounce my opinion on every single action. And neither can any other human being. And even if I COULD, I couldn't then SIMULTANEOUSLY pronounce my opinion on every single one of them, in a single post, so that you could see I'd considered each case on its merits all at once before pronouncing on any of them.

The idea that a view on case A isn't valid or thought through because an opinion hasn't also been expressed on cases B through to ZZZ at the same time is just nonsense. People can only express opinions on what comes to their attention. "Where's the outrage" expects me to already know about a case to begin with, so that I even HAVE an opportunity to have already expressed outrage about it.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
In this case Zimmerman claimed self defense and under Florida law he has the right to chase someone who he feels is a threat to him or others.

Hmm. Perhaps I need to look at the text of the law super carefully, but is that really what it says? Chase?

I'm not at all sure that it extends that far. It certainly says you don't have to back or retreat, but that's in the context of someone having come into your property.

A major part of what is bugging me here is the notion that the law has been interpreted so widely as to enable active chasing of someone who hasn't DONE anything, other than look like a thug in a hoodie.

(And I think the other thing that bugs me is the idea that police 'corrected' witnesses.)
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
They have the right to their opinion, but their opinion should not weigh in at all whether or not a person is arrested. That's how a lot of blacks ended up wrongfully convicted and 2 wrongs don't make a right. Public pressure has served to ensure a proper investigation on local, state and Federal levels. It's time for the public to back off for a bit.

So the authorities can sweep it under the rug. Nothing would have been done at all if it weren't for the public not backing off a bit. Your "it's time to stop" plea is not supported by the evidence to date. If our elected officials and professional law enforcement officers are not doing their job, then it is our job to stay on their case until they do. So far, as far as I know, Zimmerman has not been charged with anything. That's not good enough. A court needs to determine his innocence or guilt, not the good ol' boys in the police department.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Filming an amateur rap video. Where's the outrage over this?

I've said before, in another thread I started, how tiresome I find this method of argument. The idea that people aren't allowed to have feelings about one issue unless they promise to have feelings about another issue, or that they have to spend time explaining the differences between the original situation and whatever other vaguely similar case someone feels like dredging up, is just profoundly irritating.
I think it's much simpler than that. It's a case of, "Oh my God! The Liberals are saying something! I must attack it!"
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
In fact, one of the things that the Florida statue says is that the justifiable defense line of argument is NOT available if you provoke the use of force against yourself.

There are massive, massive problems here with the notion that Trayvon was either (a) committing a criminal act which strongly helps create a presumption that force is okay, or (b) a genuine threat to Zimmermann. I keep trying to take the case for Zimmermann at its highest and I still run into serious difficulties that a bigger, armed man is in any kind of fear for his life on in fear of SERIOUS injury from a smaller man who is hitting him.

I'm not an American lawyer, but I write laws for a living and I have a hard time seeing how the police could treat it in such a way as to conclude "we don't have probable cause to arrest him". That only makes sense if it's clearly a case of self-defence, with evidence that would be good enough to raise the defence in a court. Instead we've got a story that, no matter how WELL you take it, still looks like it involves an unobjectively unreasonable action where there was no legitimate reason for Zimmermann to think either that Trayvon was a crook or a threat.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I think it's much simpler than that. It's a case of, "Oh my God! The Liberals are saying something! I must attack it!"

I agree, it's a thoroughly Pavlovian response. Doesn't make it any less annoying. I don't like it regardless of who's doing it.

Earlier this year you might remember I talked about a friendship being ruined. Apparently I wasn't allowed to be upset about the problem of being flat out lied to, because other people had bigger problems: kids were starving in Africa and my 'friend' pulled the trump card of a genetic condition that might render him blind in a couple of decades.

It's just a really weak arguing approach. Darn. I can't think of a way to refute your actual point, so I'll score a cheap point on some other topic we weren't actually talking about.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's just a really weak arguing approach. Darn. I can't think of a way to refute your actual point, so I'll score a cheap point on some other topic we weren't actually talking about.

I believe the name of that particular fallacy is harena in oculos.

(or, "Oh yeah? Well what about...")

[ 24. March 2012, 04:30: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
New Yorker's linked article states irritation with speculative reporting then proceeds to do the same.
Credible? Perhaps not.

It's a pretty vile article. Here's an example of the innuendo;
"The media also characterizes Trayvon as a "model student." In fact, he under a five day suspension when the shooting took place. That is why he was staying at a house so far from his school on a school night. A laywer for Trayvon's family has blocked access to his school records. However, you have to do something pretty bad to get suspended for five days."

Well I don't know what you have to do, so I went a googling. Here's one example the something pretty bad you have to do to get suspended for five days from school and justifies gunning you down.


disruption of school
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
They have the right to their opinion, but their opinion should not weigh in at all whether or not a person is arrested. That's how a lot of blacks ended up wrongfully convicted and 2 wrongs don't make a right. Public pressure has served to ensure a proper investigation on local, state and Federal levels. It's time for the public to back off for a bit.

So the authorities can sweep it under the rug. Nothing would have been done at all if it weren't for the public not backing off a bit. Your "it's time to stop" plea is not supported by the evidence to date. If our elected officials and professional law enforcement officers are not doing their job, then it is our job to stay on their case until they do. So far, as far as I know, Zimmerman has not been charged with anything. That's not good enough. A court needs to determine his innocence or guilt, not the good ol' boys in the police department.



If you had bothered to read my posts you would have discovered that I agreed public pressure got the State and Feds involved. It's now time to wait for a full investigation and NOT make threats if this guy isn't arrested immediately. There are some conflicting witness statements and a rotten state law that pretty much makes murder legal in many instances, which may mean this guy goes scot free. Is it right? No. But now that the State and Feds are involved the public needs to let the investigation proceed. The day public opinion is the standard for arrests is the day I leave this country. Public opinion and high pressure has in the past lead to too many wrongful convictions.
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
In this case Zimmerman claimed self defense and under Florida law he has the right to chase someone who he feels is a threat to him or others.

Hmm. Perhaps I need to look at the text of the law super carefully, but is that really what it says? Chase?

I'm not at all sure that it extends that far. It certainly says you don't have to back or retreat, but that's in the context of someone having come into your property.

A major part of what is bugging me here is the notion that the law has been interpreted so widely as to enable active chasing of someone who hasn't DONE anything, other than look like a thug in a hoodie.

(And I think the other thing that bugs me is the idea that police 'corrected' witnesses.)

That isn't what it says literally, but that is the way the Florida courts have handled it and there are several cases, some of which have been posted in this thread where people did just that and walked away scot free. The author of the law also has said that it needs to be adjusted as the way the law is now and the judicial interpretation, people have been getting away with murder. Perhaps the best thing about the scrutiny this case has received is that the law is being scrutinized. No other victim of one these vigilante shootings has gotten this much attention.
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
Orfeo: this analysis by CNN may help: Florida Law Lets Killers Go Free?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Okay riddle me this.

Scene: Guy with a gun. Dead guy.

Cops: "What happened here?"
Gunslinger: "It was self-defense."
Cops: "Oh, okay. Run along then."

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE? A person who just killed another person is a de facto suspect for at least homicide if not murder. DUUUHHHH.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Orfeo: this analysis by CNN may help: Florida Law Lets Killers Go Free?

Thank you. Much appreciated. The CNN analysis corresponds a great deal with my own. Which is nice.

It does actually remind me quite a bit of the problems with rape cases. Where a person accused of rape too often would be able say, "but I thought she consented" and it then it becomes difficult to prove that no, he didn't actually think any such thing.

Again, I'm not an expert in American law specifically, but it seems to me there's often a confusion (which police and even the courts can fall into) between the evidence that someone said something and the evidence that what they said is in fact true. Even in cases where what's in question is a SUBJECTIVE belief, that doesn't mean that all someone has to do is open their mouth and go 'oh, yeah, that's right, now that you mention it, that's what I believed'. Because a person's actions can be shown to be quite inconsistent with the claimed subjective belief. Not easy, but it can be done.

As the CNN analysis says, the question here is, did Zimmermann reasonably feel threatened? Of course he says he did, but millions of people aren't buying it at the moment, precisely because it doesn't gel with the information WE have to hand at this point. Starting with the inequality in size and weaponry.
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Okay riddle me this.

Scene: Guy with a gun. Dead guy.

Cops: "What happened here?"
Gunslinger: "It was self-defense."
Cops: "Oh, okay. Run along then."

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE? A person who just killed another person is a de facto suspect for at least homicide if not murder. DUUUHHHH.

Florid State law. How many times does this need pointing out? Plus it now appears Zimmerman had a he'd injury on the night in question muddying the waters more.
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
Posting from a tablet with acruddy keyboard. Last post should have read ZImmermwn had a head injury on the night in question.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
The new law even allows a disproportionate response; if someone comes at you with a fist, you can reply with a gun.
That's just another thing wrong with Florida's law. Self-defense used to require "equal force." He uses a fist, you can use a fist, he uses a stick, you can use a vase, etc. Under the old laws, if Trayvon hit Zimmerman in the head with his phone then Zimmerman should have used his own phone.

Unfortunately, I don't think Florida stands alone with these lax self-defense laws. Mary Winkler, the pastor's wife who served seven months for shooting her husband in the back, one morning while he slept, lives in Tennessee. Mary says he abused her, although there were no witnesses to that, and the worst thing she could come up with in court was that he once requested that she wear high heels for sex. There weren't any million husband marches, though. White men have been fair game for women for some time now.

I'm just fed up with this. People are shooting people for cutting them off in traffic. I don't care how nasty your husband is or if Trayvon turns out to be a drug dealer, or how scared you are of the guy following you down the street, you shouldn't be allowed to shoot him!
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:


I'm just fed up with this. People are shooting people for cutting them off in traffic. I don't care how nasty your husband is or if Trayvon turns out to be a drug dealer, or how scared you are of the guy following you down the street, you shouldn't be allowed to shoot him!

It goes without saying that if you were not allowed to carry a gun you wouldn't be able to shoot him.

Let people carry weapons and these kind of shootings are 100s of times more likely.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Plus it now appears Zimmerman had a [head] injury on the night in question muddying the waters more.

Isn't the fact that it now appears Zimmerman was injured one of the controversial aspects of the case?

quote:
Initial police reports never mentioned that Zimmerman had a bloody nose or a wet shirt that showed evidence of a struggle. Attorneys for the dead teen’s family believe the information was added in a second report to justify the lack of an arrest.
There may be an honest reason for this later revision of the report, but I can also think of some not-so-honest ones as well. Hopefully the special prosecutor will turn some attention to this matter.

[ 24. March 2012, 13:54: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
And it does not fucking matter! Even if Martin attacked him, Zimmerman created the situation. No stupidity on Zimmerman's part, no dead boy. This should be enough, even with Florida's asinine law.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:


I'm just fed up with this. People are shooting people for cutting them off in traffic. I don't care how nasty your husband is or if Trayvon turns out to be a drug dealer, or how scared you are of the guy following you down the street, you shouldn't be allowed to shoot him!

It goes without saying that if you were not allowed to carry a gun you wouldn't be able to shoot him.

Let people carry weapons and these kind of shootings are 100s of times more likely.

The rate has, in fact, gone up.
From night owls link
quote:
In light of the shift in the law, it's not surprising that since the law went into effect, reports of justifiable homicides have tripled, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
People will put themselves into situations, or allow situations to escalate, if they have a gun that they would have walked away from otherwise. Everyone, no. But how many needless deaths are too many?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Florids State law. How many times does this need pointing out? Plus it now appears Zimmerman had a he'd injury on the night in question muddying the waters more.

How the fuck do they arrest ANYBODY?
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And it does not fucking matter! Even if Martin attacked him, Zimmerman created the situation. No stupidity on Zimmerman's part, no dead boy. This should be enough, even with Florida's asinine law.

This.
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
People will put themselves into situations, or allow situations to escalate, if they have a gun that they would have walked away from otherwise.

Especially if they have good reason to believe that they will suffer no consequences for having the gun and using it.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Heard a brief mention on the news this morning that Jeb Bush (still governor of Florida?) says that the "stand your ground" law doesn't apply in this case.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Heard a brief mention on the news this morning that Jeb Bush (still governor of Florida?) says that the "stand your ground" law doesn't apply in this case.

Jeb Bush signed it into law, but the current governor of FLA is Rick Scott (-R).
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And to return to yet another (similarly unanswered) question, how does that work in a case like Mr. Zimmerman's, where the police have (apparently) interpreted the law in such a way that precludes its consideration by any court?

You have more questions than I have answers- but that's what makes this discussion interesting...

In this specific case, it may or may not. As there are similar cases before the courts, it will get hashed out. But it may take some time. (And I'm well aware, for personal reasons I won't get into here, that saying that doesn't do a damned thing for a grieving family looking for answers NOW.)

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It should also be asked that if seven years of case law since the "stand your ground" law was enacted are insufficient for the legislature to get a sense of how the courts are applying the law, how much time would you consider enough?

Depends. [Smile] The issue isn't how many years of law, but how many decisions, and of what sort. I couldn't tell you, offhand, how often this law's been tested in court- but that's the factor that really matters here, not how long the law has been on the books.


quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
OK, if there are many similar stories (regardless of whether they make the news or not), how can it be a local issue? How many different places does something have to happen before it's no longer just local?

Legally speaking, at least in this country, they're all local- murder is a state-level crime, not a Federal one (with exceptions for military offenses and crimes committed on Federal land- and even those are often handed over to the states).

Morally speaking, I don't have a good answer to that.

quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
PS Thanks for the props. I wasn't trying to be glib - I really do find it inconceivable that Zimmermann didn't recognize a kid from his own neighbourhood. I may not know everyone's name or where they live, but I know the faces I see regularly.

It certainly didn't come off as glib to me, just true. I find it a bit odd, myself- it doesn't sound as if this is a neighborhood with a particularly transient or high-turnover population.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
If Zimmermann had a bloody nose or any other injuries when police arrived on the scene, they should have called an ambulance. The EMTs would have a record of his injuries. And they certainly shouldn't have let him go home if he was injured without any sort of treatment (especially if, as some reports said, he had an injury on the back of his head as well). So once again, either crappy police work or a cover-up. OliviaG
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
"Welcome to Florida"

Sad but true.
 
Posted by Paddy O'Furniture (# 12953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The entire police department should be locked in stocks outdoors in the rain for 72 hours and forced to watch a continual loop of In the heat of the night...

Dude. Don't become what you hate.
Although it DID make me laugh!
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
If Zimmermann had a bloody nose or any other injuries when police arrived on the scene, they should have called an ambulance. The EMTs would have a record of his injuries. And they certainly shouldn't have let him go home if he was injured without any sort of treatment (especially if, as some reports said, he had an injury on the back of his head as well). So once again, either crappy police work or a cover-up. OliviaG

If the police asked him if he wanted medical care and he declined, they don't have to have EMTs check him out. All they have to do is record any bruises, cuts or scrapes.

[ 24. March 2012, 20:48: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And it does not fucking matter! Even if Martin attacked him, Zimmerman created the situation. No stupidity on Zimmerman's part, no dead boy. This should be enough, even with Florida's asinine law.

With Florida's insane law all that has to be is for Zimmerman to feel threatened for him to be justified. Florida's law is insane.
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
It's been repeated over and over on this thread that Zimmerman has not been interviewed by the Police. According to his lawyer he has been interviewed both with and without attorney, which generally means the person starts out without attorney but when there is any heat, the lawyer is called. Interviewed

"Sonner said he and Zimmerman have not discussed what happened the night Martin was shot, though he said Zimmerman has talked with authorities -- unaccompanied by counsel -- whenever they have asked him to do so."

There has been so many rumors and versions of "facts" in this case that we really do need the State and the Feds to do their investigations. The State will now be making the decision whether to charge Zimmerman or not, not the local PD. From the above referenced article:

"Florida Gov. Rick Scott appointed a special prosecutor, Angela Corey, to look into the case. She said her office will decide whether to charge Zimmerman, clear him, or send the case to a grand jury."
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
PS Thanks for the props. I wasn't trying to be glib - I really do find it inconceivable that Zimmermann didn't recognize a kid from his own neighbourhood. I may not know everyone's name or where they live, but I know the faces I see regularly.

Apparently he didn't live in that neighborhood. He lived with his mother in Miama, and was staying temporarily with his dad.
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
Sorry to be so repetitious in emphasizing the point -- but to all who are going off on tangents about legal technicalities, and about whether or not Zimmerman was or was not a "racist", is part Latino, has Black friends, etc., etc., i feel that boils down to a specific reality faced in a specific way by Black people, males in particular, in the USA. This article by Eugene Robinson gets to the gist of it. If one still fail to understand this, i guess it sadly becomes -- to use a phrase i've never cared for -- a case of "It's a Black thing, you wouldn't understand."


The cold, hard reality is that, as Robinson says (emphases mine):
quote:
For every black man in America, from the millionaire in the corner office to the mechanic in the local garage, the Trayvon Martin tragedy is personal. It could have been me or one of my sons. It could have been any of us. How many George Zimmermans are out there cruising the streets? How many guys with chips on their shoulders and itchy fingers on the triggers of loaded handguns? How many self-imagined guardians of the peace who say the words "black male" with a sneer?
The issue is, as Robinson says. "tthe bull's-eye that black men wear throughout their lives."

Sorry if this makes some folks feel uncomfortable. It's not as uncomfortable as what Black people have too often faced over the centuries.

[ 25. March 2012, 03:24: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
I was at a party this evening, and the only other person present who had even heard of this tragedy was a black woman. (Everybody else was Jewish or Mexican. Or both.) OliviaG
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
If one still fail to understand this, i guess it sadly becomes -- to use a phrase i've never cared for -- a case of "It's a Black thing, you wouldn't understand.

The lack of understanding makes this a difficult statement. Many people have a difficult time wrapping their heads around this.

quote:
I hear from people who contend that racism no longer exists in this country.* I tell them I wish they were right.
An older black woman and I once shared an office with a young, white man. Racism popped up in a discussion and the young man proceeded to tell us racism no longer existed. We looked at each other then proceeded to attempt to educate him from our experiences. He dismissed hers as antiquated and mine as anomalies. He maintained his conviction regardless of any persuasion.

*I would change this to North America, South America, Central America, Europe, Asia, Australia, large parts of Africa. Some worse than others.
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Sorry to be so repetitious in emphasizing the point -- but to all who are going off on tangents about legal technicalities, and about whether or not Zimmerman was or was not a "racist", is part Latino, has Black friends, etc., etc., i feel that boils down to a specific reality faced in a specific way by Black people, males in particular, in the USA. This article by Eugene Robinson gets to the gist of it. If one still fail to understand this, i guess it sadly becomes -- to use a phrase i've never cared for -- a case of "It's a Black thing, you wouldn't understand."


The cold, hard reality is that, as Robinson says (emphases mine):
quote:
For every black man in America, from the millionaire in the corner office to the mechanic in the local garage, the Trayvon Martin tragedy is personal. It could have been me or one of my sons. It could have been any of us. How many George Zimmermans are out there cruising the streets? How many guys with chips on their shoulders and itchy fingers on the triggers of loaded handguns? How many self-imagined guardians of the peace who say the words "black male" with a sneer?
The issue is, as Robinson says. "tthe bull's-eye that black men wear throughout their lives."

Sorry if this makes some folks feel uncomfortable. It's not as uncomfortable as what Black people have too often faced over the centuries.

I'm white and I'll agree that racism still exists and frequently rears it's ugly head - as does ignorance about those with disabilities, prejudice against LGBT folk and all sorts of other ignorance that costs people their livelihoods and even their lives. I'm still not convinced racism was the cause of this particular incident and I just want the official investigation to get under way now that the State has taken over and the Feds are looking over their shoulder. I'm tired of rumors, conflicting witnesses and the public insisting it has the right to demand someone be arrested - especially when a premature arrest can ruin the chances for a conviction. The young man is in fear for his life, is cooperating with the police and isn't going anywhere any time soon. When all the ducks are in a row let the arrest take place or if solid new evidence comes up (which I personally doubt) he'll be free to continue his life, though he'll still be facing a civil lawsuit from the Martin's family. What I want is genuine justice, not vigilante justice.
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Rorschach test: in what ways is this comic appropriate or not?
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Malik, I'm not a person who thinks that racism no longer exists, but I don't understand why this particular killing just has to have a racist motivation. It may come out that it was a factor in the mind of the shooter but I've seen no evidence of it yet. What seems more likely to me is the reasons touched on above about the desire in some gun holders, to actually use the gun, the shooters desire to be a policeman, his poor judgement in general and a bad law poorly applied.

If this becomes all about racism in America then we'll lose an important opportunity to change this dangerous law and as bad as racism is, murder is worse. If Trayvon was just the victim of racial profiling he would still be alive.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
It's quite fascinating to watch the right-wing echo-chamber fall all over itself to rehabilitate Zimmerman and make Trayvon Martin into a thug who probably deserved to be shot.

First they leave out the inconvenient fact that Zimmerman started the altercation and accuse Martin of beating up [innocent] Zimmerman, then they make all kinds of speculation about Martin's alleged past, which haven't been released and certainly isn't relevant to what happened on the street that day, they they scour Facebook to find Trayvon Martin's page and then post links to a "punk" photo to show how gangsta he is (It then turns out not to be the same Trayvon Martin so evidently they can't tell black people apart.) and now they are accusing the media of altering the photo to make him look whiter.

Really? Demonizing the victim using racialist overtones whilst getting outraged over the fact that Al Sharpton, and the evil liberals see this as a racist issue? [Help]

[ 25. March 2012, 14:34: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :
 
For those who keep saying they see no evidence of
racism in this case.
When was the last time you heard of an older stronger black man shooting an younger white teenager and NOT being arrested.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
The real culprit here is the hoody.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
... If Trayvon was just the victim of racial profiling he would still be alive.

[Confused] Could you unpack this, please? Thanks, OliviaG
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
If one still fail to understand this, i guess it sadly becomes -- to use a phrase i've never cared for -- a case of "It's a Black thing, you wouldn't understand.

The lack of understanding makes this a difficult statement. Many people have a difficult time wrapping their heads around this. ...
The only thing I can think of to compare it to - and I might be totally off base - is how women are always aware of the risk of sexual assault. Whether you find yourself in an elevator with a man, or have a tradesman coming to your home, or get in a taxi, it's always in the back of one's mind. OliviaG
 
Posted by yellowroom (# 11690) on :
 
As a Brit living in the US, one thing that has struck me about the case is that there appears to be no facility in US law for a coroner's inquest.

Such a process allows the facts of the death to be presented in a court of law, and for it to be declared 'unlawful killing', 'misadventure', 'accidental', 'suicide' etc.

Such a process would prevent the awful 'trial by media' going on at the moment with no one quite knowing whether a fact is a fact or a rumour. If Zimmerman does ever get prosecuted, does anyone really think he will have a chance at a fair trial with all this media speculation?
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
For those who keep saying they see no evidence of
racism in this case.
When was the last time you heard of an older stronger black man shooting an younger white teenager and NOT being arrested.

Zimmerman was a minority himself with black family members. What stands out in my mind was a he was wannabe policeman - had gone through the classes, he was paranoid and saw every young guy he didn't know as a threat, he's on record with multiple 911 calls, he had a deep hero complex who was carrying a gun. A young man with a gun is generally more aggressive. We really don't know everything that went on during the confrontation as there have been conflicting witness statements and lots and lots of public speculation. Florida's insane law has provoked these public hero wannabe's or those who just wanna shoot someone and who have gotten away with it. A huge mix for something like this case without race. While it's been justifiably ridiculed, there is the proverbial guy of any race wearing a hoodie when he's robbing a gas station or liquor store that we see practically any night on the news. I've seen interviews on the news with people who have those images in the back of their minds when they are walking down the street and unlike Zimmerman avoid them. IMO the racism was at the police level, not with Zimmerman.
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
If one still fail to understand this, i guess it sadly becomes -- to use a phrase i've never cared for -- a case of "It's a Black thing, you wouldn't understand.

The lack of understanding makes this a difficult statement. Many people have a difficult time wrapping their heads around this. ...
The only thing I can think of to compare it to - and I might be totally off base - is how women are always aware of the risk of sexual assault. Whether you find yourself in an elevator with a man, or have a tradesman coming to your home, or get in a taxi, it's always in the back of one's mind. OliviaG
No, i don't think that's off base. You raise a good point.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
... If Trayvon was just the victim of racial profiling he would still be alive.

[Confused] Could you unpack this, please? Thanks, OliviaG
Racial profiling is usually understood as police being more likely to suspect, pursue and arrest people who are of a certain race. I certainly understand that it can make life miserable for black men to be pulled over and questioned by the police. As I mentioned in my first post here, my son experiences a lot of this and it makes him disheartened and me angry. But I would far rather have the police question him everytime he goes for a walk, than have a trigger happy idiot pull out a gun and kill him for whatever reason. I once had a woman tell me that the reason she called the police when she saw my son walk by was that her dog barked louder than usual. It was irritating but I'm glad she didn't shoot him.

I can't think about this subject without thinking of a certain "The Simpsons," episode that, like many of their shows was a close parody of conventional wisdom: The town had been snowed in for several days, suddenly the sun came out and the elderly residents of the nursing home stepped out on their front porch, they all took a deep happy breath -- immediately after, one old man squinted off in the distance and said, "I don't like the look of those teenagers!" and they all turned and hustled back inside.

Lots and lots of middleaged to old people are afraid of teenagers, all teenagers. To say that this could only happen in the case of a white man and a black teen seems to me to be making the problem too narrow.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:

The only thing I can think of to compare it to - and I might be totally off base - is how women are always aware of the risk of sexual assault. Whether you find yourself in an elevator with a man, or have a tradesman coming to your home, or get in a taxi, it's always in the back of one's mind. OliviaG

I fail to see how this relates to the way a black man might feel after being constantly viewed with suspicion and fear. On the contrary, if you fear sexual assault every time you're alone with a man then I would think you're guilty of a sort of gender profiling yourself.

[ 25. March 2012, 23:16: Message edited by: Twilight ]
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Maybe so; but the fact remains that it is vanishingly rare for a woman to be assaulted and raped by another woman who comes to her home as a plumber, etc.

And really, the awareness thing is something we can't help and would gladly dump if we could, it takes a lot of energy out of us. But some of us live in situations where it is just not safe to lose that awareness--that a man is walking behind you where you can't see him in the parking lot, for instance, or that you've got a (probably) male plumber you've never met scheduled to visit your home in the middle of the day when all your neighbors are at work. Evil crap just happens way too often for us to drop the ingrained wariness.

It's the same reason I hesitate to let my son walk to school next year, though it's only two miles and the walk would do him good. My city has had three high profile crime cases in the past two years, one a race-based multi-murder and the other two cases of extreme and long-term sexual deviancy involving rape, one against children and one against a mentally handicapped woman. And it's a small city.

There's also a teenage game going on which involves walking up to unsuspecting strangers and knocking them out cold, just for kicks. We've had deaths as well as disabilities. And the kids who did it are walking free.

I want to walk free. I want my son to run free. But how do we do this without becoming bloody statistics?
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
I have found the focus on Zimmerman's ethnicity interesting. It is an odd subject in the US. According to the census the word "Hispanic" is non-race specific, and includes people who consider themselves to be of distinct races...Black, White, Amerindian, Asian, or a mix. There is a common misconception in the US that Hispanic/Latino is a race or that Mexican is a race, for example. We don't have the multitude of divisions that are common throughout Latin America and all Latino/Hispanics are called "brown" even though the ethnicity includes everything from blue eyed blondes from Colorado to Dominican blacks. The fact that Cubans consider thenselves quite different from Puerto Ricans who are different from Nuevo Mexicanos is completely lost on most people in the US. When he was called a white Hispanic people could not wrap their minds around it!
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Maybe so; but the fact remains that it is vanishingly rare for a woman to be assaulted and raped by another woman who comes to her home as a plumber, etc.

Of course, but Olivia was comparing her fear of men with how black men feel about racial profiling and I think it's almost the opposite.

You and Olivia almost sound like you're defending Zimmerman. If you think it's reasonable to be afraid whenever you're alone with a man then do you think Zimmerman's fear was "reasonable," giving him a right to shoot, because statistics show that most crimes are committed by young men?
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Hang on a mo. I dropped into the thread because I saw an interesting post on a rather tangential issue, but still... I am not defending Zimmerman, please watch the extrapolations. From what little I know of the case (I've been away from most media) I expect I'm on the majority side. But again, I'm out of it right now.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
For those who keep saying they see no evidence of racism in this case. When was the last time you heard of an older stronger black man shooting an younger white teenager and NOT being arrested.

Zimmerman was a minority himself with black family members. What stands out in my mind was a he was wannabe policeman - had gone through the classes, he was paranoid and saw every young guy he didn't know as a threat, he's on record with multiple 911 calls, he had a deep hero complex who was carrying a gun. A young man with a gun is generally more aggressive. We really don't know everything that went on during the confrontation as there have been conflicting witness statements and lots and lots of public speculation. Florida's insane law has provoked these public hero wannabe's or those who just wanna shoot someone and who have gotten away with it. A huge mix for something like this case without race. While it's been justifiably ridiculed, there is the proverbial guy of any race wearing a hoodie when he's robbing a gas station or liquor store that we see practically any night on the news. I've seen interviews on the news with people who have those images in the back of their minds when they are walking down the street and unlike Zimmerman avoid them. IMO the racism was at the police level, not with Zimmerman.
Well, Zimmerman had a White father and a Peruvian mother. Unless you're invoking the One Drop Rule whether he should be fully identified a minority or not is open to question. What he is probably has more to do with what he self identifies as.

According to an interesting article in the Seattle Times:

quote:
There may be no box to check for George Zimmerman, 28, no tidy way to categorize, define and sort the man whose pull of a trigger on a Sanford, Fla., street is forcing America to once again confront its fraught relationship with race and identity...

..."You being a minority doesn't make you immune to racist beliefs," she said in an interview Thursday. Davis sees a pervasive cultural imprint, reinforced by media and entertainment imagery: the black man as a symbol of "violence, fear and deviant behavior." A young man could be susceptible to the influence of that image whether his "mother is from Peru or Norway."

Hispanics and black Americans have a shared history of discrimination in the United States. But they also have a shared history of tension in neighborhoods, schools, even prisons. In Latin America, including Peru, Afro Latinos have frequently complained of a lack of political representation, economic disenfranchisement and the virtual absence of their image in popular culture, such as soap operas, an issue they attribute to racial exclusion...

...His family background doesn't discount possible racial motives, said Luis Martinez-Fernandez, a professor of Latin American and Caribbean history at the University of Central Florida. Hispanics are an ethnic group, but within that group there are different races. There are black Dominicans and Cubans, for instance.

The professor's right. Being a minority doesn't preclude racism or racial stereotyping. I'm reading a book on the history of Cuba in preparation for a July trip there and was shocked to learn that there was a branch of the KKK there called the Ku Klux Klan Kubano which did to Afro-Cubans what the US KKK did to African Americans.

[ 26. March 2012, 02:00: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I fail to see how this relates to the way a black man might feel after being constantly viewed with suspicion and fear. On the contrary, if you fear sexual assault every time you're alone with a man then I would think you're guilty of a sort of gender profiling yourself.

I was actually trying to compare black men being afraid of getting SHOT - whether by police or some paranoid freak with a concealed-carry permit - with women being afraid of being assaulted. If you think I'm defending Zimmermann, you haven't been reading the thread. And being aware of the risk of assault in certain situations is certanly not the same thing as being afraid of men. [Roll Eyes] By that logic, putting on a seatbelt means you're afraid of cars. OliviaG

PS Today, I was walking around my neighbourhood taking pictures of heritage houses. Wearing a hoodie. A couple of people wondered what I was doing and I told them. Nobody got shot. [Yipee]
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Well that's a different take on racial profiling than I ever thought of, Olivia. With both you and Lamb Chopped, I know you aren't siding with Zimmerman, that's why I said you were starting to "sound like" him in the since that I knew you wouldn't want to.

When I've heard people complain of racial profiling I always thought of what would bother me about it and that's knowing that people feared me and suspected me of criminal activity just based on my appearance. Likewise, I've heard men say how awful it makes them feel to realize that the woman on the elevator with them is afraid of them and I sympathize with that.

As I'm not a fearful person at all myself -- it never occured to me to be afraid of the plummer, for instance, and although my husband rarely gets home before 2 A.M. I'm never nervous about it -- then I would dread people being afraid of me more than vice versa. So maybe I've got it wrong and African American men view racial profiling first as a fear of being shot.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
From the Miami Herald:

quote:
Licensed to carry a firearm and a student of criminal justice, Zimmerman went door-to-door asking residents to be on the lookout, specifically referring to young black men who appeared to be outsiders, and warned that some were caught lurking, neighbors said.
The equating of "young & black" with "criminal" doesn't seem entirely non-racist to me. And of course there's the question of institutional racism, such as Zimmerman's likely assumption that he could fatally shoot a young black man without suffering legal consequences, an assumption that has, up to this point, been fairly justified.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
From the Miami Herald:

quote:
Licensed to carry a firearm and a student of criminal justice, Zimmerman went door-to-door asking residents to be on the lookout, specifically referring to young black men who appeared to be outsiders, and warned that some were caught lurking, neighbors said.
The equating of "young & black" with "criminal" doesn't seem entirely non-racist to me. And of course there's the question of institutional racism, such as Zimmerman's likely assumption that he could fatally shoot a young black man without suffering legal consequences, an assumption that has, up to this point, been fairly justified.
From the comments section:

quote:
#
ThothAmon 9 comments collapsed Collapse Expand

Even if the shooting was unjustified, there is a little thing called KARMA, and Blacks typically kill, rape and murder at a much higher rate than any other races, so Karma is balancing it out.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

(Edited by author 4 days ago)

* A Like
* Reply

I'm going to be ill...
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I'm going to be ill...

Leave some room in the bucket when you're done. There'll be a queue.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I'm going to be ill...

Leave some room in the bucket when you're done. There'll be a queue.
Yes, there will.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

I can't think about this subject without thinking of a certain "The Simpsons," episode that, like many of their shows was a close parody of conventional wisdom: The town had been snowed in for several days, suddenly the sun came out and the elderly residents of the nursing home stepped out on their front porch, they all took a deep happy breath -- immediately after, one old man squinted off in the distance and said, "I don't like the look of those teenagers!" and they all turned and hustled back inside.

Lots and lots of middleaged to old people are afraid of teenagers, all teenagers. To say that this could only happen in the case of a white man and a black teen seems to me to be making the problem too narrow.

Yes, the uncertainty of what exactly Zimmerman said on the 911 call points to the possibility of ageism being as much a possibility as racism.

I agree with others that it's unfortunate that racism has to be a factor for this to be "significant". We still have racism in our country, whether Zimmerman is a racist or not, that racism must be addressed whether or not that's a factor in this case.

At the same time, we also have a very violent society, with an excess of guns, and some dangerous laws regarding them. That also needs to be addressed, even if racism is not part of the fuel.
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
As i made amply clear above, my POV is that the case is racism. But -- racism aside -- there is also the issue of gun violence in the USA. What can be done to stop this insanity?? I don't know but it is horrible.

The Georgia state legislature passed a law forcing metropolitan Atlanta's bus and subway system (against the system's wishes) to allow people carrying concealed weapons on the system. Maybe it's just old age cantankerousness setting in, but the longer i live in the Deep South (and it's been several decades) the more despicable a place it seems to me.
And, i seem to recall the same body of sociopaths, oops, legislators, requiring churches to allow the same! What if a church were to say this went against their beliefs? Oh well, i guess it wouldn't matter in that case -- it wouldn't be contraception or abortion they were opposing.

[ 26. March 2012, 17:19: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
 
Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :
 
The biggest source of the outrage is not Zimmerman who may or may not be a racist.
The part that seems outrageous is what the police department failed to do.
Personal motives are complex but I agree with many people here in thinking that being armed and chasing someone at night because he "looked suspicious" is bound not to end well. So at the very least Zimmerman's judgment is questionable.
But the POLICE should do better than this. And if Zimmerman was Black and the kid white he WOULD have been arrested or SHOT. Anyone who claims he would not is denying reality.
 
Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Personal motives are complex but I agree with many people here in thinking that being armed and chasing someone at night because he "looked suspicious" is bound not to end well. So at the very least Zimmerman's judgment is questionable.

Surely someone who scares easily and has such poor judgement in assessing potential dangers shouldn't be allowed out alone at night, intentionally stalking strangers looking for trouble and especially not carrying a lethal weapon.

I can see why the police didn't find him suitable.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
Crow X 10^10

This topic is gonna wind up needing a snack.

Post hysteria it would appear that we will find young Master Martin a stranger in a neighborhood beset by break-ins, who was pursued by a watchman whom he violently assaulted.

Go figure.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Crow X 10^10

This topic is gonna wind up needing a snack.

Post hysteria it would appear that we will find young Master Martin a stranger in a neighborhood beset by break-ins, who was pursued by a watchman whom he violently assaulted.

Go figure.

For what it's worth, National Public Radio was reporting this morning that police have confirmed to them that witnesses corroborate Zimmerman's story that he was walking back to his car when Martin attacked him, punching him and beating his head on the ground.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
For what it's worth, National Public Radio was reporting this morning that police have confirmed to them that witnesses corroborate Zimmerman's story that he was walking back to his car when Martin attacked him, punching him and beating his head on the ground.

Not exactly news. The police have been maintaining this version of events (Zimmerman acted in self defense, as corroborated by witnesses) from the start, citing it as a reason their investigation has gone nowhere. (Presumably it's also related to their failure to identify Mr. Martin's body for three days, despite having his cell phone, though I'm not sure exactly how.) The problem is that the credibility police on this matter is somewhat impaired, up to and including allegations they "corrected" witnesses to fit the official version of events.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Crow X 10^10

This topic is gonna wind up needing a snack.

Post hysteria it would appear that we will find young Master Martin a stranger in a neighborhood beset by break-ins, who was pursued by a watchman whom he violently assaulted.

Go figure.

For what it's worth, National Public Radio was reporting this morning that police have confirmed to them that witnesses corroborate Zimmerman's story that he was walking back to his car when Martin attacked him, punching him and beating his head on the ground.
Corroborated by which witnesses? (Amazing that all this show up a month after it happens via a police department that has already been accused of a coverup...)

When the 911 operator told Zimmerman not to pursue Martin as police were on the way, it should have ended right there. Zimmerman was the aggressor.

Think about it: If you were walking down a street and a stranger with a gun approached you, how would you react, believing your life is in danger? Would you be half assed about defending yourself?

There is no 'self-defence" claim on the part of Zimmerman. The laws should be clear on this. This killing was not justified.

[ 27. March 2012, 14:19: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Which brings up another thing that bothers me about all this. The 911 operator told Zimmerman, "You don't need to follow him." This could easily have been interpreted by Zimmerman as, "You don't have to if you don't want to but it would be a help." If Zimmerman wasn't supposed to follow, and I don't think he was, then why oh why didn't she say, "Don't follow him!"?
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Not exactly news. The police have been maintaining this version of events (Zimmerman acted in self defense, as corroborated by witnesses) from the start <snip>

Well, yeah. The fact that it seems to be getting some media play on NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing reporting) might be news, though.

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Corroborated by which witnesses? (Amazing that all this show up a month after it happens via a police department that has already been accused of a coverup...) <snip>

Couldn't tell you- that's all I heard on my morning commute. I added it primarily, as I mentioned above, because I thought the fact it was getting play on NPR merited mention.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
It seems to be that a valid right to self defence only applies to non-Black males in post racial America. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
It seems to be that a valid right to self defence only applies to non-Black males in post racial America. [Roll Eyes]

It has been observed that the one thing noticably missing from this case is Wayne LaPierre or some other NRA spokesman claiming that this whole tragedy could have been avoided if Trayvon Martin had also been carrying a gun. That's their usual line when something like this happens, yet so far not a peep out of them.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
It seems to be that a valid right to self defence only applies to non-Black males in post racial America. [Roll Eyes]

It has been observed that the one thing noticably missing from this case is Wayne LaPierre or some other NRA spokesman claiming that this whole tragedy could have been avoided if Trayvon Martin had also been carrying a gun. That's their usual line when something like this happens, yet so far not a peep out of them.
Even Wayne LaPierre isn't stupid enough to wade into this mess.
[Biased]
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:

When the 911 operator told Zimmerman not to pursue Martin as police were on the way, it should have ended right there. Zimmerman was the aggressor.

The 911 operator didn't tell him not to pursue.

quote:

Think about it: If you were walking down a street and a stranger with a gun approached you, how would you react, believing your life is in danger? Would you be half assed about defending yourself?

Seems unlikely that Zimmerman approached Martin with his gun drawn and then decided to take a broken nose and a skull bashing before firing, doesn't it? Neighborhood-watch people pursue unknowns all the time. You certainly can't count on the cops to prevent crime in your neighborhood, which is why we have "stand your ground" laws and CCPs in the first place. If the current set of facts being reported prove true, this thing is never going any further.

New Black Panthers encouraging kidnapping notwithstanding.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
None of the eyewitnesses on either side of this have impressed me. But this is not surprising, eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. It is only that most people do not realize how subjective, suggestible and inaccurate their own memories are that lends any weight to eyewitness accounts.
Interviewing witnesses to extract the most accurate account of events is a rare skill.

All that aside, Zimmerman placed himself in a position he should not have. None of this would have occured had he been prudent. The most generous ( to Zimmerman) thing that can be implied is that they both were at fault. Not that I am convinced of this.
There remains also had their racial identities been reversed, Zimmerman would have been in jail this whole time.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
All that aside, Zimmerman placed himself in a position he should not have. None of this would have occured had he been prudent.

Bing!

We have a winner! [Smile]
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
[qb]
When the 911 operator told Zimmerman not to pursue Martin as police were on the way, it should have ended right there. Zimmerman was the aggressor.The 911 operator didn't tell him not to pursue.

quote:
“He's got something in his hands. I don't know what his deal is. Send officers over here.”

The teen started to run, Zimmerman reported. When Zimmerman said he was following, the dispatcher told him, “We don't need you to do that.”

Source: LA Times

He had skittles and a drink in his hand and he was running away from Zimmerman. That was his crime. Zimmerman was the aggressor.

[ 27. March 2012, 16:51: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
quote:
Seems unlikely that Zimmerman approached Martin with his gun drawn and then decided to take a broken nose and a skull bashing before firing, doesn't it?
Seems like that if a gun was visible on Zimmerman's person at all Martin would have felt threatened and tried to defend himself. Zimmerman wasn't wearing a cop or even a security guard uniform. He could have been anyone with a gun up with any kind of motive. You're really not saying that guns are only visible if they are drawn.

Are you really saying that if a stranger in plain-clothes approached you and pursued you with a gun you'd just stand by and passively let them do whatever they wanted?

[ 27. March 2012, 17:08: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
You make a lot of assumptions about the details of the incident.

That seems typical in this case.

Its all about skittles and dated photos.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
You make a lot of assumptions about the details of the incident.

That seems typical in this case.

Its all about skittles and dated photos.

The same can be said for you. It's all about young punks beating up on poor innocent non-Black people who only have the purest of motives.

As I said, in this case the right of self defence only applies to people who aren't black males.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
The black thing really matters to you, doesn't it?

Fact is that kid was safer with Zimmerman than he ever was in his own neighborhood in Miami.

One guy was black, one was Peruvian.

BFD.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Fact is that kid was safer with Zimmerman than he ever was in his own neighborhood in Miami.

[Confused] [Confused] [Confused]

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
The black thing really matters to you, doesn't it?

Fact is that kid was safer with Zimmerman than he ever was in his own neighborhood in Miami.

One guy was black, one was Peruvian.

BFD.

THE KID IS FUCKING DEAD! HOW SAFE IS THAT?

He was walking to his father's home from a fucking convenience store carrying tea and candy. He had no weapons and he did nothing wrong.

Are you really saying one minority can't racially stereotype another?
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
The black thing really matters to you, doesn't it?

Fact is that kid was safer with Zimmerman than he ever was in his own neighborhood in Miami.

One guy was black, one was Peruvian.

BFD.

THE KID IS FUCKING DEAD! HOW SAFE IS THAT?


I'd say right up until he broke Zimmerman's nose and pounded his head on the sidewalk that he was PRETTY FUCKING SAFE!

Not the target of some racist, wannabe cop with an attitude, but a stranger in a neighborhood with a crime problem and a motivated neighborhood watch.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
THE KID IS FUCKING DEAD! HOW SAFE IS THAT?

I'd say right up until he broke Zimmerman's nose . . .
This, of course, is a lie. Zimmerman's nose was not broken. The police report was amended after the fact to claim Zimmerman had a "bloody" nose, but there's no indication of a facial fracture in any of the media accounts I'm familiar with.

[ 27. March 2012, 18:07: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
[qb] The black thing really matters to you, doesn't it?

Fact is that kid was safer with Zimmerman than he ever was in his own neighborhood in Miami.

One guy was black, one was Peruvian.

BFD.

THE KID IS FUCKING DEAD! HOW SAFE IS THAT?


I'd say right up until he broke Zimmerman's nose and pounded his head on the sidewalk that he was PRETTY FUCKING SAFE!
AFTER he was stalked and chased by Zimmerman for the horrendous crime of walking down a street with tea and candies.

quote:
Not the target of some racist, wannabe cop with an attitude, but a stranger in a neighborhood with a crime problem and a motivated neighborhood watch.
And you're accusing me of making assumptions?

[Roll Eyes]

A motivated Neighbourhood Watch doesn't kill unarmed people on public streets, especially after they've been told not to pursue and that cops were on the way.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Not the target of some racist, wannabe cop with an attitude, but a stranger in a neighborhood with a crime problem and a motivated neighborhood watch.

A motivated Neighbourhood Watch doesn't kill unarmed people on public streets, especially after they've been told not to pursue and that cops were on the way.
The national Neighborhood Watch Association has guidelines against confronting suspected criminals and against carrying firearms on patrols. Whatever Zimmerman was motivated by, it wasn't his zeal for the Neighborhood Watch program as most people understand it.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
... I'd say right up until he broke Zimmerman's nose and pounded his head on the sidewalk ...

For which, apparently, no medical treatment was requested, given, or even advised. So much for "broke" and "pounded". OliviaG
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
...in a neighborhood with a crime problem and a motivated neighborhood watch.

The notion of Zimmerman being a "captain" of a "neighborhood watch" has been repeated by just about all of the news media. However, everything I've seen that actually discusses whether there was such a thing says that there was no relationship with the national Neighborhood Watch organization and that Zimmerman was the only person in this informal "neighborhood watch."

Do you actually have any reason to believe that there was a formal organization in this community, or that Zimmerman was acting in a manner that was subject to the review and oversight of anyone else? Did anyone in his community request that he perform this "service?"

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:

A motivated Neighbourhood Watch doesn't kill unarmed people on public streets, especially after they've been told not to pursue and that cops were on the way.

Innocent, skittle eating little kids don't commit aggravated assault as a response to being recognized as a stranger in a gated community.

Or at least I hope they don't.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
I've seen at least one interview with a middle-aged man who was described as having worked with Zimmerman on the neighborhood watch, yes.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
Once more with feeling: an alleged aggravated assault for which there is no corroborating medical evidence. OliviaG
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:

A motivated Neighbourhood Watch doesn't kill unarmed people on public streets, especially after they've been told not to pursue and that cops were on the way.

Innocent, skittle eating little kids don't commit aggravated assault as a response to being recognized as a stranger in a gated community.

Or at least I hope they don't.

Innocent skittle eating kids aren't stalked and chased by gun toting strangers in a gated community either. There were no witnesses who say who actually started the altercation - it is nothing other than your assumption that Martin did. Why are you making that assumption?

Again, Zimmerman was told not to pursue and told that police were on the way. No one was in any danger at that point. Zimmerman made the choice to pursue and Zimmerman actually chased Martin.

[ 27. March 2012, 18:28: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
... I'd say right up until he broke Zimmerman's nose and pounded his head on the sidewalk ...

For which, apparently, no medical treatment was requested, given, or even advised. So much for "broke" and "pounded". OliviaG
Never had your nose broken, have you?

I am now confident that evidence will demonstrate that the entire Al Sharpton version of events will turn out to be utter bullshit. Witnesses will testify to the fact that Zimmerman was the one being assaulted. Audio, I expect, will prove that it was Zimmerman screaming for help. There is even an indication that a witness saw Martin approach Zimmerman from behind prior to the assault after tubby had given up his chase and headed back to his vehicle.

Anyone willing to testify to that would have to be telling the truth. That or fucking suicidal.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
... I'd say right up until he broke Zimmerman's nose and pounded his head on the sidewalk ...

For which, apparently, no medical treatment was requested, given, or even advised. So much for "broke" and "pounded". OliviaG
Never had your nose broken, have you?

I am now confident that evidence will demonstrate that the entire Al Sharpton version of events will turn out to be utter bullshit. Witnesses will testify to the fact that Zimmerman was the one being assaulted.

What do you base that confidence on? Were you there?
 
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
For your consideration.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
Given Zimmerman's own violent history it's hard to say who started it:

quote:
In 2005, Zimmerman was accused twice of criminal misconduct and violence. Arrested at a bar near the University of Central Florida after an altercation with police, he was later charged with resisting arrest. He was not convicted but entered a pretrial diversion program, common for first-time offenders.

Later that year, records show that a woman filed a petition for an injunction against Zimmerman, alleging domestic violence. He filed his own petition against the woman the next day. Injunctions were later issued against both.

Source

Weird that states issue gun licenses to people with violent pasts.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
For your consideration.

So?
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Seems like that if a gun was visible on Zimmerman's person at all Martin would have felt threatened and tried to defend himself. Zimmerman wasn't wearing a cop or even a security guard uniform. He could have been anyone with a gun up with any kind of motive. You're really not saying that guns are only visible if they are drawn.

Are you really saying that if a stranger in plain-clothes approached you and pursued you with a gun you'd just stand by and passively let them do whatever they wanted?

I sure wouldn't launch a physical attack on someone I knew had a gun if I had no weapon except my body.

Moo
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Seems like that if a gun was visible on Zimmerman's person at all Martin would have felt threatened and tried to defend himself. Zimmerman wasn't wearing a cop or even a security guard uniform. He could have been anyone with a gun up with any kind of motive. You're really not saying that guns are only visible if they are drawn.

Are you really saying that if a stranger in plain-clothes approached you and pursued you with a gun you'd just stand by and passively let them do whatever they wanted?

I sure wouldn't launch a physical attack on someone I knew had a gun if I had no weapon except my body.

Moo

You'd just let the person shoot you, even if there was an opening. Gotcha.

[ 27. March 2012, 21:45: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
(And we don't know who launched the personal attack. We just know who's dead.)
 
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
For an aspiring policeman, Mr. Zimmerman seems to have dismal self defense skills. He had at least one free hand. I'm just a little old lady, but I would have used that hand for a quick blow to the groin or a jab to the eyes. Pulling out a gun at those close quarters could well have meant that the gun could end up shooting Zimmerman.

It does seem odd, too, that a slender kid, outweighed by 60 pounds, was able to take Zimmerman down from behind and then flip him over.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
So?

This Joe Oliver certainly is an impressive man. He's changing my mind about Zimmerman a little. I'll always maintain that Zimmerman made lots of foolish mistakes that night, but maybe, just maybe, he did have to shoot to protect his life.

(This in no way explains why he didn't have to go to the police station and fill out a lot of paperwork and undergo an investigation. Don't police themselves have to do this after every use of their weapon?}
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Seems like that if a gun was visible on Zimmerman's person at all Martin would have felt threatened and tried to defend himself. Zimmerman wasn't wearing a cop or even a security guard uniform. He could have been anyone with a gun up with any kind of motive. You're really not saying that guns are only visible if they are drawn.

Are you really saying that if a stranger in plain-clothes approached you and pursued you with a gun you'd just stand by and passively let them do whatever they wanted?

I sure wouldn't launch a physical attack on someone I knew had a gun if I had no weapon except my body.

Moo

You'd just let the person shoot you, even if there was an opening. Gotcha.
I doubt any of us knows what we'd actually do in such a situation without first having it actually happen. But just letting the other person shoot you is not the only alternative to launching an attack (and I don't see why you took Moo's post that way). There's also screaming and running away. Which might work out pretty well, depending on the nerves and shooting skill of the person with the gun.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
... I'd say right up until he broke Zimmerman's nose and pounded his head on the sidewalk ...

For which, apparently, no medical treatment was requested, given, or even advised. So much for "broke" and "pounded". OliviaG
Never had your nose broken, have you?

Neither has Zimmermann. [Razz]
 
Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :
 
But the point is as repeatedly stated before.
Why is a 17 year old unarmed person hitting an armed person harassing him not self defense (assuming he hit him) But the armed person who initiated the encounter can claim self defense after killing the young person.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Neighborhood-watch people pursue unknowns all the time.

There is your problem. Right there.

Seriously. I don't know how the hell you run Neighbourhood Watch schemes over there in the USA, but around here watching means exactly that. WATCHING. The neighbourhood.

Of course, around here the chances of anyone carrying a gun around the neighbourhood are tiny. And maybe we have a functional police force and you don't.

But the solution to that is to DEMAND a functional police force. Not to have people who are NOT members of the police force appointing themselves to be law enforcement.
 
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
[qb] The black thing really matters to you, doesn't it?

Fact is that kid was safer with Zimmerman than he ever was in his own neighborhood in Miami.

One guy was black, one was Peruvian.

BFD.

THE KID IS FUCKING DEAD! HOW SAFE IS THAT?


I'd say right up until he broke Zimmerman's nose and pounded his head on the sidewalk that he was PRETTY FUCKING SAFE!
AFTER he was stalked and chased by Zimmerman for the horrendous crime of walking down a street with tea and candies.

quote:
Not the target of some racist, wannabe cop with an attitude, but a stranger in a neighborhood with a crime problem and a motivated neighborhood watch.
And you're accusing me of making assumptions?

[Roll Eyes]

A motivated Neighbourhood Watch doesn't kill unarmed people on public streets, especially after they've been told not to pursue and that cops were on the way.

let's say that the boy was armed. according to the logic, it would be perfectly acceptable for him to have shot Zimmerman, based on feeling "threatened" by being stalked while walking home from the store.

The fact is that the kid was doing nothing wrong... untill he was stalked, chased and attacked by an armed stranger. he fought back.. isn't that what he's "supposed" to do when feeling threatened? as a result he is dead.

I'm betting if he DID have a gun and used it, all the "he felt threatened" arguments would be thrown out the window.

it's clear that Zimmerman started the series of events. He went against instructions to follow the poor kid, and when the kid responded with force (mind you, NOT lethal force) he in turn responded by shooting to kill. how reasonable is that?

racism is something which can be applied even by members of the SAME race, let alone a different minority. and it can be applied subconsciously.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
Looks like the lead homicide investigator didn't believe Zimmerman on the night of the shooting and even signed an affidavit to that effect before this became a national case:

quote:
The lead homicide investigator in the shooting of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin recommended that neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter the night of the shooting, multiple sources told ABC News.

But Sanford, Fla., Investigator Chris Serino was instructed to not press charges against Zimmerman because the state attorney's office headed by Norman Wolfinger determined there wasn't enough evidence to lead to a conviction, the sources told ABC News.

Serino filed an affidavit on Feb. 26, the night that Martin was shot and killed by Zimmerman, that stated he was unconvinced of Zimmerman's version of events.

ABC News
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
It seems to be that a valid right to self defence only applies to non-Black males in post racial America. [Roll Eyes]

[Overused]
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
...in a neighborhood with a crime problem and a motivated neighborhood watch.

The notion of Zimmerman being a "captain" of a "neighborhood watch" has been repeated by just about all of the news media. However, everything I've seen that actually discusses whether there was such a thing says that there was no relationship with the national Neighborhood Watch organization and that Zimmerman was the only person in this informal "neighborhood watch."

Do you actually have any reason to believe that there was a formal organization in this community, or that Zimmerman was acting in a manner that was subject to the review and oversight of anyone else? Did anyone in his community request that he perform this "service?"

--Tom Clune

This has been reported in the NYT and on NPR. Zimmerman organized the Neighborhood Watch. He called up the person from the local Sheriff's Department and she came to a meeting attended by about 25 people, where she explained that the role of Neighborhood Watch is to be the "eyes and ears." She explicitly said that they do not patrol, and they do not accost people (there is a volunteer organization that does patrol neighorhoods in coordination with law enforcement, but they are issued radios and explicitly forbidden to carry weapons or confront suspicious people). She said that Zimmerman, even though he had set up the meeting, stayed at the back of the room and didn't speak. It's pretty clear that he was a loose cannon.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Neighborhood-watch people pursue unknowns all the time.

There is your problem. Right there.

Seriously. I don't know how the hell you run Neighbourhood Watch schemes over there in the USA, but around here watching means exactly that. WATCHING. The neighbourhood.

Of course, around here the chances of anyone carrying a gun around the neighbourhood are tiny. And maybe we have a functional police force and you don't.

But the solution to that is to DEMAND a functional police force. Not to have people who are NOT members of the police force appointing themselves to be law enforcement.

Welcome to the Wild Wild West, mark II. Vigilantes and posses roam the land, taking the law into their own hands, and the law lies down and spreads its legs. This isn't post-racial America. This is post-civilized America.
 
Posted by Jonathan Strange (# 11001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
the kid responded with force (mind you, NOT lethal force)

Please point me to an actual authoritative report which shows the murder victim responded with force. Details please. So far I have seen no reliable evidence that Zimmerman was struck.

The US press disgusts me now. In this case it is a racist-apologist, half-arsed, weak-sauce journalistic pretension working to make every story 50:50 and shift blame from the powerful to the powerless.

And that Joe Oliver is a joke and this poor kid is the victim of murder and a smear campaign.

[ 28. March 2012, 08:41: Message edited by: Jonathan Strange ]
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
Maybe it's just me, but all of this seems to be missing the wood for the trees. Discussing exactly what happened isn't the point. Maybe Martin did start the altercation (I doubt it, but accepting it for the sake of argument…) The point is that we don't know. Because there hasn't been a proper thorough police investigation.

The way to establish exactly what happened, and for Zimmerman to be either exonerated or appropriately punished for his actions, is for there to be a full investigation, and - unless there is solid evidence against - for him to be put on trial in a court of law. The police have singularly failed to ensure that this took place, and taken the seriousness of the events in question (a person is DEAD, for goodness' sakes), that looks pretty damned scandalous to many of us.
 
Posted by Jonathan Strange (# 11001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Maybe it's just me, but all of this seems to be missing the wood for the trees. Discussing exactly what happened isn't the point. Maybe Martin did start the altercation (I doubt it, but accepting it for the sake of argument…) The point is that we don't know. Because there hasn't been a proper thorough police investigation.

The way to establish exactly what happened, and for Zimmerman to be either exonerated or appropriately punished for his actions, is for there to be a full investigation, and - unless there is solid evidence against - for him to be put on trial in a court of law. The police have singularly failed to ensure that this took place, and taken the seriousness of the events in question (a person is DEAD, for goodness' sakes), that looks pretty damned scandalous to many of us.

I agree but I am outraged that - in the mean time - many groups are taking the opportunity to piss on the life and reputation of a murdered child.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
The way to establish exactly what happened, and for Zimmerman to be either exonerated or appropriately punished for his actions, is for there to be a full investigation, and - unless there is solid evidence against - for him to be put on trial in a court of law.

(Emphasis mine)

You had me until you got to this point- in the US, we put folks on trial because we *have* evidence they committed a crime, not the other way around. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, not the defendant.

[edited to fix code]

[ 28. March 2012, 13:10: Message edited by: jbohn ]
 
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :
 
So Zimmerman was under arrest. Then, it seems, he was released. Why? Because he cacted in self-defense?

Little innocent Trevon may have really been a teen thug who started the whole sorry mess. Who knows? I assume the facts will out in good time.
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
You had me until you got to this point- in the US, we put folks on trial because we *have* evidence they committed a crime, not the other way around. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, not the defendant.

In a trial, there's burden of proof. Not in an investigation. An investigation is simply that -- investigating what happened to determine what can be determined by the evidence.

It is an undisputed fact that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. That should be considered enough evidence to investigate the hell out of the events that night. More evidence would be required to convict Zimmerman of anything. But we're not asking for a conviction. Not now. We're asking for an investigation.

Maybe an investigation would provide enough evidence to determine that the killing was not a crime. Maybe it would provide enough evidence to determine that it was. But, for the love of all that is holy, the boy was shot and killed. That's evidence enough to try to determine what happened, and whether the killing was a crime. You can't prove anything if you don't at the very least investigate what happened.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Neighborhood-watch people pursue unknowns all the time.

Around here the chances of anyone carrying a gun around the neighbourhood are tiny. And maybe we have a functional police force and you don't.

But the solution to that is to DEMAND a functional police force. Not to have people who are NOT members of the police force appointing themselves to be law enforcement.

Welcome to the Wild Wild West, mark II. Vigilantes and posses roam the land, taking the law into their own hands, and the law lies down and spreads its legs. This isn't post-racial America. This is post-civilized America.
Not disagreeing with any of the concerns expressed here, but the courts have persistently taken the position that the police do not have a duty to protect us. That encourages taking on self-protection and vigilantism.

I well might rather live in a gun-less country, but I understand why friends who live twenty minutes away from any police own a gun for personal safety. No neighbors within shouting distance, are you supposed to tell the thug kicking in your door "wait here 20 minutes, let's see if the police show up?" (OR what is an unarmed neighbor supposed to do if he hears your shout for help?)

Maybe in fact it never happens that people break in with intent to harm, or so rarely that self-defense is no more necessary than insurance against being hit by a meteorite, but friends want me to get a gun (and take safety lessons) just because I am a woman living alone. But then, I live in Texas, where most people I know own guns, how do you change a whole culture?

Good summary article on the position of the US courts here; whether or not you agree with the author's purpose in writing, it's a real good concise summary. The most commonly cited case saying no police duty to protect you even if the dispatcher says they are coming is described here.
 
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :
 
So there was an investigation and the police wanted to charge Zimmerman but the state's attorney said that there was not enough evidence.

All these cries of "we want an investigation" but there was one.

The whole country is in an uproar. People are marching in the streets. A racist militia group is threatening a citizen who has not been charged with a crime. Racist tee-shirts are all the rage. But what happens if it turns out that Zimmerman did act in self-defence? What if the police report is correct? Do all those marchers say, "oops. Never mind?"
 
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
I'm confused. According to the police report, the supposed assault took place on grass, not concrete, thus refuting the various tales of Zimmerman's head being bashed against concrete.

The grass in Florida must be different from grass everywhere else if it can cause bleeding wounds to the head.

I'd like an exact description, substantiated under oath, of the purported "first aid" Zimmerman received while seated in a patrol car including the exact nature of the head wounds, if any, caused by contact with a lawn. How much first aid is required to stop a bloody nose and clean blood (whose blood?) from someone's hair? Didn't the fireman file a report detailing these matters?
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Welcome to the Wild Wild West, mark II. Vigilantes and posses roam the land, taking the law into their own hands, and the law lies down and spreads its legs. This isn't post-racial America. This is post-civilized America.

I hate it, but I must agree.

When a private group can put a bounty out on an innocent private citizen without fear of prosecution, this description would appear to be valid.

As I posted before, I think that the corroborated evidence will show that Zimmerman was not in pursuit when he was attacked, but was headed back to his vehicle.

If Martin had been in fear, he could have easily dialed 911, easily outrun tubby George. Instead he chose to fulfill the stereotype that drew attention to him in the first place.

Did he deserve to die? Of course not, but under Florida law he took that chance when he chose to follow and attack Zimmerman. The depiction of Martin as a scared little boy walking home with his candy is simply not going to stand up to objective scrutiny.

If George were an aggressive racist looking for a chance to murder someone, it seems unlikely that he would have been on the phone with law enforcement while hatching his plan. It would have been much easier to control the appearance of the event without having it recorded.

This is a profoundly sad situation for all concerned parties.

It is exponentially more sad for the involvement of Sharpton, Jealous, Spike Lee, New Black Panthers, et al. It would be nice to see this kind of outrage directed towards things that truly endanger young black men, and not towards imaginary, bloodthirsty, conspiratorial racist boogymen.

Tawana Brawley, Duke LaCross, and now this. [Disappointed]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Tawana Brawley, Duke LaCross, and now this. [Disappointed]

This is BS. Given how the authorities have historically treated Black victims of crime, it is more than understandable. For every Tawana Brawley there have been thousands of Emmet Tills.
 
Posted by Jonathan Strange (# 11001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
If George were an aggressive racist looking for a chance to murder someone, it seems unlikely that he would have been on the phone with law enforcement while hatching his plan. It would have been much easier to control the appearance of the event without having it recorded.

Or he could be a really stupid aggressive racist looking for a chance to murder someone.
 
Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
But what happens if it turns out that Zimmerman did act in self-defence? What if the police report is correct? Do all those marchers say, "oops. Never mind?"

No matter what, some marchers will never believe that to be true.

Best case, the marchers go back home or back to work and talk to coworkers/friends/family about how the justice system doesn't work.

Worst case, riots like LA following the Rodney King verdict.

I'm leaning towards the first option as the more likely scenario, but that depends on how the investigators release their findings if no charges will be filed.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
If George were an aggressive racist looking for a chance to murder someone, it seems unlikely that he would have been on the phone with law enforcement while hatching his plan. It would have been much easier to control the appearance of the event without having it recorded.

Or he could be a really stupid aggressive racist looking for a chance to murder someone.
Right.

A really stupid aggressive racist out for murder who just happens to be lucky enough to have a thoughtful, sympathetic black man willing to sacrifice his reputation and quite possibly his personal safety to defend him against media like MSNBC.

I see those kind of stupid aggressive racists all the time. [Roll Eyes]

As for Tills, that reference makes sense considering how many people still seem to think that its 1955 in America.

It ain't.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
... As I posted before, I think that the corroborated evidence will show that Zimmerman was not in pursuit when he was attacked, but was headed back to his vehicle.

If Martin had been in fear, he could have easily dialed 911, easily outrun tubby George. Instead he chose to fulfill the stereotype that drew attention to him in the first place.

Did he deserve to die? Of course not, but under Florida law he took that chance when he chose to follow and attack Zimmerman. The depiction of Martin as a scared little boy walking home with his candy is simply not going to stand up to objective scrutiny. ...

I think I mentioned before that, based on all the teenagers (and many young adults) I've met, and on incidents in my community, calling 911 is something they never seem to think of. Let me know if you need horror stories.

Which leads me to my point: who was the responsible person in this alleged confrontation? I don't mean resposible in terms of fault; I mean responsible in the sense of having control of the situation. We have an adult male armed with a gun, driving a truck, with some level of training and experience, in contact with a police dispatcher. We have an unarmed male teenager on foot talking to his girlfriend on a cell phone. There is ample scientific evidence and overwhelming anecdotal evidence that teenagers do not have an adult level of judgment, self-control, or decision-making skills. Regardless of how it all went down, at every point, Zimmermann had all the power and, we would hope, BETTER JUDGMENT than Trayvon Martin. Trayvon was a child, and like all children our society, entitled to protection and care from all adults, whatever his behaviour or demeanour. Zimmermann didn't have to start the confrontation and had ample opportunity to de-escalate or withdraw, but he didn't.

Bottom line: if Zimmermann had stayed in his truck - with his gun, in contact with the dispatcher = he would have been completely safe and could have continued to observe Trayvon until the police arrived. They both would be home safe and sound and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Whatever happens legally, I think it's fair to say that Zimmermann was supposed to be a grown-up, but he certainly didn't act like one that night. OliviaG
 
Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Zimmermann didn't have to start the confrontation and had ample opportunity to de-escalate or withdraw, but he didn't.

If he was returning to his vehicle, how is that not withdrawing?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:

As for Tills, that reference makes sense considering how many people still seem to think that its 1955 in America.

It ain't.

No, it isn't. Treatment is still far from equal, though.
However that was not the point. The point was given the history of treatment of Black victims of crime, the quick to judge reactions of observers is understandable. And public outcry is often the only recourse.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
If he was returning to his vehicle, how is that not withdrawing?

Point. However, I think my point about STAYING in the truck is still valid and that would have been the smartest, safest course of action for everybody. Cheers, OliviaG
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
If he was returning to his vehicle, how is that not withdrawing?

Point. However, I think my point about STAYING in the truck is still valid and that would have been the smartest, safest course of action for everybody. Cheers, OliviaG
Again, this assumes that Zimmerman's account is true.

But the homicide detective who was summoned to the scene doubted Zimmerman's account to the degree that he signed an affidavit saying so, and wanted to charge him but was overruled by the state attorney who wasn't at the scene.

[ 28. March 2012, 16:32: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by Jonathan Strange (# 11001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
A really stupid aggressive racist out for murder who just happens to be lucky enough to have a thoughtful, sympathetic black man willing to sacrifice his reputation and quite possibly his personal safety to defend him against media like MSNBC.

I see those kind of stupid aggressive racists all the time. [Roll Eyes]

How do you explain Zimmerman saying "Fucking Coon"?

[ 28. March 2012, 16:39: Message edited by: Jonathan Strange ]
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
A really stupid aggressive racist out for murder who just happens to be lucky enough to have a thoughtful, sympathetic black man willing to sacrifice his reputation and quite possibly his personal safety to defend him against media like MSNBC.

I see those kind of stupid aggressive racists all the time. [Roll Eyes]

How do you explain Zimmerman saying "Fucking Coon"?
I don't. I expect he said fucking goon.

I have been lucky enough to live my entire life in the South. I have never heard the term "coon" used as a racist reference by anyone younger than my mothers age, and probably only once or twice at that.

Goon, OTOH, is a common term in the lexicon of kids my niece's age. She is 22.
 
Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
If he was returning to his vehicle, how is that not withdrawing?

Point. However, I think my point about STAYING in the truck is still valid and that would have been the smartest, safest course of action for everybody. Cheers, OliviaG
Again, this assumes that Zimmerman's account is true.
Yes, it does. It's also an account that may be supported by a witness.

OliviaG, I don't doubt that everyone wishes that had been the way things played out.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
Witnesses have given several contradictory testimonies, actually.
 
Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on :
 
Which is why I said "may be supported".

Right now, I don't trust any of the "facts" being reported. They change hourly.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
The problem here is that a month later and with one of the parties dead and unable to tell his side of the story, we're likely in a "he-said, he-said" stage.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
Another problem here is selective outrage.

I'm willing to bet that this isn't the only other 17 year old black kid killed in the last month.

Any takers?
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
With all the international publicity surrounding this case, why on earth are we just now learning that Zimmerman actually was taken in for questioning and that witnesses said he was headed toward his truck when attacked from behind? Wasn't there a single news reporter capable of finding this out? Or was it more important to get inflammatory comments from the mob in the street?

Now I feel like I know nothing.
Zimmerman called the police somthing like 50 times last year, clearly he was taking his watch duties to an obsessive degree. Why hadn't the police asked him to step away from it?
Was Zimmerman in or out of his truck when he was told to back off?
Did the operator say, "Don't follow him." or "We don't need you to follow him?"
Did he say, "coon," or "punk"?
Was Trayvon afraid or did he get so angry at being stopped and questioned that he went after Zimmerman with the intention of beating him up?
Did he know Zimmerman had a gun?
Which one was heard calling for help?
Was Zimmerman on the grass or the sidewalk?
Was his head on the concrete and his body on the grass?
When did he draw his weapon?
Why was Trayvon suspended from school?
Had he been having anger management problems?
Why wasn't the public told more about the details of the case?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Another problem here is selective outrage.

I'm willing to bet that this isn't the only other 17 year old black kid killed in the last month.

Any takers?

(sigh). This is not the first faulty "selective outrage" case that's been touted out re: this case. Here is the difference (from your link): "Armani Compton McDonald, 19, has been charged with the killing, and Terry Sekyere, 18, has been charged with assaulting Kempson."

Someone was killed, and there was an investigation, which led to charges being filed. That didn't happen in Zimmerman's case. As has been said many, many times on this thread already, THAT'S the reason for the "selective outrage".
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
Oh, thanks.

Black kids can murder each other on a daily basis and as long as someone gets charged, everythings cool. Nothing to see here, no problems, move along....

Gutters run with the blood of black teenagers and young adults, but it only matters when the killer isn't black.

It only matters when Sharpton can sell advertising on it. Got it.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
The problem here is that a month later and with one of the parties dead and unable to tell his side of the story, we're likely in a "he-said, he-said" stage.

Or rather, a "he-said, he-dead" stage.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Oh, thanks.

Black kids can murder each other on a daily basis and as long as someone gets charged, everythings cool. Nothing to see here, no problems, move along....

Gutters run with the blood of black teenagers and young adults, but it only matters when the killer isn't black.

It only matters when Sharpton can sell advertising on it. Got it.

Are you really that clueless?

Killings happen, sadly, every day in America. There is a process for dealing with them, whether there is a racial element or not. When that process if followed and there is a proper police investigation, generally there is no need for an "outcry". When there is, however, no police investigation, the media and the public rightly demand answers as to why none took place. It's called accountability.

As others have said upthread, we don't know what happened. We don't know if Zimmerman is the innocent victim here, or Trayvon, or if it's some combination of tragic circumstances and poor judgment. We don't know to what degree, if any, race was a factor. But what we do know is that the police did not respond in an appropriate way. And the people of Florida-- black and white-- deserve better.
 
Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But what we do know is that the police did not respond in an appropriate way.

Actually, you don't know that. If the witness we're just now learning about was interviewed the night of the shooting, and that witness' statement supported Zimmerman's account of having been attacked from behind, then pummeled into the ground, which would result in a likely risk of serious bodily harm (unconsciousness is usually included in that), then Zimmerman was within the law in his use of deadly force.


Or the police could have just screwed it up, but we don't know which is true at this point.

[ 28. March 2012, 18:42: Message edited by: monkeylizard ]
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
In a trial, there's burden of proof. Not in an investigation. An investigation is simply that -- investigating what happened to determine what can be determined by the evidence.

It is an undisputed fact that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. That should be considered enough evidence to investigate the hell out of the events that night. More evidence would be required to convict Zimmerman of anything. But we're not asking for a conviction. Not now. We're asking for an investigation.

Actually, she was asking for a trial- which assumes an investigation has occurred, and evidence has been found warranting charges being pressed against someone. My point is that she -and a bunch of other folks- are getting just a bit ahead of themselves here. From what I can gather, the "evidence" seems to change by the hour- so how can we be at the stage of calling for an arrest and a prosecution?

quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But what we do know is that the police did not respond in an appropriate way.

Actually, you don't know that. If the witness we're just now learning about was interviewed the night of the shooting, and that witness' statement supported Zimmerman's account of having been attacked from behind, then pummeled into the ground, which would result in a likely risk of serious bodily harm (unconsciousness is usually included in that), then Zimmerman was within the law in his use of deadly force.


Or the police could have just screwed it up, but we don't know which is true at this point.

Bingo. The police did investigate at the time, contrary to popular belief. What, exactly, they found, none of us knows- but let's not let that stop people from calling for everything from another investigation (which may be warranted), to a trial (a bit ahead of ourselves, aren't we?), to a conviction (see previous), to a lynching (because that's not racist or criminal).

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
quote:
Police in Florida initially sought an arrest warrant for the neighborhood watch guard who shot and killed unarmed black teen Trayvon Martin, but were overruled by prosecutors, media reports said Wednesday.

The Miami Herald said police in Sanford, Florida applied for the arrest warrant in the early stages of the investigation, contrary to suggestions that there had been inadequate probable cause for a prosecution.

The daily cited a police incident report that described the shooting of the 17-year-old by neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman as "homicide/negligent manslaughter."

Prosecutors however, held off approving the warrant, pending further review, according to the Herald and other media reports.

Source

It looks like the police were overruled by prosecutors.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
It looks like the police were overruled by prosecutors.

Not a terribly uncommon thing, really.

I do wonder how many people are planning to retract their vilifications of the obviously racist police department.
 
Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
It looks like the police were overruled by prosecutors.

The DA has to decide, based on the evidence and statements collected by the police, if there is enough to go to trial with a reasonable likelihood of winning a conviction. If the police don't like the DA's decision, they have to go collect more evidence/statements that would strengthen a prosecutor's case. That's how it works. It's normal for the police to know without a doubt that they have a criminal locked up only to have to let them go because the DA can't win a trial based on the evidence available.

If corruption is suspected at either the police or DA, then a higher authority should be brought int to investigate, like the Florida State Police, or Bureau of Investigation, or the US DOJ.

[ 28. March 2012, 19:27: Message edited by: monkeylizard ]
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
It looks like the police were overruled by prosecutors.

If corruption is suspected at either the police or DA, then a higher authority should be brought int to investigate, like the Florida State Police, or Bureau of Investigation, or the US DOJ.
Which is what is happening...
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
The DA has to decide, based on the evidence and statements collected by the police, if there is enough to go to trial with a reasonable likelihood of winning a conviction. If the police don't like the DA's decision, they have to go collect more evidence/statements that would strengthen a prosecutor's case. That's how it works. It's normal for the police to know without a doubt that they have a criminal locked up only to have to let them go because the DA can't win a trial based on the evidence available.

Assuming Mr. Zimmerman was indeed in the wrong (and I'm not convinced either way, yet), this becomes a very important point; if the DA brings charges based on weak evidence, presses on to a trial, and loses, double jeopardy applies- and the defendant cannot be retried later if better evidence becomes available. Better to not run the risk on a questionable case.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:
Police in Florida initially sought an arrest warrant for the neighborhood watch guard who shot and killed unarmed black teen Trayvon Martin, but were overruled by prosecutors, media reports said Wednesday.

The Miami Herald said police in Sanford, Florida applied for the arrest warrant in the early stages of the investigation, contrary to suggestions that there had been inadequate probable cause for a prosecution.

The daily cited a police incident report that described the shooting of the 17-year-old by neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman as "homicide/negligent manslaughter."

Prosecutors however, held off approving the warrant, pending further review, according to the Herald and other media reports.

Source

It looks like the police were overruled by prosecutors.

Police at the scene do not need a warrant to make an arrest.

If no arrest was made at the scene it is most likely due to the fact that evidence and witnesses corroborated Zimmerman's account of events.

Of course it could also be because police everywhere are racists and will do what they can to avoid arresting non-blacks who victimize blacks regardless of the facts or circumstances. Surprising that Martin wasn't found with a sprinkling of crack cocaine around his body, Sanford police being what they obviously are.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But what we do know is that the police did not respond in an appropriate way.

Actually, you don't know that. If the witness we're just now learning about was interviewed the night of the shooting, and that witness' statement supported Zimmerman's account of having been attacked from behind, then pummeled into the ground, which would result in a likely risk of serious bodily harm (unconsciousness is usually included in that), then Zimmerman was within the law in his use of deadly force.


Or the police could have just screwed it up, but we don't know which is true at this point.

It's certainly true-- as I and many others here have reiterated many times-- that we don't what what is true at this point. But we know there wasn't sufficient investigation, and that even one or more of the seasoned officers objected to the decision not to follow up with a more careful investigation.

The police may well have had a hunch at that point that Zimmerman was w/in his rights. But they have an obligation to the public to do more-- to gather evidence to either support or refute that hunch. Much of that evidence needs to be gathered immediately (e.g. seeking medical professionals to document Zimmerman's supposed injuries). That didn't happen.

I'm not sure we know at this point whether it was some or all of the police who dropped the ball, or the state's attorney. But we know the ball was dropped. Hence the "outcry".
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But we know the ball was dropped.

Here again- we don't know anything of the sort.

From the latest info we here have -TD's link- it appears the police did their investigation, and recommended charges. The DA (for reasons we do not know, but entirely likely to be simply that there wasn't enough evidence of a crime having been committed to successfully prosecute the case) declined to file charges. Basically, what happens every day, all over the country, in cases ranging from the mundane to the spectacular- with no outcry.

Ho-hum.

The only difference is that, in this case, the bereaved (and whoever else is pulling the strings on this thing- let's face it, the parents don't have the pull to do this on their own) have found a willing outlet to broadcast their feelings. Good for them.

It still doesn't add up to racism, conspiracy, or even incompetence, without a whole lot more info than anyone here has.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
It still doesn't add up to racism, conspiracy, or even incompetence, without a whole lot more info than anyone here has.

.

[ 28. March 2012, 21:16: Message edited by: romanlion ]
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But we know the ball was dropped.

Here again- we don't know anything of the sort.

From the latest info we here have -TD's link- it appears the police did their investigation, and recommended charges. The DA (for reasons we do not know, but entirely likely to be simply that there wasn't enough evidence of a crime having been committed to successfully prosecute the case) declined to file charges. Basically, what happens every day, all over the country, in cases ranging from the mundane to the spectacular- with no outcry.

Ho-hum.

The only difference is that, in this case, the bereaved (and whoever else is pulling the strings on this thing- let's face it, the parents don't have the pull to do this on their own) have found a willing outlet to broadcast their feelings. Good for them.

It still doesn't add up to racism, conspiracy, or even incompetence, without a whole lot more info than anyone here has.

But the problem is with a gun law that allows someone with a violent past to carry a gun, tail someone whose only crime was walking down a street, to get into an altercation (which wouldn't have happened if he'd followed what he was told to do by the operator), shoot the person, simply claim self defence and have no further action taken.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Another problem here is selective outrage.

I'm willing to bet that this isn't the only other 17 year old black kid killed in the last month.

Any takers?

AAAAAAARRRRGGGHHHH. [brick wall]

We. Can. Only. Comment. On. Cases. We. Are. Aware. Of.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Oh, thanks.

Black kids can murder each other on a daily basis and as long as someone gets charged, everythings cool. Nothing to see here, no problems, move along....

Gutters run with the blood of black teenagers and young adults, but it only matters when the killer isn't black.

It only matters when Sharpton can sell advertising on it. Got it.

Oh for goodness sake. It matters when the killer ISN'T CHARGED!!!!!

Cliffdweller says, as plainly and clearly as possible, that that is the difference, and you seem to have done an amazing good job of COMPLETELY ignorgin what cliffdweller said!
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
But the problem is with a gun law that allows someone with a violent past to carry a gun

<snip>

You'll get no argument from me there. As for the rest, the following (even if ill-advised) is a separate issue from whether or not the altercation and subsequent shooting is self-defense.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Police at the scene do not need a warrant to make an arrest.

If no arrest was made at the scene it is most likely due to the fact that evidence and witnesses corroborated Zimmerman's account of events.

Well actually, they took him down to the station for questioning for several hours. I don't know if that counts as an arrest at the scene, but it doesn't equate with letting him go at the scene either.
 
Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on :
 
Detained <> arrested. Police may detain a person at the scene or at the station for a reasonable period of time to conduct the initial scene investigation. If police believe that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, they will make an arrest, unless the DA is also involved and decides not to.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
the police surveillance video seems to counter points on each side. Contrary to my point, Zimmerman seems to have been cuffed and taken into custody-- so at least a cursory investigation. Contrary to others' testimony, no visible evidence of broken nose, bloody head, any injuries whatsoever.

police video
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Nor did the officers handling Zimmerman or patting him down wear gloves -- which they surely would have done had there been even a drop of blood on his person or clothing.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
the police surveillance video seems to counter points on each side. Contrary to my point, Zimmerman seems to have been cuffed and taken into custody-- so at least a cursory investigation. Contrary to others' testimony, no visible evidence of broken nose, bloody head, any injuries whatsoever.

police video

Fits with the testimony by the funeral director that Martin's body showed no sign of the kind of bodily trauma one would expect in such a fight, viz. there no bruising of Martin's hands.

CNN: Funeral director saw no signs of fight on Trayvon’s hands
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
I just don't buy that the police's actions at the time were sufficiently thorough. No medical records of Zimmerman's supposed injuries, the dead dude tested for drugs and alcohol, but not the live dude…
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I just don't buy that the police's actions at the time were sufficiently thorough. No medical records of Zimmerman's supposed injuries, the dead dude tested for drugs and alcohol, but not the live dude…

If you watch the police video, it would appear that the reason there's no medical record of Zimmerman's injuries is that there aren't any. No bleeding wound on the back of his head, no bruising or blood on his face or anywhere else.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I just don't buy that the police's actions at the time were sufficiently thorough. No medical records of Zimmerman's supposed injuries, the dead dude tested for drugs and alcohol, but not the live dude…

Add to that an alleged coaching of witnesses...

quote:
But after the shooting, a source inside the police department told ABC News that a narcotics detective and not a homicide detective first approached Zimmerman. The detective pepppered Zimmerman with questions, the source said, rather than allow Zimmerman to tell his story. Questions can lead a witness, the source said.

Another officer corrected a witness after she told him that she heard the teen cry for help.

The officer told the witness, a long-time teacher, it was Zimmerman who cried for help, said the witness. ABC News has spoken to the teacher and she confirmed that the officer corrected her when she said she heard the teenager shout for help.

Source
 
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :
 
Or does the video show a gash?

As with many aspects of this case, we just don't know and it seems that too many people made assumptions that may be wrong.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
If the narrative is that Martin knocked Zimmerman down and beat his head into the pavement, the location of the scratch is a bit too high on the head (unless one is arguing that Martin picked Zimmerman up by the ankles and beat him into the pavement.)

It should be on the back of his head and, if it was really caused by a pounding, it would be a spot rather than a line and lot more bloody since cuts to the scalp tend to bleed heavily.

Again, odd that the cops didn't use gloves when they patted him down as they are required to if any blood is present.

Evidently George's father went on Fox News last night and denied that Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend (a fact that was already confirmed by the cell carrier - TMobile) and said that Martin said: "You're going to die tonight, homie." Really? "Homie"?

Fox News

[ 29. March 2012, 15:34: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I just don't buy that the police's actions at the time were sufficiently thorough. No medical records of Zimmerman's supposed injuries, the dead dude tested for drugs and alcohol, but not the live dude…

If you watch the police video, it would appear that the reason there's no medical record of Zimmerman's injuries is that there aren't any. No bleeding wound on the back of his head, no bruising or blood on his face or anywhere else.
It seems to me that there is some indication of a wound on the back of his head in the video. The quality is not HD, but you can clearly see some "anomaly" in the smooth surface of the back of his head. Also, one of the officers clearly takes a close look at it.

Either way, it doesn't seem like Sanford PD showed up at the scene, patted Zimmerman on the back, gave high-fives all around and sent him on his way, which is what the hysterical agitators of racist conspiracy would have you think.

It would appear that they took the shooter into custody and conducted an investigation.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
As has been said many, many times, we just don't know-- hence the calls for an investigation.

but one would think that if there was the sort of injuries Zimmerman is alleging, he would have been taken to a hospital or at least an EMT called out, and that the injuries would have been photographed. That's not evidence that Zimmerman is guilty of wrongdoing, but it IS grounds for calls for a more thorough investigation than what we've seen.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Again, spit-balling, but one would think that if Zimmerman is telling the truth and the shot was fired while he was having his head bashed against concrete, the wound would have been inflicted at very close range. If Martin's family is correct, the wound would be from a much greater distance.

If what we see of forensics shows is correct, this is the sort of thing a coroner would be able to determine-- but not the sort of thing that could be determined though a police interrogation the night of the shooting.

Again, all the more reason for a more thorough investigation.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
It seems to me that there is some indication of a wound on the back of his head in the video. The quality is not HD, but you can clearly see some "anomaly" in the smooth surface of the back of his head.

Not the usual location for a broken nose, but I don't want to jump to conclusions.... [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
It seems to me that there is some indication of a wound on the back of his head in the video. The quality is not HD, but you can clearly see some "anomaly" in the smooth surface of the back of his head.

Not the usual location for a broken nose, but I don't want to jump to conclusions.... [Roll Eyes]
The suggestion was that the gash occurred when Martin was allegedly bashing Zimmerman's head on the ground. Doesn't seem to be in the right part of the head for that, but again, that's something a medical examiner would have to say-- had one been called in to make that assessment.
 
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :
 
Somewhere I seem to recall having read or heard that Martin was shot in the back. If that's the case, it would really cause me to doubt Zimmerman's story, although I suppose some scenario could explain that.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Somewhere I seem to recall having read or heard that Martin was shot in the back. If that's the case, it would really cause me to doubt Zimmerman's story, although I suppose some scenario could explain that.

I'm now hearing so many contradictory things I have no idea what the facts are, beyond one man dead and another hiding in fear. People may be saying what they assume the "facts must be" if their belief about the incident is true. If you think Z was the aggressor then he must have shot M in the back at a distance, if you think M jumped Z then it must have been in the chest close range. Both are being stated as fact by different reporters.

Also I'm reading arguments about whether Z was injured, such as some insisting a broken nose would have been gushing blood, others insisting many broken noses don't bleed enough to show on that police video.

The initial pictures showed the dead male as a half-grown child, now some say M was 6 foot 2 and 160 or 180 pounds. The initial image was a cute helpless kid no one could possibly think a threat, but maybe he was a full grown male quite capable of jumping Z from behind and knocking him down.

Add in the "sweet kid never in trouble" vs the suggestion from the tweets he may have jumped a bus driver in the past and may have been a burglar, neither of which has been proved, neither of which has anything to do with what happened the night of his death but can affect one's understanding of whether M was the kind of person who could be an aggressor, or was he the sweet gentle kid originally portrayed (and as the constant reference to candy implies).

Z should have stayed in his vehicle, but there was no law against his getting out of it.

Whoever threw the first punch - whether that punch was a fist or a bullet - turned the situation into one in which a man died. Tragic.

We will never know the objective truth because whatever facts are finally determined official, no matter what hard evidence or reports exist, a lot of people will claim their position was right and the truth was covered-up.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
[QUOTE]
We will never know the objective truth because whatever facts are finally determined official, no matter what hard evidence or reports exist, a lot of people will claim their position was right and the truth was covered-up.

All true, but certainly compounded by the lack of a thorough and more transparent investigation. Yes, we may never know, and there will always be conspiracy theories, but that can be lessened with a more diligent effort to investigate the many questions that have been raised.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
Why would anyone want to shoot the child of such model Americans?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Everything about this case is so bizarre that I can't even begin to get my head round it.

I can only speak for myself and I'm not trying to start a pond war, but I feel as if I'm reading about an alien civilisation living on another planet.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
You're not alone, Johnny. "I'm but a stranger here..."
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Why would anyone want to shoot the child of such model Americans?

Lord, have mercy. Alogon, I can't believe you said that. Are you really suggesting that Zimmerman's motive for shooting Trayvon was that Trayvon's mother would do something in the future, after Trayvon's death, that you think is tacky?

I think it's understandable -- she wants to stop people (some of them not particularly well-meaning) from profiting from the death of her son, from trafficking in his memory. I understand that. I'm not sure I'd do it the same way she's doing it.

But even if what she's doing is inexcusably tacky, ill-mannered, and inappropriate -- do you really think that Zimmerman was a psychic, that he could look at Trayvon and know that Trayvon's mom would do something tacky in the future, and so of course he wanted to kill him?

If not, then what in God's name does this have to do with Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Amen, Josephine. I thought of saying something, but I didn't think it would do any good.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Why would anyone want to shoot the child of such model Americans?

This post is truly breathtaking. I mean, there's been a fair amount of shit posted in Purgatory of late, but this is really a whole other thing.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Why would anyone want to shoot the child of such model Americans?

Hmm. So basically, if you sin, we can take it out on your children?

Not only (as others have already pointed out) is that proposing a kind of insight that Mr Zimmermann, not being God, probably doesn't possess, but it's also spectacularly unbiblical as a legal proposition. See Ezekiel 18:20.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
You're not alone, Johnny. "I'm but a stranger here..."

I'm not trying to be snide here Alogon but I was including your post in my incredulity. My head is exploding not just with the reporting of what has happened but with the discussion too.

Shooting people because they have selfish parents seems to be lowering the bar when I thought it couldn't get any lower.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Piers Morgan has interviewed Zimmerman's brother. He seems like a very nice man for whatever that's worth.

My outrage over all this was initially directed at Zimmerman and the Florida police. The news accounts all portrayed Zimmerman as a trigger happy thug, Martin as a baby faced child, and the police as incompetents who had briefly questioned Zimmerman at the scene and then sent him on home. Now I'm finding that all of that was either slanted or false. My outrage has redirected to the media which seems to have abandoned any effort to report the truth and simply gone for the most sensational headlines and pandered to it's own liberal or conservative audience.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Why would anyone want to shoot the child of such model Americans?

Lord, have mercy. Alogon, I can't believe you said that. Are you really suggesting that Zimmerman's motive for shooting Trayvon was that Trayvon's mother would do something in the future, after Trayvon's death, that you think is tacky?


Of course not. If you can't believe it, then why do you want to believe it?

Just read Morris Berman. Hustling has been the American game since before the Declaration of Independence. It's what we're good at. We don't lose any opportunity to play it, even grief.

[ 30. March 2012, 12:52: Message edited by: Alogon ]
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
... Hustling has been the American game since before the Declaration of Independence. It's what we're good at. We don't lose any opportunity to play it, even grief.

[Mad] Did it occur to anybody that his parents might also want trademark protection so that they have some recourse when OTHER PEOPLE misuse their child's name or profit from their loss? Suppose someone starts selling "Trayvon was a good start" t-shirts or some other horrific shit? The Zimmermanns would be wise to do the same thing. OliviaG
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
They'll have to sell quite a few of those shirts to surpass the ad revenue that Sharpton has raked in on the deal, thats for sure.

[ 30. March 2012, 16:22: Message edited by: romanlion ]
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:

Did it occur to anybody that his parents might also want trademark protection so that they have some recourse when OTHER PEOPLE misuse their child's name or profit from their loss? Suppose someone starts selling "Trayvon was a good start" t-shirts or some other horrific shit? The Zimmermanns would be wise to do the same thing. OliviaG

How can I be more clear? Just read literally.
This is America. Trayvon's parents are playing our well-honed game, if only because others are already playing it at their expense, as we can easily expect. It's a kind of cannibalism.

What did Zimmerman (assuming he is guilty) think he was up to? If he imagined that he was being a good citizen, defending The American Way from furreners, he is sadly mistaken. They're no different. Their expertise in the game proves that they are just as American as anyone else.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
If they are trademarking his name to make money off of it to line their pockets it's a breathtaking case of profiteering. If they are trademarking to make money that will be used to assist black male youths or some other valid cause, I'm perfectly fine with that.

Since they haven't revealed their intentions, it's not my place to judge.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
And it has bugger all to do with the shooting regardless.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Exactly. No matter what one thinks of his parents, that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not he deserved to be shot. That Alogon is doubling down on his original post about them is astonishing.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
Zimmerman clearly wounded in police video.
 
Posted by Jonathan Strange (# 11001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Zimmerman clearly wounded in police video.

3 or 4 inch gashes but no blood? Even Zimmerman's lawyer doesn't think the video is sufficiently clear:

quote:
Craig Sonner, Zimmerman's lawyer, said the video was "too grainy" to show the injuries his client claimed he sustained in his fight with Martin.
The way the news report is written suggests he's commenting on the still shot taken from enhanced video and not just the original.

Forget the broken nose, if Martin had been on top of him, banging his head on the floor, and Zimmerman had pulled his gun and shot him at as point blank a range as it can ever be, wouldn't Zimmerman be covered in blood? There isn't a drop on his clothes.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I guess that if you'd 'enhance' a video of me (which I assume basically means pumping up the contrast of selected pixels), you'll get some dark lines on my skin as well.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Zimmerman clearly wounded in police video.

Meanwhile, another story linked to from the same page says that the screams for help on the 911 call couldn't have been Zimmermann.

That's 1-1 from the exact same site. Who the heck are we supposed to believe with all this extra analysis? It's hopeless.
 
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
"clearly wounded"


[Killing me]
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
A recent wound to the head generally bleeds like an SOB. Those lines on his head look more like older scars.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
I felt that the failure of the authorities to fully investigate the shooting was scandalous. Now that they have been goaded into action, I confess that I find the current "trial by internet" every bit as unfortunate. I guess there's just no pleasing me...

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Yes, you're right. Now that a proper investigation is in place, it's time to back off and allow that process to go forward.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
Unless, of course, you are NBC or MSNBC.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Unless, of course, you are NBC or MSNBC.

So what, a free pass for the ABC who helpfully enhanced that video for you?

I doubt that "defence by media" is any more satsifactory than "trial by media".
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
Is there an indication that ABC intentionally manipulated the video? If so I had not heard about it.

NBC edited audio of the 911 call to be prejudicial. Plain and simple.

MSNBC has on air "talent" ( [Paranoid] ) stoking the fire surrounding the case for monetary gain.

Their credibility is nil.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Is there an indication that ABC intentionally manipulated the video? If so I had not heard about it.

Then let me be the first to inform you. My field is medical image processing. ALL image processing is intentionally manipulating the images. I have spent many months working with physicians on individual approaches to image enhancement, sometimes to just abandon the approach because it can create misleading or false information in the image.

Developing a technique from a known data set, and validating its value through such things as ROC tests is a very labor-intensive and costly process. Starting from a photo of unknown provinence and "enhancing" it in isolation is highly suspect. Indeed, I would not be surprised if someone at the TV station just fired up PhotoShop and pressed a few buttons until it looked good to them.

In court, that kind of crap doesn't fly -- the enhancement will be vetted by experts and studied with the care all such serious matters deserve. I imagine that the people who produced the "enhanced" photo were well-intentioned, but I hear-tell that the road to Hell is paved with just this material.

--Tom Clune

[ 03. April 2012, 16:38: Message edited by: tclune ]
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Exactly. No matter what one thinks of his parents, that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not he deserved to be shot. That Alogon is doubling down on his original post about them is astonishing.

Seriously. When I read it, I had one of those, "uh, wow" moments, and then with the doubling down, it was "alrighty then". But it's good when you know where people stand, eh?

Even if his parents were the worst people on the planet, there's no connection with his being shot. What the hell?
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
But it's good when you know where people stand, eh?

Even if his parents were the worst people on the planet, there's no connection with his being shot. What the hell?

Speaking of which... If you really believed that I claimed either that his parents were bad people or that Trayvon deserved to be shot because they were, you would be entirely justified in calling me to hell. Nobody has done so, and that is because the evidence is not there. All I'm saying, really, is that this crime (or at least tragedy) is quickly being exploited by people interested in grinding axes and making money. In this country, that's just par for the course.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
If you really believed that I claimed either that his parents were bad people or that Trayvon deserved to be shot because they were, you would be entirely justified in calling me to hell. Nobody has done so, and that is because the evidence is not there.

No, it's because I've been too busy.


quote:
All I'm saying, really, is that this crime (or at least tragedy) is quickly being exploited by people interested in grinding axes and making money. In this country, that's just par for the course.
Obviously, people are exploiting this. Are Trayvon Martin's parents doing so? Maybe. But that's not what you said.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
That's all it seemed like to me, Alogon, but I guess you (and I) need to tread carefully when we join an angry mob that's wavering from its original target.

So today we have Zimmerman's possible head wounds. Was it, maybe, more of a scrape against the concrete than an actual cut? Trayvon had no damage to his knuckles which makes me think he either wasn't assaulting Zimmerman at all or was banging his head by holding his hair or shoulders.

Plus,we have the voice experts saying that it wasn't Zimmerman yelling for help. If it was Trayvon's voice, then it's unlikely he was beating Zimmerman into the ground and screaming for help at the same time. Could the voice be a witness who is afraid to come forward?
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
How much hair did Zimmerman have to get a grip on, Twilight?

[ 03. April 2012, 20:12: Message edited by: Amos ]
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
How much hair did Zimmerman have to get a grip on, Twilight?

Not much.
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
Thinking about the way it was reported on Channel 4 News over here - it's pretty terrifying...

What's the upshot? That visitors to Florida should wear high-viz all the time? If challenged by someone with a gun, just stop, raise hands, and obey all instructions regardless of who they are?

How do tourists stay safe when there are trigger-happy idiots like Zimmerman there, and the police won't help?
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
Forget the broken nose, if Martin had been on top of him, banging his head on the floor, and Zimmerman had pulled his gun and shot him at as point blank a range as it can ever be, wouldn't Zimmerman be covered in blood? There isn't a drop on his clothes.

This.

Even if the paramedics had cleaned up Zimmerman's injuries, I don't think they'd have given him a shower and a change of clothes at the scene. I've never heard of that happening anyway. He was much to clean and tidy for his version of what happened to make any sense at all.
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
Also - would the entry and exit wounds match the point-blank impact model?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Is there an indication that ABC intentionally manipulated the video? If so I had not heard about it.

I don't think you understand what image enhancement means. As tclune says, it inherently means manipulation. It doesn't necessarily mean manipulation towards an intended outcome, but it does mean alteration, for good or ill.
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
I know an autopsy was done; when would results from an autopsy normally be released? Is it odd that they haven't been released yet? Or is that what one would expect?
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
Drugs, Josephine, drugs. Gotta wait for the toxicology results. To be sure that black boy wasn't hepped up when he beat that innocent vigilante.


quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
What's the upshot?

Very funny Alex, very funny.
quote:
That visitors to Florida should wear high-viz all the time? If challenged by someone with a gun, just stop, raise hands, and obey all instructions regardless of who they are?
Forget the hi-viz, but yeah, when someone points a weapon at you, raise your hands, say yes sir, no sir, and give 'em what they want. Well...unless you get caught up in shit like this, in which case you fight like a motherfucker.
quote:
How do tourists stay safe when there are trigger-happy idiots like Zimmerman there, and the police won't help?
I don't worry about lightening when I visit Britain; you shouldn't either when you visit the US.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Why would anyone want to shoot the child of such model Americans?

Channeling Shadowhund, I see.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Drugs, Josephine, drugs. Gotta wait for the toxicology results. To be sure that black boy wasn't hepped up when he beat that innocent vigilante.

Trayvon Martin was tested for drugs,(with negative results) almost immediately. The shooter was not tested. Just one of the early examples of how poor this investigation was.

[ 04. April 2012, 10:11: Message edited by: Twilight ]
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Is there an indication that ABC intentionally manipulated the video? If so I had not heard about it.

Then let me be the first to inform you.
Once more and slowly, for our northern brothers...

Is there evidence that ABC intentionally manipulated the video to produce a result that otherwise would not appear as was done with the 911 audio?

If so I had not heard about it.

The marks, whatever they are, were clearly visible in the original video.

As for the "Trayvon was a good start" T-shirts mentioned upthread, I haven't been able to find one for sale. Anyone got a link?

My "Pussy Ass Cracker" T-shirt, on the other hand, should be arriving any day now.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Once more and slowly, for our northern brothers...

Is there evidence that ABC intentionally manipulated the video to produce a result that otherwise would not appear as was done with the 911 audio?

If you are asking whether there was malice in the intent of the manipulator, certainly that is not in evidence. I would like to challenge you to demonstrate that there was malice in the audio tape editing. Certainly, the result distorted the transcript, but that hardly proves intent. As I was hoping to help you recognize, the same may well be true of the photo editing. Apparently, I failed in that effort.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Certainly, the result distorted the transcript, but that hardly proves intent. As I was hoping to help you recognize, the same may well be true of the photo editing. Apparently, I failed in that effort.
--Tom Clune

The video is roughly the same in both versions. One with a little more clarity, but the same video.

To say that the 911 call edit distorts the transcript is rich.

It creates a completely false version of the conversation that is quite nasty indeed. Also, we are talking about NBC here, home of the venerable Reverend Al.

If that edit was an innocent error, it was bad enough to warrant never trusting their reporting again. If it wasn't an innocent error....well, same thing.
 
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
Romanlion,

I'm pleased to see that you have retreated from "clearly wounded" to "The marks, whatever they are...", but are they even "marks"?
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
I have the same hair-do as George does. I have several scars on my head. I can say with relative certainty that those vertical marks in the back of his head are not natural, and not the way fat rolls on a skull. Combine that with the attention the officer gives them and I think it is safe to assume that they are something of note.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Combine that with the attention the officer gives them

Eh?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Seriously. I've just gone back and looked at the link to the video you posted, romanlion, and with the best will in the world, specifically looking for it, I cannot see the slightest sign of anyone paying any attention to the back of Zimmermann's head. Not the slightest.

They look down at the ground. Up, down, around. They look at the back of his head no more than the back of the rest of him when he's walking in front of them. At no stage does anyone in the video show any sign at all of reacting to the back of his head as if there's something noteworthy about it.

And frankly, it would be quite bizarre if they DID react because by this stage the police have had plenty of time to notice if there's anything remarkable there. That is, accepting for the sake of argument that those are indeed gashes on the back of his head, by the time of that video the gashes are OLD NEWS to the police escorting Zimmermann.

It just seems to me that you're making the kind of massive overreach that betrays your argument weaknesses.
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
I sit here, having young adult sons, not so different from the deceased; I sit here with plenty of good ol' Constitutionally-legally-owned firearms of my own. I hope I never have to use them in defense of myself or others, but I pray I'd have the resolution to use them if needed.

I have nothing special to add, except that I hope to God actual real true information is there to look at, when it comes time for judges and juries to look at it. Heaven knows the stupidity rampant all over the media is of no help. It's like one can predict almost word-for-word what a reporter or editor will say about the whole sad mess, depending upon the publication or TV show, without even bothering to listen to them.
 
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:

How do tourists stay safe when there are trigger-happy idiots like Zimmerman there, and the police won't help?

The simplest way is not to be a tourist in the USA. If the "shoot anybody, anytime" culture (protected in law in several states thanks to the NRA) is not enough to put you off, the tiresome entry/ visa procedures should do the trick.

I don't plan on touring Iraq of Afghanistan any time soon either, for much the same reasons.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:


I have nothing special to add, except that I hope to God actual real true information is there to look at, when it comes time for judges and juries to look at it. Heaven knows the stupidity rampant all over the media is of no help. It's like one can predict almost word-for-word what a reporter or editor will say about the whole sad mess, depending upon the publication or TV show, without even bothering to listen to them.

My feelings exactly. I had thought that the most extreme bias from our reporters was limited to politics. This case has taught me, more than anything I've ever followed in the news, that the truth means far less than pandering to the regular viewers. We watch CNN and NBC at home, see FOX at a restaurant we frequent, and listen to NPR on the radio. One is as bad as the other.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:

How do tourists stay safe when there are trigger-happy idiots like Zimmerman there, and the police won't help?

The simplest way is not to be a tourist in the USA. If the "shoot anybody, anytime" culture (protected in law in several states thanks to the NRA) is not enough to put you off, the tiresome entry/ visa procedures should do the trick.

How very sad for you. If a homocide rate equal to that of the US is your cutoff, then it looks like the only sizeable travel opportunities open to you in the Americas are Canada and Peru; the homelands of about 93% of the population of the hemisphere are too dangerous for you.
 
Posted by Jenn. (# 5239) on :
 
When countries as diverse as Iran, Nigeria and Australia (together with pretty much all of europe) has a lower homicide rate, don't you think there might be something wrong?
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jenn.:
When countries as diverse as Iran, Nigeria and Australia (together with pretty much all of europe) has a lower homicide rate, don't you think there might be something wrong?

Yes. Clearly, those countries are not doing their part to thin the herd...

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Seriously. I've just gone back and looked at the link to the video you posted, romanlion, and with the best will in the world, specifically looking for it, I cannot see the slightest sign of anyone paying any attention to the back of Zimmermann's head. Not the slightest.

They look down at the ground. Up, down, around. They look at the back of his head no more than the back of the rest of him when he's walking in front of them. At no stage does anyone in the video show any sign at all of reacting to the back of his head as if there's something noteworthy about it.

And frankly, it would be quite bizarre if they DID react because by this stage the police have had plenty of time to notice if there's anything remarkable there. That is, accepting for the sake of argument that those are indeed gashes on the back of his head, by the time of that video the gashes are OLD NEWS to the police escorting Zimmermann.


I never said they reacted, did I?

The enhanced video I posted shows specific portions in which the back of his head is visible.

Look again at the original video, and if you don't see an officer check the back of Zimmerman's head then see your eye doctor.

You are correct that by the time of the video those gashes would be old news to the police. All the more reason that the cop checking them out AGAIN indicates that there is something there. It would, as you say, be quite bizarre for the cop to look at the back of his head that way if there were nothing there to see.

quote:
It just seems to me that you're making the kind of massive overreach that betrays your argument weaknesses.


Yeah?

It seems to me that you only see what you want to see.

Typical.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jenn.:
When countries as diverse as Iran, Nigeria and Australia (together with pretty much all of europe) has a lower homicide rate, don't you think there might be something wrong?

Not sure the Nigerian homicide rate is credible, actually. And one would want to know the reporting route for the Iranian one also.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
No, I am sure the homicide rate is fairly accurately represented on the chart. Remember, if the ruling government kills you, it is not technically a homicide. Nor is death in wars or "conflicts."
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Remember, if the ruling government kills you, it is not technically a homicide. Nor is death in wars or "conflicts."

Cold comfort. In addition to our homicide rate, the U.S. also has notoriously high rates of incarceration. It is true that threatened executions are hardly ever carried out. But if you are sentenced to such a long prison term that you are liable to die before being released, this is a minor technicality.

Clearly the government itself is easily a threat to freedom. This threat is the original and primary justification for the citizen's right to bear arms provided in the Bill of Rights. I have no trouble at all buying that reasoning. The possibility that anyone considering kicking my front door in will find a loaded gun pointing at his face on the other side has got to be something of a dissuasive.

But does it follow that "concealed-carry" should be a right or privilege so routinely granted, especially when those who argue for it or implement it are hypocrites?

A few weeks ago I was admitted to the local palace of justice in order to renew my passport. Of course, this requires emptying pockets and going through a metal detector worthy of an air terminal, manned by sheriff's deputies. Duly disarmed, and informed that the sheriff's office produced passport photos, I proceeded thither, where I couldn't help noticing that the one and only form on the counter was-- guess what?-- an application to carry concealed firearms, as though it is the main reason why visitors go in. Apparently this practice is quite o.k. for the jungle out there where others live and work; but whenever one has an opportunity to prevent it in one's own vicinity, one gladly exercises it. It is the same in the state capitol. Gated communities are, in effect, another way to accomplish this objective.

If the advocates of such ubiquity really believe that it is a good thing which prevents crime and makes us safer, why don't they assume the same risks for themselves as they subject to the great unwashed?
 
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
Well, this is interesting...
quote:
ORLANDO, Fla. -- It was Erik Wemple's blog that first clued me in to the Today Show screw-up. The gist: One of the first segments on George Zimmerman's final 911 call made a context-shredding edit. Here was the conversation between Zimmerman and a dispatcher.
Zimmerman: 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.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
And here was what Today ran.

This guy looks like he’s up to no good... He looks black.[emphasis mine]


 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
yeah, that was bad.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jenn.:
When countries as diverse as Iran, Nigeria and Australia (together with pretty much all of europe) has a lower homicide rate, don't you think there might be something wrong?

Oh, I'm quite aware there are many, many things wrong with America.

But Tukai has (twice!) declared an unwillingness to visit for fear of being murdered, and I think a little perspective may be in order. (For instance, the traffic-related death rate in Fiji is higher than the homocide rate in the US.)
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Look again at the original video, and if you don't see an officer check the back of Zimmerman's head then see your eye doctor.

Yeah. That is a different link to the one you provided earlier. With more video, and without the TV station's logo plastered over part of the action.
 
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
Why did the dispatcher inquire into the race/ethnicity of the "suspicious" person?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Why did the dispatcher inquire into the race/ethnicity of the "suspicious" person?

I don't see anything wrong with that as an element of describing someone. If police are being dispatched they need to get as much information as they can about who it is they're looking for.
 
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
Of course, the fact that one of the officers looked at the back of Mr. Zimmerman's head proves nothing. We don't know exactly what, if anything, the officer saw.
 
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
orfeo,

Did the dispatcher seek other, more informative, descriptive elements (height, weight, clothing, armed/unarmed, etc.)? Shouldn't the police also be given a description of the caller, who is at the scene and perhaps in the middle of it all?

In a 911 call every second can matter, and I would think that immediately dispatching police to the scene would be of crucial importance. Physical description (especially if confined to race/ethnicity) could wait a bit imho.

It strikes me as yet one more oddity in this thoroughly botched case.
 
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
I agree. Starting from race struck me as strange also. Reminds me of a grad school friend who was always getting harassed by cops (in an uber-liberal suburb of Chicago) because he happened to be a muscular black man and thus "resembled" some random perpetrator.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Look again at the original video, and if you don't see an officer check the back of Zimmerman's head then see your eye doctor.

Yeah. That is a different link to the one you provided earlier. With more video, and without the TV station's logo plastered over part of the action.
Have we been following the same thread?

That "different" video is actually the first video posted on the topic. The first time I saw it was here in a post from ToujoursDan, I think.

quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Of course, the fact that one of the officers looked at the back of Mr. Zimmerman's head proves nothing. We don't know exactly what, if anything, the officer saw.

I think we have a fairly good idea.

All indications are that Martin knocked Zimmerman to the ground, possibly then pounded him into the pavement, before being shot to death. The narrative put forth by race hustlers like Sharpton and Jackson will be shown to be a complete fabrication, despite the best efforts of news outlets like NBC.

Trayvon has been pimped out post-mortem by members of his own "community" to perpetuate the fatuous notion that whitey was out hunting him down like an animal. The fact that other black males were by far the greatest threat to his safety is ignored, just like the fact that blacks are +/- 15% of the US population but they are the victims of nearly half of the murders, 90% of those commited by other blacks.

There is no revenue to be squeezed out of these numbers.

As for the image of the US as a gun crazy, crime ridden culture? Fact is that you are far more likely to be the victim of a violent crime in the UK than you are in the US, but at least it will most likely be a bat, a boot, or a knife, and not a gun.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
And every point you raise in that post is smoke and mirror to dodge the point that Zimmerman should not have been harassing Martin in the first place. And how asinine the "stand your ground" laws can be. Hopefully, despite the best efforts of Fox, this will dominate the conversation.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And every point you raise in that post is smoke and mirror to dodge the point that Zimmerman should not have been harassing Martin in the first place.

I've seen no evidence that George harrassed him at all. It sounds as though Martin initiated the contact, as well as the physical altercation, no doubt because he percieved some slight or disrespect in being noticed as a hooded stranger in a neighborhood with a crime problem.

To say that was a poor decision is a profound understatement.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And every point you raise in that post is smoke and mirror to dodge the point that Zimmerman should not have been harassing Martin in the first place.

I've seen no evidence that George harrassed him at all. It sounds as though Martin initiated the contact, as well as the physical altercation, no doubt because he percieved some slight or disrespect in being noticed as a hooded stranger in a neighborhood with a crime problem.

To say that was a poor decision is a profound understatement.

This strikes me as every bit as much a leap to judgment as those (relatively few) voices calling for Zimmerman's immediate conviction.

To my knowledge, there's absolutely no evidence in what's been leaked to the public so far to support such a conclusion. What is known by law enforcement or will arise in the course of the investigation remains to be seen.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
I've seen no evidence that George harrassed him at all.

Interesting. So you don't consider Zimmerman's own story to be evidence? Or do you not consider an admitted stalking of somebody to be a form of harassment? By your standards, I guess technically I have seen no evidence that Martin is even dead.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
The woman who slows her car to walking speed and either stares at or questions my son each time he goes for a walk is a royal pain and I would love to throttle her but we all understand that one thing doesn't make the other permissible.

If Martin attacked Zimmerman with head cracking force, whether he used Zimmerman's hair, ears or neck to do it, or whether or not Zimmerman had been "harrassing" or disrespectful, then Zimmerman was within his rights to shoot him. Most such killings are provoked even if it's a case of one person letting their dog go in the other's yard. That doesn't make a physical beating okay.

I'm all for stricter gun laws and eliminating the "stand your ground," nonsense, but I would think self-defense laws are still valid if Zimmerman was attacked.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by orfeo:
[qb] [QUOTE]
All indications are that Martin knocked Zimmerman to the ground, possibly then pounded him into the pavement, before being shot to death. The narrative put forth by race hustlers like Sharpton and Jackson will be shown to be a complete fabrication, despite the best efforts of news outlets like NBC.

Trayvon has been pimped out post-mortem by members of his own "community" to perpetuate the fatuous notion that whitey was out hunting him down like an animal. The fact that other black males were by far the greatest threat to his safety is ignored, just like the fact that blacks are +/- 15% of the US population but they are the victims of nearly half of the murders, 90% of those commited by other blacks.

There is no revenue to be squeezed out of these numbers.

the difference is which is considered
that thing called "crime"

as opposed to
imaginary black crime


quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
[QUOTE]
As for the image of the US as a gun crazy, crime ridden culture? Fact is that you are far more likely to be the victim of a violent crime in the UK than you are in the US, but at least it will most likely be a bat, a boot, or a knife, and not a gun.

um, that's a deal I'd take.

[ 06. April 2012, 15:14: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Why did the dispatcher inquire into the race/ethnicity of the "suspicious" person?

I believe that they're required to do so. Such statistics are one of the ways in which it is determined if authorities are targetting members of communities.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
Oh look. A crappy investigation, double jeopardy, and 40 years in jail ... for the victim.

Insanity.

OliviaG
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The woman who slows her car to walking speed and either stares at or questions my son each time he goes for a walk is a royal pain and I would love to throttle her but we all understand that one thing doesn't make the other permissible.

If this is a response to my post, I wasn't suggesting it did. I was merely challenging the claim that there was no evidence "at all" of any form of harassment.

On the other hand, the video of a police officer looking at Zimmerman's head is not evidence that there actually is any injury there. At most, it is suggestive that Zimmerman claimed his head was bashed on the ground (which would, naturally, cause the officer to look). This perhaps supports the conclusion that, from the first, Zimmerman claimed self-defense. Anything beyond that is unwarranted speculation.

What actual evidence has been made available to the public is meager. Once again, the public and pundits need to back off and let a proper legal investigation take place instead of filling the airwaves and internet with what is little more than speculation.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The woman who slows her car to walking speed and either stares at or questions my son each time he goes for a walk is a royal pain and I would love to throttle her but we all understand that one thing doesn't make the other permissible....

Let us pray this never happens:

"Hey, old lady, quit hassling me."

"Eek! I feel threatened!" <BLAM>

OliviaG
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
That's actually a parallel to what I believed happened when I first read about this case and I was duly incensed, but now there are so many conflicting reports about the incident, I'm not so sure anymore. I just hope that Zimmerman will be brought to trial before a jury of people who haven't already decided the case.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
I think we can summarize this thread thusly:

A submits evidence that Zimmerman is a paranoid loon and/or dangerous racist, Martin is an innocent teen

B asks us to recognize that we don't have all the facts and should wait for a thorough investigation and trial

C submits evidence that Martin was up to no good, provoking a fight, and Zimmerman was merely defending himself

D asks us to recognize that we don't have all the facts and should wait for a thorough investigation and trial

rinse. repeat.

Perhaps now we can just refer to the sheet and post the appropriate letter.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
You forgot one:

E Many folks in the mass media have behaved irresponsibly throughout this episode.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Summaries always sound so dull. They leave out all the fun stuff like dog-piling Alogon, why America is worse than Iraq, which people are never going to visit Florida ever again, and Oliva's colorful emoticons.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
Scratch the grand jury.

Not likely a murder charge then, ISTM.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Scratch the grand jury.

Not likely a murder charge then, ISTM.

Not a first-degree murder charge, no- FL law requires a grand jury to indict for that. Second-degree murder is entirely possible, however- and the prosecutor doesn't have to worry about the grand-jury no-billing her suspect.

(For our non-US friends: first-degree murder is premeditated murder, whilst second-degree murder is murder that was not premeditated. A "no-bill" means the grand jury declines to indict the suspect, thus returning no bill of indictment.)
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
Perhaps someone who has more experience with gated communities than I can explain how they work.

In my naivete, I assume that what it means is that no one gets in in the first place without showing up at the entrance, establishing their bona fides, and being admitted by the gatekeeper. As I recall, that is what happened on the one occasion in my life I have ever gone inside such a place. The only other way to get in would be to climb over a high fence, which nowadays could set off an alarm. If Trayvon's family lives there or he was the guest of a resident, then his presence was undeniably legitimate. So what was the problem?

The fact that a whole group of neighborhood watchers (i.e., that group of which Zimmerman calls himself the captain, although he is well-known as a loner) consider it worth their while to stalk or accost people inside a gated community suggests that the residents are not getting their money's worth, doesn't it? Are intruders really that common?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Usually a gated community will have a gate that prevents all motor vehicles from entering without a key card or being admitted by a security card. Pedestrians like Trayvon Martin can usually enter easily by walking around the arm of the gate. That's generally considered sufficient to discourage any burglar worth his salt since they'd have to hoof it to the getaway car. However, in one notorious case one of our Southern Calif. residents in a particularly exclusive gated community was murdered by hit men on bicycles who were able to peddle easily past the closed front gates. That case is surely an anomaly, roving bands of bicycle-riding thugs are not common in American suburbs. But we have an odd tendency to fear all sorts of things that are quite uncommon, while underestimating the real dangers.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
My small bit of experience was similar to Alogon's: an actual guard in a booth at the gate.

I did initially wonder what Trayvon was doing there, simply because AFAIK gated communities are usually white enclaves. Evidently not true of this one, though.

This thing has been handled so badly that we may never know what went on, which means even more ripple effects and tensions.

[Votive]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
My small bit of experience was similar to Alogon's: an actual guard in a booth at the gate.

There was an actual guard in Bradbury, too, but they don't ordinarily stop pedestrians. Or bicyclists, apparently.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
Once in my life I saw a gated community with a human guard. Really rare. Usually just a keypad you punch in a 4 number code. If you ever had legit reason to enter (deliver a pizza) you've got the code.

Half or more of the times I drive into a gated community I don't need the code, often I don't have it because I said I'd call my friend at the gate if I need it; the gates close slowly, two or three cars can easily go thru when one punches in the code. This is normal, people are glad to be right behind someone else and not have to stop and punch in the code and wait again for the gate to open. No one thinks anything of it when you follow another car in.

Or, as others have said, just walk or bicycle in.

It's minimal security.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
Now this.

Could you imagine anyone fraudulently soliciting donations in Zimmerman's name?

Nay! Say it ain't so!
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Now this.

Romanlion: have you been listening to NPR? You have unsuspected depth, to purloin Jimmy Stewart's phrase from The Philadelphia Story...

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
Oh, thanks old chap!
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Now this.

Could you imagine anyone fraudulently soliciting donations in Zimmerman's name?

Nay! Say it ain't so!

Not fake, but real, and featuring a picture of a vandalized Black cultural centre (because this isn't about race and all [Roll Eyes] .)


Gawker: George Zimmerman's Site Seeks Donations

[ 10. April 2012, 15:26: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Romanlion: have you been listening to NPR? You have unsuspected depth, to purloin Jimmy Stewart's phrase from The Philadelphia Story...

Of course. This morning, the author of The Swing Vote was interviewed. She has researched the 40% of the American electorate whose affiliation is "independent". They have little in common except that the machinations of both Republicans and Democrats
have turned them off. Although they tend to be centrists, there are many sub-groups including what she calls the "NPR Republicans": suburban, educated, moderate on "social issues" but fiscally conservative.

Particularly if party politics disgust you, where on the airwaves but NPR and PBS can you go these days to elude the frantic importuning of the super-PACS? They may be shouting more loudly than ever, but they're reaching a declining fraction of the public. We don't have to listen. Every cloud has a silver lining. [Biased]
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
I don't advertise it, but I love npr, particularly online. This is a place I think should be on everyone's favorites list as well, as long as I'm sharing.

Its superb.

[ 10. April 2012, 17:39: Message edited by: romanlion ]
 
Posted by Jonathan Strange (# 11001) on :
 
Latest crazy development: two of Zimmerman's lawyers quit. Commentary here.

This is a bizarre case.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
Washington Post: George Zimmerman to be charged in Trayvon Martin shooting, official says

Hopefully, a trial will clear the air...
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Which raises some question...

Will she just charge him with voluntary manslaughter or take a stab at second degree murder?

Will there be a trial or some sort of a plea bargain?

If there is a trial, will the trial be the biggest since OJ?

Would everybody be satisfied with a plea?
 
Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :
 
Can there be a fair trial when there's so much opinion been aired from partial information?
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Zimmerman will be charged with second degree murder. He turned himself in and was arrested. Just heard it on television.
 
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
What is second degree murder?
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
I'm not a lawyer but as I understand it. Second degree murder is a step below first degree murder and a step above voluntary manslaughter. It means the murder was willful but not premeditated. My guess is the prosecutor will argue that Zimmerman's action's provoked Martin to attack him, Martin attacked Zimmerman, retreated, and then Zimmerman shot him after he no longer had reasonable cause to fear for his life.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Upon further reading, Florida apparently has Third Degree Murder and Manslaughter but does not divide manslaughter into voluntary and involuntary. Murder 3 is when you unintentionally kill somebody while committing a nonviolent felony.
 
Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :
 
So where does stalking an unarmed minor and provoking them to respond in fear so you can claim self defense when you shoot them like a complete coward fall?
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
He's being charged with second degree murder.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm not a lawyer but as I understand it. Second degree murder is a step below first degree murder and a step above voluntary manslaughter. It means the murder was willful but not premeditated.

As I recall from dipping into my grandfather's copy of the Wisconsin Statutes as a kid, the phrase there was "by an act injurious to mankind and evincing a depraved mind." In other words (I gather), the offender may never have intended the victim's death at all, but was definitely expressing heavy-duty malice.

In New York State, first-degree murder is reserved to cases where the victim is a police officer or similar personage.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Second Degree Murder in Florida
Definition of Depraved Mind
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Would everybody be satisfied with a plea?

To be honest I'd even be satisfied with an acquittal!
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
I watched a bit of the Al Sharpton press conference and they all emphasized that "What makes America great is the rule of law" and that while several thought what Zimmerman did was wrong, they expressed faith in the process.

It may or may not be just talk, but it was good to hear.

Speaking for myself: I'm less concerned about the outcome in this case than it getting to court in the first place and than in a crazy law that allows people to shoot others, merely claim self defence and then walk away. That law seems set up for abuse.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
So where does stalking an unarmed minor and provoking them to respond in fear so you can claim self defense when you shoot them like a complete coward fall?

You don't get to be on the jury, Clint. For one thing, it's hard to tell that a six foot three male, walking in the dark, is a minor.

I sure wish I could be on the jury. I honestly think I'm confused enough by the whole thing to be unbiased. Please let it be on Court TV.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.
 
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
OIC, we don't have that distinction in the UK - that would just be described as murder. Tariff of life sentence recommended to be served would vary though.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
That law seems set up for abuse.

One of the most insane laws ever.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Speaking for myself: I'm less concerned about the outcome in this case than it getting to court in the first place and than in a crazy law that allows people to shoot others, merely claim self defence and then walk away. That law seems set up for abuse.

Well, no, it's not the law itself that does that, but how it's applied. The law allows a fair degree of self defence. What it doesn't say is that as soon as someone claims self-defence, you're required to believe them.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
OIC, we don't have that distinction in the UK - that would just be described as murder. Tariff of life sentence recommended to be served would vary though.

The penalty for second degree murder in Florida is 17 to life. Penalty for first degree murder is life without parole or the death penalty. Manslaughter and Third Degree Murder get you from 10-15 years. Theoretically, the low number is the minimum time time served in prison. The distinction is very important especially in states with the death penalty. Even states (almost every one) without the death penalty have life without parole for first degree murder.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Speaking for myself: I'm less concerned about the outcome in this case than it getting to court in the first place and than in a crazy law that allows people to shoot others, merely claim self defence and then walk away. That law seems set up for abuse.

Well, no, it's not the law itself that does that, but how it's applied. The law allows a fair degree of self defence. What it doesn't say is that as soon as someone claims self-defence, you're required to believe them.
No, it does not say that. If you believe laws are applied fairly and justly, the law still sets higher the potential for needless violence.


BTW, if you believe laws are applied fairly and justly, I'm an estate agent in Atlantis. Ring me up, we'll talk.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Speaking for myself: I'm less concerned about the outcome in this case than it getting to court in the first place and than in a crazy law that allows people to shoot others, merely claim self defence and then walk away. That law seems set up for abuse.

Well, no, it's not the law itself that does that, but how it's applied. The law allows a fair degree of self defence. What it doesn't say is that as soon as someone claims self-defence, you're required to believe them.
No, it does not say that. If you believe laws are applied fairly and justly, the law still sets higher the potential for needless violence.


BTW, if you believe laws are applied fairly and justly, I'm an estate agent in Atlantis. Ring me up, we'll talk.

I understand that, but the distinction is important. If you try to solve the wrong problem, or try to solve it in the wrong way, the solution won't work.

I'm not saying that the law here is perfect, either. But criminal law is full of defences and exceptions. The Florida law isn't remotely unique in that respect. Self-defence is, at least in the English-speaking world, pretty well a universal concept. Nowhere would claiming self-defence be, as a matter of law, good enough. In a court, it's perfectly possible for a judge to rule that the defence simply hasn't been raised on the evidence.

Similar issues surround many other types of crime, eg rape cases where there are questions not only around consent but about whether the accused knew there wasn't consent. Standing there reciting by rote that "I thought she'd consented" isn't what's required. Not if the evidence clearly points the other way. The difficulties arise when there's at least enough evidence to raise the question.
 
Posted by Mary Marriott (# 16938) on :
 
How I wish all comments here reflected * :

A young life has been taken away.


(while walking up his father's road with sweets.)

* t'is a christian site, right ?
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
So all Christians should think and say exactly the same thing? Has that ever happened? C'mon, even the gospel writers couldn't agree, and the people who compiled the Bible apparently were cool with that, since they included four of them.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mary Marriott:
How I wish all comments here reflected * :

A young life has been taken away.


(while walking up his father's road with sweets.)

* t'is a christian site, right ?

If you read the first page or two of this thread you will see many reflections on the tragedy of a young life lost.

Now the conversation has moved on to other topics, some very important, such as the validity of the "stand your ground laws," racial profiling in general, the dangers of carrying a gun while walking your neighborhood with trouble in mind.

Sadly, young lives are lost through violence every day. Maybe these discussions, going on across the country, will bring about a few changes, or cause people to think twice about a few things, resulting in a future young life being saved. If so then the thread has done more good than nine pages of expressions of sadness over Trayvon's death.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mary Marriott:
* t'is a christian site, right ?

Not specifically, no.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
ITTWACWS? So soon?
 
Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
So where does stalking an unarmed minor and provoking them to respond in fear so you can claim self defense when you shoot them like a complete coward fall?

You don't get to be on the jury, Clint. For one thing, it's hard to tell that a six foot three male, walking in the dark, is a minor.
True, you can't tell, so why pursue him when he's been told not to? Extremely poor judgement in circumstances where almost anyone would take the opposite view and not stalk or engage him.
quote:
I sure wish I could be on the jury. I honestly think I'm confused enough by the whole thing to be unbiased. Please let it be on Court TV.
No similar case should be dismissed by police (when someone is killed or injured) merely on the word of the killer without proper investigation.

I hope the truth is discovered and Zimmerman gets a fair trial.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Affidavit of Probable Cause

Haven't read all of this. So far, all I've learned is a new word: Affiants. Once I stop chuckling at the phrase "Your Affiants," I'll finish reading it.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
Rather amteurish document. Clumsy and poorly punctuated.

And again with the skittles and tea?

Really?

Bring on the trial, for Pete's sake.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
We, the jury, find the defendant not guilty by reason of bad grammar on the part of the prosecution

Really? That's all you've got? Thought you would argue the content, you know, the important part.

[ 13. April 2012, 16:14: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Guilty by reason of your lawyer's bad grammar is one of those little known crimes along with innocent through possession of Skittles. It really is a good thing Trayvon didn't buy black coffee and beef jerky, the murder two rap would have been much harder to get.

Far be from me to question anyone's grammar but I did notice some needlessly inflamatory word choices like saying that Zimmerman "profiled" Martin when all they meant was that he spotted him.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Affidavit of Probable Cause

Haven't read all of this. So far, all I've learned is a new word: Affiants. Once I stop chuckling at the phrase "Your Affiants," I'll finish reading it.

Sounds like something a lackey would call the duke. "Yes, your affiants. Right away, your affiants."
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Far be from me to question anyone's grammar but I did notice some needlessly inflamatory word choices like saying that Zimmerman "profiled" Martin when all they meant was that he spotted him.

No, they meant he profiled him. I suspect that's part of the basis for arguing that the crime was second degree murder rather than manslaughter. Whether it's true or not, I have no idea. But I doubt that it was either casual or inflammatory language -- it is presumably an integral part of what the prosecution will be arguing.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Far be from me to question anyone's grammar but I did notice some needlessly inflamatory word choices like saying that Zimmerman "profiled" Martin when all they meant was that he spotted him.

Not just needlessly inflammatory, but inadmissible in court, I'd think. When testifying as a witness awhile back, I carelessly said "he thought," and the defense attorney snapped an objection the instant the words were out of my mouth. Profiling in this sense is a thought, without enough evidence to substantiate the conclusion.

But I'd rather see an authentic transcription of an everyday witness's words, instead of the alleged gist of it as polished up by someone else with the usual impeccable bureaucratese.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
... And again with the skittles and tea?

Really? ...

IANAL, but one obvious line of defense is that Zimmerman *thought* Martin was armed, because he was holding an object, or because his pockets were bulging, or because the objects he was holding could be used as weapons. OliviaG
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Guilty by reason of your lawyer's bad grammar is one of those little known crimes along with innocent through possession of Skittles. It really is a good thing Trayvon didn't buy black coffee and beef jerky, the murder two rap would have been much harder to get.

Far be from me to question anyone's grammar but I did notice some needlessly inflamatory word choices like saying that Zimmerman "profiled" Martin when all they meant was that he spotted him.

You expect the prosecution to use nice words to describe the actions of a man they want to put in prison for 17 years to life?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Affidavit of Probable Cause

Haven't read all of this. So far, all I've learned is a new word: Affiants. Once I stop chuckling at the phrase "Your Affiants," I'll finish reading it.

Well, that opening drafting is awful, but...

Martin was on the phone to a friend?? Whoa. That I didn't know yet. Fairly important in terms of establishing that Martin was afraid.

[ 14. April 2012, 00:29: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Martin was on the phone to a friend?? Whoa. That I didn't know yet. Fairly important in terms of establishing that Martin was afraid.

The cell phone is key in at least two questions about the conduct of the Sanford police.

1) The Sanford police had Trayvon's cell phone, yet did not use it to identify him, instead classifying him as 'John Doe'. According to news accounts, "Mom" and "Dad" were entries in the phone's address book, yet Trayvon's father Tracy had to call the police before an identification was made.

2) The Sanford police had Trayvon's cell phone, yet did not go through its history of calls to see if he was on the phone with anyone at the time of the shooting. That was done by Trayvon's father, who discovered that Trayvon had indeed been talking to a friend about somebody following him just before he was killed.

It's difficult to determine where these fall on the malicious/incompetent spectrum, but I'm hoping that after some scrutiny is given to Zimmerman, there's enough left over for the Sanford police department.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
We, the jury, find the defendant not guilty by reason of bad grammar on the part of the prosecution

Really? That's all you've got? Thought you would argue the content, you know, the important part.

I wasn't arguing anything about guilt or innocence. I was making an observation about a charging document for a very serious crime.

I would expect a Special Prosecutor appointed by a state Governor to produce something a little more professional than that middle school pile of shite.

Were I Martin's family or George's I would be equally concerned.

Between her performance at the presser and that affidavit my confidence would be shaky at best.

[ 14. April 2012, 23:21: Message edited by: romanlion ]
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Have you ever heard a kid in middle school use the word, Affiants?
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
I stand corrected.

It is a stunnning document.

Fluid and concise.

Flawless, really.

I am sure no more brilliant a legal mind exists outside 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Having worked as a legal secretary for several years, I can tell you it's no worse for punctuation and grammar than hundreds of documents I've seen. I used to correct blatant errors silently, but I was one of the few secretaries I know who did.

It also illustrates nicely what I used to call "error blessed by custom" -- errors that occur so frequently that they come to be regarded as correct.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
... I was making an observation about a charging document for a very serious crime. ...

If this observation is based on your reading of many other similar documents, it should be no trouble to present some examples of good charging documents for comparison. OliviaG
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Lots of people with legal qualifications can't write particularly well. More news at 11.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
When testifying as a witness awhile back, I carelessly said "he thought," and the defense attorney snapped an objection the instant the words were out of my mouth. Profiling in this sense is a thought, without enough evidence to substantiate the conclusion.


I agree that racial profiling on the part of a citizen is a thought, but the verb profile alone merely means to describe -- something he was asked to do by the police. Still, all the angry people from the million hoodies march will probably read "profiled" as racial profiling and say, "There! I knew it!."
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Bumping the thread because I came across this:

quote:
An unidentified entrepreneur admits he is trying to profit off Trayvon Martin's death by selling gun range targets featuring the teen who's death has sparked a nationwide controversy.

Although Martin's face does not appear on the paper targets, they feature a hoodie with crosshairs aimed at the chest. A bag of Skittles is tucked in the pocket and a hand is holding a can resembling iced tea.

Martin purchased both items minutes before he was shot and killed by George Zimmerman in February, according to police.

<snip>

The seller would not disclose how many paper targets had been made, but said in an email, "The response is overwhelming. I sold out in 2 days."

Very classy!
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
My God! Man's inhumanity to man can leave one utterly speechless.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
It seems the depths some folks will sink to in order to make a buck know no bounds.


[Projectile]
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
It seems the depths some folks will sink to in order to make a buck know no bounds.


[Projectile]

Nothing new. Back in the heyday of lynching in Southern and parts of midwestern US, when these events were big entertainment events for many European-Americans, souvenir photos used to be sold. ETA in the 1920ssometimes the eents were announced in advance on local radio stations.

[ 14. May 2012, 21:14: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. OliviaG
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
I hate to say I told you so...OliviaG

Do you really? [Biased]

[ 15. May 2012, 13:19: Message edited by: jbohn ]
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
FWIW, Zimmerman was injured in the altercation, according to ABC News:

quote:
A medical report compiled by the family physician of Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman and obtained exclusively by ABC News found that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a "closed fracture" of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury the day after he fatally shot Martin during an alleged altercation.
Based on this, his claim of self-defense seems more reasonable.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Nothing so far negates if he had not followed, nothing would have happened.
 
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :
 
But did he follow?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
But did he follow?

He either followed or lied to the 911 operator when she asked him "Are you following him?"
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
Story goes that he lost him and returned to his vehicle, at which point the "pursuit" was over.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Nothing so far negates if he had not followed, nothing would have happened.

Legally speaking- this is a red herring. Following someone and/or asking what they're doing is not illegal. Assaulting someone who asks what you are doing is.

Morally- that's quite possibly a different matter. Practically? Stupid move to make any attempt to confront.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Nothing so far negates if he had not followed, nothing would have happened.

Legally speaking- this is a red herring. Following someone and/or asking what they're doing is not illegal. Assaulting someone who asks what you are doing is.
Not necessarily in Florida. At least as written the "Stand Your Ground" law doesn't have a Whites Only clause. A teenager on foot being stalked by an unknown adult after dark has a pretty good argument for self-defense under its standards.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Nothing so far negates if he had not followed, nothing would have happened.

Legally speaking- this is a red herring. Following someone and/or asking what they're doing is not illegal. Assaulting someone who asks what you are doing is.
Not necessarily in Florida. At least as written the "Stand Your Ground" law doesn't have a Whites Only clause. A teenager on foot being stalked by an unknown adult after dark has a pretty good argument for self-defense under its standards.
It's possible, I suppose- although without knowing exactly what happened, it's hard to say. If the guy simply asks "What are you doing here?", convincing a jury one feared for one's life is not terribly likely. If he did it with a weapon in hand, or was physically attacking, that would be considerably easier, I would think.

Of course, we don't know, and likely never will. But I've got a feeling Mr. Zimmerman has a much better chance of walking free, what with the injury report.
 
Posted by Jonathan Strange (# 11001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Story goes that he lost him and returned to his vehicle, at which point the "pursuit" was over.

And they all lived happily ever after.

Which universe do you live in?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Lots of people with legal qualifications can't write particularly well. More news at 11.

Oi! I resemble that remark. Anyway, theirs a hole wurld of diffrunce beetwen bad handriting and bad speling
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Story goes that he lost him and returned to his vehicle, at which point the "pursuit" was over.

And they all lived happily ever after.

Which universe do you live in?

That's a sad thing now, isn't it? No matter the outcome, there'll be no happy ending to this story.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Story goes that he lost him and returned to his vehicle, at which point the "pursuit" was over.

And they all lived happily ever after.

Which universe do you live in?

If Z gave up (for whatever reason -- lost M, or decided he really should just wait for the cops, or any other reason) and headed back to his vehicle, and then was attacked by M, isn't that a different "universe" than if Z pursued and attacked M?
 
Posted by Jonathan Strange (# 11001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Story goes that he lost him and returned to his vehicle, at which point the "pursuit" was over.

And they all lived happily ever after.

Which universe do you live in?

If Z gave up (for whatever reason -- lost M, or decided he really should just wait for the cops, or any other reason) and headed back to his vehicle, and then was attacked by M, isn't tht a different "universe" than if Z pursued and attacked M?
Yes, it would be an imaginary and fact-free unreality where racist invent lies to reinforce their prejudice & hate.

Where did you hear that story, romanlion. As thy say on Wikipedia, citation needed
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Story goes that he lost him and returned to his vehicle, at which point the "pursuit" was over.

And they all lived happily ever after.

Which universe do you live in?

If Z gave up (for whatever reason -- lost M, or decided he really should just wait for the cops, or any other reason) and headed back to his vehicle, and then was attacked by M, isn't tht a different "universe" than if Z pursued and attacked M?
Yes, it would be an imaginary and fact-free unreality where racist invent lies to reinforce their prejudice & hate.

Where did you hear that story, romanlion. As thy say on Wikipedia, citation needed

No, a jury is needed to sift through the facts and assertions in this case and then render a verdict to the best of their ability. It is far from clear that romanlion's prejudices are any less fact-based than are your own on this. Why not just let the system run its course?

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Jonathan Strange (# 11001) on :
 
Actually my prejudice in this case is that a dead victim of a shooting should have the same presumption of innocence as the shooter. Bring on the trial.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
But really, even though he was advised against following, and it's certainly true that if he hadn't followed Trayvon, no one would have been hurt -- I don't see how any of that is going to matter much in the trial.

If I went out after the police had advised everyone to stay inside and someone beat me up, it would be true that if I had stayed home nothing would have happened, but that doesn't excuse the person who assaulted me.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Story goes that he lost him and returned to his vehicle, at which point the "pursuit" was over.

Which universe do you live in?
If Z gave up (for whatever reason -- lost M, or decided he really should just wait for the cops, or any other reason) and headed back to his vehicle, and then was attacked by M, isn't tht a different "universe" than if Z pursued and attacked M?
Yes, it would be an imaginary and fact-free unreality where racist invent lies to reinforce their prejudice & hate.
The point is, we don't know all the facts. First some were insisting Z had no injuries, now they are reporting Z suffered a broken nose black eyes & lacerations on the back of his head; first they were saying M was clean living now they say he had marijuana in his bloodstream; conflicting eyewitness reports are COMMON even if everyone is the same race; today I read that the recording of someone screaming for help was - in M's father's opinion, not M, but that M's father has since changed his mind.

The official "facts" keep changing.

We are getting incomplete facts, and obviously sometimes inaccurate "facts" since details keep changing, like initially the pics of M suggesting the dead man was a half-grown child!

No matter what happened between the two men, we sure don't know if there was racial bias one or the other direction. Just because one person is black, one non-black, and something negative happens between them, is racial bias automatically involved? Can't be two human beings have a run-in for reasons that have little or nothing to do with race?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
No matter what happened between the two men, we sure don't know if there was racial bias one or the other direction. Just because one person is black, one non-black, and something negative happens between them, is racial bias automatically involved? Can't be two human beings have a run-in for reasons that have little or nothing to do with race?

Sadly, even that question depends on disputed facts about what was said on the 911 call. Was a racial remark used or not.
 
Posted by Jonathan Strange (# 11001) on :
 
My reference to racism was not about Z or M but about commentators of romanlion's ilk who chuck out little insinuations with no basis in fact... Why? To take the focus off the two indisputable facts: the police told Z not to follow and soon afterwards Z shot M.
 
Posted by Jonathan Strange (# 11001) on :
 
If romanlion would cite the source for the story he heard, I'd be very interested. If he can't, he'll earn himself a hell call.
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
No matter what happened between the two men, we sure don't know if there was racial bias one or the other direction. Just because one person is black, one non-black, and something negative happens between them, is racial bias automatically involved? Can't be two human beings have a run-in for reasons that have little or nothing to do with race?

Sadly, even that question depends on disputed facts about what was said on the 911 call. Was a racial remark used or not.
The FBI doesn't believe there was one used.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
If romanlion would cite the source for the story he heard, I'd be very interested. If he can't, he'll earn himself a hell call.

Zimmerman's statement to police was that he had lost Martin and was returning to his vehicle.

It is now clear that Zimmerman had the crap beaten out of him, photos and all.

It is also clear that Martin damaged his knuckles on Zimmerman's head, and was shot at close range.

Bring on the trial is right.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
To take the focus off the two indisputable facts: the police told Z not to follow and soon afterwards Z shot M.

Which are all well and good, but have squat-all-nothing to do with whether Mr. Zimmerman is guilty of murder or simply defended himself against someone who attacked him in a place he had a legal right to be- what matters is what happened between those two points.

Upon further thought, I wonder if part of the issue here isn't a pond difference- would a person in the UK be legally bound to follow a dispatcher's instruction to not follow someone? In the U.S., no such obligation exists.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I think it depends on the context.

"I'd advise you to stay indoors" as a 3rd party to a disturbance outside is one thing, "I'd advise you to leave x alone" when one is a potential protagonist in a disturbance of the peace is another.

It's clearly not illegal in itself, but I think it makes you more vulnerable to blame if an altercation results.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
My reference to racism was not about Z or M but about commentators of romanlion's ilk who chuck out little insinuations with no basis in fact... Why? To take the focus off the two indisputable facts: the police told Z not to follow and soon afterwards Z shot M.

Most recent article I read said Z called 911, was told "we don't need you to follow him," within seconds Z followed instructions and turned and headed back towards his vehicle, and then was attacked by M.

I have no idea what series of events happened in which order but your two facts may be far from the only relevant facts.

As to race based reporting, yes there's been a lot of that, starting within using the several years outdated photo of a half grown M instead of the easily available current picture. Initial claims Z wasn't arrested, then video of him being brought into the station in handcuffs. Initial claims Z had no injuries, then photos of head injuries.

Yes there's been biased reporting -- what now looks like effort by some to make whatever happened look falsely as if Z did an unprovoked assault on a mere child. From the initial reports I was sure Z was a monster, who would shoot a half-grown child? Now with so many of the initial "facts" contradicted by photographic proofs, I'm thinking the press has, by accident or design or by being manipulated, created a racial mess where there wasn't one; and whether guilty or innocent of any malice towards anyone, Z will not live long.

[ 21. May 2012, 16:43: Message edited by: Belle Ringer ]
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Now with so many of the initial "facts" contradicted by photographic proofs, I'm thinking the press has, by accident or design or by being manipulated, created a racial mess where there wasn't one...

Well, that would be nice to think, but it strikes me as revisionist in the extreme. The plain fact is that the shooting received only the most cursory of investigations at the time. The hue and cry that followed -- weeks later -- was because there was no willingness to investigate the shooting of the young man. It strains my credulity to believe that any of that would have been true had the youth been a middle-class white boy.

I think that the incident is being handled with due diligence now, but to suggest that the demand for an investigation was the thing that was race-baiting is just bizarre. Or so ISTM.

--Tom Clune

[ 21. May 2012, 17:28: Message edited by: tclune ]
 
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:

Upon further thought, I wonder if part of the issue here isn't a pond difference- would a person in the UK be legally bound to follow a dispatcher's instruction to not follow someone? In the U.S., no such obligation exists.

No, but we have a reasonable force definition - shooting someone would not be considered a reasonable use of force in response to being punched. (Anyway, carrying *anything* with the intention of using it as a weapon is illegal in a public space.)

Famously, a Norfolk farmer who shot a teenage burglar with a shotgun - who was in his house in the process of a burglary - was convicted of murder. Received a mandatory life sentence with a low tariff - think he served 4 years.

Zimmerman would have been arrested and remanded immediately in the UK - probably by an armed response team.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

I think that the incident is being handled with due diligence now, but to suggest that the demand for an investigation was the thing that was race-baiting is just bizarre. Or so ISTM.

--Tom Clune

I'm not sure if Belle Ringer is saying that the demand for an investigation was simply race-baiting, or that the media coverage has been.

From my perspective, there's been quite a bit of race-baiting in the media coverage, such as: referring to Mr. Zimmeman as "white" (in order to paint him as some sort of Southern racist- never mind that he's Hispanic); showing only pictures of Mr. Martin as a boy of 11 or 12, not the considerably larger (and meaner-looking) photos of him as a teenager that were readily available; failure to report (until much later) on Mr. Martin's history of drug use, etc.

Whether or not that carries over to the calls for an investigation is something else entirely. I'll admit to some bias here- any time I see Al Sharpton involved in a situation like this, I tend to assume he's there to play the race card, whether it's useful or not. Call it past actions tending to predict future ones, if you like. I'm not sure if the initial calls for investigation were tinged by race-baiting, but I'm convinced that became a feature relatively early on- pretty much as soon as the media began to run with the story.

[ 21. May 2012, 18:10: Message edited by: jbohn ]
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
No, but we have a reasonable force definition - shooting someone would not be considered a reasonable use of force in response to being punched.

We do as well; whether or not shooting would be considered a reasonable use of force would depend on the totality of the circumstances- size/age difference between people, medical condition of the person being attacked (for some folks, a punch can be fatal), etc.

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Zimmerman would have been arrested and remanded immediately in the UK - probably by an armed response team.

Another pond difference- in the U.S., we call those "cops". [Biased]
 
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
I don't really see how Martin using hash helps Zimmermans case, people who are stoned are generally less aggressive - its alcohol that tends to get people fighting mad.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
I don't really see how Martin using hash helps Zimmermans case, people who are stoned are generally less aggressive - its alcohol that tends to get people fighting mad.

I'm not sure it "helps Zimmerman's case"; however, the failure to mention it, combined with the pictures used, etc., tends to look as if the media are purposefully painting a picture of "this evil racist shot an innocent CHILD!!1!!"

Unfortunately a lot of people (including some of our esteemed Shipmates) have bought into this (obviously biased and flawed) narrative.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
the failure to mention it

What failure to mention it? I knew about it from my cursory reading of the press coverage.
 
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
No, but we have a reasonable force definition - shooting someone would not be considered a reasonable use of force in response to being punched.

We do as well; whether or not shooting would be considered a reasonable use of force would depend on the totality of the circumstances- size/age difference between people, medical condition of the person being attacked (for some folks, a punch can be fatal), etc.

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Zimmerman would have been arrested and remanded immediately in the UK - probably by an armed response team.

Another pond difference- in the U.S., we call those "cops". [Biased]

There'd still be no chance, I think, of arguing pistol against an unarmed man in the UK- unless the assailant turned out to be ex-SAS.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
the failure to mention it

What failure to mention it? I knew about it from my cursory reading of the press coverage.
In current coverage, yes. At first (or even considerably later), nothing of the sort.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:


From my perspective, there's been quite a bit of race-baiting in the media coverage, such as: referring to Mr. Zimmeman as "white" (in order to paint him as some sort of Southern racist- never mind that he's Hispanic)

Some notes: Hispanics can be anything from pale, blonde and blue-eyed to nearly unmixed African ancestory. This is true in Peru.

Racism is not the exclusive purview of white people. Many Latin cultures have a heritage of racism, especially towards black people.

Racism is not necessarily an either/or proposition. In other words, it is a sliding scale between total racism and complete lack, not an a/b switch.

Whether Mr. Zimmerman profiled Mr. Martin may never be clear. That race played a part in how the initial investigation preceded, I have little doubt.
 
Posted by Jonathan Strange (# 11001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
To take the focus off the two indisputable facts: the police told Z not to follow and soon afterwards Z shot M.

Which are all well and good, but have squat-all-nothing to do with whether Mr. Zimmerman is guilty of murder
I'm actually more interested in defending Martin's presumption of innocence. I don't see it in the posting here.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jbohn:No, but we have a reasonable force definition - shooting someone would not be considered a reasonable use of force in response to being punched.

One eyewitness reported that Trayvon was sitting on top of Zimmerman and repeatedly banging his head against the pavement.

One detail that supports this story is that Trayvon was shot at such close range that there were powder burns on him.

Moo
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
To take the focus off the two indisputable facts: the police told Z not to follow and soon afterwards Z shot M.

Which are all well and good, but have squat-all-nothing to do with whether Mr. Zimmerman is guilty of murder
I'm actually more interested in defending Martin's presumption of innocence. I don't see it in the posting here.
Martin isn't being charged with a crime and he's not on trial. Zimmerman is being charged with a crime. He's considered innocent until proven guilty. Zimmerman's story justifies his use of deadly force in self defense and is not contradicted by the facts as we know them. The prosecution has to be prove beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman committed a crime.

Following Martin wasn't a crime. Think about how hard it would be to make following somebody illegal. Disregarding the rather vague instructions of the 911 dispatcher wasn't a crime. Disobeying a 911 dispatcher isn't a crime for a number of reason not the least of which is to protect city and state governments from lawsuits. Asking Martin a question wasn't a crime. Carrying a gun wasn't a crime because Zimmerman had a permit.

Shooting Martin would be a crime unless it was justified. Zimmerman's injuries support his claim to be acting in self defense. Was Martin acting in self defense? Maybe. However, I haven't read anything suggesting the prosecution can prove Zimmerman attacked Martin. Best the prosecution has is the testimony of the girlfriend who wasn't there. Her testimony might not even be admitted into evidence. Could Zimmerman have shot Martin after Martin stopped beating him? Possibly. Prosecution has a better chance of proving that. However, the prosecution expert witnesses will have to testify Zimmerman's gun wasn't fired at close range and it was Martin's voice calling for help.

Had Martin attacked Zimmerman and survived, Martin would be on trial. His lawyer could then argue that he acted in self-defense. The court would presume him to be innocent until the prosecution proved him to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jbohn:No, but we have a reasonable force definition - shooting someone would not be considered a reasonable use of force in response to being punched.

One eyewitness reported that Trayvon was sitting on top of Zimmerman and repeatedly banging his head against the pavement.

One detail that supports this story is that Trayvon was shot at such close range that there were powder burns on him.

Moo

He was sitting on top of him, but he couldn't shoot at point blank range anywhere other than his chest, like say his leg, arm, shoulder? Really?
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
Here is a report on the evidence.

Moo
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
He was sitting on top of him, but he couldn't shoot at point blank range anywhere other than his chest, like say his leg, arm, shoulder? Really?

My gun safety instructor friends (I live in Texas, most of my friends own a gun and are surprised I don't, all have taken safety training) say only in movies and in fancy entertainment stage shows does anyone claim it's possible to aim at a narrow fast-moving part like an arm or leg and expect to hit it.

At close range against someone big and strong they say you get one chance and it had better count or he's got your gun and you are dead.


Yes the press (or whoever was feeding info to the press) are the ones who seem to me to have intentionally mislead people about what went on, especially using a photo of a child to depict the dead full grown male. At this point we'll never really know who did what why. One man dead, another in hiding, two families disrupted, and millions of people who think they "know" what happened between the two men based on incomplete and apparently distorted (since they disagree with each other) press reports. Tragic all around.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Think²:
He was sitting on top of him, but he couldn't shoot at point blank range anywhere other than his chest, like say his leg, arm, shoulder? Really?

Assuming Martin was sitting on top of Zimmerman and either punching him or banging his head against the ground, Zimmerman couldn't have done much aiming. Zimmerman's defense hinges on the claim he killed Martin because he believed his life was in danger. Even if Zimmerman could have aimed, why take the risk that he would miss if he believed Martin was trying to kill him?
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
A couple of things to point out: Florida has a "Stand your ground" law. A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first. In some cases, a person may use deadly force in public areas without a duty to retreat. Under these legal concepts, a person is justified in using deadly force in certain situations and the "stand your ground" law would be a defense or immunity to criminal charges and civil suit. The difference between immunity and a defense is that an immunity bars suit, charges, detention and arrest. A defense, such as an affirmative defense, permits a plaintiff or the state to seek civil damages or a criminal conviction but may offer mitigating circumstances that justifies the accused's conduct.

Zimmerman's lawyers will have a hearing as to whether he can claim immunity. If this is not granted, it still can be used as a defense in follow on trial.

On the other hand, there is a question of who was threatening whom at first. I think Martin's girl friend's account indicates he felt threatened by Zimmerman. Martin told his girl friend that he was being followed by a crazy and creepy man. The girl friend said she could tell he was scared.

Could it be that Martin's actions were in line with the stand your ground statute? He felt threatened. He tried to evade. Zimmerman lost him, but then started following him again. Apparently Martin and Zimmerman had some words. The girl friend reports that Martin demanded to know why Zimmerman was following him. Zimmerman demanded to know what Martin was doing there. Martin then tells Zimmerman to stay away from him.

I am thinking the prosecution is looking at the incident from this perspective--It was Zimmerman's actions that were threatening Martin. Martin was acting in self defense, and ended up getting killed for it.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I haven't this through fully, but my instinct is that it may well be possible for BOTH parties in an altercation to be able to invoke self-defence or this 'stand your ground' rule.

I'm certainly aware from cases closer to home that it's a fallacy to think that someone or other MUST have committed a crime.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Let's assume that by looking at and following Trayvon Martin that George Zimmerman provoked Martin into using force (and I don't think that's a given). If Zimmerman believed his life was in danger, he was justified in using deadly force even if he originally was the aggressor and provoked Martin.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Let's assume that by looking at and following Trayvon Martin that George Zimmerman provoked Martin into using force (and I don't think that's a given). If Zimmerman believed his life was in danger, he was justified in using deadly force even if he originally was the aggressor and provoked Martin.

It is therefore legal to kill anyone you want, as long as you can provoke them into using force against you.

THAT.

IS.

FUCKED.

UP.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
^ Will have to go look at the Florida law again actually, because in the back of my mind I thought it had something to avoid it being used if you were the person who started things. But it's been too long since I sat down and read it.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If Zimmerman believed his life was in danger, he was justified in using deadly force even if he originally was the aggressor and provoked Martin.

I think one would have to probe how reasonable the belief that his life was in danger was, and also the nature of the provocation. Provocation can be anything from accidental and unfortunate to malicious and planned. And anything in between.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Assuming that George Zimmerman was the aggressor and provoked Trayvon Martin into using force, Zimmerman still had a right to defend himself if he reasonably believed his life was in danger. Martin didn't just knock Zimmerman down. He got on top of him, punched him, and banged his head against the ground. Killing a person with your bare hands isn't all that hard. Even in Mixed Martial Arts, the referee stops the fight when a fighter gets their opponent in the same position Martin had Zimmerman.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Killing a person with your bare hands isn't all that hard.

I remember a story of two schoolboys in New Hampshire having a fistfight which resulted in the death of one. One of the combatants had turned his head very far to the left; when he was punched behind the right ear, an artery ruptured. If his head hadn't been so sharply turned, the artery would have been more flexible.

Moo
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Martin didn't just knock Zimmerman down. He got on top of him, punched him, and banged his head against the ground.

Conjecture at the moment, but plausible. I've never been around guns much but it seems to me that pulling one out and shouting "back off or I'll shoot" would be effective.

But anyway I can see that there are some scenarios where one could see the use of deadly force being more justified than others.

The level of threat, as we are discussing, is one parameter to consider, the nature of the provocation that started it off is another. Deliberately goading and gratuitously following someone looking scared would be one thing, asking a simple question and getting a physically threatening response would be another.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
]Some notes: Hispanics can be anything from pale, blonde and blue-eyed to nearly unmixed African ancestory. This is true in Peru.

Racism is not the exclusive purview of white people. Many Latin cultures have a heritage of racism, especially towards black people.

Racism is not necessarily an either/or proposition. In other words, it is a sliding scale between total racism and complete lack, not an a/b switch.

Well, yeah- all of these are rather obvious- Hispanics in the U.S. run the gamut in terms of physical description, as well. The point is that Mr. Zimmerman's ethnicity was a well-known fact which the media chose to ignore, as it wouldn't play into the "this pistol-packin' southern redneck shot that poor black kid" narrative.

They also ignored his other actions in the community, such as:

quote:
According to his family, some of Zimmerman's relatives are black.[5] Zimmerman's former lawyer Craig Sonner stated that Zimmerman is not a racist, and that he had mentored black youths in the past.[217] Joe Oliver, a former television news reporter who is acquainted with Zimmerman,[218] noted "I'm a black male and all that I know is that George has never given me any reason whatsoever to believe he has anything against people of color."[219]
An anonymous letter to the NAACP, signed "A Concerned Zimmerman Family Member", said that Zimmerman was one of the few that stepped up to take any action to protest the 2010 beating of a black homeless man by the son of a Sanford police officer. Zimmerman reportedly distributed flyers in the black community trying to get others to step up too, and helped organize a city hall meeting to protest the incident.[220] Zimmerman's reported efforts on behalf of the black homeless man were confirmed by Zimmerman's father.[221]

Wikipedia link
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
Possible that M saw Z reach into his pocket and pull something out, thought it was a gun (but it was a cell phone -- the police make that mistake sometimes, think their life is in danger because "he's got a gun in his hand" when he had only a cell phone) -- M feels in danger for his life due to what looks to him like an unprovoked deadly attack and defends self by attacking in response -- Z wasn't threatening M's life but now Z is in fear for his life due to the defensive deadly attack and defends self by shooting.

Sure one can argue Z following M, or asking him a question, or even being in the same part of the grounds, was "provocation" but not the kind that justifies deadly attack in defense. It's a quite stretch to claim asking someone "what are you doing here" is a life-theatening provocation, I've been asked that on occasion and never felt threatened. I respond "I live (or am visiting) around the corner." They say "Oh" and either go away or watch me a bit from a distance. No conflict, just alert neighbors, the kind you want, people who notice something different, notice a stranger, let the stranger know he's been noticed and if his game is breakins he's likely to leave, go find a different neighborhood to prowl.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Sure one can argue Z following M, or asking him a question, or even being in the same part of the grounds, was "provocation" but not the kind that justifies deadly attack in defense.

The deadly attack was the other way round.

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
It's a quite stretch to claim asking someone "what are you doing here" is a life-theatening provocation

Whatever the provocation was (we don't know what exactly it was), and if Martin considered it to be life-threatening (we don't know what he thought), then in retrospect it appears he was right.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Sure one can argue Z following M, or asking him a question, or even being in the same part of the grounds, was "provocation" but not the kind that justifies deadly attack in defense.

The deadly attack was the other way round.
Or there were two deadly attacks, one resulting in injury the other in death.
 
Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :
 
quote:
Or there were two deadly attacks, one resulting in injury the other in death.
To my mind that is a rather curious use of the word "deadly".
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Martin's attack on Zimmerman could have been deadly had Zimmerman not shot him.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
quote:
Or there were two deadly attacks, one resulting in injury the other in death.
To my mind that is a rather curious use of the word "deadly".
Not really- the concept of "deadly force" is pretty simple. From local (to me) legalese:

quote:
Subdivision 1.Deadly force defined. For the purposes of this section, "deadly force" means force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing, or which the actor should reasonably know creates a substantial risk of causing, death or great bodily harm.
link

If we take Mr. Zimmerman's injuries (the ones to the back of his head) as given, it would seem that banging someone's head upon the ground would certainly count as using "deadly force". Mr. Zimmerman is then well within his rights to respond to deadly force with deadly force. For the purposes of defining both the attack and response as uses of "deadly force", it matters not that Mr. Zimmerman had a more effective delivery mechanism at hand.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Please. There would be considerably more dead people outside of pubs if it were that easy to kill people by knocking their heads against pavement.
Scalp wounds can bleed considerably. That nothing in the reports mentions copious amounts of blood, points to a very superficial wound.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
I posted a link above about how relatively easy it is to kill somebody with just your hands and feet. Martin had already broken Zimmerman's nose and caused wounds to his head. Zimmerman shot Martin before he was able to inflict more harm. Martin could have killed Zimmerman had he continued to punch him and bang his head against the pavement. Again, if Martin was in the process of walking away when Zimmerman shot him, unlikely given the distance from which the gun was fired, then Zimmerman was not justified in shooting Martin.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Or, Martin invoked "stand your ground" first with the only means he had.
Another reason stand your ground is stupid.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
As it happens I had an uncle die just weeks ago.

He slipped on the stairs in his home and hit the back of his head.

The next day he dropped dead. 56 years old.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Or, Martin invoked "stand your ground" first with the only means he had.

Which is one of the more ridiculous things I've read in a while- if Mr. Martin decided to "stand his ground", using only his bare hands, against the deadly threat of a drawn gun, he's an idiot. And I doubt he was *that* stupid. So, it seems a whole lot more logical, given the evidence we have (which, of course, isn't all of it), to assume Mr. Martin was shot whilst attacking Mr. Zimmerman, not while "standing his ground" and defending himself against a deadly threat.

[eta: spelling, etc.]

[ 22. May 2012, 18:58: Message edited by: jbohn ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
There is no need for Mr. Martin to have known Mr. Zimmerman had a weapon. Only that a large, aggressive man was following him and to feel threatened by this.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Well maybe the gun wasn't drawn yet.

Nevertheless, Martin may have believed himself to be under substantial threat due to Zimmerman's aggressive conduct, so responded with force.

We can construct any number of scenarios, and I don't see much grounds for assumption.

Questioning in court may be revealing, or it might not.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There is no need for Mr. Martin to have known Mr. Zimmerman had a weapon. Only that a large, aggressive man was following him and to feel threatened by this.

Well, no. In order to invoke "stand your ground" and employ "deadly force", he needs a little more than this- he needs a reasonable fear that his life is in danger. Not quite the same thing, is it.

As far as size goes, it's an interesting point- Mr. Martin was apparently several inches taller than Mr. Zimmerman, though not as heavy:

quote:
How do Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman compare in terms of body size?
There is some inconsistency in reports of Martin and Zimmerman's height and weight. In the original police report, Martin is described as being 6' tall and weighing 160 pounds. But his family told CBS News that he was 6' 2" and between 140-150 pounds. Zimmerman is described in the police report as standing 5' 9" tall, with no weight listed. In a 2005 police report, Zimmerman's ex-fiance describes him as 5' 7" and according to the Miami Herald he weighs about 200 pounds.

CBS News link

Basically, no one knows for sure what happened that night. It's pretty obvious that folks with all sorts of agendas have been working overtime to spin the story since then- so far, the "racist killer" narrative has been getting the most play, but that seems to be changing of late.
 
Posted by Jonathan Strange (# 11001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
And I doubt he was *that* stupid.

How stupid was he then?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Well, no. In order to invoke "stand your ground" and employ "deadly force", he needs a little more than this- he needs a reasonable fear that his life is in danger. Not quite the same thing, is it.

It seems asymmetrical that if a stranger follows you in the street at night, behaves aggressively that's no reasonable justification for physical force (and bear in mind we don't know who threw the first punch), but on the other hand if someone physically attacks you then you are justified in shooting them.

I have to say I'd prefer neither. I'd prefer a law which said you can't escalate the level of physical violence in an altercation without being potentially culpable - whether that is a hands-and-fists escalation or adding a weapon.

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Basically, no one knows for sure what happened that night. It's pretty obvious that folks with all sorts of agendas have been working overtime to spin the story since then- so far, the "racist killer" narrative has been getting the most play, but that seems to be changing of late.

Agreed. Although considering the apparent unwillingness to investigate the incident by the police for some time, in which race seems very likely to have been a part, it is easy to see how the racist killer narrative took off. Had there been a timely investigation and a transparent decision on trial taken at an early stage this wouldn't have kicked off in the way it has.

[ 22. May 2012, 21:11: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Well, no. In order to invoke "stand your ground" and employ "deadly force", he needs a little more than this- he needs a reasonable fear that his life is in danger. Not quite the same thing, is it.

Given that Florida's particular iteration of Stand Your Ground has been ruled to cover chasing someone down and killing them, I'd say it could reasonably be expected to also cover being stalked by a creepy older man following you in his car.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Garcia chased Roteta down because Roteta stole his property. Garcia stabbed Roteta because Roteta assaulted him with the bag of stolen property. Aside from the stand your ground connection, the two cases aren't remotely similar.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
So basically any racist piece of white shit can troll around looking for a black teenager to kill. They get out of the car and take a swing at the teenager. The teenager fights back, and the racist wankstain pulls a gun and plugs the nigger.

And none of you conservatives have any problem with that? You're all defending it like it is the way the world should be.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
God forbid your opinion be clouded by something as trivial as the facts.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Which facts would those be?
 
Posted by Jonathan Strange (# 11001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Which facts would those be?

The ones the Right makes up - at the moment we all agree that 'no one knows what really happened' but everyone also knows the 'fact' that Martin was an aggressive druggie bent on violence who beat the defenceless Zimmerman nearly to death.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I'm not sure that there's an obvious set of facts that come into it when you're talking hypothetically. Unless Beeswax misread MT as caricaturing this specific incident.
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Lost somewhere in the fog of deliberate misinterpretation is the fact that Z was clearly told NOT to do anything more once he had informed the police. He did not have to follow the black man at anything but a reasonable distance. He did NOT have to interact with the "suspicious" black man. He did NOT have to carruy a gun, whatever the worshippers at the throne of the bullet say.

A kid buying Skitles and pop did not show any tenedency to violence or larceny.

But the kid is dead, and the worshippers of gunnery are desperately trying to make it the kid's fault that he was stalked and attacked.

There is nothing in Z's account that explains why he put himself into a position caused him to "have to" draw his gun.

Legally there may be a point ot some of this argument, but morally Z is entirely in the wrong, whatever the gun-worshippers say.

But, then, I'm onlY an outside observer. What does that have to do with moral standards, when "happiness is a warm gun"?
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Which facts would those be?

The ones the Right makes up - at the moment we all agree that 'no one knows what really happened' but everyone also knows the 'fact' that Martin was an aggressive druggie bent on violence who beat the defenceless Zimmerman nearly to death.
Oh this is rich

How many times on this thread have you called things lies and inaccurate that turned out to be true?
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I'm not sure that there's an obvious set of facts that come into it when you're talking hypothetically. Unless Beeswax misread MT as caricaturing this specific incident.

I didn't misread mousethief at all.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
In which case it seems a reasonable challenge to;

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Let's assume that by looking at and following Trayvon Martin that George Zimmerman provoked Martin into using force (and I don't think that's a given). If Zimmerman believed his life was in danger, he was justified in using deadly force even if he originally was the aggressor and provoked Martin.

I could imagine a response that went along the lines of distinguishing different types of provocation as contributory vs non-contributory (i.e. that looking at someone isn't contributory provocation and therefore leaves you able to justify using deadly force to defend yourself, but on the other hand initiating the physical conflict or deliberate baiting means that you are culpable for a murder charge if the baited party responds physically and you then shoot them).

But I'd call those arguments rather than "facts".
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So basically any racist piece of white shit can troll around looking for a black teenager to kill. They get out of the car and take a swing at the teenager. The teenager fights back, and the racist wankstain pulls a gun and plugs the nigger.

And none of you conservatives have any problem with that? You're all defending it like it is the way the world should be.

What does being liberal or conservative have to do with this?

I consider myself a liberal but I didn't know that that meant, in any white vs black crime, I had to judge in favor of the black person.

Hopefully the evidence will determine who threw the first punch and how violent the fight became. Only then will the jury be able to decide whether or not Zimmerman was truly in fear for his life.

You seem to think that all good liberals should send Zimmerman to prison for carrying a gun, for approaching an African American and for being white. These thiings are not crimes.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Is there any evidence that Zimmerman "deliberately" baited Martin? I don't see it. Zimmerman followed Martin. It isn't even clear that Zimmerman was actively following Martin when the confrontation took place. Martin would have been perfectly within his rights to do any number of things. Ignore George Zimmerman and keep walking home. Call the police. Go to a neighbor's house for safety. Turn around and try to have a rational conversation with the guy. He didn't do any of that. Nor did he act in fear of his life. He apparently acted like a hotheaded teenage boy.

George Zimmerman is a busybody with too much time on his hands. He was overzealous in observing Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman should have minded his own business and let the police do the investigating. Is there any evidence he was a racist driving around looking for a black kid to kill? No. Was there evidence he was a racist driving around looking for a black kid to kill when we were relying on NBC's doctored version of the 911 tapes? Not really

Either Zimmerman or Martin could have prevented the confrontation and subsequent death of Trayvon Martin. Neither of them did. The fact Zimmerman made some choices that everybody wishes he didn't make does not mean Zimmerman is guilty of a crime. And, no, the fact Martin is dead doesn't necessarily mean Zimmerman is guilty of a crime. If Zimmerman is convicted of a crime, and he may, then so be it. He has no one to blame but himself for getting into that situation.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Nor did he act in fear of his life. He apparently acted like a hotheaded teenage boy.

That was the only bit of your post I specifically disagreed with - in the sense that we can't possibly know either of those things to be true.

The rest of your post I generally disagreed with, in that MT was discussing a hypothetical consequence of;

quote:
Let's assume that by looking at and following Trayvon Martin that George Zimmerman provoked Martin into using force (and I don't think that's a given). If Zimmerman believed his life was in danger, he was justified in using deadly force even if he originally was the aggressor and provoked Martin.
In other words, because you haven't qualified what it means to provoke, applying that quote to the situation mousethief describes with the baiting racist leads to an unjust outcome.

I don't think MT is saying that the hypothetical situation he describes is what happened between Zimmerman and Martin, just that it appears that what you said above needs qualification.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
You seem to think that all good liberals should send Zimmerman to prison for carrying a gun, for approaching an African American and for being white. These thiings are not crimes.

Exactly. As a liberal myself, I couldn't have said it any better.

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

George Zimmerman is a busybody with too much time on his hands. He was overzealous in observing Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman should have minded his own business and let the police do the investigating. Is there any evidence he was a racist driving around looking for a black kid to kill? No. Was there evidence he was a racist driving around looking for a black kid to kill when we were relying on NBC's doctored version of the 911 tapes? Not really

Either Zimmerman or Martin could have prevented the confrontation and subsequent death of Trayvon Martin. Neither of them did. The fact Zimmerman made some choices that everybody wishes he didn't make does not mean Zimmerman is guilty of a crime. And, no, the fact Martin is dead doesn't necessarily mean Zimmerman is guilty of a crime. If Zimmerman is convicted of a crime, and he may, then so be it. He has no one to blame but himself for getting into that situation.

Pretty much sums it all up. There's plenty of mistakes made and blame to go around for both participants.

Of course, if folks are of the "guns bad! racist killer! OMG!" mindset, none of this is convincing. In that case, Mr. Zimmerman should be locked up, because we need to *do something*.... [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
How many nightmare scenarios would we have if following somebody was seen as provoking the use of deadly force? I can think of a few more plausible ones than mosethiefs. Say following somebody is provocation that can justify a violent response and I can imagine even more nightmare scenarios.

As to obeying 911 operators, local governments don't want the responsibility of callers being required by law to obey the 911 operators. The lawsuits and bad press would never stop. What if Florida law mandated that those calling 911 obey the 911 operators? A George Zimmerman type person sees a suspicious person and calls 911. 911 says not to follow the suspicious person. The caller does anyway and prevents the abduction of a child. Would the police arrest both people? Let's say a caller gets killed while following the direction of the 911 operator. How much will that lawsuit cost the city? How much trust will people have in 911?
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
[ Although considering the apparent unwillingness to investigate the incident by the police for some time, in which race seems very likely to have been a part, it is easy to see how the racist killer narrative took off.

Frankly, I'm not entirely convinced racism played any part. As more evidence comes out, it appears the local police may well have been correct in their assessment of the situation as (legally) a self-defense shooting, with no further investigation/prosecution needed.

[ 23. May 2012, 13:40: Message edited by: jbohn ]
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
The third sentence of the first paragraph of my above post should read, "Say a reasonable person should avoid following another person because having to kill them is a foreseeable outcome and I can imagine even more nightmare scenarios."
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
[ Although considering the apparent unwillingness to investigate the incident by the police for some time, in which race seems very likely to have been a part, it is easy to see how the racist killer narrative took off.

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Frankly, I'm not entirely convinced racism played any part. As more evidence comes out, it appears the local police may well have been correct in their assessment of the situation as (legally) a self-defense shooting, with no further investigation/prosecution needed.

How could they have made such an assessment without an investigation? Perhaps it will become clear that they were right, but that doesn't mean they could have known they were right when they failed to investigate.

Getting it right on a guess isn't enough. Justice must be done and must be seen to be done.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
How many nightmare scenarios would we have if following somebody was seen as provoking the use of deadly force?

But that wasn't the point of the example. The point was that the nature of the provocation needs to be considered.

If it was just following someone with no other verbalization or action then clearly that is very little provocation and doesn't justify a violent response. But it may have been more than that and we don't know.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Frankly, I'm not entirely convinced racism played any part. As more evidence comes out, it appears the local police may well have been correct in their assessment of the situation as (legally) a self-defense shooting, with no further investigation/prosecution needed.

How could they have made such an assessment without an investigation? Perhaps it will become clear that they were right, but that doesn't mean they could have known they were right when they failed to investigate.

Getting it right on a guess isn't enough. Justice must be done and must be seen to be done.

They did, of course, conduct an initial investigation, which would have noted injuries to Mr. Zimmerman, statements from witnesses, etc. Based on this initial investigation, they seem to have concluded no further investigation was needed.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
How many nightmare scenarios would we have if following somebody was seen as provoking the use of deadly force?

But that wasn't the point of the example. The point was that the nature of the provocation needs to be considered.

If it was just following someone with no other verbalization or action then clearly that is very little provocation and doesn't justify a violent response. But it may have been more than that and we don't know.

I'm going on the transcript of the prosecutor's interview with Martin's girlfriend. She didn't claim to hear Zimmerman verbally provoke Trayvon Martin other that to ask him what he was doing there. She said somebody bumped Trayvon but how she would know who bumped who without seeing it is beyond me. I'm guessing Zimmerman didn't confess to provoking Martin. Where is the evidence Zimmerman provoked Martin by doing anything other than following him and asking what he was doing?
 
Posted by Jonathan Strange (# 11001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Oh this is rich

How many times on this thread have you called things lies and inaccurate that turned out to be true?

Twice, actually. About Martin's build and the cut on Zimmerman's head. Of these two, the only thing I was out-and-out wrong about was the presentation of Martin as a child - small, skinny and of light build - rather than a 6ft+ young man. But then that was what the press was presenting at the time.

Check through my recent posts and look up all the ones from this thread. 95% of my posts are challenging the interpretations of others and asking for more evidence.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Beeswax, I think a) you're still merging what we may/may not know about the Zimmerman/Martin episode with the hypothetical discussion that follows from your previous more general statement about the law and b) at risk of merging the discussion myself but in response to you I would expect cross-examination on the stand to probe whether Zimmerman's account holds up.

Which is one of the reasons why a trial is important. And why an initial police investigation might be inadequate, even if they do turn out to be correct in retrospect.

[ 23. May 2012, 14:42: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
The whole thing strikes me as an appalling mess. And it may well involve two people having behaved pretty stupidly, not just one.

In which case half the problem would be that everyone gets trained to PERCEIVE others as a threat and behave accordingly. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Lost in much of the subsequent debate is the initial reason for the protestations which forced the investigation: that there was no serious investigation immediately after the shooting.
This is ridiculous, even if one accepts stand your ground as valid.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
In which case half the problem would be that everyone gets trained to PERCEIVE others as a threat and behave accordingly. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This. And the creating of a deadly confrontation which likely would not have happened had one party not been armed. Cold steel courage causing a death.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Beeswax, I think a) you're still merging what we may/may not know about the Zimmerman/Martin episode with the hypothetical discussion that follows from your previous more general statement about the law and b) at risk of merging the discussion myself but in response to you I would expect cross-examination on the stand to probe whether Zimmerman's account holds up.

Which is one of the reasons why a trial is important. And why an initial police investigation might be inadequate, even if they do turn out to be correct in retrospect.

Zimmerman likely won't testify. You are assuming the original police investigation was inadequate. I assumed the original police investigation was botched and inadequate based on the initial reporting of the story. The initial reporting of the story should embarrass almost every journalist who participated in it.
I don't even think the stand your ground law has anything to do with the case.

Florida's Self Defense Laws
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
... Martin would have been perfectly within his rights to do any number of things. ... He apparently acted like a hotheaded teenage boy.
...
Either Zimmerman or Martin could have prevented the confrontation and subsequent death of Trayvon Martin. Neither of them did. The fact Zimmerman made some choices that everybody wishes he didn't make does not mean Zimmerman is guilty of a crime. And, no, the fact Martin is dead doesn't necessarily mean Zimmerman is guilty of a crime. If Zimmerman is convicted of a crime, and he may, then so be it. He has no one to blame but himself for getting into that situation.

Will the judge or jury have a range of options to choose from if there is a conviction? Perhaps Zimmerman cannot be shown to have had mens rea (=guilty mind, intent to commit a crime). Could he be convicted based on negligence or recklessness? Does it matter that Martin might also have been negligent or reckless, yet teenagers are known to have poorer judgment than adults? Is there such a thing as "mens stupida"? OliviaG
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Will the judge or jury have a range of options to choose from if there is a conviction? Perhaps Zimmerman cannot be shown to have had mens rea (=guilty mind, intent to commit a crime). Could he be convicted based on negligence or recklessness? Does it matter that Martin might also have been negligent or reckless, yet teenagers are known to have poorer judgment than adults? Is there such a thing as "mens stupida"? OliviaG

There is the possibility of manslaughter, assuming that he is charged with it. I may be wrong, but I don't think you can be convicted of it unless it is charged--and sometimes the prosecution will not charge it because they don't want to give that option to the jury for fear that they may lose the murder conviction because of it.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Which facts would those be?

I note that B.A. never answered this.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Which facts would those be?

I note that B.A. never answered this.
You know I love you (in a thoroughly platonic-purgatorial kind of way), but I do think you're rather making a mess of this particular thread. I think B.A. is just as confused as I am about whether you're talking about this case or your hypothetical "let's take advantage of the stand your ground law" cases, and frankly your hypothetical came across as hyperbole.

As demonstrated by that basketball court case, there is a world of difference between saying "I was standing my ground" and actually having a court accept that you have the evidence to support your statement. It's not carte blanche.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Well clearly I am incapable of making myself understood, for whatever reason. Fuck it.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
(Thinking out loud.)

Based on the worst/nastiest "info" in the media about the two men:

--Z could've been a gun-happy racist looking for Them, especially someone who fit his idea of the local burglar(s). Had the sense to call 911 to make his actions look legitimate.

--M could've been on drugs--THC in his system--out of control, maybe looking for a fight.


Based on the best/kindest "info":

--M was simply out for junk food, minding his own business, and maybe a little lost as he was new to his dad's gated community. Maybe he was tense over newly living with his dad. Maybe he wasn't aware of the recent burglaries--or maybe he was, was scared, and thought Z was a burglar.

--Z was truly worried by the recent burglaries in the gated community (which should, theoretically, be free from stuff like that). He had a gun for his own safety; he was perhaps flailing a bit in his life; he was scared in general and in particular, and wanted some control. And he thought of himself as protecting the community.


A third option that I've been playing with:

--Two men, strangers, both good and bad like everyone else, with assorted personal baggage, came across each other in the dark. Without the other, each might have been safe. Without the other, each might have been harmless. Or they might have had a minor scuffle with lots of shouting, or might have had a knock-down/drag-out fight.

In this case, that gun brought everyone into much more volatile territory.

[Votive]

(Am definitely not pro guns, nor for a full ban. But extremely permissive gun laws make tragedies like this more likely. FWIW.)
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:


In this case, that gun brought everyone into much more volatile territory.

[Votive]

(Am definitely not pro guns, nor for a full ban. But extremely permissive gun laws make tragedies like this more likely. FWIW.)

this.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well clearly I am incapable of making myself understood, for whatever reason. Fuck it.

I got it was a hypothetical. I think discussion has hit a point where it is difficult to stay focused on a hypothetical without conflating reality.
 
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So basically any racist piece of white shit can troll around looking for a black teenager to kill. They get out of the car and take a swing at the teenager. The teenager fights back, and the racist wankstain pulls a gun and plugs the nigger.

And none of you conservatives have any problem with that? You're all defending it like it is the way the world should be.

As I had the law explained to me (by a cop who teaches carry classes to civilians and has a lot of knowledge and experience), the racist piece of white shit would still be culpable for at least murder 2.

You cannot provoke someone into a fight with words or fists, then claim fear for you life, then shoot that someone without going to jail. That does not fall under 'stand your ground' as it was explained to me.

However, IANAL.
 
Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :
 
Zimmerman had his bail revoked on Friday for "deceiving" a court over the amount of donations made to his defence fund.

Guardian
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Is there such a thing as "mens stupida"?

I think we have the answer to Olivia's question.

The article says that Zimmerman's lawyer had him close the pay-pal account and open a more secure account so he must have seen the money. Why didn't he tell Zimmerman he must disclose it? Will Zimmerman have to do time for lying about this even if he's judged innocent of the murder charge?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
From ABC (the American one, not the Australian one):

quote:
Prosecutors had filed a motion today to revoke his bond, accusing Zimmerman of "deceiving" the court about his finances, even going so far as to discuss it in code words with his wife, and his possession of a second passport, which he apparently acquired two weeks after the shooting.
This is, of course, based on allegations by the prosecutors with all the usual caveats, but the possession and issue date of a passport should be easy to verify, certainly a lot easier than the multiple sources of a pile of money. Courts really don't like it when they grant bail and the accused hides the existence of a passport.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I find it strange that no one caught the website income earlier, because IIRC the site was mentioned in the news soon after he was arrested.

The passport is bad news. Was it in his own name??

The way he's going, he could wind up in all sorts of trouble--even if he's acquitted of the death.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I find it strange that no one caught the website income earlier, because IIRC the site was mentioned in the news soon after he was arrested.

The passport is bad news. Was it in his own name??

The way he's going, he could wind up in all sorts of trouble--even if he's acquitted of the death.

Indeed. Even if the shooting is deemed justifiable/legal, playing games with the court is never a good idea. Judges don't take kindly, generally, to being toyed with- and they've got various means at their disposal to express it.

The second passport is interesting- they generally don't issue one without canceling the validity of any others a person may be holding, except in special cases (official/diplomatic passports, etc.).
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
The second passport is interesting- they generally don't issue one without canceling the validity of any others a person may be holding, except in special cases (official/diplomatic passports, etc.).

From the same news source:

quote:
Although one of his passports was due to expire in May, prosecutors said today, Zimmerman applied for a second passport, informing the State Department that the original had been lost or stolen.
This could get messy if Zimmerman surrendered the expiring, "lost" passport and retained the newer one. Or it could be a matter of simple idiocy, like Zimmerman claiming to not have a passport because it was lost and the replacement hadn't arrived yet. Still, withholding that kind of information from the courts is either criminal or stupid.

[ 04. June 2012, 13:34: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
In the conversations, prosecutors said, Zimmerman and his wife also cryptically talk about his second passport in a safety deposit box they shared.
That will be ugly, no matter how it plays- lying to the State Dept. to get a second passport is technically a Federal crime, as I understand it. And I'd love to hear Mr. Zimmerman's argument for doing so- other than "I was planning to flee the country, and so needed two valid passports- one to give the court so they'd let me out of the pokey, and one to get out of the country with."

"mens stupida", indeed. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
...either criminal or stupid.

I think with Zimmerman it's fair to say 'both'.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0